Magic 8-Ball
For your amusement, go get all your answers here. I'm just not in the mood. Or rather, I'm in the kind of mood that you scare people in because you glare with the burning intensity of 1000 suns. Just saying.
2.09.2004
2.06.2004
Star Wars Trilogy... to DVD this year
TheForce.net has posted a 'reliable source' rumor that next week an announcement will be made regarding making the 'Special Edition' of the Star Wars original trilogy on DVD. Apparently, it could be done as soon as September 21. Can you say 'pre-order'? I can. It's easy.
Of course, Lucas has already stated time and again that the original versions of the films won't be on DVD (unless of course, you shop in Malaysia, and who would ever do that?), so I will be keeping my tapes in my library.
UPDATE: It's OFFICIAL!!!
TheForce.net has posted a 'reliable source' rumor that next week an announcement will be made regarding making the 'Special Edition' of the Star Wars original trilogy on DVD. Apparently, it could be done as soon as September 21. Can you say 'pre-order'? I can. It's easy.
Of course, Lucas has already stated time and again that the original versions of the films won't be on DVD (unless of course, you shop in Malaysia, and who would ever do that?), so I will be keeping my tapes in my library.
UPDATE: It's OFFICIAL!!!
Anyone for... ice hockey?
The reviews have been pretty good of the new film about the 1980 US Olympic hockey team, Miracle, opening this weekend. I was going to see it anyway, because it is one of my favorite sports history stories. It will be probably be overly dramatic, as it is a dramatization (duh) by Disney, but I hope it is at least as good as HBO's excellent documentary about the team.
The reviews have been pretty good of the new film about the 1980 US Olympic hockey team, Miracle, opening this weekend. I was going to see it anyway, because it is one of my favorite sports history stories. It will be probably be overly dramatic, as it is a dramatization (duh) by Disney, but I hope it is at least as good as HBO's excellent documentary about the team.
Ugly=Talent
It's been kind of a unsaid thing around Hollywood for a while, but really it's getting to be a pattern. There have been a helluva lot of actors who go ugly to get Oscar lately. Some of the actors are generally considered to be good anyway, but the theory is that if you forget to look at them as eye candy for a moment, then maybe you can see that they really are good actors or at least can try really really hard.
I say, pfft. And that is a dismissive 'pfft'. What these excellent-looking actors are saying is that they gave it that something a little extra by self-mutilating for a role. That they took a courageous leap and adopted a sedentary lifestyle and at cheeseburgers and whiskey (and loved it) to become a gluttonous heap that would make critics go "Hmm, he really does embody the spirit of a starkly overweight hairdresser!". How brave it was for them to forgo their $200 haircut and chop it themselves, or go forbid get it done at Hair Cuttery! What acting chops!
I wonder what kind of message does this send to the plain-looking actor? That it takes gore makeup, a skillful performance and courage for pretty actors to pretend to be like them in the morning? Should plain actors be lauded by the Academy for donning a Brad Pitt mask and playing a romantic lead? And what of the okay-looking actors who could go either way? Are they doomed to be ignored and passed over for those who can so egregiously transform their looks? [I suspect society and the Academy might only embrace the females who go both ways.]
I'll go get that first cup of coffee now.
It's been kind of a unsaid thing around Hollywood for a while, but really it's getting to be a pattern. There have been a helluva lot of actors who go ugly to get Oscar lately. Some of the actors are generally considered to be good anyway, but the theory is that if you forget to look at them as eye candy for a moment, then maybe you can see that they really are good actors or at least can try really really hard.
I say, pfft. And that is a dismissive 'pfft'. What these excellent-looking actors are saying is that they gave it that something a little extra by self-mutilating for a role. That they took a courageous leap and adopted a sedentary lifestyle and at cheeseburgers and whiskey (and loved it) to become a gluttonous heap that would make critics go "Hmm, he really does embody the spirit of a starkly overweight hairdresser!". How brave it was for them to forgo their $200 haircut and chop it themselves, or go forbid get it done at Hair Cuttery! What acting chops!
