The Hanks Appeal to the Elderly

There is a small phenomenon that has been coursing its way over the years. It goes unnoticed by all. A silent beast lurking, until just the right moment to strike. A pandemic that sweeps the nation and empties the living room of many a senior citizen.

The release of a new Tom Hanks movie.

(Cue dramatic reveal music) Dun, dun, DUUUUUUNNNNNNNN!!!

If you think I am crazy, or if you call me a liar, then let me change your mind with a few paragraphs and sentences. If I don't blow your mind, than oh well. Your mind is invulnerable to being blown to smithereens by sheer awesomeness.

Enough of that. I noticed the "Hanks Appeal to the Elderly" when I was but a lowly theater employee back in 1999. A film had just been released to universal acclaim starring non other than Mr. Tom Hanks: The Green Mile. And as I worked during its run at our theater, I noticed an unusual occurrence. That was that an excessive amount of elderly people were in the audience. I noticed this, because of all the demographics, they are the ones who tend to stay sitting the longest in a theater. If you don't believe me, just work at a theater for three years as an usher and you'll understand what I mean.

It never fails, every time we would go to clean a theater, there would invariably be that one person who likes to sit and wait til the last credit rolls. I AM that person (gotta respect the film by staying, unless its a crapper). But senior citizens will stay more than the average film goer. Why? I have no idea, but they do. So when the Green Mile was playing, we would always have to wait til the credits were completely over because there were SOOOOO many elderly, you couldn't work around them as you could normally on other shows.

So after every showing of The Green Mile, we would have to stand in the back of the theater, waiting for everybody to leave so we could clean and move on to the next theater. This may not sound so bad, except for the fact that on a busy weekend, you need to be in and out of those theaters quick, so as not to get too backed up.

At the time, I attributed the large amount of senior citizens to the nature of the movie. But then the next year, the same elderly flocking occurred again, on Cast Away. "Hmmm, that's odd," I'd tell myself. "The last time I saw this phenomenon was on Green Mile. I wonder if it has anything to do with Tom Hanks?" I still wasn't sure at this point what exactly was causing it. It wasn't until summer of '02, when Road to Perdition came out, that I made the case for "The Hanks Appeal to the Elderly."

From then on, every single Tom Hanks movie I go to see, the theater is filled with Senior Citizens. What is it about Tom Hanks that appeals to so many elderly? And then I realize what it is? It's the women dragging the men. I have noticed an unusually disproportionate ratio of women to men. Maybe it's that Tom Hanks is such a good wholesome fella, that every Grandmother wants as a son or a grandson. I have no idea. Why does this phenomenon exist? And furthermore, how much of a loser am I for coming up with such a baffling conspiracy theory?

I can almost attribute it to the types of movies and roles Tom is in. However, Ladykillers still had a large 55+ demographic. But i think most of us were duped by that movie anyway, so we'll call it square. Then there was Road to Perdition in which the good boy Tom Hanks plays a murdering Mobster. So I'm not sure if is entirely his roles that brings in the senior folks. I think the strongest argument I have for the reason why this happens, lies in the film Forrest Gump. I think that this film won over so many hearts of so many people, that people have a strong connection with him.

I don't think the elderly go to the cinema often anymore. Most of today's movies are loud, obnoxious, and raunchy. But when the senior folk do come out, they want it to be a good film. They want to not waste their money. And they know they like Tom Hanks, so consistently you'll find he draws in that demographic more than anybody else.

For a while I felt the "Hanks Appeal" had waned, that is until today, when I saw Angels and Demons. Wouldn't you know it, 90% of that audience was carrying an AARP card, and got in for two dollars cheaper than I. Son of a gun.

So don't be fooled, The "Hanks Appeal to the Elderly" does exist. You are warned. Though i don't know what you'd do about it. It's just an oddity that I've noticed over the years of film going. Still think I'm crazy? Probably right.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Absurdity of Smoking Laws

In case you didn't know, there has been a movement developing in Hollywood for the past several years. About two years ago, Studios feeling pressure from anti smoking groups, decided to start limiting the amount of characters who smoke in movies. Well there is a group that is calling on the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) to begin instituting a mandatory R rating to any movie that contains smoking.

Is this really a problem?!?!

