364 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(02/14/08 3:32am)
It’s been more than 14 weeks since the Writer’s Guild of America decided to strike against the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, and those 14 weeks felt like an eternity to TV junkies. Most of our favorite shows ran out of episodes early this season and some were even put into such jeopardy that they may never return. And don’t forget the damage the strike did to those involved in the industry, most specifically through unemployment. \nThat said, it was easy to measure the excitement when it was announced that the strike had finally ended, with a new agreement to be signed later this month. \nIt’s wonderful news that the awful process has met its endgame and the writers’ reasons for striking were validated; there is no questioning that. However, I am already sensing that people will look back and realize all of this wasn’t worth it. \nWhile the writers mostly got what they wanted – an increased stake in the “new media” residuals of online content and DVDs – it’s arguable that they could have had this much earlier. Early in the process, their unwillingness to budge destroyed any chances to end the strike quickly. It’s as if the WGA forgot that the AMPTP didn’t seem to care if it had written content or not. The WGA’s rough approach led to the stalemate in early December that required it to attempt its “divide and conquer” technique with each individual production company, which worked somewhat, but ended up ticking off the AMPTP brass and creating a chasm within the WGA’s own ranks.\nAnd let us not forget that the Directors Guild, who also had a contract ending soon, began and completed negations with the AMPTP within two weeks, basically making a mockery of the WGA’s efforts. It was even said that the Directors Guild agreement – which was similar to what the WGA wanted – would be the template to use, proving the WGA obviously had issues with their tactics.\nBut more than just the WGA lost here. It’s been estimated that the strike cost the Los Angeles region more than $2 billion, the majority of which was lost through service jobs. It seems more than $730 million was lost just in production of shows and films. None of that compares to the 10,000 crew members who lost their jobs, some of whom won’t even get those back.\nA more telling measurement of the strike’s effects might still be in development. Even the new scripted shows that have been airing recently have delivered anemic ratings, signaling that although people supported the WGA, they’re turned off by the strike’s length. Most of the networks will hurry their big-time players back, but only time will tell if those missing viewers will ever return.\nIt’s truly great news the WGA got what it wanted, but the repercussions of the guild’s actions may have negatively altered the industry for a long time. For now, I guess we’ll just have to be satisfied we’re getting more “LOST” and less “Heroes” this season.
(02/07/08 5:00am)
Adam Sandler's Happy Madison Productions Company has had its hand in some truly awful movies. Not only has it produced Sandler's own crap -- "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry" -- but also financed films for all his less-talented friends -- "Benchwarmers" and "Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo" come to mind -- all of which have been awful. However, it seems the company finally found a decent film to produce and one that thankfully doesn't involve Rob Schneider: "Strange Wilderness."\n"Strange Wilderness" follows Peter Gaulke (Zahn), the host of a floundering wildlife-nature program that has fallen from grace after Gaulke's father passed away. To save the show, Peter and his entire crew trek deep into the Central American jungle to find the biggest wildlife prize of them all: Bigfoot. But, of course, things don't go as planned along the way.\nThis film is certainly not anything groundbreaking, but it has a good number of funny bits. These parts use the R rating to the film's advantage on numerous occasions by coming up with a slew of genital jokes and a whole lot of nudity. Case in point: the funniest gag in the entire film centers on one character's name being Dick.\nMost of the laugh-worthy parts come from Jonah Hill and Justin Long, two guys who probably wouldn't have signed up for this movie after their recent successes in "Superbad" and "Live Free or Die Hard," respectively. Nonetheless, the two are funny as can be as the weirdest of the weird in the crew. Steve Zahn handles the lead fairly well, but his character doesn't have a lot to do aside from getting angry and saying the occasional dumb thing.\nThe plot is extremely simple and moves at breakneck speed, which is probably a good thing considering its shallowness. The film's get-in-and-get-out mentality works perfectly, and it doesn't spend too long trying to draw out jokes -- it's all directly in your face.\nObviously, "Strange Wilderness" isn't that great of a movie, but it does deliver a steady amount of sleazeball humor. For the first week of February, it's a fairly solid release and better than any other comedy.