I wonder what kind of message does this send to the plain-looking actor? That it takes gore makeup, a skillful performance and courage for pretty actors to pretend to be like them in the morning? Should plain actors be lauded by the Academy for donning a Brad Pitt mask and playing a romantic lead? And what of the okay-looking actors who could go either way? Are they doomed to be ignored and passed over for those who can so egregiously transform their looks? [I suspect society and the Academy might only embrace the females who go both ways.]
I'll go get that first cup of coffee now.
2.05.2004
No need to hype
Some of you will be tied down watching crappy network TV this evening. Frankly, I don't even know anymore what is on Thursday nights (Friends and ER?), but it doesn't matter, because I'm going out to watch Duke v. North Carolina tonight. Oh yes.
UPDATE: It was a barn burner. They confirmed again that this is the best rivalry in college hoops. The rematch will be Saturday, March 6, 9 pm, as they say, in priiiiiiiiiiime tiiiiiiiiiiime.
Some of you will be tied down watching crappy network TV this evening. Frankly, I don't even know anymore what is on Thursday nights (Friends and ER?), but it doesn't matter, because I'm going out to watch Duke v. North Carolina tonight. Oh yes.
UPDATE: It was a barn burner. They confirmed again that this is the best rivalry in college hoops. The rematch will be Saturday, March 6, 9 pm, as they say, in priiiiiiiiiiime tiiiiiiiiiiime.
2.02.2004
Two Cents and One Boob
I must have blinked, or been in the bathroom, or been distracted by something actually interesting at the time, but I didn't catch the over-ballywhooed Janet Jackson exposure during the Superbowl halftime show last night. I'm not sure anyone in the bar saw it either, because I probably would have heard about it then instead of last night.
From what I can gather, and it's pretty easy to gather as the news media has gone berzerk over the 'incident', her right breast was exposed for about 2 seconds on international televison during a non-closeup. Heavens! Tom Shales of the Washington Post apparently suffered a heart attack at the 'sleaze-fest', for apparently Mr. Shales has never even seen a nipple on TV. Oh the humanity!
Not to be outdone by an areola, Shaquille O'Neal was suspended for cursing out officials in a post-game interview. As the interviewer gently reminded Shaq that this was live television, the big man quipped, "I don't give a shit." Who's going to argue with him, really? Rather inappropriate behavior, in keeping with a small fine or something (take it out of his pocket change), but suspension? Give me a break.
Frankly, Janet Jackson has never done it for me, and never will. I'm sure some people find her attractive and perhaps somewhat talented (again, I wouldn't know), and if she thinks that showing off one of her 40-year-old tits will get her career jump-started again, then boo-yah for her. It's just a breast, it was just two seconds, and I've heard there's worse on NYPD Blue every week (not that I watch it -- thank goodness for the 'mature audience' warnings that allow me to keep my innocent eyes closed!!).
Moral of this story: I could not care less. And that's why I just ranted for 10 minutes just now, because I'm all out of caring. Damn, I hate it when I contradict myself.
UPDATE: Via Nimrod, the leader of the free world agrees with me. Who cares?
UPDATE2: MTV kowtows and expresses remorse, confirming a slow news day. Frantic downloading of single-breast JPEGs likely to blame in poor turnout for democratic primaries.
I must have blinked, or been in the bathroom, or been distracted by something actually interesting at the time, but I didn't catch the over-ballywhooed Janet Jackson exposure during the Superbowl halftime show last night. I'm not sure anyone in the bar saw it either, because I probably would have heard about it then instead of last night.
From what I can gather, and it's pretty easy to gather as the news media has gone berzerk over the 'incident', her right breast was exposed for about 2 seconds on international televison during a non-closeup. Heavens! Tom Shales of the Washington Post apparently suffered a heart attack at the 'sleaze-fest', for apparently Mr. Shales has never even seen a nipple on TV. Oh the humanity!
