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 Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:06:14 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/2007/04/11/210614.php Screen RantA story came out today on the U.K. website Times Online that left me slack-jawed at the incredible level of spin contained within regarding stem cell research.The story (which you can read in full here) gives the results of an extremely promising study in which diabetics were actually cured through the use of stem cell treatments, and claims that "diabetics using stem-cell therapy have been able to stop taking insulin injections for the first time, after their bodies started to produce the hormone naturally again."That's fantastic news that might soon allow millions of diabetics to no longer require daily injections of insulin. It would really be a Godsend to sufferers of the disease. But is it a home run for proponents of embryonic stem cell research? Apparently not, the article states that "in a breakthrough trial, 15 young patients with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes were given drugs to suppress their immune systems followed by transfusions of stem cells drawn from their own blood." [emphasis added]The two quotes above are the opening statements in the article, but by the time one finishes reading it, the impression is that the result is from embryonic stem cell research due to the overall tone of the piece, including this: "The findings were released to reporters yesterday as the future of US stem-cell research was being debated in Washington."I'm sorry: is ADULT stem cell research being debated in Washington? Last I heard, the answer is "no." But could it be that there are other studies that show the efficacy of embryonic stem cell treatments? Let's see:"A study by British scientists in November also reported that stem-cell injections could repair organ damage in heart attack victims." [link reference from source article]Wow, more good news and based on this quote which immediately follows that above, President Bush and other critics are standing in the way of these amazing cures:"But research using the most versatile kind of stem cells — those acquired from human embryos — is currently opposed by powerful critics, including President Bush."The only problem is that if you actually read the article discussing the repair of heart damage in heart attack victims, the results are also from adult stem cells.I find it incredible that the author mentions powerful opposition to research that's not even involved in these two studies. Had these two studies achieved these impressive results via the use of embryonic stem cells, the author would have every right to make the statements above. But even so, the point needs to be made that President Bush is not trying to ban research of embryonic stem cells, only Federal funding for such research. To date most (if not all) positive results from stem cell treatments have come from the adult variety, and not those from embryos. If there was such promise in the embryonic variety, private companies would be spending millions in research, without help from the government.If that article in the Times doesn't display extreme bias, then I don't know what bias is. Sci/Tech62369@blogcritics.org Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:06:14 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/09/20/093116.php Screen RantAnother new CBS show for the Fall 2006 season is Shark, starring James Woods as a cutthroat high-dollar defense lawyer who switches over to the prosecution side. I absolutely love to watch James Woods work, and here he has a meaty role as a lawyer named Stark whose nickname is, quite appropriately, Shark.I haven't watched a "law" show on TV on a regular basis since L.A. Law and that was a long time ago. Yes, I've popped in on Boston Legal a time or two, but I really feel like I watch enough TV as it is. However, it was interesting to sit back and watch something in this genre once again.The show opens with Shark defending a prior-arrest wife-beater on an attempted murder charge. We're treated immediately to Woods in all his acting glory, convincing the jury his client did not try to murder his wife. Of course he is successful and both the accused and his wife thank Shark for his work. It is no surprise when six days later the wife turns up dead. The husband is apprehended by police in his kitchen wearing a blood-spattered shirt. He states smugly "You might as well let me go now, here's my lawyer" when Shark walks in, obviously distraught at what has happened.Through a bit of lighthearted extortion, the mayor of L.A. recruits Shark to work for the "other side," as a prosecutor for the city. Shark has no choice, but doesn't relish the thought as he believes the staff is incompetent - he has never lost a case to them. The lead prosecutor is played by Jeri Ryan (of