So basically, the act of smoking is tantamount to saying "F**K!" or seeing bodies blown apart by incoming mortar fire. A character smoking would equal two people having a sex scene. The problem I find in this thinking is that once you make smoking equivalent of these things, what's going to happen to public codes about smoking. Now you can't just go outside the restaurant or theater, but now you have to go in a little dark booth that says: "Adults only." It would be akin to going to a porn store.

Does this not sound ridiculous. Well, leave it to the zany Californians to lead the fight for a smoke free nation. They passed a law several years ago that all public buildings would be smoke free. This means Restaurants, Stores, and other things such as BARS!!! I remember one time on liberty in Sand Diego, me and a few friends from work went to downtown Coronado to a local bar. This was after I had just turned 21, so I was new to the bar scene. Earlier in the evening I had bought a delicious cigar to smoke (smoke em once every 2 years). When I got to the bar I was turned around because I had a cigar. I was flabbergasted. I thought it was and I still think it is the dumbest law.

I hate second hand smoke, but I think people should have the right to put up the laws in their own establishments. If I own a bar, and I want to allow smoking I should be able to. It is absolute bull that this is a law. And If they even so much as start imposing a mandatory R rating on movies with smoking, I will get really peeved.

I get that G rated films shouldn't have smoking. That's fine. I don't think you'll find many Pixar movies with smoking at all (if any). I can understand PG films maybe having a smoking character, but he should be reflected as a villain or some such. The only place that I would find it to be absurd is in a PG-13 film. So what would happen if Optimus Prime gets a little fire on him during a battle, and afterwards he starts smoking?

I guess our President is R-rated too.

Smoking = R-rated = Load of B.S.

Let's try and put the focus on some real issues... like blowing up Kim Jong-il.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Pushed to Suicide

Why do I find this funny?

Here's the rundown: A man in China decides he wants to kill himself. So he climbs a bridge and threatens to jump. After sitting and debating for hours, a passerby climbs up and shoves him off into a waiting airbag below. The story can be found here.

It isn't so much that a man wants to commit suicide, as much as it is how angry the passerby became. The notion that a man wanted to end his life publicly is no laughing matter. Suicide is a real problem among people during these "uncertain" times. What is funny, and what I find absolutely hysterical, is that another citizen got sooooo irritated at the suicider's selfish intent to kill himself. How peeved do you have to be that you would be willing to climb a bridge and literally push a man from a bridge, simply because you wanted him to suck it up.

Wow. That's all I have to say. Just Wow. Oh, the pusher is in jail by the way. Video after the jump.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Classic Movie Monday: Force 10 from Navarone

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

Force 10 from Navarone
Released: December 8, 1978
Directed by: Guy Hamilton
Starring: Robert Shaw & Harrison Ford

Plot in a Nutshell:
In this, a follow-up to The Guns of Navarone, an elite squad of men set out on a mission to destroy a vital bridge in WWII Europe. Complications arise when the team is captured, and the mission must be altered if it is to succeed.

What I thought:
It's a shame. I love The Guns of Navarone. It's one of my favorite WWII movies, if you could even call it a war movie. It's not so much about a war, as it is about a eclectic group of characters brought together to bring down a Nazi stronghold. This sequel to that excellent film, plods along, playing by the numbers, but it just doesn't do it quite as well.

This story is virtually the same as in Guns. An elite group of men join together in a secret squad to destroy an enemy ________. It even has two of the same characters, Mallory and Miller. Played previously by Gregory Peck and David Niven, here they are replaced with Robert Shaw and Edward Fox. Neither do remotely as good a job as their previous incarnations. And neither does this story hold near as much interest as the last. Since it is virtually the same plot but with a different skin, it needs to bring something new to the table, unfortunately it doesn't.

So it's obvious this film is not as good as the previous one, however, on it's own, Force 10 makes for a fine little action picture. Directed by a seasoned 007 helmer, Guy Hamilton makes some great use of stuff blowing up. The finale is very large, and at one point quite funny. Ford and Shaw's characters are setting off a bomb in a damn, expecting it to go off in 20 seconds, they say their goodbyes. Little do they know, the bomb is nowhere big enough to kill them, instead it causes a tiny crack which brings down the whole damn. But as much action and mayhem are caused, it becomes clear early on, that not much is behind it. The characters are uninteresting, the plot feels tired, over-worked, and the performances are not remotely exciting.

