Author: admin

  • Trailer Park: A-TEAM Review

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    Check out my new column, This Week In Trailers, at SlashFilm.com and follow me on TWITTER under the name: Stipp

    A-Team – Review

    a_team_posterThe tagline to the 2010 version of the A-Team is that There Is No Plan B. Unfortunately, there seems to have been no Plan A, either.

    Watching director/writer Joe Carnahan’s latest action opus you half wonder if he really thought that having characters with absolutely no backstory, no lives to speak of prior to what we see when we hit the ground literally running on the opening fifteen minutes of the film was an especially good idea. Certainly having a Quinton “˜Rampage’ Jackson fill in the shoes left by the charismatic Mr. T in the 80’s might have seemed good in theory but, in execution, it was a miserable decision. Jackson tosses out T’s wildly popular refrain “Fool” as if he were a drunken slob performing it in front of the venerable TV action star in jest. Jackson seems to be well enough equipped to perform as his own if he weren’t trying to inhabit the body of a character decades old but it does feel old. This movie feels old.

    What Carnahan’s camera work, accurately depicting what it would look like if you were to strap a movie camera on a paint shaker and left to run, disappointingly fails to accomplish is a sense of visceral action, of fun. In Smokin’ Aces, Carnahan’s last directorial outing, the camera was in love with what it was capturing; be it Jeremy Piven’s descent into madness, the Tremor brother’s equally impassioned decent into madness, or the action that punctuating the moments where mayhem was the name of the game, that film should have set Carnahan up here to make something with an even bigger budget to blow things up. What we get, however, is humor that doesn’t cut as deep as Aces and action set pieces that simply feel perfunctory than they do a visceral part of what we all want. What we all want the whole time, mind you, is one that captures Carnahan’s talents but when the movie takes no time to give these four men, Hannibal (Liam Neeson), Face (Bradley Cooper), B.A. Baracus, and Murdock (Sharlto Copley) any sense of camaraderie or kinship these men are all expendable.

    The story itself is painfully simplistic: while performing the kinds of things that the A-Team is known for doing in Iraq, while we don’t know what these things are we do see some of our members strategically battle scarred (Cooper, who has a lot of screen time without his shirt on) for proper effect, they’re offered a job. The job has them retrieving American currency printing plates from the dirty clutches of Iraqis who are up to no good. With shocking ease and movie magic that elevates what these men pull off to heights that even the most forgiving person with a good suspension of disbelief would think is insane, the men do the impossible, literally, and are framed once the job goes south. The men, wanting to clear their good name, are freed by a little nudging of CIA agent Lynch (Patrick Wilson, who plays his part with as much listless gusto as Edward Norton did in the Italian Job) go on the hunt for the plates in a story that presents no speed bumps or obstacles too realistic that these men can’t overcome.

    The fault, primarily, lies at the feet of Carnahan, Brian Bloom, and Skip Woods. The former, Carnahan, has no excuse. Both Narc and Smokin’ Aces still hold up as examples for how great and pulpy screenwriting can be and the writing here just reeks of someone who has no interest in logic or depth. Bloom, on the other hand, has an excuse. This is his foray into credited screenwriting after over a 25 year career in Hollywood and if his character in the film (Pike) was any indication of the kind of material he’s capable of producing it’s a sad indication of how one-dimensional he decided to present. However, writer Skip Woods has written such action films as Hitman and X-Men Origins: Wolverine. These two films take the wonder out of trying to decipher why there is no blood coursing through the people we see on the screen, why they feel as alive as a piece of scenery, pawns to be simply moved at the whims of a script that deems it so without any fundamental reasoning.

    The wafer thin love subplot between Cooper and Jessica Biel (Charisa Sosa) is a particularly curious addition to the film in that it too feels like it was put there simply to keep it being a premature sequel to The Expendables. A woman and man do not a romance make and the nonexistence of chemistry or, again, deeper history between these two fails to help make this a compelling relationship to care about in any meaningful way. The direction that Gerald McRaney’s (General Morrison) character goes not only feels like lazy scriptwriting but it’s a shameful callback to old Scooby-Doo episodes where the big reveal depends on a literal unmasking. All that was missing in this movie was for these men to all wake up and realize they were just fantasizing the idea that they were all a super team impervious to logic or reality.

    This was a movie that is supposed to be fun to watch because we want to see these men overcome the danger of being the hunted while also being on the hunt. The failure to capture the sense these men were in any real danger of either being taken back into custody or being killed on assignment almost makes you wonder whether if this ought to have been shown on NBC as a movie of the week if this was how toothless the movie was going to play out on the screen.

    When one of the best compliments you get from a critic who actually gave a positive review of your film remarks about the good-lookingness of your lead actor as a reason why people will like your movie, there’s something wrong with it. We ought to embrace the mayhem and excitement of men like this on the loose, fighting two sides of the law, and we ought to have been given a movie that took an OK television show to explosive heights. Instead, we have a pack of actors just wandering in a movie where you simply don’t care what happens to them. We just want them off our screen so we can go home.

  • TV Or Not TV: 6/7 – 6/13

    tvornottv-header.png

    Kate Plus Wait
    It isn’t every day that I come to this column willing to admit something that would seem to get me shunned in the real world. Today I’m doing just that because I have to admit that I was always a fan of JON & KATE Plus Eight. Please, whatever you do, don’t let that get in the way of reading my column.

    Now that I’ve admitted this to you I feel a little better in the admission of having watched the special KATE PLUS EIGHT event that happened this Sunday night. Even though it was advertised by TLC as somewhat of a return they also, at no time, admitted that this two hours of back-to-back showings of KATE PLUS EIGHT were just that, two hours that won’t be a regular occurrence. It was just a sampling of what is to come. This sampling might not have been too bad either if it weren’t for the fact that both episodes were completely wreaking of PR spin.

    I don’t think that anyone is under the illusion that there is 100% pure reality in the beast that is reality television. Footage is show, reviewed, and then it is edited to allow for a story to be told depending on what story they want to have told. These first two hours had a very specific agenda that wanted to hit on very specific items. If you didn’t take the time to watch them (or if you are just here to enjoy a study in PR spin) allow me to break them down for you now.

    1) The children aren’t being exploited and they really enjoy doing the show.

    The first ten or fifteen minutes of the first hour were dedicated to the ceasing of taping for JON & KATE PLUS EIGHT as well as the reactions by the children, how they were sad about it. After that transition we see the surprise return of the camera crews, how the children love them and play with them, and we should all be comfortable with the fact that this show exists. The message was heavy handed, it didn’t serve much except for this one point.

    The second half of the first hour tried to also drive this point home by seeing how the family gets to enjoy certain perks from the fame like a trip to DISCOVERY KINGDOM for the sextuplets sixth birthday. This message probably could have just been overlooked as actually providing some cute kids seeing cute animals for lots of “ooohs” and “aaahs” except from a critical story telling error. One of the older twins, MADDY, has a melt down because the six younger kids are now getting their third birthday party. Yes, their third. Instead of a perk we’re suddenly reminded that what we are seeing is reality television that has been scheduled and planned out. This breaks the fourth wall a bit for someone like me and I suddenly step out of the experience and realize I’m watching a trumped up scenario created for the purpose of showing me the perks the kids get from production. I suppose the good news for TLC is that it worked because I got the message.

    2) Kate is a working single mom, just like so many other moms, but her employment is in the media so don’t hate her.

    This message was delivered a little bit in the first hour and heavily in the second hour. In the first hour KATE says after she was voted off DANCING WITH THE STARS she just fell right back into her mommy routine. Understandable, but isn’t it also what you are supposed to do KATE? The second hour, where we see a few behind the scene days with KATE where we see her grueling day of trying to train for her upcoming dance number, meet an obligation with the TLC network and suffering from exhaustion. Although informative it just wreaked of, “See how weary she is? Don’t hate her, feel sorry for her! She’s got 8 children and she’s running herself down just to provide for them!”

    Other than the heavy handed message I think the only disservice this second hour did was in showing a book signing that they really didn’t need to show. This made me have to guess that possibly there was some press around the LOS ANGELES book signing not having great turn out since they said during the show at least three times how it was ‘thrown together at the last minute.’ I haven’t bothered to explore if that’s right but based on the message they were sending out I’d venture to say that I might be.

    Putting aside my observations of the PR-centric nature of these episodes I have to admit that I still enjoyed both hours. My only wish is that the show was actually returning in full force instead of us just getting a few teaser episodes. Now that two hours have aired we have to wait for the next KATE PLUS EIGHT special that will be available JULY 11th.

    Now that we’ve gotten all the PLUS EIGHT ought of the way let’s see what else TV has to offer us.

    MONDAY

    FOX – 8:00 PM: It’s been a while since we last saw LIE TO ME so let’s hope these last final nine episodes pack a memorable punch.

    NBC – 8:00 PM: I’m not sure why but LAST COMIC STANDING is back. One redeemable quality is CRAIG ROBINSON being brought in as the show host which is reason enough for me to give it a shot.

    ABC FAMILY – 8:00 PM: After this many seasons is there really any secret left in THE SECRET LIFE OF THE AMERICAN TEENAGER?

    FOX – 9:00 PM: Since the special sneak peak of THE GOOD GUYS I’ve been jonesing to know if they can keep the magic of that first show going. Tonight I’ll have my answer.

    NBC – 10:00 PM: PERSONS UNKNOWN seems on the surface to have elements of the classic THE PRISONER show with people abducted and dumped into a TV where they are monitored via closed circuit television. It’s created by one of the minds behind THE USUAL SUSPECTS so it has a pedigree that warrants at least an episode or two of exploration.

    TUESDAY

    ABC FAMILY – 8:00 PM: I don’t think you could pay me to watch PRETTY LITTLE LIARS but it might be a good form of torture.

    A&E – 8:00 PM: Want to feel better about your life? Watch a few hours of BILLY THE EXTERMINATOR and unless you’re actually on the show you’ll feel like you’re on top of the world.

    FOX – 9:00 PM: I’d probably be more on the edge of my seat for the season finale of GLEE with the NEW DIRECTIONS getting to the make it or break it performance at Regionals but the show has been picked up for two more seasons already.

    BRAVO – 10:oo PM: KATHY GRIFFIN DOES THE BIBLE BELT may sound like an adult movie but instead it’s the bridge burning spitfire tackles the A-listers during this taped Tennessee performance.

    FX – 10:00 PM: OK, KATHY GRIFFIN not butch enough for you? You’ll want to catch the season finale of JUSTIFIED in that case.

    NBC – 10:00 PM: After last week’s premiere of LOSING IT WITH JILLIAN MICHAELS did so well at 10 they decided to keep it here instead of at 8 like they said last week. Just a heads up.

    WEDNESDAY

    CMT – 8:00 PM: Sometimes the things I type even make me do a double take. Here’s one example: THE CMT MUSIC AWARDS hosted by KID ROCK. Yeah, I know… right?

    TLC – 9:00 PM: Enjoy another mind-numbing season of I DIDN’T NOW I WAS PREGNANT as it kicks off tonight.

    ABC – 10:00 PM: Wait, HAPPY TOWN is still on the air? Whoah, didn’t know that.

    THURDAY

    FOX – 8:00 PM: No, the schedule is not playing tricks on you. GLEE moves over to Thursday nights for repeats this summer. Squirm uncomfortably with me during the duet of ENDLESS LOVE sung by WILL and RACHEL.

    SHO – 10:00 PM: It’s the return of PENN & TELLER BULLS$!T! tonight as the two take on the American splendor of the CHEERLEADING.

    USA – 10:00 PM: It’s been FAR too long that we’ve waited for the return of ROYAL PAINS and this week we find out HANK and EVAN’s father is none other than HENRY WINKLER. Last time this guy was near sand wasn’t he jumping a shark? Hmmmmm.

    BRAVO – 10:00 PM: REAL HOUSWIFE NYC alum BETHENNY moves into her own show titled BETHENNY GETTING MARRIED? Yeah, I’m not watching it either.

    FRIDAY

    ABC – 8:00 PM: The Alphabet Network brings us the 2010 FIFA WORLD CUP KICK-OFF CELEBRATION CONCERT.

    FOX – 8:00 PM: Hey, remember that show PAST LIFE that nobody watched! Great news nobody, it’s back!

    SYFY – 9:00 PM: It’s the end of the somewhat unbalanced season for STARGATE UNIVERSE.

    SATURDAY

    ABC FAMILY – 3:00 PM: Want to go back-to-back-to-back with all of the BACK TO THE FUTURE movies? Here’s your chance.

    DISNEY – 7:00 PM: If you don’t already own them on home video than you can get ready for TOY STORY 3 with tonight’s back-to-back airing of TOY STORY and TOY STORY 2.

    SYFY – 9:00 PM: With a title like STONEHENGE APOCALYPSE you’d think it was a high quality TV movie, right? Too bad the movie wasn’t aware it was a parody.

    SUNDAY

    CBS – 8:00 PM: Tonight THE 64TH ANNUAL TONY AWARDS is the show most networks are not even trying to compete against.

    HBO – 9:00 PM: I won’t be watching the TONY’s at all tonight because I’m all about the premier of TRUE BLOOD.

    AMC – 10:00 PM: JESSE is on the run and WALT tries to negotiate a deal for their safety on the season finale of BREAKING BAD. Perfect for post TRUE BLOOD viewing.


  • Trailer Park: ONDINE, THE WOLFMAN, PRINCE OF PERSIA, & More

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    Check out my new column, This Week In Trailers, at SlashFilm.com and follow me on TWITTER under the name: Stipp

    Ondine – Review

    ondine_poster_1-535x792

    The story seems silly enough if read on paper: Local fisherman (Colin Farrell), out fishing looking for seafood to sell at the local market, finds a woman in his net (Alicja Bachleda) who doesn’t remember who she is or how she ended up caught in a man’s fishing line. He allows the woman to live in a small house located in a sleepy wharf where she can get her bearings all the while telling his young daughter who suffers from kidney failure a story that involves an Irish version of mermaids, silkies, thus bringing us to the beginning of the story. The brevity with which writer and director Neil Jordan sets up almost all of the plot points is almost fantastical in its execution. Without realizing it as someone watching the film Jordan lays out all the pertinent stories that need telling at breakneck speed.

    Not only do we learn that Farrell, whose real name in the film is Syracuse but who town folk still call Circus for his legendary alcoholic antics before he gave up the sauce, is divorced from his wife, trying to put his wild days behind him, and is sharing custody of his daughter but we also learn of his troubled past as it relates to his present in a manner that seems better suited to the stage than it does the screen.

    And this isn’t a knock on Jordan, mind you. I think this performance from Farrell is just as compelling as seeing him in In Bruges. The man simply melts into this man who is not a Hollywood version of a fisherman who’s lived, and still is living, a hardscrabble life he is that fisherman who only has his work and his daughter. There isn’t anything to grab onto beyond this and it’s refreshing insofar that Farrell has to lean on his ability to inhabit someone who feels more real than he does a caricature.

    What Jordan does best in this movie is to put Farrell in a position to navigate the world of a man who has scooped up a gorgeous woman, and make no mistake Bachleda is a quintessential mermaid, a true flower of the ocean with her pale skin and radiant features, and understands his position as a man who could help someone not be found. Farrell buys into the mythos of the mermaid, however, when he thinks that this woman has helped changed his fortunes at sea with the amount of fish and lobster he catches with her aboard his ship but the movie is so much more than a man who thinks he’s on to something with this woman.

    This is a movie about intimacy. Jordan captures an Ireland that is removed from the usual features of the Emerald Isle which are usually accentuated in a film that could have been set anywhere there was a boat and some fishing to be had. This film lives and breathes. From the small details like keeping in moments of people walking down a dirt path and the flourishes that show him to be an expert at capturing a moment, for example, when Farrell and his daughter Annie (Alison Barry) are talking during one of her dialysis treatments, the closeness of the camera and lighting creating a tender moment between a father and daughter that doesn’t feel manipulative, it feels heartfelt and sweet.

    At the heart of it, of course, the mermaid has a secret and it might be one of the more typical elements of a movie that defies most every other convention when it comes to movies about two people falling in love. The brilliance of the film is that from the music to the cinematography by Christopher Doyle which just fits in with Jordan’s aesthetic here the movie has a quiet passion about it; the notes that play underneath the conversations, the shared moments between the players, this is a movie that is dependant on its acting and its pacing.

    Without the ruggedness and everyman charm of Farrell, the mystery which surrounds Bachleda and how she navigates a character that has something to hide but covers it up with a thin veil of sweetness, and the precociousness of Annie who seems more like a real child her age rather than one cut from a script the movie would not be what it is. The idea of mythology and how Farrell believes this strange woman is indeed from the sea is interwoven into the film with a muted amusement while never being distracting to the actual plot of the picture.

    True, Jordan’s script wavers slightly in its final act, the penultimate moment all but telegraphed leading up to the final moment when it all goes exactly to plan, but that shouldn’t take away from a movie that brims with character and is a romantic drama that just radiates talent and sweetness. There’s something to be said about living life in a small town, everyone knowing everyone else’s business, but that’s never been captured so personally and as precisely as Neil Jordan has done here.

    The Wolfman – DVD Giveaway

    the-wolfman-dvdI know some people ragged on this film for its silliness but I loved this picture in a real affectionate B-movie way.

    The action was solid, the gore was viscous, the set design was spectacular and the acting was sub-par. All elements needed for a good horror film. I realize that’s not really what they were hoping to achieve on this picture but seeing how plagued the production was with shifting talent behind the camera I am amazed that this wasn’t a bigger disaster than it was because it’s still a really good film.

    I am hoping this movie finds a new life on DVD and to that end I am offering copies of this movie to anyone who wants to get entered in a contest to get one. I have a few copies so your chances are fairly solid if you send me a note to Christopher_Stipp@yahoo.com and simply state your all-time favorite, classic Universal movie monster.

    It’s just that easy, folks.

    A film description:

    Inspired by the classic Universal film that launched a legacy of horror, The Wolfman brings the myth of a cursed man back to its iconic origins. Oscar® winner Benicio Del Toro stars as Lawrence Talbot, a haunted nobleman lured back to his family estate after his brother vanishes. Reunited with his estranged father (Oscar® winner Anthony Hopkins), Talbot sets out to find his brother…and discovers a horrifying destiny for himself. Lawrence Talbot’s childhood ended the night his mother died.

    After he left the sleepy Victorian hamlet of Blackmoor, he spent decades recovering and trying to forget. But when his brother’s fiancée, Gwen Conliffe (Emily Blunt), tracks him down to help find her missing love, Talbot returns home to join the search. He learns that something with brute strength and insatiable bloodlust has been killing the villagers, and that a suspicious Scotland Yard inspector named Aberline (Hugo Weaving) has come to investigate.

    As he pieces together the gory puzzle, he hears of an ancient curse that turns the afflicted into werewolves when the moon is full. Now, if he has any chance at ending the slaughter and protecting the woman he has grown to love, Talbot must destroy the vicious creature in the woods surrounding Blackmoor. But as he hunts for the nightmarish beast, a simple man with a tortured past will uncover a primal side to himself…one he never imagined existed.

    A Dead End, a Resurrection and a Disturbed After.Life by Ray Schillaci

    Pardon my tardiness for posting this article. I have discovered that hell is moving and movers are its minions. I’m finally able to get my work space in semi-order and hammer out my thoughts (or what’s left of them) on some other highlights of the Phoenix Film Festival. The last time I checked, only 1 out of the 3 following films had distribution deals. Each filmmaker has infused their film with their own unique vision and artistic passion which sets it far apart from the standard studio drech and they deserve an audience (film festival, small art house run and/or cable deal).

    nonames-an_unfinished“NoNames” was the big winner and obviously struck a chord with anyone from the mid-west. This is the simple story of people growing up in small town Wisconsin with very few choices and those who pick the wrong ones. The ones that tread the wrong path have little joy to look forward to but the local bar and partying in the back of their cramped trailers. For them, success would be staying out of trouble, getting their own home (that was not a trailer), maintaining a decent job, finding love and keeping it to the best of their ability. These are obviously not priorities in the lead character’s life, Kevin, played by James Badge Dale and that’s the frustrating part of watching his life spiral out of control.

    At this viewer’s first glance it was easy to dismiss many of the characters in this cautionary tale as Jerry Springer candidates and hard to connect with when the choices seemed so simple. I’ve known people like this and try not to be around them since their narrow mindedness and stubborn ways always end up creating more drama in their lives which seems to suck so many unsuspecting others in. But rather than just dismissing this as a backwoods Shakespearean drama, I had to take myself out of the critic’s seat for a moment after seeing the reaction of the audience that stayed for the Q&A. Those people were actually from small towns and their heartfelt feelings were vindicated by the director, cast and crew capturing exactly what goes on in this lifestyle that Hollywood has no clue of or interest in.

    All the more heart wrenching was the discovery that it’s based on a true story. The director and co-producers were very close to the people and their account. That may explain the straightforward style of the picture. The director, Kathy Lindboe, does not accentuate the palette of the narrative with canvases, editing techniques or music. Instead she relies on her actors, the lives of their characters and the town itself. This is captured in a very blunt way that some will embrace while others may feel put off. Lindboe and her talented cast and crew have put together a hard look at small town living and dismantled any romantic conceptions that usually has Hollywood scoop up and serve the inane pabulum to an unsuspecting public. No, director Kathy Lindboe has a purpose and intends to display it without heartstrings and pretty pictures.

    This film is made for small town Middle America and those who have been fortunate enough to escape it. Let me back step for a moment that is not to say that being a small town is instant doom for those who reside in it. The choices have become extremely minimal thanks to America and its politics joining in on the good ol’ global bandwagon. Small towns use to be considered the heart and soul of America and now have been under sold as a worthless commodity. This leaves many in disarray constantly searching for some kind of balance in a purposely unbalanced world. Dysfunction has become the norm and we’re told to live with it rather than address it. “NoNames” displays these symptoms with pathos and guilt, capturing a very sad side of the nation we live in.

    The film is by no means perfect with some editing issues (a little long) and some much needed dialogue to be punched up. But the film struck a primal chord with the Phoenix audiences and has continued to do so with various other showings, hence the accolades. Both James Badge Dale and Gillian Jacobs turn in notable deep felt performances while the rest of the cast blend well with the tale itself. “NoNames” is not the kind of film that opens in L.A. or New York. And, it may find a struggle pulling itself out of obscurity like the characters that are portrayed, but it already has a built-in audience that could definitely give a smart distributor a reason to pick it up and make a profit on an entire heartland audience that can speak volumes.

    gaia-posterNow for something really different; when was the last time you were truly taken on a journey that left you breathless? In the 70s there were a multitude of such films that explored the human condition and left one with so many deep conversations at small coffee shops; Michelangelo Antonioni’s “The Passenger” Nicholas Roeg’s “Walkabout” and any one of John Cassavetes’ films of that era. The Phoenix Film Festival was treated to such a personal event with Jason Lehel’s “Gaia,” an amazing journey of self realization for one troubled young woman. It appears that Lehel may be cut from the same creative cloth as those mentioned.

    The director has made (what some may say) an insane proposition; to film an emotionally charged concept infused with brilliant ideas without the aid of a script and then cast an unknown in the lead role with everything hinging on her believability. On top of that, he puts her right smack dab in the middle of a real Indian reservation with non-actors. It pays off in spades! This is the art that has been missing from art houses. Lehel conjures images that haunt and have one talking for days while Emily Lape pulls off a performance that is not only Oscar worthy, but should have other actresses taking notes for years. It is a beautifully nuanced and natural piece of acting that almost feels like an intrusion into one’s life thanks to Lehel’s wonderful eye.

    To say Gaia is a troubled woman with a dark past is an understatement. This young woman appears hell-bent in partying herself to death till she winds up wandering the Arizona desert in a complete drug and alcohol haze after being brutally raped. She eventually collapses and is taken in by a caring Native American Indian, named Ed. What transpires between Gaia, Ed and the other natives is a revelation. Nothing is taken for granted and Gaia’s journey is not a quick fix. It is an arduous task that is never clear if it will ever come into fruition until the very end. This is not a horrifying cautionary tale, but an ode to hope, survival and self-realization. It is both the frailness of being human and the triumph of the human spirit. The story almost takes on a cosmic sojourn with the time spent with the Native Americans and their culture.

    Aside from Miss Lape’s stellar turn, Ed Mendoza as the Native American who helps her along is wonderfully touching with a lightheartedness that lifts Gaia and the viewers from the ashes of her life. He is the grounding rod to Gaia’s lightening and his sensitivity and interaction with so many others makes him even more embracing. There is also a strained, touching and nearly doomed relationship between Gaia and a deaf mute Native American. Their scenes range from the gentle to the abrasive with Gaia’s past haunting both of them.

    Warning: this film is not for the simple minded. It makes you think about life and what it has to offer. Director Jason Lehel (a 25+ year veteran cinematographer) has created, for his directorial debut, a complex drama that does not follow the normal narrative. He explores time shifts, uncomfortable sexual dalliances and an exploration into a culture virtually ignored in film today. I recommend this beautiful thought provoking film to those who miss intelligent drama laced with a hint of the metaphysical. It is a rare breed and a breath of fresh air that makes one thankful for the talents of Jason Lehel and Emily Lape.

    after_life-posterI have saved a most puzzling for last. There are times that life imitates art and other times when there is a bizarre collision that results in uncomfortable, nails on the chalk board, moments. Case in point; actress, Brittany Murphy’s recent passing in her bathroom colliding with the debut of her new movie on DVD, the cover displaying the actress dead in a bathtub”¦eerie. Now treading from eerie to damn creepy is Liam Neeson’s turn as a funeral director who claims to have a relationship with his (dead) clientele. For some, “After.Life” will be the equivalent of afterbirth; disgusting and tossed aside. But it’s not that easy for the curious at heart and as aggravating and unsettling it is to watch the film can be considered either a carefully crafted twisted piece of Grand Guignol or the demented work of a sick mind. I may save the last for another gruesome film oddity, “The Human Centipede”. After all, “After.Life” plays more with your mind than serving up stomach churning visuals.

    I’m on the fence with this one since I could not help but wonder what possessed the great and respected Liam Neeson to take on such a ghoulish role and then to top it off have the love of his life pass away in an unusual accident just months after finishing the project. It adds tremendous weight to the story as we watch it unfold between Neeson’s funeral director and his new visitor Christina Ricci, who may or may not be dead. It appears that the funeral director has a gift/curse to have conversations with those on the slab who insist they are still alive and it is his job to assist them into the beyond. On the other hand, this guy may be the greatest slight-of-hand trickster since Norman Bates.

    This is as cold and calculating as it sounds. Mr. Neeson gives a performance that harkens back to the good old days of the great Boris Karloff, but it is not over the top. If anything, he underplays beautifully which adds to the gruesomeness of it all. With several naked shots, Ricci is very off-putting to watch. A combination of material, performance and direction make the scenes feel very wrong, almost taboo. There is nothing sexy here, like what was delivered in “Black Snake Moan”. Ricci runs the gamut of emotions trying to figure out if she is actually dead and so do we.

    Although there are others in the cast, “After.Life” is basically a two person melodrama/thriller and at times may remind one of a play. Justin Long as Paul appears to be in for the ride, once again as a long suffering boyfriend. I don’t know if it’s a casting curse, but Long’s character looks like it just traversed across the screen from the same thankless character he played in “Drag Me to Hell”. He has the ability to be engaging, but it’s wasted in movies of this sort. I wouldn’t be surprised if he was casted in “Scream 4” as another victim.

    “After.Life” has played some festivals, had a limited run in April 2010 and is readying for an August 2010 DVD release. But this film cries out for the midnight show freaks. The director’s ghoulish twists and turns keep the audience on its toes and hammered to their seats while the weak may watch through parted fingers. Agitating, aggravating and like searching for a pulse that may or may not be there, “After.Life” challenges its viewers. Are you up for the challenge? Me, I had to take a good shower afterwards, remind myself it was only celluloid and look forward to a lighter side of a tanned Mr. Neeson as Colonel John “Hannibal” Smith on “The A Team”.

    Prince of Pulp and Circumstance by Ray Schillaci

    prince_of_persia_poster1How easy is it to take apart another Jerry Bruckheimer spectacle that hopes to follow in the footsteps of Cecile B. Demille or is that too lofty a goal to suggest? Perhaps it’s the idea of taking another ride, toy or video game and making oodles of money on merchandising via a movie while nearly forgetting the entertainment value. Whatever it may be, “Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time” is as convoluted as its title. Too bad, it didn’t have to be, had somebody taken a little more time with the story and direction. The movie had any number of classic yarns it could have emulated from, Ali Baba, Aladdin and so forth. Instead, gymnastics and CGI cover up plot holes, dead space and time filler.

    The story is simple; a street urchin demonstrates his tenacity in a marketplace and the king of Persia not only spares his life for the spirit the young man displays, but adopts him as well. The young man grows up with royalty and like nearly everyone else learns to speak with a British accent even though they’re Persian. The only exception is Ben Kingsley, but that’s because he looks more the part, is suspicious and is far capable of acting rings around everyone else. That’s just one of the many things that irks me in this wrong minded new venture from the man that brought you “Pirates of the Caribbean”. Just to prove that, Alfred Molina is thrown in for good measure to represent the Captain Jack Sparrow character in the guise of Sheik Amar. Molina is the lighthearted rogue that is more bark than bite with a sense of humor that gets crushed in all the slam-bang antics. To be fair to Mr. Molina, he is a redeeming value in this mess and should have been spared and put to better use in the new “Pirates”¦” movie instead.

    Oops, I almost forgot to finish what story there is. Jake Gyllenhall plays Dastan the adopted brother who is raised with two other good looking brothers. Without the king’s knowledge, the three march on a sacred city as a suspected enemy of their land. In doing so, Dastan accidently discovers a mystical dagger that can reverse time. The adventure starts from there and if anybody ever had a chance to see the sorrowful time waster “Next” starring Nicholas Cage, one could only guess where it will all end up. It’s the equivalent of a lot of build up and then discovering”¦it’s only a dream? That’s right, dress a pig up all you want, but in the end it’s just an overdressed heffer.

    Jake Gyllenhall plays cavalier well, unfortunately it’s to Gemma Arterton’s emotionless, cardboard cutout character that makes us appreciate Keira Knightly’s underwritten character from “Pirates”¦” all the more. The CGI cities are becoming stale wastelands for the eye and are better suited for the small computer screen where they belong. The acrobatics, supposedly achieved by Gyllenhal’s character, soon become redundant after twenty minutes leaving a lot of useless commotion as time filler.

    Is it unfair to ask for just a little bit of creative writing or wit from this lackluster piece? The trailers themselves could not muster up enough of a great weekend box office for this tired retread. Mind you, it’s not a bad time waster for the under 15 year-old male set. The sad part was half way through, my 10 year-old son and his year younger cousin were getting antsy. They didn’t even want to stay past the credits to see if anything would happen as some of the Disney films have. They could care less. But they did want to get the Prince of Persia lego set. They thought it was cooler than the movie.

  • Trailer Park: SEX AND THE CITY 2 and LOST

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    Check out my new column, This Week In Trailers, at SlashFilm.com and follow me on TWITTER under the name: Stipp

    Get Him To The Greek – Movie Pass Giveaway

    get-him-to-the-greek-posterI am hoping this is the movie I need.

    It’s almost June and I have yet to see a film that just wants to be funny. We’ve had countless blockbusters, animated films, chick flicks, but where has the comedy been? If MacGruber is any indication I know that a lot of people have stayed away from movies that only purport to be a fun romp. Here’s to wishing that the latest from Nicholas Stoller delivers on the idea that this will be the vehicle that properly channels Russell Brand’s unique comedic aesthetic.

    For those living in Arizona I have a stack of passes to see Greek on Tuesday, June 1st at 7:00 p.m. at the Tempe Marketplace. If you want some just e-mail me at Christopher_Stipp@yahoo.com and I’ll make it happen for those who act swiftly.

    About the movie:

    Aaron Greenberg (Hill) gets things done. The ambitious 23-year-old has exaggerated his way into a dream job just in time for a career-making assignment. His mission: Fly to London and escort a rock god to L.A.’s Greek Theatre for the first-stop on a $100-million tour. His warning: Turn your back on him at your own peril.

    British rocker Aldous Snow (Brand) is both a brilliant musician and walking sex. Weary of yes men and piles of money, the former front man is searching for the meaning of life. But that doesn’t mean he can’t have a few orgies while he finds it. When he learns his true love is in California, Aldous makes it his quest to win her back”¦right before kick-starting his world domination.

    As the countdown to the concert begins, one intern must navigate a minefield of London drug smuggles, New York City brawls and Vegas lap dances to deliver his charge safe and, sort of, sound. He may have to coax, lie to, enable and party with Aldous, but Aaron will get him to the Greek.

    Sex and the City 2 – Review

    sex_and_the_city_2_posterThere is nothing at stake for any of these characters.

    It’s the moment when Miranda Hobbes (Cynthia Nixon) and Charlotte York (Kristin Davis) confide in one another about the trials of being a mother in Sex and the City 2 when it’s obvious this movie has absolutely no interest in being relevant. Once, this was a show that gave a voice to modern women who felt that they needed to have a program that showcased what it was really like to be a lady, post-feminism, in a world that still wanted to keep their musings to themselves.

    Sex and the City, the television show, broke boundaries when it challenged the dominant male stranglehold on crass and crude depictions of sexuality. It was men who slept around, it’s was men who were always fumfering trying to find love, it was men who felt inadequate. The show was a fun examination that seemed to harness the many facets of the female psyche: the need to be glamorous, the pressure to succeed professionally, the ambitions to be socially accepted at any cost, the desire to be in control, sexually, regardless of age.

    This film is amazing in that it completely fails to honor the values that made the series, and the first film for that matter, a wonderful hallmark for women everywhere to embrace as their own. They’d just as soon be better served to revisit their DVDs rather than to sit through this completely useless exercise which could be better classified as a throwaway curtain call that is obnoxiously too long, filled with monotonous and superfluous storylines that seem more interested in resurrecting characters than focusing on the ones in front of us, and is entirely ignorant of the irony that these women have now become an example of what happens when you put last year’s style up against what’s couture today. Anna Wintour, if she was being honest, would say this film has a style more suited to the tastes of those who find the fashion of Old Navy to be cutting edge.