Not to be outdone by an areola, Shaquille O'Neal was suspended for cursing out officials in a post-game interview. As the interviewer gently reminded Shaq that this was live television, the big man quipped, "I don't give a shit." Who's going to argue with him, really? Rather inappropriate behavior, in keeping with a small fine or something (take it out of his pocket change), but suspension? Give me a break.
Frankly, Janet Jackson has never done it for me, and never will. I'm sure some people find her attractive and perhaps somewhat talented (again, I wouldn't know), and if she thinks that showing off one of her 40-year-old tits will get her career jump-started again, then boo-yah for her. It's just a breast, it was just two seconds, and I've heard there's worse on NYPD Blue every week (not that I watch it -- thank goodness for the 'mature audience' warnings that allow me to keep my innocent eyes closed!!).
Moral of this story: I could not care less. And that's why I just ranted for 10 minutes just now, because I'm all out of caring. Damn, I hate it when I contradict myself.
UPDATE: Via Nimrod, the leader of the free world agrees with me. Who cares?
UPDATE2: MTV kowtows and expresses remorse, confirming a slow news day. Frantic downloading of single-breast JPEGs likely to blame in poor turnout for democratic primaries.
1.30.2004
Superbowl Commercials
In an effort to scare up some kind of hype for this weekend's Superbowl, MSNBC has listed what it considers to be a list of top Superbowl commercials of all-time for your voting pleasure. Frankly, after the Eagles foundered, I'll be more interested in watching the commercials than the game. In any event, here are my top five from the list, presented in ALL NEW REVERSE ORDER FOR YOUR PLEASURE.
Okay, after viewing them all I changed my mind. There are a couple of noteworthy consolation prizes, such as Mean Joe Greene's Coca-Cola classic, Apple's "1984" ad, and the "wassuuuup" Budweiser ad (which as I recall will forever be dated in one of my friend's wedding videos, alas), but the clear winner is the most recent: the Reebok "Terry Tate -- Office Linebacker". Terry ferociously destroys about a dozen hapless office slackers during the minute long clip, which was clearly either written by or stolen from the ESPN-ad guys. My favorite line from Terry, yelling over a recent tacklee: "Break was over 15 minutes ago... BITCH!!!"
In an effort to scare up some kind of hype for this weekend's Superbowl, MSNBC has listed what it considers to be a list of top Superbowl commercials of all-time for your voting pleasure. Frankly, after the Eagles foundered, I'll be more interested in watching the commercials than the game. In any event, here are my top five from the list, presented in ALL NEW REVERSE ORDER FOR YOUR PLEASURE.
Okay, after viewing them all I changed my mind. There are a couple of noteworthy consolation prizes, such as Mean Joe Greene's Coca-Cola classic, Apple's "1984" ad, and the "wassuuuup" Budweiser ad (which as I recall will forever be dated in one of my friend's wedding videos, alas), but the clear winner is the most recent: the Reebok "Terry Tate -- Office Linebacker". Terry ferociously destroys about a dozen hapless office slackers during the minute long clip, which was clearly either written by or stolen from the ESPN-ad guys. My favorite line from Terry, yelling over a recent tacklee: "Break was over 15 minutes ago... BITCH!!!"
1.29.2004
Casting Hell and Oscar Buffoonery
Jaquandor alerted me to a vicious rumor that's been going around the internet movie sites, notably in Cinescape and AICN. Thusly: Beyonce Knowles is close to being Lois Lane and Johnny "zoot suit" Depp as Lex Luthor in the in-development-hell Superman flick. Personally, I can't think of a more ridiculous casting decision, but AICN said it nicely:
Exactly. In somewhat related rant, can anyone tell me what glaring omission(s) are in the Oscar's Best Visual Effects category? You may have not understood the films, but at least acknowledge that the effects were fantastic. And tell me how 'Master and Commander' can even come close. Please. I shouldn't be surprised, though -- the Oscars are like the Grammy's to me anymore -- just a popularity contest. Utter contemptuous glare I have.