I find it a real shame, because not only is the exceptional talent wasted, but it feels like a carbon copy of a much better film. Instead of a Gun placement to destroy, here we get a strategic bridge. The characters get captured almost exactly the same way, and they are just as easily freed 10 minutes later, with no danger whatsoever. The primary difference between the two films is that while Guns is refreshing and fun, Force 10 feels stretched, overweight, and altogether unnecessary. That being said, on it's own, it could make a decent flick, but it has a hell of an act to follow. But take my advice, skip this, and see The Guns of Navarone instead. Then, and only then, come back for this tired imitation (if you even want to).

Bottom Line:
A sequel that seems too similar to it's predecessor. Even though there is some good action here, this is an unneeded attempt at following up an already brilliant film.

C

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Downfall (Der Untergang) Review

Nobody likes Hitler. We all want to see him dead. This movie depicts the last days of Hitler, hunkered down inside his Berlin bunker. And I have to say it was one of the most gut wrenching cinema experiences I've had in quite some time.

Let me be straight, I felt no pity for Hitler, no pity for that monstrosity of a man. Rather I feel extraordinary sympathy with the people caught in his terrible wake. The General who doesn't want his family captured, so he blows them up at dinner with two grenades. The young secretary who was there for every important moment, yet doesn't realize the implications. The lovers who only have a few more hours, and when the end is near, they commit suicide.

This powerful film shows you what happened to the closest friends and Military leaders caught with Hitler in his Führerbunker. Told primarily from the perspective of Hitler's personal Secretary, the film vividly portrays the final excruciating hours of the Third Reich. Hitler is at the forefront of the story, going from calm, collected, military tactician, to a screaming and maniacal lunatic in the next.

It's a very difficult film to watch. There are countless scenes towards the final act that just had me torn up. Children put to sleep with medicine only to have their mother systematically go around and pop cyanide capsules in their mouths. When one daughter doesn't want to take the medicine, the Mother must force her to. The anguish experienced watching this becomes amplified when you realize these people are completely misled into the Nazi agenda.

This is a difficult thing to come to grips with; it is one thing to be sympathetic to a Holocaust Jew, it is another to feel the same sympathy for the supposed bad guys. But you realize that they aren't evil. Misguided and lost, but not evil. Hitler's the evil one, and they give him more than a few moments to make you realize it. The others are doing what they think is the right thing. Everybody was so enraptured by Hitler's promise, they found themselves following his every word. To see them caught in an inescapable situation, and then forced to suicide, the sadness is compounded by their ignorance.

I cannot recommend this film enough. I love historical pieces, and even more so when they are told from an unconventional perspective. This film encapsulates this horrific moment in history so effectively, I feel it should be shown in every 20th century history lesson. Not only does it encompass the final days of Hitler so well, and serve as an excellent example of history, but it makes you conscious of the horror of undue fanaticism, and its deadly consequences on both the innocent and guilty.

A

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

*sigh* People, it's a monkey.

The "missing link," really? So says this article.

But I'm not so sure about that. Here's a photo I found online of a modern day primate...

And here is another...

So whose to say that the thing in the top photo isn't an equivalent of a monkey midget? Sorry, but I'm not buying this "missing link" hubhub. But I bet you next month it'll be on the cover of the National Geographic (at least it will be a good photo). *sigh*

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Classic Movie Monday: Star Trek double feature

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

Star Trek: The Motion Picture
Released: December 7, 1979
Directed by: Robert Wise
Starring: William Shatner & Leonard Nimoy

Plot in a Nutshell:
After a mysterious cloud begins a destructive path toward Earth, Admiral Kirk assumes command of his old ship, USS Enterprise, to solve the mystery.

What I thought:
Wow! What a boring movie. I had heard that this was a long, slow piece of cinema. The first problem, was the amount of screen time it took, before the crew got together and started pushing the plot forward. I remember looking at the run time as I was watching, and realizing that the movie was 3/5 over, and they still were plodding along toward this cloud. And then once they got there, once the mysterious V'ger was revealed, I felt so ripped off.

This feels like a TV episode. And interestingly enough it was. Back before Star Wars was released, there were plans to make a new Star Trek show called Phase II. The pilot episode was written, and they were awaiting the go ahead. Well, once Star Wars came out, Paramount decided they wanted a movie, NOW! So they took the script and shined it off, expanded it a little, and boom, they have a movie.