    The girls come together in this second entry for a film that shames Michael Patrick King’s earlier efforts as director/writer for SATC part 1, to say nothing of the work he did on the television show when it was on from 1998-2004. The crux, primarily, of this film is how Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker) and Big (Chris Noth) are dealing with marriage two years in but the problems they have are so far removed from the Carrie we all knew in the series and the first film that it never occurs to anyone that hers is now a life devoid of restriction. Besides a genuinely painful, and horribly written, exchange early on in the film when a couple at a wedding talk to Carrie and Big about having children, the idea of what’s considered normal small talk is obviously lost on King, and the forced realization that these two older individuals have chosen a life without kids ought to be one of personal contentment. They should be satisfied in their decisions but King
    makes it awkward for all of us when he has the couple who realize Carrie and Big don’t see parenthood as a part of their master plan recoil from admiration to abject shame. Whether King is obsessed with more important things like getting tight shots of men’s pouches donning Speedos and slo-mos of them disrobing throughout the film I couldn’t tell you but what I do know is that this story plays out like a ham fisted attempt to cash in on a franchise that no one with a big enough checkbook wants to see go away.

    Rather, what we’re given really is an insult to the fans who have supported the idea that these women who are all demure and exciting in their own way are reduced to shells of their former selves, drifting though life doing nothing more than complaining about their pitiful existence. As it stands, however, these women just come off as haggard old also-rans who live lives of privilege.

    Charlotte rants and bawls at one point about her tough time as a mother, never acknowledging her privileged life with a live-in nanny who whisks her kids away at the first sign of trouble. She comes off as a selfish witch who would be better served to have her money taken away for a while before being allowed to complain about her circumstances.

    Samantha Jones, played by the always interesting Kim Cattrall, visits Abu Dhabi with her three girlfriends as the guest of a wealthy man but ends up trying to let her freak flag fly as high as it can go, completely disregarding custom and socially appropriate etiquette on multiple levels. Instead of harnessing that energy and making something interesting, King treats it as a chance to toss in one of the more obnoxiously half-baked storylines ever to be concocted. Hers is a character that ends up looking more pathetic and embarrassing than she does as the representative of labial empowerment. It’s also insulting to the women of that emirate who see the invading hoards of high fashion to be seen as women who are in the need of rescuing. Oddly, we’re clued in that some progressive women are challenging the norms but, later in the film, we’re forced into a moment that makes us feel like this isn’t good enough, that male domination cannot be allowed
    to stand one minute longer. It wants it both ways in this film and it ends up making this mess even murkier to wade through.

    Carrie, as well, doesn’t fare well here either. Watching the working girl struggle to find ways in order to feed her need for fashion accoutrements in the series, the plateau of which was seen in the first film when she married a man who was now in the position to let her get her fix until the day she died, was one of the reasons people tuned in. Hyper analyzing her marriage two years in not only reeks of a writer desperate to find a chink in a gorgeous piece of armor but it doesn’t make for a very good story. When the worst thing that besets this celluloid power couple, and the whole movie for that matter, is an unintended kiss, only for it to be remedied with a black diamond offered up by the offended party, it smacks of stupidity and laziness.

    Alas, it is Miranda who ends up coming off as the most interesting of the four but even there is an issue with her arc as a character. Her quitting of a job that was built up as a device that could have lasted the entire film within the first ¼ of the film, only to be brought up at the very end of the picture, represented the totality of her growth. Used as merely window dressing to move the plodding, lumbering plot forward, there could not have been a worse way to treat someone who always represented something special in this band of sisters.

    Ultimately, no one was safe from their mishandling at the hands of King. Unable to comprehend that this comedy of multiple errors should have ended or have been edited down a half hour or even 45 minutes to make this a true 90 minute comedy King had his own plan and, unfortunately, the movie feels like a monetary cash-in, a fiscal decision, that truly wants to give the audience what they want. The problem is, a trip to Abu Dhabi, a stolen kiss from Aiden, a two year itch, problems with a nanny, these all are irrelevant to the genuinely amusing lives these women once had.

    They say that money doesn’t change you, that it only enhances the person you are. If that’s the case, and judging by what was on the screen, I don’t think I knew these women at all and I don’t think I want to anymore.

    Josh Holloway – Interview

    For many years I have held this interview as one of the best experiences I’ve had with an actor. Way back in 2005, months after the first season came to an end and lit a fire in the hearts of many who saw this as groundbreaking television I had the chance to talk to Josh an immediately jumped at the chance to talk to the guy, never minding that I was green as could be when it came to interviewing.

    Lost was a program I sometimes wavered from in the middle years, the story just growing and bloating to epic proportions, but it got me back in the last couple of years. The ending, for me, was a semi-satisfying one and a wholly satisfying one with regard to giving Jack some closure. I wanted to do something novel and I thought back to when I talked to Josh after the first season was over, when Lost fever was high, and when he was feeling the love from fans at San Diego Comic-Con, the nexus point, really, where the love flowed all too freely.

    I’ll miss Lost so here’s one for the road…An interview that I still remember clearly almost 5 years later.

    Josh Holloway likes to smile.

    It would be completely clichéd and People Magazine of me to state that, of course, he has a lot to smile about but that’s not what struck me when I made this observation about him. What made the time I spent with Josh so memorable was the absolute sense of openness that he engendered in the twenty five minutes I spent with him discussing his own trajectory as an actor as a lead in his very first major motion picture.

    With every interview I’ve done there is always a little something I’ve built up about a celebrity, for a lack of a better word. It’s either I’ve seen their work and I secretly hope the interview is a little bit of them appeasing me with the questions I ask and a little bit of that charisma that so many of the “stars” people see on stage or screen seem to exude. I think there’s a lot of fan boy in me that I have to keep in check like it’s a caged animal that needs to be restrained but there’s also the inquisitive other half of me that wants to throw out the kinds of inquires some celebs have never been asked.

    My goal, my only goal, with Josh was to not ask a damn thing about Lost, Season 2. I didn’t want to know anything about the show that he wasn’t going to volunteer. I didn’t care to ask anything about the meanings of his back story and what it meant to all that’s happened to him on the show, I didn’t give a rat’s ass about where he thinks his relationship with Kate’s going and I really didn’t want to know whether he and Sayid were going to have it out again this year. After listening to dozens of Entertainment Tonight, Extra and all sorts of other tabloids and radio interviewers speculate and fish for answers whenever they managed to corner one of the stars of Lost, one excruciating interview was one I heard with Naveen Andrews and even though Naveen’s role on the show and real life resume is one of the most interesting all the radio host could ask about was how he ended up with Barbara Hershey and what secrets he could let the world in on, I just realized how sad it was that the actors on this show were part of one of the biggest successes to hit the free air and all anyone could do was talk about the most meaningless thing they could think of.

    So, if you’re looking to know what’s coming in season 2 of Lost, whether or not Sawyer is going to get it on with Freckles, what the hell is up with the polar bear and what seems to be his predilection for the George Michael 2-Day stubble look he’s rocking on his face week after week, you can stop reading right now and skip to next week where other celebs shamelessly gladly pimped their wares with me. This isn’t an act of pomposity on my part, I assure you. I think the dalliances of any Hollywood actor as I hear how their lives are so much better than mine are completely engrossing. I watch Cribs, I read Entertainment Weekly, I steal a peek at the National Enquirer; I’m shallow, I admit that. But what I didn’t want my short amount of time with Josh to be was everything that I eschewed about the press surrounding the show and I wanted to give you, the audience, a good look at the person behind one of the best played bad boys this side of the Pacific.

    I wanted to actually talk to Josh. Have a real conversation with him. Find out more about where he’s come from, where he’s planning on going. I just hoped he wouldn’t have an attitude. It was a short list of hopes and aims, sure, but when I first stepped onto the brightly lit sundeck on a warm July afternoon in San Diego I was greeted with what I can only describe as a force that I can’t begin to genuinely describe because of its oddity. As soon as I was formally introduced Josh seemed genuinely pleased to meet me as I got a look at a smile I would be seeing a lot in the time I would be spending with him. Like a complete gentleman he, himself, introduced me to his wife who also seemed to be happy to meet me, a feat not too many strange women have ever accorded to me in a non-inebriated state. She was lovely. The two of them not only didn’t seem to mind when I asked to take their picture together but they seemed, as they stood next to each other, like a couple who honestly seemed happy to be with one another. If there ever was a Bizzaro world episode on Lost where Sawyer had to meet his doppelganger, I think I know who should play him.

    All superlatives aside, there isn’t much more I can say about the man who has the left the greatest impression on me as an interviewer; even more than getting to talk to Stan Lee, even better than asking Natalie Portman a couple of questions face-to-face, Josh just seemed grateful for everything he’s been given. When you’re talking with him you just want to think that of all those people who you see struggling to make it in Hollywood you’re happy that someone like him is one of those who did. Josh likes to laugh, no question about it. His stories of struggling to give his career one last shot of everything he has are the kinds of things you’d want to listen to while having a beer with the guy at a party. He’s just plain interesting and engrossing as a subject while being one of the nicest strangers you ever could hope to meet.

    Class act doesn’t begin to describe him. It embodies him.

    joshCHRISTOPHER STIPP: So, how was it to walk on that stage and seeing all those people?

    JOSH HOLLOWAY: That was exciting. That’s the reward of doing as well as we have. I’ve never done a convention. No one ever wanted me at one; it’s a little different. I find panels, though, to be a lot of fun.

    I hope that I am answering the questions intelligently enough but I like the comedy of it. I like a panel for the banter with the fans. I love the energy. I’m having a blast.

    CHRISTOPHER STIPP: The Comic-Con crowds with their questions can sometimes be a little different. I am thinking of the person who asked you in the panel discussion about whether you like to swim in the nude.

    (Josh laughs)

    Did they warn you that “You know, there are probably going to be questions”¦”

    HOLLOWAY: No, but I figured, and it’s so funny, because that’s been going around for a while. Just because when we first arrived in Hawaii everyone was like, “Look at our office! This is ridiculous.” Everyone was, and it wasn’t everyone, just the brave ones, it was that Hawaii inspired us and it was just like, “Let’s go swimming naked!” I haven’t skinny dipped in years and it felt good.

    CHRISTOPHER STIPP: In Ohau?

    HOLLOWAY: Yeah, and it’s just amazing. My wife and I just bought a house there and so we’re really loving”¦melting into the Hawaiian culture and hope to be there a few more years.

    I mean, it’s paradise; it’s the best place in the world to be working and just existing. You only work so much and you’ve got to live in the place. It’s better, than say, Siberia. There are much worse places you could be working.

    CHRISTOPHER STIPP: Now, your movie WHISPER. Give me a quick synopsis. It’s your first real lead, right?

    HOLLOWAY: Yes, yes, which is really nerve wracking, actually.

    I’ve just gotten Sawyer, and I am developing that, and to take the step, to take a role and to do a movie is exciting and nerve wracking. The movie, WHISPER, basically is about a group of people who are really down on their luck, not being given a chance anymore, by society because of past records. The old story is that when you’re a convict you can’t get a job, no one will give you a second chance. So, what these people decide to do, essentially, is kidnap this kid for ransom. Aaaand, it goes badly. We get a lot more than we bargained for with this kid.

    But what excited me about this role was that my character doesn’t want to do it. He’s trying to start a new life because he’s fallen in love and he wants to provide for his woman and start a new life, a good life, with this woman. Everything that motivates him is love when what he’s doing is horribly wrong and I liked the dichotomy of that. And the fact that the kid is supposed to be the innocent one and, when it flips, there is a beautiful transition there. That’s what excited me and made me say, “Wow, innocence is evil and evil is innocence.”

    CHRISTOPHER STIPP: I’m curious to know about your first day on the set of WHIPSER. I just think back to every first job I’ve had, regardless of what it was I was doing, and I remember how it emotionally felt to just try and get a footing, a handle on things. How was it for you?

    HOLLOWAY: It was a whirlwind.

    Because of scheduling, of course, they were pushing the movie, pushing the movie, they already started filming the movie, so I wrapped Lost and the very next day I am on set so there was no break in moving from one character to this one.

    And it takes you a minute before you hit your stride. So, that first day is nerve wracking and, also, I am kind of used to having a family in Hawaii. I mean we’ve all become a family over the season. The comfort level of going to work and experiencing that”¦and then the first day of the movie is like you have to introduce yourself to all these new people and then having to feel the pressure of it being on that level, a movie. It’s awesome but you have to be ready and everyone is expecting. And I’m thinking to myself, “Oookay, I’ve got to deliver.” So, it’s the usual pre-game jitters but once the game starts, you’ve got no room for that. It all goes away.

    It’s just what we put ourselves through before the game that’s torture.

    And it was such an honor to work with Michael Rooker as he’s been in so many things: DAYS OF THUNDER, HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER and I have been watching him for years so it’s definitely an honor to have worked with him. And Stewart Hendler, a first time director, that was actually a nice bond because him and I were both awe struck by it all but then the balance to that was Dean Cundey, a masterful filmmaker. He did the original FOG, he did the original HALLOWEEN, THE THING, he was the orgininal DP on all of those. And of course he went on to win the Academy Award for APOLLO 13 but he wanted to come back and get his hands dirty and do a classic thriller/horror kind of movie and that’s what I loved about it and what he loves about it. It’s very simple. Not a lot of tricks. It’s kind of like your old school horror movie which is great.

    CHRISTOPHER STIPP: And those kinds of films are making a resurgence”¦

    HOLLOWAY: Yes, they are.

    I was glad to be making one that wasn’t gimmick, gimmick, gimmick, you know what I mean? This one really works on the original principals of horror movies and the unknown, and all that kind of stuff, a little bit of demonic stuff brought in there, a little DAMIEN kind of thing.

    It’s good, It’s simple and it’s spooky.

    CS: One of things I wanted to do before meeting you was to get an idea, professionally speaking, of the roles you did before landing Sawyer on Lost. One of the first things I saw was that you were billed as “Good Looking Guy” in an episode of Angel.

    (Laughs for good reason)

    josh2HOLLOWAY: That’s right!

    My very first job was Good Looking Guy. That’s what they said as the description, I just thought it was funny. My next job I think I got was Bartender. It took me a while to get a name on my trailer.

    So, you do what you do. I did seven indies. True indies with no money, guerella shooting. I did some television spots for Angel, Walker, Texas Ranger, CSI, a couple more.

    But, those movies, doing those independents on that level, was such a great experience and growing time for me as an actor because the nature of it being a true indie, everyone’s disorganized, you’ve got 18 days to get this thing in the can, and it’s only so much money but you’re busting it, getting it done. But, in that, you’re allowed a great deal of creative freedom. Because people are like runnin’ and gunnin’ as they’re saying, “This isn’t making sense. Can you make it work?” Yeah, I can make that work. You’re able to work with the writers and you create as you go. It also taught me to think on my feet. It’s made me available for any twists that may come and that’s what really made it such a good experience. I also did a diverse type of characters. I did a comedy, two comedies. In one I played this bodybuilder who was this complete innocent guy that was being hit on by a homosexual man the whole time and he was just so happy just to have a friend and there was a lot that went on there. Then, I played the opposite of that where I played the Obi-Wan of sex, if you will. That was a lot of fun. I moved on to a western, a crazy, psycho guy, so I got to do a lot of stretching as an actor which I think has helped me a lot because I love character work.

    I don’t just don’t get up and say, “I’ll just go be me.” I try and put me in every character and just blow that aspect up but I just don’t play an idea.

    CS: I think that comes through because the character of Sawyer, to anyone who comes upon him, they know exactly what he means and where he’s coming from, the intensity of it all. It’s a character that’s been infused with a history.

    HOLLOWAY: Yes!

    And that’s what I love about this craft. For me, a lot of the things that I see in character work is an idea. You can tell when someone is playing an idea or if they’re emboding it and it’s so important to find that aspect within you, that’s truly you, and blow it up. That’s what makes it real.

    (Josh turns his head quickly as his wife tries to sneak through his jeans to steal a cigarette. He starts to ask her what she needs before she puts a finger to her lips and points down to my recorder. Josh laughs anyway as the faux noises of passionate love embed themselves into my digital device; it is funny. She absconds with what she wants from Josh.)

    CS: How long have you been married?

    HOLLOWAY: Since October 1st.

    CS: Congratulations.

    HOLLOWAY: Thank you so much. 1 year. We’ve almost been together 7 now.

    CS: Really?

    HOLLOWAY: Long time.

    She has seen me at my worst.

    CS: I was just going to say that I heard something about real estate.

    HOLLOWAY: Oh yes.

    CS: Were you getting to the point where you were thinking about giving it all up?

    HOLLOWAY: Again. I think that was the 3rd time the town broke me. But in 8 ½ years of busting it and constant rejection and getting close and never quite getting to work, to do the work you’ve been trained to do that’s in you. It just burns you up. And, yeah, right before I booked Lost I had just got my real estate license, I was making my exit again, and I had t have the conversation with my wife who was then my girlfriend, I hadn’t yet proposed, I just didn’t have anything I could bring. I couldn’t support her. It’s part of being a man I guess. My feeling was, “If I can’t provide anything then what am I doing?”

    And that was it. I needed to move on in my life. Just for my soul I had to do something. So I went into real estate. I got my license, I got Lost and promptly filed it away.

    (Laughs the kind of laugh only people who really do know what it’s like to no longer be indentured to a 9 to 5 existence.)

    CS: Did you realize how big this job was going to be when you saw that J.J. Abrams was attached to it?

    HOLLOWAY: Just because I had been beaten as bad as I did for 8 ½ years I knew, statistically, and knowing my past, I knew I was going to have to go the Clooney path which was that I was going to have to do 16 pilots before one goes. So I was just happy to get the first level for what I thought was going to be a really long road. I was praying, of course, that it would work but, statistically, they were telling me it was going to be one of the most expensive shows ever, and that’s when I was like”¦

    CS: Were you thinking, “I can’t believe this is happening?”

    HOLLOWAY: The one thing that goes through your head is, “Oh my God, I better kick it. I better be on the level with this one or they’ll kill me quickly.” And that was a bit intimidating at first, working with actors that I had been watching through the years like Harold, who did ROMEO AND JULIET, Naveen who was in the ENGLISH PATIENT and Dom who was in the LORD OF THE RINGS movies, and Matt Fox who was in his series forever, and I was like, “Oh boy.”

    CS: Was the experience like thinking, “These guys have so much experience”¦”

    josh5HOLLOWAY: Yes and the knowledge that, “You’re damn right I’m ready and I can certainly be on the level.”

    But of course you’re worried about it until you actually get in the game.

    That’s what amazing, too, is that we’ve become such a family of friends and that rarely happens with a cast. Even with a small cast that’s rare but a large cast? For us to get along so well”¦I want, as much as I want to be on the show, I want to be able and continue these relationships with these wonderful people, my new friends. That’s been a huge gift.

    And we get together on Wednesdays, whoever’s flashback episode it is, we go to their house and, whether they like it or not, it’s their responsibility to host the party. So, every Wednesday we get to touch base because a lot of the time we don’t get to film together. We’re all off shooting different parts. So, every Wednesday we pull it back together, we have some laughs and get inspired by each other and inspire each other.

    CS: You never hear these kinds of things.

    HOLLOWAY: No, you don’t.

    CS: To go with the ABC angle, Desperate Housewives have been doing so well but on the US magazines of the world it’s all about who’s fighting with who, who’s asking for more money”¦

    HOLLOWAY: Yeah, which is the norm, from what I’ve been told and that this is extremely rare. And I’m like, “Really? This is awesome.” And what’s difficult is that you get so close and Ian Somerhalder is no longer there and he’s a very good friend and it’s, “Argh!” I was getting into our fishing together.

    CS: And on the subject of finding work, what really got you through the day when you were looking for that one job or that one break which would’ve helped you out? Everyone says it’s believing in yourself, it’s perseverance, but self-help garbage aside, what really carried you through your days?

    HOLLOWAY: I couldn’t stop my dreams.

    I couldn’t stop my daydreams or night dreams or my dreams of what I want out of life. I don’t know, I didn’t know what I wanted out of life. I didn’t know what I wanted to be, I wanted to be everything. Acting would provide that. I could taste what it would be like to be a secret agent, I could taste what it would be like to be a contractor, a lawyer, whatever, this or that. That really”¦I didn’t want to let that go because I wanted to experience what movies and the like would allow you to experience. And it’s still”¦it’s what got me up in the morning. It takes everything you have, emotionally and physically, just to keep going. You’re constantly nervous or excited, really happy or really sad, and it’s just a constant plethora of emotions that you’re faced with in this job.

    I mean, I’m a cancer, I’m emotional and that’s what kept me in: the magic. You hit those moments and you have that magic happen it’s freeing. And when I was about to leave I’d hit the magic again. And it would reel me back in. But I can’t. It’s so all-encompassing for me. And that’s what inspires me in life; I want to inspire and be inspired.

    CS: 23 episodes. That’s tough enough on a writer but what you have to go through to get it all in as an actor?

    It’s difficult to get it all in and filmed in 8 days. They write such amazing little movies each time. To get it all in that amount of time we’re moving at a ballistic pace and thank God we have the kind of actors we do as we’re handed scripts and pretty much told, “Here you go. You have five minutes. Good luck.” And they all do it. And they knock it out of the park. Begrudgingly, because it’s so nerve wracking, but you do it and that’s been amazing. That we’ve been able to keep up the pace but keep the bar up.

    And you know”¦I’m looking forward to doing more scenes with people I didn’t get to do many scenes with during the first season. I didn’t get many scenes with Emily. One scene with Jorge; can’t wait to do more scenes with Jorge. I love the casting because you get to work with so many actors that are awesome and each one is a different flavor and adds a different dimension to your character. How you deal with them and what they bring out of you and what you bring out of them.

  • TV Or Not TV: THE END of LOST

    tvornottv-header.png

    Six years, over 121 hours, and now it’s THE END.

    First and foremost I have to say that as a fan of LOST, having watched it from the very beginning, I was completely satisfied with the ending of LOST. It brought a certain level of cohesiveness to this six year journey that I wasn’t really aware of all the way up to the final episode. It treated me, as a fan, in a kind manner and after all was said and done it let me know that it was OK to say good-bye to these characters that I’ve followed all this time. It didn’t try to be overly intellectual but at the same time it was still damn smart television.

    I didn’t realize when I was writing my post-LOST wrap up last week that I would be hitting the nail on the head when I said that the flash-sideways world was in many ways coming across as a love letter to the fans. This entire season we’ve been building up to a moment of closure in the flash-sideways world, which I’ll just now refer to as the Gathering, as it got ready to cushion the blow for us that we all knew was coming. We knew that some people would make it to the end of the show, others wouldn’t, but the Gathering is the place where eventually all of our characters would come back together and prepare themselves for whatever the next step is after their journey in LOST would end. As viewers it was a place that reminded us that it doesn’t really matter what characters get off the Island and which ones don’t because eventually everyone dies and after they do they would come to the Gathering and rejoin those that they wanted to be with. This was their reward for entertaining us and this is the place where we know it is OK to wish them well and know that we can all move on now from our LOST experience together.

    In a similar line of thought I also found that the Gathering is that special place for us, the viewer, where the characters will always be there for us to enjoy them again later much in the same way our favorite literary characters still reside in our books when we return to them. I’ve never been happy with the eventual death of GLEN BATEMAN in that Las Vegas jail cell but when I come back and read THE STAND again I can always find him sitting by a creek, painting, and waiting for his eventual discovery by STU REDMAN.

    Of all of the characters that came to their realizations of where they really were in the Gathering I think the journey that was most interesting was actually that of BENJAMIN LINUS. In many ways I think it is fitting that BEN’s journey stands out for me given that the amazing acting of MICHAEL EMERSON transformed a simple three episode guest spot in the second season into one of the most complicated characters on network television who stuck around for the remainder the series run. In the Island word BEN sought and was granted redemption, so much so that he goes on to act as a confidant to HURLEY, the purest soul on the show. In the Gathering BEN is outside of the church in those final scenes and apologizes to LOCKE for what he had done to him. He further bonds with HURLEY but when it is all said and done he remains outside. I’m sure there are many interpretations why. BEN may have come to bid farewell to all of these lives that he had been involved with but knows that his journey doesn’t continue with them. Maybe BEN is waiting for ALEX and DANIELLE to have their own realizations so they can journey on together as a family. Perhaps his deeds as a man make it so that he can not continue on. I don’t know the answer but I love that the complexity of the character now will live on in perpetuity.

    The big bit of enlightenment for me in watching the finale, the bit that much like The Dude’s rug really tied it all together, was the realization that what we had watched for the past six years was at its core one man’s journey. The series began with the awakening of JACK SHEPHERD after the crash. Looking back at the past six years it may be that his awakening was also in more of a spiritual sense. He was a man that was broken and needed to travel his own journey to redemption. When it is all said and done that redemption comes after fulfilling his purpose in restoring balance to the Island so that it can continue on beyond him. For six years we were able to see that journey and travel it with him and bore witness to the sacrifice he made that allowed for his redemption. The fact that it was his story and his journey that we followed is reflected in those that were chosen, or drawn together, to be with him in the Gathering before they all passed on to whatever comes next. This is possibly another reason why BEN wasn’t part of JACK’s Gathering.

    I’m sure that there will be those that will simply look to the obvious and cry foul. They will be angered because they still don’t know exactly what the Island is, why babies stopped being born on it, or any number of other dangling questions that may be out there. The truth, however, is that in the grand scope of LOST we won’t be any happier if we actually knew why JULIET was branded by the Others, how WALT was special, or where Kate’s toy plane went. In the big picture these things don’t apply because what we were watching was JACK’s story and these answers just aren’t important to his story being told.

    Be aware, as well, of the future because there may still be just a bit more of LOST for us to discover. The series finale breaks the 44 minute average show model and there may be a few scenes we didn’t see to help pad the shows so they can complete and balanced for syndication. Maybe we’ll see how BEN gets out from under that log, how JACK got back to place where the plug had to be put back in the ground, or maybe even a scene where MILES, RICHARD and FRANK are in an outrigger during pouring rain and another outrigger mysteriously appears in front of them and they open fire? This is all just based on conjecture but I can’t see much being trimmed from this finale in order to make it into two clean episodes. I guess we’ll eventually see.

    The executive producers have also hinted that they haven’t quite completed telling their story of WALT. I don’t know where they plan on telling more of it so keep an eye out on the Internet, TV, DVD store or local comic book shop for that story possibly wrapping up.

    Here is a simple laundry list of all of the things that I came away liking in the finale:

    • The Island truly was a cork keeping evil, malevolance, whatever at bay.
    • The knowledge that DESMOND was actually given a glimpse into the afterlife and didn’t even realize it.
    • The emotion evoked during each of the characters realizations in the Gathering.
    • The simple fact that MILES, FRANK and RICHARD actually got off the Island after being dragged there not knowing what they were really getting in to.
    • HURLEY taking on the mantle of ISLAND protector after JACK. This made his confidence and knowledge acquired before the Gathering even more meaningful.
    • The shock BEN had at being asked by HURLEY to help him in protecting the ISLAND.
    • The mutual respect that BEN and HURLEY have for each other at the Gathering.
    • The multi-denominational nature of the back room where JACK accepts his own death at the church.
    • VINCENT keeping JACK company in the bamboo forest so that our hero would not have to “die alone.”

    So there we have it folks, THE END has come, the discussion and arguments will still continue and I’m very glad to say that after the story has been told I’m not really that LOST anymore.

    Namaste.

    – Will Wilkins

    PS: This coming week will also bring the final installment of the comprehensive and witty “The Final Season of LOST as Seen by Someone Who Has Never Seen LOST” and I had the opportunity to interview the author mere hours before the finale for your listening pleasure right here.

  • Opinion In A Haystack: MacGRUBER

    haystackheader.jpg

    MACGRUBER

    A mostly-spoiler-free, mini-review. (Don’t worry, I’ll let you know where the spoiler is!)

    macgruber-poster-350

    I really LOATHE the saying “just leave your brain at the door” when trying to defend the likes of Transformers 2 and films of that nature. The proper response is “When people tell me to shut off my brain and have fun, I tell them I can’t because my brain is where I have fun.” (I got that from Eric Lichtenfeld.) While that is a genius response to a bonehead declaration, I don’t think turning off your brain should often apply to silly comedy, even though most act like it should. Film snobs, net elitists, and message board trolls want every film to be Pulp Fiction or The Dark Knight. Genre, passion, intent, and goals are all bunk ideas compared to how much a movie looks to fall into the very slim category of what they consider is GOOD. It has to be serious, be dark, and most importantly not trying to have any fun. This POV can help to evaluate certain films with certain tones for sure, Transformers 2 attempts to take itself seriously, which in turn reveals its wretched hatred of its audience. How come this is also always heaped on comedy? Sure there are a lot of soulless dead comedies, made without passion or care.

    However, is it a crime to be passionate about being silly, vulgar, and stupid on purpose?

    Can you not see the difference between the filmmakers of G-Force, Madea Goes To Jail, Old Dogs versus those of MacGruber? Have you truly lost every single ounce of your funny bone to the point where something DEFINING ITSELF AS A COMEDY, starring COMEDIANS and written by COMEDIANS just makes your vagina fill up with even more sand? It’s a sellout piece of shit right? THEN WHERE IS ALL THE PRODUCT PLACEMENT? (not that the lack of product placement proves anything…but seriously, this movie had none, how is it selling out?) It doesn’t make you an idiot to laugh at something silly or stupid, it doesn’t make your degree of “taste” bottom-out if you admit that a film that isn’t “Pulp Fiction-y” made you giggle. Are you saying that Albert Einstein and/or Stephen Hawking never laughed at a fart? If they did would they then be stupid? NO!!! So please, take that clichéd stick out of your ass and just try, for five minutes, to openly laugh at something you humorless prick. (by the way, I was wearing a Pulp Fiction shirt to the screening of MacGruber. I love Pulp Fiction.)

    macgruber_photo1

    Every review, EVERY REVIEW, on the net is going to go to great detail describing the history of Saturday Night Live movies, the reviewer’s relationship to them, why they suck, and how Wayne’s World and The Blues Brothers are the only exceptions to the rule. Why? Yeah, it’s a character from SNL, so let’s compare it within and only to that group, does that fully make sense? Why can’t we just compare it to action comedies in general? I was very relieved to see the one review plastered on the poster “The best action comedy since Beverly Hills Cop.” It was a bit of a shock to see someone actually looking beyond SNL and seeing MacGruber for what it is, a movie, not only an SNL movie.

    Classifying what exactly MacGruber “is” is most certainly a task within itself. A MacGyver spoof, “˜80s action parody, comedic drama? Either way, one thing is for certain, director Jorma Taccone, star Will Forte, and writer John Solomon love, love, love “˜80s action films. MacGruber isn’t so much an expanded sketch about MacGuyver’s doppelganger as it is a very direct (more so than say Hot Fuzz) send-up of 1980’s action film making. The twist of course being, what if John McClane, John Rambo, or Michael Dudikoff from American Ninja was a bumbling idiot who somehow slipped through the system and was known as the greatest warrior the military ever crapped out? The genius of this silly flick is just how straight it’s played. Will Forte and Kristen Wiig are the only buffoons to be had in the whole of the movie, everyone else, from Powers Boothe to Val Kilmer is coming right out of a dead serious action tent-pole. This approach, while confusing to some, actually earns the laughs in much more mature way, even when the laughs consist of poop jokes. I’ll admit to feeling like I was the only one laughing at a lot of the “ultra serious” moments, perhaps I went in with the “action parody” angle more than others, I wasn’t looking for a skit.

    ***SPOILER ALERT*** For example, when MacGruber digs up his own coffin, left over from his faked death, to get a change of his MacGruber clothes, in the pouring rain, whilst heavily dramatic music is playing, I was no good. ****END SPOILER ALERT**** Sure the piss and sex jokes are funny and well executed (for piss and sex jokes,) but it’s the quiet action-film-moments that I think will give the movie legs beyond its shock value.

    macgruber-660

    Is it funny? Oh hell yes. Forte is giving 190% of himself in every frame. I know the guy has his critics, but if you are someone who questions his talent, I say that is your right, but to question his dedication is a bit absurd. Kilmer plays an over-the-top villain with a subdued demeanor, his eccentricities are absolutely hilarious, yet won’t hit everyone’s funny bone as they are executed very dry. Powers Boothe, great as always, isn’t “hamming” it up for the camera, he’s dead serious as ever, treating MacGruber with a verbal respect he’s done nothing to deserve. Kilmer and Boothe, along with straight man Ryan Philippe are the rock solid anchors to the film and it works. That, alone with Taccone doing his best to replicate the tone of Rambo takes it a few notches beyond a compilation of idiocy.

    slice_macgruber_movie_image_will_forte_01

    The movie does have its flaws, a few jokes will fall flat for some, and there is scattered problems with pacing that keep it from being a completely successful “action” film on its own, without the comedy. The second stroke of genius is how they beefed up the character of MacGruber. The skit might as well be considered a ghost (a boner ghost?) when it comes to giving any feedback to Forte’s hero, and they didn’t let themselves become slaves to the source. It’s not 90 minutes of MacGruber blowing up. No, instead they turned him into something more than a buffoon, he’s a clinically psychotic egomaniac who, when pushed, actually gets things done. Without going into much further detail, there are several moments in the film, funny moments too, where you realize that Mac is quite possibly disturbed to the point of it being darker than you’d ever think a comedy like this would take it.

    “Bob, is it worth the price of a ticket? I have 7 kids, my wife just left me, and my arthritis makes walking feel like a bucket of nails is being siphoned into my knees caps.”

    If you normally dig the type of humor on display here, if you can still watch “˜90s comedies and “˜80s action movies and be fully entertained, I say open your wallet and de-clench your anus for 90 minutes. If you hate it, I give you full permission to send me novel-length hate mail every day for the next 10 years without a single complaint from this side of the screen (as long as you’re cool with letting me post the letters under a section of my column entitled “SEARING HATRED FROM THE UNDERSEXED.”)

    That’s all for MacGruber from me, Thanks for reading, and please send all hatred to the comments section below. Please Note: the preferred format of hate comments is that of Haiku, experimental limericks, and/or nonsensical mountain-man-speak with heavy cursing.

    Oh and don’t forget to check out my sponsor:

    This message brought to you by BLIGGY’S BORK CHUNKS, The only chunks with more sodium than Bork Strips.

  • Trailer Park: PULLING JOHN, YESTERDAY WAS A LIE, THE MESSENGER, GIGGLE GIGGLE, QUACK, RUNAWAY RALPH

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    Check out my new column, This Week In Trailers, at SlashFilm.com and follow me on TWITTER under the name: Stipp

    The Messenger – DVD Review

    the_messenger_posterWoody Harrelson is a human litmus test for what the ravages of war can do to an individual.