(02/07/08 3:13am)
When it comes to Super Bowl Sunday, everyone knows there’s a lot more going on than just the game. For the entire event to be an overwhelming success, most people — diehard football fans and non-fans alike — agree that the usually star-studded commercials must be pretty creative. \nWhile I’m not here to dispute that theory, I would also like to note that for a Super Bowl to be unforgettable, all of the coverage must be factored into the equation. \nPre-pregame: I’ve decided to separate the pre-game section of the programming into two parts: the one with Ryan Seacrest and the one without. Airing from 2 to 5 p.m., this broadcast included some short behind-the-scenes info on each teams’ best players, which was sometimes informative and completely typical. \nThe worst part was the addition of Seacrest and the red carpet, which was nothing more than him asking inane questions to celebrities who were with the network — Hugh Laurie — or pimping their new projects — Samuel L. Jackson — and it just didn’t work. As a Seacrest apologist, even I was disappointed, especially when he asked John Krasinski which team he was rooting for when Krasinski wore a Patriots hat. The live performances by Willie Nelson/Sarah Evans and Alicia Keys were a push, but Paula Abdul’s “comeback” was more laughable than most of the people they cut on “American Idol.” \nGrade: C\nPre-game: Finally, Fox’s football guys Howie Long, Terry Bradshaw and Jimmy Johnson got some quality airtime. The three brought their normal facts-mixed-with-funny shtick, and it worked. We’d heard every storyline about XLII by that point, so they did their best. And no offense to the founding fathers, but the weird reading of the Declaration of Independence was even too red-blooded-American for Fox’s taste. \nGrade: B\nNational Anthem/Halftime show: Each of these performances, by Jordin Sparks and Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers respectively, was a pleasant surprise. Sparks was phenomenal. I’m glad she just sang the National Anthem instead of trying to do something new with it. Petty’s performance went as expected — great song choices, and he sounds almost identical to how he did 15 years ago — and the stage design was superb. Maybe one day a network will take a chance on a younger act, but in the post-wardrobe malfunction era, Petty’s been the best. \nGrade: A-\nCommercials: The commercials were as boarderline awful as Tom Brady. It was obvious that some companies shelled out most of their budget on the $2.7 million spot price and not the ad itself. There was an over-emphasis on “cutsie” animals and gimmicks that aren’t funny anymore — FedEx, I’m looking at you. Standouts were hard to come by. Pepsi’s two spots, one with Justin Timberlake and the other mocking “Night At The Roxbury” are the ones I can remember just one day after. \nGrade: C-\nOverall, Super Bowl XLII was saved by the amazing game and quality music, while the TV-related content was lackluster. Only one question remains: Who was worse, Seacrest or the Pats’ O-line? \nGrade: B-
(01/31/08 5:00am)
With its debut Controversy Loves Company, The Audition garnered mild success as a simple, carbon copy of emo-scene brethren such as Fall Out Boy. \nBut now, armed with its aptly titled second record Champion and a whole lot of online buzz, the band is attempting to knock out some of its peers and become kings of the emo ring. To do so, The Audition has decided to draw inspiration from pop-oriented acts such as Maroon 5. It's a risky move that could alienate fans, especially considering the results are mixed. \nThe obvious improvement on Champion is the guitar work. On Controversy it was average, but on like tracks such as "Basbhat" and "Hell To Sell," the guitars are like a bouncy-ball thumping fast from wall to wall in a closed room. This new element reinforces the band's new sound and definitely makes you want to get up and move.\nControversy's best quality was the catchiness of its songs, and Champion has more of the same. "Edinboro," Champion's strongest track, is another foot-tapping jam with a soaring chorus. Vocalist Danny Stevens doesn't have much range, but he delivers somewhat laughable lines such as "Carry me like jet planes crossing the sea / Cabin pressure's high from body heat" with raw emotion.\nStevens' lack of vocal diversity combines with terribly corny lyrics and repetitive melodies to bog down Champion in the worst part: the chorus. The band sticks to a formula throughout -- aside from the surprisingly decent ballad "What Gets You Through The Night" -- and most of the album's songs have solid verses that turn into clunky choruses. The worst perpetrator is "Make It Rain," which includes the aforementioned guitar work until wannabe-Lothario lyrics such as "I'm moving in for the kill so sit still / You will be loving me until the morning" kick in.\nThe Audition should be commended for trying some new moves on Champion, but its inability to mold a new identity for itself doesn't allow it to deliver a punch to the scene. Until it figures it out, it'll be left on the mat as a challenger looking for a rematch.
(01/31/08 5:00am)
How in hell did we get here already? When "Saw" debuted in 2004, moviegoers were ready for fresh blood in the horror/torture genre after suffering through late-'90s teenybopper-filled entries such as "Scream." But a couple of gory traps here, a so-called twist ending there, and before you knew it, the series saved its best swerve for the American public: tricking people into watching four of them.\n"Saw IV" features Officer Rigg's (Bent) quest to find his fallen comrades that have been tested by Jigsaw (Bell) in previous films. However, Rigg's persistent need to save everyone leads him into his own series of tests contrived by Jigsaw, who lies dead in a morgue. Meanwhile, FBI agent Strahm (Patterson) tries to close the case once and for all, but of course, he falls into Jigsaw's trap as well.\nEven for the "Saw" series, this film is damn awful. "IV" falls victim to the worst part of the series by forcing characters (Rigg and Detective Hoffman) that had two lines of dialogue in previous films to the forefront and expecting us to care. The story is as contrived as others in the "Saw" canon. Bousman uses tricky transitions and scene juxtapositions in an attempt to disorient, but they're nothing more than gimmicky moves that don't work. The main swerve in "IV" centers on your knowledge of the time line of previous events, and it's blatantly obvious 35 minutes into the movie.\nPeople watch these movies for the "cool" traps, though, and if you're a fan, you won't be disappointed. Visually, the traps are disturbingly innovative, but leaps in logic must be taken to acknowledge many of their intricacies.\nThe bonus features are dreadful, including dry documentaries on the design of the traps and props, as well as a video diary from Bousman. They exist solely for these torture-porn nuts to stroke their own egos and allow you to see the reason these films are so terrible. \nThe bad news is that, due to its box-office success, "Saw" isn't going away, and I'm certain "Saw V" will hit theaters this Halloween. But plead with those around you to not fall into the sick trap it has planted for moviegoers.