Star Trek: Voyager fame) and she has no love for Shark, who she thinks has no ethics when it comes to winning a case at any cost.From there we are introduced to his staff, a not-sufficiently-motivated-up- until-this-point group of young lawyers comprised of handsome men and attractive women. Here is where some of the fun starts as Woods chews them a new one, giving them real-world advice and instruction on what exactly is involved in winning a jury trial. They have 48 hours to try to prosecute a seemingly impossible case. I'll leave it to you to guess whether they succeed or not.Shark is divorced, amicably, and has a 16-year-old daughter who has to choose between going to New York with her mother and the mom's new fiancee or staying in L.A. with her much-less-than-perfect dad. This relationship is to show the "softer" side of Shark, and works for the most part... until the end where it descended into schmaltz. In addition, at the end of the episode, the daughter acted way older than 16 years old in regard to being wise.Except for that last couple of minutes, I really enjoyed it and let's face it, the real reason to watch the show is to see James Woods do his thing in what is a perfect role for him. If you're into courtroom drama with a bit of fun thrown in, I think this one is worth checking out. Video53153@blogcritics.org Wed, 20 Sep 2006 09:31:16 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/09/20/034613.php Screen RantJericho is one of the new shows from CBS this season and I'm here to tell you it is one compelling show. When I say compelling I mean it quite literally. I felt compelled to keep watching (I also saw the 2nd episode of the season).Why did it suck me in so effectively? Well let's get to a description of the show first (and stick with me, the review starts with the negative but doesn't end that way).The show opens at a train station in Denver, Colorado, followed by a shot of someone taking the cover off of a 1960-something model muscle car (I'm not an expert, I think it was a Barracuda). Cut to the driver, a handsome, scruffy, young 30-something guy (Skeet Ulrich as Jake Green) headed for Jericho, Kansas. My first impression was "cliché". By that I mean I saw a fairly stereotypical "cool guy" lead character, complete with three-day beard growth, cool classic car, etc. My thoughts continued on that path when he arrived in town and a friend he hasn't seen in five years is overjoyed to see him, gives Jake a bear hug, and we cut to Jake's fairly disinterested face. Add "disconnected cool" to the cliché character traits, I thought.The cliché was compounded by the fact he gave a different answer to anyone who asked where he'd been for five years. Army, minor league baseball, Navy, etc. Then he runs into an old girlfriend (gorgeous, of course) who just happens to be engaged (not married, hence, available) to a rich banker-type (visions of Roadhouse popped into my head). Oh, we also had the "disappointed" dad (played by the always enjoyable to watch Gerald McRaney) who didn't like his son's apparent drifter existence.Enough set up. The main plot point of this show is the exploding of -- what seems to be only one -- nuclear bomb visible off in the distance on the horizon, and what life is like for the town afterward. This is where the show really had my wife and me riveted and wanting to see what happened next.With the current terrorist activity going on around the world and having just read about what may be an impending nuclear attack on the United States by Al Qaeda the very day I watched this, let's just say I watched the show in an appropriate mindset. No doubt that is the draw for the series.The town begins to pull apart at the seams after the power goes out and unprepared, they start to fight over things like gasoline at the local station. The mayor (McRaney) pulls the town together despite the rabble rousing of his electoral opponent. It was as annoying to see politicizing of the situation on the show as it is to see it in the real world.Turns out there's a storm headed towards the town from the direction of the blast and the entire town has to get underground to get away from the radioactive rainfall. Suddenly everyone is looking for bomb shelters from the 1950's and books on nuclear attacks at the library.Once the show got going, I found it fascinating and quite riveting; I was starting to like the characters I found cliché only 60 minutes earlier. I may actually add this show to my weekly viewing list and I recommend you at least check it out.It premieres on CBS on Wednesday, September 20th. Video53148@blogcritics.org Wed, 20 Sep 2006 03:46:13 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/09/01/192440.php Screen RantRecently, Marvel Comics has actually been in the news for its comic books instead of for its movies. There is a huge event going on in the "Marvel Universe" called "Civil War", which pits longtime