    The Messenger is a movie that defies a conventional critique as the movie unspools in a manner that feels more real than it does made up, more visceral than it does imagined.  While Kevin Bacon’s turn in Taking Chance was a heartfelt swan song to one human’s life who died for his country, The Messenger is grittier in its portrayal of a man tasked with delivering the news no family member wants to get about their fallen soldier.

    It’s grittier and more immediate thanks to the liberating decisions made by first time director Oren Moverman. The camera seems to always be bobbing, moving, trying to angle for a better position with which to see men like Woody Harrelson and Ben Foster, who finally gets a role that feels like it was written to play to his talents, navigate a world where there is no more war to fight. It’s the adjustment where the movie excels. There have been too many films to directly or indirectly address the battle that wages on between us and our supposed enemies but not one like this which addresses the human toll that costs many men and women their sanity.

    The movie challenges you to assess which would be worse, fighting in a war and killing those you hate or ringing the doorbell of a stranger and killing those who you don’t even know with just a few words, and rewards you with surprises that make this so much more than just a movie about getting back into the swing of normal day-to-day living. Foster, whose behavior might seem strange, opting to don sunglasses in the middle of the night, or Harrelson, who can outdo Gary Busey in his prime for sheer scenery chewing, are a wild pair that completely satisfy as case studies for the silent deaths these men have to endure long after bullets have stopped slicing past their helmets.

    The editing, for those that care about these sorts of things, allow scenes to breathe in a way that helps front load the emotional impact for what’s happening on the screen. For instance, when the duo is relaying the news of a soldier’s death to the father of the service member, played by Steve Buscemi, the scene is just allowed to play out in a way that not only felt organic but heightened the devastating impact the moment had on both characters. It’s but one of many moments that Moverman earns as a director looking to create a connection rather than making a moment to exploit. By the time Samantha Morton enters the film, as a woman who learns of her husband’s death through Foster, you are ready to crumble under the weight for what Moverman has already established. We get and understand the impact and you fully buy into the story that unravels between these people.

    The Messenger is a film that not only deserves your time but, I would assert, deserves your attention and heart. It’s a movie that shows you what the ravages of war can do a man but it also shows you how that man can be put back together if all the elements are present; sometimes they are and sometimes they are not and it’s the latter ones that are completely devastating.

    About the movie:

    Co-written by Oren Moverman and Alessandro Camon, THE MESSENGER is a powerful and tender story about a returned war hero making his first steps toward a normal life.

    In his first leading role, Foster stars as Will Montgomery, a U.S. Army officer who has just returned home from a tour in Iraq and is assigned to the Army’s Casualty Notification service. Partnered with fellow officer Tony Stone (Harrelson) to bear the bad news to the loved ones of fallen soldiers, Will faces the challenge of completing his mission while seeking to find comfort and healing back on the home front. When he finds himself drawn to Olivia (Morton), to whom he has just delivered the news of her husband’s death, Will’s emotional detachment begins to dissolve and the film reveals itself as a surprising, humorous, moving and very human portrait of grief, friendship and survival.

    Featuring tour-de-force performances from Foster, Harrelson and Morton, and a brilliant directorial debut by Moverman, THE MESSENGER brings us into the inner lives of these outwardly steely heroes to reveal their fragility with compassion and dignity.

    Pulling  John- DVD Review

    pulling-john-3d-box-artLet’s just get this right out of the way: I was sold that Over The Top was the probably the best movie to come out in the winter of 1987.

    There was something about the allure of Sylvester Stallone, still riding on the fame that made him the most bankable action star of the 80’s, in a role that was for all intents and purposes family friendly. That said, this documentary about guys who really do want to reach each other half-way but not necessarily across the sky, Pumping John is one entertaining film.

    The movie deals with one man who has reigned for 25 years, a quarter of a century, as the all-time grand champion of this sport. And make no mistake, as you see these men train and internalize the nature of what they do, this is a sport. There are fans of this man and his legacy and you would half-think that the oddballs that the film showcases as wanting to dethrone the patriarch of the sport would be somehow a goof or funny. While there are some unintended moments that are humorous there is a real heart in this movie and I cannot believe it took this long to discover this independent gem.

    About the movie:

    A TOP 10 MUST SEE FILM FROM SXSW AND WINNER OF 10 INTERNATIONAL AUDIENCE AWARDS, THIS IS THE SWEAT-DRENCHED STORY OF A CHAMPION’S GLORY IN AN UNSUNG, OFFBEAT SPORT — ARM WRESTLING

    A living legend in a sport he helped popularize, John Brzenk has enjoyed a 25 year run as the undefeated arm wrestling champion of the world.  Yet, at the age of 40, he’s consumed by one question: should he retire on top or succumb to the inevitable: a loss to a new champion.  PULLING JOHN, the rousing and universal story of a champion’s glory in an unsung sport, debuts this May on DVD in an extras-loaded version”¦only from IndiePix.

    In the vein of dramatic, championship-caliber docs, Bigger, Faster, Stronger and King of Kong, PULLING JOHN is a feature-length verite shot over four years which follows Brzenk, the legendary armwrestler, who works as an airline mechanic by day and now must decide whether to leave the sport he was raised on.  Taking a journey to the far corners of the world where men define themselves by trying to beat the undisputed champ, the film visits with 23 year old Alexy Voevoda from Sochi , Russia and Charlestown, West Virginia ‘s 26 year old Travis Bagent, colorful characters who have been raised on the legend of Brzenk.  And, in a philosophical and thrilling ride through human nature, PULLING JOHN culminates at the Zloty Tur Championship in Warsaw , where Bagent and Voevoda have the chance of their life — to dethrone the conflicted champion.

    About PULLING JOHN, San Diego City Beat says, “once you’ve watched it, you’ll be shocked that you’ve never heard of John Brzenk” and, Spout.com says “you will find yourself screaming out loud!”Â  Don’t miss out on this thrilling film, which IndiePix is presenting in widescreen with Dolby Digital 2.0 Stereo; also featured are bonuses including commentary from director Vassiliki Khonsari and Brzenk, a Pulling John graphic comic, over 50 minutes of additional scenes and more!

    Yesterday Was  A Lie – DVD Review

    yesterdayYes, when you read a description that uses the words avant-garde 99% of the time you should run in the other direction. Most likely what you’ll get is a movie that is so into itself it negates the possibility of anyone else liking it.

    Not here, though, as this movie is a genuine treat that both entices and rewards on multiple levels. It feels like a noir thriller that ought to exist somewhere in the 30’s or 40’s with its mimimalist set design, cinematography and music choices. The story revolves around a hard nosed female detective on a case that, while it would be useless to try and compress into a neat paragraph, blends the scientific with the very mundane aspects of filmmaking that have long since been tossed aside.

    While not steampunk by any means, the movie still feels like a hybrid of the very old and the very modern. Director/writer James Kerwin blends some fantastic elements that deal with the nature of space and time with a fun take on the old gumshoe who just can’t say no to the sauce.

    Again, looking at the film’s description you would be hard pressed to want to check out a movie that seems like a blend of too many genres but I can assure you that it’s worth watching simply for Kipleigh Brown’s portrayal as the weather beaten detective Hoyle and for Chase Masterson of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine fame. These two together make seeking this movie out entitrely worth it. Kerwin, as well, deserves much love and respect for crafting a story that not only  works as a noir throwback but it also succeeds in bending your mind’s eye as it challenges your expectations of a film dealing with the subject matter it does. Such a wonderful outing for a filmmaker that finally does take a risk in a landscape of directors who play it safe.

    About the movie:

    Combining “stunning black-and-white cinematography, a sultry jazz score and a refreshingly high-minded script,” YESTERDAY WAS A LIE is a groundbreaking new metaphysical noir thriller from writer/director James Kerwin. Exploring mind-twisting modern sci-fi themes including the nature of time, reality and human consciousness, this acclaimed independent feature and U.S. theatrical release has received over a dozen film festival Best Feature awards and virtually unanimous critical praise.  This April, sci-fi fans everywhere will rejoice as YESTERDAY WAS A LIE, the latest feature from genre-favorite stars Chase Masterson and Peter Mayhew, makes its eagerly anticipated DVD debut for $24.98 SRP ““ only from E1 Entertainment.

    In YESTERDAY WAS A LIE, Kipleigh Brown “exudes Bacall[2]” as Hoyle, a girl with a sharp mind and a weakness for bourbon who finds herself on the trail of a reclusive genius (John Newton).  But her work takes a series of unforeseen twists as events around her grow increasingly fragmented, disconnected and surreal.  With a sexy lounge singer (Chase Masterson) and a loyal partner (Mik Scriba, The Last Seduction) as her only allies, Hoyle is plunged into a dark world of intrigue and earth-shattering cosmological secrets.  Haunted by an ever-present shadow (Peter Mayhew) whom she is destined to face, Hoyle discovers that the most powerful force in the universe – the power to bend reality, the power to know the truth – lies within the depths of the human heart.   The film also stars Nathan Mobley, Warren Davis, Megan Henning, Jennifer Slimko and famed radio personality Robert Siegel.

    Named one of the year’s “Ten Best Films on the Festival Circuit” by Film Threat, YESTERDAY WAS A LIE opened theatrically late in 2009 to rave theatrical reviews after successful screenings in over 50 festivals on four continents. The film has won numerous accolades including Best Director, Best Screenplay and Best Cinematography at Visionfest and was an Official Selection at the Barbados International Film Festival and the St. Louis International Film Festival, among others.

    Presented in 16×9 with 5.1 Surround Sound, the YESTERDAY WAS A LIE DVD features English SDH Subtitles and is supplemented by an amazing array of bonus features.  Extras include a feature-length audio commentary by James Kerwin, Kipleigh Brown and Chase Masterson as well as multiple making-of featurettes, interviews with the cast and crew as well as a production stills photo gallery.  Produced by Helicon Arts Cooperative, the film is rated PG by the MPAA for language, some violent content and smoking.

    YESTERDAY WAS A LIE will also be available for digital streaming in 720 HD on iTunes and Netflix. For more information about the film, visit www.yesterdaywasalie.com.

    Giggle, Giggle, Quack and Runaway Ralph – DVD Review

    giggle51j6rtjemyl_sl500_aa300_So…I sat my four year-old and six year-old in front of the television to watch the latest from Scholastic Storybook Treasures in order to get an accurate bead of whether anyone else in their cohort class would find this fun or at least mildly entertaining.

    I took this as an opportunity to see whether they would enjoy the experience of reading along with a movie. Honestly, it’s one of the things which I thought would be a primer for their eventual exposure to foreign films which, as a cineaste,  I hoped they would enjoy as much as I do.

    I’ll tell you what, it sure beats having to sit through an insufferable little twit named Caillou or a troubled chimp known as Curious George.

    Giggle, Giggle, Quack is a collection of stories read by Abagail Breslin (Little Miss Sunshine), Alexander Gould (the voice of Finding Nemo and regular on Weeds), and Country/Western star Randy Travis is a solid choice for any parent out there looking to buy a DVD that you’ll at least be able to sit through and not count the minutes go by. Runaway Ralph, penned by the Ernest Hemmingway of kids fiction, Beverly Cleary, was just as entertaining to both kids as the two discs offered both long form and short form entertainment.

    While Giggle, with it’s collection of five different stories on the disc, obviously appeals to the shorter attention spans of kids who just want brevity over substance you cannot go wrong. The stories are fun, are animated well and honestly do offer a literacy component should you decide that reading is somehow fundamental to nurturing a well-balanced kid. Runaway Ralph, as I could have suspected, appealed more to the six year-old as she’s learning to appreciate longer stories and is eagerly consuming works where she can read aloud. Now, for all her enthusiasm I think she’s just reading and not genuinely comprehending everything I at least appreciated that this movie sparked an action something other than drooling complicity as the television does all the entertaining.

    As it is with a lot of kids, the collection of stories hold up to repeat viewings, and more repeat viewings, and even more repeat viewings, just fine. As the unwitting recipient of a multiple view marathon I can attest that after showing my kids the read along function they could not watch it without having it on.

    The fact of the matter is that there is a dearth of good entertainment for kids out there and there really is only so much artistic growth that a show like Yo Gabba Gabba can engender.  It’s nice to know that, for at least a little while, these two discs kept my kids attention.

    About Giggle, Giggle, Quack:

    Spring into spring with Scholastic Storybook Treasuresâ„¢, as they release a new collection of colorfully animated stories adapted from tales by best-selling author Doreen Cronin.  Featuring everyone’s favorite personified animals, GIGGLE, GIGGLE, QUACK “¦ AND MORE STORIES BY DOREEN CRONIN includes adaptations of many of the author’s best-loved books and celebrity narration by Abigail Breslin (Little Miss Sunshine), Alexander Gould (Weeds) and Grammy® Award-winning singer Randy Travis. The DVD, which supports reading comprehension, vocabulary and problem solving, will be available in stores and at newkideo.com on March 30th for $14.95SRP.

    The title story is the hilarious sequel to “Click, Clack, Moo: Cows That Type”.  This time, Farmer Brown’s animals pull their old tricks on Farmer Brown’s brother, Bob.  Duck instigates the action, ordering pizza with anchovies for the hens and renting “The Sound of Moosic” for the cows.  The lively animation and witty ploys of the animals will keep kids laughing, as will Randy Travis’ warm and humorous style of narration. Adapted from Cronin’s story and Betsy Lewin’s illustrations Weston Woods Studios original production captured an Andrew Carnegie Medal for Excellence in Children’s Video and Notable Video selection by the American Library Association.

    GIGGLE, GIGGLE, QUACK “¦ AND MORE STORIES BY DOREEN CRONIN also includes four additional stories, animated from the original storybook illustrations of Betsy Lewin and Harry Bliss: “Dooby Dooby Moo”, “Duck for President” and the best-selling “Diary of a Worm” and “Diary of a Fly.” As an exclusive bonus, the DVD also includes an interview with illustrator Harry Bliss and Spanish versions of “Giggle, Giggle, Quack” and “Duck for President.”

    Perfect for early readers, ages 3 to 8, the DVD features an enhanced read-along function and NEW Talk about the Story questions to enhance early literacy skills.  Children will also have the opportunity to hone their bilingual skills with the two of Spanish adaptations, which also includes the enhanced read-along where they words are highlighted as they are read.

    The SCHOLASTIC STORYBOOK TREASURES series hails from the vaults of Weston Woods Studios, world-renowned for their careful film and video adaptations of best-selling children’s storybooks. Librarians and teachers around the country have long been using these very same productions, created by Weston Woods Studios with authors and illustrators, to enhance their students’ pre-reading experiences. Founded more than 50 years ago, and now a division of Scholastic, Weston Woods continues to produce top-notch video storytelling.  SCHOLASTIC  STORYBOOK TREASURES collects and presents these productions for the home marketplace and has, since its launch in 2003, become a top award-winning home video franchise for children.

    About Runaway Ralph:

    Beverly Cleary’s beloved and rascally character Ralph S. Mouse comes to life in live action DVD based on a best-selling children’s book, RUNAWAY RALPH, The latest in the acclaimed Scholastic Storybook Treasuresâ„¢ collection, this newly remastered edition of RUNAWAY RALPH supports reading comprehension, vocabulary and problem solving, and will be available in stores and at newkideo.com on April 27 for $14.95SRP.

    RUNAWAY RALPH is the third installment of Cleary’s classic tales building on the adventure and excitement of THE MOUSE ANDTHE MOTORCYCLE and RALPH S. MOUSE (both available on DVD from Scholastic Storybook Treasures).  Ralph is tired of living at the quaint and quiet Mountain View Inn and dealing with his annoying relatives. He longs for “a life of speed and danger and excitement.” He certainly gets his wish when he sets off on his mouse-sized motorcycle and meets a series of fur-raising adventures. After some run-ins with the resident cat at the Happy Acres Summer Camp, Ralph befriends a young boy named Garfield and helps him through a difficult decision. In this fantastic tale of friendship and growing up, Ralph learns that the wild is not necessarily better than home, even with all its problems, The original film production won an Emmy nomination and awards from the American Library Association and the  Columbus Film Festival.

    Perfect for early readers, ages 3 to 8, the DVD features an enhanced read-along function and Talk about the Story questions to enhance early literacy skills. The DVD also includes the bonus story Commander Toad in Space (based on the book by Jane Yolen).

    The SCHOLASTIC STORYBOOK TREASURES series hails from the vaults of Weston Woods Studios, world-renowned for their careful film and video adaptations of best-selling children’s storybooks. Librarians and teachers around the country have long been using these very same productions, created by Weston Woods Studios with authors and illustrators, to enhance their students’ pre-reading experiences. Founded more than 50 years ago, and now a division of Scholastic, Weston Woods continues to produce top-notch video storytelling.  SCHOLASTIC  STORYBOOK TREASURES collects and presents these productions for the home marketplace and has, since its launch in 2003, become a top award-winning home video franchise for children.

  • TV Or Not TV: Finding Out ‘What They Died For’ (LOST)

    tvornottv-header.png

    I suppose, before I do anything else, I should issue a half-hearted apology to the writers and producers of LOST for the harsh review of ‘ACROSS THE SEA’ that I put out last week. I only say this in context to having seen this week’s episode ‘WHAT THEY DIED FOR’ since there are holes that would have been left unfilled had we not seen ‘ACROSS THE SEA’. I still stand by it being one of my least favorite episodes of the season for many reasons but I can not at least see the logic of what they were trying to accomplish as well as the reason why they placed it exactly where they placed it.

    If you have been tracking the number of special LOST columns that I have written for this season than you will notice that I haven’t written one for every single episode. My reason for leaving out certain episodes is the same reason that I almost did not write one for this series penultimate episode. It is very hard to talk about the elements of what happened in ‘WHAT THEY DIED FOR’ because it feels like both a lot happened and a lot didn’t happen in the episode. If I were to sit down and list all of the things that did happen in this episode you would probably think I’m off my nut in saying a lot didn’t happen, but maybe my perception is in the fact that we didn’t see much progress happen in the story.

    THREE MEN AND A BADDY
    One of the three stories transpiring in this episode was the tale of MILES, RICHARD and BEN going to BEN’s former house to pick up some C4 from his special pantry of disaster in order to blow up the AJIRA plane on the smaller island. This seemingly small and uninteresting story had most of the action and progress in it because the following all happens:

    • Before getting to the cabin we find out RICHARD took the time to bury BEN’s daughter ALEX
    • Right after getting the C4 the trio find their party crashed by CHARLES WIDMORE and the EVIL TINA FEY (ZOE).
    • Right after THAT party crash the party gets crashed further by LOCKE MONSTER (why have I not been calling him this all along?) who tosses RICHARD ALPERT into the jungle (with MILES having ditched the party in favor of living via a jungle jog).
    • BEN seems to turn coat pretty quick after in handing over ZOE and WIDMORE over to LOCKE, both of whom wind up dead shortly after WIDMORE reveals that DESMOND was JACOB’s failsafe should all the candidates get made dead.
    • BEN accompanies LOCKE MONSTER to the well where DESMOND is supposed to be but find an empty well and a rope instead.

    See, lots of action? In the story we’re reminded of BEN’s daughter being ALEX since that will come up in the flash-sideways story also in this episode. WIDMORE and ZOE have to be there in order to tell LOCKE MONSTER why they brought DESMOND to the ISLAND as well as allowing their game pieces to be cleared off of the board. This gets them added to the pile along with FRANK (pilot the AJIRA flight) and ILLANA (get the ashes from JACOB’s death pyre) as characters who enjoyed several episodes on the Island to only fulfill one purpose. WIDMORE is also crucial to either prove to us through his death that BEN is vengeful and evil or just that he’s vengeful and hopefully he’s working the long con on the LOCKE MONSTER in order to simply survive this whole ordeal. I really hope that this is the case because BEN first seems to switch sides again when the LOCKE MONSTER offers him control of the Island after he’s left. By the episodes end, however, he says he is going to find DESMOND and use him to do what he’s never been able to do which is to destroy the Island. This naturally leaves BEN with a LOSE/LOSE situation so if we see him hanging around with LOCKE MONSTER on the Sunday finale it means he’s working the long con or simply trying to survive.

    I think the writers really want us to believe that RICHARD ALPERT is dead. I don’t really know if that is the case. RICHARD was trying to use dynamite to off himself a few episodes back because, I’m assuming, that living after you’ve been blown to bits is kind of hard to do. Being tossed into a jungle like a wild foul ball probably bangs you up really bad, probably to the point where you wish you were dead, but RICHARD was given immortal life by JACOB wasn’t he?

    During LOCKE MONSTER and BEN’s trip to the well it was nice to have the writers also answer a very simple question that I’m sure many a geek like myself has wondered. He asked LOCKE MONSTER directly, “If you can become smoke whenever you want why do you bother walking?” Turns out LOCKE MONSTER is the granola eating tree hugging type who likes to feel the Earth under his feet. Good on you LOCKE MONSTER!

    CAMP FIRE STORIES
    The second of the three stories that went on in the 42 minutes and 20 seconds of screen time was the story of the remaining candidates. They grieved over their sunk comrades, they started on their quest to find DESMOND and they ended up all finally meeting JACOB. It turns out that those ashes that ILLANA took from the base of the statue could be used to bring JACOB back one last time when burned in a fire (if I describe any more detail it comes off even crazier so let’s just leave it at that).

    Even though HURLEY seemed to find JACOB in a matter of moments some how it takes him all afternoon and evening to finally get his friends back to JACOB’s fireside vigil where he finally let’s them know why their friends died and ‘WHAT THEY DIED FOR’. He cops to accidentally creating the SMOKE MONSTER almost 2000 years ago and how that LOCKE MONSTER wants to destroy the light of all creation at the heart of the Island, and that’s what needs protecting. One of them has to choose to become the new protector of the Island and hopefully dispatch the LOCKE MONSTER because the LOCKE MONSTER is going to be gunning for them. Faster than you can say, “JACK has been building up to this all season” JACK stands up and takes the job. JACOB says an incantation and gives him a mug of river water to chug down and then tells JACK, “Now you’re like me.” I suppose this means that JACK will now speak in vague statements and won’t be able to answer any question posed to him in a direct manner.

    This is part of the story that had to happen but it contained the least amount of action and momentum. The torch was passed from one protector to another and that’s about it.

    TAKE A WALK ON THE WILD SIDE
    The third story that occured in under three quarters of an hour can really be labeled as the adventures of DESMOND the enlightened in the alternate reality. Flash-sideways DESMOND is still on his quest to open the eyes of his fellow Flight 815’ers. The first stop is to prank call JACK to let him know that his Dad’s coffin has been found. The second is to stop off at the school and beat the snot out of BEN. The third is to turn himself in to the cops so that he can be transferred to county with SAYID and KATE and helps bust them out with the help of HURLEY and ANNA LUCIA. His final reveal is that KATE is his date to a concert, which might be the concert that is being hosted by DANIEL FARADAY WIDMORE, even though I thought that was happening the same night that CHARLIE took DESMOND into the bay for a leisurely underwater drive.

    The flash-sideways world, in many ways, comes off more like a love-letter to the long time fans of the show. After getting his beat down from DESMOND the very timid BENJAMIN LINUS accepts a ride home and dinner invitation by ALEX’s mom DANIELLE who insists he comes over, “even if we have to kidnap you.” His appearance during this invitation, after the beat down by DESMOND, is almost the same as… well… his appearance after the beat down by DESMOND in the previous season. There’s also a touching scene after dinner where BEN finds out that ALEX thinks of him as a father figure, where he subsequently gets all choked up and we as an audience all are supposed to go “AHHHHHHH.”

    Another item that stemmed from BEN’s whoopin’ is the re-installation of faith into JOHN LOCKE. When BEN tells him that the guy that beat him up said he was trying to help LOCKE to “let go” LOCKE has coincidence overload and goes to see JACK to let him know he’s ready to get out of his chair if JACK really thinks that he can help him. This scene has a great call back to a line to one said by MR. EKO in the second season when JACK says to LOCKE that he is, “confusing coincidence for fate.”

    I think the most important item of note is probably one of the most subtle. In the very beginning of the episode we see flash-sideways JACK in the bathroom noticing the same bloody neck wound that he had in the first episode of this season as well. Sideways JACK is the only person that we’ve seen a persistent wound on this season, he’s also the only one that seems to notice physical problems or issues with himself (remember the appendix question a while back?). I don’t think that this bodes very well for sideways JACK. I don’t know how and I don’t know why this isn’t a good thing for him but I think that in the series finale things aren’t going to end well for him.

    ALMOST TO ‘THE END’
    That’s really all that I have to say about this episode. After seeing this episode I think that there is a lot of story to still be told so I’m glad that the broadcast slot for the episode was expanded to 2.5 hours, especially since this actually means roughly 110 minutes of actual show time. That’s just 10 minutes shy of two full hours to have three separate stories converge into one final tale. I still have no idea about what is going to happen and I’m glad I don’t. It means that ht writing isn’t predictable, the story is unique, and the experience will be a memorable one.

    See you on the other side.

  • TV Or Not TV: 5/17 – 5/23

    tvornottv-header.png

    Well TV viewer, it’s been a crazy week.

    I’m going to preface this column by saying that as I sit here typing I am sick. I’m the miserable kind of sick that leaves you run down, your head filled with cotton, your sinuses on fire and all you want to do is crawl into the fetal position and welcome the blissful escape of sleep to help you in time-warping beyond your misery. Other than that though, I’m great. I’m also not much in the writing mood so here’s what I got out of the past seven days (and what I know of the few days to come).

    NBC has finally and mercifully laid HEROES to rest. I’m glad because the show has been the biggest mess since the second season. They’ve also killed off just about every freshman show for this TV season. When the new TV season hits they’ve got plenty of couple-centric comedy, adrenaline pumping action and even a new super hero show to try to keep some of their HEROES audience. I won’t bore you with the details, however. I’ll instead just give you a link to the site where they have trailers for all of their upcoming shows that make just about every one of the shows seem like they are going to be great because that’s what trailers do. The only bit of depressing news that I can come away from all of this is that FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS features FRAN KRANZ in the trailer and he isn’t going to be a series regular. That’s a damn shame since the role seemed perfect for him and I loved his performances on DOLLHOUSE.

    There’s going to be tons of more TV news this week with most of the networks doing their “upfronts” so keep an eye out because the info is out there.

    Now let’s get the listing done so I can go back to bed.

    MONDAY

    CBS – 8:00 PM: TED takes a date to a movie only to find out that it’s loosely based on his life in the season finale of HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER. Wait until you find out who wrote the script.

    FOX – 8:00 PM: After tonight’s season finale of HOUSE the doctor will be out until next season.

    NBC – 8:00 PM: It’s the penultimate episode of CHUCK before next week’s two hour season finale and it also marks the return of SCOTT BAKULA so I know what I”ll be watching tonight (if the Nyquil hasn’t overpowered me by then).

    THE CW – 9:00 PM: I’ve not watched a single episode in my life but the season finale of GOSSIP GIRL is tonight.

    ABC – 10:00 PM: Is BECKETT‘s new relationship with DEMMING causing a strain in her relationship with CASTLE? Wait, we are talking about a murder mystery show and not GOSSIP GIRL right?

    TUESDAY

    NBC – 8:00 PM: It’s the last regular episode of THE BIGGEST LOSER before next week’s season finale. I’m impressed and amazed that these final four contestants will run a marathon and I complain after four miles.

    THE CW – 8:00 PM: 90210 has it’s season finale tonight and I can’t tell you a single thing about it.

    ABC – 9:00 PM: Here it is folks, the last regular episode of LOST before the big season finale. I’m not going to lie to you guys, the fit really hits the shan tonight.

    FOX – 9:00 PM: Tonight is that episode of GLEE I’ve been waiting for where JOSS WHEDON directs and NEIL PATRICK HARRIS guest stars. Oh yeah.

    ABC – 10:00 PM: It’s the season finale for V but those lucky lizards will be back for another season so don’t be mad if it is a cliffhanger.

    WEDNESDAY

    FOX – 8:00 PM: FOX is taking a page from last year’s early preview of GLEE by giving us a special preview of the buddy cop show THE GOOD GUYS. The fact that BRADLEY WHITFORD‘s vet cop looks like he just stumbled out of an episode of STARSKY & HUTCH makes it worth the time to peep this out.

    ABC – 9:00 PM: KOBE BRYANT guests on tonights episode of MODERN FAMILY.

    FOX – 9:00 PM: Why does AMERICAN IDOL have to let JUSTIN BIEBER perform on tonight’s results show? Haven’t these contestants (and America) suffered enough?

    ABC – 9:30 PM: It’s the season finale of the poorly named but cleverly written COUGAR TOWN.

    THURSDAY

    NBC – 8:00 PM: It’s season finale night for the comedy block on NBC kicking off with tonight’s episode of COMMUNITY. The Peacock is really hoping you stick around for PARKS & RECREATION, THE OFFICE (with special guest KATHY BATES), and 30 ROCK (with special guest MATT DAMON) as well.

    FOX – 8:00 PM: It’s also season finale night on FOX with BONES and the second part of the FRINGE two-part season finale. FRINGE is worth viewing if for no other reason than this might be the final acting job that LEONARD NIMOY will perform before retirement.

    CBS – 9:00 PM: The DICK AND JANE killer returns on tonight’s episode of CSI.

    ABC – 9:00 PM: There are millions who will be tuned in to the GREY’S ANATOMY finale. I’m not one of them.

    FRIDAY

    CBS – 8:00 PM: It’s the night of spirit speaking finale’s on CBS with both THE GHOST WHISPERER and MEDIUM having their final shows of the season.

    TBS – 9:00 PM: Although not the greatest piece of cinema ever created it’s amazing to see how fast LINDSEY LOHAN has fallen from her career high point in the 2004 movie MEAN GIRLS.

    SATURDAY

    ABC – 8:00 PM: It’s almost the end of LOST so they’re rolling out the two hour first episode tonight to help us get ready for tomorrow’s mega-TV event.

    BBCA – 9:00 PM: After the last few moments of FLESH AND STONE I think the bachelor party scene at the beginning of tonight’s episode of DOCTOR WHO was a nice touch. The rest of the episode was just there for me but after a two episode Weeping Angels bit what do you expect?

    SUNDAY

    ABC – 7:00 PM: Tonight ABC is milking every single ratings point it can by getting the rabid fan base as soon as it can. LOST: THE FINAL JOURNEY takes a look at the show and it’s events as well as cast interviews to make sure we are in front of our TV’s at 9 PM tonight.

    FOX – 8:00 PM: THE SIMPSONS try to fight off the LOST finale by bringing in the all of the judges from this season of AMERICAN IDOL to voice their animated counterparts.

    CBS – 8:00 PM: CBS tries to fight the inevitable with country music with the two-hour special AMC PRESENTS: BROOKS & DUNN – THE LAST RODEO.

    NBC – 9:00 PM: Can THE CELEBRITY APPRENTICE stand up and fight going head-to-head directly against the series finale of LOST? Bad news DONALD, I see a big DVR audience in your future tonight.

    ABC – 9:00 PM: This is is folks, after six years of television and some of the best story-telling on TV we’re about to see if I’ve wasted the past six years of my life watching this show in real time with the series finale of LOST. For all of the enjoyment that the show has brought me I’ve got no regrets. It is both a testimony to the audience and the show runners for actually arguing for a real end date for the show to do good by both.

    FOX – 9:00 PM: So a few months back FAMILY GUY put out a special direct-t0-video episode titled SOMETHING SOMETHING THE DARK SIDE that served as the second re-telling of the STAR WARS saga by PETER. Tonight if you didn’t buy it or rent it you can watch it for free if you don’t give a toss about LOST.

    ABC – 12:05 AM: Yes, technically this makes it a MONDAY show but this special JIMMY KIMMEL LIVE: ALOHA LOST is either going to serve as a fine tribute to the show or a consolation to all of the fans that feel like they were just betrayed by the finale. This will also feature a special segment with LOST executive producers CARLTON CUSE and DAMON LINDELOF that may contain their only comments in regards to the finale in the short term. I’ll be honest, I’m going to have to DVR this one. I’ve got work in the morning!

  • Opinion In A Haystack: Gift Cards For ROBIN HOOD

    haystackheader.jpg

    Homer: One adult and four children.

    Clerk: Would you like to buy some Itchy and Scratchy Money?

    Homer: What’s that?

    Clerk: Well it’s money that’s made just for the park. It works just

    like regular money, but it’s, er…”fun”.

    Bart: Do it, Dad.

    Homer: Well, OK, if it’s fun…let’s see, uh…I’ll take $1100 worth.

    [he walks in, sees all the signs: “No I&S Money”, “We Don’t take Itchy and Scratchy Money”, etc.]

    – The Simpsons

    6a00d83452033569e20120a545f6cd970c

    The following cries of insanity are not regarding credit cards, debit cards, traveler’s checks, Visa “pay-as-you-go” cards or any form of Gift Card that is of the unique nature of being worth slightly more than what the buyer paid out. Only straight-up 100% normal Gift Cards are applicable to this meandering stream of anger.

    Look, I’m not Michael Moore, I’m not some anti-capitalist kook. I’m no economist, politician, political commentator, business man, or bullshit artist. I’m Joe The Plumber, but with no bias, I’m just “JOE,” er”¦well, Bob, but you see metaphorically I’m him without a partisan slant, because”¦forget it”¦

    I LOATHE GIFT CARDS. LOATHE THEM.

    In no way is any anger directed at the businesses which offer the service of gift cards, I get why they do it. Target, Best Buy, Blockbuster, Walmart all want their own Itchy and Scratchy fun money, and reasonably so. Get the consumer to buy proprietary currency for other people, call it a “GIFT” and ensure future business whilst also already having their money in hand. No, I get it, and if I owned a business I would be forced to do it, but I am not an owner, I’m a consumer, and as “one who consumes” (recently cheeseburger flavored Doritos, guh,) I am entrenched in anger and disappointment at my fellow consumers for letting this go on.

    Where’s the benefit to us?

    Are we so complacent as a people that we let the one and only benefit, “not being tacky,” force us to not only keep purchasing gyp cards (correction: Gift) but to, more importantly, not devote a single brain cell as to WHY this makes sense? When you give someone a gift card you are essentially saying the following:

    “Thurmond, in an effort to avoid the tacky social no-no of giving you $25 cash, I’ve decided to show my appreciation for you as a friend/relative by driving to a local store, one that carries products you use/enjoy, and turned nigh-globally-usable currency backed by the Government into less-usable currency backed by a privatized company with the ability to go bankrupt. This proves I care about you because that Seinfeld episode said so. Now let’s watch American Idol on my iPlorb.”

