The Subs- The Beginning

It's an experiment of sorts. See, since I moved to Texas, my combo DVD/VHS player has been... well, opinionated. No, she's not eating tapes, scarring DVD's, refusing to work (that was my last player), or not turning off at all (that my last TV).

No, she spits out subtitles. Random subtitles. I'll usually get about one a movie, depending on, well, whatever criteria the DVD player is going by. I'm just watching, say Feast, and BAM! Up pops:

(Monster growls)

Gee, ya think?

It's not a big thing so far as technical glitches go, but it's annoying. So I'm passing on the annoyance to the three people who read this blog. Welcome to the ramdomness.

Supernatural- Season One on DVD

This was fun, not only did I get the random subtitles- I got them in FRENCH. Which I don't even speak. So I can't vouch for translations. But here we go...

1. Et les victimes sont toujours, un homme et une femme,
(Although the words coming out of his mouth were: the victims are always a man and a woman,)

2. La femme de menage a oublie de passer.
(Looks like the maid didn't come today.)

3. qu'elle lit dans nos pensees
(It's like she's reading your mind.)

You've seen it before...

The list goes on seemingly forever. It started as a novelty, a reversal on an old idea, and now it's an obsession. Originally conceived as a way to put "cheeks in the seats" (as my profs would say), its become de rigeur, and I, for one, am not amused. It's lazy.

Movies on Broadway.

You can't get away from them. Spamalot, Footloose, The Wedding Singer, High Fidelity (the f*&%!?!), The Color Purple. And let us not forget the offerings of the House of Mouse- Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King, Tarzan, and coming soon: Mary Poppins.

Not that I'm totally against derivative works on stage. From a technical aspect many of these are amazing productions. Re-creating on stage what is simple in movies (especially in animation) can be a thrilling sight to see for an audience, and for some, well worth the price of admission. I remember seeing the Beast's transformation and sitting slack-jawed in my seat trying to figure out exactly how it was accomplished. And having seen stills from The Lion King, I can only imagine what those costumes are like in an actual theatre setting. But that's my inner techie geek speaking- the rest of me is completely flummoxed at the idea of spending that kind of dough on something I can have Netflix send me and I can watch in my pj's.

The long/short of it is, I've seen this. I know what's going to happen, so unless you're going to show me something completely new I'm pretty sure I don't want to spend that kind of cash. No matter how much I may have liked the movie. (And I say again- High Fidelity?!?!)

Now, I see where the producers of these productions are coming from. It seems to work so well going the other way (Broadway to movie) that sending it up should be a moneymaker, too. Right? Not quite. See, those Broadway to movie adaptations really haven't been as successful as people would have liked them to be (and haven't been since, what- the 50's?). Yeah, they got the awards (Chicago), and they look beautiful (Phantom of the Opera), but they didn't get the money (Rent) and they were fairly expensive to make compared to a run-of-the-mill film (all of the above). The biggest downside of a movie to stage adaptation (as far as I see) is that it's not all that marketable for the long-term. Will people see it? Yes, and likely in droves if it's a popular movie. Will they see it again and again? No. It's kind of a one-off thing, like a cheesy tourist attraction. You do it to say you did, and then you go back to your home movies and slide shows.

From what I understand, the audience attendance fall-off after opening for all of these shows has been fairly substantial. It's not like a Phantom or a Cats or a Rent where (until recently) the only place to see it WAS onstage. And if you're habitually a repeat viewer like me, it's worth the multiple trips to a theatre. There's more than one way to get your Ren and Ariel fix and you don't have to wait for the half-price tix line if you go to Blockbuster.

(Exceptions to this rule could be for movies/shows that attain a cult-like status- I'm thinking something along the lines of Hairspray or Rocky Horror. Even Rent has it's Rentheads and Spamalot has a lot going for it in the cult category. But trying to handicap those races is like trying to count Snakes on a Plane. Fun, but not really useful.)

Still, I guess you could call the overall convention a success. They're still coming out with more, but I don't see the trend lasting much longer. After all, the recent Broadway to movie revival seems to have petered out and sooner or later the Broadway producers will realize that they can't sell DVD's starring a poor man's John Cusack, when DVD's of the real thing are around. And Broadway shows are expensive to make.

But remember that exception I just mentioned?

Evil Dead- The Musical. With splatter section. I am so there, when is it here?!.

Fantastic Fest '06 Severance

Tongue-in-cheek? Goodness yes, why ever not? What Shaun of the Dead did for the zombie flick, Severance aims to do for the slasher genre. And I do believe they've accomplished their production goals. It's whip-smart, witty and funny. I love it!

The European sales division of Palisade Defence are on a team-building retreat. You know the kind, paintball, motivational lectures, walks in the woods... those things. But a wrong turn leads them to the wrong lodge in the woods, and its residents don't like Palisade Defence.

So they must die.

Chased thru the woods, beaten, alone (sometimes together) the surviving members of the team must survive.

Even if we might not want them to.

Don't even look for novelty here, the standard slasher conventions apply, the novelty is the quality of the comedy. It's a sharp blend of sarcasm, sunny stupidity, and sight gags- which considering the amount of blood involved in some of them, you might gag, too. The death scenes aren't the most original (although the bear trap is pretty darn funny), but they're well filmed and paced perfectly.

Danny Dyer and Laura Harris play Steve and Maggie the (respectively) stoned and good-hearted employees trapped in the woods whist sharp objects are trust in their general direction and bear traps abound in the woods. Both have a grounded approach to their characters, and both entertain and they try (with varying degrees of success) to lead their team to safety. And the killers aren't amateurs, they're seasoned professionals. The cold precision of the murders lends a genuine sense of dread and suspense to what could easily be written off as a light lark through a graveyard, and Harris is an excellent and straightforward heroine to Dyer's bumbling hero.

This was easily one of the audience favorites of the festival as the humor and the gore worked seamlessly to entertain and to educate the audience on the cutthroat business of comedy. Talk about a bad day at the office.

Famous Last Words: This is my kind of comedy. Bloody. Is that so wrong?

Fantastic Fest '06 Nightmare

In my opinion, if it looks like a bad film school project, it is about a bad film school project, and it acts like a bad film school project, then... you get the idea. I've read online reviews that love this movie, but everyone I talked to at FantasticFest (including myself) hated it. I don't get it.

(Apparetly none of us did, the script walked away with the jury award in the horror competition.)

It's daring, don't get me wrong, and the plot is fascinating. Guy and girl wake up in bed together after a party and there's a camera set up at the foot of the bed. On the tape is murder. Bloody, violent, and gleeful murder. There's no evidence, they have no memory, they have no leads. In a moment of desperation, the man pitches the scenario to his film class for a project and to his dismayed wonder, they take it. Filming begins and all hell breaks loose. The filmmaker pulls no punches with the sex, the violence, or the paranoia, but it's not enough. Or in some cases too much.

Several reviewers site the lead's acting range as a plus, and I'll admit he does have a range. But they're all to the extreme. He's not afraid- he's VERY afraid. He's not aggressive, he's VERY aggressive. He's not angry, he's VERY angry. There's a lack a subtlety that makes every emotion feel pushed, he's not asking the audience to empathize- he's demanding it. He's trying to channel Christian Bale in American Psycho (suave, powerful, only with paranoia and doubt from the first) and doing it badly.

I know the line between passion and violence is a thin one, and sex and anger are intrinsic to the plot of this piece; but the sheer amount of sex and nudity and sex and nudity (and sex and nudity) were overwhelming. I'm not a prude when it comes to movies, but parts of the piece felt like we were watching soft-core porn.

There are layers and layers to this piece, and each one is more depraved and confused than the last. Reality sheers off the surface very quickly, leaving the audience with little more than an finale montage of violence, confusion, pain and suffering with no regard to what is real or what is imagined.

If this is all a dream, can I wake up now?

Fantastic Fest '06 Isolation (with The Descendant)

Cows.

Why is it always cows?

They're everywhere, in tornadoes, shilling for cheese, being abducted, they're everywhere! (They even have guns! Cows with guns!) And now they're here to kill you- horribly, bloodily, and if they don't kill you, they'll give you their evil virus. And it's scary, folks, scary!

I'm not kidding, really. It's a movie about killer cows. Granted, it's a freakish genetic experiment gone horribly awry (big surprise), and it's technically a killer calf, not a cow, but still.

It's the old story we're all familiar with. Down on his luck man lets driven scientist into his life and doesn't ask too many questions. Financial desperation leads to complacency, and complacency leads to disaster. Science isn't always the answer, and it can't save you from the monster at the door.