While the final outcome of the story is kind of neat in a way, it just doesn't represent a movie very well. It feels like a small idea that isn't very well suited for a big screen story. Add to that, the shots of the enterprise in space last forever, and you have one heck of a boring movie.

I could see how Trekkers who loved the original series would have been excited about this movie on its release, but sadly it just doesn't work for the rest of us normal people.

Bottom Line:
Sorry Paramount, Star Wars this ain't. This is a long, exhausting film, that goes nowhere and takes forever to get there.

D

...and then the extra special bonus review of...

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn
Released: June 4, 1982
Directed by: Nicholas Meyer
Starring: William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, & Ricardo Montalbán

Plot in a Nutshell:
Admiral Kirk and the crew of the Enterprise face off against the clever nemesis Kahn when he manages to escape exile on a desert planet.

What I thought:
Ok, this is better. Gone are the floaty, long shots of the Enterprise, in comes an interesting villain, swift moving story, and enough action to satisfy the average moviegoer. But I'm a little disappointed. Trek fans generally proclaim Wrath of Kahn to be the best of the series. And while it was fun in places, I guess I was just expecting more.

This is clearly a step up from the previous entry in the series. Having learned their lessons on The Motion Picture, the filmmakers get the movie rolling very quickly. And in this aspect the film is leagues better.

Kahn is a strong character (and a fan favorite). He has just the right amount of quiet ferocity and outright dastardly lunacy. Played with gusto, Ricardo Montalbán portrays Kahn well, unfortunately I don't think they gave him very much to work with.

The problem with the film is that they spend so much time developing the history between Kahn and Kirk, that the ultimate payoff becomes rather weak. I kept expecting a showdown between the two. An epic clash of titans. Not a physical one, these guys are a bit old for that. No, I wanted to see a clash on an intellectual scale. They kind of have a little squaring off, but it is done through the bridge screen, which makes it kind of lame.

When Spock dies at the end, it feels like an afterthought. There was no leading up to it, no preparation for the sacrifice that was to come, it just happened. It was sad to see him go, Spock is after all, the life of the series. But the whole scenario felt cheap. Almost as if Leonard Nimoy mandated that his character perish (which funny enough, I think was the case). It should have been built up to reflect the seriousness of the act, and it wasn't.

In the end, while I did find it more enjoyable than the previous film, It still felt as though it were lacking. It was much better paced, yet it never got to where I was expecting it to go; it should have been more. Be that as it may, the film is still a fine entry into the Star Trek series. The fans are happy, though my disgruntled self ain't.

Bottom Line:
Fast-paced (at least faster than the last), an interesting villain (with nothing to do), and a great sacrifice (which came from nowhere), Wrath of Kahn is a disappointing film, that still manages to be just OK.

C+

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Zombie Walks

Here's how it goes... You're standing in downtown Hollywood, it's the family's first time seeing the Mann's Chinese Theater. You position your wife and kids for a family picture. Taking a step back, you line up your shot. Then you hear it, a low gruntled voice uttering "BBBRRRRAAAAIIINNNSSSS!" You don't know what to do, you race to your family, but it is too late, the horde has reached you. They shuffle past you, mumbling and drooling. But they don't feed, instead they continue on. You rush to your family, the kids are freaking out, crying into their mom's arms. And you ask, almost to yourself, "What the hell was that?"

A local Zombie Walk. Hilarious.

Why am I just now finding out about this? Have you heard about this? Basically it is a large group of people that will dress up as zombies, and walk the streets of a predetermined location. Staying in character the whole time, and usually covered with grotesque makeup, they will block streets, crowd sidewalks, and generally provide quite an entertainment to the unsuspecting.

Here's a video to watch if you want to see an example...


I love the part where they pass by the choir singing "Jesus loves me." Hahaha.

Why does this look like so much fun?

I think if I ever participated in such an event, I would have to start out as a normal tourist. And when the horde approaches me, I would signal them to attack, then we would play out a scene on the street, where they would surround me and start going into a "frenzy." Having already pre-cut my clothes, and kept a couple of tubes of fake blood in my pocket, would quickly get "zombiefied," then rise up and join the horde down the street.

Could you imagine being that person who sees that? Hahahahahaha!!

I have got to find out when the next one of these is. This sounds like too much fun.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Politically Correct Racism

Disclaimer: In the following post, I use words that could be construed as offensive. However, it is my intent only to explore why these words rile so many people up.

