ClownCarBlog.com

It Beats Being PigPen

You are Schroeder!


Which Peanuts Character are You?
brought to you by Quizilla

Movie Review: Fog of War

Subtitle: Being Robert McNamara

Not entirely sure how to sum this one up. Those who caught Blind Spot will have a good understanding. This one is similar in that a good chunk of it is just a head shot interview of former Sec. of Defense Robert McNamara. But there's more historical archive footage interspersed. It helps the movie along, but there's still a slow pace to it that makes for an odd moviegoing vibe.

Perhaps that vibe was a bit detracted from by the idiot who would NOT stop talking throughout the show. Since I caught a Sunday matinee, that meant a near-empty house and this person's voice carried no matter where you were (or moved to). Sickeningly irritating.

The film basically gives 11 lessons learned by McNamara over time. This isn't limited to Vietnam, but its obvious that Vietnam is a pivot point for much of this film. The use of imagery is done magnificently to show McNamara as the uber-rational number cruncher from Ford who used statistical analysis for seemingly everything. It leads off with a monologue on the Cuban Missile Crisis, where McNamara notes how rational people can come within a whisker of doing things that are not in their nation's best interests. The lead off is critical because as you wind down through the movie (about midway, you realize this is a bit of a chore), but it ties in magnificently to the closing coverage when the focus is more on Vietnam ... again where completely rational people come within a whisker of making what would seem irrational decisions.

As you go through the movie, its tough to pick which of the two is having the most impact ... the weaving of imagery and stock footage of McNamara's history playing off McNamara's lectures into the camera ... or merely the profoundness of McNamara's own words. Both work exceptionally well on their own, and I'll make this call just as the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor has been awarded ... Fog of War deserves the Oscar. My only concern about whether or not it will win is due to the wider publicity received by Capturing the Friedmans. Were I to have a vote (yeah, I know ... fat chance), it'd go for this one.

ADD-ON: Caught the preview for My Architect. Seems like it confirms my one concern of the movie in that it would be more a focus on the personal search for information on the son trying to learn about his famous father, which is understandable. Hoping for at least a sizable focus on the architecture of Louis Kahn in addition, though. Either way, I'm sure I'll take it in.

Gigli Gets Razzied

It's turkey time as Gigli sweeps Razzies

Gigli sweeps the major awards of the Razzies, thereby leading to the inevitable ... that I will one day own this. I'm hopeful that I can find it on sale at the used DVD bin, but this presumes someone buys one to sell back at some point. This could be a while.

Under the "But Seriously" category

(Is this the FIRST entry under such?)

Today, it was announced that US troops will lead a multinational force to assist the constitutional government of Haiti in restoring order after Aristide's departure just ahead of various opposition armies. Although it's important to the US to help preserve an emerging democracy close to its own borders, the UN should be roundly chastised for not being quicker to step up to the plate. This sort of thing is that which the UN claims as a specialty (no sarcasm intended). So let's get out ASAP, thrusting the job into the lap of the UN with all speed. (This opinion subject to change, depending on how badly the UN screws up this time.)

The Passion (follow-up)

I believe Joe and I resolved our discussion regarding the culpability of the audience and also the media missing the point of the violence in The Passion, but a few observations just to punctuate for the readers:

This article addresses techniques in the film that the writer feels succeeded in addressing our culpability (though I find both mine and Owen's specific examples to be superior).

As to the second point, whether the media understands its resonance, I offer the following from David Ansen of Newsweek:

"The film that has been getting rapturous advance raves from evangelical Christians turns out to be an R-rated inspirational movie no child can, or should, see. To these secular eyes at least, Gibson's movie is more likely to inspire nightmares than devotion...

Instead of being moved by Christ's suffering, or awed by his sacrifice, I felt abused by a filmmaker intent on punishing an audience, for who knows what sins. Others may well find a strong spirituality in 'The Passion' — I can't pretend to know what this movie looks like to a believer — but it was Gibson's fury, not his faith, that left a deep, abiding aftertaste."

Granted, it's one review of many, but I doubt there's a clearer example of precisely the point I was trying to make. I do not argue that Ansen is wrong in his conclusion (nor does Roger Ebert in the review I link to below). My point was simply that this is the kind of divide does exist regarding this film. I actually applaud Ansen for admitting as much.

Ebert also agrees with a point I made in discussion with Joe that to shoe-horn this film with so-called necessary cinematic observances misses the point that film is simply a medium to convey a message:

"This discussion will seem beside the point for readers who want to know about the movie, not the theology. But "The Passion of the Christ," more than any other film I can recall, depends upon theological considerations. Gibson has not made a movie that anyone would call "commercial," and if it grosses millions, that will not be because anyone was entertained. It is a personal message movie of the most radical kind, attempting to re-create events of personal urgency to Gibson."

Even if Gibson didn't give you a literal hand-holding moment that explicates the suffering/culpability idea (which Owen and I agree he in fact did), he doesn't have to. He can choose to live or die at the box office with fact that there is a certain knowledge one must be privy to in order to understand the film on a certain level. To wit, I refer readers back to the last two lines of my review for my distilled take.

Mugged by Reality

Its not every night I make an appointment with the television for some R&R, so as luck would have it, I get home to the familiar spectacle of Survivor initially, only to follow that buffoonery up with the rerunned finale of My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance.

The concept with Survivor, being an All Star show with some of the most memorable strandees from the past, is worthwhile. CalPundit calls them lame. I'll slightly disagree. I think the show only heats up after about half the group is gone and intrigue heats up. We're still at an early point in this run, but one positive witnessed last night was that the evil creep from the first series, Richard Hatch, is now toast. He was, in fact, a unanimous pick by the rest of the tribe.

I always find it odd on some of the more competitive versions of reality shows how a few characters will succeed by being openly duplicitous. The rationale seems to go "At least I know they're lying, the other guy ... I dunno." Yet to these wavering souls, they seem to lose sight of the fact that while they are being lied to 100% by these open liars, they ignore the moments when they give in and accept something as truthful, only to wonder in amazement at the knife in their back. Hatch, of course, made a cool mill off this method. It doesn't instill a great deal of confidence in the rest of mankind to witness this, I'll admit.

That in mind, Fiance is more of a practical joke setup show, with a long drawn-out joke, and a weird ending. All throughout the show, you're wondering how the family will react when the "bride" admits its a ruse. Turns out, the joke is on the bride. The groom she thought she was in cahoots with is an actor (we, the viewers, know this on Day One). The family is naturally very upset by both the forced effort to make them swallow this odd couple pairing (several of the bride's siblings threaten to protest the wedding, but relent) as well as the revelation that this was all a con.

In the end, the actor playing the groom tries to mask any hurt feelings by noting that the love of a family kept them together and forced them to notice that this wedding should not take place ... nevermind that they were all apparently willing to let it proceed. The bride claims she wanted to do all this for the family and rake in a fat paycheck for them (initially $250,000 ... later raised to $500,000 for purpose of giving a pleasant surprise to both bride and family afterwards) Once more, I'm not sure the moral of the story says anything good about mankind.

Also on recent viewing was the finale of The Surreal Life. Concept is this ... attempt to grab that 16th minute of fame. At least this one is titled appropriately. No better word fits this show's concept than "surreal." Words fail me in describing it in any more detail.