The production values are excellent. It's slick, frantically paced, the sound and the effects add to the movie, not detract. Very rarely do you get a monster movie that is able to resist showing the entire monster, and here we're very glad we only get the glimpses. But what we do see, and what our imagination fills in for us, is more than adequate to make even the most jaded movie goer look over his or her shoulder. There are shadows, pools, corners, barns, and labs and the monster can be in any of them. It is a very dark movie. Dark, wet and cold. And while the ending is a cliched as any I've seen, it was still one of the most satisfying films of the festival.

Cows. Go figure.

And I have to say, it's paired excellently with The Descendant, a simple tale of a pair of hitmen on a job. Just a simple job that is anything but. It's a professional production; the actors, stunts and effects are pristine, and while I've seen this general plot before, it felt fresh and still managed to give me the chills.

Fantastic Fest '06 Hatchet (with If I Had a Hammer)

Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

There is nothing redeeming in this movie, it's glorious! It's a slasher flick in the truest sense of the word. There's a thin skin of a plot, a passel of stock characters, a freakish monster of killer, and... was that Robert (Freddy Krueger) Englund, and Tony (Candyman) Todd, in cameos? Why yes, yes it was! And there were plenty more where that came from.

I'd go into some sort of analysis, but there really isn't a point. Folks on vacation go on a tourist-trap of a haunted swamp tour. Big, bad, hard-to-kill, killer guy with a tragic back story starts hacking. Blood, guts, and a trail of bodies later and there you have it.

Famous Last Words: Fun Times!

Hatchet showed with If I Had a Hammer which is an animated look at what would happen if Thor had to replace his hammer at the local hardware store. Funny as hell.

Fantastic Fest '06 Piano Tuner of Earthquakes (with Existence)

It's not very often I walk out of a movie not knowing exactly what I've seen, but that's what's happened here.

It can be a good thing, in theory, to see something I don't quite understand. It can give me something to mull over, or something to examine. I can discuss abstract symbolism or the conflict of the rational mind and irrational art. I could ponder the nature of obsession, possession, and the dual nature of creation and destruction. I could almost admire the Phantom of the Opera-esque adaptation of a mythic morality tale like the The Nightingale.

I could marvel at the intricately animated automatons and be haunted by their purpose. I could stand awed by the dreamlike quality of the film's cinematography. I could be chilled by the isolation of the seaside setting, the nearby woods, and the elegant cage created by a brilliant madman. I could be seduced by the sultry housekeeper and protective of the naive Piano Tuner invited into this tableau.

Or I could be pissed off that I wasted this much time on a movie that began with a decent plot, OK acting, and wonderful art direction, but ultimately degenerated into a near-incomprehensible mess of sexual imagery, pretty animations, and an ending that makes the whole thing feel like it was a pastel, psychedelic hallucination brought upon by a bad night at the opera, insomnia, and a burlesque show.

Guess which one I'm leaning toward.

Famous Last Words: Huh?

Existence, on the other hand, was a wonderful short whose oddball images and cast of characters fit the premise perfectly. And the disorientation they create were perfectly suited to the journey the main character's on.

Fantastic Fest '06 AICN Screening- Apocalypto

Wow, score one for Ain't It Cool News.

AICN got Mel Gibson to let them screen a rough cut of Apocalypto for the VIP ticket holders. And to boot, Mel and his leading actor, Rudy Youngblood, stuck around afterwards for a Q&A.
For the sake of my sanity, I'm going to limit my comments to the movie; the Q&A, while entertaining, was fairly standard, and I'm sure AICN will have something up shortly.

First of all, it was a rough cut, fx weren't done, the score was temporary, and even Mel admitted he was still shaving the middle. (Which I had to admit dragged.) But even with that, I have reservations about the movie.

My issue is this: one man's archetype is the basis of another man's cliche, and I tend to the latter. There really isn't anything original in the plot. Man has happy family, man is taken from happy family, man escapes, outruns the bad guys, and returns to said family. I'm sorry, but I think I've seen this a few times. The novelty here is the setting (spectacular) and the whole dialect/subtitle issue (I... got nothing, I don't speak Mayan).

That said; it will be a beautiful movie, it's visually stunning, and very well researched from what I've seen. James Horner is working on the soundtrack, and I'm sure it will be up to his usual spectacular standards, and the chase scene at the end was wonderful even in its rough form. Will it be an enjoyable way to spend an afternoon, yes. Is it going to change the world of cinema as we know it, no. And watch Youngblood, if he doesn't get stuck in a type-casting rut, he may be one to watch.

Famous Last Words:
I'm not waiting in any long lines, but if I see it again I'm sure I'll be entertained. Not necessarily a bad thing.

Fantastic Fest '06 The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning

I know, I know, I said I was going to go see something else, but when I saw the New Line security team scanning people with metal detector wands and making people turn off their cell phones, I just had to get in on the fun.

I didn't really have any great expectations. I liked the original, but nothing else (remake included) really grabbed my attention. But this, wow. I mean, WOW. I haven't seen f'd-up family values like this since House of 1000 Corpses (and the Devil's Rejects as well).

I don't really want to give anything away, but suffice it to say, this totally blew the '03 remake out of the water. You don't waste much time on back story, although what's there is perfectly suited to the plot, and once the blood starts flowing it is incessant. Horror villains are always kinda like the Energizer Bunny of Doom, but this is brutal. Gore, gore and more galore. And some of it with that dark, sick, humorous variety that almost makes you want to laugh if you weren't so busy squirming in your seat. I have to say I'm with this guy (scroll to the bottom) in wondering who did what to whom to get this an R from the MPAA. (And after, the director told the audience that two of the goriest scenes were pretty well shaved to get it, hello, DVD!) I think it was the fact that there was no nudity.

There is a bear trap, meathooks, and, of course the chainsaw. But no nudity.

And here's the kicker. Leatherface doesn't become a major player until the almost the third act. The whole movie is driven by R. Lee Ermey, who is one of those quintessential, "Hey, It's That Guy!" types. Only now he's sick, demented, and he's just trying to care for his family. Awwww, it would be sweet if it weren't completely psychotic.

Famous last words:
Nothing will ever approach the original, just by the virtue of it being the original, but this comes damn close.

And to answer the burning question: Yes, you do find out where Leatherface got his leather face.

Fantastic Fest '06 Haze (with Oculus)

Oculus is an excellent example of the KISS principle. Keep It Simple, Stupid. One room, one man, one creepy-ass mirror. Clocking in at just over half an hour, it's long for a "short," but it really doesn't feel like it, as the plot unfolds at its own pace without feeling rushed. The director has paced the action/drama very well within the confines of this piece, and the actor does an excellent job of toe-ing the line between sanity and madness, right up until he crosses over it.

This piece is an excellent example of the never-ending struggle to rationalize the irrational or to prove the un-provable. It's a scientific study of a most unscientific event; and like all rational beings in the horror genre, the descent to madness comes when our protagonist's rational underpinnings are ripped out from underneath him and all he's left with is his fear. This is assuming our scientist isn't "mad" to begin with. After all, he's convinced the mirror killed his parents. But this is all theory, and let's move on...

The color palette (or in this case, complete lake thereof), works to create the clinical setting the protagonist desires for his experiment. It is clean, sterile, and away from outside influence. It is also cut-off, isolated, and completely without refuge. There are some technical sound issues, echoes and the like, but the usage of the clock alarms and phone rings add to the distortion of time and breakdown of the protagonist's awareness of anything but the mirror.

I have one major gripe with the short, and unfortunately it's somewhat linked to the ending. I'll try to keep this as general as possible, but it's still kinda spoilery. Throughout the piece the history of the mirror is relayed to the audience through a series of stories, people die, people disappear, people kill other people. Got that. Mirror bad. Check. The whole creepiness of the set-up is that no one really knows what the mirror does, and I think it should have stayed that way. Let me put it like this, the freakiest thing about The Blair Witch Project was that you never saw the witch. You saw things happen, you saw the campers freak out, but you never saw who/what was behind it. The scariest things are what we pull out of our own memories, and once you show the "monster," you're done. Glimpse it out of the corner of your eye, catch it's reflection, feel its breath on your neck, but in a piece like this, it's best left unseen. Once fear has a face and a name it's dimished. Which isn't to say that what we saw in the theatre wasn't creepy, believe me, it was, I just think it would have been much more effective in the abstract.

And speaking of abstract, let's move onto the main feature, Haze.

One part Saw, one part Cube, and Asian to boot. I should love this, but I don't. I was actually kinda disappointed. Don't get me wrong, it's creepy and claustrophobic as all hell. (I didn't immediately think, "It's the Habitrail(c) from Hell!" for nothing.) The monotone concrete walls with their blind turns, and a well-developed bleakness to the entire production design from costume to lighting adds to the paranoia and anxiety. The traps are vicious, but not entirely original. (Although I have to admit, there's one that set my teeth on edge and reminded me how long it's been since I went to the dentist.) But it seems to jump in continuity, and the ending leaves a great deal to be desired.