friends in the superhero community against each other. The basic premise is that a young superhero group's attempt to apprehend some bad guys (in the pursuit of ratings for a reality TV show) resulted in the deaths of over 600 civilians, most of them children.The backlash to this event was the creation of the "Superhero Registration Act", which meant that anyone who wanted to put on spandex and fight crime had to register with the government and work for a sanctioned security organization. One of the problems with this act is that if you had any super-powers, it amounted to a draft. Half the superhero community is going along with it and half is against it and is now on the run. This saga is unfolding in not just one comic book title called Civil War, but in over a dozen other monthly titles, showing the wide-ranging effects of this legislation.This entire storyline is obviously a reaction to what is currently going on in the United States with the war on terror. Comments from Marvel editors and writers before the story began was that it would be an even-handed portrayal of both sides of the issue. However, the story has been replete with phrases like "unregistered combatants", comparisons of the regsitration act to slavery, and portrayals of (so far) everyone in government who is behind this act having some dark agenda.In particular, this month's issue of Cable & Deadpool (one of the monthly titles crossing over into the storyline) really pushed me over the edge. In an exchange between superhero Cable and the President of the United States, Cable (who is fom the future) says that the consequences of the Registration Act will be that years down the line the U.S. will turn into a totalitarian state and that there will be a world-wide civil war.The President's response? "Well, you're talking about something that is fifty years away. Those aren't votes that we have to worry about this November."So much for any even minor semblance of a "balanced" story. That comment was ludicrous and disgusting and in my opinion is the "jumping the shark" moment in this saga.So far, no one on the pro-registration side been portrayed in a positive way that actually carries some weight. Tony Stark/Iron Man has been reduced to parroting "It's the law. It's the law." and Reed Richards (of the Fantastic Four) has come across as an ivory tower, clueless-in-regard-to-the-real-world, yutz. That's basically it and it's beyond weak.Also, in this arc, pretty much the only people who have ethics and morals are:A. On the anti-registration side.B. Superheroes.Apparently EVERYONE involved in the government is evil, with no concern for public well-being and only politics to motivate them in passing this act.Here was a great opportunity to tell a nuanced story giving bad and good points to both sides, but no... it had to be a swipe at the current U.S. political situation. (There was even a crack about "unregistered combatants" in Civil War: Frontline).Marvel is very big on having realism in their comics, so really there ought to be a stronger telling on the side of the story stating that, hey, it might be a good idea to have a handle on folks who are taking the law into their own hands. We can't have vigilantes operating independently and outside the law in the real world, and that doesn't even involve super-powers. Is this so incomprehensible?On the other hand we have the "dark side" of this scenario portrayed with a vengeance in this arc: the government basically drafting superheroes who will have to work for them with no choice in the matter.I think a compelling story could have been told that balanced these two sides of the Registration Act, but instead the approach has been taken that everyone behind it is "bad" and/or misguided and that everyone against it is "good" and/or oppressed. How about showing some folks working in government who are fighting against the abuse of this act? How about some indication of what Stark and Reed are up to and why they're convinced this is for the best or how they plan on stopping abuse of the act which (being brilliant) they should have seen coming?This one-sided approach has been aggravating, especially considering the comments preceding the launch of the story stating how much work was going to go into giving a "balanced" portrayal of both sides. I don't know how this is going to turn out, but I'm pretty sure it's going to be a mess. Books52331@blogcritics.org Fri, 1 Sep 2006 19:24:40 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/08/18/184657.php Screen RantOkay, so this falls under the heading of "rumour," but it comes from IESB.net, and it wouldn't surprise me at all. This according to an anonymous source at the studio, the upcoming Star Trek XI to be directed by J.J. Abrams:This is not just another Trek movie but instead a total reboot, we will see things that are similar to what is known in the Trek Universe but we