Something I realized the other day was our over-use of a term known as African-American. I have been so well trained in my upbringing to not use the term Black, but instead use the Politically Correct, African-American.

I'm not one to be PC, in fact I try not to. But I realized that this term is not a very good one to use. Mainly because it doesn't translate across our borders. Go north to Canada, you wouldn't call a Black man, African-American. You'd get a funny look and a Pro-Canadian spiel (and nobody wants that, trust me). So what do you use when referring to somebody outside our country who is of darker skin?

Again I go back to Black. People aren't really very black. It's more of a brown. We could go around calling people brownies, but something tells me we'd have a new N-word, only it would be called the B-word. Back in the day, people would call black people Negros. And this wasn't considered derogatory at all. In fact Black people embraced this term. It was used to identify a whole culture of people. Organizations were named using Negro in the title. But we don't use it hardly anymore. Why?

Simply put, I really think Negro is just too close to Nigger. And if I referred to a black man as Negro, he'd probably have some choice words to say to me. As he should, If I offend anyone, they should tell me. If I call a fellow white man a cracker and he draws offense, I should hear about it. However most crackers -er, white people wouldn't care.

So what's the deal? You're probably asking, "What's he going on about?" I am talking about the absurdity of the idea of offense and right. As well as a little P.C. B.S. And yes, being politically correct is some mad bullshit.

Our society has had a troubled past, in terms of race. We are finally getting over years of angst and turmoil. The black community has been unjustly treated in our past. And not our distant past Our relative recent history is littered with examples of black hatred. I use the term littered, however it is generally a few southern states that are the primary source of the problems.

The ancestry of of a Southern rebel is a bitch of a thing to cast aside. There was some great hurt in the south when they lost the civil war. According to them they were in the right. History and our society now views them as wrong, but at the time they were in the know and in the green. As far as they were concerned, the south needed slaves.

When they lost, they took all that hatred and resentment and had to put it somewhere, so it landed on the newly freed slaves. Thus the beginnings of the deeply divided racial lines in the American south. I'm not defending bigots, just trying to explore the origins of this stuff in modern day America.

OK, so then the Black community begins to speak up. They stop buses, hold marches, give dreamy speeches. They begin to say "No More!" And the rest of the country listened. It took a while, but eventually our society turned itself into one that was so fearful of hurting anybody's feelings that the notion of being politically correct began to emerge.

What is politically correct? Let's go to good ole webster:

Conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated.

Hmmm. So basically, don't offend ANYONE. In this day and age, I find that impossible, but ok we'll go with it.

So you essentially have an entire race of people that have just gotten over their long history of abuse and hatred, add that to an overly sensitive nation of lightweights, and you get: a whole lot of absolute wasted energy at being polite, i.e. B.S.

So we get back to it. What exactly do we call the African-originating people of America. African-American sounds good, right? Sure, i suppose. I'd find it a little insulting if I were a black man. I'm sure there are more than a few people out there who resent the term. To me African-American is just wrong.

It is a term that categorizes an entire history of people into one thing. I would personally hate being pigeonholed into one category. In fact I do. I don' think of myself as white. Nor do I even consider myself and English American. I am simply, an American. Why does a term exist, in my opinion, to bring down a whole group of people to being African. It just doesn't make sense to me. Why would you want that?

I suppose if I were a betting man, that African-Americans like the term because it shows a unity of their race of people. That we are all deriving from Africa, the mother Continent. Add to it the fact that African American lineage is so muddied by years of slavery in the south, and you have no choice but to group everybody in the same category. I however find it to be a little dumb...

But I'm beginning to realize something even greater. The whole notion of black and white, is in itself racist. We should all just be people. We are Americans, or we are Canadians, or Europeans. Hell, we are Earthlings!!! Oh God, can you imagine the chaos in our non-offending, politically correct way of talking when the Vogons from the planet Vogsphere enter our society. And we wouldn't want to EVER offend them, because of course if we did, they could blow our whole planet away to make room for a new hyperspace expressway. (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy reference to the uninitiated)

Bottom line that I've been trying to get to in this all too long post is this: Drop the tip-toey non-offending speak, and look at people not as black/white/brown/purple but as people. Because that's what we are, and that is the ultimate solution to racism.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

LOST: The eternal struggle between Good and Evil

After watching the Season 5 finale of LOST, I realize that I have never been so excited as to where to show is going next. I am going to attempt to try and explain what the hell is going on in my own words. If you haven't seen the finale yet, do not read any further until you watch it. If you don't care either way, go elsewhere, because your LOST indifference appalls me. Just kidding, go watch from the beginning and let me know when you're caught up.