The concept is solid, a man wakes up with no memory, a nasty stomach wound, and only a series of trap-laden tunnels in front of him. But it's not very trap-laden, this movie is only about 50 minutes long, and that's not quite enough time to rachet up the tension to a point where the audience is squirming, anxious and desperate to know what's going to happen next. There's also a lack of exposition, which is normal for J-horror, but what we do get is mainly in a voice-over. That's not horrible, except for the fact that it is repeated almost verbatim 10-15 minutes later when the lead meets up with his fellow captive. Why have the V-O at all? And the ending...? I don't expect my horror movies to have rational endings, but I'd like to know that there is one. There's a mishmash of a montage that makes no sense of time, place, or even if it's relevant to the plot. Not cool.

Famous last words:
This may be the only time where I recommend a feature so you can see the short. Haze isn't entirely bad, but Oculus was better and worth the time.

Premier pick: Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip

I took me awhile, but a few years ago, I finally "got" Aaron Sorkin. I'm not saying it all made sense, or looked nice, or felt good, but I was there. I was with it, there, in the moment.

The show was The West Wing, and after a four-hour marathon, I was hooked. Unfortunately, it was his last season on the show, but after going back and seeing those first incredible seasons, I knew I had found a writer I would follow almost anywhere. Not an actor, or a concept, or a genre, but a writer.

So is it any surprise that as soon as I heard about Studio 60, I was waiting in rapt anticipation? Not really.
Is it any surprise that as soon as I found out you could get the pilot from Netflix it went to the top of my queue?
Again, not really.
Was I disappointed?
Not really.

Here's what I like about Sorkin. It doesn't have to be original material, but it sure feels that way sometimes. A Few Good Men- it's a courtroom drama, we've all seen it, but it twists and turns the definition of guilt and responsibility around and up until it hits the ceiling... and breaks through. The American President- a romance. Pretty cliche until you start adding the politics and image sculpting in. Relationships are hard, policy is harder, both can be impossible.

And while we're on policy and politics, let's look at that good 'ole West Wing. I have NEVER seen a show on the silver or small screens that has made politics look as hard and as easy as that show did. It was fast, it didn't grind to a halt every time something had to be explained, it kept moving and somehow we all kept up. It made you think, and didn't assume you're a child. We're not talking about programming for the lowest denominator and how many shows can say that today?

But let's move on to the focus of this post, shall we?

The premise is simple, a show with-in a show. This is simple. Get the show on the air, keep the show on the air. Period. End of story. Beginning of drama. We've seen it in sitcoms (Murphy Brown) we've seen it in drama (Network) and now we get to see it in both. Because like all TV a la Sorkin, there is plenty to laugh at in Studio 60, and more drama than you can shake your remote at. It's been said before, and I'm sure will be said again, but what Sorkin did for politics in The West Wing, he's doing for TV. Is he preaching? Um, yeah. If you've seen Judd Hirsh's on-air rant you catch on pretty quick, and to say that Sorkin and his co-exec and director Tommy Schlamme are bringing a little real-life baggage to the project is an understatement, but who said truth was any less strange or fascinating than fiction?

The casting. Ensemble, if we're banking on anything, we're banking on Sorkin's name, not the cast's. Not that they're nobodies. Timothy Busfield and Bradley Whitford are Sorkin vets, and any one who hasn't seen Friends and Matthew Perry during its run has been living in a world without TV for over a decade now and I can't help you. Stephen Weber is a solid actor, as are most of the others.

Our weak point here is going to be Amanda Peet. Not that she's bad, I think she just has the farthest to go. Her character's a hard one, the executive who's going to be the push and pull on the show. She's going to be defending the Whitford and Perry characters while trying to keep them from going too far at the same time, and that's not a easy feat to portray. And she's young, as her character is written, and that adds another level of difficulty. Do I think she can do it? Yeah, but I think she's going to need an episode or two to get the kinks ironed out. Also to watch: The characters who play the "Big Three," or the three lead actors on the show, D.L. Hughley, Sarah Paulson and Nathan Corddry. We didn't see much of them in the pilot, but they will have a huge influence on the upcoming plots as they seem to have a great deal of influence, if not outright pull with their fellow castmates and the network.

I'm hooked, and I'm OK with that. But I'm picky and I have very high expectations for this show, as do most of the critics I've read. It's a long fall... let's hope we don't go over the cliff.

Who needs sleep? v2.0

Here we go again...

Sunday
Isolation
Dir. Billy O'Brein- Ireland- 94 minutes
A down-on-his-luck farmer allows genetic experimentation on his cattle. Gee, do you think that could be a bad idea?
Piano Tuner of Earthquakes (Trailer link)
Dir. Brothers Quay- Germany/France/UK- 99 minutes
A disturbed genius kidnapps Malvina, an opera star, in order to turn her into an immortal mechanical masterpiece. When an innocent piano tuner is called upon to service the malevolent abductor, he becomes entwined in the "perverse universe" of Malvina's captor. Looks like Phantom of the Opera meets The Nightingale.
Starfish Hotel
Dir. John Williams- Japan- 98 minutes
Yuichi Arisu loses himself in novels about a place called Darkland. His wife disappears, and the lines between what he reads and what he lives begin to blur. The police think he's guilty, there's an underground brothel and there is a man in a rabbit suit helping Arisu. And we're wondering why it's getting comparisons to Donnie Darko?
I'm on the fence on this one, there's another film playing at that time that I want to see, so we might change over... Moving on...
Broken
Dir. Simon Boyes and Adam Mason- UK- 110 minutes
Just in case the world doesn't have enough survival horror, here comes another one. It may be cliche, a mother and daughter kidnapped, mother subjected to horrors to protect her child. It's another I might jump theatres on- Crispin Glover's on the next screen over with Simon Says...
Frostbite
Dir. Anders Banke- Sweden- 95 minutes
What do you do when there are vampires in a town where dawn is a month away? Don't know, but I'm skipping a special presentation of the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre to find out!

Monday
Hatchet
Dir. Adam Green- 82 minutes
Teens go on a "Haunted Swamp Tour," murder, mayhem, and much nudity ensues. Campy it may be, but Harry Knowles from Ain't It Cool News is raving about it, and there's a cameo by Robert Englund. Like I'd miss that!
Bug (Trailer link)
Dir. William Freidken (Yes, the Exorcist, French Connection, that guy!)- 95 minutes
Ashley Judd, Harry Connick Jr., and psychosis. According to Roger Ebert, "A paranoid personality finds its mate, and they race each other to madness." I can't wait to see who hits the finish line first!
Ek Hasina Thi
Dir. Sriram Raghavan- India- 120 minutes
Indian. Gothic. Women's. Revenge. Flick. Got a problem with that?
Severance (Trailer link)
Dir. Christopher Smith- UK- 96 minutes
Screenwriter James Moran is presenting his unique slasher flick. What starts as something resembling The Office, or Office Space, quickly dissolves into a slasher film in the middle of the woods as the hapless employees of Palisade Defence start dropping. It's getting comparisons to Shaun of the Dead, and I get to play, Hey! It's that gal from 24!. Hi, Laura Harris!

Oi, leaving off there. Anime, Freddy Krueger, and Darren Aronofsky to come!

Who needs sleep?

The schedule's up, I made my choices, now all I have to do is wait. Here's where I'll be and what will be keeping me up at night.

Thursday
Haze
Dir. Shinya Tsukamoto- Japan- 49 minutes
Saw meets Cube as a man wakes up in a small, cramped space and a stomach wound that is killing him slowly.
Midnight Movies: From the Margin to the Mainstream
Dir. Stuart Samuels- 88 minutes
The directors, critics, and theatre owners that created, panned, and proudly showed "Midnight Movies" like, Night of the Living Dead, Pink Flamingos, Eraserhead, The Rocky Horror Picture Show, and many others talk about these "cult" films and their journey into the wide, wacky world.
Last Supper
Dir. Osamu Fukutani- Japan/Hong Kong- 92 minutes
Based on the book by Kei Ohishi, and produced as a multi-country project, some said this could never be done. Never say never, so here is a gore-fest of a brilliant plastic surgeon with a taste for human flesh and the murderous impulses to fulfil it.
Parasite 3D (Link goes to a trailer)
Dir. Charles Band- 85 minutes
The first starring role for Demi Moore! Yup, it's that Parasite movie presented in 3D, with corporate assassins, a mad scientist, hoods, and... parasites. Charles Band is in town to present it and do a talk-back.