will not be held to every aspect of the last 40 years. We are going to introduce Star Trek to a whole new generation and many more generations to come. We have total faith that J.J. and company will take Trek to a whole new level. Trek has been going downhill for the last 10 years and if we expect it to be around 20 years from now we will have to take some bold steps that might be controversial at first but we are sure to bring new fans to the dying franchise.Are you red-faced yet? Hang on a sec:Trek fans were not able to keep the last show [Enterprise] on the air and we are looking on bringing over "Alias" and "Lost" fans and if the old Trekkies like the new movie great, if not too bad. We have to boldly go were no Star Trek has gone before.Isn't that like, just totally awesome? Nothing like a nice, big, fat F-U to the fans who have fed about a billion dollars to Paramount over the history of the Trek franchise.I'll tell you what I found REALLY funny... let's excerpt a couple of quotes and put them right next to each other, shall we?"Trek has been going downhill for the last 10 years.""Trek fans were not able to keep the last show [Enterprise] on the air."Okay... so who PRODUCES Trek? Would that be Paramount? So if Star Trek has been "going downhill" for ten years, whose fault exactly would that be? It's obvious isn't it? THE FANS. As evidenced by his statements above.So despite the fact that the studio puts out crap, we, the fans, are still supposed to tune in and sing its praises? I'm sorry, but Paramount is who put out the ridiculous Voyager and let Berman and Braga run the excellent concept of Enterprise into the dirt. And when Manny Coto came on board, finally putting the show on the right track, Paramount CANCELLED it!I am SO bloody sick to DEATH of studios putting out lousy product and then blaming the public when they don't show up in droves. This has been especially prevalant with the Trek movies. Star Trek Generations, Insurrection and Nemesis were ALL terrible, but it's our fault that box office kept dropping.Man, the hubris of these guys is incomprehensible and utterly infuriating.Good luck with those "new" fans, Paramount. Video51733@blogcritics.org Fri, 18 Aug 2006 18:46:57 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/01/25/171226.php Screen RantThe Book of Daniel has been cancelled. What did it last... two episodes?Heh.That bit of news however, is not the direct subject of the title of this column. Pulling the plug on that particular piece of garbage was more an effect of economics (advertisers bailing, affiliates not airing the show) than of any glint of sanity from the powers that be in La La Land.Here's the Reuters tidbit that inspired me, which referenced a statement by NBC Entertainment President Kevin Reilly made last Spring:"...Reilly told Reuters NBC's development of the show was inspired in part by the success of religion-themed novels like the "Left Behind" series and Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of the Christ."Go ahead, re-read that quote... I'll wait.If ever there was a textbook example of the Hollywood Rectal/Cranial Inversion Syndrome (HRCIS), that, my friends, is it.It's like saying that the food challenges on Fear Factor were inspired by the cuisine on Emeril's cooking show, and that's about the mildest comparison I could think of.These people are seriously insane.I mean, really... do I even have to add anything to that statement?Source: ReutersFor more pithy TV and Film-related commentary visit ScreenRant.com. Video42752@blogcritics.org Wed, 25 Jan 2006 17:12:26 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/12/16/003105.php Screen RantIf ever there was a neck and neck finish on The Apprentice, it was this season (Season 4) between Randal, the uber-educated, calm and kind business owner and Rebecca, the cool as a cucumber, broken ankle trooper and business journalist.When it came down to the final moments, I honestly didn't know who Trump was going to select, and I almost thought it was going to be Rebecca, when he suddenly made his decision and selected Randal. I'd been pulling for Randal and have thought that he would win for weeks now, so I was pleased with the decision. I was impressed with the fact that someone could actually go through the process with their integrity intact and with no one holding a grudge against them and still win. This, as opposed to the animosity always generated against the finalists by the end of any season of Survivor.It's obvious that Trump values exceptional people in his organization, so I was kind of prepared for the possibility that he might actually hire both finalists to manage different projects. So when Trump actually floated the idea of hiring both of the two finalists to manage different projects I wasn't surprised. The shocker was when he decided to ask Randal whether he thought Rebecca worthy of managing the project that Randal