Overall, this genre is definitely scraping bottom. I mean, when you have a version of The Bachelor for midgets (Fox ... where else?), that's rock bottom. I'd love to close my eyes, proclaim "Macarena" and see this genre put to death. Haven't checked the ratings much lately, but I'm curious ... are these shows getting watched still? Jeez, bring back a regrouped Donnie & Marie variety show for my money!

Let's Get To Know Each Other

One of my names on another message board is 'Ralphieboy' and the message board in question has lots of annoying personality surveys. I parodied those
get-to-know-you pieces with THIS quiz:

(no trick questions; all have actual answers - exept the last one - I
think)

-----------

Which of these songs does Ralphie NOT posess on 45 single?
__________________________________________________
"Barefootin'" - Brownsville Station
"True Colors" - Cindi Lauper
"Urge For Going" - Joni Mitchell
"End Title from the film SCANDAL" - Dusty Springfield/Pet Shop Boys
"I Hear You Knockin' " - Dave Edmunds

Which of these albums does Ralphie NOT posess on LP?
_____________________________________________
"Unforgettable Fire" - U2
(First album/Self-titled) - Richie Valens
(First album/Self-titled) - Root Boy Slim w/ The Rootettes
"Blood On The Tracks" - Bob Dylan
"Boogie Woogie" - Ammons/Johnson/Lewis

Which of these electromechanical devices does Ralphie NOT own?
______________________________________________________
DVD Player
Sony PCM VHS audio adapter
8-Track Recorder
Super 8 movie camera
Indash AM radio from 1972 Olds Cutlass

Which of these types has Ralphie NOT dated?
_____________________________________
Pager Control Operator
Bookkeeper
Legacy Systems Programmer
Software Support Technician
Salesperson

Which of these jobs has Ralphie NOT had?
__________________________________
Plants and Fertilizer sales
Tape Operator
Truck Driver
Security Guard
Janitor

Which of these items is NOT on Ralphie's 2do list?
________________________________________
Read from booklist
Get cigs
Test camera driver reload
Balance checkbook
Get trailer hitch

Which of these important things does Ralphie NOT posess?
________________________________________________
Condominium
Land
Car
Car Insurance
Minor Security Clearance

Which of these items does NOT interest Ralphie?
_______________________________________
Architecture
Interior Decorating
Greek Philosophy
Jazz History
Military Toxicology

Which of these actors does Ralphie NOT like?
_____________________________________
Nick Nolte
Woody Allen
Tom Cruise
Paul Lynde
Phil Silvers

Which of these actresses does Ralphie NOT like?
_______________________________________
Lizabeth Scott
Bette Davis
Sandahl Bergman
Dolores Fuller
Barbara Payton

What does Ralphie NOT drink?
_________________________
Bourbon and water
Honey Meade
Bud Light
Chivas
Pina Coladas

Which philosopher does Ralphie NOT compliment in some respect?
______________________________________________________
Immanuel Kant
Alfred Rosenberg
Ayn Rand
Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz
Ludwig Wittgenstein

To what city has Ralphie NOT traveled?
________________________________
Seattle, Washington
Hope, Arkansas
Bozeman, Montana
Biloxi, Mississippi
Staten Island (NYC), NY

In what state was Ralphie born?
__________________________
Mississippi
Illinois
California
Kansas
Vermont

Which subject has Ralphie NEVER declared a major?
___________________________________________
English
History
Philosophy
Business Administration
Journalism

Which model would Ralphie NOT date?
_______________________________
Peta Wilson
Iman
Vanessa Williams
Tyra Banks
Heather Hunter

Which architect is NOT complimented by Ralphie in some fashion?
______________________________________________________
Frank Lloyd Wright
Ludwig Mies Van Der Rohe
Philip Johnson
Frank Gehry
Louis Sullivan

Which singer is NOT represented in the Ralphie recording collection?
________________________________________________________
David Bowie
Glen Campbell
George Michael
Hank Snow
Carole King

Which car stereo brand has NOT been patronized by Ralphie?
__________________________________________________
Pioneer
Sanyo
Alpine
Philco
Jensen

Which song, short story, book or article title can NOT be traced to
Ralphie in some way?
______________________________________________________
Political Crackpots I Have Known
How I Made $100 In Real Estate
Left Turn At Albuquerque: The Bugs Bunny Subtext In Postwar Western
Civilization
Few Actually Call It Conspiracy: The “Three’s Company” / Waco Connection
Winning Strategies For “Redneck Rampage Network Tournament”

Further thoughts on The Passion

There's something that slipped my mind earlier I think worth commenting
on. I was so caught up in remembering the many things I thought wrong with the picture, the one thing I appreciated slipped my mind: the movie's
juxtapostioning of Christ's torture with flashbacks to his sermon preaching
peace and loving one's enemies. Not only does it hit home for me as one of the
most important of Christ's teachings, but it struck me as quite daring in this
post 9-11 world to preach so explicitly a message against vengeance. I'm
wondering (though I seriously doubt) if many of the people who see this movie
will be moved to forgive and love the men who drove planes into the World
Trades Center, and to love those in the Middle East who want nothing more
than to destroy us.

What in the movie makes you think the violence is there to re-inforce our culpability? I was raised Catholic, and Gibson is Catholic, of course, so it is easy for me to agree with the assertion. But nothing in the movie ever indicates this, nothing is ever said by anyone that we all (humanity) are responsible for Christ's death. And this is central to what I think is so crucially wrong with the picture.

But I grant you that I am reviewing this as a movie, not a religious event, not as a sociological phenonmenon.

My point is that you were referring to the press "not getting" the violence, and to explain it, you were reaching outside the film to explain it. I'm saying why they may be confused is because the movie itself does not explain the issue and, indeed, the examples you give only make sense in that context, outside the film, I mention.

Of course, Gibson can make his movie any way he wants. I don't think that's the point. The point is if people in the media are confused by the film, and the film itself does not bother to explain itself, their confusion can hardly be their own fault.

The Passion

I have not labeled this entry entirely as a review for the simple reason that I think the film is as much a religious message as it is a simple film and I am more intrigued by this aspect than it's cinematic one. I think Joe's review covers more extensive ground if your interest is in that regard.

As it is a religious message, I believe the criteria for having a comprehensive discussion of the film are different. I agree with Joe that the film is not likely to make converts of non-believers, but why would one even make that distinction if one didn't see this as a religious message. That the Harry Potter films didn't spur the audience's interest into further exploration of the occult does not condemn the effort as a bad film. Nor am I saying that Joe calls it a bad film for that reason. If you've read his review, you know why he thinks it's bad.

I will agree also that I did not find Caviezel's performance as Christ a particularly compelling one and it is, after all, a rather Herculean task. I found Henry Ian Cusick in the recent The Gospel of John to be the more compelling Jesus, but that still probably isn't saying much. Caviezel's greatest strength, if he has one, is his ability to simply inhabit a scene and not disturb its message. Hardly a hearty endorsement, but effective during a few moments of the film.

