http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Thu, 14 Jul 2005 04:50:57 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/07/14/045057.php Alex KnappAs I was randomly hopping around the internet, I came across this article, in which a bunch of people I don't know lay down their picks for the top five cancelled TV series. Well, I figure I'm just as qualified to compile such as list as anyone, so here are my picks, in reverse order:5. Probe (ABC, 1988) -- 10 bucks says you've never even heard of this series, which only aired 7 episodes. This show was the brainchild of Isaac Asimov, in which a scientific genius and his secretary go around solving seemingly paranormal crimes--all of which turn out to have rational, scientifc explanations. Think The X-Files, but with no conspiracies, aliens, or supernatural beings.4. Nowhere Man (UPN, 1995-1996) -- Greatest conspiracy show ever. The first season featured Thomas Vail, whose life has been seemingly "erased" after he displays a disturbing photograph. The series chronicled his attempts to get his life back, while simultaneously helping the people who come across his way. Think The Prisoner combined with The Incredible Hulk--only with no psychedelic effects or green-skinned monsters. Also, it may have had the most mind-blowing season ending moment of all time. And we never got another episode.3. The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr. (Fox, 1993-1994) -- Bruce Campbell in the Old West as a bounty hunter, with John Astin as his nutty scientist friend. What's not to love?2. The John Larroquette Show (NBC, 1993-1996) -- The first season of The John Larroquette Show was one of the best sitcoms ever. It was dark, cynical, intelligent, witty, and hysterical. Although the show spanned four seasons, it was essentially cancelled after the first when network execs took out everything that made the show unique.1. Firefly (Fox, 2002) -- The best gorram space opera. Ever. Gone, but not dead yet--it's currently #6 in DVD sales on Amazon, and the movie based on the show hits theaters on September 30. Mark your calendars, browncoats! HONORABLE MENTIONS: Quantum Leap, Angel, Crusade, Andy Richter Controls the Universe, Get a Life, Clerks: The Animated Series, and no doubt a host of others. What would you put on the list? Scanned:NB Video32540@blogcritics.org Thu, 14 Jul 2005 04:50:57 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/09/28/153239.php Alex KnappThis item is from Ain't It Cool News, so take it with a grain of salt, but it looks like Mel Brooks is planning a Spaceballs sequel.Playbill : Will you have a role in it [The Producers musical movie]? MB : It's doubtful, but I'm writing myself back into the Spaceballs sequel that I'm now writing, so you haven't seen the last of my face. Why another Spaceballs? It wouldn't feel right have anyone else play Yoghurt and the first one was the best experience I've had making a movie since Blazing Saddles. Playbill : When can we expect that? MB : Best case scenario : a week before the new Star Wars opens. Worst Case Scenario : a year after the new star wars opens.Mel Brooks' post-Spaceballs films haven't been very good--Life Stinks, anyone? But The Producers muscial is, by all accounts, extremely good (I haven't it seen it myself). So hopefully Mel Brooks can pull off one last great movie. Lord knows the sci-fi genre since Spaceballs is ripe for parody. Video20376@blogcritics.org Tue, 28 Sep 2004 15:32:39 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/09/27/235814.php Alex KnappI love spy stuff. Absolutely love it. While I certainly share the love of our culture for the big, flashy heroes, like Superman or Spider-Man, there's a dark, cynical romantic in me that prefers the thought that the real heroes operate in a world of shadows, unknown and unheralded. And when they die, lies are told to their families and the country they died for never learns of their sacrifice.Of course, most of the spy literature doesn't reflect this sort of thing. A lot of the blame for this goes to the James Bond stories, where our dashing hero tracks down gleefully flashy madmen with a penchant for unnecessarily complicated death traps. Don't get me wrong--I love James Bond, XXX, and the Bourne stuff. But all of these things are lacking one really important thing, and that's realism.Enter Greg Rucka, and the brilliant comic book series Queen and Country. Now this is the kind of spy literature I can get into. Rucka doesn't deal with uber-competent swashbucklers who chase down madmen bent on world domination. The spies of Queen and Country deal in much more real, dangerous, and morally ambiguous territory. Wet work. Infiltrating terrorist cells. Risking your life to find a roll of microfilm you know is somewhere around here. Dealing with budget cuts. Being helpless to stop an idiotic bureaucrat