Here we go...

I've been watching LOST, solid, for the past 4 years. It is always an interesting show, with impeccable writing and storytelling. Add the lush jungle setting and the myriad armada of fascinating characters with deep backgrounds, and I find it the single greatest television show ever made.

A big part of the show over the course of its telling, since the very first episode, is the idea of black and white, Good and Evil if you will. For seasons we have been tempted with the sources of power behind the mysterious island. There is the enigmatic and omnipotent, but never seen Jacob. Also there's a powerful smoke being, i.e. monster, that somehow conjures the deceased and judges the living (who do you think that is? Hmmm).

Finally at the conclusion of Season 5 we know who the players are in this what seems like an eternal struggle for superiority. Well sort of...

I am seeing Jacob as God. And his enemy is the Devil, smoke monster/resurrected dead people (Locke, Eko's brother, etc.). The devil manipulates the living trying to destroy God. The battle field is the island. The pawns are the unfortunate (or fortunate however you look at it) people inhabiting the island. God does what he can, but as you'll find out in the episode, the devil finally gets his victory (or so we think). Using a "mortal" Ben as the final stab to Jacob.

When the show started, it was mysterious and it was a journey. Discovering who the people were on the plane took up the better part of the first two seasons. Who the other people are on the island took about a season and a half. Setting up the mythology of the island technically started in the first episode, however it hasn't really kicked off until the past season and a half.

The underlying mythology of the show is what has me so fascinated. The mysteries that the writers have woven into the fabric of the show, are incredibly intriguing, yet all together frustrating. I hate watching an episodic story unfold on week at a time. And now we'll have to wait another 9 months for another new episode.

Now that we know the players and the battlefield, it is going to be one hell of a ride next season. Will Evil/darkness triumph? Will our survivors be able to put a stop to the new baddie in ghost Locke? Only time will tell in the final Season next year.

These are my bets:

-the change that Jack thought he was going to do by detonating the bomb, will not occur. Faraday had it right, "you can't change the past."

-Not only did everybody survive the atomic explosion, i.e. Jack, Kate, Sawyer, etc. but they will be sent back into present time, to meet up/showdown with the now rampaging Locke. And sorry, but Juliet is dead. So sad.

-Sayid isn't dead, at least not yet. He'll either last a few episodes into season 6 and then die, or he'll heal and remain on the show. My bets on him dying shortly.

-Jacob is NOT dead. Remember the God/Devil Analogy? I wouldn't be surprised if the almighty Jacob pulls a Jesus on us. Also at the beginning of the show, the guy in the black shirt(smokey/bad Locke) or Jacob mentioned that the cycle will continue regardless.

-Rose and Bernard are our Adam and Eve in the caves from Season 1.

-Sawyer is going to go crazy on Jack and everybody who came back for screwing up his Dharma life, thus killing Juliet. He won't be getting with Kate. Sorry.

-oh and Alpert is from the crew of the Black Rock. Boom!

I love this show. The simultaneous double whammy of character and mythology is something you don't get to see too often in TV. I'm working through the complete X-Files, and while I think the shows are similar in terms of an over arching mythology, I find that LOST does it better. Firstly there is the enormous cast. LOST has at least 20 regulars.

Also LOST will have the benefit of knowing when it will end. X-files dragged on too long and meandered towards the end. I have no doubt that the questions we have about LOST will be mostly answered next year. And I can't wait to see it all, but with a bit of sadness: I don;t want it to end. I'm almost hoping that somehow years from now, somebody will decide to make a spin off or something. New characters but same mythology, probably a different time.

Nah. It's good as is. Let's just hope the final season won't disappoint.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Classic Movie Monday: Vanishing Point

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

Vanishing Point
Released: January 15, 1971
Directed by: Richard C. Sarafian
Starring: Barry Newman

Plot in a Nutshell:
Kowalski (Newman) makes a bet to deliver a 1970 Dodge California from Colorado to San Francisco in 15 hours. However his excessive speeding draws the attention of every police precinct on his way, and a film-length chase ensues across the desert landscape.