    What it comes down to is, regardless of all the negatives, useless effort, and stupidity, the “gift” of a gift card is making the slight effort to avoid giving cold, hard cash. I guess you could, barely, add on top of that the “gift” of picking a store that most likely has at least, by very good odds, one or two products your “gift recipient” might be interested in. Hence, the counterpoint is that we buy gift cards to show that we know at least something about a person’s interests in life, thus vicariously showing that we care. Simplified: IT’S THE THOUGHT THAT COUNTS.

    Is that really the type of thought that counts? Shouldn’t your friends and loved ones care more about the fact that you use your noggin once in a while instead of blindly following the herd. How personal is it to give someone a gift card to a Mega-Department-Store with 3 billion different items in stock? If my little murmurs do, in fact, get you to choose cash over gift cards one day and the recipient gives you grief over it, in so many mumbled words saying to your face that “there’s no thought in cash, and it doesn’t count,” then respond with some honest truth:

    “Thought? Well Thurmond, I’ve honestly put more thought into that $25 cash than most people ever have buying a socially accepted monument to banality known as a gift card. A gift with literally no benefits over cash. I sat and thought, and realized that I care enough about my friend/relative to not placate his emotions with hollow gestures of his consumerist pleasures, instead I decided to give him a simple, direct lump sum of usable currency to do anything he so desires with. Let us leave the worth and value of our relationship to the bond we share and not my ability to guess which department store carries your favorite brand of VHS tapes. Now let’s go watch The Never Ending Story III on my iGroinder, Jack Black plays the villain!”

    You could just forgo all of this and buy Thrumond a gift (a gun, a pony, a box filled with wet food,) but for today’s little rant we are pretending that isn’t an option. Seriously though, does that type of sentiment happen in other areas of life when making a purchase? Would this scene happen at a car dealership:

    Carlyle the Car Salesman: Hello Sir, what kind of automotive dream can I sell you on this fine evening?

    Thurmond: Well, Carlyle, my son is a stonemason’s apprentice and I would like to show my love for him and my care for his passion and profession by buying him an appropriate car.

    Carlyle: Choosing not to dwell on the fact that you know my, rather difficult to guess, first name, I’d like to move on and ask if you have a price and style of car in mind?

    Thurmond: Well, considering he’s a stonemason, I would like a car that costs as much as one of your SUVs but is completely made out of bricks.

    Carlyle: Choosing not to dwell on the sheer silly nature of your request, would you also like the wheels to be made of bricks?

    Thurmond: Even the Wheels my good sir!

    Carlyle: Luckily, it being the year 2345, we have a molecular-matter-synthesizer in the back”¦the kind conveniently only available to car dealerships of the FUTURE, which of course I didn’t need to point out, since to us it is most certainly the present.

    Thurmond: Well then, here’s $30,000 in Future-Money.

    Carlyle: Here’s your receipt for your purchase of $30,000, which suspiciously does not contain over 300 years of inflation, again”¦something I have no reason to point out since to me and you it would just be the norm.

    Thurmond: I’d like my Brick Car now.

    Carlyle: It’s the future.

    Why pay money for less versatile things only in pursuit of sentiment? Now some people have told me that they like gift cards because it gives them an excuse to go shopping, a break from the normal everyday guilt of shopping with their own cash when there are more important expenses to take care of. Your own consumerism guilt is almost an entirely different issue than the one I am addressing. All I can say is watch this and learn its message.

    I’m not a smart man, and deep down I know that any frequent gift card purchaser knows just about every useless aspect of what they are buying, they’d have to right? It’s not like it takes that much brain power to compute. I mean, am I wrong? Do I have no point? Please let me know, I would love a satisfactory rebuttal to my “war” against gift cards”¦I’ve been waiting years for one. With that said, isn’t a gift card really, ultimately, a gift dead in spirit. A morsel of outreached disenchantment from someone trudging through motions they no longer put their time into. Perhaps I’m the minority, but I would rather receive a gift of an item I hate, than a gift of pure mandatory reluctance, such as a gift card, especially from someone I loved.

    Think before you buy that Itchy and Scratchy Money. Is it fun, or is it a meaningless exercise in complacent pre-conception? As for me, you might wonder if I dabble in hypocrisy, and you’d be right. I’ll accept gift cards. I’ll take them, spend them, use them to unlock doors, clean under my fingernails, deflect a pee stream, and throw them like little Frisbees at people’s eyeballs. However, I won’t buy them. No way, no how. Still a hypocrite, right? Send complaints to: Bottom of the page.

    ROBIN HOOD

    A Spoiler Free Discussion and Semi-Review!!!

    robinposter

    The past week in my head all I’ve heard, in an extremely sarcastic voice, is the following statement:

    “The new Robin Hood movie is the Gladiator version of Robin Hood.”

    That’s it, that’s ALL I hear, NOTHING ELSE! Seriously though, the voice is painfully sarcastic (the fake voice in my brain, well…hopefully fake,) to the point of being illegible. For some reason, I envision a soccer-mom type person saying it at a PTL meeting. A vast ocean of undersexed women wearing mom-jeans and attempting to discuss the inside Hollywood scoop that is this one singular goofball observation as if they were on set and Ridley Scott just kept saying “Do it like we did on Gladiator“¦yeah, cause this is like that, LIKE GLADIATOR!” Oh soccer moms, how you have the world figured out. Here’s a snippet of my own personal hell, if I was reincarnated as a sweater-vest in suburbia:

    Soccer Mom #1: Oh yeah, it’s suppose to be just like Gladiator.

    Soccer Mom #2: Well, Agnes said that it has that Gladiator actor in it, the one with the muscles.

    Soccer Mom #3: Oh I love him, his acting is so good.

    Soccer Mom #2: it is good! Good observation, he really is good. He was good in Gladiator, so he should be good in this. He’s so good.

    Soccer Mom #1: Well the people that made Gladiator, made this, so we will probably go see it as a family outing, since it’s going to be like Gladiator. The same people made it, so you know”¦

    Soccer Mom #3: I love movies, it’s our family hobby. Last week we rented Milo & Otis, which wasn’t made by the Gladiator people.

    Soccer Mom #2: Oh that is a good movie. I love those animals.

    Soccer Mom #1: They make a lot of animal movies, and they make some that are good and some that aren’t as good, but I really enjoy the good ones, because they are good and when it’s good”¦.

    Bob The Sweater Vest (worn by Soccer Mom #2): You know ladies, I hate to interrupt, but your conversation is so mind numbingly useless that blood is actually starting to pool inside my body cavity.

    Soccer Mom #2: Is that what that moisture on my back is?

    Bob The Sweater Vest: Yes, that is my brain fluid leaking on to your skin.

    Soccer Mom #3: The existence of a sentient sweater vest destroys my fragile life of 1950’s values and obtuse worldview. I’ve been living an existence of gray, in a sea of crushed dreams.

    Bob The Sweater Vest: Sorry, I just needed you to stop talking about Robin Hood.

    Soccer Mom #1: The one that’s like Gladiator?

    Is the new Robin Hood like Gladiator? Sure, why not? It has three things in common with Gladiator: Russell Crowe, Ridley Scott, it’s a movie. That proves it. Plus the Producer Brian Grazer said it here. So, now that that’s out of the way, how is Robin Hoodiator? (Gladin Hood? Robiator Glood? Gladiatorobin Hoodin? Hoody Roby Glady Atorhood?) Honestly? Boring. Wait, but Gladiator wasn’t boring? Also, Robin Hood is a prequel story, which Gladiator isn’t a prequel”¦so that’s 2 things that are different. Let us not forget that Russell Crowe’s name is different in this movie, so that three differences from Gladiator. Wait let’s do the math:

    3 (similarities) ““ 3 (differences) = O

    Hence, the movies are equally not the same and as different as they are vice versa, thus yielding them as two separate entities, which are the same thing. Thank Odin for math and logic or else none of this would make sense.

    Apologizing for getting that out of my system is probably too little too late, but if you are still with me I appreciate it. In all seriousness, I wasn’t being coy in the midst of my rambling; Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood is immensely boring. There’s a lot of draw backs to point out, but that is the main gripe. I’m not going to be one to compare it to every other adaptation of the material, except one, Kevin Reynolds’s Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves (the Costner one.) Why? Well, Costner’s movie has taken its licks over the years. He had no English accent, we get it. However, Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves, accent or no, is a damn entertaining flick, action packed, quote filled, has a clean through-line, and it holds dynamite performances, especially from Alan Rickman. Don’t get me wrong, I love Errol Flynn, and he will always be the world’s premiere cinematic Robin Hood (although I would argue that Cary Elwes and that Disney Fox are no slouches either.) I’m in my late 20’s”¦Kevin Costner is my Robin Hood, that is just how it is, and I’m not going to apologize for it (however, I’ve seen Cary Elwes’s performance more times that any of them.) Now, after witnessing this generation’s Robin Hood film, I’m wondering if this uneventful ode to boredom will alleviate some of the insults thrown at Costner’s Hood for almost 20 years. Put the two side by side and I know which one I’m choosing to watch when sitting on my couch looking for a period-piece action flick, and I would guess most people would do the same after viewing both.

    robin

    Why did the movie fail on every level to be captivating? Well to use a tired review cliché, Ridley and Crowe seem to be completely on auto pilot. It felt like an uneventful evening that just passes by while you stare at your leg nervously twitching. The only spark of interest in the whole production comes from the supporting characters, mainly Robin’s three merry men, and Friar Tuck. The reason being that every one of them is played for comic relief, which in a movie as stilted as this, should just be called relief.

    The advertising is especially misleading as well as the title, if you didn’t know, it’s a prequel of sorts to the well known legend of Robin Hood. Brian Helgeland’s script, with the exception of the last 3 minutes or so, does not cover any of the familiar territory we know and love about the character. This is fine. I have no qualm if that is the story you want to tell, but why name it ROBIN HOOD? Why not Robin Of The Hood, or go with the original title Nottingham? It’s too confusing, and you don’t even bother to sort out the confusion in the trailers and TV spots. The movie is not overtly a prequel to any specific property, other that the story of Robin Hood IF IT HAPPENED FOR REAL, so I guess in their defense it doesn’t need to be advertised as such, since the character of Robin Hood is in the movie. Still, confusing.

    This is one of those oh-so-annoying cases where the movie isn’t really “bad,” it just hovers over that label of not qualifying as good entertainment. With the exception of pacing, Ridley Scott’s direction is very much on the ball, he just seems to have fell asleep when it came to the moments in which the movie should be ramping us up. A great example of this is the final battle, it just sort of”¦begins. There’s several moments of people arriving at a field/beach and they start fighting and then poof, movie over. Perhaps it’s the film’s quest to be so realistic and “historical” that drags it through the gutter, the boredom caused by a movie with no “movie moments.”

    There’s been a lot of complaining about Crowe’s age in this film, he’s in his late 40s (I think) and Robin Hood should be younger and more spry apparently, especially considering this film takes place before the legend begins. Personally, it doesn’t seem like a problem to me, mainly because his age is never noted in the film itself. Michael J. Fox still looks like he’s in his 20s, some people just don’t look their age, older or younger, why is it so hard to suspend the disbelief for Crowe? Crowe does a fine job in the role”¦I guess. I mean he seams to just be playing Russell Crowe set to “medium” energy, which is annoying since no one will give him the crap they gave Costner, who is always at “medium” energy (and that’s why we love you Kevin, you beautiful “medium” tempered son of a gun!) If you really want to complain about the age thing, start screaming about the great Max Von Sydow, as in this movie he seems to be almost double the age, if not more, than men used to live in that time period. I wouldn’t normally say anything, but for a movie that sacrificed the enjoyable aspect of a legend for a historically accurate feel, why go and cast someone as old as Max? (The answer: He’s a great actor, one of the best living.)

    I didn’t really go into detail about story or plot, because honestly, if I did, the review would be just as boring as the film (if it were ONLY subtitles!) The big question is, is it worth the ticket price? Well, how awful is your job? If it’s worse than or as bad as any of the following, save your money for something better:

    – Aardvark Feces Organizer

    – Assistant Assister

    – Pencil Repairman

    – VHS Factory Janitor

    – Tote Bag Historian

    – Feline Sexuality Expert

    However, I’d give the flick my recommendation for people who are rich, retired, or looking for an expensive, uncomfortable place to sleep at 1pm on a Wednesday, because what else are you doing? I don’t want you just sitting there, thinking about your own mortality, eating brown sugar flavored off-brand pop tarts. That just sounds awful. Go to the movies.

    I’m Bob Rose, Thanks for Reading!!! This Review brought to you by my previous word-for-word Gladiator review, which is of course, very different but almost exactly the same.

  • Trailer Park: MacGruber

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    Check out my new column, This Week In Trailers, at SlashFilm.com and follow me on TWITTER under the name: Stipp

    MacGruber – Free Passes

    macLook, I’m probably the last guy in the world who this movie should have appealed to but the trailers got me.

    Bad, lewd humor mixed with Will Forte’s comedic flair and Kristen Wiig’s more than ample ability to just be funny at any moment, the trailers that were rolled out for this movie did a spectacular job in just making the sale. They convinced me that I should at least strongly consider giving my money to them and, God love ’em, their pitch was solid with both the green and red banner trailers that no doubt hit multiple parts of the viewership demo.

    For those Arizonans that would like to see this film Thursday, May 20th, at 7:00 p.m. at Harkins Tempe Marketplace please shoot me a line at Christopher_Stipp@yahoo.com and let me know you’re interested in winning some tickets.

    For those living under a city sized rock and don’t yet know what this movie is about, here’s your breakdown:

    Only one American hero has earned the rank of Green Beret, Navy SEAL and Army Ranger. Just one operative has been awarded 16 purple hearts, 3 Congressional Medals of Honor and 7 presidential medals of bravery. And only one guy is man enough to still sport a mullet. In 2010, Will Forte brings Saturday Night Live’s clueless soldier of fortune to the big screen in the action comedy MacGruber.

    In the 10 years since his fiancée was killed, special op MacGruber has sworn off a life of fighting crime with his bare hands. But when he learns that his country needs him to find a nuclear warhead that’s been stolen by his sworn enemy, Dieter Von Cunth (Val Kilmer), MacGruber figures he’s the only one tough enough for the job.

    Assembling an elite team of experts-Lt. Dixon Piper (Ryan Phillippe) and Vicki St. Elmo (Kristen Wiig)-MacGruber will navigate an army of assassins to hunt down Cunth and bring him to justice. His methods may be unorthodox. His crime scenes may get messy. But if you want the world saved right, you call in MacGruber.

  • TV Or Not TV: I’d Rather Not Be ‘Across the Sea’ (LOST)

    tvornottv-header.png

    There are times when I’m watching a TV show that I really love that I sometimes sit in wonder and amazement at how compelling it can be. Other times I can be blown away by the use of imagery and symbolism that require me to think deeper about the message being delivered. Finally there are times that I am watching the show and have the feeling that I’m just completely missing the point because I don’t care for what I’m seeing at all. Sadly the 15th episode of the final season of LOST played out that last case scenario for me. As usual I will warn you that I am about to discuss the episode in detail so if you haven’t watched it yet and don’t want to know what happened than I suggest you return at a later date to read this.

    I’m sure both on paper and in concept the idea behind the episode of ACROSS THE SEA sounded great and made the writers feel that they were really going to deliver on answering some questions for fans of the show while also tying up a few loose ends. We the fans would finally know who the skeletons of ADAM & EVE, discovered in the caves in the season one episode HOUSE OF THE RISING SUN, were. We would find out who built the DONKEY WHEEL that when turned moved the Island, and we’d find out the origin story of both JACOB and the SMOKE MONSTER/MAN IN BLACK. Unfortunately, for this viewer and fan anyway, what may have sounded good didn’t come off very good. I think that the Tweet from writer BRIAN LYNCH sums up my viewing experience best:

    OK, maybe that doesn’t really sum it up but it made me laugh upon reading. I think fan reaction to the episode is also pretty clear from the Tweet sent out today by Executive Producer Damon Lindelof:

    With ACROSS THE SEA what I ended up getting was a rather uninteresting story that lead to more questions than answers, which this late in the LOST game isn’t a good thing. I’m not just talking about a little list either. Here’s all of the questions that got stuck in my head while watching this episode:

    • Why did they have to clearly make a point out of the MAN IN BLACK not having a name by never saying his name, a move that just made me want to know his name even more?
    • Where did the MOTHER character played by ALLISON JANNEY come from and how did she become (I’m so sorry for this bad cliche) the protector of the light (yes, again, sorry, you read that right but hey I didn’t write the episode)?
    • Why throw us a bone by showing us it was the MAN IN BLACK who built the DONKEY WHEEL only to also show us that his job site was collapsed before being finished forcing me to wonder who did in fact finish it? Yes, I get that he probably convinced others that came to the Island to finish the job but still, why even give me that question?
    • Why have MOTHER say that she’s made it so that JACOB and MAN IN BLACK can’t harm one another and then have JACOB beat the crap out of him twice in the episode and then either nearly or completely fatally wound him as he’s tossed into the tunnel where the LIGHT is?
    • Why the heavy handed inter-cutting of the HOUSE OF THE RISING SUN footage of the skeletons being found in the future while JACOB places the bodies in the past? I know the producers said that this is one of the things that proves that they had the end game planned the entire time but instead it just came off as them finding a solution that fit the scenario they set up six years ago (not to mention JACK said the bodies looked like they could have been there for 30 or 40 years… that’s a bit off the mark from 100’s of years).

    I suppose if you break it down to the essentials seeing this episode brought me the same level of frustration I experienced with the introduction of the MAN IN BLACK and the actual appearance of JACOB in the season five finale. Meeting these two characters made me feel like a lot of what we had watched up to this point and the struggles we had seen were diminished by these new players who apparently held a greater importance to the show than we had ever known. It felt like one of those bad mysteries where suddenly the bad guy is revealed and it is a character who was playing a bag handler in the background of the second scene.

    Maybe I would feel better about this episode if they had come up with this idea earlier in the season, like immediately after the season premiere where we learned that SMOKE MONSTER and UN-LOCKE were one and the same. It certainly didn’t spoil anything for the rest of the season. I’d probably also feel better about this episode if it didn’t actually make me feel almost sympathetic again for the MAN IN BLACK right after the episode that let us know that he was completely, totally and unarguably the bad guy. In this story he came off more as a victim who doesn’t want to be trapped on an Island where for 13 years he was raised by the crazy woman who murdered his mother. Yes in the end he ends up stabbing his “Mother” but this can also be taken as avenging the death of his real mother and the people he has lived with for the past 30 years as well as freeing himself of the evil that this mother murdering monster clearly seemed to be capable of. Instead of black and white (a metaphor and bit of symbolism used WAY TOO MUCH in this episode) and the struggle of DARK and LIGHT we get dumped right back into shades of grey. From a story telling perspective this sudden shift made no sense.

    Another frustrating element of this episode was taking JACOB from the wise and enlightened being we previously viewed him as and reduced him to a whiney little momma’s boy. He didn’t come by the job of protector of the light (ugh) and Island as a noble calling or through trials and redemption. He was handed a job at the family business that he didn’t want and just like so many others in the same role he screwed up on his very first day on the job. All he has to do is protect the light and keep men out of the cave. First command decision? Throw his brother into the tunnel and BAM he makes a smoke monster. Way to go JACOB!

    Oh yeah, before I forget, I think we should officially ban any writer from ever using the term “There’s a storm coming” again. I’m calling for a moratorium on this one folks, it’s been overused and is such a heavy handed term used in foreshadowing that it pretty much insults my ears for hearing it. In this episode that was overflowing with symbolism it was pretty much the straw that broke the camel’s back.

    Going in to this episode I really wanted to love it but instead it was just too long of a story that did very little to hold my attention long enough to show me who built the DONKEY WHEEL, how MAN IN BLACK became the SMOKE MONSTER and who two skeletons were in the caves. If this episode is any indication for the type of writing we can expect over the next three episodes than I can only tell you one thing folks: There’s a storm coming.

  • TV Or Not TV: 5/10 – 5/16

    tvornottv-header.png

    After recently spending some quiet ‘me’ time I was finally able to catch up on ABC’s floundering FLASHFORWARD. Since the show came back from its long winter break I’d only watched two episodes so I felt as though I hadn’t really given it all that much of a chance.

    When FLASHFORWARD premiered I really enjoyed the first few episodes and I thought the show had a lot of promise. The gimmick was good and in many ways the show really seemed like the heir apparent to the LOST throne. Some how though the show really lost its steam prior to taking the winter break. I’m not sure if that was from having us involved in too many stories, taking us in to many directions, or just a lack of cohesive thought in the writing process. Whatever it was I wasn’t the only one to pick up on these things because the show had a pretty big shake up in it’s creative team during the break.

    After coming back from the winter break the show seemed determined to really get down to business. They instantly established the fact that another world wide blackout may be coming (OH NO!) and the show gave us something we were missing prior to the break: real bad guys that the characters would eventually have to deal with. In taking a page from X-FILES and LOST they’ve kept the bad guys mysterious, made them seem real organized, and kept us virtually in the dark as to who they are and why they are doing what they are doing. It’s something that the show was really missing and it’s a welcome addition. The recent addition of James Callis to the cast as a secret flash forward experiment victim who has all kinds of possible futures locked up in his head is probably the one story line I want to see them follow because his performance is so opposite that of BALTAR from the re-imagined BATTLESTAR GALACTICA that it’s just brilliant.

    There are still some things that just don’t seem to work right and a few missed opportunities, if you were to ask me. The story of the kidnapped daughter in the middle east is one that I just don’t have a lot of interest in. The doctor with cancer who is waiting to find his Asian lady love? Yawn. Taking the hope that the futures we saw aren’t set in stone and making us question if it can really be possible? Predictable.  Having an episode air on April 29th and not have it co-incide with the show’s timeline of the day of the flash, also April 29th? Meta fail.

    All-in-all, however, I can really say with a degree of confidence that the show is actually worth the time to watch, especially in this latter half of the season. There is real momentum week to week and it really gives you a reason to watch instead of just making you watch to avoid missing some small detail that may be relevant later.

    SNL

    This past Saturday I think that SNL might actually be able to learn something from the Internet since the show featuring BETTY WHITE was probably the best episode of the entire 2009-2010 season. For the majority of this season watching SNL has been bitter-sweet as I’ve been looking for the ‘good sketch’ needle in a haystack of unfunny. I suppose even saying that it has just been this season is a bit of a stretch as well since the majority of last season was the same for me. Still, week after week, I DVR the show with the hopes that I push enough straw of funny out of the way to find that gleaming and sharp needle of funny that everyone is going to be talking about. All of that changed with BETTY WHITE.

    First and foremost BETTY WHITE has (literally) had a lifetime of experience to finely tune her comedic timing to the point where I believe it is second nature. Her finely tuned comedic timing coupled with her mature and maternal grandmother facade make her a one two punch that I think just about any writer would be hard pressed to NOT make her funny. With this show there were close calls, two awkward ones in my opinion, where the premise was pushing it or BETTY seemed slightly out of sorts but even in those instances you were more forgiving because BETTY WHITE’s presence is so powerful you just didn’t care.

    Another reason why I think that this episode of SNL was so good had to do with almost every major female cast member from the last 10 years returning for this special installment. I’m sure that this returning group has a certain affect in the writing room of the show that helped contribute to what, perceived by me, was a higher caliber of show quality. I also strongly suspect that this installment of the show had the benefit of lots of preparation in the way of writing being done well in advance instead of the usual writings as they go that I believe happens during regular production of the show. I only hope that there was something to be learned from the entire BETTY WHITE experiment and the forthcoming season finale with ALEC BALDWIN sends this season off in a good way.

    Now let’s see what TV holds for us this week.

    MONDAY

    NBC – 8:00 PM: CHRISTOPHER LLOYD drops in as a therapist to help CHUCK deal with his head. Hopefully he’s more Doc Brown than Jim Ignatowski (oh heck, I’d take a nice merge of both).

    CBS – 8:00 PM: The gang on HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER crash a swank New York party. I sense some stunt casting in this one.

    ABC – 10:00 PM: CASTLE has to struggle for attention from BECKETT now that DEMMING is hanging around. Speaking of which has ABC got option contracts on most of the BATTLESTAR GALACTICA cast?

    TUESDAY

    FOX – 8:00 PM: OK AMERICAN IDOL this whole mentoring thing has got to stop. JAMIE FOXX mentoring the remaining contestants on singing songs from movies? Really? Now you’re stretching it. Why not RUSSELL CROWE, BILLY BOB THORTON or KEANU REAVES? They’ve all got bands, they just didn’t play a singer in a movie. Oh, wait, you want someone else who did the whole singer biopic thing? Bring in JOAQUIN PHOENIX instead or maybe DENNIS QUAID?

    ABC – 9:00 PM: Tonight we see the touching story of When JACOB met SMOKEY on a very special episode of LOST.

    FOX – 9:00 PM: OK, let me get this straight: KURT tries to butch it up, PUCK shaves the mohawk and RACHEL can’t sing on tonight’s episode of GLEE? Wow, this doesn’t scream filler at all!

    WEDNESDAY

    TheCW – 8:00 PM: OMG! It’s the two hour finale of AMERICA’S NEXT TOP MODEL and I’ve not watched a single episode! Why start now, right?

    BC – 9:00 PM: OK, this week the MODERN FAMILY actually gets to Hawaii instead of just travelling there and just like last week I’m rooting for PHIL to find the cursed tiki idol to make my world complete.

    NBC – 9:00 PM: MERCY has it’s season finale tonight and it’s ranked in my viewing schedule just behind AMERICA’S NEXT TOP MODEL. Oh well.

    THURSDAY

    CBS – 8:00 PM: The penultimate (kind of) episode of SURVIVOR: HEROES VS. VILLAINS airs and we I’m wondering if RUSSELL makes it to the end or did PARVARTI eat him alive?

    TheCW – 8:00 PM: It’s spooky night done right on TheCW with the season finale of THE VAMPIRE DIARIES followed by the looming apocalypse on SUPERNATURAL.

    NBC – 9:00 PM: Tonight is all filler on THE OFFICE until next week’s return of KATHY BATES.

    FOX – 9:00 PM: Wow, I could use penultimate twice tonight because the the first part of the FRINGE season finale is tonight as well. It’s a two parter so next week won’t make much sense without tonight but it’s still the next to last episode to air for the season so I’m saying it’s the penultimate. I sure hope I’m using that word right.

    FRIDAY

    TheCW – 8:00 PM: Well we’ve waited all season to find out just how CLARK is going to deal with the Kandorians on SMALLVILLE and it’s finally here. The solution he sought and found last week results in all Kyrptonians being banished from Earth so I’m dreading a finale where it seems that CLARK is gone (again).

    CBS – 9:00 PM: I only bring up tonight’s episode of MEDIUM because I once again wanted to say penultimate. So yeah, this is the penultimate episode for what could be the final season of the series.

    SATURDAY

    BBCAMERICA – 8:00 PM: OK, so maybe your TARDIS was a bit wibbly-wobbly and you missed last week’s first part of this awesome two-parter of DOCTOR WHO. Guess what? Tune in at this time and you can catch THE TIME OF ANGELS before the 9:00 PM airing of the second part FLESH AND STONE. Two hours I have no fear in recommending.

    NBC – 11:30 PM: How do you follow-up the stellar BETTY WHITE performance on SNL? Two words folks: ALEC ‘MOTHER TRUCKIN’ BALDWIN.

    SUNDAY

    CBS – 8:00 PM: Grab a bowl of popcorn and sit down as CBS tries to dominate the night with the season finale of SURVIVOR: HEROES VS. VILLAINS. After the two hour finale you can even stick around for the reunion special right after.

    FOX – 8:00 PM: The FOX network refuses to bow before SURVIVOR by rolling out another appearance of SIDESHOW BOB on tonight’s episode of THE SIMPSONS.

    ABC – 9:00 PM: The explosive season finale of DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES hits as we see LYNETTE finally learns the down side of befriending a serial killer and the entire BOLEN business is finally put to rest.

    HBO – 9:00 PM: It’s the final episode of the amazing World War II miniseries THE PACIFIC tonight. I hope no one spoils how it ends for me!

    ABC – 10:00 PM: You hear that folks? It’s my sigh of relief at the fact that another season of BROTHERS & SISTERS comes to a close and I know there’s one less show on the DVR that I won’t be watching.

  • Trailer Park: IRON MAN 2

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    Check out my new column, This Week In Trailers, at SlashFilm.com and follow me on TWITTER under the name: Stipp

    Robin Hood – Free Passes

    robinhood_posterWho lives in Arizona and wants to see Russell Crowe dispatch dirty peasants with a bow and arrow?

    I sure do. After loving every last morsel of the last Russell Crowe/Ridley Scott team-up this film at least gets an emotional buy-in simply because lighting may very well strike twice.

    For those that would like to see this film Tuesday, May 11th, at 7:00 at Harkins Fashion Square please shoot me a line at Christopher_Stipp@yahoo.com and let me know you’re interested in winning some tickets. I don’t have many so get those entries in quick.

    And, for those that need an explanation of what this movie has in store for you, read the film’s description:

    Oscar winner Russell Crowe stars as the legendary figure known by generations as “Robin Hood,” whose exploits have endured in popular mythology and ignited the imagination of those who share his spirit of adventure and righteousness. In 13th century England, Robin and his band of marauders confront corruption in a local village and lead an uprising against the crown that will forever alter the balance of world power. And whether thief or hero, one man from humble beginnings will become an eternal symbol of freedom for his people.

    The untitled Robin Hood adventure chronicles the life of an expert archer, previously interested only in self-preservation, from his service in King Richard’s army against the French. Upon Richard’s death, Robin travels to Nottingham, a town suffering from the corruption of a despotic sheriff and crippling taxation, where he falls for the spirited widow Lady Marion (Oscar winner Cate Blanchett), a woman skeptical of the identity and motivations of this crusader from the forest. Hoping to earn the hand of Maid Marion and salvage the village, Robin assembles a gang whose lethal mercenary skills are matched only by its appetite for life. Together, they begin preying on the indulgent upper class to correct injustices under the sheriff.

    With their country weakened from decades of war, embattled from the ineffective rule of the new king and vulnerable to insurgencies from within and threats from afar, Robin and his men heed a call to ever greater adventure. This unlikeliest of heroes and his allies set off to protect their country from slipping into bloody civil war and return glory to England once more.

    Tokyo Sonata – DVD Review

    tokyosonata_3dSuch an endearing film, this movie from Kiyoshi Kurosawa explores some of the more quiet aspects of live in modern Japan.

    One of the funny things about Kurosawa is that most who do know his name know it from his work in the horror genre. A movie that departs greatly from that wheelhouse, Tokyo Sonata is an overlooked gem from last year that not only reaffirmed my own sense of what it means to be a family but that Kurosawa knows how to transcend cultural mores and tell a story about a man who loses his job and tries to hold on to the lie as kids, wife unravel before his eyes.

    It’s a bittersweet movie that is genuinely funny but it’s also an introspective film that is gorgeous to look at while seeing that there is some real pathos happening before you. The performances are uniformly excellent especially Kyoko Koizumi, who plays the put upon matriarch of the family, who becomes something of a force to reckon with as she evolves in this family that tries to pull through what is ostensibly the most difficult time in their lives.

    Do not miss what I wish I could have seen in the theaters, the lush cinematography showing the natural ebb and flow of life in Japan, and a movie that can speak to what modern families have to deal with in a time that knows no geographical or social boundaries.

    About the film:

    FROM INTERNATIONALLY-RENOWNED DIRECTOR KIYOSHI KUROSAWA COMES A “HAUNTING AND MASTERFUL” FILM, WINNER OF THE PRESTIGIOUS CANNES UN CERTAIN REGARD JURY PRIZE

    Best known in the United States for unsettling horror films like PULSE and CURE, internationally recognized director Kiyoshi Kurosawa ventures away from the genre with TOKYO SONATA. Probing the dark side of human nature and the social problems that confront contemporary Japan, this highly acclaimed 2009 theatrical release was awarded the Un Certain Regard Jury Prize at the 2009 Cannes Film Festival, as well as capturing Best Film and Best Screenwriter at the Asian Film Awards.

    Equal parts social commentary and situational comedy, the atmospheric TOKYO SONATA is a story of an ordinary Japanese family of four. The father, Ryuhei Sasaki, like any other Japanese businessman, is faithfully devoted to his work. His wife, Megumi, left on her own to manage the house, struggles to retain a bond with her oldest son in college, Takashi, and the youngest, Kenji, a sensitive boy in elementary school. From the exterior the family is seemingly normal, save for the tiny schisms that exist within. However, after Ryuhei unexpectedly loses his job, the quiet unraveling of the family beings.

    Facing completely unfamiliar circumstances, Ryuhei decides not to tell his family and begins his lonely sojourn into the world of the secretly unemployed. Along with many other businessmen who save face by concealing their shameful reality from family and friends, Ryuhei begins to depart each day for work, when, in fact, he kills time in libraries and parks. His lies and torment go unnoticed by Takashi, who becomes increasingly despondent and alienated from his family, and Megumi, who can no longer summon the will to keep her family together. And, the longer his charade goes on, the less control he has as patriarch, creating an even deeper divide between him and his family.

    TOKYO SONATA is presented in Japanese with English subtitles, and includes a “Making Of” Featurette, Cannes Festival Footage and Panel Interviews and Interviews with the Cast and Crew.

    California Dreamin’ – DVD Review

    califronia-dreamin_2d_hWhen I was in Ireland I picked up a book called “Turn Left at Greenland.”

    It was a book that talked about what America looks like through the eyes of a foreign news correspondent living and working within our borders. It was an odd thing, seeing our country from someone that doesn’t call this home but it’s perfectly apt in order to describe the feeling of watching this movie from filmmaker, and Romanian, Cristian Nemescu.

    The movie deals with a military intelligence officer, played with deft playfulness by Armand Assante, who finds himself stuck on the way to Kosovo in some faceless Romanian that could be any number of small hamlets in this part of the world, that has to navigate his way out of being held almost hostage in a farce that at once illuminates what we look like to others and how we deal with ourselves. The ugly American, uncouth around those who are simply living their own lives as we try and impose our will to fit our needs, is on full display here but the reason this movie excels masterfully is because how sly it is. It’s not enough to come right out and say what’s on this film’s mind, this movie plays with your expectations and lets the action on the screen tell the story.

    Is America the strong willed bully who likes to play the part of imperialist? If Nemescu’s movie is any indication it is but there are bright spots to be found within its stubbornness. Make no mistake about it, either. Nemescu skewers his own culture as well, pointing out that while we have our own problems no one is perfect by any stretch.