from jeopardizing a mission because he has the right political connections.Dealing with this level of realism, there's of course a very real danger of getting too dry and too boring. Not to worry with Queen and Country, though. Greg Rucka writes real characters stuck in both extraordinary and mundane situations. There are very real tender moments, as well as pulse pounding action that keeps you turning pages so you can see what .... happens ... next ...Bottom line: Queen and Country is a damn fine read, and I'd recommend picking up the first book and seeing for yourself. You won't regret it. Though you might get mad at me when you realize that there are seven collected books so far--and that you'll end up having to buy them all. Plus all the new ones when they come out, too. Oh, and if you're not a comics fan, and don't want to be seen with that "rubbish," you'll be delighted to learn that Greg Rucka has just penned a Queen and Country novel. The new novel, A Gentleman's Game is in bookstores everywhere this week. Books20357@blogcritics.org Mon, 27 Sep 2004 23:58:14 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/04/06/014726.php Alex KnappThis is interesting. Looks like Fox has gone with Tim Story, the director of Barbershop, to direct the upcoming Fantastic Four movie. I have no idea if he'll be able to pull it off. But then, I'm insanely skeptical about a Fantastic Four movie working on any level whatsoever. It barely works in the comics, and is only working now because Mark Waid is writing the current series and the Millar/Bendis team is handling the Ultimate version. I can't imagine a screen version being anything less than awful.That being said, I find it interesting that they chose to go with a director who made an engaging, small little comedy-drama that was almost completely character centered. If he brings that understanding of character to the FF, it just might work. The problem, though, is that some comics, just by virtue of the visuals of the characters themselves, probably can't ever be ported to movies without looking silly and campy, no matter how good the story is. I think that the FF is in that category, and I don't know that Story would be able to get past that. Video14445@blogcritics.org Tue, 6 Apr 2004 01:47:26 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/02/26/035019.php Alex KnappI would honestly say, without hyperbole, that The Passion of the Christ is one of the most powerful films I've ever seen. [The remainder of this review contains spoilers, so stop here if you want to wait until you've seen the movie.]This is not to say, however, that it's a film for everybody. If religious movies aren't your thing, this isn't going to be the movie that converts you. If you're not Christian, or uninterested in Christian art, I doubt you'll find much that interests you.That being said, this is probably the best biblical film I've ever seen, and certainly the best of the Gospel accounts. All of the actors embody their roles well, particularly Jim Caviezel as Jesus. The cinematography is hauntingly beautiful, with angles and shots that provide some incredible perspectives of the action. And the music fits the mood perfectly--when it's there. There are long stretches where there's no music at all, and the lack of music adds to those scenes.As for the sequence of the film itself, this is the most brutal depiction of Jesus' last hours ever filmed. It was difficult to watch in parts, and it's a tribute to Gibson's direction that the agony of Christ's suffering is portrayed in a way that keeps the audience in empathy with this man's pain. And Gibson doesn't pull any punches. You see flesh get ripped from Jesus' skin. You see the nails go through his hands. Through this pain, though, are scenes of powerful emotional impact, including flashbacks from Jesus' life such as rescuing the adulteress from stoning and the Sermon on the Mount. There's also a heartwrenching scene involving one of Mary's memories from Jesus' childhood.Is The Passion anti-Semitic? No. In fact, anti-Semites expecting this film to comfort their prejudices are likely to come away angry. Jesus and his disciples are clearly Jews. And while some of the High Priests are clearly villains of the piece, the film shows some of the Priests protesting the treatment of Jesus, and it's made explicit that most of the Priests weren't around for Jesus' trial at all. In the mob scenes, while there are some calling for Jesus' death, there are others in the crowd--clearly Jews--calling for his release and for his torments to stop. Probably the biggest slap in the face to anti-Semites is a scene where Simon of Cyrene, a Jew, steps in to demand that Roman soldiers stop beating Jesus. The guards do stop, but one of them glares at Simon and refers to him as a Jew in a way clearly meant as an insult. The scene couldn't be