Friday
Inside (Link goes to a trailer)
Dir. Jeff Miller- 100 minutes
"...voyeurism gone very, very wrong." Really, do we need to know more than that? Jeff Miller's in town for the Q&A after the film.
The Beach Party at the Threshold of Hell
Dir. Jonny Gillette and Kevin Wheatley- 97 minutes
Post-Apocalpyse, year 2096, The Vice-King of New America- Tex Kennedy (heir to the Kennedy clan), android bodyguards, and the great-great-great grandson of Fidel Castro. Oh! And there's Benny, the rightful King, too! Yea, ya got me, too, but it looks like it will be fun!
Zhest (Junk)
Dir. Denis Neimand- Russia- 127 minutes
An investigative reporter follows the trail of a pedophile and rapist into B.F.E. Russia. It's fringe vs. mainstream as the reoprter devles into the often surreal Russian landscape where the denizens hunt the city-folk for fun.
Unrest
Dir. Jason Todd Ipson- 85 minutes
Stuck without a home until her student loans come through, first year med student Alison is living in the hospital where she takes her gross anatomy class. Curious, she looks into the history of her cadaver, and the murders begin. The director (a former teacher and surgeon himself), had the cast filming in a real morgue, with real bodies. Fun.

Saturday
Tideland (Link to homepage.)
Dir. Terry Gilliam- 122 minutes
You want more than just a title and a director? OK, Jeliza-Rose has lost her mother to a heroin OD and her Dad's taken her out to a rural setting to recover. She talks to Barbie-doll heads. There's a woman who's always in a bee-keeper's helmet. It's "odd" and "taboo." What can I say, it's Gilliam.
Nightmare
Dir. Dylan Bank- 111 minutes
What would you do if you woke up with a strange woman and a video camera that shows you committing a violent murder in a room that's now completely clean? You'd make a movie of it, of course. The line between film and fact blurs as the director struggles to find who's filming the murders he can't remember, as he's filming the murders he's not convinced he's not commiting. Confused yet?
The Hamster Cage
Dir. Larry Kent- Canada- 92 minutes
Ahh, holidays. Inappropriate gifts, family you love to hate, and a "hell of Oedipal scenerios." It's dark comedy at its freakish best!
Lie Still (Link goes to the trailer.)
Dir. Sean Hogan- UK- 80 minutes
It's a haunted house movie. A VERY haunted house movie.
Blood Trails (Link goes to the trailer.)
Dir. Robert Krause- USA/Germany- 90 minutes
A chance encounter leads to a night of violent sex that cyclist Anne would rather forget. Escaping to the mountains with her boyfriend, a hellish encounter with her one-night-stand leads to a hellish race downhill. Lion's Gate has snatched it up as the next Haute Tension or Wolf Creek, so look for a wide release next year.

And this is just the first three days! More to come, gore to come.
(Sorry, I just couldn't help it....)

Counting down!

So I finally printed out my festival schedule, and I'm probably more happy than I really should be.

I can't help it, my greedy little inner demons are going to get to feast on some of the best horror, sci-fi, fantasy, and any combination thereof, movies that are out there to be found. There are panel discussions, and special hosts, and all sorts of goodies to be had. Advance screenengs of movies like Gilliam's Tideland and Aronofsky's The Fountain. Asian, Irish, American, and films from all over will be screened for a very enthusiastic crowd.

I will not sleep and I will spend way too much money on the awesomeness Drafthouse goodies.

It's gonna be great.

The biggest fictional history book I've ever read.

"Many books are to be read, some are to be studied, and a few are meant to be lived in for weeks. Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell is of this last kind." -Michael Dirda, The Washington Post

To which I add "No, sh*$, Sherlock. And also, whoever started touting this as the "adult's Harry Potter," should be shot. Aside from the magic, we're not even in the same genre. This isn't a fantasy, it's a Gothic Victorian historical.

Now, I pride myself on being a fairly voracious reader. When I decide I like something I'll burn right through it, stay up late, take it to lunch with me, whatever it takes to get to that next page, chapter, or verse. Which I suppose is my problem with this book, even after reading Jonathan Strange cover to cover, I still can't figure out if I liked it at all. Which is why it took me somewhere in the neighborhood of seven months to finish. I know I don't hate it, so that's something I suppose. There are parts I know I enjoyed, and I find the entire concept to be fascinating, but as an entire piece? I finished it weeks ago and I'm still scratching my head.

So let me attempt to elucidate, and yes, I'm using the fifty-cent term for a reason and not to sound smart. As defined by my handy online Merriam-Webster: elucidate... transitive verb : to make lucid especially by explanation or analysis a text; intransitive verb : to give a clarifying explanation. Which, in my opinion, is the whole reason this book was written. The author, Susannah Clarke, is so intent on explaining everything to us, the whys, the whos, and the whens, that I think she occasionally forgets that something has to happen in order to justify all these explanations. The book would move along for a bit and then come to a grinding halt of exposition, footnotes, "real-world" parallels, and general theory.

Part of this, I'm sure, is because of the structure she has set herself. In the most simple terms I can use, Clarke set out to write a historical novel in Victorian style, only with magic. Not a bad idea, but she took the "historical" part a bit too far. Don't get me wrong, she's done her research into the Napoleonic wars and it shows. I fact, I'd say the "war bits" were the best paced, and by far outstrip the rest of the book in clarity. Clarke bounces back and forth between Strange's adventures in the field and Norrell's maneuverings back in London almost effortlessly, and weaves them into the wider narrative fairly deftly. And it's blazingly obvious that she's planned out the fictional history of the magical side of things extensively.

Or should I say excessively? Footnote: 1 : a note of reference, explanation , or comment (see excerpt, 5th page) usually placed below the text on a printed page 2 a : one that is a relatively subordinate or minor part; footnote to architectural history. Now, I'm all for footnotes. They're great to clarify points, identify different schools of thought, or to prove that the author isn't just making stuff up. And that last reason is why Ms. Clark has used them here. I get that, it's a wonderful touch that adds that certain layer of "reality" to the whole piece. It feels like I could go look this stuff up if I wanted too. It's the "relatively subordinate" part she struggles with.

Footnotes are meant to compliment the piece, not become pieces of their own. Case in point- on page 61, one of the characters refers to a legal case involving magic. Clarke inserts a footnote, quite properly, to explain the relevance of the case to the conversation at hand. In any other text, the author would add a few sentences and we'd move on. (1) Heck, as this is a work of fiction, and the footnotes are a nifty device, I'd allow a few short paragraphs. Instead there's a page and a half of small-font text, at least three if not four pages if it were regular sized. To add insult to injury, the next footnote is longer, and includes actual dialogue. They do nothing to move the plot along, and they are a distraction, not a clarification to the reader. I should not forget what I was reading before I reach the end of the relevant footnote. If there were only three, maybe four the entire piece, I could forgive. But there's one of these babies in almost every chapter. (One stretches over five pages!!!) My history professors would flay me alive, these aren't footnotes any longer, they're appendices.

But if you can ignore them, or do what I do and finish the chapter, then go read the footnotes, then you can get through it OK. Clarke is still a little enamored of her own historical creation, as are most of the critics whose glowing reviews pepper periodicals everywhere, but they're not entirely wrong. Clarke adheres to the Gothic Victorian writing style she's chosen, even going so far as to reflect the appropriate gender bias in the treatment of Lady Poole and Mrs. Strange. Speech patterns, atmosphere, and class relationships are all accurate, and while the casual reader might get lost, or not even know where to begin, after awhile you can pick up the rhythm, and adjust your mindset to what's being presented. This is not an easy writing style to master, and while I think her editors should have been a little more liberal with their little red pens, it's not a total disaster.

My advise- If you like magic and a good gothic tale of mystery, magic and mayhem and can make it through books like Rebecca, Edgar Allen Poe's writings or even Dracula and Frankenstein without the language and style (all 846 pages of it) driving you up a wall, read it. You'll enjoy it. Just take it slow.

1. For example: Tubbs v. Starhouse an action in which Mr. Starhouse, a former employee of Mr. Tubbs, sued his employer for defamation of character by claiming that Mr. Starhouse was a faerie. The resulting strife caused Starhouse to leave Tubbs' employ and suffer unemployment and injury to his reputation. The courts found in favor of Mr. Starhouse, making him the first person to ever be declared "human" by the courts. It is also interesting to note that it illustrates the belief that, as recently as a few years ago, many Englishmen and women still believed that fairies walked among them. See, simple! Footnote- not footchapter!

Wah-hooie! And the winner is....