(01/31/08 4:06am)
Naming someone or something can be a very arduous process. Why? Because we’re conditioned to believe that names factor into the amount of success someone or something has. And while this isn’t always true, it is my hypothesis that names matter in one area: music. \nIt goes like this: The success rate of a popular musical act (read: artists who sell major amounts of records) is much higher if said artist adheres to the “name rules” set out for them. There is one caveat: To truly triumph, the artist must abide by the name-based classifications that their genre encompasses. \nPerplexed? Let’s cover some examples.\nCase one: Successful bands in the emo/punk genre always have a name that includes at least three separate words. Arguably the acts with the most mainstream popularity right now are Fall Out Boy, Boys Like Girls, Plain White T’s and My Chemical Romance. They’ve all had hit singles and played on major tours. What else is similar about them? They all have at least three-word names. \nCase two: Bands that make it big in the “modern rock” arena have a simple, one-word name. Quickly think of biggest bands in this genre. Chances are that names like Nickelback, Hinder or Creed came to mind. And they all have more in common than sandwich-in-mouth vocals. The most popular newcomer, Chris Daughtry, is obviously proof of my theory because he knew exactly what he was doing by naming his band Daughtry. \nCase three: Artists in the rap/hip-hop genre must have a stage name that includes some form of a grammatical error. This is the newest addition to my theory, as the outbreak of misspellings and punctuation blunders has increased “exponentially” over the past few years. The most obvious perpetrator of this is the use of “Lil.” For instance, Lil Wayne, Lil Jon, Lil Scrappy, Lil Mama. And of course, there’s the use of “Y[o]ung” — Joc and Dro, both of which has led to success.\nOf course, there are occurrences that bust my hypothesis – Kanye West, Linkin Park and Paramore are prime examples of a connection between correctly-spelled names and success — but generally, I think my theory is valid. I’ve also realized these trends have been around for longer than I thought. Glam rock bands from the 80’s, like Poison, all had one-word names, and don’t forget the numerical trend of the early 00’s with Sum 41 and Blink 182, which will probably never end. Yet, what’s more interesting is what these trends say about the styles and the people that listen to them. \nAm I generalizing to say that wordy emo kids like long-named bands or that the male-dominated audience of “cock rock” likes things simple? Or even that rap fans are young and so ingrained in text message slang that they relate more to those grammatically-challenged artists? Probably, but trends typically do appear for a reason, even if we don’t know the reason yet.\nSo, the next time you hear a new artist on the radio, use my theory to examine their name, and decide if they’ll have long-term success.
(01/24/08 1:37pm)
Last week, television juggernaut “American Idol” debuted its seventh season amidst the usual hype and to another ratings success. And while “American Idol” the show isn’t really slowing, recent events signal a few issues the producers and performers of “Idol” should be aware of — “American Idol” needs some help.\nWhile the ratings for the premiere episodes last week were very good, they were the lowest numbers for premiere week in four years. The debut was watched by 33 million people — a number that dominated all others — but the same episode last year was watched by over 37 million, an 11 percent decline. \nIn the least, this is discouraging news for “Idol” and Fox. The Writer’s Guild of America strike seemed destined to help out Fox – who typically dominates in the winter and spring months because of “Idol” – because the lack of scripted shows would bring more viewers. However, the lower ratings could signify that people are bored with “Idol,” even though there aren’t many other options on TV right now.\nAnd they should be bored after last season. Season six of “Idol” was arguably the worst in the show’s history for many reasons, including the dreadful focus on the celebrity mentors and the lack of quality performers. Both led to a lack of emotional investment in anyone and instead placed the spotlight on Sanjaya Malakar.\nAway from the show, those associated with “Idol” are having some major difficulties. Within two months, two former winners – Ruben Studdard and Taylor Hicks – and a runner-up — Katharine McPhee – were released from their record contracts.\nThey were dropped mostly because of their terrible sales in comparison to former “Idol” standouts. None of the three’s recent albums went platinum, something expected of “Idol” superstars. The albums of season six’s final two, Jordin Sparks and Blake Lewis, have also failed in a way that people aren’t used to\nThe biggest problem with these events is that the big-wigs behind the “Idol” machine are the ones who are failing, not the talent. It’s as if they don’t realize the landscape of music has changed since the show debuted. Illegal downloading is even more prevalent than it was back then, crippling sales.\nThe “Idol” people think that this doesn’t apply to their talent, seemingly believing that millions of votes each week equal sales. The labels refuse to re-mold their business plan and instead continuously trot out their talent as “from American Idol” and expect that to work. The thing is, it doesn’t. Not all of the winners’ styles fit the classic “Idol” mold and the labels should have recognized that and promoted them differently.\n“Idol” needs to do three important things to improve: re-focus on the people competing on the show — because that’s what people get invested in — and attempt new marketing strategies that will get people to buy the music. Also, the show’s marketers should understand that dreadful sales are not just an “Idol” thing and should be more patient with their talent. If they don’t do something, “Idol” will be dead soon enough, and all people will ever remember is Sanjaya.
(01/24/08 5:00am)
The fervor surrounding "Cloverfield" has been building since the mysterious teaser trailer appeared with "Transformers" last summer and producer J.J. Abrams took the viral marketing to a new level with odd Web sites' mysterious posters. Slowly, bits of information reached the masses, while the biggest question was whether the film would actually be good and not just a genius marketing ploy. Thankfully, "Cloverfield" is a bit of both.\n"Cloverfield" tells the story of Rob (Stahl-David), a 20-something on his way to becoming the vice president of an unnamed company in Japan. To celebrate, Rob's brother Jason (Mike Vogel) and Jason's girlfriend Lily (Jessica Lucas) throw him a surprise party as Hud (T.J. Miller) documents it all on film. Suddenly, Manhattan is attacked by an unknown entity, leading to a military evacuation. As the creature terrorizes the city, Rob's friends follow him through the carnage to rescue the love of his life Beth (Yustman), while Hud documents the entire ordeal on camera. \nThe most hyped part of "Cloverfield" is the destruction that takes place once the monster arrives, and it doesn't disappoint. The entire film is from Hud's point of view through the handheld camera, and the shaky movements are jarring and hard to get used to. Once you do, though, it feels like you're in the midst of it all. The angles allow for the monster's look to be kept a secret throughout most of the action, which furthers the suspense. \nThe action sequences and computer graphics of the monster look good for all that is actually visible through the smoke and shakiness of the camera. The producers tried to make everything as realistic as possible, and they succeeded with the look of the monster and its mini-creatures. \nThe film's most negative aspect is its characters. Before the monster hits, we're given 15 minutes of so-called development where we learn about Beth and Rob's one-night stand via the tape in the handheld camera. But you don't go to see "Cloverfield" for its "Dawson's Creek"-esque storyline -- you go for the thrills. Once the carnage begins, the characters' lack of depth makes it difficult to care about them, especially when they're in danger and you're waiting for them to die in a cool way. \n"Cloverfield" isn't a great film, but it shouldn't be judged as a film. It's more of a thrill ride. Throughout the short 75-minute running time, it keeps you on the edge of your seat. Once it's over, you'll feel like you were hung upside down and beaten with a large club. But, chances are, you'll like it.