Jaquandor alerted me to a vicious rumor that's been going around the internet movie sites, notably in Cinescape and AICN. Thusly: Beyonce Knowles is close to being Lois Lane and Johnny "zoot suit" Depp as Lex Luthor in the in-development-hell Superman flick. Personally, I can't think of a more ridiculous casting decision, but AICN said it nicely:
- "Ok, can you see what's happening here. They're not making the great SUPERMAN movie, they're making the hip and pop and garbage version. I love Johnny Depp, but he's wrong for Lex Luthor. Lex doesn't need to be funny or quirky. He needs to be calculating, charming and cold. Somebody like a shaved headed version of Ralph Fiennes. And Lois Lane, you don't throw away nearly 70 years of programming that Lois Lane is a small lithe brunette that wears wonderous buisness suits. Beyonce is COMPLETELY WRONG FOR THE PART! You need an actress, not a fucking PEPSI COMMERCIAL POP TART!"
Exactly. In somewhat related rant, can anyone tell me what glaring omission(s) are in the Oscar's Best Visual Effects category? You may have not understood the films, but at least acknowledge that the effects were fantastic. And tell me how 'Master and Commander' can even come close. Please. I shouldn't be surprised, though -- the Oscars are like the Grammy's to me anymore -- just a popularity contest. Utter contemptuous glare I have.
1.26.2004
Kill Bill -- Volume 2 Trailer
Somehow, Yahoo has got the exclusive teaser trailer for Kill Bill Vol. 2 all to themselves, but they seem willing to play nice for the rest of us. Mostly a head-shot of Uma Thurman addressing the audience, at one point recapping Vol. 1 as thus: "I went on what the movie advertisements said was a roaring rampage." Can't say as I've ever seen a teaser trailer break down the 3rd wall, but that's Tarantino for you, and of course it works.
Somehow, Yahoo has got the exclusive teaser trailer for Kill Bill Vol. 2 all to themselves, but they seem willing to play nice for the rest of us. Mostly a head-shot of Uma Thurman addressing the audience, at one point recapping Vol. 1 as thus: "I went on what the movie advertisements said was a roaring rampage." Can't say as I've ever seen a teaser trailer break down the 3rd wall, but that's Tarantino for you, and of course it works.
1.23.2004
Expectations
I harken back to the heady, silly days of my youth, when I was sure that I could tell the substance and impact a film would have on me by a television trailer. I could also tell that I didn't like green peas because they were far to small and smarmy, or in a smack of true cliche, dismissed a book as uninteresting because the picture on the jacket didn't appeal.
The two most vivid recollections of my instinct being horribly wrong is in the form of two movies which I kicked, bucked, and threw one of my Trademark Fits (TM): On Golden Pond (1982) and (hesitation) Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981).
In a limited defense, these movies came out when I wasn't quite yet a teenager and therefore still confused about penile dual purpose jokes (plus the rather sheltered childhood) as I was about quality filmmaking. Honestly, I can't remember why I objected to going to see Raiders, one of the best adventure films ever and pretty much geared for kids. (Except for the spiders, snakes, and melting/exploding heads. This was the film that started the whole PG-13 rating. Really.) I just recall being really insolent (surprise!) as my brother and sisters dragged me to go see the film. Doggedly, I mentally assured myself that while they could make me watch the film, they sure weren't going to make me like it! Of course, being an unwitting slave to Lucas, this horse sure as hell drank when it got to the water.
However, Golden Pond was a different story. I know why I didn't want to see that flick -- who in their right mind would want to take a 11-year-old to see a movie about old people and their relationship with their kids? If ever a baby-sitter was asked for this was the time. Couldn't I just go see Dragonslayer for the 3rd time instead? Sadly, the answer to these questions was no, and that my parents knew I'd like it. Well, I had been wrong before about a movie, but surely my enlightened near-pubescent wisdom wouldn't fail me a second time.