Am I a happy camper? Hell, yes!

Actually, except for a few snubs in the nominations process, and two, maybe three of the awards, I'm pretty happy with the entire Emmy thing this year. Heck, I was just surprised we ran on time. (So was Bob Newhart, but we'll get to that later.)
And, yeah, my favorite show won, Outstanding Director, Outstanding Lead Actor, Outstanding Drama, hee, but that's not why I was happy.

(OK, I lie, it was, but there was other stuff too!)

First thing- the opening number. Lost, The Office, House, South Park... no show was safe as host Conan O'Brien dashed through them all with the grace, wit, and elegance of a geeky virgin on prom night. I may not always like his style, but this sort of thing suits him. He's actually a pretty good host, although I would have had him work the pacing of his opening monologue more. But, then, that was just the set-up for the musical number about NBC. Yes, I mentioned musical number, Conan O'Brien and NBC in the same paragraph. Here's a link to the monologue and musical bit, the NBC part starts at about 5:25. Ouch, kudos to NBC for not axing it.

From then on, it was a pretty standard Emmy presentation. A few of the presenters tried to be funny and weren't, tried to stay on their cues and didn't. There was fashion, good (and classic good) and evil, and the usual, um, eloquent acceptance speeches. The writer and director of My Name is Earl proved why that show is one of the funniest on TV, and Blythe Danner... well, I'm not sure what she was on about, do you? There was the tribute to Dick Clark (still living) and Aaron Spelling (passed on), as well as the traditional memorial montage (snif!). There weren't any real surprises, but nothing really sank it like the Titanic, either.

The running gag of the night was gamely endured by Mr. Bob Newhart, who was wheeled out in a plexi-glass container with exactly enough air to get him through, if the show didn't run over. After that, we had several check-ins with Mr. Newhart, each more panicked than the rest, and a few of the more canny presenters and recipients went with it, and finally he was released. According to Conan, 52% of the call-in viewers wanted him to live, 42% wanted him to die, and 6% called in just to say they didn't have an opinion. Hokey, yes, but cute nonetheless.

Funniest presenters? You have to ask?


Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, complete with ad-libs. Fun, no?

But how did I do in my predictions? Pretty darn good, if I do say so myself. (Better than my Oscar predictions at any rate.) Out of the 16 categories I listed, my heart and head got 10 of 'em right. My mistakes? Over-estimating the finale effect in two categories, under-estimating it in a third, and just being wrong in the rest. But thank the heavens none of my WTF! choices won. That would have been embarrassing, no?

So congrats to the winners, better luck next time to the rest, and I'm off to wait until January when my favorite EMMY WINNING series returns.

Today's Movie Checklist

• A plot that serves the main action (loosely if necessary)- check
• Airplane (must malfunction on cue)- check
• Stalwart Hero- check
• Stalwart Heroine- check
• Sidekick- check
• Bad Guy- check
• Passenger that's afraid of flying- check
• Passenger Asshole (preferably British)- check
• Actual Mom (with baby for peril and angst)- check and check
• Kids (without parental supervision, see above)- check and check again
  
• Actually, have Central Casting send up one of every stock character for the passenger manifest. (Hmmmm, but no Italian mobsters, Asian's in this year.)
  
• Lap Dog for the Spoiled Heiress (must have appropriate name)- check

• And for God's sake, don't forget the Motherfucking Snakes for the Motherfucking Plane or we have no movie!!!
  

I can honestly say that I haven't had this much campy fun at a movie in ages. (Well, not since Slither anyway.)
I can also honestly say I didn't know death by snakebite could occur in such, um, interesting forms.

It doesn't waste time setting up a silly plot, it's pretty much 1-2-3 and we're on the plane. We're not talking Shakespeare here. But what it does set up isn't stupid. Cliche, oh, goodness, yes. We hit just about every disaster/creature/action cliche there is: no pilot, plane breaks, rampaging, angrier-than-normal animals to hunt and kill, snarly (and snarky) passengers, harried stewardesses, brash FBI agents, all of it and more; but it's not dumb. And it works! The hype didn't lie!

It's funny. And creepy. You don't have to think, so just sit back and enjoy the flight. (Example- all you need to know about the flight attendants you learn during the emergency instructions, and none of them speak a word.) There are scenes that make you squirm in anticipation, and scenes that just jump out and grab you. You name it, we got it, about the only thing missing was the pregnant lady going into labor.

Maybe we're saving that for the sequel.

Go see it, unless you're seriously ophidiophobic in which case I feel genuinely sorry for you, you're missing out on a fun thing here.

And if you're in the Austin area, see it at the Drafthouse and get one of these. (If the snakes left any of 'em, that is.)

Oh, the Humanity! More Emmy noms...

We're back at the Emmy noms, so here's my look at the drama:

Outstanding Supporting Actor
William Shatner (Boston Legal), Oliver Platt (Huff), Michael Imperioli (The Sopranos), Gregory Itzen (24), Alan Alda (The West Wing)
MIA: Hmmm, this is actually a pretty good field. Aside from the overall snub of Battlestar Galactica, which I still think has some of the best writing and strongest actors on the planet, I can't really come up with any one actor missing. I know some critics have been perplexed at the lack of a Grey's Anatomy nom in this category, but I'm not. They got plenty elsewhere, and while I love T.R. Knight's portrayal of the neurotic George, I don't think it's Emmy-worthy. There's the usual West Wing absentees, John Spencer, Bradley Whitford, but I can think of someone who should have been left off.
Seriously, folks, William Shatner- again? I... just don't get it. I mean, actors get this award for playing characters that add to the overall fabric of the show. That give it depth. I'll give Shatner his due, he's been carrying this show for awhile and without him it would have died a painful death and in the past that's been enough to merit award, but not anymore. Not having seen Huff, I can't comment on Platt's character, so I'll only say that based on what I've heard and what I've seen before, he's actually got a shot. The Sopranos had a really off year, if there's a mercy award to be given, this will be it. Alan Alda was amazing in his role as Sen. Vinik, hands down one of the best characters to come out of The West Wing in awhile. And my love/hate relationship with Gregory Itzen's President Logan is shared by legions of 24 fans, new and old. Even people who hate the show watched because of this guy.
Winner: Alan Alda, the elder, revered TV icon + West Wing withdrawal = Emmy gold
I ::heart:: : Gregory Itzen, watching him go from cowardly slimeball to traitorous bastard was amazing, and he sold it wholeheartedly.
WTF?!: I... reallydon't... want... to... seeShatner...win...again. Really.

Outstanding Supporting Actress
Candice Bergen (Boston Legal), Sandra Oh (Grey's Anatomy), Chandra Wilson (Grey's Anatomy), Blythe Danner (Huff), Jean Smart (24)
MIA: Ahhh, the West Wing snub again. Of all the shows that deserved a nom here, West Wing was topping my list. And not just because I thought Stockard Channing should have been nominated here, if anywhere. Kristen Chenoweth (always adorable) was an excellent addition to the cast and Janel Maloney had an excellent year as well with her character finally coming into her own. But that could just me my post-WW depression speaking.
On the the actual noms. If Shatner's carrying Boston Legal, Bergen's his spotter. I can't really say anything better than that. Again, I've never seen Huff, so I can't judge Danner's performance, so she goes on the "I hear good things," pile. But oh, Sandra Oh and Chandra Wilson. The edge goes to Oh, as her character's had the better arc and therefore more emotional growth than Wilson and as such we've seen more of Oh's talent. Although Wilson's performance while her character was in labor while her husband was in surgery was amazing. Unfortunately two noms-one show usually means a split vote and neither can take it. In the end, I can't say enough about Jean Smart's turn on 24. While it would be great to see the stalwart Mary-Lynn Rajskub nominated here, it was Smart's performance as the unbalanced First Lady Martha Logan that took the series to the next level- and that, my friends, is what we should be looking for here.
Winner: While the knee-jerk reaction will be to the more popular Boston Legal, I think Jean Smart has a good chance. So I'm shooting for her.
I ::heart:: : See above, this could be the only place my heart gets its desire.
WTF?!: Sandra Oh, while not a long shot, she still has that split vote that will be hard to overcome.

And here we pause for a moment to reflect. I have before me the list of the various nominees for the mini-series, made-for-TV movies, and variety/comedy series. Have I watched many of these? No. So make of these what you will, and here's the drive-by version before I hit the "biggies." (And we're skipping the supporting players. I'm sorry, I love you, but no. Also- no more links- IMDb it yourself!)