had not selected.I believe that Trump took for granted that, considering the mutual respect between the candidates, Randal would say "Hey, great idea!". However Randal stunned everyone (including Trump, I'll wager) when he said instead:"This isn't The Apprentii, it's The Apprentice."Considering his personality and history to date, I was completely and utterly floored...The only possible explanation I could think of off the top of my head is that saying "yes" would have invalidated every thing he said about her not being the one for the job. That, and the fact that it would have detracted from his own victory... but I'm trying to give the guy the benefit of the doubt.Quite an ending to Season 4 of The Apprentice!For more TV commentary visit ScreenRant.com. Video41058@blogcritics.org Fri, 16 Dec 2005 00:31:05 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/12/14/182720.php Screen RantRating: 3.5 out of 5Short version: When it's good, it's very good, but when it's not, it feels really, REALLY long.Watching Peter Jackson's version of King Kong, it is abundantly clear that the man feels as strongly about the original 1933 film as he did about Tolkein's Lord of the Rings books. One can really feel how earnestly he guided this film, paying homage to the original while expanding on it more than just a little bit. Unfortunately the "expansion" is one of the problems with the movie, but I'll get to that in a bit.I don't suppose I really need to go into the story itself, but there are a few changes from and additions to this version when compared to the 1933 film. Here, Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) is shown to be a stage performer at the outset of the film, basically doing Vaudeville shows during the Great Depression in order to make a living. Time is spent up front showing the state of things in New York City in regards to the struggle to survive in that devastating economic downturn (to great effect). We meet her co-perfomers, a tight-knight little family including an elderly gentleman who passes for a father figure for her, and we get to know at least Ann and this gentleman well enough in the few early minutes of the film to really feel for them when the theater where they perform is unceremoniously closed down.Cut to Carl Denham (played by an unusually subdued Jack Black) in a meeting with "money men", trying to pitch his movie-in-progress and get more money to go shoot on location at the mysterious island indicated on a map which has just come into his possession. He is portrayed as a man with a vision throwing his cinematic pearls before monied, but ignorant swine. The financiers have already sunk $40,000 into his picture (big bucks back then) and decide to cut their losses and sell off what Jack has filmed so far as stock footage.Jack overhears this and decides to take off with the existing rolls of film plus all the camera equipment to make the movie anyway, despite the loss of his leading actress and all financing. In a manner very similar to the original film he finds Ann, although here it takes a bit more convincing to talk her into joining him. There's a funny throwaway line in there about his being trustworthy because he's a movie producer.He talks his way onto the ship despite the Captain not trusting him and also wrangles playwright Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody) into coming along in order to finish the only partially done screenplay. It turns out that the only reason Ann decided to come along was because Driscoll was writing the film and she was a big fan of his plays. So one major difference is that instead of a lowly sailor, Driscoll is a well known and sophisticated playwright. We're also introduced to Hayes (Evan Parke, who seems to play a role closer to that of the original Driscoll) and Jimmy (Jamie Bell) as a young former stowaway out to prove himself.Finally, we find ourselves out to sea and on the way to the island. It took a very long time to get to this point and we also spend what seemed to me to be an inordinate amount of time getting to Skull Island. Peter Jackson took a while developing the relationship between Jack and Ann in order to make it more real for the audience. The problem is that a lot of that effort went to support nothing more than Jack's determination to not leave Ann behind. The real relationship in this movie is between Ann and Kong (some of you reading this, don't even go there).Fortunately, while a lot of time is spent showing the development of the Kong/Ann relationship, it is time well-spent. Andy Serkis (the actor whose expressions/movement is behind the CGI Kong) did a phenomenal job (as did the animators) of making Kong real. Much like the original filmmakers, the idea here was that the more fearsome Kong was at the beginning of the film, the more we would feel upon his death. King Kong and Naomi Watts really stole the show here, no