As to the violence in the film, we've heard that it is too gory and I can only think that it begs the question: too gory for what and compared to what? If we're talking Hollywood in general, then that argument is surely lost. If we're talking depictions of Christ, then I'd argue that the mess is the message. Gibson was purposefully making the most graphic version and I suppose the complaint then means that he succeeded - not too hard. I also believe that the intent was to make the viewer squirm with discomfort and therefore further draw you into the film's implication: YOUR culpability in Christ's suffering and death. Again, would this make sense without the assumption that the film is a message intended for those well prepared to receive it? If the idea was to make all audiences uncomfortable, then Gibson failed on the theological level and perhaps succeeded only on a humanist level - that is, nobody with Christ's affirmative message should have to have undergone that brutality. I'm not prepared to blame Gibson's cinematic technique in failing to win converts. I have to admit that my Catholic education and upbringing probably qualifies me as too willing to help Gibson along and fill in some gaps for him, but no tricks of the camera or unique narrative device with the constraint of remaining faithful to the Gospel was going to accomplish mass conversions. Sorry, but you're simply asking a film to do too much.

I discussed the film with an older Catholic and wondered whether the generational difference was one that would keep him from embracing the more emotional and interpersonal elements of the story. I don't think the sense of affection and empathy with Jesus had been emphasized as much before the 1970's and figure that more recent films' dwelling on His human nature bear that out. I could be wrong. The point is that there are a few moments in the film that I could not help but be moved in ways that have more of an evangelical tone than the more stoic Roman Catholic sense:

1) When Jesus is scourged at the pillar, He sees Mary and makes a strained effort to stand and present a less-defeated demeanor. The scene could have implied a kind of pride that would border on sinful, but I think the idea was that He wanted Mary to know that he would not flag in this mission.

2) Christ stumbles with the cross and Mary runs to comfort Him. When she reaches Him, He says to her, "Behold, I make all things new." This was for me the most beautiful moment in the film. He is in fact comforting Mary in a way immeasurably more significant than what she was doing for Him. It was when the faithful could be relieved to see the immutable faith of their savior. It hurt to know what it cost, but it was the single greatest expression of His love for man.

3) The instant the nail is driven into His hand is the instant He prays that God "forgive them, they know not what they do." Another moment where you realize the divinity required for this much forgiveness. And the kind of scene that reinforces the almost insensate nature of such brutality. I wish it had been played more matter of fact, as the centurions' glee is too hysterical and dramatizes for them what was probably just an ordinary affair. It would have been more effective had the played it that way, I think, but at least the concordant message is not lost.

I can't really draw any grand conclusion here so I will simply say that if you are looking for a film to hit emotions cultivated by a lifelong spiritual gratitude for the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, then you're more likely than not going to find it somewhere in this film. But I'd be careful to state that it's the gratitude that's the horse and the film that's the cart.

Review: The Passion

Here we go folks. This was the first big movie of the year, and it's a whopper. So before I start telling you what I think about it, let me clarify some things. First of all, I am neither a Christian nor a Jew. In fact, I do not belong to any organized religion. When people ask me what I am, I typically either avoid the question or just tell them that I am. I have attended several different religious services in the past to attempt to find one to really fit my personal beliefs and spirituality, but chose to go my own path. With that being said, I will approach this story from a different angle than my cohorts here at the Clown Car Blog: I will approach it from a non-faith perspective.

When I watched "The Passion", I really saw it as a great case study in mass psychology. From the moment Jesus was captured, I knew this would end badly. However, it was the dizzying speed at which public opinion was formed and reported that struck me as odd. The High Priests in the film, the main accusers of Jesus, found ways of manipulating the crowd by buying the "right people" off and stacking the crowd with yes-men. Once they assembled in Pilate's court, the trial was over. No matter what Pilate wanted to do, Jesus would lose. The people in front of him, the ones with the loudest voices, were the ones who got to control the laws. Pilate himself said that the man did nothing wrong. He even gave the crowd a choice between this Jesus fellow and a wild-eyed crazy man murderer. The crowd, led by the loud cries of the High Priests, chose to stay their course and punish this man who they were convinced was evil. In the end, you're shown how the will of a few men, when projected upon a crowd, can cause great influence. All they had to do was buy the right people, and they managed to kill an innocent man. Mob rule played out on a mortal scale.

What did we learn from the mob rule in "The Passion"? First of all, we learned that leaders shouldn't be rash in their decisions. Taking time to really understand public opinion is a good thing. We also learned that 2000 years ago was much like today: those with the loudest voices often get their way from political figures. Look at the current debate about the future of Social Security. No candidate for president is really standing up and saying that the future of the program is in question because they don't want to upset the largest, most vocal group of active voters: old people. It's time to grow a spine folks.

There were parts of the movie I really didn't care much for. The main part that I thought stunk was the scene in Herrod's palace. For some reason, I felt I was back watching "Return of the Jedi" and Jesus had been thrown into Jabba's palace. From the skinny cackling guy to a big fat sloth, this palace had almost everything Jabba's did. It just didn't fit the tone of the movie.

I'm also amazed at how much money this movie is going to rake in. Generally, subtitled films don't do big business. They're seen as too "high class" for the general public, and just don't get the wide distribution that other movies do. I also want to watch this movie again in the form Mel Gibson originally intended: sans subtitles. Watching it as a silent movie might be a good way to soak in the visuals versus the story. However, with the wide opening of this film, I think we're seeing a good thing. For one, the small company that took a chance on it, Newmarket Films, will be gaining a strong financial base. This is the same house that put out Whale Rider and Monster last year, so I look forward to more films from them. Also, this film was a big risk taken by Mel Gibson. He funded this project from his own (very deep) pockets, and it's going to pay off. It might be a boon for what I like to call "nuevo indy" films, which are films funded by name players but made outside the control of Hollywood.

This is a tough movie to watch. Yes, it's bloody. Yes, it's violent. And yes, it's not exactly for children. However, it makes a good point: tolerance. Tolerance towards others who are not like you. Tolerance and peace. Even as the man knew he would die, he advocated peace among his followers. Whether or not you believe this Jesus guy was the son of God or not, anyone who advocates peace above all else is a winner in my book.

Uber's Oscar Picks 2004

Talking with Greg last night I was amazed that nobody had done Oscar picks on this site. The ceremony is this Sunday, February 29th, and looks to be a pretty entertaining one. I always enjoyed when Billy Crystal was host, and he's back again this year. Michael Moore is not up for any awards, so he probably won't be making any big speeches this year like last year. Anyway, on with the picks. I must admit, some of these are educated guesses, some are flat out shots in the dark, so please...no wagering.

Uber's Oscar Picks:
WRITING (ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY)
The Barbarian Invasions, Dirty Pretty Things, Finding Nemo, In America, Lost in Translation
As much as I enjoyed Lost in Translation, the writing wasn't it's strongest point. Besides, all reports are that the script was only 20 minutes and much of the dialogue was improvised by the actors on set. That's not writing...

WRITING (ADAPTED SCREENPLAY)
American Splendor, City of God, LOTR: Return of the King, Mystic River, Seabiscuit
Here's where I start getting crazy. Most people see this show as a race between LOTR and Mystic River. However, having seen 4 out of the 5 here, I can honestly say that I thought the screenplay for American Splendor was one of the most inventive, given the difficult source story material.

VISUAL EFFECTS
LOTR: Return of the King, Master and Commander, Pirates of the Caribbean
One word: Gollum

SOUND MIXING
The Last Samurai, LOTR: Return of the King, Master and Commander, Pirates of the Caribbean, Seabiscuit
Prediction: I go to the bathroom or get a snack, so who cares

SOUND EDITING
Finding Nemo, Master and Commander, Pirates of the Caribbean
Prediction: I look on Tivo for something else to watch during this presentation

SHORT FILM (LIVE ACTION)
Die Rote Jacke, Most, Squash, Torzija, Two Soldiers
Prediction: I vacuum the carpet. Haven't seen any of these.