Outstanding Lead Actress in Mini-series or Movie
Kathy Bates (Ambulance Girl), Gillian Anderson (Bleak House), Helen Mirren (Elizabeth I), Judy Davis (A Little Thing Called Murder), Annette Benning (Mrs. Harris)
Nice field, and nice to see that almost the entire field is "women of a certain age."
Winner: coin toss between Benning and Mirren, both are excellence actresses and I hear both were excellent roles. I'll give the edge to Mirren, though. She did play the Queen.
Longshot: Gillian Anderson- the role won her rave reviews, but do we really think the academy will be able to see past the little green men?

Outstanding Lead Actor in Mini-series or Movie
Charles Dance (Bleak House), Donald Sutherland (Human Trafficking), Ben Kingsley (Mrs. Harris), Jon Voight (Pope John Paul II), Andre Braugher (Thief)
Winner: Here's where I really wish I'd actually seen Bleak House or Mrs. Harris, because I've seen Human Trafficking, most of Thief, and parts of Pope John Paul II, and based on that I'm leaning toward Sutherland, maybe Braugher (Thief wasn't good, but he was kinda awesome). So, what the heck, Donald Sutherland. I'll be wrong, but at least I've seen the performance.
Longshot: Voight- there were two major network biopics and neither of them were any good. This was an obligatory nom- they had to pick one of them.

Outstanding Made-for-TV Movie
Flight 93 (A&E), The Flight That Fought Back (Discovery Channel), The Girl in the Cafe (HBO), Mrs. Harris (HBO), Yesterday (HBO)
Winner: It's going to HBO, and I'd say it's between The Girl In The Cafe and Mrs. Harris. Edge to Cafe for social responsibility and political relevance.
Longshot: Flight 93, while having two movies about the same thing usually spells doom, A&E's presentation was the better (or at least better marketed) of the two. And right now most things 9-11 are getting knee-jerk support, whether merited or not.

Outstanding Mini-series
Bleak House (PBS), Elizabeth I (HBO), Into the West (TNT), Sleeper Cell (Showtime)
Winner: Sleeper Cell- social relevance, solid casting/acting, and hits the hot-buttons. Out of all the minis and movies I missed this is the only one that ended up on my Netflix queue.
Longshot: Into the West. This was only nominated because its one of those sweeping epics that are important only insomuch as they got made. I've seen better acting and I've seen the same plots done better in half the time.

Outstanding Variety, Music or Comedy Series
The Colbert Report (Comedy Central), The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (Comedy Central), Late Night With Conan O'Brien (NBC), Late Show With David Letterman (CBS), Real Time With Bill Maher (HBO)
Winner: Ouch, the split vote returns. I still say The Daily Show takes it.
Longshot: Real Time, here's where being on a premium cable network will kill ya, and, well, the Daily Show writers are better...

Whew! Home stretch....

Outstanding Actress in a Drama Series
Kyra Sedgwick (The Closer), Geena Davis (Commander in Chief), Mariska Hargitay (Law & Order: SVU), Frances Conroy (Six Feet Under), Allison Janney (The West Wing)
MIA: Again, where's the love for Battlestar Galactica? I'd put Mary McConnell up here in a heartbeat. And possibly a nod to Patricia Arquette in Medium would have been nice.
I don't get this field of nominees. Was this really the best we had this year? I love Allison Janney, don't get me wrong, and The West Wing will be missed. But Janney's had better seasons and just because she's been nominated every year doesn't mean she needed to be nominated this year.... Same goes for Frances Conroy, too. I guess this is how we say, "Thanks for the memories," and "We'll see you when you guest star on other shows!" And while no one was happier for Mariska for finally grabbing her gold, her work this year fell off as the writers had to pull her back for her pending maternity leave. Another habit nomination? The only two here who earned it were Davis and Sedgwick. But Davis was crippled by the freakshow rollercoaster the series took before being put out if its misery, and while Sedgwick sells it every week, the rest of the cast can't quite keep pace with her manic energy, nor can the writers who are competing with all the other procedurals.
Winner: Allison Janney- Again, the West Wing withdrawal Syndrome strikes.
I ::heart:: : Kyra Sedgwick
WTF?!: Frances Conroy- She's never really gotten the recognition she may have deserved for this role she just keeps getting overshadowed by the others....

Outstanding Actor in a Drama Series
Denis Leary (Rescue Me), Peter Krause (Six Feet Under), Kiefer Sutherland (24), Martin Sheen (The West Wing), Christopher Meloni (Law & Order: SVU)
MIA: The show is Battlestar Galactica- how many times to I have to tell you people this? Sheesh! And I'm actually shocked that there are no automatic Sopranos contestants here, nor any love for Deadwood... And The Shield is still on, right? Paging Dr. House....
This is an OK field, after all, it's been slim pickins in the acting dept all 'round this year, except- Sheen, again? Really? He was in last season? Funny, I can't really remember him being there, but I'm sure he was and he is truly a gifted actor, so... Peter Krause, your character died and it was the most interesting thing he'd done in awhile. Still, you're a solid actor and we're glad to have you. Thank you, whoever put Mr. Meloni up this year! All the angst and anger really paid off, and it was wonderful seeing Meloni take his character over the edge, I just wish his nom had come before this 'cause he ain't got a chance in hell. Ahh, Mr. Sutherland, you must be getting pretty comfy in this category, and just as comfortable watching someone else walk away with the prize. Still it's been a REALLY good year for 24. And love him or hate him (or both, I'm not that picky), Denis Leary deserves this, in fact:
Winner: Leary. Really. The fact that there are still people watching this show is a testament to the talent on-screen. This show has been amazing and has surpassed everyone's expectations. We like our leading anti-heroes.
I ::heart:: : You have to ask? Kiefer, of course.
WTF?!: Meloni, I'm sorry but this was his best year, but probably the worst one for him to be nominated.

Outstanding Drama Series
Grey's Anatomy (ABC), House (Fox), The Sopranos (HBO), 24 (Fox), The West Wing (NBC)
MIA: Why doesn't anyone watch Sci-Fi? Why? And FX ain't just sittin' there, ya know!
OK, the only thing we're missing is a Crime Procedural and the aforementioned Sci-Fi and we've hit all the biggies. Action. Medical Drama. Political Intrigue. Campy Soap. Mafia Mania. Angst. Anger. We've got it all. Grey's Anatomy really came into its own, no longer relying on the Housewives carry-over that saved it form early cancellation. But Emmy-worthy? And House, while still gripping and fast paced, has begun to repeat itself.. a lot. And what happened to The Sopranos? No one really seems to know, but while everyone's scratching their heads, they're still watching so something must still be going right. But why not Deadwood? 24 was as unstoppable this season as its leading character, but despite some of the tightest pacing and the best casting in years, it's always been the longshot in this category. Hi, West Wing! How are we supposed to miss you if you won't go away?
Winner: Since everyone's coming back next year, I'll lean to The West Wing. Of all the mercy/pity noms TWW is getting, this is the win that's deserved. They went out with real style and decency, and they coped with the death of star John Spenser with the grace of poetry.
I ::heart:: : 24, 24, 24, 24...
WTF!?: Grey's Anatomy is a Desperate Housewife-away from being a comedy and a few hours-off of being a soap opera.

Well, I think that's it. See you August 27th to see how I did. Not that I think anyone cares....

The Games We Play

...to keep reporters at bay. And things that we do, to let the stalkerazzi stew.

Normally, I could care less about the latest celebrity scandal. Don't get me wrong, I read 'em when they're blinking in bold type in front of me, but I don't hunt out the dirt, and for the most part I don't get stuck on any one thing. Until now. This is starting to make me sick.

Enter Operation Cruise Control.

(The CIA might want to take notes. Heck, at this point, who says they're not?)

The stalkerazzi's stalking.
The legitimate media's fuming.
The conspiracy nuts are muttering away, huddled in their panic rooms.
The bloggers are scratching their heads in total perplexity. (Myself included.)
Rumor runs rampant, and I'm just waiting for the NSA to officially deny any existence of an effort to determine the exact nature of the communications between family and friends regarding little Suri Cruise.

It's a baby.
(Or is it? Duhn-duhn-duhn!)

I must admit, I'm impressed at the information lockdown from the Cruise Camp. When the best the media can do is run headlines saying that such and such actress has claimed to have seen little Suri... wow. That's a shut-out.

But how far can it go? I more than understand the impulse to keep one's personal life private. I know I'd go shuddering, screaming, and seriously insane if I had the kind of media focus some celebrities have. But when you're so locked away that people are doubting the very existence of your child, take a step back, get over yourselves, and drop a freaking Polaroid in the mail. Something, anything.

The longer the wait, the harsher the backlash when little Suri is released from seclusion. Think about it, this has gone on so long that even when the pics are released, people are going to doubt them. Thousands of words, inches of print, and more talking heads than you can shake a stick at are going to pick this apart.