(01/17/08 5:00am)
Weezer frontman Rivers Cuomo is arguably one of the most enigmatic artists of the last 20 years, due to his fans' die-hard allegiance and all the dramatic subplots that have dogged Weezer since 1996. Over the years, Cuomo wrote hundreds of songs fans never heard -- including the scrapped record Songs From the Black Hole -- and he's finally released a collection of them on Alone: The Home Recordings of Rivers Cuomo. \nAny major fan of the Weez knows the band's best material was made with the band's first two albums Weezer (The Blue Album) and Pinkerton, both of which are located in the highest pantheon of legendary emo-pop. Since Weezer's return in 2001, the songs have been nothing more than weightless, pop fluff such as "Beverly Hills." Thankfully, Alone's tracklist -- which contains songs from 1992 to 2007 -- is chronological, making it easy to distinguish between Cuomo's heyday and whatever the hell he's been doing since. \nAll the strong songs here are from the aforementioned Black Hole, a supposed concept album about space travel as a metaphor for success. One of those tracks "Blast Off!" is a short ditty that includes a Weezer (Blue Album)-style riff and a garbled voice distortion, but it's some\nthing you'd expect from Cuomo circa 1995.\n"Superfriend" also sounds similar to quality Weezer, with a simple, foot-tapping melody accompanying quirky lyrics from Rivers: "What the hell am I doing here / Thinking with my willie / Knowing I don't love her I tell her no / Then kiss her toes." It's not a fantastic song -- much like most of the older songs here -- but it's great to hear stuff that's created rumors for years.\nSadly, once the album delves into more recent demos, the mood completely sours. The over-produced shallow rock songs show up, and if you're a longtime fan, they will probably fill you with rage similar to that of your first listen of Make Believe. \nThe worst offender is "This Is The Way," which was scrapped from Weezer's upcoming album for good reason. It includes "singing" from Cuomo as he continuously spurts "This is the way baby," which would work if this was a Justin Timberlake track, but here it's simply embarrassing. \nAlone does a great job of capturing what could have been and what is for Cuomo and his fans from the past 15 years. The good outweighs the bad here, but unfortunately, Cuomo is satisfied with continuing to deliver the bad from here on out.
(01/17/08 5:00am)
The following are excerpts from conversations I've had with dozens of people recently:\nTV fan: "It's January and you know what that means -- time for '24.'"\nMe: "Actually, because of the Writers Guild of America strike, they weren't able to complete all the episodes so Fox decided '24' will be off-air indefinitely."\nTV fan: "That's complete bullshit, but at least I'll have the winter returns of my other favorites such as 'Heroes.'"\nMe: "Well, again due to the strike, they've run out of episodes and will be off-air indefinitely as well."\nTV fan: "What the hell, man? What are they striking for?"\nWhat's the deal?\nTherein lies the sad truth: Aside from the writers themselves, no one is affected by this strike more than the fans, but I'd guess less than eight percent of fans really know what's been going on the last two months.\nThe WGA -- which includes all Hollywood writers, not just TV -- is striking against the studios primarily over residual money from DVD sales and compensation for creations of "new media," such as online content. Both mediums provide much more money than box-office numbers or advertising dollars, and currently the writers receive very little (0.3%) for DVDs and absolutely nothing for new media. \nThe two sides haven't sat down at the bargaining table since early December, and the WGA has decided it wants to deal with individual studios, only dragging out this awful process longer. \nHow does this affect the viewers?\nThe main problem is that the effects of the strike didn't appear immediately. Most prime-time shows continued to run episodes throughout November and then took their normal break over the holiday season. But now is the time fans are going to be hit hard. \nAlmost all the programs that began in the fall are either fresh out of new episodes or have only a handful remaining. Shows such as "Heroes," "Grey's Anatomy," "Desperate Housewives" and "CSI:" have nothing new left for 2008 and won't resume production until the strike ends. Even the shows that are premiering in the new year such as "Lost" or "Medium" won't provide a full season, even in the case of the smaller-than-average 16-episode order of "Lost," which will have eight episodes complete.\nAnd with the lack of new scripted programming becoming a stone cold reality at the end of March, what will the studios turn to? Reality TV. Be on the lookout for a winter version of "Big Brother" or the resurrection of "The Mole," not to mention whatever awful reality shows FOX concocts. \nMuch worse is that as the strike continues, no new shows will be created for the 2008-2009 season, therefore killing the pilot season and up-fronts, which will drain the studios of advertising dollars. We could easily be looking at no new episodes from our favorite shows until this time next year. \nEven the good news hasn't been that good. The late-night shows, which went dark as soon as the strike began, returned two weeks ago, but have struggled without writers. David Letterman and Craig Ferguson's shows returned with writers due to Letterman's deal with the WGA, but it gives them an unfair advantage against everyone else.\nThe season's award shows are also becoming casualties of the WGA's lack of support for them and the actors' refusals to show up. The Golden Globes became a press conference, and the same could happen to the Oscars as well.\nFans won't see much effect on the film industry until sometime in 2009, because completed scripts have piled up, but it's possible that terrible scripts which have been on the shelf for a while will get produced out of necessity. \nWhat can we do?\nAside from sending pencils to the studios in recognition of support for the WGA, it seems to me that fans have three options once the scripted shows end in the spring: Pray George Clooney's new strike-breaking task force works, stock up on TV shows on DVD or actually go outside and do something active. I've said this before and I'll continue saying it -- WGA, studios: Please don't let it come to that.