    It’s disappointing that this is Nemescu’s only film, he died in a car accident before being able to properly edit this film down before it made its bow at Cannes in 2007, but this is a gem of a movie that talks global politics that still have meaning today in an age when this film explains so much about our involvement inside Pakistan and Iraq.

    About the film:

    THE AWARD-WINNING ““ AND ONLY ““ FILM FROM ONE OF THE WORLD’S GREAT YOUNG DIRECTORS, WHO DIED BEFORE ITS RELEASE

    In the tradition of great black comedies about war ““ from Dr. Strangelove and M*A*S*H to Three Kings and In the Loop ““ comes CALIFORNIA DREAMIN’, one of the masterpieces of what’s been called the Romanian new wave. This vital and globally honored movie was the only feature film from brilliant young director Cristian Nemescu.

    The fact-based story proves that truth is stranger ““ and more absurd ““ than fiction. It’s 1999, and the bloody civil war in Yugoslavia is underway. A platoon of American Marines has arrived in Constanta , Romania , with a shipment of military radar meant to be deployed near the Serbian border in support of NATO air raids. No-nonsense Captain Doug Jones (Golden Globe winner Armand Assante in a career performance) is in charge of transporting the equipment by train across Romania , but when the train is stopped in a remote village, Jones and his men must contend with the corrupt and terrifying stationmaster, Doiaru (Razvan Vasilescu), who’s also the local strongman and black market operator. The Marines become the “guests” of a poor village filled with frustrating bureaucracy, sexy young women on the make, and odd pop culture celebrations. Can Americans really bring order and hope to this chaotic part of the world, or is that just California dreamin’?

    Five Minutes of Heaven – DVD Review

    fmoh_3d_lThis is a movie that you ought to seek out and enjoy for the high level of screenwriting and visual flair for cinematography.

    A movie about two men, James Nesbitt and Liam Neeson, Catholic and Protestant respectively, who both had a part in the fighting that took place in the mid-1970s as these two religious groups fought a bloody war of politics and religion. All grown up, they are being chauffeured for a face-to-face, televised meeting. The real draw of the film, then, is how these two men find themselves here as they reflect on the events of their youth.

    Filled with murder and rage, both men have their own sins to atone for but Oliver Hirschbiegel, director of the indescribably good Downfall, looks at these two people not to be pitied but to be understood. Screenwriter Guy Hibbert’s script is filled with moments that let you know this is a writer’s film, not a movie based on the quick cuts and violence you would expect out of a Tom Clancy novel if it were to be written about this chance meeting.

    The rage that still simmers beneath the thin veneer of older age is deliciously depicted and honestly makes the case as to why there is some pain that will never be sated until revenge is exacted. But the movie is so much more than revenge fantasies and recompense, it’s a movie that should leave you thinking about how our own conflicts, no matter how personal they may be, can find a way to be exercised. I found my palms sweaty more than once and it’s due to a movie that wants to personalize, not dehumanize, it’s characters.

    Seek this film out if a jangling Irish accent and the allure of a movie that wants to take its time with you is something you desire. Revenge is a dish best served cold but what happens after it’s on the table? This movie tells you exactly what happens.

    About the film:

    IN A PLACE WHERE BLOODY CONFLICT IS ALL MANY PEOPLE HAVE EVER KNOWN, SOME WOUNDS MAY PROVE TOO DEEP FOR TIME TO HEAL

    Liam Neeson Stars in the Latest Triumph From Oscar® Nominee Oliver Hirschbiegel.

    “The past is not dead. In fact, it isn’t even past.” The famous line from Faulkner could serve to describe FIVE MINUTES OF HEAVEN, the acclaimed suspenseful thriller about the long-lasting pain caused by the Troubles in Northern Ireland . That violent conflict has been the basis for many memorable movies, but few as gripping as Oscar-nominated director Oliver Hirschbiegel’s film, which features career performances by international stars Liam Neeson and James Nesbitt.

    FIVE MINUTES OF HEAVEN is based on true events. It’s 1975 and conflict has been underway for years between the predominantly Catholic nationalists who want to end British control of Northern Ireland and the predominantly Protestant loyalists. Alistair Little, a 16-year-old Protestant member of the Ulster Volunteer Force, is anxious to earn his stripes and, along with his group, is given the go-ahead to kill an Ulster Catholic as reprisal for IRA attacks. Their target is 19-year-old Jim Griffen. The murder is witnessed by Griffen’s 11-year-old brother Joe.

    Three decades later, Little (Neeson, star of “Taken” and “Schindler’s List”) has been rehabilitated and released from prison, while Joe Griffen (Nesbitt, who led the cast of Paul Greengrass’ Northern Ireland historical drama “Bloody Sunday”) remains traumatized and bitter. When a television talk show brings them together for a live on-air reconciliation, two men haunted by one moment must come face to face with their own worlds of pain and violence ““ and the ever-present threat of revenge.

    FIVE MINUTES OF HEAVEN won the Directing Award and the World Cinema Screenwriting Award, and was nominated for the Grand Jury Prize, at the 2009 Sundance Film Festival.

    Oliver Hirschbiegel previously directed the Best Foreign-Language Film Oscar nominee “Downfall,” about Hitler’s final days, and the sci-fi thriller “The Invasion,” starring Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig. BAFTA-winning screenwriter Guy Hibbert’s impressive body of work includes “Omagh” and “Prime Suspect.” Also in the FIVE MINUTES OF HEAVEN cast is Anamaria Marinca, star of the Cannes Golden Palm winner “4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days” as well as Francis Ford Coppola’s “Youth Without Youth.”

    Iron Man 2 – Review

    4918_1594708762When last we left our hero, he was on a podium proclaiming himself to be the real iron man. There was much fanfare and celebration but how does Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) fare in issue 2 of this comic book character come to life?

    Well, considering this is perhaps the most expensive romantic comedy ever made I would say it’s a success on multiple levels.

    That’s one of the things you’ll notice, if you’re feeling your way through Jon Favreau’s latest, a real sense that this is a pure four quadrant movie that appeals to every single, last demographic. It seems made with the intent to fully embrace every last man, woman, and child with its focus on bringing the most amount of action with the most amount of family friendly permissible T&A along with peppering the dialogue with enough mature bon mots and double entendres to make any parent squirmy. There seems to be a real need to be liked on all levels going on within this picture that you can’t help but feel that Favreau has delivered a movie that gives the people what they want, all of them, and, what’s remarkable, there isn’t any slack in this film. Every moment is earned, every line pushing this film to its eventual breaking point. I think, and if there is any indication that this movie isn’t as good as it could have been I couldn’t point it out, the movie doesn’t take a definitive stance with regard to its voice. In much the same way that Dark Knight had its voice, how X2 absolutely had one that set it apart from its peers and how Spider-Man 2 possessed one that made it a classic, Iron Man 2 is lacking in that regard. There are missed opportunities to delve deep into the man who wears this suit of iron, passed over chances to get beyond the snappy one-liners (and they are snappy thanks to Justin Theroux’s ear for witty rejoinders and Downey Jr.’s unmatchable delivery, creating a character with his own unique patios), and it all adds up to a movie that truly embraces the summer movie aesthetic in the most fun way possible.

    Meeting up with Stark, mere moments after where the first movie leaves off, we are right back to where we were when we last saw him. Basking in the glorious attention and filled with the kind of macho, funny bravado that made him such a delight in part 1. He’s in dire need of purpose when we meet up with him, although his tough candy shell would rather deflect than recognize how empty his castle really is, and this movie is all about this man’s quest for something more than dominance over the scientific and controllable. It’s a movie about a man’s need for love not only from the man who made him but from a woman that confounds him. What’s curious about the latter storyline is that it permeates the entire film. Tony tries to communicate the very human feelings which he’s been so adept at keeping sublimated towards Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) but, like every good romantic comedy, it’s never quite the right time. The movie is brilliant in keeping every person who is seeing this movie invested on what’s happening, like a politician who relentlessly plays to his constituents, but that’s also where the movie loses its ability to some something more than just a great summer film.

    One of the story’s issues is Downey’s indulgence in excess, namely alcohol. Saving you the pain of getting into too much comic book fanboy detail there was a nine issue story arc within the Iron Man series in 1979 that dealt with Tony’s alcoholism. It was hailed then, and still is now, as one of the most important stories of the Iron Man saga. This was a chance to give the film a deep anchor, an opportunity for resonance far beyond the box office, but instead the subplot is given short shrift, relegated to a relatively quick realization and fixing of a problem as if it were a cut needing a band-aid. It was disappointing to see it used and rushed though so flippantly but, to come back as to why the film works on the levels it does, you can see why that decision was made. Mass appeal does not equate to an episode of Intervention, hence, it was ditched. Besides, he’s got bad guys to dispatch.

    The villains of this picture, Mickey Rourke and Sam Rockwell, play opposite ends of the evil spectrum that simply boggle the mind. Rockwell, playing arms manufacturer Justin Hammer, ought to be the kind of slippery cad that knows no boundaries and delight in being the kind of foil to Tony Stark worthy of our condemnation. Instead, he’s played like an ass, a buffoon. It confounds the mind to try and think of why you would want to have a man capable of so much dirty dealing and evil come off like a doofus who is only able to get out of bed without hurting himself by happenstance. Or, is it because Mickey Rourke, as the mighty Whiplash, tries to steal the show as he turns in a performance as one of the better villains we’ve ever been given in a movie like this? Unfortunately, there is not much to steal as we only get fits and starts with regard to his character, he appears briefly and we aren’t really given much beyond a few biographical factoids and tidbits. To Rourke’s credit, however, he uses what little time is given him to his advantage. Coming off a sympathetic turn in The Wrestler, he is able to play that other side, where the villainy oozes out of every dirty pore, every unwashed piece of hair.

    The film’s action set pieces, much like the first, are good and serviceable to a large degree. The CGI elements are pronounced in some areas and do take away from some of the passion that no doubt we’re supposed to feel as Iron Man defends truth, justice and the American way. If Justin Hammer’s eventual downfall is any representational barometer of the final act it is that the film’s action ends with a little more than a fizzled dream; exciting and somewhat filled with potential, sure, but it all comes crashing down quickly and with little more than a mild skirmish which ends exactly the way it should with there being no real danger to anyone or anything. Favreau hasn’t or didn’t learn anything from the all too brief ending to the first film as you go from final confrontation to resolution at breakneck speed. There is no savoring of the moment, no real drama, and the film suffers because of it. Not to be too glib about it but once the final confrontation happens you only have seconds to pay attention or else risk seeing how the ending plays itself out.

    Iron Man 2 as a summer artifact is one that fulfills every promise of what a summer tent pole should be: loud, bright, quick, and filled with enough for everyone. It’s a movie that will appeal to a wide spectrum of people on many levels. However, if there is anything to take away from this movie it is that this was a film that consciously decided it was not going to be anything more than what we’ve been given. It’s serviceable, fun but it lacks anything that will carry on long after you see the final moments on the screen. It’s disappointing that it couldn’t stretch beyond comic book-like depth but it’s nonetheless a good reason to get out of the house and enjoy on a big screen.

  • TV Or Not TV: I Vote YES for The Candidate (LOST)

    tvornottv-header.png

    Before I delve into anything about the May 4th episode of LOST I just have to say that there was some very surprising news that I almost didn’t hear on JIMMY KIMMEL LIVE later that same night. I’ve been a long time fan of KIMMEL but haven’t watched or DVR’d the show for a long time because I work and already can’t watch all the TV I’ve already got on my plate (another reason to get the HD TiVO already so I can go portable too!). Yesterday, however, Executive Producer of LOST Damon Lindelof sent out the following Tweet:

    Sorry, that’s the one I read in my head after watching THE CANDIDATE. The real Tweet was:

    JORGE GARCIA was a guest and just at the close of the interview, almost drowned out by the cheers of the crowd and the band as they go to commercial KIMMEL made the special announcement that LOST’s climax would not take up two hours of television programming time that night. It would actually take up 2 and a half hours of programming time. Yup, the series finale just got 22 minutes longer folks because (I’m assuming and hoping) they just couldn’t cram that much awesome into the time they were given.

    Now that we’ve gotten that bit of business out of the way, and since I’m sure you’ve already heard or read the news about the finale, let’s move on to taking a look at what happened on the 14th episode of this final season titled THE CANDIDATE. As always I remind you that I write this with the assumption that you are reading this because you’ve already seen the episode so if you haven’t this is your final warning.

    I was really looking forward to sitting down today and writing out the fact that I in fact hit the nail on the head with a prediction I had made. I was all excited and I went back to find out what column I had written it in and much to my own horror it turns out that I never actually seemed to write it. This really bummed me out so let me now tell you the words that I could have sworn that I put down in print.

    I don’t like to speculate on what is coming up but I really hope that the ‘Candidates’ don’t some how get tricked into going along with whatever UN-LOCKE/SMOKEY JOE has planned. He’s not ‘allowed’ to kill the candidates so this means that he probably wants and needs to kill the candidates. Every time he says he needs them all to get off the ISLAND the part of the sentence that I hear him purposely leaving out is the word ‘dead’ after all and before to get off the ISLAND.

    I don’t know what article I completely abandoned and discarded some time after writing that but oh how I wish I still had it to present to you as proof that I saw this one coming. Explained as simply as the way I had before pressing the delete button it’s pretty clear, right? At least I did say in this week’s column for recommendations that with the remaining number of episodes of LOST there was a high probability of an important character body count increase this week, so there’s one for the win column.

    Yes, that’s right those of you who didn’t take my warning and have no idea what happened in THE CANDIDATE, main characters died. I knew it was going to happen the very moment that UN-LOCKE/SMOKEY JOE handed JACK his backpack that the previously seen explosives were going to be in that backpack. If UN-LOCKE had a big bad guy soup handle mustache when he handed that backpack over he would have been twirling it with one finger and saying “mwuahahaha” under his breath.

    So with most of our favorite LOST-ies stuck in a submarine they found the bomb and did everything wrong. SAYID took a final shot at redemption by grabbing the bomb and running to the other side of the sub before he was blown to bits (which makes sense because SAYID is so bad ass he HAD to go out in a blaze of glory). Our favorite pilot FRANK took a flying door to the face and JIN stayed with SUN after she was trapped behind debris proving that true love means staying with someone so you both can die together. I personally would have had JIN try to break my hip or pelvis so I could be pried out from behind the wreckage but clearly it was time to lighten the load.

    This show did leave me with a lot of questions, but not in the usual LOST sense. I wouldn’t say I’m pondering plot holes however there are certain things that don’t add up to me.

    • After SAYID some how gets through the sonic fence he cuts the generator power so all the LOST-ies can be un-caged after UN-LOCKE as SMOKEY JOE takes care of the guards. Shortly after there are two guards at the plane. Why didn’t SMOKEY JOE just go all kinds of nuts and make a clean sweep of the whole smaller ISLAND?
    • JACK figured the bomb couldn’t go off because UN-LOCKE can’t kill any of them. Just like the stick of dynamite he shared with RICHARD ALPERT he’s convinced that nothing will happen. (Think of it like a mathproblem LOCKE can’t kill Candidate and LOCKE makes bomb so LOCKE BOMB can’t kill Candidate). SAWYER doesn’t believe him, pulls the leads, and the timer stops only to quickly speed up (No Mr. Bond, I expect you to DIE!). How is tampering with a bomb different then JACK lighting the fuse on a stick of dynamite if he too can’t kill himself? I have to believe that JACK’s logic was somewhat flawed because he was able to get out of the situation alive so the magic voodoo power of the ISLAND or whatever didn’t need to intercede. This could mean that JACK is probably going to be there to the very end (and doesn’t bode well for SAWYER since he pulled the wires and ka-BOOM!). This is kind of funny to think about since the original intention was to kill JACK at the end of the show’s PILOT episode.
    • Where the hell was CHARLES WIDMORE after the first five minutes? Did he know that LOCKE was coming and made way for the main ISLAND to try to fulfill his electronmagnetic dreams?

    The flash-sidewayswhateveritis also pointed out something else that, if allowed to play out, won’t bode very well for flash-sidewayswhateveritis SAWYER since he still has a blood feud with ANTHONY COOPER who it now turns out is a vegetable. Sorry SAWYER, no revenge for you in the other dimension/reality/confusion. This also is the only real revelation to come out of the flash-sidewayswhateveritis other than the fact that LOCKE mutters things about the ISLAND in his sleep and once again JACK is found to be looking into a mirror, this time that of the music box his father left CLAIRE.

    Just as many on the Internet have suspected it’s pretty clear that SAYID didn’t in fact kill DESMOND. His little speach about leaving something in a well caused millions of female viewers to cheer all at once.

    The one thing that was nice to see was something we haven’t really seen in a while on LOST: actual mourning. After escaping the submarine of doom the quartet of Hurley, Jack, Sawyer and Kate now realize that from all of flight 815 they are all that is left. They’ve just lost two definite friends, 1 kinda friend and 1 dude they shared a secret with. They break down. They cry. All of them (well, except Sawyer because he got bonked on the head and is out of it). It was nice to finally show these characters have a real moment after all hell broke loose. They’re usually running around and dealing with seven types of crazy so they haven’t really had these moments recently. Nice touch.

    That’s all I’ve really got to reflect on this week folks. Next week’s episode is titled ACROSS THE SEA and I’m pretty sure it’s going to be an AB AETERNO style flashback look at the life of JACOB and UN-LOCKE/SMOKEY JOE, which is perfectly timed since it’s pretty clear now that even though JACOB isn’t a saint SMOKEY JOE is pretty much THE bad guy.

    See you next week!

  • TV Or Not TV: 5/3 – 5/9

    tvornottv-header.png

    More often than not I sit down to write this column and I have to face down the biggest and hardest part of the entire part: finding something intelligent to say about something on television. This can be anything from a breakdown/analysis of what is happening on one of my favorite shows to my take over-all on the direction I see something taking, whatever that thing may in fact be. I toil over this portion because I, unlike many of my print oriented (and some web based) piers, don’t receive early reviewer copies of any of the shows. It can be a bit of an uphill battle but at times I get struck in the head with a bit of an idea that I’m able to run with and I walk away happy. This isn’t one of those weeks.

    The truth be told I keep finding less and less time to watch television. Lately I had been literally wasting hours on the weekend to get caught up on the TV shows that I’m interested in watching. For the past two weekends, however, I’ve actually been getting off the of the couch and doing things so I’ve cut down my viewing time even more. I’m a TV critic that has very little time right now to watch TV. What, than, am I to write about?

    When I think about that last question the first thing that comes in to my mind is the upcoming end of LOST. A saga is coming to a close with only five hours remaining to be seen, ever. The show leaves me in the same place that I have always been, the same place that the title implies. I’m clueless on where the show is going or what, in fact, is going on. I really want, at this point, to have a better clue of what it is that is happening. The past two seasons did a wonderful job of filling us in by creating their own little mini-mysteries that they answered in a well paced fashion. When it comes to this last season, however, I’m almost tired from all of it. I don’t want the stories to confuse me, I just want them to amaze me and make sense. I’m still thoroughly enjoying the show but it requires far too much attention and effort to keep up with. From the outside looking in I can understand why it is a show that my wife just can’t stand. I’ve come this far on the journey, however, so I’m in it for the full haul. I’m also hoping this week really has some good stuff in it so I have more to write about as the week progresses.

    Since I’ve made it pretty clear that I don’t have much to highlight up here let’s actually travel below where we can find out what it is that we might or might not want to watch this week, shall we?

    MONDAY

    NBC – 8:00 PM: The Fred Willard TV tour continues as he pops up on this week’s CHUCK along side Swoosie Kurtz (whose name still sounds like a form of sea sickness to me) playing a husband and wife CIA team. All the real TV critics say their performance tonight is stellar.

    TLC – 8:00 PM: After all of the drama surrounding the upcoming World Dwarf Games on LITTLE PEOPLE, BIG WORLD last week Matt drops the bombshell that he won’t be able to travel to Belfast for the first few days of the game. The nerve!

    CBS – 9:00 PM: Sheldongoest to extreme measures to keep Leonard and Penny happy once they stop speaking to one another on tonight’s BIG BANG THEORY. Apparently ‘extreme measures’ means time-shifting the show into the slot that TWO ANDA HALF MEN usually occupies.

    FOX – 9:00 PM: Jack Bauer stops at nothing to avenge Renee‘s death on 24. OK, maybe it was Jack who pushed BIG BANG THEORY back 30 minutes because he can do anything.

    BRAVO – 10:00 PM: You would think after seeing themselves on television last year THE REAL HOUSEWIVES OF NEW JERSEYwould have considered some slight attitude adjustments. Change who they are? Fahgedaboudit!

    TUESDAY

    FOX – 8:00 PM: Tonight on AMERICAN IDOL we find Harry Conick Jr. mentoring the five finalists on singing the songs of Frank Sinatra, and an entire generation is lost wondering who either of those people are.

    NBC – 8:00 PM: I know I talk about THE BIGGEST LOSERevery single week but if you are not happy about your weight and you want inspiration then tune in tonight because it’s the makeover show. These people get spruced up and we get assaulted with tons of before and after pics. I would almost guarantee instant inspiration and motivation.

    ABC – 9:00 PM: OK, I know I also talk about LOST just about every week it is on but seriously folks, we’re down to the last five hours of this show…. ever…. the body count has to start going up, right? Oh, and if you’ve never watched a single episode of LOST you really may get a kick out of THIS BLOG where the writer is someone watching this final season without seeing a single episode prior. Great for fans and non-fans alike. So enjoyable I just re-read it and lost 25 minutes that I could have been writing this column with. Damn!

    FOX – 9:00 PM: I seriously have no idea what is going on with GLEE this week. Sue is singing again plus Olivia-Newton John is a special guest (again, a generation wonders who she is and I cry a little inside).

    WEDNESDAY

    A&E – 8:00 AM: Can anyone tell me why there’s an all day marathon of BILLY THE EXTERMINATOR?

    FOX – 9:00 PM: If my prayers have been answered then tonight when Harry Conick Jr. and Lady Gaga perform on AMERICAN IDOL it will be in duet form in the most PICASSO inspired visual performance the world has ever seen! This will, however, not be the night my prayers have been answered.

    ABC – 9:00 PM: Gloria invites the entire family on a trip to Hawaii on tonight’s MODERN FAMILY. Not since The Brady Bunch have I looked this forward to a Hawaiin getaway. Please someone tell me that Phil finds a cursed tiki doll!

    THURSDAY

    FOX – 8:00 PM: The circle of literature life is complete as the author of the books BONES was based upon pens the script for tonight’s episode.

    NBC – 8:00 PM:An on-campus paintball competition unleashes the dogs of war in the most glorious and loving paradoy of action films ever seen on a sitcom on tonight’s COMMUNITY. No wonder this show received an early renewal.

    CBS – 8:00 PM: Why lie? I’m two week’s behind on SURVIVOR: HEROES VS. VILLAINS and I have no idea what’s going on with the show currently. Even after that admission I have no fear is saying it’s still possibly the best season of SURVIVOR ever.

    FOX – 8:00 PM: Someone visits from ‘the other side’ on tonight’s episode of FRINGE. How awesome would it be if it were just some random file clerk named Gary who has no idea he’s even in a different reality/universe?

    MTV – 10:00 PM: Four Finnish fellows take over the Jackass mantle as they abuse themselves for your pleasure in THE DUDESONS IN AMERICA. Before you write it off as a Jackass rip-off I should tell you the show is executive produced by Johhny Knoxeville himself so think of it as a companion show where he gets smart and pays other people to risk body and health.

    FRIDAY

    TheCW – 8:00 PM: Mama Kent returns to SMALLVILLE and she’s dating PERRY WHITE! Oh yeah, CLARKalso searshes for a way to deal with the Kandorians… still.

    CBS – 9:00 PM: Ariel loses days and years of time and has to someone look to her future self for the way to get back to the past on tonight’s MEDIUM. I know, it makes no sense to me either.

    STARZ – 10:00 PM: After last week’s charity auction it will be nice to see the PARTY DOWN team get back to a more wholesome and relatable gathering like the orgy they cater tonight. Wait, what?

    SATURDAY

    TLC – 2:00 PM: June bride’s who might be wanting a break from their impending nuptials may want to stay away from five straight hours of SAY YES TO THE DRESS. Wait until 6:00 PM so you can watch in horror at 8 straight hours of TODDLERS & TIARAS.

    SYFY – 9:00 PM: I’m dying to know what network executive heard the title of the movie MONGOLIAN DEATH WORM and thought, “Oh yeah, that’s movie GOLD!”

    NBC – 11:30 PM: The Internet demanded it so ladies and gentlemen SNL proudly presents to you tonight’s special guest host Betty White!

    SUNDAY

    DHC – 5:00 PM: Nothing says Happy Mother’s Day like a marathon of I DIDN’T KNOW I WAS PREGNANT. It’s nice to see that someone at Discovery Health has a sense of humor.

    CBS – 8:00 PM: THE AMAZING RACE 16 comes to a close and I can only say, “I never watched you.”

    FOX – 8:00 PM: Mo writes letters to the vacationing Homer,Rev. Lovejoy and Apu that he will run away with one of their wives on this special Mother’s Day edition of THE SIMPSONS.

    CBS – 9:00 PM: Tom Selleck returns for his sixth time to TV as the title character in JESSE STONE: NO REMORSE. Why oh why can’t they do a Magnum, P.I. reunion instead?

    A&E 9:30 PM: On GENE SIMMONS FAMILY JEWELS I’m more than a bit shocked that Gene accepts an invitation to compete on Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?

    ABC – 9:00 PM: OK, in all seriousness, John Barrowman‘s character Patrick on DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES really gives me the creeps.

  • Trailer Park: THE GOOD HEART & ITS COMPLICATED

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    Check out my new column, This Week In Trailers, at SlashFilm.com and follow me on TWITTER under the name: Stipp

    The Good Heart – Poster Giveaway

    goodheart_poster_1-535x793Those who saw There Will Be Blood ought to err on the side of hyperbole when describing Paul Dano’s performance in that film.

    Movies like Little Miss Sunshine and Gigantic have shown Dano to be an actor who isn’t just earning roles based on how he looks on the cover of Entertainment Weekly, espousing him as the next new “IT” actor, he’s getting work because he’s just good at what he does.

    That looks like it’s continuing with the movie The Good Heart, a film by Dagur Kári. Kári directed 2003’s wonderful Nói, a movie about a boy looking to escape his life in one of the more honest and truthful looks into teenage frustration ever to be made. The Good Heart looks like it is another film that wants to just zero in on a few people and let the actors work their way through it. It’s an intimate portrait of people living on the edge of nothingness and, in support of the film, I have two posters SIGNED by Paul Dano himself. If you’re interested in winning just shoot me your favorite Paul Dano movie and I’ll enter you in a drawing to win one of these beauties. The address is Christopher_Stipp@yahoo.com.

    The Good Heart opens today in theaters.

    The film’s synoposis:

    Brian Cox stars as Jacques, the curmudgeonly owner of a gritty   New York dive bar that serves as home to a motley assortment of professional drinkers. Jacques is determinedly drinking and smoking himself to death when he meets Lucas (Dano), a homeless young man who has already given up on life.  Determined to keep his legacy alive, Jacques deems Lucas is a fitting heir and takes him under his wing, schooling him in the male-centric laws of his alcoholic clubhouse: no new customers, no fraternizing with customers and, absolutely no women. Lucas is a quick study, but their friendship is put to the test when the distraught and beautiful April (Isild Le Besco) shows up at the bar seeking shelter, and Lucas insists they help her out.

    It’s Complicated – DVD Giveaway

    itscomplicated_posterI realize that this movie’s inclusion into such a testosterone fulled column is a little strange, weird even.

    Fact of the matter remains, though, that like LL Cool J, the ladies love me. Hey, it’s not a fact I really want to believe but how can I deny the 50% of my audience who carry the double X the opportunity to feel special? So, in that regard I am bringing you a contest to win one of a few DVDs for the latest cinematic gem from Nancy Meyers, directorial talent behind Something’s Gotta Give, What Women Want, and even The Holiday. Clearly, if you haven’t seen any of these movies you haven’t had a significant other in quite some time. On top of feeling sorry for you I am going to humbly request you not enter this contest as I want people who have an idea of what Hollywood thinks of love to get this little gem added to their collection.

    All you need to do in order to be entered into this drawing is to send me your name and address to Christopher_Stipp@yahoo.com.

    It’s Complicated is now out on DVD and Blu-ray

    More about the film:

    Jane (Streep) is the mother of three grown kids, owns a thriving Santa Barbara bakery/restaurant and has – after a decade of divorce – an amicable relationship with her ex-husband, attorney Jake (Baldwin). But when Jane and Jake find themselves out of town for their son’s college graduation, things start to get complicated. An innocent meal together turns into the unimaginable – an affair. With Jake remarried to the much younger Agness (Lake Bell), Jane is now, of all things, the other woman.

    Caught in the middle of their renewed romance is Adam (Martin), an architect hired to remodel Jane’s kitchen. Healing from a divorce of his own, Adam starts to fall for Jane, but soon realizes he’s become part of a love triangle. Should Jane and Jake move on with their lives, or is love truly lovelier the second time around? It’s…complicated.

  • TV Or Not TV: 4/26 – 5/2

    tvornottv-header.png

    When I first heard of the new ABC creepy-mystery-drama show I was hopeful just based on the cast. SAM NEILL, AMY ACKER, FRANCES CONROY and STEVEN WEBER are probably the most noteable and all have done great projects in the passed. NEILL’s performance definitely stands out but after watching this first episode I suppose I should add “confusing” to my hyphenated description of the show above.

    HAPPY TOWN is the nickname of Haplin, Minnesota where the show takes place. It’s a picturesque small town where everyone is civil, friendly and the town has no crime. The local bread factory employs over 10% of the townsfolk and give the town itself the scent of down home goodness. All of this, however, is simply window dressing on the surface. Wipe away the facade and you start to delve into a world that quickly confused me and required me to go back and view things again because I thought I must be getting set up with things I’m supposed to remember later.

    If you sit down to watch this first episode as well you will quickly become familiar with each of the key players in town. How do I know this? The main reason is the excessive exposition that each character gives when introduced to town newcomer HENLEY BOONE who has come to town to open a candle shop. This gives her the unfortunate job of being our proxy and having to meet each of these individuals that fall short of giving their complete biography.

    As the show progresses the confusion sets in. SAM NEILL lives in a boardinghouse where the third floor is off limits. The commercials elude to the town boogeyman which they have named THE MAGIC MAN who was responsible for citizens of the town dissapearing five yeras earlier, who may be returning. The town sheriff keeps mumbling the name CHLOE to himself. Where is all of this going?

    The biggest mystery of all for me is the fact that this first season of the show only has an 8 episode run. This in itself is an unusual number in television. It either speaks well of the show or bad of the executives at ABC that the first run was given an initial order greater than the standard 6. Regardless I’m sure ABC is hoping for a hit since, based on recent ratings, the network hasn’t found the heir to the LOST throne in either FLASHFORWARD or V. Either way it’s only 8 episodes, so I say based on this the show is at least worth checking out.

    HAPPY TOWN has it’s premiere at 10 PM this Wednesday, April 28th, on ABC.

    Now let’s look at what else the week holds.

    MONDAY

    NBC – 8:00 PM: Sarah and CHUCK take on a bunch of baddies while taking a train ride through Europe. The best part? Morgan is teamed up with Casey to try and find the two love birds. Expect lots of Casey grunting.

    TLC – 8:00 PM: Matt appoints himself the manager of Zach‘s World Dwarf Games soccer team and a disagreement over sponsorship may jeopardize Amy‘s position as a Dwarf Athletic Association board member on LITTLE PEOPLE, BIG WORLD. It just goes to show that no matter what the sport politics always comes in to play.

    DISC – 8:00 PM: If nothing else interests you on a Monday nigth how about three hours of MYTHBUSTERS? At least something really gets blown up, right?

    The CW – 9:00 PM: I don’t normally watch GOSSIP GIRL but tonight has special guest William Baldwin on so I figured it was worth noting. Carry on.

    TUESDAY

    FOX – 8:00 PM: Pop quiz hot shot: you have six contestants left on AMERICAN IDOL who are being mentored by Shania Twain and then have to perform her music. Most of America can’t name six of her hits. What do you do? WHAT DO YOU DO? (I’m hoping Big Mike sings Man! I Feel Like a Woman!). All kidding aside I wonder if Bowersox can actually find a tune to click with this week?

    ABC – 8:00 PM: I’ve never watched on day of DANCING WITH THE STARS but with the results show tonight the contestants have a swing dance competion. As a fan of Big Bad VodDoo Daddy I wouldn’t mind hearing and seeing some good swing.

    NBC – 8:00 PM: Yes my usual mentioning of THE BIGGEST LOSER is almost obligatory at this point because regardless of what they make the contestants do it’s still so gripping to see what they go through.

    FOX – 9:00 PM: GLEE already had me at Kurt trying to fix up his dad with Finn‘s mom, but add to the mix the return of KRISTIN CHENOWITH? I’ll be glued to my seat. I still have to wonder though how these other kids in the school never get annoyed by the GLEE member singing all over the halls. If it was my high school I’d have been beat down within minutes.

    MTV – 10:00 PM: I don’t watch THE HILLS but the title of the final season’s premiere tonight is titled Put On a Happy Face, which is exactly what Heidi‘s plastic surgeon did for her. Now the only way to get her mouth to frown is to make her do a head stand.

    WEDNESDAY

    ABC – 9:00 PM: If you were amazed during the holiday season to only see the top of Fred Willard‘s head on MODERN FAMILY and were craving more than your pay off is tonight as Phil‘s dad drops in for a visit.

    FOX – 8:00 PM: OK, I made fun of AMERICAN IDOL too soon. Turns out the stunt casting of mentor Shania Twain was to try to suck in all of the New Country fans out there. Furthering the movement? Lady Antebellum and Rascal Flatts perform on tonight’s results show. Very tricky IDOL. Very tricky indeed.

    ABC – 10:00 PM: Yeah, remember up top where I spetn quite a few paragraphs talking about HAPPY TOWN? Here it is.

    NBC – 10:00 PM: Can someone tell me how I had no idea that Sharon Stone was starting a four week special guest-star stint on LAW & ORDER: SVU?

    THURSDAY

    NBC – 8:00 PM: All is right in the universe again as we get all new episode of COMMUNITY, PARKS AND RECREATION, THE OFFICE and special guest star Will Forte on tonigth’s episode of 30 ROCK.

    CBS – 8:00 PM: Two swing votes hang in the balance at tribal council on tonight’s SURVIVOR: HEROES VS. VILLAINS.

    FRIDAY

    NBC – 8:00 PM: The final installment of WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE? has Spike Lee looking deeper into his family history.