question.The time spent on screen showing the both of them was a joy to watch. The process of the relationship changing from fear and curiousity to geniune caring and concern was completely believable. However when the action shifted to the rest of the crew, things did start to drag. Although the effects were spectacular, there did come times where I found myself thinking "isn't this scene over yet?". With a remake of such an iconic film, one cannot help but make comparisons, and many times throughout the film I asked myself why this one took three hours to tell the same story the original did so effectively in half that time.Strangely, the one character that I thought was going to be closest to the original was Carl Denham, and he really wasn't. I actually would have preferred to see Jack Black tap into some of his over the top energy to portray Denham more like the barely supressed carnival barker that Robert Armstrong played in 1933. Jack just never worked for me, but not for the reasons I had expected going in. I think it was more due to Peter Jackson's take on the character than the acting itself. This Denham was more "human", yes, but he didn't strike me as the kind of man that would have the sheer force of will required to bring back the great King Kong.Towards the end of the film, the scene where Kong is introduced to the paying audience was quite well done and effective, right through to where he escapes his bonds and rampages in Times Square. There is a new sequence in this film showing how Kong calms down once he finds Ann, and how they go off and reconnect like old friends until their peace is shattered by the military coming after Kong.Of course they eventually end up at the top of the Empire State Building, but here again, things seem to go on longer than they need to just for the sake of more screen time with Kong and special effects. When it does come down to the end and Jackson focuses in once more on the characters it does all come together once more, except for two things: The weakly delivered "It was beauty done killed the beast," by Jack Black, and the final scene between Kong and Naomi Watts which looked like it was lifted straight from the end of Titanic.Final notes: CGI effects, especially for Kong were flawless. I did not for a second think I was looking at a CGI creation. The scenes on the island with the natives might be too intense for the 7 and under crowd... some of them looking REALLY creepy and in extreme close ups that even creeped me out a bit.All in all a really good movie that could have been a great movie if it had 30 minutes or so trimmed from it. Of course the DVD version will probably be 4 hours long and will no doubt suffer for it.For more movie reviews and commentary visit ScreenRant.com. Video40995@blogcritics.org Wed, 14 Dec 2005 18:27:20 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/10/06/124121.php Screen RantRating: 4.5 out of 5Short version: If you're yearning for some great sci-fi, you owe it to yourself to get to know the crew of Serenity, based on Firefly, the little sci-fi show that wouldn't die.If you haven't heard, the history of the television show Firefly (on which Serenity is based) harkens back to that of a little known TV show from the 60's that you may have heard of... Star Trek.Like the original Star Trek series, Firefly gained a strong, hardcore following right from the start. The problem was that the show (created by Joss Whedon whose previous huge hit was Buffy the Vampire Slayer) aired on FOX network. It wasn't the fact that it was FOX so much as the fact that they showed episodes out of the intended order and instead of giving the show a chance cancelled it after only 11 episodes had aired.Almost immediately the call went out from the dedicated fanbase to try to get another network to pick up the show. Unfortunately none of the networks wanted to give it a shot, but with sales of the DVD version of the series reaching 200,000 units, Universal decided to get a big screen version into production. If word of mouth ends up carrying Serenity into big numbers, all those networks may end up feeling like CBS after they decided to go with Lost in Space instead of Star Trek.I would actually recommend that you pick up the series on DVD since you can find it as ridiculously low as $35. Take a couple of days over the weekend to watch it and then go see the movie. You'll enjoy Serenity that much more.With all the comparisons I've made to Star Trek, the similarities end with the cancellation and popularity issues mentioned previously. Serenity is not about a grand mission to explore space, but is instead more like what would happen if a bunch of working class stiffs got hold of a spaceship. Serenity is the name of the ship, a Firefly-class transport that Captain "Mal" Reynolds (Nathan Fillion) purchased as a near-junker sometime after a solar system-wide civil war has taken place, and