You know, let's just start skipping categories. I haven't seen and couldn't care less about a lot of this stuff. So here we go. See more of this exciting article by clicking below

MUSIC (SCORE)
Big Fish, Cold Mountain, Finding Nemo, House of Sand and Fog, LOTR: Return of the King
I'm a sucker for Finding Nemo, so it gets my vote here. The LOTR soundtracks have been better in the extended editions than in the theaters, as they tended to match up more with character themes going to the correct scenes.

MUSIC (SONG)
"Belleville Rendez-vous" (The Triplets of Bellville), "Into the West" (LOTR: Return of the King), "A Kiss at the End of the Rainbow" (A Mighty Wind), "Scarlet Tide" (Cold Mountain), "You Will Be My Ain True Love" (Cold Mountain)
Despite Cold Mountain having two songs nominated, I hope A Mighty Wind comes away with it. The song really played an integral part in the movie (especially the choreographed kiss at the end), and I like folk music, so there you go.

ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
Shohreh Aghdashloo (House of Sand and Fog), Patricia Clarkson (Pieces of April), Marcia Gay Harden (Mystic River), Holly Hunter (Thirteen), Renée Zellweger (Cold Mountain)
Renee gets this one for being shut out of the best actress race two years in a row.

ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
Alec Baldwin (The Cooler), Benicio Del Toro (21 Grams), Djimon Hounsou (In America), Tim Robbins (Mystic River), Ken Watanabe (The Last Samurai)
As much as I want Alec Baldwin to win for his role in The Cooler as an old school Vegas boss, Mystic River has to pick up some awards here.

ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE
Keisha Castle-Hughes (Whale Rider), Diane Keaton (Somethings Gotta Give), Samantha Morton (In America), Charlize Theron (Monster), Naomi Watts (21 Grams)
This is Theron's to lose. When a pretty girl makes herself ugly for the cameras, it usually means she's going for the gold. And that's exactly what she will get. Outstanding performance. Can someone explain to me why Diane Keaton is in here?

ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE
Johnny Depp (Pirates of the Caribbean), Ben Kingsley (House of Sand and Fog), Jude Law (Cold Mountain), Bill Murray (Lost in Translation), Sean Penn (Mystic River)
Everyone seems to be discounting Jude Law in this race, as well they should. Johnny Depp winning would be a shocker, but the real winner here was Bill Murray. His reinvention in the past few years with roles in Rushmore, Royal Tenenbaums and now Lost in Translation really signal a second coming for the man. Sean Penn also deserves a statue here, but I think that Murray gets the nod as a makeup for not even being nominated for Rushmore.

DIRECTING
City of God, LOTR: Return of the King, Lost in Translation, Master and Commander, Mystic River
A three person race here. Sofia Coppola put together a great little film in Lost in Translation. Clint Eastwood continues his streak of good directing jobs with Mystic River. And Peter Jackson did the impossible in bringing the Lord of the Rings saga to life. But Clint already has one of these, and Sofia has plenty of time. The winner here is Peter Jackson, mostly in recognition of the whole trilogy and for making movies that brought people back into theaters multiple times.

BEST PICTURE
LOTR: Return of the King, Lost in Translation, Master and Commander, Mystic River, Seabiscuit
I would be happy with any movie except Master and Commander winning here. It's a tough decision. Lost in Translation has picked up a lot of steam in the late stages. Seabiscuit has had a great run on video from December until now. Mystic River is a critic's choice, and LOTR is an epic. The Academy last honored an "overcoming the odds" movie in 2002 with "A Beautiful Mind", so that to me strikes Seabiscuit. They did an epic in 2001 with "Gladiator", so that strikes Master & Commander. Coming of age movies got their shot in 2000 with "American Beauty", so I will rule out Lost in Translation. So what do you have left? You have the sequel and the heartbreaker. The Academy has only ever honored one sequel with it's best picture trophy, and that went to the wholly deserving "Godfather: Part II". Was Return of the King as good as Godfather Part II? Not to me it wasn't. The trophy goes to Mystic River.

Sorry if I skipped over your favorite nomination. If you want to see a full list of nominees, just follow the yellow brick road. Feel free to argue with me in the comments section.

Review: The Passion of the Christ

The Passion of the Christ begins, evocatively I think, with a shot of the full moon. The camera descends through the night sky to arrive in the Garden of Gethsemane where Christ is pleading with God to, if possible, spare Him the upcoming torment. Unfortunately the movie almost immediately goes wrong. The first scene with the High Priests is fatuous, and when the solders arrive to arrest Jesus, a fight breaks out that might be from some bad action flick. In slow motion, nonetheless. And that action film mentality seems to permeate the first third of the movie. Doors are thrown open with the resounding sound track effect of a boulder falling from a cliff, and jump cuts to unpleasant sights are used throughout to shock and startle the audience.
Embarrassingly, the only way Gibson knows to convey the sense of evil is to shock cut to images of leering, grinning freaks, occasionally the deformed faces of devils, but a grotesquely grinning centurion will do (though it doesn't really do, at all). These deformed, happy faces might make you think you've stumbled into a bad Fellini film. And there's Satan wandering through the movie as well, at one point with a leering, deformed devil-baby in his arms (?????). Between the torch-lit night scenes, and the devils, and that full moon at the opening, the movie starts to feel like a horror film more than anything else.

It doesn't help that James Caviezel gives a terrible performance as Christ. No one in this movie is particularly good (though the women are all much better than the men, and Claudia Gerinii as Pilate's courtesan, I guess, a woman who-for reasons never explained-knows Jesus is truly a holy man and warns Pilate not to put Him to death, gives maybe the best performance in the movie), but Caviezel is particularly useless in the part. Granted, who can successfully convince you he's Christ? But Caviezel doesn't manage to convey any spiritual dimension. In the scenes of twisted agony, he appears to be a madman, and in flashbacks to an earlier time, he conveys at most a limp, greeting-card pleasantness.

The movie is being talked up for its violence among other things, but I didn't find the violence particularly shocking. If you've ever seen the Stations of the Cross, or are familiar at all with the story of Christ's crucifixion (and who isn't?) you know what to expect. The most difficult element is the makeup used to give the impression of Christ's body after being scourged. It's very realistic and very painful to look at.

The anti-Semitic charges are, I think, false. There are High Priests who refuse to take part in what happens, and of course almost everyone in the movie, whether they stand by Jesus or not, is Jewish. There is an uncomfortable line given to Him, where he tells a worried Pilate that the ones who brought Him to this are more responsible than those carrying out the crime. Does that mean The Jews, the High Priests, evil-does, or Satan? It's a frustratingly vague line. I'll be surprised if gay groups don't similarly make accusations of prejudice, based on the scene with Herod (he minces a lot-Herod was reputedly a pedophile-and at one point Jesus looks at a decadent, apparently gay man, who casts his head down in shame). But, it seems a tempest in a teapot. An evil or decadent character who is Jewish or gay (or both) does not equal Jews and gays being labeled evil or decadent. Bad, shallow movie-making is this movie's problem, not hatred.