It did. Both miserably and wonderfully on both occasions. Which leads me to (hopefully) the point of all this tittering: expectations. I've found that when I've expected very little in a film, it's easy to be open about the experience, and also when you stumble upon a great film in that state of mind, it's taking the experience to another level. Like getting gifts on non-holiday/birthday occasions.
It's pretty sad, my lack of movie-going prowess these days. Although I don't necessarily vouch for the validity of the Golden Globe Nominees as a working checklist of titles to see, it'll do for the purposes of my little rant/spontaneous keyboarding.
I've seen quite a few films this year already, but not very many that are referenced on the GG list (have seen: Return of the King, Master & Commander, Kill Bill, Last Samurai, Pirates of the Caribbean -- all great films), although I aim to take out Lost in Translation and Big Fish this weekend. Of those films, the one I went to with a perfunctory attendance attitude was The Last Samurai. It was another bloated Tom Cruise epic film, blah blah blah. But I still felt like seeing it because, well, I wanted to form my own opinion (being the most reliable judge of what is right and wrong and post-adolescent).
And it was the best film I'd seen this year. Yes, better than the Matrix sequels (not to say that they aren't wonderful films) that I go on about. Yes, better than Return of the King -- I admit I checked my watch 3 times in that film and none in Samurai. Yes, Tom Cruise deserves his GG nomination because, stunningly, I forgot that it was Tom Cruise playing the role of Algren from time to time. And yes, this is because the film really struck a chord with me. (Yes, I cried three times.) That the film hasn't garnered more notice or honors is most likely due to the Cruise backlash that seems to stigma his films and aggrandize Nicole Kidman's performances. Also, unfair comparisons (e.g., "Dances with Samurai", or "BraveCruise") have framed the film (I admit they rang true to me prior to seeing the film) as a knock-off. Nevertheless, this epic is restrained and bold, powerful and gentle, moving and breathtaking. And it didn't leave my ass sore from sitting for 3.5 hours (in truth, once you see ROTK, anything will seem short and refreshing). In short: go see it and form your own opinion, but see it nonetheless.
And now for eager anticipation -- I have heard lots of great things about Lost in Translation and Big Fish, and I'm really looking forward to seeing both. I won't have the surprisingly satisfying experience I had with Samurai, but if things hold up, maybe I'll have an expectedly great time anyway.
PS. So far, here are my top favorite movies of 2003:
1. Last Samurai
2. Kill Bill -- Vol. 1
3. X2: X-Men United
4. Pirates of the Caribbean
5. Matrix: Reloaded
I'm hoping some contender this weekend will jump in there.
I harken back to the heady, silly days of my youth, when I was sure that I could tell the substance and impact a film would have on me by a television trailer. I could also tell that I didn't like green peas because they were far to small and smarmy, or in a smack of true cliche, dismissed a book as uninteresting because the picture on the jacket didn't appeal.
The two most vivid recollections of my instinct being horribly wrong is in the form of two movies which I kicked, bucked, and threw one of my Trademark Fits (TM): On Golden Pond (1982) and (hesitation) Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981).
In a limited defense, these movies came out when I wasn't quite yet a teenager and therefore still confused about penile dual purpose jokes (plus the rather sheltered childhood) as I was about quality filmmaking. Honestly, I can't remember why I objected to going to see Raiders, one of the best adventure films ever and pretty much geared for kids. (Except for the spiders, snakes, and melting/exploding heads. This was the film that started the whole PG-13 rating. Really.) I just recall being really insolent (surprise!) as my brother and sisters dragged me to go see the film. Doggedly, I mentally assured myself that while they could make me watch the film, they sure weren't going to make me like it! Of course, being an unwitting slave to Lucas, this horse sure as hell drank when it got to the water.
However, Golden Pond was a different story. I know why I didn't want to see that flick -- who in their right mind would want to take a 11-year-old to see a movie about old people and their relationship with their kids? If ever a baby-sitter was asked for this was the time. Couldn't I just go see Dragonslayer for the 3rd time instead? Sadly, the answer to these questions was no, and that my parents knew I'd like it. Well, I had been wrong before about a movie, but surely my enlightened near-pubescent wisdom wouldn't fail me a second time.