his side (the Browncoats) lost. He has a rag-tag crew (sorry for the cliche, but it fits) and they spend most of their time doing small-time jobs along the "outer rim", the outskirts of the solar system where the planets are more like the Old West than the gleaming spires of the inner, core planets. Included in the crew are a young doctor and a teenage girl who seems to be suffering from mental problems after having been a victim of experiments by the "Alliance", the government entity that won the war and is not as benign as the core planet citizens believe it to be.The crew of Serenity has always known that the Alliance wants the girl (River, played by newcomer Summer Glau), but the government has stepped things up by putting a master assassin on the trail. The story takes us through the twists and turns of discovering what is so special about River and why the Alliance is after her.That's all I'll say about the story, because the real strength of Serenity/Firefly comes from the characters. Joss Whedon (creator/writer/director) has crafted a great cast of complex characters. As a whole they function like a dysfunctional family that fights a lot of the time, with personalities that are not clear-cut... sometimes pulling them towards the easy way out while at other times pulling them towards doing the right thing. Mal is fiercely loyal to his crew, but he won't hesitate to put them in harms way if the stakes are high enough. He is strong, but not infallible and when in doubt, well, he's still the captain and that's the end of it.Among the rest of the crew we have Zoe (Gina Torres), his first officer who served with him during the war. Calm and reasonable, but you wouldn't want to be on the other side during a firefight with her. There's Wash (Alan Tudyk), her husband and pilot of Serenity, and with her toughness and his sense of humour they make an odd but endearing couple. We have Kaylee (Jewel Staite) the "Scotty" of the show, a wide-eyed (but not innocent) young lady to whom ship maintenance comes naturally. And then we come to my personal favorite Jayne, played by Adam Baldwin... He's the most "dirty" of the bunch as far as willingness to shoot someone or sell someone out for a reward, and he's the least intelligent of the group, but he's the most endearing character of the bunch. He's almost like a big kid that doesn't know any better and just follows his impulses. In the end, if he really considers you a friend he'll lay it all on the line for you.There's also Ron Glass playing a small role as Shepherd Book, a minister whose mysterious backround contains more than meets the eye (his role was larger in the TV series). I don't recall seeing him in anything since his days on Barney Miller but I've always liked him as an actor and it was great to see him back on the screen.If you're disappointed by the watered down, cardboard character sci-fi that Star Trek has become and by Star Wars' CGI-is-everything-and-characters-are-secondary style, you owe it to yourself to get the DVD set of Firefly and then go see Serenity. Just be warned that this isn't for the under-10 crowd as some of it (in both the TV show and the movie) is very intense and some of it pretty graphic. Video37512@blogcritics.org Thu, 6 Oct 2005 12:41:21 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/08/03/175248.php Screen Rant Sometimes I just have to shake my head... I was driving down the street when a spied a Burger King about a block away. It had one of those signs where they can promote a particular item or special, and this is what it had written on it:"Ultimate Double Whopper: Eat Like a King!"Right, I thought... more likely it should have read "Eat Like a Pig!".I came home and decided to look up the nutritional (Ha!) info on this kingly bit of food and here's what I found:Calories: 1,250 Carbs: 55 grams (26%) Protein: 69 grams (33%) Fat: 84 grams (40%)Nice, huh? It's the highest calorie item on their menu. We're talking half the amount of calories the average man should be eating per day in one burger. Keep in mind that most people are going to order a side of fries with that, and the large size adds 500 calories to the tally for a total of 1,750 calories!Keep in mind that during my recent fat loss regime that's what my target was for the entire day.On a side note, I checked out Burger King's "French Toast Kid's Meal" as I was curious how many calories might be in that. I mean it's for kids, right? So it shouldn't be THAT high in calories...Try 670 calories.Do you know how many calories Burger King's much-advertised "man-sized" Enormous Omelet Sandwich contains?740 calories.So here we have the difference between an item meant for a child and a big, hungry man standing at only 70 calories.That's just bloody wrong, folks and it downright pisses me off.For more diet and fitness info visit Last10Pounds.com. Tastes33611@blogcritics.org Wed, 3 Aug 2005 17:52:48 EDT