This movie is all about throwing things in your face as jarringly, and as literally, as possible. Which is maybe the worst mistake Gibson could make. It isn't that the physical torment isn't relevant, or that making people aware of the torture Christ went through is a bad decision, but that what happened wasn't just a physical act, not to Christians. It was the spiritual penalty for the world's sins, and not only is there no sense of that (again, not really sure how to accomplish that on film) but no strong attempt to convey that, in my opinion. The result is that, the Greek and Aramaic dialogue aside, this comes across as a Passion play for those who don't want to think too deeply: The Crucifixion-For Dummies , about the least appealing way to treat an event central to one of the world's major religions.
I can't imagine anyone who is not already Christian being brought to an understanding of it by seeing this movie. Indeed, I'm not sure the plot or even the concept will really make sense to them. I don't think it will deepen the spiritual life of many Christians, either, except perhaps those with a very primitive, visceral response to religious imagery. There is no thought, no intellect to this production.

The one thing the movie has going for it is a superb design and very evocatively lit cinematography. The look of the movie really is strong enough to make you feel you've been brought back in time to that ancient time, and that is an accomplishment. The musical score is also very good, and appropriately atmospheric, though a heavy orchestra and choral effect is brought in near the end that mars the film terribly.

Finally, there is a glimpse of the Resurrection, which may be the biggest anti-climax in the history of Jesus films. Naked in the tomb, Jesus doesn't look transformed, or triumphant. He looks weary and unsure, almost as if he was going to have to go through the whole thing again.

Movie Review: The Passion

OK, this is rather odd. I did more than the requisite amount of reading to get the feel of what to expect, figured I knew what I was getting into, and even had an idea of how I might approach such a review after a full viewing was taken in. Not so fast, though. Now, having seen it, I'm not sure what to really say.

Obvious things that stand out are that the movie is very powerful, and the narrow focus of the movie is at once both limiting and also the very factor that gives it that previously mentioned power. One of the comments that stood out in my mind was one reviewer describing it to someone who had only heard about it, asking if it was as bloody as they say. His comment ... "Bloodier." And that's about right. There's no way I know of to put into words the extent to which blood is prominent in this film.

There's weaknesses in the movie to be found, of course. Was it overacted in parts? Perhaps. But still, watching this movie was much like watching the first of something new in any genre. Musically, it parallels (albeit on a much higher plane) listening to the strands of whatever musical tune sets off a new genre. So much like hearing the opening strains of Van Halen's "Eruption," "Passion" gives a similar vibe that with the advent of acceptance of gory films, this very assault on decency can be used to portray something as uplifting as the story of Christ.

While the Sunday School version of events might have portrayed a kinder and gentler crucifiction, this movie would wipe away any such sentiment. Ironic that for me, personally, I could watch the whipping scene in its entirety, but had to divert my attention for watching the nails being driven in on the cross. Perhaps its due to the whipping being of a briefer nature with the goriest parts coming as a surprise while the nailing is something that you know what's coming with a bit more certainty.

Having seen the movie, I can also appreciate the criticisms that the movie was perhaps a bit too limited in its focus. It might have made for a better story to tell a fuller version of events. But would it have been as powerful? The things that remain with you after this movie are a fuller appreciation of Jesus' sacrifice. And perhaps a rich demonstration of this is what was needed to drive the point home.

To be sure, the Jewish preists in the film are depicted as negatively as one might suspect from reading the criticisms. Various Romans are also depicted as far more equivocating on Christ's fate than history tells us, also. The thing that has to be remembered here, however, is that Mel Gibson's tale is not a new chapter of gospel ... it is one man's tale of events. And while Gibson gets much right, there's just enough wrong to remind the observant that this is not a perfect version of events. It may, however, be among the best yet.

Getting as realistic as would seem to be possible with the film, seeing the passages of New Testament verse coming from the actors' mouths bears a bit more impact than one might otherwise get. What might be tempting to see, however, is more of the New Testament (and I'm sure some would enjoy seeing much of the Old Testament given the same treatment) given the attention that Gibson gave this part of the story.

Worth noting is to pay attention for the DVD release of "The Gospel of John." No identifiable release date that I've seen yet. The movie was 3 hours long and the only time I saw it come through town, it typically showed only in the afternoon and closed before I could make it out to a weekend showing. Should be an interesting comparison in that this film was a word-for-word reenactment of one of the four gospels compared to "Passion" being a composite of all four with the focus on the final 12 hours of Christ's life.

Currently under debate internally, is whether "Passion" is the type of movie one can muster the strength to see a second time. Uber points out there might be something worthwhile to seeing it without subtitles, and I tend to agree. That was the way Gibson intended it to be shown, and I would be more than tempted to see if it had a different type of impact when seen that way.

All that said, I highly recommend the movie. I suspect it will hit people differently, with a possible point of differentiation being one's theological outlook on life. My own tends to reside somewhere in the school of Protestantism, somewhere sympathetic to evangelicals, but often made uneasy by the worst displays of such over a long period of time. I tend to not put as much value on the guilt complexes that some schools of that thought focus on (not to mention the Catholic variation of the same), and this movie seems targetted for stengthening just that guilt complex. As a moviegoer, you join the hordes of Romans and Jews who sit by and do nothing to prevent this crime, ergo "more guilt." The cynic in me is resistant to that, but still appreciative of the sacrifice paid. Still, I took a good deal from the movie, so that would seem to explain much of cross section of audience that tends to be favorable towards this film: evangelicals and conservative Catholics. It'd be interesting to see more takes from outside of those schools of thought, though.

UPDATE: Some critical links to elaborate on a few of the movies errors, mistakes, or other things where artistic license may have trumped a more scholarly accuracy ...

Something New

I've decided to take one minor event a little more public since I've shared this with a few select friends already and gotten some quality feedback that helps crystallize my own thoughts a little better on the topic. The matter involves meeting someone new and getting that initial spark of a sensation that makes you do something daring and bold, like ... say, invite yourself over to her table to chat during lunch. Could be the sort of thing that leads to the umpteenth 'female friend' I've accumulated over time, or it could be something more. No telling at this point. Naturally, hope springs eternal.

One 30 minute encounter seems to have given me some initially perplexing questions, which I posed to the experts. To set the stage, here's the Cliff Notes of the backstory ... I attend a group function, witness a late arrival who grabs my attention through no other reason than attractiveness and a few features that highlight that fact. With this new discovery clearly in my sights, I make note of the lovely partaking of lunch at the restaurant afterwards, find some truly lame excuse to invite myself to sit with her while she dines and I await a friend to head to points elsewhere. Mind you, the restaurant was NOWHERE near full, so the excuse was probably transparent. Should also be noted that a few stolen glances might have been intercepted during the earlier event, so if I was looking to get caught showing some interest in this chick, I did all but put the handcuffs on me in declaring my own guilt.

The perplexing thing is that while the lunch encounter had some positive signs, I was fairly unsure of what to make of it on the whole. I mean, sure ... she allowed my presence at her table for two, she returned my intro with her name (which, being the cad that I am, I managed to forget!), we made for polite convo about topics ranging from those tangential to the prior event as well as a few questions of my own targetted to show a bit of expressed interest in this woman. But I didn't pick up much of any return fire on that last front. My panic alerts initially were set off that perhaps this woman just desired to be friendly and perhaps, that's all. She finished her meal, excused herself momentarily, got up and refilled her drink, and then returned to continue the thrilling convo between us while I still had time to wait for my friend. After a few more minutes, friend arrives, and we both depart.