    The CW – 8:00 PM: Anytime SMALLVILLE has an episode title like Sacrifice you just have to worry a little bit if everyone is going to come out alive by the episode end.

    CBS – 9:00 PM: Allison has a high-tech alarm installed after a neighbor his killed and she thinks the alarm may be communicating with her daughter Marie. Is this MEDIUM or a precursor to SKYNET?

    SATURDAY

    ABC – 8:00 PM: I only mention tonight’s airing of MEET THE FOCKERS because I always get a kick out of saying that Barbara Streisand is a real Mother Focker.

    BBCA – 9:00 PM: The really brilliant part of tonight’s DOCTOR WHO is Ian McNeice as Winston Churchill. The bit about that enemy from the Doctor‘s past wasn’t the best for me but it was still good TV all around. If nothing else the previews for next week’s episode The Time of Angels are a good reason to see it through.

    ABC FAMILY – 10:00 PM: Seriously, can someone please tell me how BILLY MADISON has any business being shown on a channel touting family values? I know, it’s not a puritan network or anything but still!

    SUNDAY

    FOX – 9:00 PM: Remember back in the sitcom days of old where the main characters would get stuck in a locked basement/office/meat locker and then they’d talk about all the fun times (and we’d see all the old clips)? Tonight FAMILY GUY does that with Brian and Stewie in a bank vault.

    ABC – 9:00 PM: Torchwood fans will be happy to know that they get more John Barrowman on tonight’s DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES as we see him finally catch up with Angie. Oh yeah, Lynette invited a psychopath to live with her, I’m sure that will play out well this week.

    DISNEY – 9:00 PM: I don’t know what it is about MEET THE ROBINSONS that makes it one of my preferred of the Disney CGI films but if your kids are up late they may enjoy this one too.

    A&E – 9:30 PM: If you’re like me you’ve always wondered what it would be like to see Gene Simmons in a bayou, right? If so than GENE SIMMONS FAMILY JEWELS seeks to fill our minds with wonder (and blatanlty scripted reality).

  • Trailer Park: TOY STORY 3, WHY WE LAUGH: BLACK COMEDIANS ON BLACK COMEDY, & The Phoenix Film Festival

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    Check out my new column, This Week In Trailers, at SlashFilm.com and follow me on TWITTER under the name: Stipp

    Toy Story 3 Footage Preview

    toystory3_poster_8So, I was able to see the first 70 minutes of Toy Story 3 this week.

    Watching the movie begin, hearing the reactions of the college students who literally grew up with this franchise, I was worried something wasn’t going to be right. That there was going to be something there on the screen I could no longer identify with a decade after Toy Story 2 debuted in the theaters. I was shocked that it’s been fifteen years since the first installment came out, the number 95 pasted on the runaway train in the opening sequence feeling like a tender callback to that time.

    I was worried, fraught with nervousness that somehow I made the wrong choice in finding my old college ID from, ironically enough, a decade ago in order to gain admittance to a “Cliffhanger” screening that was only going to show 70 of, ostensibly, a 90 minute movie. As the film, played out, though, I found more and more to love about a series that always stood for something more than just a movie about some toys. These were indelible characters imbued with a humanity that so many animated films simply failed to replicate. Buzz and Woody were more than just playthings. They were individuals who had emotions like you or I, not giving a thought to the fact they are toys and aren’t humans at all.

    Toy Story 3 makes you realize that this is alpha and omega of animated films because it makes you believe, with deceptive ease, that these machinations of a computer can truly move you. It was almost overwhelming when it hits you, that your friends were back in all their glory, never missing a beat.

    Some have asked why see a movie all the way to the 70 minute mark only to be denied the 20+ minutes left in the film. I know it doesn’t make much sense but when you’ve waited for ten years to see these characters that will never age, and realizing they’ve actually matured in the time since Jesse and Bullseye joined the crew, consuming 3/4ths of the film means that there is still a 1/4 of the movie I still have yet to enjoy. I can savor the delight that was Michael Keaton’s Ken, a true scene stealer. I can anticipate that there is far more to enjoy about Lots-O’-Huggin’ Bear. I know there will be a true moment of sadness still to come when Andy’s departure to college is finally dealt with. And I know that at least one of the characters, unfortunately, will stop speaking Spanish. (Such a fun part of this movie).

    I wanted to be able and talk like a fan, not a critic, of a movie that I genuinely enjoy by not spoiling any of the nuances that this movie strives to give those who have been fans of these movies for so long. I want to be able and talk about all those things that really pull at your heart, to say exactly why Jeff Garlin was an inspired choice for Buttercup, but it’s not my place to spoil anyone’s fun who has been waiting for a decade to see them all together again. I think my purpose here is to be one person to say that everything you hope this movie is, it is. I can’t wait to buy the soundtrack, to feverishly anticipate buying the Blu-ray when it comes out, to taking my kids to see it a few times on the big screen. It’s just that good. There are enough callbacks to the previous films to make it a great time for those who’ve seen the last two, enough “adult” jokes to make it fun for those of us who are harangued into seeing shoddily make kids films from studios who don’t care about being in touch with every member of the audience, and certainly enough emotion in the way the movie makes you care about each and every one of these toys. Especially when a tortilla has to step in for Mr. Potato Head, classic.

    The toys are definitely back and I cannot wait for June 18th. For me, and for my family. It’s hard not to spill about every little detail about what I saw but it was glorious, fantastic fun.

    About the movie:

    The creators of the beloved “Toy Story” films re-open the toy box and bring moviegoers back to the delightful world of Woody, Buzz and our favorite gang of toy characters in TOY STORY 3. Woody and Buzz had accepted that their owner Andy would grow up someday, but what happens when that day arrives? In the third installment, Andy is preparing to depart for college, leaving his loyal toys troubled about their uncertain future.

    Why We Laugh: Black Comedians on Black Comedy – DVD Review

    why-we-laugh-dvd-sWhen I was in my formative years as a youth I gravitated to comedians like Eddie Murphy, Richard Pryor, eating up movies like I’m Gonna Git You Sucka, and, eventually, the whole Wayans clan in In Living Color. I never gave thought to the provenance of the black comedic experience in America. Either out of ignorance or sheer stupidity I never recognized the nuance of how comedy evolved within the black community and its rather tumultuous origins.

    In the new Robert Townsend documentary, a film that played at Sundance last year to much acclaim, Why We Laugh: Black Comedians on Black Comedy is a powerful document to pour over and experience. In understanding how we ended up with Chris Rock, Townsend takes people on a journey that not only starts with minstrel shows and performers like Stepin Fetchit but the documentary excels in explaining the context of black performers who not only played roles that seem to sublimate the feelings of a people who were being marginalized but only appearing as fops, nitwits. The hideousness of blackface isn’t just written off as a practice that can be dismissed but, rather, comedians like Dick Gregory explain why performers did what they had to do and, in fact, some were being compensated well for their complicity.

    It doesn’t make the practice any less vile but the documentary takes the viewer down a well-reasoned path of those things which people have enjoyed but may have never thought to ponder. The struggles that the black community had to overcome, the civil rights era sparking a nationwide fire that rankled many people’s conventions, was expressed in the comedy that was being produced on stage. Again, it was comedians like Dick Gregory who channeled that and trans-morphed it into something that sharp, funny, and piercing. As the modern touchstones of comedy that many in my demo would know right away, Redd Foxx, Richard Pryor, Eddie Murphy, Bill Cosby, Chris Rock, it was Foxx and Cosby who would be the ones to not only transcend the racial barriers we had erected but were the ones to pull in the white audience into their collective experience. This documentary explains how it was more than just comedy to these performers. Some, as Townsend has said, only took the use of bad language and lacked the ability to incorporate social commentary but the movie is careful to pick apart these nuances in a way that shows each comedian for what they were able to accomplish.

    The interviews with the performers could not have been more of a delight as you not only get professorial opinions on the impact these people had to a community needing some kind of release but you get men and women who are usually only known for their outrageous behavior to just slow down for a moment and be real. Realness doesn’t stop with explaining why white people responded so well to Bill Cosby as one of the more introspective moments comes when talking about what Dave Chappelle did when he walked away from millions upon millions. The documentary is worth the price alone for listening to an explanation that is thoughtful, considerate, and wholly honest with regard to its implications.

    Where does black comedy go from here? If this documentary is to be believed it simply needs to keep doing what it has for over a century: be a voice to a community that needs to laugh. To make all of us laugh at a system that was once unjust and unwilling to accept the greatness that were these comedians who only happen, by function of birth, to be black.

    Why We Laugh will be available on April 27th.

    More about the DVD:

    “Why We Laugh” tracks the evolution of black comedy from the character of Stepin Fetchit and minstrels in blackface to the politically tinged humor of Dick Gregory, and from the television success of Good Times and The Jeffersons to the big-screen accomplishments of stars such as Eddie Murphy and Whoopi Goldberg. The film also turns a perceptive eye on the controversial career decision of Dave Chappelle and the implications of corporate efforts to capitalize on the massive success of Russell Simmons’s Def Comedy Jam and Spike Lee’s The Original Kings of Comedy.

    “‘Why We Laugh’ is a major historical contribution to American culture,” said Codeblack executive vice-president Quincy Newell. “This film is a tribute to the way one courageous person with a microphone can change history.”

    Newell produced the documentary which he co-wrote with John Long. The film is based on the book “Black Comedians on Black Comedy: How African-Americans Taught Us to Laugh,” by Darryl J. Littleton. Codeblack’s Clanagan, Richard Foos, and Littleton. Codeblack’s Clanagan, Richard Foos, and Littleton are executive producers on the project.

    Director Townsend has been at the forefront of black cinema for 30 years and received a Career Achievement Award from the American Black Film Festival in 2002.

    The 10th Annual Phoenix Film Festival By Ray Schillaci

    pff_logoFanfare please, for fun, excitement and a near technically flawless anniversary of PFF. Also, to the undaunted filmmakers who continue to provide a vision free of homogenized entertainment to a ravenously hungry public that is in desperate need of something more mature than CGI animals, flat comedies and pandering “movie-of-the-week” dramas that make their way to the big screen via inane studio deals. Now for the naysayers; yes, there were a few blips on the radar of technical difficulties, but compared to so many other film festivals PFF sparkled on their 10th anniversary.

    The parties were an energetic blast with a celebration of 80’s bands and a delirious disco night. The seminars and workshops proved both entertaining and informative while the Kid’s Day gave a glimpse of the limelight to the wide-eyed 5-12 year-old set. Aside from the independent fare higher profile films also graced the screens. Remarkable and touching performances from Martin Landau and Ellen Burstyn in the Arizona Premier of “Lovely, Still” played to packed houses. Audiences were also treated to George Gallo’s (Midnight Run, Bad Boys) “Middle Men” the new Joseph Fiennes drama “Against the Current” and the 2010 Sundance Selection “Mother and Child” with the impressive cast line up including Samuel L. Jackson. But the biggest enjoyable Easter egg to pop up was “Cyrus” starring John C Reilly, Marisa Tomie and Jonah Hill. I promised the studio no review until opening day. All I’ll say, you”˜ll have to salivate while you wait!

    Most independent brethren met with enthusiastic audiences and the hopes of getting seen in other markets. In my humble opinion; two stand outs delivered the goods with enjoyable performances and engaging stories that were executed in a very creative way. These films might not have won the accolades at the festival, but they certainly provided big laughs and a good time for all. Todd Berger’s “The Scenesters” takes a comic jab at “reality” shoots that is usually reserved for horror and succeeds tremendously while the co-creative team of “Hoodwinked” presented their brand of off-the-wall humor and applied it to a very funny road trip with “Jeffie Was Here”. Both films have the luck of an extremely talented cast and crew, but “Jeffie”¦” has a slight edge with a brilliantly comic timed performance by Peter Bedgood.

    jeffie20was20here20posterIn “Jeffie Was Here” Bedgood plays Alan who has his hands full with a thankless low-paying professor job, an over-sexed teacher’s assistant, a long-suffering girlfriend, unrelenting writer’s block and a pending road trip that needs funding. Enter Jeffie, the last person one would ask to share the ride with. He’s part wannabe musician, guru, tree-hugger and general pest. But Alan has his reasons for accepting his application and the results are priceless. Bedgood brings a fine mix of frustration/sorrow/regret and hilarity that has not been seen since the early days of Jack Lemmon. There have been comparisons to Tom Hanks, but I believe Peter Bedgood as Alan gives a far more sympathetic/pathetic performance than he’s been credited for. Also, Bedgood’s chemistry works amazingly well with the other performers. He could have been the center of attention, but instead he plays with his fellow thespians so well that nearly everyone’s performance shines brighter.

    Of course, the performances have to also be credited to the talents of director Todd Edwards who does double duty as Jeffie. Edwards’s direction at times is ingeniously daffy. From Alan’s living quarters to a tough man contest at a child’s birthday party in the barrio, it’s oddball humor that comes out of left field and hits a homerun with its audience. “Jeffie”¦” is not a throw-it-all-on-the-wall comedy and see what sticks. It’s a well calculated mature piece that has some adults acting like the children they have inside of them. I also have to mention Edwards’s very capable soundtrack that had me humming long after the movie was over.

    Aside from Peter Bedgood other notables are Alexis Rabin as Amanda in a wonderful heartfelt performance and an all too brief comic burst from Vanessa Ragland. Ragland’s eccentric Chastity (the teacher’s assistant) reminds one of a young Shirley MacLaine with a touch of Sandra Bernhard. She manages to be abrasive and engaging all at once. Speaking of abrasive, Cristine Rose (NBC’s Heroes) delivers a wonderful comic turn as Alan’s mother.

    still07-bedgood-jeffiewashereThen there is the character of the title, Jeffie. Director, Todd Edwards plays him with glee; annoying, scheming with a dash of bizarre innocence that keeps us guessing what is next on his agenda or does he even have one. If I had one criticism it would be the lack of an edge on the character of Jeffie’s part. If there was the slightest bit of danger that he exuded, the film could have set it itself up as a classic. After all, Jeffie holds all the cards. But perhaps the filmmakers did not want to take that chance with the possibility of alienating some of their audience. As it stands; “Jeffie”¦” has mass appeal.

    “Jeffie Was Here” provides unusual situations with laughs and a thought-provoking, satisfying ending that hearkens back to the comedies of the 70s and early 80s. At that time writers/directors like Paul Mazursky and Paul Bartel were not just looking for basic toilet humor, they demanded the audience to think as well as laugh. Writers Todd Edwards and Peter Bedgood accomplish that right mix of pathos and fun delivering a road trip that one looks forward to taking again.

    Word-of-mouth was already making its way through the festival with nearly every screening of “The Scenesters” providing packed houses. Smart, smug and clever as hell Todd Berger takes the unusual route of creating a very funny comedy by way of crime scene footage. What successful horror films have been able to accomplish on a micro-budget under the guise of “found footage” (Blair Witch Project, Paranormal Activity), Berger traverses the unstable route of comedy and creates a funky free-for-all of comic twists and turns.

    cu_knife003_scenestersartFrom the very beginning we are treated to a couple of low budget filmmakers seeking out their break and accidently discovering a new way of making money and possibly getting creative in the long run if they manage to manipulate their subject matter as crime scene videographers. Director Todd Berger and Producer Jeff Grace play the indomitable duo with all the fixings of a great comedy team. The chemistry is hilarious and lends a goofiness that is unwelcome in the serious public servant world making the film funnier than we expected. Berger uses a courtroom as his device to tell the story where he is challenged by notable guest stars Sherilyn Fenn (Twin Peaks) as the D.A. and director John Landis as a judge. How bizarre is that?

    With all the comical vignettes strung together through the courtroom one would think the film would leave the audience with a disjointed feeling. But Berger accomplishes a seamless story that more than satisfies the viewer. The acting is all too real and the situations regarding the search for a serial killer are quirky and at times uncomfortably funny. In fact, big laughs are found in this wacky take on surveillance tapes, news reports and documentary footage almost having you lose track of who’s doing what to who and how.

    Accompanying all the hilarity is a righteous soundtrack which makes one wonder, how the heck did these guys afford it. But nothing seems to have stopped director Berger and his cast and crew, not even budget constraints. These filmmakers are as undaunted as the characters they play. They obviously went to some very creative means to get what they wanted and deliver a film that has their ingenious mark on it. This is not a standard comedy; instead it’s a hip look into a new comic mind that has something to say and prove. I encourage everyone to take the challenge and enjoy the show.

  • TV Or Not TV: 4/19 – 4/25

    tvornottv-header.png

    Wow, what a week of TV we had.

    Welcome one and all to another bleak week of television!

    Every year I look at what my television viewings are this year and every time I”m a little bit at a loss for words.  At first I’m flabbergasted, then miffed, and finally I come to accept the schedule for what it is because I realize it’s that awkward period between the Nielsen ratings sweeps period. This particular lull is the one that falls right before the big sweeps period that pretty well dictates what the networks can charge for the advanced advertising sales on their shows for the upcoming fall season. Right now we’re one the precipice of that period.

    This is also a very painful period for me to write about television but it isn’t completely because of the lull. There’s not a lot of television that I’m really interested in watching currently. I’m sure part of the problem has been my fascination with getting caught up on the revival of DOCTOR WHO. This obsession, thankfully, is nearing an end thanks to my being well into the fourth series of the show and I’m about to move on to the specials that lead up to DAVID TENNANT’s leaving of the title roll.

    Speaking of the good DOCTOR now that the US premiere of the latest iteration of DOCTOR WHO has aired on BBC AMERICA I’m more free to talk about my likes and dislikes about the episode, of which there are many more of the former over the latter.

    I’d like to start by getting my complaint out of the way. The only thing I truly didn’t enjoy about this episode was the very opening of it as the TARDIS is hurtling through the skies of London and leading the DOCTOR to his next adventure. It was a bit on the slapstick side for me and it is the only part of the episode that just didn’t seem to fit in for me. I’d much rather have had a cold opening of young AMELIA POND praying to SANTA to take the crack out of her wall. There, I’ve said my piece on that. Let’s move on.

    The tone and humor in the new episode is something that I’ve thoroughly enjoyed upon multiple viewings. This new DOCTOR, acted by MATT SMITH, has a very kinetic cadence that plays well both verbally and physically. I had no problem at all accepting that he is now the DOCTOR and for that I think MR. SMITH should be commended. He understands the big shoes that the roll itself has and he fills them well.

    Another aspect that I really like about this new series is that in choosing his new companion the DOCTOR isn’t simply plucking someone out of their ordinary life into extraordinary circumstances. We meet AMELIA POND, or AMY as she is later known in the episode, in a manner reminiscent of new head writer STEPHEN MOFFAT’s series 2 episode THE GIRL IN THE FIREPLACE (yes, I know, I’ve covered this a bit before). AMELIA meets the DOCTOR at an early age and his presence has a very big impact on the young girl. TARDIS instability makes the DOCTOR’s promised five minute trip into 12 years and we can tell, after we have our bearings on who is who, that AMY has gone through a lot to cope with her first occurrence of the DOCTOR. Unlike other companions, however, she’s also had elements of this alien life around her for the greater part of her life as PRISONER ZERO hid in a room within her own home. She hasn’t just been exposed to greater universe, she’s been thrust into it for quite some time and the impact it has had runs deep.

    After multiple viewing I also have to question what direction the relationship between this DOCTOR and his companion will go. AMY has been obsessed with the DOCTOR for quite some time. She’s drawns cartoons of him, she’s made dolls of him and in a weird move  she’s even made her “sort of” boyfriend RORY dress up as the DOCTOR (although we don’t know when she’s done this, so maybe it’s just innocent). She’s spent the better part of her life trying to fill the void that the DOCTOR left in her after disappearing on her. Is she seeking to regain the father figure she feels she finally got back with his appearance or does it run deeper than that? Only future episodes can tell us.

    As I also mentioned before the episode features foreshadowing of bigger things to come. PRISONER ZERO tells the DOCTOR:

    The cracks in the skin of the universe ““ don’t you know where they came from? You don’t, do you? The Doctor in the TARDIS doesn’t know. The universe is cracked. The Pandorica will open. Silence will fall.“

    After now seeing the first three episodes of the season the cracks have continued so rest assured this wasn’t just babble placed in to confuse you. Keep an eye out for clues as to what whatever the PANDORICA is. I admit that subtle story-arc elements like this are what swept me up in the series so it’s nice to see them continue.

    FEELING GLEE-FUL?

    This last week the other powerhouse of FOX television returned on Tuesday at a special time in the form of GLEE. I was curious about where this episode was going to go since the 13th episode did such a good job as a coda for the season. Rivalries had played out, stories has seemed to come to completion, and there was hope for the future. Where would the show go?

    Since the show has another 9 hours to fill you just know that they had to tear apart a bit of what they had put together. RACHEL did a great job of smothering FINN to the point where he was easily lead away, WILL SCHUSTER jumped straight from a failed marriage to a relationship with EMMA that also has some early bumps to contend with, and of course SUE SYLVESTER returned with a vengeance in a plot line that was so ill-thought out that I’m surprised they used it. SUE slips a mickey into the principals drink and then takes pictures of herself with him in a cheap motel. Nothing happened and she states that he’ll have to let her return as the coach of the cheer squad to keep the photos from surfacing.  If you’ve got such powerful pictures why not just have him come up with a plausible reason to cancel the GLEE club you hate so much SUE? Oh yeah, then there would be no show. Never mind.

    The musical numbers in the episode were good and I’m sure the show will once again build up steam after this bumpy restart. We’ve got lots of great guests to look forward to including NEIL PATRICK HARRIS  in an episode directed by JOSS WHEDON. Can’t wait for that one.

    Well, since this is the second time within three weeks I’ve talked about DOCTOR WHO and I’ve already said too much about GLEE it’s probably best to move on to the other cracks in the universe which seem to have swallowed up just about anything that I really have an interesting in watching this week.

    MONDAY

    CBS – 8:00 PM: I’m sure TED almost looses his lunch when his Mom gets a bit bold with her public displays of affection to her fiance on tonight’s HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER.

    FOX – 9:00 PM: For the first time in 24 history JACK got some ‘action’ while on the clock. Too bad it didn’t end well for RENEE. Now JACK is going to go all MARTIN RIGGS on everyone, right?

    ABC – 9:28 PM: ALYSSA MILANO returns to television in an ensemble show where she’s a single mom getting back on the dating scene. I have no idea how this is different from COUGAR TOWN so I guess I’ll have to watch with the rest of you to find out.

    TUESDAY

    NBC – 8:00 PM: The contestants on THE BIGGEST LOSER get taken through a beach workout by  GABRIELLE REECE before one contestant gets some devastating news from home. If you’ve been an avid watcher I’m sure you know what it is.

    FOX – 9:00 PM: Just when you thought GLEE couldn’t get any… well… GLEE-kier they dedicate an entire show to ‘The Power of Madonna.’ I wasn’t aware that controversy and bad decisions was a power. Oh well.

    ABC – 9:00 PM: Honestly folks I am just as lost about LOST as you are. Only six more hours of the show left. Let’s just hang on and get through the rest of the ride, k?

    WEDNESDAY

    FOX – 8:00 PM: The performance driven AMERICAN IDOL special IDOL GIVES BACK returns this year with 1 hour and fifty minutes of them asking for kindness and charity before 10 minutes of crushing the spirit and soul of a young hopeful as they tally the votes. Will a contestant get a reprieve like two years ago? You’ll have to watch to see (because I probably won’t).

    ABC – 9:00 PM: Even though they are repeats an hour of MODERN FAMILY is still an hour of MODERN FAMILY, know what I’m sayin’?

    THURSDAY

    NBC – 8:00 PM: JEFF, TROY, and a chicken finger shortage are central to the plot of tonight’s episode of COMMUNITY.

    CBS – 8:00 PM: If you saw last week’s SURVIVOR: HEROES VS. VILLAINS than you saw some of the best reality TV to unfold in a long while. Seriously, wow.

    NBC 8:30 PM: What’s better than an episode of 30 ROCK at 8:30? The fact that at 9:30 there’s another episode as well.

    FRIDAY

    NBC – 8:00 PM: WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE? returns this week with actress SUSAN SARANDON. For once I won’t dig on this show just because of all she’s accomplished.

    ABC – 9:00 PM: Does anyone know if tonight is the last episode of JAMIE OLIVER’S FOOD REVOLUTION? I’m too lazy to look up if it was just a six episode pick up or not.

    STARZ – 10:00 PM: One of the STARZ originals that I really enjoyed for it’s simplicity is the show PARTY DOWN. MEGAN MULLALLY takes a break from singing about margarine to guest in the second season to take the place of JANE LYNCH and other than that it’s the same crew of catering hopefuls.

    SATURDAY

    ABC – 8:00 PM: I’m sure after all of EDDI MURPHEY’s KLUMP action the producers of NORBIT were convinced they had a shoe in for a money maker on their hands. If you watch it for free tonight you’ll see why they were oh so painfully mistaken.

    SYFY – 9:00 PM: No MOTHMAN has nothing to do with Godzilla. The West Virginian monster of myth some how comes back to get revenge on childhood friends who cover up an accidental murder (I hate it when those accidental murders happen). Too bad there’s not some better science fiction on tonight. Oh, wait….

    BBC AMERICA – 9:00 PM: This week DOCTOR WHO lands on the STARSHIP UK as AMY POND gets her first real taste of traveling with the DOCTOR. If you missed the premiere last week you can catch it at 8:00 PM right before this airs.

    SUNDAY

    ABC – 9:00 PM: Tonight on DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES they go all retrospective on the FAIRFIELD STRANGLER complete with his own flashbacks! Nothing says entertainment like THIS IS YOUR LIFE for the neighborhood psychopath.

    NBC – 9:00 PM: The teams on CELEBRITY APPRENTICE have to create celebrity workout classes at a fitness center. Too bad most of them have no idea what a celebrity would even do during a workout.

    A&E – 9:30 PM: Some of the best completely staged incidents on GENE SIMMONS FAMILY JEWELS happen when NICK is involved and tonight he has to entertain the son of a potential client of his dads. I’m popping popcorn for this one.

  • Trailer Park: KICK-ASS Review

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    Check out my new column, This Week In Trailers, at SlashFilm.com and follow me on TWITTER under the name: Stipp

    The Basketball Diaries – Blu-ray Review

    diary

    I wouldn’t say it if I didn’t believe it but this is without question the best film Leonardo DiCaprio has ever done.

    A story about the young life of Jim Carroll, the film is an abrasive, dark, evocative portrait that showcases DiCaprio as an actor that seamlessly blends into the background of a story that is nothing short of compelling. Now in Blu-ray this is a wonderful chance to revisit a movie that helped Leo be known as an actor to contend with but, I think, the real joy in re-watching this movie is its dealing with drug culture that wasn’t proselytizing in nature but exposed it for what it was.

    There was no joy in addiction other than the satisfaction we get in seeing DiCaprio bang on the door of his mother’s home begging for money in order to score another fix. It’s a moment that is not only jolting but it still manages to get underneath your skin over a decade and a half later. It was years before Trainspotting peeled back the top layer of drug addiction and it was certainly long before Darren Aronofsky made the quintessential tale of the depraved depths that addiction will push you to. What’s more about this film is that the narrative blends fantasy and reality in a way that reflects Carroll’s poetic sensitivities. Looking at it now, the sequences showing DiCaprio finding strength in his writing, trying to exert a level of control and coolness to a life clearly out of control, are this film’s strength. This would be just another coming of age film, drugs being the only real stand-out, had there not been a blending in of Carroll’s perception.

    I could not recommend checking out this classic any more than I am now, a movie starring a kid who was perfectly suited for a role of a lifetime. It’s that boyish look that prevents me from seeing him as anything but a young Jim Carroll who was bound by the demons that would never ever let him go.

    About the film:

    Based on the autobiographical journals of poet Jim Carroll, BASKETBALL DIARIES follows the descent of a Catholic high school student from star basketball player to drug addict. Jim (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his friends roam the streets of New York City as goof-offs, petty thieves, and junkies. Expelled from school for using drugs before a game, Jim is also thrown out of his house and takes up street hustling. A pre-superstardom DiCaprio gives a strong performance in this gritty and uncompromising look at being young and streetwise.

    mammoth_3d_lMammoth – DVD Review

    Gael Garcia Bernal is an actor who blurs the line between what is supposed to be real and what is fiction. His delivery is so effortless and so smooth that you half wonder where he ends and where Leo, the protagonist of this film, begins. It’s almost like one of those singers who you swear is just speaking the lyrics, but, as Leo, Bernal embodies the role of a distant parent with a power that audiences need to see.

    Left to wither in the multiplex the movie is now on video and it very easily could become the best movie you’ll see this month if people open themselves to a movie that deals with divergent plot lines in a story that never stagnates and is always moving. With a mom who is trying her best but isn’t trying hard enough in her personal life, to a nanny raising her kid who pines for the sons she left behind in the Philippines, and to a father who comes face to face with the very real problem of the sex trade you have a movie that won’t earn a place on any US Weekly Best Of lists for the ladies anytime soon.

    Rather, this is a movie that demands your open mind as you watch a family in freefall on their way to a collision course when decisions, the right ones anyway, aren’t made. Michelle Williams shines just as brightly as Bernal but what’s shocking about this movie is that more people don’t know about it. Just as provocative as anything Michael Haneke has put out what’s special about filmmaker Lukas Moodysson’s vision is that, unlike Funny Games, there is a point here. Hopefully you see it by the time you make it to the end.

    About the film:

    Thanks to the Internet and cell phones, we live in a state of virtually complete, global connectedness ““ but in his latest film, writer-director Lukas Moodysson reveals that true human connection may be more fragile than ever.

    Mammoth revolves around successful New York couple Leo (Gael Garcia Bernal) and Ellen (Michelle Williams). Leo is the creator of a booming website, and has stumbled into a world of money and big decisions. Ellen is a dedicated emergency surgeon who devotes her long shifts to saving lives. Their 8-year old daughter Jackie (Sophie Nyweide) spends most of her time with her Filipino nanny Gloria (Marife Necesito), a situation that is making Ellen start to question her priorities. When Leo travels to Thailand on business, he unwittingly sets off a chain of events that will have dramatic consequences for everyone.

    MAMMOTH is the first English-language film from the award-winning Swedish director Lukas Moodysson

    The Baader Meinhof Complex – DVD Review

    baaderdvd2dhrsm

    I’ll admit that I was intrigued by the lilting pronouncing of this movie’s title.

    After getting past the superficiality, however, this movie is explosive in the way it deconstructs what it means to be agents of terror. It turns the black and white lines between terrorist and agent of meaningful change into shades of gray. Dealing with individuals operating in West Germany in the early part of the 1970s, those who were allowed the kinds of freedoms that their oppressed neighbors to the east were still dealing with, the movie looks at the group who saw American involvement in Vietnam and virtually every government movement as a step closer to what they saw as fascism. How could you not be sympathetic for those who were raised out of the ashes of World War II, the dead leader of their country responsible for millions of innocent lives lost, and were overly sensitive to prevent the very same thing from happening again.

    The irony of this hyper vigilance, however, is that this group comes off the rails and employs the very same tactics they ostensibly eschewed as the basis for their very reason of being. The film takes a hard and difficult look at a group that had a great initial idea but who were consumed by their own paranoia and propaganda. It hopefully will find a new life on DVD where you can see how even those who are looking to create a peaceful society will turn to violence as a means to their ends.

    The story is chilling but the film is a wonderful document to that period in time and place.

    About the film:

    In the early 1970s, West Germany began to see the foundations of its still-young postwar democracy shaken by a group of self-described Communists and urban guerrillas who called themselves the Red Army Faction. These children of the World War II generation lashed out at what they deemed to be the new face of fascism: American imperialism supported by the German establishment, many of whom had a Nazi past. Through a series of kidnappings, assassinations and bombings, the RAF ““ called the Baader-Meinhof Group in the media, after the names of two of its leaders ““ kept West Germany in a state of terror for years.

    Director Uli Edel (“Last Exit to Brooklyn,” “The Mists of Avalon”) has adapted Der Spiegel Chief Editor Stefan Aust’s award-winning book about the group in THE BAADER MEINHOF COMPLEX, whose cast features many leading German stars: Moritz Bleibtrau (“Speed Racer,” “Munich”) as Andreas Baader, Martina Gedeck (“The Good Shepherd”) as Ulrich Meinhof, Johanna Wokalek (“North Face) as Gudrun Ensslin and Nadja Uhl (“What to Do in Case of Fire”) as Brigitte Monhaupt. Edel brings to life a group who, while claiming to want to create a more human society, employ inhuman means by which they not only spread terror and bloodshed, they also lose their own humanity. The man who understands them best is also their hunter: the head of the German police force, Horst Herold (Bruno Ganz, “Downfall,” “Wings of Desire”).

    Acclaim for THE BAADER MEINHOF COMPLEX has been universal. “Electrifying” (The Austin Chronicle), “gripping” (The Washington Post) and “fascinating” (The Los Angeles Times) are just some of the critical superlatives bestowed on the film. Mick LaSalle of The San Francisco Chronicle said it’s “a rare epic that deserves every minute of its length.” The New York Times’ Manohla Dargis called it “a taut, unnerving, forcefully unromantic film.” The Times also listed it as Honorable Mention in its Top 10 movies of 2009.

    Among its many industry accolades, THE BAADER MEINHOF COMPLEX was nominated for Best Foreign-Language Film at the Academy Awards, the Golden Globes and the BAFTA awards, and won the top prize at the Bavarian Film Awards.

    The distinctive DVD/Blu-ray cover art is by Shepard Fairey, whose Barack Obama “Hope” poster has become an icon of our times.

    Uncertainty – DVD Review

    uncertainty_3d_l

    I didn’t know what to make out of a film that had a clever idea: explore two different storylines and see both of them to their cinematic end.

    While it initially sounds gimmicky, and it might have led people away from it when it came out last year, just see how Sliding Doors fared at the box office when you incorporate multiple “What If” scenarios into a movie, the end product makes for a genuinely good time in the secondary market. It’s the kind of film that was designed for DVD as it does deliver on the promise for a good night at home.

    Starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt ((500) Days of Summer) and Lynn Collins (Wolverine) the movie does play a game of “What if…” with the film’s protagonists as decisions drag them down two different paths, having us follow in its wake to see how these things turn out. The filmmaking gimmick works for me, though, as I was unsure whether it would when it was out in the theaters and actually kept me from looking into it further but I like that I had the chance to give it another opportunity because the result is two short stories, separated by only a coin toss that started all of this fuss in the first place.