clearer--the Roman guard beating Jesus is an anti-Semite and the bad guy; the good guy is the Jew defending Jesus. If that's anti-Semitic, then I have no clue what the phrase means.Overall, The Passion of the Christ is unlike any movie I've seen, and certainly unlike many other biblical epics. It presents a unique and spiritually meaningful picture of Christ's suffering, and does so using all of the visual power that film can muster. Video13158@blogcritics.org Thu, 26 Feb 2004 03:50:19 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/02/09/145315.php Alex KnappThe Batman animated series is coming back!Here's how Warner Bros. describes the series: "The Batman will feature the most complex and intriguing character in comic book history in action-packed super-heroic adventures, melding the renowned character's extraordinary physical prowess and super-sleuthing skills with a new range of experimental Bat-gadgets and amped-up Batmobiles. This series picks up Batman's story in year three: in his mid-twenties, just finding his way as protector, defender and Caped Crusader, while balancing his public persona as billionaire bachelor Bruce Wayne. "Living in Gotham, a metropolis where shadows run long and deep, beneath elevated train tracks and within a 150-year-old drainage system, this younger Batman will confront updated takes of familiar foes -- meeting each member of his classic Rogue's Gallery for the first time. From the likes of Joker, Penguin, Catwoman, Mr. Freeze, Riddler and Man-Bat, among others, the war on crime jumps to the next level with a new arsenal at the Dark Knight's disposal, all operated and linked by an advanced remote-controlled invention he dubs the 'Bat-Wave.'"Hopefully, Paul Dini and Bruce Timm are masterminding this series. Their Batman animated series was probably the best incarnation of the Dark Knight ever filmed. I'm looking forward to this. Video12557@blogcritics.org Mon, 9 Feb 2004 14:53:15 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/01/27/121744.php Alex KnappWell, the Oscar nominations are finally up, which means its time for my annual pick list. So you're probably wondering: am I any good at this? Well, not really. Out of my picks last year, I got 2 outright picks correct and one dark horse pick. But hey, isn't it fun to see me get it wrong again? Best Actor:Will Win: Bill Murray - Lost in Translation was Bill Murray's best acting job. He was phenomonal. He deserves the nod, people like him, and everyone was talking about him in this role.Should Win: Bill Murray--great performance, and he deserves it.Dark Horse: Johnny Depp. His performance made Pirates of the Caribbean, and is probably why the movie was so popular. Why the dark horse nod, then? Probably because Pirates made too much money, and really isn't that good a movie. So Bill will probably take it.Should Win, but Wasn't Nominated: Elijah Wood - I thought Elijah was kind of overshadowed, acting wise, in the first two Rings movies, but by ROTK, he was Frodo Baggins. Best Actress:Will Win: Charlize Theron - Hollywood loves to see the pretty girls make themselves look ugly (see Nicole Kidman's win last year).Should Win: Keisha Castle-Hughes - she's part of what made Whale Rider such a great movie.Dark Horse: Keisha Castle-Hughes - Whale Rider wasn't widely seen, but the people who did see it loved it. If there are enough voters who feel that way, Castle-Hughes might win out.Should Win, but Wasn't Nominated: Scarlett Johansson -- it was her give and take with Bill Murray that made Lost in Translation wonderful. It's a shame she didn't get a nomination.Best Supporting Actor:Will Win: Ken Watanabe -- everyone I know who's seen Last Samurai, and every review I read of the movie praised his performance to the skies. He gave a moving performance in a movie a lot of people saw, so I think he'll pull the win.Should Win: Tim Robbins -- Politics aside, he's one of my favorite actors, and Mystic River is one of his best performances.Dark Horse: Benicio Del Toro -- I didn't see 21 Grams, but Benicio is a popular actor, and he might pull out a win for this one.Should Win, but Wasn't Nominated: Sean Astin -- is there any question about this? Sean Astin was exactly what Samwise Gamgee is supposed to be. He turned in the performance of a career and didn't even get nominated. That's a shame.Best Supporting Actress:Will Win: Marcia Gay Harden -- Mystic River got a lot of critical acclaim, and I think that that will be rewarded. The other nominees suffer from movies that either weren't widely seen, or weren't as critically acclaimed as their creators hoped.Should Win: I actually can't judge this, because I've only seen Mystic River out of all the nominees.Dark Horse: Without seeing the movies, my instinct says that probably Renee Zellweger has the best chance of pulling the upset.Should Win, but Wasn't Nominated: Catherine O'Hara -- her interaction with Eugene Levy in A Mighty Wind added a level of poignancy to what would otherwise have been a fun, but not particularly memorable, movie.Best Director:Will Win: Peter Jackson -- he'll get his due for his perseverence and achievement in making Lord of the Rings.Should Win: Peter Jackson -- and he deserves it, too.Dark Horse: Sophia Coppola -- Lost in Translation was a breathtaking movie, and Sophia might steal Peter's thunder.Should Win, but Wasn't Nominated: -- Not applicable. Jackson deserves it!Best Picture:Will Win: Lord of the Rings: Return of the King - I'm honestly not sure this is even a question. LOTR has been shafted in the past couple of years, in part because I think the Academy wanted to see if the quality of the films was going to hold up. Well, they did.Should Win: Lord of the Rings: Return of the King - Seeing as how it was the best movie of last year, it should win. Dark Horse: Lost in Translation - in my opinion, this is the only movie good enough to give ROTK a run for its money. In any other year, it probably would be my favorite of the year.Should Win, But Wasn't Nominated: Not applicable to this category. ROTK was the best! Video12085@blogcritics.org Tue, 27 Jan 2004 12:17:44 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/06/23/223948.php Alex KnappWhen I left the movie theater Friday night after seeing Hulk, I remarked to my brother that I loved it--and I'll bet 90% of the people who see it will hate it. As many have said, this is not your typical comic book movie. In interviews before the release of Hulk, both he and Nick Nolte were constantly harping on how the vision of the Hulk in this movie would be that of Greek tragedy.On that count, they succeeded. It's almost as though Ang Lee went back in time with a boatload of Hulk books and gave them to Sophocles to read and write a play about. All of the Greek elements are here: the fatal flaw in the great man, and the flaw affecting his children and those around him.I have to say, it's certainly an interesting take on the Hulk, and for the most part, it works. Like most of Ang Lee's films, it's quiet, subtle, and it takes its time to develop. Actually, it takes a little too much time to develop. I think a good 10-15 minutes could have been taken out of the front without too much being lost. That said, one thing I did really like was Ang Lee's innovative editing style--split panels from different angles and wipes almost morphing one scene to another. It was like reading an animated, dynamic comic book. Very cool. My only real complaint about the movie is that Ang Lee turned the Hulk into a combination of King Kong and the movie version of Frankenstein's monster. A quiet, gentle soul who just wants to be left alone. This Hulk was peaceful, and not really dangerous at all. You're almost left wondering why anyone wouldn't want to be the Hulk. I thought that this made the story of the Hulk lose some of its power. After all, one of the things that makes the Hulk such a compelling character is the fact that the Hulk is a wild animal full of rage and the dark emotions that we all struggle to keep controlled inside of us. In his effort to make the Hulk a Greek tragedy, Ang Lee ended up losing some of the Hulk's power.But, minor flaws aside, I have to congratulate Ang Lee on making a truly innovative and interesting comic book movie. I'm glad that he decided to move from the traditional action story that typifies most comic book movie fare and instead try something new, dark, and dramatic. Video6444@blogcritics.org Mon, 23 Jun 2003 22:39:48 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/06/10/025327.php Alex KnappWhile I am still extremely skeptical about the new Punisher movie being any good at all, I have to admit that this article made me feel a little bit better about it.That same focus on keeping it real is why Thomas Jane is training now with four Navy SEALs for next year's The Punisher. Every day he goes to Huntington Beach to learn basic weapons training. "The stuff on the wires and all that crazy dancing that was done so well in Crouching Tiger is beautiful, but it's not very real world. We're kind of going back to old-fashioned days -- serious hand-to-hand combat without all the trickery and dancing." It's scarier, he says. "Stylized violence is a way of stepping away from violence and making it palatable. With our movie, we inject a sense of here's what happens when it really goes down."I tell you, this is something that's been a long time in coming. I mean, as cool as wirework can be, it bothers the hell out of me when you see it in movies where there's no plausible explanation for it. Like in Daredevil, for example. I dug the movie, but I was incredibly annoyed by the fact that Daredevil and Elektra--two ordinary humans--seemed to be able to jump insanely