Pay attention to that last point ... she came back when she very well could have excused herself for good. Maybe this happens more often with those of the more desirable class, or those who are more thrilling conversationalists, but it doesn't happen often enough in these quarters. So after several moments of wondering whether or not I was making any progress and thinking perhaps I shouldn't delude myself, I get one quite positive sign that may yet offer up a few grand delusions till reality kicks in later.

Reasons for celebration on this are due in no small part to a critically increasing need to get over the last "something new" that's kinda lingered on my "to do" list for a bit too long. Among the things learned from that experience were that I now have a greater appreciation for what it's like to be spoiled for other women. Oh sure, the last "something new" didn't want to date me at all, but who was I to resist the intoxicating appeal of something out of reach and still so seemingly ideal? Reminds me to invest in two-by-fours to smack over my head sometime soon.

Anyhoo ... that whole experience managed to form a few new requirements that had to be met for anyone to make me forget about her. I'd have sworn it would have been next to impossible. All of twice in my life have I been around someone who made me reach such conclusions that essentially boiled down to seeking someone who fits a particular mold. Not physically, that is ... but various attributes of personality, looks, whatever ... the whole package. Irony being that in the first such instance, I had that proverbial image of exactly what I knew I needed to look for in a woman ... and was proven wrong over a lengthy period of time. Now, I have yet another such image. A different image, to be sure. But also one that has a bit more thought put into it due to reasons of age as well as the particulars of why I fell for the second one. I don't pretend that to be a good thing. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I'm not too blinded to the fact that I could well be dead wrong on that perception, so its not like I'm entirely limiting myself. But it at least offers a good starting point.

Dunno ... we'll see what happens when we next cross paths (hopefully next month sometime).

Hell Is ...

... knowing that you need to hold off on doing something that may be vengeful, but holding off temporarily just to see if such action is truly warranted or not.

That holding pattern in between the two decisions is quite infuriating. I'm not one given to fits of rage or other emotional outbursts, but such occassions do occur. On the one hand, I suppose its good that I recognize that self-braking system within myself. But if anyone knows a better method than just saying "let it go for 24 hours, then see how you feel" ... I'm all ears. I seem to find myself in these situations less than a handful of times a year, so my dealing with them hasn't quite gotten to the point of being completely at ease just yet.

Note - while the details contributing to this post may be sealed, they reflect no such reactions to the merry band of participants who contribute to this site. It's the rest of society that seems to be getting on my nerves, as of late.

... oh, further irking me on this matter is that I reach such a state IMMEDIATELY after heating up breakfast in the microwave and then being incensed enough to lose my appetite. The cooling Hot Pockets in front of me stand there, mocking my very state. ARGH!!!!

Movie Preview: The Passion

Good and Evil Locked in Violent Showdown
'Passion' Disturbs a Panel of Religious Leaders

While we await the first take from Joe Vitus on this flick, I thought I'd start culling some preview links on Mel Gibson's The Passion. Personally, I go into this with an anticipatory mind, hoping to like it. That said, flipping through the paper version of the NYTimes at Starbucks, I still got the queasies when looking at this pic, which occupied about 60% of the above-the-fold on the Style section.

That would seem, in a nutshell, to give a single visual reference to what I anticipate being in for. What the Times gives coverage to is that while conservative Catholics and evangelical Protestants seem to find great solace in the movie, more orthodox believers may not. Given the movie's focus, this doesn't seem to stand as a surprise.

The movie, as I read, covers the final 12 hours of Jesus' life. That's a pretty narrow focus. It also meshes together much of the four gospels in telling the story, so there's a synthesis of narratives, and even a few embellishments, reportedly. The degree of gore and blood in the movie would seem to take things a notch up from perhaps SAVING PRIVATE RYAN in terms of its treatment of WWII combat. Without a doubt, that would seem to make a strong impact. So, with that, I can only add that I can't wait to get to the theater after work for this one.

The Passion

Saw it last night and I'm not sure how one goes about reviewing a movie like this. I hope we will have Joe's review after this evening, as well as Thrillhouse and Uber's thoughts. (This is somewhat a spur to Ralphie that he get out and see it too so we can have the full input of the contributors.) I'll hold off until everyone's attended before giving my comments. I'm not in danger of revealing any significant story surprises, but there are a few moments I'd reference that I think should be viewed first to see if the impact is tha same before I detail them. Looking forward to ya'll's thoughts...

Springtime For Hitler

The Producers A Big Hit in Houston

As a ramp-up to UberStock, I thought it fitting that I do a musical review. First, let me say that I'm a fan of musical theater. If you aren't, then so be it. Nobody is going to twist your arm to watch a musical. If you think it's something only people who are light in the loafers do, then I recommend skipping this entry.

Last weekend, my sweetums and I had the opportunity to attend a Valentine's Day matinee of "The Producers". In case you were in a coma for 2000-2001, this is the show that set a new standard for musical comedy. Longtime film veteran Mel Brooks decided to take a stab at live theater, and came away with the biggest show on Broadway when he adapted his 1968 film "The Producers" into a musical comedy starring Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick. This show won 11 Tony Awards and was the talk of the town for over a year. Fortunately for us uncultured folks outside of the Manhatten glow, there are a few travelling casts putting this show on in venues across America. It was one of these casts which we saw on Valentine's Day.

I was wondering how Mel Brooks would do musical theater, as the movie really only had one musical number in it. I was concerned that he would be trying to shoehorn songs in between his comedic dialogue. Well folks, I am glad to report that my concerns were unfounded, and I should have had more faith in the genius that is Mel Brooks. Instead of forcing songs to fit, he found some very natural places to insert songs, transitioning the characters from space to space. Sure, there were long spots of dialogue, but it was generally funny, and even borrowed from the movie in some places I had hoped it would.

The biggest selling point of this show on Broadway were the two lead actors. With Nathan Lane playing slimey Max Bialystock and Matthew Broderick playing the jittery Leo Bloom, you couldn't really lose. Hopefully the travelling cast wouldn't let Houston down by putting some slack-jawed yokels with no comedic timing in the roles. After watching the show, I am again glad to report that Lewis Stadlen and Alan Ruck did these roles justice by really savoring the meat that Mel Brooks fed to them. I am not very familiar with Lewis Stadlen's work, but after looking him up I can see why. The man's not done a lot of big-name film work, but his bio reports many decades of Broadway experience. A good sign. Some of you may recognize the other lead actor, Alan Ruck, from his roles in Ferris Bueller's Day Off and Spin City. Yes, Cameron Frye had come to Houston. And let me now pay this man the greatest compliment I can: if I were to close my eyes at points in the show, it was if I were watching the movie and Gene Wilder was ranting and raving about being hysterical. He played off of Stadlen's very slick characterization as the paranoid Leo with perfection.

The storyline followed the movie pretty accurately, with producer Max teaming up with accountant Leo to fleece old ladies of big bucks while putting on a failed musical to cover up the scheme. Unfortunately for the pair, the musical they chose, Springtime for Hitler, turns out to be the greatest satire to hit Broadway and opens to rave reviews. There's also a love story between Leo and office assistant/actress Ulla that drives a wedge between the two. The big payoff in the movie is, of course, the musical itself. It was comedy of the absurd, as Springtime for Hitler became a catchy musical number from the movie. In the theatrical version, this musical number is expanded upon, with a full 10 minute segment covering Hitler, sausage, Stalin, Churchill and F.D.R. in pure Mel Brooks fashion. But for me the real hit of the show was the musical number "Betrayed" sung by Max after the musical has become a hit and Leo skipped town with the money leaving Max in jail. In a 6 minute segment, Max manages to sum up the entire show to that point, doing bits and pieces of every number in the show. It was classic, especially when he described intermission. It had the entire audience rolling in the aisles.