    It would be too much to explain what kind of wackiness ensues with both stories but the key here is that they are short stories and should be enjoyed as little vignettes that, by themselves, wouldn’t have made for much of a  film but, condensed, they are perfectly suited in a movie like this. From a found cell phone to a found dog there is no limit to the inventiveness, if not unbelievable, that screenwriters/directors Scott McGehee and David Siegel are able to infuse into the production of this movie.

    On the whole, be it the dramatic yarn or the more thriller-ish story that has these kids running all around the film stacks up well against some of the ligher fare that has been passing for entertainment as of late. Put this one on your list and see if a little Sliding Doors 2.0 is right for you.

    About the film:

    Responsibility clashes with freedom as a young New York City couple experiences two decidedly different holidays in this drama from filmmaking duo David Siegel and Scott McGehee (SUTURE, THE DEEP END). It’s the Fourth of July, and Kate and Bobby are struggling to make a decision: do they stick with tradition and spend the weekend with Kate’s family, or do they set out on their own for a spontaneous adventure?

    After making their initial decision, an alternate narrative emerges to show just what would have happened had they chosen to do otherwise. While the decision-making process may seem mundane, the implications of each choice are profound. Sure, a holiday with the family doesn’t seem nearly as exciting as an impromptu romantic trip, but that doesn’t mean it will be any less dramatic.

    As the stories diverge and a “what if” scenario becomes reality, it soon becomes apparent how much one seemingly minor decision can ultimately affect the rest of our lives.

    KICK-ASS – Review

    final-kick-ass-poster_328x480How I wish this could have been solely Nicolas Cage and Chloe Moretz’ film.

    In effect, Kick-Ass, the latest from writer/director Matthew Vaughn, doesn’t suffer so much from a marginally interesting protagonist in Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson) who plays the titular superhero, taking on crime without powers of his own, it’s the story of how a father can devolve into pathos that is the real fuel to this film’s power. It’s certainly the most interesting story in this movie as the role of murderous vigilante is played with a kind of joie de vivre by Nicolas Cage as Big Daddy. Seeing him dispatching thugs and Mafioso types, each and every one oozing the uninspired sameness of archetypes that have been done better years before it’s become such a standard, Cage absolutely steals this movie away from Johnson as does Chloe Moretz who plays Hit-Girl and thankfully so. Moretz, in comparison, schools an ignorant and ostensibly innocent everyman who radiates nothing but a juvenile charm in the ways of street justice that are not only hilariously concocted but they drive the best parts of this film. Moretz and Cage: the real dynamic duo.

    It’s not that Johnson doesn’t have a lot to do. When we come upon this small town  he’s not liked by many of his peers, where girls ignore his every advance, and where mugging a comic book nerd seems to be commonplace. There’s nothing really extraordinary about him and even the meager scraps we’re given about his life don’t add up to anything interesting. So, as the ridiculous blandness of his life becomes too much it all seems to coalesce into a teenage fantasy of wish fulfillment as he sets his thoughts and misguided ambitions into becoming a vigilante of justice. Armed with only a couple of night sticks and a green wetsuit we find he isn’t very good at becoming the defender of the law, he can’t even defend himself. The boy is pummeled, stabbed and hit by a speeding bus the first day into the job and is taken to the hospital after failing to administer a little street justice but what makes this movie fail to live up to the promise of showing what would really happen if a kid took matters into his own hands and fulfilled his superhero dreams is that the plebe was unmasked and identified by medical professionals who had to in order to help save his life. Thus making his secret identity moot. The story ought to have stopped there with him yet he is able to keep not only the ambulance technicians hush about this incident when he gets in the news for performing great acts of bravery, this information is somehow lost to the ephemera. It’s disingenuous and only slightly insulting to the other characters, Big Daddy and Hit Girl, who actually value their secrecy.

    No matter, however, as it’s Cage and Moretz who provide a richer comic book tale that I only wish could have been delved into with greater detail. Detail only because you have a father/daughter relationship predicated on violence and the application of that violence in order to reach a certain end. Cage was once a decorated officer of the police department who is wrongly accused of a crime he didn’t commit, not anything real original about that, but, on his release, becomes something dark and sinister that knows no regard for the law he once served. And this is where the real thrill of Kick-Ass comes in. It’s in the application of the skills that Cage has passed down to his daughter without any regard to the insanity of doing such a thing, a 11 year-old girl delivering pain, death, and misery with a macabre sense of humor to those she murders that is the genuine thrill of this movie. Vaughn clearly loves this pair as the moments we share where these two are allowed to showcase their skills in well used slo-mo, and where Cage is able to stammer through his verbal cadence which has a delectable piquancy, are priceless.

    Sure, we could talk about how Aaron Johnson uses his newly found glory as a masked super hero who takes to walking the streets to fight crime and launches a mania within the city for people to embrace this character with the kind of merchandising campaign usually reserved for Mickey Mouse but why bother? He’s a frustrated geek who wants more out of his existence and genuinely wants to effect change in his life and the lives of others who might have otherwise suffered at the hands of generic thugs committing petty crimes. It’s not a completely wasted storyline but it’s not the reason the right people will appreciate this film. It may be for Christopher Mintz-Plasse’s turn as Red Mist who is equal parts toadie and hilariously inept human being, reminding me a lot of Teddy Beckersted from One Crazy Summer, but he too becomes a perfunctory part of the story.

    Again, it’s Cage’s efforts to get to mafia boss Frank D’Amico (played adequately by Mark Strong) which provide the best shotgun bang for your buck. It’s not Dave Lizewski who causes such a stir within the D’Amico organization, it is Big Daddy and Hit-Girl who are the catalysts for much of what makes this movie so thrilling to experience. When Daddy and Kick-Ass find themselves in a lurch with no way out it is the actions and exciting quick moves of Hit-Girl where the movie dynamically shifts from wondering whether Kick-Ass survives this chance encounter to the audience being concerned for the fate of Daddy. It is this sequence, awful digital squibs aside which plagues every moment when a weapon is used on another human being whether for effect or for economy, a distraction either way that you can’t help but noticing, that perfectly captures the essence of Vaughn’s vision. In this moment, I would assert, it’s not Kick-Ass that is of any concern to the viewer. The events that are set into motion after this help lead us to the film’s dénouement and lets us finally fully experience Hit-Girl doing what she does best.

    As a rhetorical statement, where is Kick-Ass in all of this? Relegated to a final token moment and a half-assed, if you will, fist fight that succinctly shows that the real appeal is Moretz’ own development as a character and how she can come through the other side a changed person is the real draw. It’s fantastic, the action is vibrant, and there is a real sense of accomplishment in allowing the viewer to see how ordinary people react when put into extraordinary situations is far less thrilling to see how extraordinary people, like Big Daddy and Hit-Girl, thrive in extraordinary situations.

    Cage and Moretz push the boundaries of what’s acceptable in the superhero genre, out sociopathing even Bruce Wayne, and it’s these two who deserve the dollops of praise that will be heaped on the film. The foul language, the bad jokes, the twisted family life, the little nuances that are both funny and frightening, it all adds up to exactly the kind of film that feels like a comic book come to life.

  • Opinion In A Haystack: Toilets, Heroes & Hot Tubs

    haystackheader.jpg

    commode

    A gathering of interesting movie moments in the most interesting of places.

    The bathroom is a common nexus of interest for all races, creeds, cultures, and types. It’s the one place in the home that exudes great comedy, deep philosophical thought, painful moments of realization and regret, and vulnerable tasks where we are at our most transparent. So, of course cinema has kicked down the door to this bastion of privacy on many occasions to make light of all that which can happen in the suburban Narnia that is the “john.” This is just Volume 1… I plan to do more, this is not a top 5 list or anything so calm down!

    a70-5214

    Opportunity Knocks (1990) ““ Dana Carvey lectures Robert Loggia into submission.

    Watch it here.

    Our first film scene of choice, where a young Garth Algar speaks of the layered mental exercises that the “crapper” holds for us all. Opportunity Knocks is one of those rare pre-fame movies, 2 years before Wayne’s World, that is actually surprisingly good. Carvey plays a con man who is posing as a rich/smart business man. Here we see him convince a boardroom that you could sell ad space by putting corporate messages on the back of bathroom stall doors. Robert Loggia is pleased.

    dreamcatcher

    Dreamcatcher (2003) ““ Jason Lee risks his ass for a toothpick. Literally.

    Watch it here:

    Lawrence Kasdan’s Dreamcatcher is not a particularly good movie. It’s a good half-a-movie at best, we’ll give it that. Here we see Jason Lee as the toothpick obsessed Beaver. He is so obsessed in fact, that is he’s willing to risk the release of an unknown carnivorous slug monster just to grab a toothpick that HAPPENS not to be sitting in one of the plethora of blood puddles all over the bathroom. You know, the blood from the last guy who was in there. I know Rain Man will always be associated with toothpicks, but Jason Lee give Hoffman a run for his money. Toothpicks: They’re worth the risk!

    ghoulies_2_poster_01

    Ghoulies II (1988) ““ J. Downing gets eaten, starting with his anus.

    Watch it here:

    Ghoulies part duex is really the movie that gave me the urge to write about bathroom scenes. A movie so infamous for its toilet scene that they put it on the poster. You see, ever since childhood, J. Downing’s death confused me. What exactly happened in that carnival outhouse? Did he just sit there screaming while the Ghoulie ate slowly through his anus, balls, dick, legs, and torso and eventually head? How long, exactly, did it take him to die? How come once he starts to experience pain he doesn’t stand up? Is he able to stand up? Surely while the Ghoulie is chewing on his chunks of flesh he has time to stand up and open that door… truly one of life’s many mysteries.

    summer_school

    Summer School (1987) ““ Mark Harmon questions a student’s attendance.

    Watch the first part here. Skip to 1:20, stop at 1:36…

    Watch the second part here. Skip to 2:52, stop at 3:04…

    Ok, this isn’t really a “bathroom scene” as neither part takes place in a bathroom, but I wanted to include it merely because we have a character claiming to have spent 6 entire weeks in the toilet, struggling with a stubborn zipper. Now, of course the student didn’t spend the 6 weeks in the bathroom, he was just lying, still, the hilarity of him keeping the bathroom pass is enough to sell me on putting this on the list, not to mention he got a 91% on the test. If only Director Carl Reiner would have made a sequel that revealed he was actually in the bathroom for 6 whole weeks. That could have been the “Back To The Future 2“-esque plot to Summer School 2: Zipper Trouble.

    jurassic_park_movie_logo

    Jurassic Park (1993) ““ No introduction necessary.

    Watch it here:

    What better way to end volume 1 of Commode Commotion with quite possibly the most famous toilet scene in all of mainstream film. You’ve seen it a thousand times, and you could see it a thousand more. Just the sentence describing it is enough to cause giggling fits of AWESOME. “A Tyrannosaurus Rex crashes into a bathroom, questioningly stares at a lawyer sitting on a toilet, then subsequently almost bites him in half.” It is a rather beautiful metaphor for life, “when you gotta go, you GOTTA GO…but prepare to die horribly.” And that kids, is why Spielberg, despite his mistakes, is a grandmaster of his craft.

    A few things about Kick-Ass:

    kick-ass-movie-trailer

    When it comes to movie monikers and the promises they hold over them, I always think of Rob Zombie’s failure to give us 1000 corpses. Sometimes a movie doesn’t even need to be good, satisfying the lust that the title creates can be nourishment enough for some of us. Bill was most certainly killed, that temple was most certainly “of doom,” and Peewee went on a rather large adventure, so why couldn’t Zombie just give us corpses? Sure, there was a tunnel of approximately a thousand skeletons, but Mr. Zombie, bones do not a flesh-covered-corpse make! Delivering on the title is not always of import, yet its always pleasurable to see a movie with such an enthusiastically positive title be so much fun that its titular line can be used to describe itself. Most likely, cynical or no, the entire internet will be exploding with the all-to-easy phrase: “KICK-ASS KICKS A… sorry, I can’t do it.” Of course, we will get plenty of people doing this:

    “KICK-ASS? IT SURE DOES!”

    or perhaps a lot of prefacing:

    “HATE TO SAY IT, BUT KICK-ASS IS EXACTLY THAT!”

    Do you really hate to say it? Also, we’ll get a lot of people going outside said box:

    “KICK-ASS PUNTS BUTT”

    or lazy negative reviews:

    “KICK-ASS LICK’S ASS”

    or censored reviews from angry family-values websites:

    “KICK-A#S KICKS MORALS OUT THE DOOR!”

    or censored reviews from angry family-values websites that don’t get irony:

    “KICK-A#S IS A F@#KING PILE OF MORALLY BANKRUPT SH#T!”

    or you get the real self-involved ego cases, trying to be so cool:

    “KICK-ASS KICKS A… sorry I can’t do it.”

    In the end, you just have to give in. Since I saw this film, without fail, whenever anyone brings it up, like a L7-Weenie (is that a term? I stole it from The Sandlot) I blurt out that the movie does in fact “kick ass.” It begins to snowball to the point where you realize that your first instinct when verbally praising anything is to say it “kicks ass,” then you find out that you’ve been describing everything positive in your life as “kick ass” for 20 years and your essentially a caveman with the ability to grunt half-legible mystery tones. This is what Matthew Vaughn’s Kick-Ass did to me, it was so enjoyable I learned I was a Neanderthal on the verge of de-evolution, living on the edge of a knife blade made of cave paintings and liquid-dinosaur-fecal-matter. Why it’s liquid as opposed to healthy dinosaur droppings I have no idea, but you’d think that eating germ-laden cavemen would… wait, getting off topic, right…

    “Kick-Ass? AND BOY DOES IT!”

    Seriously though, never has the internet (or it’s “generation”) ever encountered a movie that actually begs for vulgarity-filled two-word descriptive reviews. Pay attention all you kids on Youtube and Talkbacks, this is the only movie where legit critics might give you a begrudging pass for saying it “Kicks Ass!” Enough over-obsessing about the title, how’s the movie? Well, having read Mark Millar and John Romita Jr.’s extremely enjoyable graphic novel, I can say with confidence that the movie is accurate where it needs to be, but diverges from the book when it requires breathing room. It’s thankfully, not accurate to a fault, like some would cite Watchmen as being. The film is made with so much enthusiasm that it renders all the changes very welcomed and in some cases better that the source material. SOME cases.

    kickass2

    Having never seen Layer Cake, and being almost entirely indifferent to Stardust, Matthew Vaughn’s direction has kind of been a ghost to my realm of perception. That is, of course, until walking out of the theater post KICK-ASS. His ability to wrangle in the comic’s grounded reality, keep his actors spouting off with sharp comedic timing, and keeping the whole thing from possibly spinning out into oblivion is quite a thing of beauty. Get down on your knees, and pray to the gods of Mt. Cinemus that Vaughn not only sticks with this franchise but with this comedy/action/crime thriller mulit-genre type of film, because films like this, done right, are often a rare success. Kick-Ass juggles all of its components much like great family film comedies often do (Ala Galaxy Quest,) all the different genres and tones are there, they have heart, and they have been fashioned to fit together like a toaster and a Pop-tart (or, for you privileged kids, a Toaster Strudel.) Kick-Ass is like those films, with the addition of extreme violence, course language, and a young girl spilling loads of gangster blood. A little something for everyone.

    kickass1kj09-07-02

    The stand out performances for me were Mark Strong as Frank D’Amico and Chloe Moretz as Hit-girl. Strong seems to get better with every performance, to the point where I think he could be headlining a film, however, there’s no shame in being a superb character actor, especially one whose specialty is villains. Moretz’s Hit-Girl is obviously the centerpiece of controversy, and to hear my one friend talk about her character I felt guilty for not being more jangled. While I find a young girl spouting ultra-vulgarity and violently bloodletting gang members “funny” and “cool,” I in now way was shocked. Perhaps it was the spoilers of the red band trailer, perhaps it was just that I accepted the “age” joke and moved on, but the shock value of Hit-Girl was not why she stood out. Moretz surprisingly confident performance made me honestly forget her age, she carries with her the mojo of a fully grown action star. If there was anything to nitpick about the movie, for me it would be my slight dislike of how “slick” Hit-Girl’s action scenes were. Her fights were bordering on Matrix/Watchmen territory, considering the slo-mo and the flips, I think a grittier pre-“˜90s style of fighting and filming would have served the movie better, but it’s a small nitpick. Aaron Johnson, while not physically resembling his comic counterpart is a great find and does an excellent job as Kick-Ass himself. The comedy gold medal of the movie goes to Nic Cage, which his in-costume Adam West homage. This could be a joke lost on younger generations, many of them thinking Cage’s acting is responsible for his delivery, but hopefully their familiarity with the Mayor of Quahog will spell it out for them.

    kick_ass_photo02-535x356

    Is the movie worth a ticket price? Let’s put it this way: Watch the trailer and pay close attention to the moment when Hit-Girl introduces herself. Please note the slight gust of wind that wisps through her pink hair as she says her name with an all too devilish grin. If that kind of self-aware humor/filmmaking usually speaks to you, then you will absolutely LOVE Kick-Ass. So, in summation:

    “KICK-ASS, KICKS AS… really sorry, I just can’t.”

    hottub

    A short complaint about HOT TUB TIME MACHINE and a Semi-open letter to Director Steve Pink:

    Time-Travel? Check. The “˜80s? Check. Chevy Chase? Check. Crispin Glover? Check. Cusack? Check. A message about the importance of friendship and its deterioration into adulthood? Check? Silly? Check. Funny? Check. Aware of itself? Check. Motley Crue? Check.

    Reviewing Hot Tub without my own bias, and overly enthusiastic slant, is pointless due to almost every aspect of the film personally speaking to me. It’s as if the writers and director Steve Pink reached into my eye sockets and made love to all the mush they found in my skull. As I’ve said on this column before, my favorite film ever is Back To The Future (such a daring choice I know,) a fact that I annoyingly never let anyone forget. So trust me when I say that my friends and loved ones could attest to my take on Hot Tub being bias as fact, and I would let them… if I wasn’t still 50% suspicious that my friends might not exist (yet, that’s a discussion for another day.) Other than that, I think, bias aside, that the movie has its flaws but is genuinely a good time. However, to me, it was an orgasm atop Mt. Facemeltertron (note to geologists: I renamed Everest “Facemeltertron,” so spread the word.)

    All of that being said, the theatrical cut of the movie has a despicable, atrocious sore on it that angered me to the point of… uh… anger. I was fortunate enough to attend one of the early advance-screenings of the film, so early in fact that the opening and closing credits were very different from what the movie opened with in March, which is fine, the new credits looked good. The theatrical cut, unfortunately sported less Chevy Chase and fortunately much more cleaned up special-effects. The detestable, disgusting, anti-comedic moment of garbage that was added to the theatrical cut is a simple singular line of additionally recorded dialogue by Clark Duke, while he’s off screen. I doubt it’s considered a spoiler to say that they eventually travel back in time to present day, so there, I just said it. So, the moment they are “traveling” back, they are apparently seeing glimpses of all the years in between, so the “˜90s and the “˜00s. Right before the hot tub spits them back out into 2010 we get the putrid, depressingly unfunny quip from Duke: “NO TIGER, DON’T TEXT THOSE CHICKS!” Yes. That’s right. A lamer than lame, added-in-post, jab at Tiger Woods? REALLY?!?!

    Not only was the line obviously added in after the fact, but it was damn near illegible to the human ear. There are many things I will fail to put into words here, like just how much I don’t even remotely care about Tiger Woods, his marital infidelity, and the enormous mountain (Facemeltertron) of reasons why the joke doesn’t belong in this movie. However, I’ll ask this: Why take a silly, funny, enjoyable movie that you made and cheapen it for an already stale topical joke such as this? Film is not TV, it doesn’t need to thrive on current events and timely gossip, and in fact it strives for a “timeless” nature at its apex. Characters in the story can be products of their time, but when you start adding in jokes that were only funny for two days, not even that, is when the phrase “product of its time” no longer applies, it is now a “product of this MONTH.” Yes I realize it is just a silly comedy, but comedy is just as important a genre as any other, and I take it seriously, sue me. So, Steve Pink, what happened? Did you get Aaron Seltzer and Jason Friedberg to come in at last minute and spruce up your final edit? Were your grandparents watching a Jay Leno monologue and taking notes for you before the last ADR session? Did you get blackmailed by a TMZ employee? Do the fans of your film a favor and make a DVD/Bluray cut worth owning. Normally I wouldn’t have the audacity to tell someone what to do with THEIR film, but in this case I know the Tiger-free-cut exists, I saw it for myself on the big screen.

    Thanks for reading. I’m Bob Rose, the man who re-moniker-ed Mt. Everest.

  • Comics in Context #240: Wimpy in Love

    comicsincontext4.jpg

    # 240 (VOL. 2 #12): WIMPY IN LOVE

    cic-wimpy-01In his introduction to one of Fantagraphics Books’ earlier set of volumes reprinting E. C. Segar’s Popeye comic strips, comics historian Rick Marschall argues that Popeye’s supporting player J. Wellington Wimpy is a “scoundrel” with a “lack of conscience” who can and does “betray” everyone. But in reviewing the Sunday strips in Volume 3 of Fantagraphics’ current series of Segar Popeye reprints, I’ve discovered that Wimpy is more complex than that. He does indeed have a conscience, though it is repeatedly overwhelmed by his animalistic appetite for hamburgers.

    There are a month of 1933 Sunday strips about Popeye’s boxing match with the enormous Bullo Oxheart, in which Wimpy acts as referee, though he keeps being distracted from the fight by his efforts to mooch a meal off a friend, Eddie, who is sitting in the audience off-panel. But Popeye is the central character of this sequence of Sundays, each of which Segar uses to underline how “the well known weed called spinach” boosts his strength. Indeed, at this point Popeye’s strength has clearly reached superhuman levels. At the end of the June 18, 1933 strip Popeye, with apparent ease, lifts an entire house up from its foundation. “”˜Sa good thing I been eatin’ spinach lately,” Popeye comments, laughing. In the June 25, 1933 strip Popeye commends a boy who yells “I want spinach!” so Segar may be emphasizing spinach to induce his younger readers to follow their hero’s example. Popeye has become a role model, whereas Wimpy decidedly has not.

    After winning the fight, Popeye tells Wimpy in the July 16, 1933 strip that he intends to donate half of the prize money “to a institution wich’ll buy spinach and cod liver oil for poor kids.” Wimpy asks him “Pardon me for being so personal, but how does it feel to give away money like that?” Note Wimpy’s unusual level of politeness here. He seems genuinely intrigued by Popeye’s generous nature, and has enough insight to recognize that this is a very personal matter to the sailor. Wimpy’s politeness may also be another sign that he genuinely regards Popeye as his friend.

    When Popeye asks him, Wimpy implies that he has never given away anything himself. (For the purposes of this particular Sunday strip Segar has intentionally or not ignored the earlier sequence in which Wimpy selflessly gave his mother thousands of dollars.)

    Though he isn’t articulate in a conventional manner, Popeye’s way with language has its own sort of vivid poetry. Popeye tells Wimpy that “Givin’ charity makes ya feel swell inside. . .It’s hard to explain, but right now I got tickles in me chest wich tells me I done sumpin wort’ while, see?”

    Surprisingly, Wimpy decides to experiment: he says he has a dime (an unusual occurrence for him) and will use it to buy a hamburger for an impoverished man sitting at the counter in Rough-House’s diner. (Now there’s a sign of how much inflation there has been since 1933!) There is no reason to doubt Wimpy’s sincerity: he could easily buy a hamburger for himself instead. Moreover, Wimpy’s portly build is evidence of his continual success in feeding himself. In contrast, the thin stranger sitting at the counter has his tongue hanging out; Wimpy notes that this is a symptom of starvation. Indeed, the stranger seems genuinely to be in a sad state: “I have no money and no friends,” he tells Wimpy, and “I haven’t had a bite for days.” Keep in mind that this is 1933, so the stranger may very well be intended as a victim of the Great Depression.

    Wimpy puts his hand on the stranger’s shoulder, tells him, “You may not have money, but you have a friend. J. Wellington Wimpy is your friend,” and orders a hamburger for him. Again, there is no reason to doubt Wimpy’s sincerity at this point.

    But matters change when the hamburger arrives. Holding the burger, Wimpy begins snapping his teeth furiously, like a wild animal. Yet he simultaneously speaks in a calm tone, as if he were dispassionately observing his own behavior: “Isn’t it odd how my teeth snap at it? I have to hold it with both hands to keep it from going into my mouth.” He speaks as if the hamburger would force itself into his mouth if he didn’t stop it.

    It’s also as if Wimpy’s appetite, his animal nature, is at odds with his conscious mind and better nature, as if he has a kind of split personality. Since Wimpy is a variation on the archetype of the glutton, it should be no surprise which side of his personality wins. The surprise lies in how quickly and completely that battle is won. Distraught, his tongue hanging out once more in hunger, the stranger asks his newfound friend, “Didn’t you buy that hamburger for me?”

    Expressionless as usual, Wimpy replies, “I beg pardon? What’s the name, please?” It sees that Wimpy is pretending not to know his new supposed friend in order to keep the burger for himself. But is it possible that the gluttonous side of Wimpy’s personality has submerged his weaker, charitable side, and that Wimpy has to some extent actually forgotten about his promise to feed his starving acquaintance? Wimpy’s conscience had briefly awakened, but once he is exposed to the presence of a hamburger, his hunger proves dominant. Wimpy’s id overrules his superego.

    Then Wimpy begins licking the hamburger with his tongue. In part this may be to partially satisfy his hunger, but it may also be that the trickster aspect of Wimpy is surfacing. Now he has an excuse for not giving the hamburger to the stranger, but the starving stranger says he still wants it. “What kind of fellow are you, anyway?” Wimpy asks, acting shocked at what he clearly considers the starving man’s loose attitude towards hygiene.

    Once again putting his hand on the stranger’s shoulder, as if reverting to his former attitude of friendliness, Wimpy says he will just take one bite of the burger and then give it to him. Perhaps Wimpy still means to be generous, by his own standards, but then he opens his mouth wide, devours virtually the whole burger in a single bite, and hands the stranger what amounts to a mere scrap.

    This wouldn’t be funny if the stranger were left to starve, but the genuinely generous Popeye gives him some money. Popeye scowls disapprovingly at Wimpy, who says, as if nothing had gone wrong, “I don’t know whether it was the bite of the hamburger or the charity–but I feel very lovely inside.”

    I like Wimpy’s use of the word “lovely.” Popeye says two Sundays later about Wimpy that “No use gettin’ mad at him–he jus’ don’t know no better.”

    When his mother came to visit, Wimpy’s conscience and sense of shame did overrule his usual greed for food. But ordinarily Wimpy doesn’t have an ordinary kind of conscience; he sees nothing wrong in mooching food from his friends, or starving strangers, or anyone else. He idealizes food, especially hamburgers, so satisfying his hunger is to him “lovely.” Perhaps Wimpy also finds it “lovely” to exercise his trickster skills in procuring food; mooching is his talent, his vocation, and perhaps even his artform.

    In the July 23, 1933 strip Wimpy goes to the aquarium “for some relaxation,” and Popeye comes along. While Wimpy distracts a guard with chitchat, he surreptitiously hooks a fish in a tank behind his back; Wimpy then smuggles the fish out of the aquarium in the back of his pants. Was Wimpy lying to Popeye when he said his goal at the aquarium was “relaxation”? Maybe Wimpy does find employing his trickster skills in this way relaxing, just as other people do fishing where it’s legal to do so. It’s notable, too, that Wimpy ends this strip by inviting Popeye to dine on the fish with him. After all, Wimpy does indeed seem to regard Popeye as his friend, although he also wants Popeye to supply the tartar sauce for dinner himself.

    So far Popeye feels both disgust and amusement at Wimpy’s mooching ways. But now Wimpy, surprisingly, becomes an antagonist to Popeye. Just as Wimpy does not allow friendship to get in the way of his quest for burgers, it is no barrier to his sex drive, either. You might have thought that Wimpy had sublimated his libido into his lust for hamburgers, but no. In the July 30, 1933 strip Rough-House has hired a pretty new waitress, who, we learn the following Sunday, is named Lucy Brown. Popeye immediately starts flirting with her, whereupon Wimpy literally comes between them and starts chatting with her himself.

    In my research on tricksters, I’ve learned that the trickster is typically himself susceptible to being tricked. That may seem unlikely, since tricksters are so clever, but it appears to be true. For example, Superman traditionally thwarts his own trickster nemesis, Mr. Mxyzptlk, by tricking him into saying his name backwards. Perhaps the point is that the trickster can be so confident of his own cleverness that he underestimates his target’s ability to best him at his own game. So here Popeye tells Wimpy he’s wanted on the phone, and Wimpy not only believes him, but says hello into the phone over and over again before finally giving up. Apparently it never occurred to Wimpy that he hadn’t heard the phone ring.

    So Wimpy returns to Popeye and Lucy the waitress. Popeye in effect tells Wimpy to go away, Wimpy turns his back, as if in defeat, and then Popeye proposes marriage to this woman he just met!

    In the Fleischer and Famous Studios Popeye animated cartoons, it is Olive Oyl who often comes off as fickle, switching her affections between Popeye and Bluto. So it is quite a surprise to see from the original Segar comic strips that, early on, at least, it is Popeye who is the fickle one.

    Hearing Popeye propose, Wimpy immediately sees his opportunity, turns around, and simply asks, “How’s Olive Oyl?”, shocking Popeye. Wimpy may not be able to fight the super-strong Popeye physically, but Wimpy can fight effectively with words. Wimpy quickly moves in, bending over the startled Lucy, as if enacting a love scene out of a movie, although Wimpy’s idea of romantic dialogue is distorted by his usual preoccupation: he invites her to duck dinner, adding “You bring the ducks.”

    Then Popeye plays trickster again, advising Wimpy that he has forgotten to put on his pants, and wrapping a tablecloth around Wimpy’s waist. The trusting Wimpy believes Popeye, feels too embarrassed even to look down to see if Popeye is right, and rushes out of the diner. Once again, Popeye’s amusement supplants any anger he may have felt at Wimpy: laughing, he tells Lucy, “I was go’ner ast ya to marry me, but I kin not get serious on account of laughin’ at ol’ Wimpy.” It would seem that Popeye’s attraction to Lucy wasn’t that serious since his amusement at Wimpy proves the stronger emotion.

    At the beginning of the following Sunday strip, August 6, 1933, Wimpy asks Popeye why he won’t let him talk with Lucy Brown. “Is this not a free country?” By Wimpy’s lights, it seems he thinks he merely wants a fair chance to compete for Lucy’s attentions. Alpha male Popeye declares “she’s gon’er be my sweety” and tells Wimpy to “beat it.” (Since this is 1933, neither man considers Lucy’s opinion about this.)

    So Wimpy seeks out Olive Oyl and tells her that Popeye has a “new sweetheart,” Lucy Brown. You might think that Wimpy intends to get Lucy for himself. But no: sticking his nose literally in Olive’s face, Wimpy declares, “If he don’t want you, I want you.” Having decided “it is time I should take unto myself a wife,” Wimpy is determined to get one, and it doesn’t seem to matter whom. (It does appear as if Wimpy is only going after women whom Popeye has already picked out, as if he considers Popeye a guide in such matters.) But the comics Olive is considerably less fickle than her animated counterpart, and far from being as passive as Lucy: she knocks Wimpy down (So that’s why she’s such a good match for Popeye!) and declares, “I want Popeye and nobody but.”

    Olive races to the diner and angrily confronts Popeye, who, shaken, resorts to the Wimpyesque tactic of denial: “What girl?” Popeye asks, though Lucy is standing right there. Seemingly guilt-ridden, Popeye pleads the Fifth Amendment, but Wimpy urges Olive, “Let’s you and her fight”: maybe Wimpy considers two women fighting to be a turn-on. He soon gets his wish, and Popeye, seemingly forgetting his rivalry with Wimpy, asks him to help break the fight up but each taking hold of one of the women. Perhaps showing his true loyalty, Popeye grabs Olive, and advises her not to start fights; Olive looks bewildered and distraught, now that she’s coming out of her fit of rage. And then both Popeye and Olive discover that Wimpy not only took hold of Lucy but now has clasped her in his loving embrace, as he radiates cartoon hearts. He’s back to fixating on Lucy as his sweetheart. (Lucy looks somewhat annoyed.)

    But on the following Sunday, August 13, 1933, we learn that Popeye is now conducting a clandestine romance with Lucy. Back to treating Wimpy as his friend, Popeye asks him to act as if Lucy is Wimpy’s girlfriend if Olive Oyl turns up. This is a big mistake. Olive does indeed turn up at the home of Lucy and her father, whereupon Wimpy, radiating more cartoon hearts, begins cuddling Lucy. But whenever Olive attempts to leave, Wimpy persuades her to stay. So Wimpy gets to cuddle Lucy for hours, until Olive finally leaves at midnight. “Popeye, you are, indeed, a fine fellow,” says Wimpy. “There aren’t any men who’d allow me to pet their sweeties.” Possibly Wimpy is just trying to placate Popeye. But it also seems quite possible that Wimpy sees nothing wrong with manipulating the situation with Lucy and Olive and that he genuinely considers Popeye to have shown generosity in letting him hug Lucy for hours. (Again, Lucy’s own opinions are not consulted.) But this time Popeye erupts in rage, punches Wimpy in the jaw, and throws him out the window. And thus begins a series of Sundays in which Segar physically punishes Wimpy for his trickery.

    But in the following Sunday strip, for August 20, 1933, Wimpy is back to mooching food from Popeye. Wimpy keeps calling him. “Old pal of mine,” but Popeye, perhaps reacting to the last few Sunday strips, angrily refuses to give him any food. But then Popeye holds up a potato, which appears to have two eyes and a nose, and Wimpy claims it is the image of his late Uncle Hymie. Breaking down in tears, Wimpy goes on and on about what a wonderful man Uncle Hymie was. “Surely you would not eat that potato,” Wimpy says. Popeye, now in tears himself, agrees to give Wimpy the potato as a memento of his uncle. The final panel finds Wimpy sitting under a tree, eating the potato: “‘Tis a pity that I have no gravy to put upon Uncle Hymie.”

    The simplest interpretation of this episode is that Wimpy was simply conning Popeye out of the potato and made up the whole Uncle Hymie story. But I’ve come to think of Wimpy as a complex, ambiguous figure. I think it is entirely possible that Wimpy did have a beloved Uncle Hymie and was genuinely moved to tears by his memory, but that still would not stop Wimpy from devouring a potato that looked like his dead uncle. As usual, Wimpy’s appetite overrules his emotions.