high into the air. People can't do that!. It works in movies like The Matrix and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon only because there's a reason in the story for people to be able to move that way. But without some sort of fantasy rules grounding a movie, wireworks are distracting and unbelievable, which I think distances audiences from movies. So even though I do think that Thomas Jane is the completely wrong choice to play Frank Castle, I am gratified to know that at least there's going to make an attempt to make the violence in the story look real. And I will say this--the movie will be all the more powerful for it. As an example, just look at Road to Perdition, which featured perhaps some of the most realistic portrayals of violence and its tools--glass cuts, bullets go through walls, and getting shot (even in the arm) sends you into shock and makes you ill. It's high time we moved away from videogame violence in the movies and to a more realistic portrayal, if nothing else than simply because it will make movies more compelling to watch by showing the real stakes involved when people choose to employ violence. Video6051@blogcritics.org Tue, 10 Jun 2003 02:53:27 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/06/04/004425.php Alex KnappI have often remarked to my fellow comic fans that there is nothing--I repeat--nothing better in comics than seeing iconic characters written well. The problem that frequently arises, though, is that icons frequently aren't written well--because of their very nature as icons. Shaking up minor characters that nobody cares about doesn't bother the higher ups at either of the two major companies, which is how we get amazing runs like Alan Moore's take on Swamp Thing, Grant Morrison's run on Animal Man and Frank Miller's and Brian Michael Bendis's incredible takes on Daredevil.But when it comes to the big, moneymaking characters, there's only so much that writer's are allowed to do. And any shake-ups that do happen don't last. Superman gets resurrected. Batman's broken back heals. Spider-Man gets reunited with MJ. Of course, when you're 10, you don't realize this. When you turn the page, you don't know if Batman's going to break out of the trap leading to certain doom. You don't know how Superman will prevent the kryptonite from killing him. But as you get older, no matter what happens, there's that voice in the back of your head that says "They're not gonna kill him off. Nothing's gonna change."Enter Mark Waid and the Fantastic Four.Of all the great, iconic comic book characters, I have to say that I always hated the Fantastic Four the most. Silly costumes, silly powers, etc. The only reason I'd ever even read an issue of the Fantastic Four was if there was a certain guest villain within the pages. That villain, of course, being Dr. Victor Von Doom. Doom is, without a doubt, the greatest villain in the history of comics. You know this because every time he's defeated, he's defeated by sillier and sillier means--because by all logic, Doom should have trampled the FF years ago and gone on to have Latveria take over most of the world. Scary, tragic, brilliant, ruthless, and plagued with a sense of honor, the only fault Doom has is pride. But alas, even great men fall, and years of defeat at the Fantastic Four have put chinks in his armor--he's just not as compelling when you know he's going to lose, right?Apparently, nobody bothered to tell Mark Waid this. The current story arc in the Fantastic Four features the return of Dr. Doom in all of his chilling, evil glory. Last week, the third issue of the three part arc was released, and I have to say that it's one of the most compelling Doom stories ever--and if Waid keeps it up over the next two issues, this arc will go down as the Dr. Doom story. Why? Because it will keep you in suspense. Even though, in the back of my mind, I know that the FF is going to win (right?), my gut doesn't believe it as I turn the pages. I'm not going to give away the plot--you'll have to pick up the issues for yourself. But Mark Waid has stripped down Doom to the essentials--brilliant, egomaniacal, and coldly, utterly ruthless. And thus far, Doom is winning--he's sapped Reed Richards' confidence and has hit the FF in a way I don't think they've ever been hurt before. And I'll tell you this for Mark Waid, too. Not only has he written this arc so well that I think it's altogether possible that Doom might win, he's written it so well that I want Doom to lose--which may be unprecedented in FF history.As I said, the best comics are the ones where the iconic characters are written well. And Mark Waid is taking the Fantastic Four to places they haven't been. Go pick up this story arc. (It starts with issue #67. #69 was released last week.) Go pick it up now! Books5868@blogcritics.org Wed, 4 Jun 2003 00:44:25 EDT