What I thought:
When I say this a film-length chase, I mean it. From virtually the opening frame to the final explosive conclusion, Kowalski is running from cops across four states. It makes for a hell of a car flick, but is it a good film otherwise? I have to say that while I enjoyed the chase, the surrounding elements never fully gelled into anything spectacular, or even coherent.

You already know the basics: a man has to deliver car under a deadline, cops pursue him. And that's about it. This simplicity, I found to be refreshing to see in a film. The thing I gripe about, is everything else that has nothing to do with that basic setup and plot.

Threaded throughout the story is a Blind DJ character named Super Soul. He begins as a simple blind black man doing his DJ day job, but when he picks up on the chase through police scanners, he begins to communicate with Kowalski through the radio. And not just talking to Kowalski, but actually have dialogue through the AM/M radio. Yes, I know, it is crazy. The film gives a bit of mystery to this character; he is somehow able to communicate through other means. Some of the things I have read about this flick say it is a mystical element to the character; he is a special blind DJ. I however felt it was a simple stylistic choice, and shouldn't be taken as mysticism (however odd it may be).

As Kowalski goes along on his journey, he runs into several people that help to enrich the story and his character. The snake-catching desert wanderer, an over enthusiastic chopper rider, two flamboyant robbers, and a nude female motorcyclist. Yes, it is an odd assortment of kooky characters. But they help to paint a better picture of Kowalski.

The chase stuff is fantastic. When the Challenger is zipping up and down the median, crossing lanes of oncoming traffic, with the hotly pursuing cops right behind, it does create some exhilarating moments. Apparently to achieve some of the speed in the film they under cranked the camera by 50%, basically enabling the cars to look as though they are going twice the speed they really are. It works very well as the car action is some of the best I have ever seen.

My only grip is that the story seemed to meander to the DJ character way too often. When the film began, I latched onto the simple premise. I didn't need any explanation of why this guy is delivering vehicles, I didn't need to know details, I was perfectly happy with it being a chase movie designed to make gear-heads giddy. But adding in the strange DJ character did nothing and slowed what I think could have been a fantastic piece of cult cinema. Unfortunately I think it gets weighed down by its unnecessary last reel artsyness.

Bottom Line:
A fantastic chase movie that tries to reach beyond its simple premise, and fails.

C+

And here's the film-ruining DJ:

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

The epic battle of Nerdage

A battle has been ongoing for some 30 years. I am referring to the galactic showdown known as Star Trek vs. Star Wars. You are either a fan of one or a maniac for the other. It is impossible to be both a beloved Trekkie and a devoted Star Wars fan. The amount of geekdom nerdness contained within that one devoted person would be enough to destroy the world 15 times over with Mt. Dew and Funions.

So on this day with the premiere of the new Star Trek film, the battle lines will be drawn once again. The debates will begin again. Star Wars fanatics will stick up their noses at the latest incarnation of Kirk and Spock.

So amidst this magic time of fandom glory, I thought it'd be fun to post this pic I found on the web.

So where do you fall? Do you live long and prosper, or is the Force with you?

I am on the side of Star Wars. While I have enjoyed a Trek episode or two. And the one movie I watched, I am pretty much a Trekkie virgin. With Star Wars, While I am not quite a be all know all, I know the universe, the planets, the characters, and why George Lucas has ruined it in the past few years.

I sit on the edge. I have been tormented and torn by the Prequels, I long for a return to the high space adventure the first three achieved so well. While I love my Star Wars, this new film looks incredible, and it may just make me switch loyalties.

Nah, who am I kidding? Boba Fett would kick any Vulcan's ass six ways from Sunday, anywhere, anytime. BOOM! But then again, I have no doubt Captain Kirk would make Jar Jar squeal like a pig.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Classic Movie Monday: All Quiet on the Western Front

Note: Yes I know this is late. My Bad. I am allowed to slip every now and again. But get ready, you're in for a long one...

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

All Quiet on the Western Front
Released: April 21, 1930
Directed by: Lewis Milestone
Starring: Louis Wolheim, Lew Ayres, & William Bakewell

Plot in a Nutshell:
A group of young Germans enlist in the Army to fight for the Fatherland during WWI Europe. What they thought was going to be a heroic and fun adventure, turns into a hard battle for both their country and for their very sanity.