    Wimpy referees Popeye’s next prize fight in the Sunday strips, which is noteworthy for the way that Popeye’s opponent literally twists Popeye’s body out of shape, but without causing him any real harm, in a further display of Popeye’s superhuman power.

    In the September 17, 1933 Sunday strip, Wimpy returns to the aquarium, having accepted Rough-House’s bet that he can’t catch another fish there. This time Wimpy has overreached, perhaps because he is trying to win a wager. He hooks an eel, which slithers in and out of his pants, in a weirdly phallic gag (which is shown on the cover of Popeye Vol. 3). The guards see this, and they start kicking Wimpy. It’s as if Segar now feels that Wimpy can’t always get away with his trickery, even though these punishments don’t deter Wimpy at all.

    Just how far will Wimpy go in the service of his appetite? In the September 24, 1933 strip Wimpy tries his usual mooching tricks on Popeye, Rough-House, Geezil and other diner customers, who all furiously refuse. Unperturbed, Wimpy starts reading the paper and then, uncharacteristically, his eyes go wide. Then, even more uncharacteristically, he punches Geezil in the face. As a policeman arrives, Geezil reacts with his usual angry bluster (“Could he smush me in the schnozzle? Could he? Could he? COULD HE?). But after Wimpy hits the policeman too, Wimpy is taken to jail. And then Rough-House, Popeye and Geezil see what Wimpy read in the newspaper: hamburgers are now on the jailhouse menu. Wimpy has exchanged his own freedom for a steady supply of burgers!

    By the following Sunday, October 1, 1933, Wimpy has regained his freedom. So how can his appetite drive him still further? Wimpy has just inherited a cow, and attempts to trade it to Popeye, who is substituting for Rough-House at running the diner for a day, for hamburgers. But Popeye keeps saying no, even as Wimpy whittles down his request from ten burgers down to one, and keeps calling Popeye, with increasing emphasis, “old pal of mine.” Nothing works, and for once Wimpy, despite his deadpan demeanor, seems desperate. Finally Popeye agrees to lend Wimpy some bread, an axe and some kitchen utensils. After Wimpy leaves Popeye says, “I kin not help feelin’ sorry for ol’ Wimpy” and leaves to invite him to have a hamburger. But it is too late. In the final panel Popeye is so surprised, perhaps shocked, that he levitates off the ground. Wimpy has killed and butchered the cow, whose head lies grotesquely on the ground, and turned its body into a tall mound of hamburgers! Of course we all know that hamburgers are made from dead cattle, but it’s still startling, and even macabre, that Wimpy would kill the cow himself and grind it up into food.

    Segar must have liked the idea of Popeye running Rough-House’s diner in this Sunday strip, because on the following Sunday strip he and Olive open their own cafe. But after the first month of this new storyline, Wimpy reclaims center stage. When Olive gets sick, Popeye hires Wimpy to fill in for her as a waiter. Initially, Wimpy resolves to do the right thing, even when serving a hamburger steak to a customer: “Get behind me, Satan. . . it is my duty to deliver this bit of beef to our patron.” But once again, the id of Wimpy’s appetite overwhelms the superego of his conscience. He talks the customer into thinking the hamburger is infected with bugs, and after the shaken patron leaves, Popeye lets Wimpy eat the steak. “He is, no doubt, a peculiar person,” Wimpy tells Popeye about their lost customer. In this case Wimpy is clearly, consciously deceiving his “old pal of mine.”

    Popeye’s charitable feelings towards Wimpy have resurfaced, and the following Sunday, November 12, 1933, Popeye gives Wimpy a tryout for a job as a waiter, but this time carefully keeps an eye on him. Wimpy again tries to do the right thing, repeating his “Get thee behind me, Satan” mantra while bringing a hamburger to a customer. But once again, when one side of Wimpy consciously resists his hunger, his unconscious forcefully emerges, and he finds himself instinctively snapping his teeth at the burger and then devouring it, seemingly in one gulp. “Sorry, sir, I’m indeed sorry this had to happen,” Wimpy says, and he may indeed mean it. Wimpy tries to bring him another burger, but says, “Heavens! I feel that great desire again–the urge to gobble it down!” Is Wimpy putting on an act, or is he in the grip of a comedic but real addiction to food? He gobbles this burger, too. Finally, the disgruntled customer fetches his own burger, whereupon Wimpy hurls a pot at him, knocking him out. “A hundred percent,” says Wimpy, holding the burger; “Not a single one got away from me.” Watching all of this, Popeye confesses, “I kin not bawl “˜im out on account of laughin’.”

    But by the following Sunday, Popeye has grown so angry at Wimpy’s mooching that he pays a policeman to put him in jail. “It isn’t right to treat poor old Wimpy that way,” says Olive. “Shame on you, Popeye.” But Popeye goes down to the prison to literally laugh in Wimpy’s face.

    Then Wimpy begins weeping: “You laugh at my sorrow. You hurt me.” As Wimpy goes on, talking about his mother, and about how “life hasn’t been very kind to me,” Popeye finds himself weeping in sympathy, and finally bails Wimpy out of jail. Wimpy expresses his gratitude to “my friend” and then resumes trying to mooch a hamburger from him. Once again the reader may wonder to what extent Wimpy is consciously manipulating Popeye’s emotions and to what extent Wimpy’s sadness at being “hurt” by a friend is real. My hypothesis is that both possibilities are true and that they coexist. I suspect that Wimpy’s stoic, expressionless demeanor covers real pain over his poverty and loneliness. Popeye may be Wimpy’s dupe, but he also really is Wimpy’s only friend.

    Segar’s exploration of Wimpy’s character reaches a climax with the November 26, 1933 Sunday strip, the last in this volume. Popeye’s friend Bill Squid bets Popeye that Wimpy would “choke his grandmother for a hamburger.” Despite Popeye’s disgust and even cruelty towards Wimpy in past strips, Popeye seems more naturally to look on the bright side, and contends that Wimpy has “good qualities, too.” Popeye even tells Wimpy, “ever’body seems to be down on ya an’ tha’s why I got sympthity for ya–I yam always for the underdog.”

    Popeye goes so far as to dress up as an old lady and pose as Wimpy’s grandmother, whom Wimpy hasn’t seen in thirty years. Bill is amazed that Wimpy cannot see through Popeye’s obvious disguise (“Is he dumb?”), but Wimpy is a trickster who is easily susceptible to being tricked.

    As Wimpy’s grandma, Popeye sits down to eat a hamburger. Wimpy flatters her and asks for a “bite” of the burger but “she” says no. Then Wimpy begins snapping his teeth at the burger, and “Grandmother” is outraged that Wimpy has “absolukely no self-control.” Thwarted again, Wimpy goes further than we’ve seen before in this book and, yes, actually begins choking his “grandmother.” His id is in full control: Dark Wimpy is unleashed. “Grandmother” rebukes Wimpy, who begins weeping with shame: “I’m sorry! Heavens! What did I almost do?” But his dark side overwhelms Wimpy again: he snaps at the burger, jumps on “grandmother,” demanding the burger: “Curse you, grandmother!” The disguised and disgusted Popeye finally stops Wimpy by hitting him.

    However rough and violent in his manners, Popeye is an idealist and a true hero who adheres to and enforces his code of morality. Wimpy is neither hero nor idealist, but a flawed man driven by his natural drives, notably his appetite. Yet somehow they belong together as a team, like the similar pairings of Cervantes’ Don Quixote and Sancho Panza, or Tamino and Papageno in Mozart’s The Magic Flute.

    And in the grand finale to my Wimpython, I will turn to the renowned “Plunder Island” storyline in Fantagraphics’ Popeye Vol. 4, in which the team of Popeye and Wimpy faces its ultimate test when both confront the strip’s archvillainess, the Sea Hag.

    Warning to my faithful readers: I am in the process of moving from New York City back to my home town near Boston. So there may be a week or two when I won’t be posting a new “Comics in Context.” But rest assured that once I have Internet access set up at my new home, “Comics in Context” will be back!

    Copyright 2010 Peter Sanderson

    Follow me on Twitter (@PeterJSanderson) and at Facebook Comic Con.

  • Trailer Park: Ray Manzarek of The Doors and Tom DiCillo, Director of WHEN YOU’RE STRANGE

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here
    Check out my new column, This Week In Trailers, at SlashFilm.com and follow me on TWITTER under the name: Stipp

    YOUSSOU N’DOUR: I BRING WHAT I LOVE – DVD Review

    youssou_posterThis has been a wild couple of weeks with the number of documentaries I’ve been watching about musicians as of late.

    From a couple of Blu-ray releases of live concerts, a movie about the Doors, and now this, it has been a whirlwind of performances that showcase music of all kinds. The thing about YOUSSOU N’DOUR: I BRING WHAT I LOVE is that I was not expecting to like it as much as I did. Ballasted by the fact that this movie has come out under the Oscilloscope Laboratory banner, becoming required viewing simply because it has so far had an unbeaten track record of films that have a unique way of telling a story, I quite didn’t know what to expect other than this was going to be a movie about music. It’s much more that, however, as I found out.

    Youssou is a musician that many know but probably didn’t realize. Heck, I didn’t realize. He’s the chanting voice you hear in the song In Your Eyes by Peter Gabriel. A man who embraced music from all over the world, Gabriel help push Youssou into greater prominence among those within the industry. It was shocking to see that as a Senegalese pop star he received worldwide acclaim for his music and recognition for it as well all the while I was blissfully unaware of this man for decades.

    This movie goes beyond just capturing Youssou’s time on the road, and we get many live performances in venues all over the globe, but it charts the time when he had to deal with an album he made called Egypt, a record that was deemed incendiary because of its content. Not that it had blasphemous, dirty language but it contained his own thoughts and feelings about a religion and faith not many were too keen on learning more about in 2004: Islam. This movie captures his feelings on the matter and it’s rather gripping and forces you to reflect about what it would be like for anyone to believe something so fervently and want to share that joy with the world only to have your native land, here Senegal, turn away. Heartbreaking and sad, Youssou’s determination and love comes though in one the films that I have been able to watch about musicians which doesn’t make me think that all the world’s musicians are in it for themselves. Youssou genuinely seems passionate about the things he’s been allowed to do and to share with the rest of the world and you simply do not see that in today’s crop of entertainers.

    Wholly refreshing, wonderful to look at, director Elizabeth Chai Vasarhelyi’s film captures the essence of Youssou’s music that you can feel come through the screen. I had never heard of the man before seeing this film but I was a fan by the end and I think that’s the point of any good movie like this. You don’t necessarily have to be enthralled by the music but you cannot help but to be in awe of one man’s perseverance to be the best man he can be in the face of so many who would try and change that course.

    If you have a chance to rent it or buy it you could not do yourself a better favor than picking this title up and seeing some music come alive.

    Synopsis

    YOUSSOU N’DOUR: I BRING WHAT I LOVE is a gorgeously photographed, music infused cinematic portrait of world famous Senegalese pop sensation Youssou N’Dour. Best known in the West for his collaborations with Bono and Peter Gabriel, N’Dour is one of the most beloved musicians in pop music and his legendary career has spanned decades.

    In 2004, responding to negative perceptions about his Muslim faith, N’Dour recorded EGYPT, a deeply spiritual album dedicated to a more tolerant view of Islam. In a critical and career-defining moment, the album was awarded the 2004 Grammy® for BEST WORLD MUSIC ALBUM. While Western audiences embraced N’Dour’s brave musical message, it encountered a serious religious backlash in his native country of Senegal where N’Dour is considered a national hero. Local critics and the media accused him of insulting Islam, arguing that pop and religious music should not mix.

    Combining unprecedented images of Senegal’s most sacred Muslim rituals, vibrant concert performances filmed around the world, and intimate access to N’Dour and his family, I BRING WHAT I LOVE chronicles the difficult path this remarkable artist must take. It is a stirring journey of faith, redemption, and the power of music to overcome intolerance.

    Tom DiCillo – Interview

    The documentary is endlessly fascinating, let’s get that right out of the way.

    Using footage from Jim Morrison’s own film HWY: An American Pastoral from 1969 the new Doors documentary When You’re Strange also uses footage never before seen of the band that ignited a generation. For any fan who thinks that Oliver Stone made the definitive Doors movie this doc sheds some light on the figure that is Jim Morrison the legend and dispels the ideas that he walked around in a constant drug-fueled stupor. In fact, this film shows Morrison as a rather humorous individual capable of so much more than just being a part of a cliche.

    Using footage never before seen and utilizing Johnny Depp’s silken vocals to narrate the story of how the band came together to take over a nation, then the world, you get a new perspective on a band that most feel like they already figured out. It’s endlessly fascinating from a documentary perspective, like reading years of biographies on one person only to find their autobiography and putting the two together. Comparative literature it is not but there is a story here that you have to open yourself to in order to wade beyond all that you already think you know. When You’re Strange is a brisk foray into a brief period of time when music could rattle a population of listeners and a glimpse into a band that never sold their rights to have their music played in a car commercial. And they never will.

    WHEN YOU’RE STRANGE opens today

    when_youre_strange-posterCHRISTOPHER STIPP: Hey, Tom. How are you doing?

    TOM DICILLO: I’m good man. How are you?

    CS: Doing fine. Hopefully this hasn’t been a long press day for you.

    DICILLO: Well, it has been but it’s been really enjoyable because people are really digging this film and that’s just exciting to see.

    CS: I really dug it.

    DICILLO: Good.

    CS: I did a search for Doors films or documentaries and I was floor by the lack of them out there. Did you immediately look at this project and immediately jump on it?

    DICILLO: Well, the project was presented to me as a possibility and then I was asked if I wanted to direct it. And I said yes immediately without question. I didn’t know what I was getting into. In fact, I hadn’t seen any of the footage. After I said yes, then they began the process of them showing me stuff and asking me to come up with the concept. I just think it was the right timing. They had been trying to make something with this footage for sometime and I don’t know, I think perhaps they just didn’t have the right combination of people. And, something about my idea about only using this original footage just freaks them out and just freaked The Doors out too. They said, “How can you make a film about the Doors in which we don’t have The Doors talking?” I said, “Because I think if you look at this footage it’s so astonishing that it will ultimately be better.” When they saw the first half hour I put together, they were floored. Let’s just thank the Lord”¦not the Lord, because there is no Lord”¦

    (Laughs)

    Thanks to whoever that it worked out and all came together.

    CS: I’m interested to get your take ““ as a filmmaker ““ you’ve done feature film, you’ve done television, was there a learning curve as a documentarian when you had to sift through this info and try to create a narrative?

    DICILLO: Oh, absolutely. Are you kidding? Very good question, man. My experience is with writing and directing and working that way. Creating every image and then choosing the best image and then editing it. This one ““ I had to go, “OK, here’s the footage, here are the dailies from the film”¦What can I do with it?”

    Certain things hit me immediately.

    I didn’t know that this footage of Morrison walking through the desert was from his own film HWY. I just thought they were random shots of Jim walking through the desert. So I felt free to use them. I knew that they were going to go in the film and I knew they were going to be kind of a framing device immediately. Almost like, there’s a shot of him getting out of a car stuck in the sand. I said, “That’s going to be Morrison.”

    It’s the spirit of Morrison ““ re-emerging, so to speak.

    But then I had a whole story to tell and your probably could make six stories about The Doors, they did so much in that short period of time. In some cases, the footage helps me. It was easy to do it because I had great images. In other cases, I had to do a little bit of explaining or somehow bridging gaps in things. And the narration became critical and I realized immediately that the narration was going to have to sustain this film. It was going to have to pull it together and I think Johnny Depp brings such an amazing intimacy and sense of belief in things he’s saying that he becomes almost as a fifth character in the film.

    CS: Right. And he does. I was read in a previous interview with Ray [Manzarek] who said that Oliver Stone got it wrong when he made The Doors. That he wasn’t that drunken, wacked out of his skull 24/7 kind of guy people saw in that film. Do you think you saw a picture of the real Morrison as you went through this footage?

    DICILLO: I saw several pictures of the real Morrison. That’s what I wanted to do, was to not limit the ones that I saw. I think that Stone’s movie limited severely the dimension of what Morrison was. I really do. And I’m not disrespecting Oliver Stone but saying he probably gave a thumbnail, a fingernail of what this guy really was. He was an immensely complicated guy. Immensely complicated. At times he was, yes, the drunken ass that was just pissing in his pants in the middle of a recording session. And then I had this footage of him dancing in the sand in the middle of the desert with complete strangers, these kids and the look on his face, it’s absolutely convincing that he’s enjoying the hell out of himself and that he’s really there, dancing with those kids. That’s as much a part of his character as the other stuff, and I wanted to try and show that.

    You know what? I just feel there was something deeply compelling about him and that, for me, it wasn’t just the drinking, it wasn’t the excesses, it was the more personal things. Because if you talk to any of these guys, they’ll tell you the same thing. He was immensely articulate. He enjoyed life. I don’t think he had a death-wish. I don’t think so at all. I think he just got caught up in something and could not get out of it.

    when-youCS: And I think he comes off ““ I was surprised to see he was quite erudite and scholarly as a young man ““ completely different than public perception of what people “thought” he was.

    DICILLO: Yeah. It’s pretty phenomenal that at 16 he was reading Nietzsche and Kerouac and this was before he even took acid. He was an intensely intelligent man and I think to only show one aspect of his character does him a huge disservice. And also, the same for the rest of the band members. They were hugely involved in the creation and development of the band. All of them. And each one was critical to the band and all of them amazing musicians. That’s what I wanted to show. I wanted to go from the more basic sort of misunderstanding that a lot of people wrote Light My Fire. Well, I wanted to clear that up and say well, “No, he didn’t.” Actually, it was Robby Krieger.

    CS: I was shocked to see that was the first one out of the box as a writer and it gets the guy a number one slot on the charts.

    DICILLO: Isn’t that amazing? It’s just astonishing. And then he had a number of other number ones.

    There’s a lot there that you can appreciate that you don’t have to build up a myth about, do you know what I mean? And I wanted to try to create a new myth but one based on reality.

    CS: Do you think it was important to know the band deeply before working on this? Did you pour yourself into the mythos, what people had to say, or did you intentionally go in there blind and create something from what you had?

    DICILLO: I went in blind but I did a lot of research. I had to be careful though to avoid simply paraphrasing what other people had said. I didn’t want to do that. A lot has been written about this band, some of it really amazing, intuitive. Some of it is conjecture and some of it bullshit. I just said, “Listen, I’ve got to try to find something new for myself, something new for myself to drive me through this entire process.”

    That’s all you can do as a filmmaker is to have such a belief in the subject that it pulls you through every single agonizing moment of nightmare and terror when you feel like it’s all meaningless. And for me that was showing them as they were. Just letting the material speak and allowing the audience to experience the band as if they were alive in 1966 and they happen to walk in and here’s a new band called The Doors.

    That was the thing that kept me going.

    And I talked to the band members and I read the books of Ray and Don and I talked to a lot of people and essentially decided I would only try to use stuff that had been collaborated ““ stuff that would be true ““ as far as people knew.

    Ray Manzarek – Interview

    I don’t own any Doors albums.

    when_you_re_strange_movie_image_the_doors_jim_morrison__1_CHRISTOPHER STIPP: Ray, I don’t know if I should start out with Your Highness, Your Holiness, I don’t know which one you would prefer”¦

    MANZAREK: Your Obsequiousness. That’s what you should call me.

    (Laughs)

    CHRISTOPHER STIPP: Well, I’ve got so many questions and only a few minutes.

    MANZAREK: You don’t have that much time so you can’t have sooo many!

    (Laughs)

    “I’ve got quite a few questions for you””¦OK, go ahead, dude!

    (Laughs)

    CS: I want to start kind of lighthearted but getting ready to talk to you I was reminded about William Shatner’s Saturday Night Live sketch where he tells people to grow up or get a life and find something else to talk about with regard to fanatical nature of the fans who obsessed over Star Trek. Are The Doors like that for you in that, yes, it was a part of your life but you’ve gone on and accomplished other artistic things. Is this something you really love talking about again, and again, and again?

    MANZAREK: Absolutely, because it was The Doors. You know what, if I don’t talk about The Doors how can I thankfully work in the word psychedelic into our conversation?

    (Laughs)

    And I can if I talk about The Doors and I can talk about The Doors, I can talk about opening the doors of perception and if I talk about opening the doors of perception I can talk about psychedelic substances to wit, LSD.

    CS: Exactly

    MANZAREK: So, it’s a great opportunity to bring the message of psychedelics to the 21st century.

    CS: Please. School me on something. I was reading previous interviews with you and I was absolutely amazed, as you just mentioned, the psychedelic, the opening of one’s mind. And how the current crop of what we call musicians that flail themselves around on purpose, have no real similarity to what Jim was. I was at fault when I thought it was just Jim flopping around when it was really him internalizing the music. Can you talk a little bit about the misconception about Jim vs. what other people are aping?

    MANZAREK: It’s hard for me to talk about yours or the people’s misconceptions because I don’t know what the hell they’re thinking about. I know what I’m thinking when I’m making music with Jim Morrison is entering the ineffable oneness, the zen, peace and time. That’s what you do as a musician. You surrender yourself to all that goes into creating a song and you give up your ego and you become one with the music, the chord changes, the rhythm, the lyrics, the beat, all that stuff.

    That’s what you are. You are nothing else in time. People are watching with their eyeballs, Jim Morrison but Dionysus, the spirit of Dionysus, the spirit of madness and chaos and wildness that enters through the ears. As far as what Morrison did on stage, I’m hardly even aware of him. I know the singer on stage, the performer but I don’t know the mad character people are watching on stage. So, it’s virtually impossible for me to answer that idea.

    CS: Understood. Absolutely understood.

    MANZAREK: I’m on the inside looking out. I’m not looking in. I’m looking out.

    CS: Jim, when he started, humble beginnings, you and him, he had no form of musical training. What did you see in each other that you said, “You know what, we need to express ourselves.” What was that moment that you two shared that really started the genesis of the band?

    manzMANZAREK: Well, that moment was Moonlight Drive. He sang Moonlight Drive to me. I heard the lyrics, and I heard his rephrasing and his singing and he was right on pitch and he had a good sense of timing and a good sense of space and I said “You know what, I can play all kinds of funky Ray Charles kind of stuff and Jimmy Smith organ behind that” and Jim said, “That’s cool man, that’s what I hear too. If you can do that that would be fabulous.”

    And then he did My Eyes Have Seen You and Summer’s Almost Gone and those were great songs, I could play Bach behind Summer’s Almost Gone. My Eyes Have Seen You I could play all kinds of Latino jazz, southern California Latin style stuff. And Jim says “Sounds great to me, I love that” and that’s what we shared. We shared those ideas ““ those complimentary ideas.

    CS: Was there a theology with the band? Was there ever an overarching theme to what the band should be about?

    MANZAREK: The band should be about entering a state of transcendental consciousness. Yes. The band should be about LSD. The band should be about rising up out of the mundane, ordinary state of consciousness into a higher state of consciousness, that virtually the entire generation of the 60’s was into and that’s what we tried to do.

    CS: I was reading previous articles about how I think people ““ I don’t think in our current time people ““ there is not a rising up of the youth against the oppressive nature of government and what have you that we’ve become a little soft. Do you see yourself, or at least your place in musical history, as something more powerful than just music but you were a force of social and political change?

    MANZAREK: Just being in The Doors. A lot of people said “You guys didn’t participate in the marches” and whatnot but I always thought The Doors were political just by their nature. Morrison was the son of an Admiral, for God’s sake. For him to be a rock and roll guy and the son of an Admiral at the same time was virtually unheard of. Everything we did was political. Everything everyone was doing was political. We were in Vietnam just like we’re in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only difference between now and then was there was a draft and anybody could go at any moment. Just pick you up and you’re gone ““ you’re gone off to Vietnam. Now it’s a volunteer army so I suppose that people who haven’t volunteered for the army are, “Cool, I’m not going.”

    I didn’t volunteer.

    If you want to volunteer to go fight ““ go ahead ““ go fight. It’s like, man ““ we got to make love here not war. I’m getting a little tired of waiting. It’s the 21st century. When do we make love and not war? I don’t think that we’re going to. We like war. We love killing. We think death is great. Kill the bad guys. Aren’t we the good guys by the way? I hope we’re not the bad guys.

    CS: I think it gets blurred and I’ve seen it in the idea of capitalism. I think that wraps that up really tightly ““ killing and capitalism. I think the two have gone hand in hand and I think the youth have gravitated to greed and their ideas are in things ““ not ideas of ideas.

    MANZAREK: Well, Jesus was a capitalist I think. So, it’s OK to be capitalist. I always thought Jesus was a lover. He loved humanity. He said love the Lord thy God, etc. and love thy neighbor as thyself. Somehow I think we’ve abandoned that idea of love but maybe we’ll get back to it. Who knows?

    CS: I don’t know if he ever said anything about being untruthful but in an interview with you I read that your feeling about Oliver Stone’s film was his take of Jim was completely, off, false, not right.

    51315665FM001_millerMANZAREK: Yes. Oliver Stone movie”¦.no good. It makes Jim Morrison an alcoholic and a wino, a drunkard, a crazy man. He was actually very intelligent, very sophisticated, very funny. He was a funny guy. It’s entirely the wrong portrait. That’s what so much fun doing When You’re Strange. You are going to get the real Jim Morrison being Jim Morrison and you will see the real Doors. It’s nothing but Jim Morrison as Jim Morrison and that’s what’s so great about When You’re Strange.

    CS: Great film.

    MANZAREK: That’s cool. Thank you, man.

    CS: I was blown away ““ and I’ll tell you straight up that I am just a casual fan, not just a guy who says, “I love The Doors!”, but I got a deep appreciation for the real thing. It wasn’t a fictionalized representation. I was, however, curious about a couple things: One, your involvement was limited. I was expecting to have you and the other band members talking every so often, that didn’t happen, and, two, I was also really floored that Jim’s movie was incorporated into this documentary.

    MANZAREK: See that. He was brilliant. He was a brilliant filmmaker. He was a filmmaker, and a writer, and he was Dionysian and wore leather and he was a poet. So there you are.

    CS: Was there any part of you that wanted to ““ was it Tom [DiCillo’s] idea not to have you talk on screen or have anybody else talk on screen?

    MANZAREK: No, the idea was we don’t have to talk. Just watch the footage. We’ve got plenty of footage. What do you want to see me talk for?

    (Laughs)

    I want to watch Jim Morrison and if I see Ray Manzarek”¦.I want to see The Doors. So why should we see old guys saying, “When I was a youngster”¦” I don’t want to see that. The only time that was interesting was in Warren Beatty’s movie, Reds.

    CS: Good movie.

    MANZAREK: It is a good movie. You see the actual people who are being portrayed. But I mean, we got The Doors. Let’s just watch The Doors. To hell with watching the guys comment.

    CS: And one of the special things about the band and you might agree or disagree is that The Doors feel like band that was never corrupted by a money man, a corporation. Do you feel it was always true to its own self?

    MANZAREK: Incorruptible. The Doors were pure. The Doors were rock and roll. The Doors were artists. They would not sell their souls to the man. No way.

    CS: Is that a point of pride for you? That you get to say, “We were what we were and we never compromised?”

    MANZAREK: Never compromised. Absolutely it’s a point of pride. Absolutely man. You bet it is.

  • TV Or Not TV: 4/12 – 4/18

    tvornottv-header.png

    Wow, what a week of TV we had.

    The week kicked off for me with CHUCK (I know, big shock). The entire season of CHUCK has been building towards something and we finally made it to that point. I was very pleased with the way the episode played out and how it tied so many of the hanging strings of plot elements together. SHAW is finally gone, CHUCK and SARAH have finally gotten together, CASEY was able to get himself re-instated and even got MORGAN brought into the mix as an agent. If you watched it the episode played out exactly like a season finale, which it was originally intended. Chuck originally was only coming back to a 13 episode order and this 13th episode would have had to tied us over into a (hopeful) 4th season. Now instead we have to deal with three weeks of repeats while the finishing touches are put on the final 6 episodes of the season. Since they weren’t part of the orignal order I’m hoping at least 4 of the six are “stand-alone” episodes where we just get some good ol’ fashoin spy fun without getting too bogged down about subversive myster organizations and rogue secret agents. Fella can dream, can’t he?

    LOST had an episode that had me blown away. I don’t know what is in the water when they are writing those DESMOND episodes but HAPPILY EVER AFTER next week brought a lot to the table. I was happy to see that my prediction of DESMOND being an element in play for use in the energy pockets that WIDMORE is looking for. Tonight also had the first ‘flash-sideways’ story that I actually cared about and, of course, once again the DESMOND/PENNY angle made the whole story very compelling.

    The second part of the MEDIUM two-parter on Friday night gave me everything that I’ve come to expect from the smart writing of the show. The girl that was having dreams about the murderer was written in a way that made sense, both the main story and JOE’s job woes had me hooked in, and once again I was almost holding my breath at the very end. The only point of dissapointment was in the way that ALLISON found the killer’s vehicle. I really hope this isn’t the last season for this show.

    If you weren’t watching FOX Sunday night than you probably didn’t notice the fact that SONS OF TUCSON wasn’t on. The network cancelled the show after the first four episodes aired. The remaining nine episodes will play out during the summer and we’ll have to wait and see how TYLER LABINE does on the CBS show TRUE LOVE if it gets past the pilot.

    Enough about all the stuff that I watched last week. Instead let’s look at what is happening THIS week to watch.

    MONDAY

    FOX – 8:00 PM: HUGH LAURIE directs himself in tonight’s episode of HOUSE.

    CBS – 8:00 PM: LILY wants to get a hand gun after MARSHALL gets mugged on HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER. Why doesn’t she just use some of that witchcraft stuff she did on BUFFY?

    FOX – 9:00 PM: The President tries to do a Hail Mary play by bringing in disgraced former PRESIDENT LOGAN to come in and save the day. I know, it makes a lot of sense when I put it like that. Ready like brining the former heads of Lehman Brothers to come in and solve the economic crisis for us.

    CBS – 9:30 PM: SHELDON and the evil WIL WHEATON bowl on tonight’s episode of THE BIG BANG THEORY.

    ABC – 10:00 PM: Ever wanted to kill TOM BERGERON after two hours of DANCING WITH THE STARS? If so than tonight’s episode of CASTLE will be right up your alley.

    TUESDAY

    NBC – 8:00 PM: Two contestands win new cars on tonight’s episode of THE BIGGEST LOSER. The contestants also get almost as bored as we do by hearing SUZE ORMAN explains to them about financial health (which sounds like code for “how much money you were wasting by being over-weight).

    ABC – 9:00 PM: Tonight’s episode of LOST is titled EVERYBODY LOVES HUGO and I have to wonder if HURLEY finds true love tonight and gets the same type of enlightenment that DESMOND and CHARLIE did in the flash-sideways world?

    FOX – 9:30 PM: After far too long of a break those whacky kids from GLEE are back and it turns out that rival glee club VOCAL ADRENALINE is coached by WICKED star IDINA MENZEL.

    WEDNESDAY

    FOX – 8:00 PM: Find out how the boys got the group together in tonight’s episode of HUMAN TARGET.

    THE CW – 8:00 PM: Nothing says glamour like the smell of human waste tonight as the models must attend a photo shoot on the subway tonight on AMERICA’S NEXT TOP MODEL.

    ABC – 9:30 PM: Anyone that remember show good the story revolving around the fencing competition episode of MODERN FAMILY probably knows why I’m excited for tonight’s episode where JAY and PHIL compete to fill the spot left vacant by MANNY and LUKE‘s basketball coach.

    FOX – 9:00 PM: Well, the judges used their “save’ last week so tonight two contestants get the heave-ho tonight on AMERICAN IDOL. Can’t we all just say BOWERSOX wins so we can skip all this nonsense?

    ABC – 10:00 PM: It’s the series finale tonight of UGLY BETTY. Best of luck BETTY, I never knew you.

    THURSDAY

    FOX – 8:00 PM: How will things play out this week after BRENNAN shot down BOOTH on BONES? My guess is better than we think.

    CBS – 8:00 PM: How will the VILLAINS fair this week after their horrible decision to bounce COACH last week? I have to admit I’m really digging SURVIVOR: HEROES VS. VILLAINS.

    NBC – 9:00 PM: SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE in the 2000’s: TIME AND AGAIN is yet another clip show. I’ll put good money on the fact that we’ll once again see DICK IN A BOX and SCHWETTY BALLS (did I really just type that?).

    FRIDAY

    THE CW – 8:00 PM: Nothing says whacky like when CLARKE gets infectedwith red kyrptonite so tune in to SMALLVILLE for all the fun.

    NBC – 8:00 PM: According to the press release NBC, WALMART and PROCTOR & GAMBLE are trying to bring “family movie night” back with tonights TV movie SECRETS OF THE MOUNTAIN.  One secret is that RANDY JACKSON produced the soundtrack. I’ll give a whirl with my six year old to see if they pulled it off or not.

    ABC – 9:00 PM: Tonight on JAMIE OLVER’S FOOD REVOLUTION he asks high school kids to choose between fresh healthy food and processed junk food. Good luck with that one man.

    STARZ – 10:00 PM: It’s the finale of SPARTACUS: BLOOD AND SAND and rest assured that it’s filled to the brim with half-naked people just like you’ve come to expect.

    SATURDAY

    BBC AMERICA – 6:00 AM E: If you don’t mind watching a few things over you can literally sit around for the next 14 hours and watch DOCTOR WHO all the way up to….

    BBC AMERICA – 8:00 PM: It’s a brand new DOCTOR at 9:00 PM so to help us get ready they’ve made THE ULTIMATE GUIDE so we can learn who this DOCTOR WHO is and get us ready for the 9:00 PM premiere of the newest incarnation of the good DOCTOR. If you’ve always wanted to check the show out but were worried about what you need to know than the perfect time is here since this is a fresh start for us all to enjoy.

    NBC – 11:30 PM: Well the MACGRUBER movie was pushed back but RYAN PHILLIPPE‘s appearance wasn’t on SNL. I’m sure there won’t be a single MACGRUBER sketch or commercial planned to air this night at all.

    SUNDAY

    CBS – 8:00 PM: Get out your biggest belt buckle and settle in for THE 45TH ANNUAL COUNTRY MUSIC AWARDS.

    NBC – 9:00 PM: CELEBRITY APPRENTICE tries a hand at counter programming as the teams have to reinvent the images of country music singers EMILY WEST and LUKE BRYAN. The first order of business would be to make me know who those two are.

    ABC – 9:00 PM: In order to subvert her son’s marriage plans LYNETTE finds out the truth about her future potentila daughter-in-law on DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES. I’m sure that won’t blow up in her face at all.