(01/17/08 3:43am)
As the race for the White House has heated up over the past month, celebrities continue to place their allegiances with various candidates. Almost every day, someone famous runs his or her mouth about who should be the next president. \nSometimes their opinions on politics is recognized as worthwhile (Oprah supporting Democrat Barack Obama), while other allegiances seem utterly futile (WWE superstar Ric Flair vouching for Republican Mike Huckabee). And while the effect of celebrity endorsements cannot be fully analyzed properly, the recent flare of them has me thinking. \nWhich candidates would our favorite television characters support?\nSure, TV characters are fictional, so determining whom they would support seems inane, but if the endorsement of a washed-up professional wrestler can find its way into newspapers, anything is possible. The following are the endorsements by popular characters. \nJack Bauersupports Fred Thompson. Bauer, “24” frontman, has spent many years as a part of various branches of the military and the Counter Terrorist Unit. His work requires him to use any type of interrogation techniques necessary to acquire information sensitive to the safety of the country. Of course, Jack has decided to back former Senator Thompson due to his support of different types of torture, including waterboarding, as means to extract information. \nVincent Chase from “Entourage”supports Barack Obama. In his starring role in “Aquaman,” Chase plays an avid user of marijuana who considers the legalization of it in some form as an issue dear to his heart. Obama’s openness to the legalization of medical marijuana and admittance of past use is right on par with Vince.\nBenjamin Linus endorses Hillary Clinton. Linus from “Lost” hates anyone new coming to his island and even attempts murder to keep it safe. However, he has allowed strangers to live there on occasion, flip-flopping his position when it is to his advantage. Of course, he relates to Clinton, who also has had mixed views on immigration reform.\nDwight K. Schrute endorses Ron Paul. This character from “The Office” completely despises any form of health care, and when put in charge of picking a new health care plan for his co-workers, Schrute gave them the worst plan imaginable because he believes getting sick is a sign of weakness. He claims he hasn’t been sick for years. As the race has progressed, all candidates have talked about new health care, but Paul disagrees with both universal and socialized plans. This makes him the candidate closest to Schrute’s heart. \nStringer Bell supports John Edwards. Edwards’ campaign centers on helping out the working man while supporting college for everyone, no matter their background. This sounds great to Bell, who has struggled with balancing his day job (running a drug circuit) with his academics (night business school) on HBO’s “The Wire.” He’s simply trying to educate himself to improve his business, and Edwards is the man to further Bell’s dreams. \nEveryone has an opinion on this election, fictional or not. Maybe some of these endorsements will put a candidate over the top. If not, we’ll all be waiting to see who Macho Man Randy Savage supports based on their willingness to snap into a Slim Jim.
(01/10/08 5:00am)
When the first "National Treasure" film was released in 2004, its success snuck up on some people. \nIt seemed to be a watered-down, Disneyed-up "Indiana Jones" starring Nicolas Cage, who hadn't had a real box office hit since 1999's "Gone in 60 Seconds." The funny thing is that the film delivered exactly those weak results, yet went on to gross more than $300 million worldwide. Never discount the Disney hype machine. Now everyone's back for another adventure in "National Treasure: Book of Secrets." \nWhile presenting his theories on the Lincoln assassination and the diary of Lincoln's killer John Wilkes Booth, Ben Gates (Cage) encounters Mitch Wilkinson (Ed Harris), who claims he holds a missing page of the diary that reveals that Gates' ancestor took part in the assassination. To clear his family's name, Gates rounds up his team to find a lost city of gold, which he believes is the reason his great-great grandfather's name appears in the diary in the first place. \nSimply put, if you enjoyed the first "National Treasure" film, it's almost certain you'll enjoy this one. Everyone involved did a good job in making sure that this film looks and feels much like its predecessor. \nThankfully, there wasn't a massive attempt to outdo the original film with the plot. Yes, there's a few more action sequences this time around, but in the unbelievable world that was created in the first film, the events of "Book of Secrets" flow fairly easily. One of the best action-set pieces occurs when the search for said book leads Gates to break into the queen of England's study and the Oval Office, each time dealing with secret compartments in desks. You know it could never happen, but it's still pretty cool.\nThe performances are exactly what you'd expect as well. Cage still hams it up as the supposed genius and Jon Voight still acts like a whiny idiot the entire film. New additions Helen Mirren and Harris fall into place as Gates' mother and Wilkinson respectively, but no one is really trying that hard here. One downside is the lack of Harvey Keitel's FBI Agent Sadusky and his sudden friendship with Gates. \n"National Treasure: Book of Secrets" isn't a great film, but it's not really trying to be. These films are made for entertainment (and money-making) purposes only, and in that respect the film succeeds. It's no better or worse than the first film, and due to the ending it sets up, the third film will probably be much of the same.