Unfortunately for Houstonians, this show has come and gone. However, I highly encourage folks to support these shows as they make their way through our neck of the woods. Yes, they cost a lot more than a movie, but sometimes you just have to splurge and experience something different in life. There are several shows I would love to attend, and at least two I can put down a firm "come hell or high water" attendance mark next to:

March 9-14, 2004: Rent
March 30 - April 11, 2004: Urinetown
May 12-23, 2004: 42nd Street
July 6-18, 2004: Oklahoma
September 28 - Oct. 10, 2004: Wonderful Town
November 9-21, 2004: Hairspray
January 4-16, 2005: Little Shop of Horrors (I will definately be there)
February 22 - March 6, 2005: Les Miserables
April 12-24, 2005: Movin' Out (again, I will definately be there)
May 31 - June 12, 2005: On The Record

LIFESTYLES OF THE DESTITUTE AND OBSCURE

I've noticed that of the four major co-conspirators on this page, most or all of them have personally experienced the domestic surroundings of TWO of the members, being the living arrangements of Ulysses and Uber.

Thrillhouse and myself therefore remain as the interior decorating "unknowns". Perhaps this is as it should be; I'll leave my speculations as they have been, assuming Thrillhouse to live in a film noir detective office (assuming Peter Lorre was the proprietor) and allow everyone else to imagine me in surroundings primarily of bare concrete and ammunition reloading equipment.

Weekly Movie Calendar

Evolution of the Guitar

The Guitar's Technological Crossroads

This article reminds me of a few moments witnessed during the 1980s ... back when everyone wanted to play guitar (or at least, be in a band). The challenge nowadays, it seems, is that the peak period of guitar design (1950s) is a wee bit farther removed and the instrument has "only" undergone evolutionary change, rather than revolutionary change.

My question, as a one-time guitar player, is WHY DO I CARE? Or why should I? I mean hell, the violin doesn't undergo radical change nowadays, so why does anyone think the guitar should, too? Beyond that, let's not underestimate the evolutionary changes that have kept the instrument popular over the last 25 or so years ...

In the mid-80s, there were a few brands that made inroads to the Gibson/Fender duopoly. Charvel & Jackson were popular brands among the heavy metal class. A company I noticed early on in their development then would become a big player in the 1990s: Paul Reed Smith. In both cases, the design itself was both evolutionary, but notable.

The Charvel/Jackson models made more of the increased tendency of players to use tremolo bars (even to the point of obnoxiousness in many cases). Deeper cutaways underneat the bridge made for more flexibility in using this. Ibanez would take up where those two companies left off. The reason the initial two never made it to the big time had more to do with business practices than anything else. Both were a bit too reliant upon freebies to the LA club scene for promo and learned a tough lesson when it came time to get the product moved in music stores. The steep price tags didn't help, either. That said, I'd give a testical for a quality Jackson guitar from that era. Ibanez was a bit more selective about freebies, made enough models to have a cheap lead-in for the beginners.

Paul Reed Smith started off and remains, a high end product. But they never pretended to be anything more than a serious guitar for serious guitar players. By the time Carlos Santana made the switch to PRS and won a Grammy with an identifiable tone that is now equated as much with Santana as it is PRS, they are the new kid at the top of the mountain. They do rely a bit on freebies nowadays for promo, but they're notably more selective. PRS's evolution was a hybridization of elements from both Fender and Gibson. Best characterization I can give for it is that it has the smooth sweet sound of a Gibson, but plays & feels like a Fender. Naturally, this brand was atop my Wish List for MANNNNY years. But be that as it may, this change was not something unique to PRS. BC Rich did a similar thing aimed for the heavy metal class in the mid-80s and aside from winning over Lita Ford as an endorsee, they didn't have much success (actually, BC Riches had the play action of a Gibson, but the look, mostly, of a Fender and the sound of a million mosquitos being fried on a bug zapper). Carvin also gave this a shot, but couldn't seem to find too much success outside of the southeast region near they're manufacturing plant. Of course, they're main endorsee was Craig Chaquico of Starship. Go figure.

Perhaps the most popular Charvel/Jackson ad from the day is symbolic for its excess. I think, as a rule, if you've got Victor Johnson from The Bus Boys as a spokesman, you've got problems. Never heard of Johnson? Well, being a fan of most of the artists shown in that ad, I can safely say ... neither have I.

The long and short of guitardom is that people will want to play what they're heros play. The article gives this passing mention. What it seems to leave out is the reality that this is pretty much true of ALL instruments. Trombonists will want to play whatever brand is played by that instrument's best spokes-blower. Violinists will want to play whatever Itzhak Perlman is playing. Nothing new here at all. Sometimes, the wheel just doesn't need a complete reinvention. How can you beat "round?"

NOTE: The Bus Boys did get a 15 minute fame claim in the movie 48 Hours, plus they've REUNITED!!!! Yeah, they're playing the Asparagus Festival in Stockton later in April. Catch em while you can.

Proof There is No God

Walking Tall: The Movie

Coming this spring. Sadly, I'm gonna be there on opening weekend. The Mississippi delta where I spent a few years was not far removed from the location of the real life story of Buford Pusser. Close enough to make one appreciate its historical significance. Not sure if I buy The Rock in the lead role, however. Then again, I'm not sure why anyone thought this movie needed to be remade. As stated in the post-Troma conversational round with Ralphie, there are historical references in the original that were pretty regional in characteristic back in the day (moonshiners, pre-Dukes of Hazzard ... hell, pre-Coal Miner's Daughter!).

Reading in a few places elsewhere, the late-60s/early-70s setting is getting a facelift, however. This may help peddle the theme to a younger crowd. In fact, there's no Buford Pusser ... I guess its harder to take a name like that seriously nowadays. At least they didn't change the character's name to Joe Kickass.

From JoBlo:

The original film follows a sheriff on a mission to clean up his town with the help of a persuasive 2x4. The contemporized version will have The Rock starring as a soldier who returns home only to find drugs, violence and corruption has taken over. Ass kickings ensue.

So, I guess we can just be done with it and identify a new genre of movies as "Ass kicking." Maybe the Academy will create a new category and Dwayne Johnson can dominate it ... although I suspect Vin Deisel will have a thing or two to say about that.

Movie Review: Angel's Wild Women

Simply stated ... worst movie ever! The premise was that this flick was shot on the Spahn Movie Ranch, where Charles Manson was last booked after the Tate/LaBianca murders. Add to that that the film was done in the immediate aftermath of the trials (it was a 1971 release). The movie sought to parallel many of the cult elements, and with a title such as it has, you'd at least be forgiven for thinking that there would be a few ... wild women, perhaps.

Granted, there's biker gangs in this movie, but the wussiest of biker gangs you can imagine. Played over a soundtrack consisting of Carpenters wannabes, the theme one gets from the finished product is closer to "chick flick" than anything else. The cult leader himself is even kinda wussy. But the big "Coca Cola" sign in his compound was a clue that this was not exactly a cult leader rebelling against society as Manson might have been doing. No, this was a cult leader with a sense of kitsch.