It did. Both miserably and wonderfully on both occasions. Which leads me to (hopefully) the point of all this tittering: expectations. I've found that when I've expected very little in a film, it's easy to be open about the experience, and also when you stumble upon a great film in that state of mind, it's taking the experience to another level. Like getting gifts on non-holiday/birthday occasions.
It's pretty sad, my lack of movie-going prowess these days. Although I don't necessarily vouch for the validity of the Golden Globe Nominees as a working checklist of titles to see, it'll do for the purposes of my little rant/spontaneous keyboarding.
I've seen quite a few films this year already, but not very many that are referenced on the GG list (have seen: Return of the King, Master & Commander, Kill Bill, Last Samurai, Pirates of the Caribbean -- all great films), although I aim to take out Lost in Translation and Big Fish this weekend. Of those films, the one I went to with a perfunctory attendance attitude was The Last Samurai. It was another bloated Tom Cruise epic film, blah blah blah. But I still felt like seeing it because, well, I wanted to form my own opinion (being the most reliable judge of what is right and wrong and post-adolescent).
And it was the best film I'd seen this year. Yes, better than the Matrix sequels (not to say that they aren't wonderful films) that I go on about. Yes, better than Return of the King -- I admit I checked my watch 3 times in that film and none in Samurai. Yes, Tom Cruise deserves his GG nomination because, stunningly, I forgot that it was Tom Cruise playing the role of Algren from time to time. And yes, this is because the film really struck a chord with me. (Yes, I cried three times.) That the film hasn't garnered more notice or honors is most likely due to the Cruise backlash that seems to stigma his films and aggrandize Nicole Kidman's performances. Also, unfair comparisons (e.g., "Dances with Samurai", or "BraveCruise") have framed the film (I admit they rang true to me prior to seeing the film) as a knock-off. Nevertheless, this epic is restrained and bold, powerful and gentle, moving and breathtaking. And it didn't leave my ass sore from sitting for 3.5 hours (in truth, once you see ROTK, anything will seem short and refreshing). In short: go see it and form your own opinion, but see it nonetheless.
And now for eager anticipation -- I have heard lots of great things about Lost in Translation and Big Fish, and I'm really looking forward to seeing both. I won't have the surprisingly satisfying experience I had with Samurai, but if things hold up, maybe I'll have an expectedly great time anyway.
PS. So far, here are my top favorite movies of 2003:
1. Last Samurai
2. Kill Bill -- Vol. 1
3. X2: X-Men United
4. Pirates of the Caribbean
5. Matrix: Reloaded
I'm hoping some contender this weekend will jump in there.
1.22.2004
Meow
My instinct tells me that Catwoman will be the cinematic malfeasance, but who the hell cares as long as they put Halle Berry in S&M-type 'superhero' outfits? Of course, this may be the film-makers' idea to distract from the plot. Kudos.
My instinct tells me that Catwoman will be the cinematic malfeasance, but who the hell cares as long as they put Halle Berry in S&M-type 'superhero' outfits? Of course, this may be the film-makers' idea to distract from the plot. Kudos.
Battlestar Galactica Series -- Green lighted?
According to Cinescape.com, there's a reliably good chance that Battlestar Galactica may become a series. As I mentioned a while back, I thought the mini-series was pretty damn good and deserving of being a regular program. Looks like my opinion has proved, yet again, to be invaluable to cable executives.
Now if only they will heed my pleas to bring back the wisdom of "Doogie Howser, MD".
According to Cinescape.com, there's a reliably good chance that Battlestar Galactica may become a series. As I mentioned a while back, I thought the mini-series was pretty damn good and deserving of being a regular program. Looks like my opinion has proved, yet again, to be invaluable to cable executives.
Now if only they will heed my pleas to bring back the wisdom of "Doogie Howser, MD".