(12/07/07 1:48am)
This year has been a very interesting year for television, even more so than most years. This is my last column of 2007, and as I consider myself the resident TV guru on the Editorial Board, it’s only fitting that the following consists of the moments I consider paramount to TV.\n• “The Sopranos” series finale: When one of the most important and highly regarded shows of all time says goodbye, the surrounding hype is huge. By the time June 10 rolled around, people were not ready to let Tony and company go, but they were forced to accept the fact that the masterpiece was over. However, no one expected that the final scene would culminate with a quick fade to black. Millions of people were still going through the five steps of grieving and debating the ending weeks after.\n• “Lost” season three finale: After a shaky start with the six-episode pod in the fall, “Lost” came on very strong – season one strong – in its final stretch of episodes, and it was capped off by the mind blowing finale. While the island’s action was exciting and poignant (RIP Charlie) it was an insane introduction to the flash forward of Jack’s life after he got off the island that left people picking their jaws off of the floor. From here on, the story will now be told with both the flashbacks and flash forwards, something I didn’t even think the creators would consider.\n• The TiVo Effect: When Nielsen began the confusing task of calculating how many people were watching prime time shows later on their TiVos or DVRs, the move couldn’t have come any sooner. As more people use these devices, the audience’s measurements for the initial airing of a show is going to continue to decrease, and the implementation of DVR numbers will prevent some shows from getting cancelled. \n• Terrible shows surviving: In recent years, some very good shows have been cancelled prematurelybecause networks refused to let the show settle in to its audience. “The Nine” and “Kidnapped” got the hook too early and people were angry. But this year, the networks have finally figured out that it takes a while to build an audience. Shows with bad ratings (“Journeyman”) and bad plots (“Moonlight”) alike have survived. The negative aspect of that is only one show has been cancelled in a fairly weak year for new content.\n• The Writers Guild Association Strike: For all the wrong reasons, this is the biggest moment for the industry. The writers’ strike began in November, and though talks have resumed, many believe that it will continue into March 2008. This means all scripted shows have ceased production and viewers will be without fresh episodes of their favorite shows until February. What’s worse is that we could be without them throughout next year as well. \nOverall, this year has been a roller- coaster. The ups have been some of the best ever, while the downs have been some of the worst. Hopefully, the strike gets sorted out and some of the madness ends. If only “Heroes” had a few good writers on staff, we’d be in business.
(12/06/07 5:00am)
The year 2007 has been good to Anberlin. In February, it released its critically acclaimed third album Cities, which debuted at No. 19 on the Billboard charts. Then, in the summer, the band was signed to major label Universal Republic. To cap off the year -- and before it enters the studio for record No. 4 -- it is burning off a bunch of b-sides in the form of Lost Songs.\nMany of the tracks on Lost Songs have been heard before, either on special editions of older albums or on compilations, but it contains a few acoustic tracks and covers that any Anberlin fan would want to hear.\nOf the "unreleased" tracks, "Uncanny" is easily the strongest. The song was previously found on a special edition of Cities but didn't really fit that album's mood. It's an upbeat track about traveling, as Stephen Christian unleashes the vocals "Anywhere say anywhere / As long as I'm with you / Anything ask anything / We'll watch the world go by" and includes some Anberlin staples: a driving acoustic guitar, Nathan Young's pulsating drums and Christian's soaring vocals.\n"Dismantle. Repair" is the best of the album's acoustic numbers, mostly because it's one of the best songs the band has ever written. The original version is one of Anberlin's harder songs, but the more subdued version works almost as well because it keeps all the original's miniscule elements and integrates them into an acoustic setting.\nThe covers -- including Dylan's "Like a Rolling Stone," Depeche Mode's "Enjoy the Silence," and The Smiths' "There is a Light That Never Goes Out" -- are solid, but none of them really stick out unless you're a huge fan of covers. Most of the songs Anberlin decided to cover have been covered by a lot of other bands as well, so there's nothing particularly superior about them. \nThe three demos of songs from previous albums seem like filler, too. The quality of the tracks is definitely below average. If Anberlin wanted to use them so badly, it could have re-recorded them and labeled them as different versions.\nLost Songs is a great pickup for die-hard Anberlin fans who haven't scoured the Internet to find these tracks, which have all been readily available, and want to have everything in their catalog. Everyone else should stick to listening to Cities, which is one of 2007's best in the emo genre.
(12/06/07 5:00am)
Recently, Hollywood has decided that a simple formula and a couple of high-profile actors looking for a cheap buck (read: Ben Stiller) make for a good romantic comedy. But every once in a while, a film is released that understands there is more than one way to tell a comedic story with romance tossed in. "Waitress" is one of those films. \nJenna (Russell) is a waitress at a small-town diner whose only dreams are getting out of her awful marriage to Earl (Sisto) and winning a local pie-baking contest. But when she finds out she's pregnant, her dreams and life seem ruined. However, a sexual attraction to her new gynecologist Jim (Fillion) evolves into her a friendship allows her to find happiness. \n"Waitress" completely sneaks up on you. The story is simple and takes a while to get moving, but then suddenly you realize you're thoroughly invested in the characters. The performances are top-notch, including Jeremy Sisto as the abusive yet eerily charming husband Earl, and Andy Griffith as Jenna's favorite customer Joe, who plays the closeted softy old-guy character we've seen a million times, with a lot of heart. \nBut Russell's performance shines the brightest. She hasn't done much since "Felicity," but this film proves she can be a lead. She does well with some of the odd-ball humor and handles the emotional scenes without going way over the top, which has been a problem with some of her late-'90s-WB peers.\nThe story does an excellent job of portraying Jenna and Jim's relationship in a light manner -- even though they're committing adultery -- and allowing it to grow organically into a great friendship. In any other film, their relationship would be a catalyst for many cheap jokes, but here it's not.\nThe features are fairly standard -- documentary on the film, documentary on the star, etc. -- but the interviews with the cast and crew make it obvious they had a wonderful time working together. The best feature, though, is about the film's writer/director/co-star Adrienne Shelly, who was murdered before the film was invited to Sundance in 2007. Again, the cast's love for Shelly doesn't seem fake at all as they talk about her drive to make the film. It's truly heartbreaking.\n"Waitress" is a solid film that can be enjoyed by women and men alike. The unique story and lovable characters make you feel warm inside, just like a piece of fresh-baked pie.