What I thought:
What a strong, powerful, film this turned out to be. I walked into this not knowing quite what to expect. It is the earliest war film I have ever seen. It has the very interesting distinction of being made at a fragile time before WWII, so I find its themes to be incredibly fascinating.

The story is very simple. It is like a hundred other "boys go to war and become men on the battlefield." It is so effective, because it begins with a group of 20 or so young men, but throughout the film, not all of them make it. The impact on the survivors is just as real as it is on the dead and dying. War scars the hell out of you. This film is an attempt to show people the damage war can reek on the young men who fight them. I think it succeeds admirably as an anti war film. I can't imagine anybody watching this and thinking, "Man, that looks like fun!" Obviously people didn't get that out of this movie at the time, because shortly after it's release WWII began to churn up. An interesting note is that it was banned in Germany during the rise of the Nazis. And the book it was based on was one of the many that were burned during those awful years.

The absolute first thing I discovered about this film was that it is very unlike the traditional war films I am familiar with from the 50s and on. This film was made with the intent to show the gritty awfulness of combat. Every battle scene plays like a real battle could. Endless shells detonating across the battle field, men getting shot left and right, chaos erupting in the trenches when the enemy charges. It is done so well, and so effectively, that I wonder what the hell happened over the course of the next 30 years after this film's release.

Thankfully missing from All Quiet on the Western Front, are the selfless single entities of heroism The John Waynes; the character that is so above the real story that it ceases to become reality and becomes Hollywood fakery. The sugar-coated digestibility that many war films seemed to be about in the 50s and 60s, is completely gone here. I think a large part of that is that after WWII, people were more sensitive to violence. People wanted to see "Heroes." They wanted to see combat, but not be appalled, but be excited. This film is brave in that it doesn't hold your hand. Doesn't cover up the atrocities of war. It puts them out there. And it is made all the more impressive considering the film was made in 1930. Absolutely incredible filmmaking.

I want to single out the cinematography (I know I love to). Black and White films are a big bag of mix for me. Sometimes they are done so poorly. I think of the many dozen I have seen, very few have been what I would call impressive in cinematography. The lighting and the sets never seem to gel together, and instead you get a washy blended mess.

I love high contrast black and white imagery. I love it even more when a film captures Black and white the way I feel it should be done. All Quiet on the Western Front's black and white photography is astounding. But more than just the look, it is equally impressive in the camera placements and moves. Throughout the course of the film I saw many amazing shots and sequences that simply took my breath away.

Some shots were incredibly simple, a shot looking up to see the oncoming enemy silhouetted and jumping into the trench, bayonet at the ready. Others were more complex, a camera move through the battle field, following soldiers as they try to dodge incoming shells. The amazing thing about that shot was the shear amount of stuff going on in frame. It's the kind of stuff that inspired Spielberg to make his battle sequences in Saving Private Ryan so relentless, All Quiet on the Western Front did it 70 years prior.

At one point in the film, one of the characters gets pinned down in a shelled out hole. The enemy advances and dozens of troops jump over him not realizing he is there. One French man sees him, jumps down and attacks. The frightened German does what he can and manages to stab him with a bayonet. Unfortunately for the German the wound isn't enough to kill the Frenchman. What occurs over the next few minutes of screen time, was one of the most painful experiences I can imagine someone having during battle. The enemy is there, dying, incapacitated, only a few feet away. You feel absolute empathy for him. After all it is kill or be killed, as the German tries to explain to the dying man. He struggles to keep his grip, but can't. He begins to weep for the Frenchman, and he slowly dies. Afterward, the German is looking in his pockets for a note, and discovers a portrait of the man's family.

This moment I have just described has been done in countless movies since this, but never have I felt so intensely for this poor man's morality. Scenes like this elevate a film to a much higher plane than simply entertainment. The little moments of extraordinary simplicity but unimaginable depth of complexity are why I love film more than any other medium in existence.

This is an absolute tour de force of filmmaking mastery. Everything about it exudes grandeur. I was astonished at the techniques on display. And not only is it an achievement of filmmaking, but the themes it presents of futility in war, and death of innocence are incredibly powerful. This is an absolute must see film. Don't let the age fool you, this is one intense, grand, masterpiece of cinema that has to be seen.

Bottom Line:
An immensely impressive war film that stops at nothing to get the point across; War is hell.

A

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Wingsuit Madness

Enjoy some wicked cool base-jumping awesomeness lately? Well look no further. You must watch this. Insane.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content