And ten, fifteen years down the road when little Suri googles herself in a fit of boredom and curiosity, what do Mama and Papa say to their little girl when she asks:

"Why doesn't anyone believe I exist?"
"Why do they say you're not my Mom/Dad?"
"Why doesn't anyone believe you?"

I don't care what she believes, or how self-assured this child will be when she grows up. This is going to hurt.

Is this what we're coming to?

Insert your own joke here 2.0

My what an... interesting news week we're having.

It's now confirmed, Daniel Radcliffe, who has been playing the role of Harry Potter for many a year now, will fufill the wishes of many a fainting fangirl, and give us the full monty in a production of Equus. Seriously. Uncle Vernon's in it, too. Goody!

Well, if you're looking to shed your image, shedding your clothing is certainly an option.

And with that allow me to wallow in the gutter with a few headlines, cliches and all.

• Harry Potter to show us his 'Magic Wand' in West End production!
• A 'stripped down' role for the Harry Potter actor.
• The next 'big thing' for the London stage?
• Radcliffe goes 'balls out' for his next role.

Oh, dear. I think I'll stop there.
Yeah, right there.

Insert your own joke here....

Headline says:

"Kevin Federline to Close Teen Choice Awards" and the first line of the article should read...
...
...
...
...
I just...
I can't...
He's so...
LOOK AT HIM, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!
(Please defamer.com, don't sue me for "borrowing" the photo!)

*sigh*

Fine. I'll do it.

...Pity everyone left early.
...And it only cost Britney a small fortune.
...Just so his wife could get him out of the house.
...Because kids really will watch anything.
...FCC is standing by.
...Just so Dane Cook can mock him on his way to the stage.
...And the world cries, "Why, God, why!" (Really- WHY!?!?!?!)
...And in realted news; Sean Preston Ferderline becomes the first infant in therapy- before he even says is first word!


...Just to give me something to post about.

Yo-Ho-Ho and a Bottle of... Huh?

I liked the movie, let it be known that all of the forthcoming nit-picking comes from a place of love. It was a good way to spend an evening.

But talk about your wasted efforts. This movie was not thought out, and seemed to be slapped together just to get a sequel into the theatres to hold us over to the main event in the finale. And that annoys me to no end. (This coming from me, a fan of the make-it-up-as-we-go-along show, 24!)

So, yeah, be ye warned, there are spoilers abroad in these high seas... Yarrr!

Of all the myriad plots that get set up along the way, not one is resolved. Yes, this is the second chapter of a trilogy, but something should have ended in the two and a half hours I sat there in the theatre, amused, but waiting. After all, in Star Wars, Luke started and finished his training, the unresolved sexual tension between Han and Leia was resolved, and the Millennium Falcon stopped trying to outrun people and began chasing after them. These were all endings, and yet they still served the larger story and allowed a segue into the finale.

The center plot here is the search for the infamous "Dead Man's Chest." And yes, it is found, (about 2/3 the way through) and everyone gets to chase after it, playing "hot potato" until it comes to rest. And then it isn't used, by anyone. At all. We just get to look at it and it's freaky contents- just sitting there. Waiting for something to happen, which won't until the next movie.

So on to the subplots, which include a romantic troika consisting, unsuprisingly, of Jack, Elizabeth and Will. It's set up with innuendo, that blinky compass of Jack's, and a "stolen" kiss. But while all parties are aware of the situation to varying degrees, no accusations have been made, and no relationships have been tested. But I'm sure the ensuing conflict will be wonderful.

It just won't happen until the next movie.

Family angst is aptly represented with Will and his father (played nicely by Stellan Skarsgaard), and it manages to go in a complete circle, with both Will and Bootstrap Bill ending in the exact same places they started. (Will free, Bill, not-so-much.) The only thing that changes is that by the end, Bootstrap has "hope" that his son will rescue him.

Which won't happen until the next movie.

The blackmailing greed of the East India Trading Company in the guise of Lord Cutler Beckett is on call, and they make for nicevillainss to replace the British Navy (in the guise of Commodore Norrington) from the last movie. And while I admit the upper hand they gain at the end was nicely arranged, but we're basically left with Beckett sitting at his desk, pondering his next move.

Which won't happen until the next movie.

And, of course, we have the evil Davy Jones. Whose scenes were nicely chewed by Bill Nighy, if almost spit out again by the freakish CGI-laden prosthetics/make-up that completely obliterated almost all of the actor's fine facial expressions. (More on this later.) Davy rants, Davy kills,Davy plays his organ with his tentacles (not a euphemism!), but he doesn't have the contents of chest, he doesn't have Jack, or Will, (or a clue for that matter) and that's pretty much how he started the movie. But he is going to have a lot of fun dealing with the person who did end up with the contents of his "locker."

But not until until the next movie.

The only resolved plotline is Jack's. And it's resolved violently. More or less. But not finally. He's not exactly encased in carbonite, but he still needs a' rescuin'.

Which won't happen (say it with me folks,) until the next movie!

See where a birdy can get her little feathers ruffled?

Now, back to that character CGI issue I mentioned earlier. This is what happens when a good concept is completely run off the rails by it's own nifty-ness. As I understand it, the concept was thus: The longer you served on The Flying Dutchman, the more you began to resemble the sea creatures and creepy-crawlies of the deep. Cool! They were so pretty, and so creepy, and so overdone that they lost all facial expression, and were used for shock value, not character laughs. And they weren't even done as well as they could have been, they all looked shiny and fake. I think something went wonky in integrating the prosthetics and the CGI.

The original pirates from the franchise, the cursed crew of the Black Pearl, had their moonlit CGI freakishness, but the rest of the time you could pass them on the street and not notice. (Well, you get what I mean.) The moonlight reveal was a way to deal with budget constraints, but it served the overall plot very well. And it allowed you to connect with some of the fine character actors that were being used. Frankly, Capt'n Barbossa would not have been half as scary, had he been a skeleton all the time. All things in moderation, my dears, especially in movie tech.

(And about that nifty concept- so far as I could tell after one viewing, it is never mentioned in the movie. The skeletal curse was a cornerstone of the last installment, here it's a gimmick, and one not even worth explaining. Sigh.)

All of this, plus the usual sequell pitfalls: resurrected gags, the same stunts (only Bigger! and Better!), and the in-jokes. Which, in all honesty, I actually I didn't mind so much, loving the first as much as I do.

But I have to say, the scene stealer for this flick- her. I have no idea who she is (character, not actress), or where she came from, but she's really cool, and she was the only character who had any clue what was going on. At. All. And she chewed her scenery the same way Mr. Depp did in the first movie which was great. Bravo! (Also- she gets the coolest set. This was one of those movies I look at and wish I was working props in Hollywood.)

And the ending twist? Wow. But if they don't explain it in a way the audience can buy, it will kill the next movie. You DO NOT just drop something like that in an audience's lap with out a really good reason. It becomes nothing more than a REALLY cheap stunt, and there will be hell to pay.

Final verdict- we're not keel-haulin' her yet. But if the final installment fails, she's walking the plank.

And then I'll go to Disney World.

Pssst! It's the Emmy noms, pass it along...

OK, I swear I'll be getting back to my look at the new fall shows, but my personal life got a bit in my way. In the meantime...

PRIMETIME EMMY SEASON!!!!!!

And, wow, 24, you go, guys! Normally you expect an Emmy darling like The Sopranos, Will and Grace, or The West Wing to come out on top of the series noms list, but this year 24 takes the top spot as the most nominated series. Apparently the nom process changed up a bit to spread out what/who was eligible, so the noms got spread out a bit. But just a little bit. (But, still sorry, Gilmore fans and Veronica Martians, you're still shut out.)

And here's my personal handicap sheet for the "major awards." (Plus a few.) Watch me get them all wrong come August.

Oh, yeah- we're splitting into multiple posts here- this is Reality/Comedy. Can you tell the difference?

Outstanding Reality Competition Program
The Amazing Race, American Idol, Dancing With the Stars, Project Runway, and Survivor.
Missing in Action: Top Chef, I thought it was highly underrated and took actual skill to compete, something I harp on a bit if you know my tastes in reality TV.
The last three year's it's been The Amazing Race's award to lose, and they haven't. I really don't see that changing. The thing about these reality shows is that they're static. There's no room to grow because you have to start fresh every season so if your premise isn't award-winning to start with, then you're kinda outta luck. And of all these shows, only The Amazing Race and Project Runway have set-ups that are novel enough to keep the Academy's interest. TAR gets to travel around the world and PR requires actual SKILL to win. The difference here is that TAR is on network and PR is cable.
Winner: The Amazing Race
My heart wants: Project Runway (Mainly 'cause I still giggle when I go past the Red Lobster and I can still hear the wail of "Where THE HELL is my chiffon?!"
WTF! The Upset: Dancing with the Stars, 'cause we got to see those without skill actually acquire it and it was kinda nifty, in an embarrassing VH1/Surreal Life-y kinda way. And occasionally the academy likes to throw a bone at the new kid, if only to make them go away.