(11/30/07 2:05am)
Earlier this week, “Empire” magazine’s Web site displayed a series of eerily placed playing cards that began to reveal themselves slowly. Eventually, the cards were replaced by a brand-new image of Heath Ledger as the Joker in “The Dark Knight.”\nThe picture is yet another step in the film’s excessive “underground,” viral marketing campaign. Throughout the summer, the Web site www.whysoserious.com ordered fans to complete tasks online that unlocked small nuggets of information about the film. \nAnd while this seems to be working for “The Dark Knight,” it’s solely because the film is highly anticipated even without the viral marketing. However, it seems more and more movies that would be easily forgotten are trying to concoct an uber-creative marketing strategy that will allow them to obtain surprising box office success. The bad news is, it’s not really working.\nFilms have tried this experiential marketing in a few different ways. Some have attempted to springboard off of their cult status online before the movie is ever released (“Snakes on a Plane”); others have used cryptic, yet gripping taglines (“The Matrix”); and even more have tried shocking and eye-catching posters (“Captivity”). The main problem is that not one film has been able to put all the elements of buzz together to create a sustainable marketing push that puts the film over the top. \nBut there may be hope for that just yet: “Cloverfield.” Or “01-18-08.” Or “Monstrous.”\nIt’s this type of shadowy behavior that we’ve seen from the beginning with the J.J. Abrams-produced monster movie that arrives in theatres in January. \nThis summer, a mysterious two-minute clip depicting the destruction of New York City via a handicam hit theaters and the Internet, which caused an eruption on blogs and talkbacks. People began dissecting the trailer just as the film’s creepy official Web site posted two random pictures that were movable. \nAs Abrams noted at Comic Con, the title of the film and footage of the monster will not be available for a while. Posters were released with three different titles, and MySpace pages were created for all the film’s major characters. All the while, the speculation continued throughout the summer. Finally, a new trailer was released in front of “Beowulf” a few weeks back, with more of the same footage, only this time the title was revealed as “Cloverfield.” So even when Abrams does release information, it’s not really information.\nAlthough the people behind this film have to be really excited about the marketing they’ve done so far – aside from print ads, they seem to have captured all the mediums – they have to aware of the cautionary tales that have built up a lot of hype and then completely failed. “Snakes on a Plane” was a massive hit with a segmented audience online, but that never made a difference because no one else came to see it.\nThe biggest worry that the producers of “Cloverfield” should have is whether or not their film is actually any good, because the buzz is only going to take them so far. And based on the past films that have used buzz to cover up their flaws, I’m guessing they’ve got a lot to worry about.
(11/29/07 5:00am)
Robert Zemeckis is one of the most heralded directors when it comes to special effects and new technology. He's done great things in his career, including the "Back To The Future" trilogy and "Forest Gump." However, his obsession with the motion-capture technology led to "The Polar Express," which brought audiences the creepy, soulless eye syndrome of the characters. The use of motion capture was a wash, but it obviously didn't deter Zemeckis from going with it again in his new film "Beowulf." \nThe plot of the film is raised from the Old English poem of the same title. The village of Heorot and its king Hrothgar are attacked by the creature Grendel, who murders many people in the mead hall. The warrior Beowulf arrives in the village, claiming he will dispose of Grendel. And while Beowulf makes good on his promise, his encounter with Grendel's mother creates a chain reaction that affects him many, many years later. \nThe animation is what's most important here. Thankfully, many of the pitfalls that were noted regarding "The Polar Express" have been fixed. It takes about 15 minutes to get used to, but once the action sequences begin, "Beowulf" doesn't look much different than other films -- most films use all CGI for action anyway -- and you easily get immersed in the plot without dwelling on the fact the film is not live action. The motion capture looks especially good on Anthony Hopkins and John Malkovich, as their animated counterparts seem almost identical to the real people. However, in some of the wider shots, the extra people in the scenes look much like they would in "Shrek," so the technology isn't flawless quite yet.\nOnce you get used to the motion capture, "Beowulf" becomes an extremely entertaining film. The action sequences look beautiful, and the film story is much easier to follow than the one from the poem. At the very least, this version will keep you interested for a hell of a lot longer than the boring one you read in high school.
(11/29/07 5:00am)
Lately, Hollywood studios have had so much trouble coming up with ideas that they've made many films based off of video games. "House of the Dead," "Doom" and "BloodRayne" are a few of the standout bombs, with the "Resident Evil" series being the lone semi-success. Sadly, no one has learned their lesson, and thus "Hitman" exists. \nThe film follows a contract killer known only as Agent 47 (Timothy Olyphant), who was bred by a mysterious outfit known as "The Organization" to become an unstoppable killing machine. Agent 47 is hired to take out the Russian prime minister, but instead finds himself entrenched in a government conspiracy and on the run from other assassins.\nIt's obvious from its beginning that "Hitman" is a terrible film. The opening credits include a montage of Agent 47's origins, but the information provided is nothing more than him getting his head shaved and barcoded as a 15-year-old. More of his background is included in a dreadful voice-over.\nAnd then the film takes off and, well, limps. Ten minutes in, the entire plot is laid out for the viewer. It's as if there's not even a first act, and the picture doesn't get any clearer as it moves forward. Supposedly the prime minister who 47 kills isn't the real one, but a dubious double who has had his face taken off. It's never explained, however, who the impersonator really is.\nOlyphant is fairly strong as the title character, but he never quite seems like the total badass the film wants him to be. He has to deliver some awful lines but does the best with what he has. The rest of the performances are wafer-thin, but only because every character is nothing but a stereotype -- worn-out cop, arms dealer who does too much cocaine, etc. \nThe action sequences, though, are pretty good. There's not a lot of CGI explosions, and it's nice to see old-fashioned shoot-outs with a bunch of blood. The sequence in which 47 destroys the police at the hotel while he is barefoot is definitely the highlight.\n"Hitman" takes itself way too seriously, lacks a plot and includes caricature-like performances from most of the cast. Bloody action sequences and a quality performance from Olyphant fail to save it from being anything more than entertainment for the 13-year-olds who play the video game.
(11/15/07 5:00am)
Ever since Tom DeLonge destroyed Blink-182, something has been wrong in his head. \nDeLonge had this to say about Angels&Airwaves' new album I-Empire: "It reflects an idea that the world is yours for the taking, and all that exists, exists inside you." \nAnd while that statement is as heavy-handed as you can get -- and whether or not DeLonge is actually serious -- the one thing DeLonge is right about is that I-Empire is much better than the band's debut. \nThe problem with AVA's debut We Don't Need To Whisper was that DeLonge overhyped the quality of the record. It was full of U2-esque guitar work that dragged on and included laughable lyrics. The band has brought much of the same this time around, but it for some reason, it's more enjoyable. \nThe appropriately titled opener "Call To Arms" starts off with the aforementioned riffs ripped from U2 and a somewhat interesting sound, both of which are nothing new. However, the album's major improvement is its soaring hooks. \nIt seems DeLonge remembered that the reason Blink was so popular was because he and Mark Hoppus wrote great pop songs, and he's figured out how to integrate that into AVA's formula. The lyrics aren't anything special, but when DeLonge belts out, "I'd like to say that you're my only fear / And when I dream, it slowly disappears / And when I wake, I'm right here by your side / To feel your heart," he really means it.\nThe single "Everything's Magic" includes some cheesy hand-claps, but Atom Willard's drums and different guitar work make it extremely enjoyable. It's definitely the quickest song the band's written and induces its listeners to jump around their bedrooms with their significant others.\n"Sirens" is faster than anything on Whisper, and its new-wave-esque-sound would be considered a bad track in The Police's catalog, but works for AVA. However, painfully earnest lyrics almost ruin the song: "I like your eyes wide / I've been knocking at your back door / Nervous like a knife fight."\nThankfully DeLonge has accepted that his biggest strength is writing catchy songs, added to by better technical work from the rest of the band. I-Empire is an improvement. However, the droning-on of the album's latter tracks and the sketchy, elementary lyrics from a guy in his 30s prevent it from helping DeLonge conquer the world, or whatever the hell he has dreamed up in that warped mind of his.
(11/15/07 4:05am)
The best word to describe this season of television must be “decent.” Most of the new shows haven’t been dreadful, but none of them have stood out. The networks are being more patient with shows this year than they’ve been in the past – why ABC couldn’t have been as patient with “The Nine” or “Invasion” as it was with “Cavemen” is beyond me – and they’re all finding some sort of footing. \nAlmost all the returning shows aren’t any worse than they were last year, except “Heroes.” So aside from the impending doom caused by the writers’ strike, the general viewer has to be satisfied with TV this year. \nBut I’m not. I can’t take it any more. I miss “The Island.” I miss “the Others.” I miss Matthew Fox on the verge of tears every two scenes. I even miss fish biscuits. “Lost” withdrawal is in full effect and it has destroyed the fall season. \nLast spring, “Lost” Executive Producers Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse cut a deal with ABC that would allow the show to continue on for three more 16-episode arcs, each of which would begin in February and run straight through until May. \nThis means that since last season’s breathtaking, mind-screw of a finale – arguably the best two hours of television of all time – we Losties have been going nuts waiting for some inkling of an answer. Cuse and Lindelof have been basically silent since May, allowing the revealing of flash-forwards to simmer in the minds of fans. \nAlthough I completely agree with the idea to run “Lost” in a complete block, waiting for it has left my opinions of other shows in a dour place right now. I can’t watch other shows without thinking about how much better writers such as Brian K. Vaughn or Drew Goddard would have handled the dialogue, or how Jack Bender would have shot it. In the past, I could enjoy lesser shows because I knew I was going to be blown away on Wednesdays. But now, I can’t be OK with the mediocre plot or acting on “Heroes” because I’ve nothing else to get me through the week. \nWhat’s more of a shame is that most people would rather waste their time with simplistic fluff such as “Heroes” or “Bionic Woman” than invest time in one of the greatest stories ever told on screen. “Lost” encompasses the most creative, intriguing, dramatic and heartfelt aspects of storytelling and puts them all together. I’m sick and tired of people whining about the slow pace, yet then claiming it’s too late to get involved. It is an undertaking, but if the gap between seasons will help with anything, it’s that it will allow new people to catch up.\nTV won’t be the same until February – writers’ strike solution pending – when “Lost” returns. The best tip to survive the lackluster programming until then is to watch an episode of “Lost” every time you would have watched a show currently on air, no matter if you’re a diehard Lostie or if you’ve never seen one minute. We can either watch together or die alone.