Outstanding Reality Program
Antiques Roadshow, The Dog Whisperer, Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, Kathy Griffin: My Life on the D-List, Penn and Teller: Bullshit
MIA: Intervention and The Deadliest Catch- they aren't competitions, but if you lose on these shows- you lose BIG. Like, your life, big.
Um, wow. This is so all over the board I don't even know where to begin. I mean, Antiques Roadshow vs. Penn and Teller? The Dog Whisperer vs. Kathy Griffin? (Wait a sec, those as shows wouldn't be so bad, hmmm...) Aw, hell- let's just call it.
Winner: Extreme Makeover- widest audience, cutesiest premise, and I'll take being stuck in an elevator with Ty Pennington and his, um, bullhorn, over Kathy Griffin and her issues any day.
I ::heart:: : Penn and Teller: Bullshit. 'Cause they bring the snark, and are one of the reasons I bemoan my lack of expanded cable.
WTF!: Antiques Roadshow, 'cause, kidding, right? Antiques Roadshow!?! (Although fans of that show are really hard-core about it I hear...)

Supporting Actor, Comedy
Will Arnett (Arrested Development), Jeremy Piven (Entourage), Bryan Cranston (Malcolm in the Middle), Jon Cryer (Two and a Half Men), Sean Hayes (Will and Grace)
MIA: Neil Patrick Harris (How I Met Your Mother) C'mon- Insert your own Doogie Howser, M.D. joke if you must, but NPH is one of the best things about this show and you know it!
You know, I'm really glad W&G finally got axed. Not because it went on about two, three seasons too long (it did), it reduced stunt casting to a quivering, overblown cliche (it did), or because it ran out of shameless gay jokes and after about three seasons (it really, really did), but because it will finally remove Sean Hayes from my television screen for awhile. I liked W&G, and Sean seems fine in interviews and whatnot, but after a few years and a few thousand ass/breast/penis jokes, my poor eyes (and not to mention my ears) need a break from the flamboyant Jack. He was a one-note character that went way out of tune, once too often. As for the others, Piven gets great press, but the non-network comedies always have an uphill battle in any category, and I feel the same way about Bryan that I do about his, co-star Jane, but I wrote her up first, so you can scroll down. I still don't get the love for TaHM, but I'll give Cryer his due, anyone that can go this long with Charlie Sheen's reputation dogging (and maybe dragging?) the show has to be one heck of an actor.
Winner: Will Arnett- this show is to critics, what Firefly is to its fanatic fanbase. It's gone, but they're going to be in mourning forever. Pity Emmy.
I ::heart:: : Jeremy Piven. I have never seen the show and I want this guy to win, that's how spectacular the reviews have been of his portrayal.
WTF!: Bryan Cranston, I honestly thing nominating the Malcom folks has become as much a reflex for the committee as The West Wing noms are.

Lead Actor, Comedy
Steve Carell (The Office), Larry David (Curb Your Enthusiasm), Kevin James (King of Queens), Tony Shaloub (Monk), and Charlie Sheen (Two and Half Men)
MIA: Eric McCormack (Will and Grace) What, no Pity Emmy? Everyone else was nominated. Harsh, man, really harsh. Terry Crews (Everybody Hates Chris), why is he MIA? Three little letters: U.P.N.- when the entire network goes down, I don't care how good you are...
My, what a difference a lack of Friends and Everybody Loves Raymond makes. Steve Carell has earned his nom, but I swear I didn't even know King of Queens was still on and 2 1/2? Oi! Please don't get me started. So the only ones to count are Tony, Larry and Steve. And sorry, Larry, you're quirky, but not in a warm and fuzzy, Dilbert's pointy-haired boss kinda way. Or a OCD, nervous-nelly kinda way. Or in any way, really. So, sorry.
Winner: Steve Carell- the guy's the bee's knees this year- everyone loves him!
My ::heart:: : Tony Shaloub- just 'cause I've loved him since Wings. Yes, I watched Wings- wanna make something of it?
WTF!: Charlie Sheen- the guy's a pariah this year- everyone wants to hate him! But wierder things have happened and the people seem to still genuinely like TaHM.

Supporting Actress, Comedy
Cheryl Hines (Curb Your Enthusiasm), Alfre Woodard (Desperate Housewives), Jamie Pressley (My Name is Earl), Elizabeth Perkins (Weeds), Megan Mullally (Will and Grace)
MIA: Jessica Walter (Arrested Development) I don't really need a reason, do I?
You know, I think the committee was just afraid the Housewives were going to come after them, 'cause I really don't see Alfre's performance as Emmy worthy. Sophomore slump doesn't even begin to cover what happened. And remember my earlier rant at poor Sean Hayes above? It applies here, too. Sorry, Megan, I wish you best of luck on that talk-show thing you've got going for you, but please keep Karen far, far, away from us... Weeds was a very good show, I hear, but apparently people only heard of it, 'cause I'm having a bit of trouble finding friends who actually watched it. And while that hasn't stopped the Academy before, (seen Arrested's trophy case lately?) I don't hear the raves from critics that usually compensate for lack of audience.
Winner: Cheryl Hines, I hear shes the glue that keeps that cast together- that's usually good enough for the Academy. And I really think these might be Curb's only real chance.
I ::heart:: : Jamie Pressley- she is just too fun to watch. I alternately want to give her a hug and smack her upside the head, occasionally both at the same time.
WTF!: Alfre Woodard might take it, but only because she's Alfre-freaking-Woddard, not because the character was decent of the plotline she was in made any kind of sense.

Lead Actress, Comedy
Stockard Channing (Out of Practice), Jane Kaczmarek (Malcolm in the Middle), Lisa Kudrow (The Comeback), Julia Louis-Dreyfus (The New Adventures of Old Christine), Debra Messing (Will and Grace)
MIA: Tichina Arnold (Everybody Hates Chris), but we know why, see above...
Let's take this from the top, shall we? Stockard was arguably the best thing about OoP. (Add a "s" to the end of that acronym and you have my overall opinion of the series.) But was her performance Emmy-worthy? Or is she here because we couldn't shoehorn her into the Drama category for The West Wing which is where she really belongs? Jane- (Jane, Jane, Jane) I'm sorry, I love you, but no. You've done a superb job with a character at the same time irritable and maternal, but I think you're going 8-0 in this category as nothing you did this year really stood out from everything we've seen you do before. Lisa, the spate of "reality" sitcoms that are appearing nowadays is disturbing, but you've got a shot- after all, a lot of people really miss Friends. Julia, have we broken the curse of the Seinfeld alums (Larry David non-withstanding)? Maybe, but Chistine is just a slightly less annoying version of Elaine, and I REALLY hated Elaine. Debra- go see Jane (only drop the maternal and substitute, um, goofy?).
Winner: Debra Messing- Let the Will and Grace funeral awards begin... (or continue, or end, 'cause I never do these things in order ya know?)
I ::heart:: : Stockard Channing- she really should be over in Drama, but if she has to win something...
WTF!: Lisa Kudrow or Jane Kaczmarek- toss a coin. Both shows are gone, so it's a pity prize in either case, althogh I'll give an edge to Lisa for a better show concept...

Outstanding Series, Comedy
Arrested Develpoment, Curb Your Enthusiasm, The Office, Scrubs, Two and a Half Men
MIA: My Name is Earl, but that's OK, maybe that karma thing'll kick in next year.
I could continue my diatribe on the inexplicable appeal of Two and a Half Men, but I think it's getting old. I could add a few more word about Pity Emmys in relation to Arrested Development, but I won't. I could sing for the wonders of Scrubs and how I hate that it won't win 'cause all the other shows have actor noms to boost their support and Scrubs doesn't, but, um, I just kinda did, didn't I? Only without the actual singing part? I just don't think the Academy gets Curb, and The Office, while justly deserving of it's hype, is, well, pretty well hyped. So to call it...
Winner: Arrested Development, 'cause any show that mocks its own downfall as well and with as much grace as they did deserves this.
I ::heart:: : Scrubs- like AD, it just doesn't have the audience it deserves, but unlike AD, it doesn't have the pretty statues to keep it company.
WTF!: Two and a Half Men- do I have to say it again? I didn't think so.