In the opening scene where the "wild women" do actually beat the crap out of some guys, the hits they land are obviously weak. Save for the male antagonists unwillingness to actually get up off the ground, they might have won the fight despite being outnumbered. And its true that the chick biker gang does at least scare the cult leader a bit (enough to make him flee in a station wagon with his Tex Watson lookalike companion). But the chicks are, in turn, creeped out by the older dude - an actor filming on the compound - who hits on the chicks. The freakiest looking skank in the gang falls for him and allegedly, that passes for an ending.

This movie was just plain crap, no two ways about it. Watching the firemen sort out a kitchen fire at the Alamo before the show was more entertaining. The after-movie conversation with Ralphieboy about survivalist strategies was infinitely more entertaining. But then again, so was the fact that when I got home, I had to reinstall Windows XP to fix some compounding problems on my PC. At least *those* things didn't cost $4.

Uberthonmania

I don't know when the next occasion of Uber being drugged into hosting the next gettogether will be, but there's been a format floated to revert (at least once) to the previous format of a small fanaticized inner core convening to see the worst of the worst in film. The last few convocations have been more party-related, watering down the filmic awfulness with selections of some discernable merit. By one argument, this should be de-emphasized a bit, in favor of the Descent Into The Pit.

I have no position, as I see positives both with the Party method and the Descent method. I only point out that there are dangers with both, and as we possibly veer toward the Descent method again, let us beware of the extremes of that direction: many hours of our lives forever wasted, many pounds of food churned beyond digestibility, many brain cells fried.

But maybe it's unavoidable, as the original idea of this group perhaps made unavoidable. This is a Fight Club of film, a contest to see who pukes first. May the strongest stomach win.

New VHS Crap

OK, not new, but new to me ...

STAY TUNED (1992)

I'll admit, I bought this schlock because I've always had a crush on Pam Dawber. More importantly, though ... if you recall the genre of movies spawned by fear of what cable might bring to the American TV (Kentucky Fried Movie, Groove Tube, etc), this one explores what dangers lurk behind the massive satellite system. Ritter & Dawber get sucked into the satanic world of satellite channels where they are made stars of crappy TV and must survive 24 hours before being returned to their own world. The movie proves what all children of the 80s learned via TV, though ... that kids are smarter than their parents.

THE WILD MCCULLOCHS (1975)

I'll be equally honest here ... I bought this one because Max Baer (Jethro from Beverly Hillbillies) was in it. There's no way I can follow that up with anything that makes me sound cool. Does it help any that it was DIRECTED by Max Baer, also? Nah, didn't think so. Time to stop digging. Can you believe there's a freakin' DVD of this available? Hurry now ... only one available!!!

MARK OF THE DEVIL (1970)

No idea what to expect here ... with a little luck, something of the order of SINFUL DWARF. That's not saying a whole hell of a lot, though. I like the fact that theaters that showed this back in the day issued barf bags to moviegoers. Again ... there's a DVD of this, too. WTF???

ZOMBIE LAKE (1981)

OK, I'm not a big nut of the zombie genre, but throw them in a lake and I'm a bit more attentive. History will prove whether or not that's a smart move on my part or not.

I did catch STAY TUNED last night. Look for full reviews of all coming soon. Once more, the world of schlocky 99¢ VHS movies continues to hold me in its clutches. I did have to replay the tune from GIRLFRIEND FROM HELL a few times last night as well. Better news on that front is that I've gotten in contact with the guitarist who did that song and he swears he's trying to get a copy from tape to CD for me. Life is good!

Is Radio In Need of Revival?

Racket proposes a rock radio revolution. Clear Channel beats him to the punch.

Meant to take care of this over the weekend, but neglected to ... worthwhile reading on the state of radio - particularly in Houston. Last time I recall this type of angst over station programming, it was when grunge was edging out the more traditional hard rock bands of the early 90s. It took a while for stations to sort out where everyone belonged, but hey ... they even played Teen Spirit on MTV's Headbanger's Ball for crissakes. Nevertheless, John Lomax gets my attention:

As the Darkness and dozens of other young and hip bands have reminded us in the last couple of years, what's old is new again. Look at the rock bands making waves with the cool kids, and even a bunch of thirtysomethings, these days -- the White Stripes, Jet, the Datsuns, the Kings of Leon, the Hives. Though the media, including this member of it, has branded them all "neo-garage" rock or some such, it's pretty much a bullshit tag. It's just plain old classic rock, albeit new classic rock songs played with the piss and vinegar of youth.

But you sure as hell aren't gonna hear the Darkness on local classic rock outlet the Arrow. According to Arrow program director Vince Richards, people tune in to classic rock to hear the same old same old, so these bands are stuck with the Buzz, where they compete for space with bands like Staind, Trapt and Linkin Park.

Given all of that, it would seem that radio's ripe for a new format, a nationwide sea change. Here's a blueprint: Take all the so-called garage bands, throw in some cool classic rock, and throw it all together with softer-edged stuff from the likes of Norah Jones, U2, Radiohead and Coldplay. Toss in some of the early punk and proto-punk stuff by Motörhead, the Clash, the Jam, Iggy and the Stooges and the Ramones, and the '80s stuff that the Point mostly shuns -- stuff like the Violent Femmes, the Pixies and the Replacements. Then there's hip-hop -- today's teenagers can't remember a world without it, so there's no built-in resistance to it, and nobody on the commercial rock dial is playing 1980s floor-fillers like Eric B. and Rakim's "Seven Minutes of Madness" remix of "Paid in Full," or De La Soul's "Me Myself and I," or the quirky John Lydon/Afrika Bambaataa collabo "World Destruction." You could throw in the edgier, backpacker-friendly mainstream stuff of today as well -- OutKast, Black Eyed Peas, the Roots. Give it a name like Rock Revolution or something like that, and as the Brits say, Bob's your uncle and Fanny's your aunt.

Imagine Jack and Meg's "Seven Nation Army" followed by Zep's "Fool in the Rain" followed by the Clash's "London Calling" followed by Jet's "Are You Gonna Be My Girl" followed by Public Enemy's "Black Steel in the Hour of Chaos," and tell me that formula's not a winner. You want a Mix? We got your Mix hangin' low, buddy. A station like that would rob tons of listeners from the Buzz, KLOL and the Arrow, as well as a few who tune in to old-school hip-hop shows on the rap stations and the people who never let their radio tuner stray to the right of KTRU. Who knows, it might even win back a few people who've turned the radio off and ripped off the knob -- the CDs- and iPods-only crowd, a multitude that grows more numerous with each passing day.

That last point is one where I come in. I hate radio. Two reasons ... one, I'm old and they don't make em like they used to (music, not radio). There's not a lot I'm fond of, but admittedly, not having quality radio limits the growth one discovers among new bands ... which was sorta the reason I took to the Warped Tour one summer long ago. Secondly, I just hate listening to commercials and DJs jabbering about how cool they are. The second one, there may be no way around. But the first is winnable territory by the concept Lomax spells out. If I knew there was a station where I could get some classic rock, classic punk, nu-metal (although not quite of the commercial variety), and bands like The Darkness and others of their ilk, I might be more than a bit curious to give it a try to see if it takes. Kudos on this fine suggestion ... here's to hoping it gets trotted out on the Houston airwaves sometime soon.

Movie Review: Girlfriend From Hell

"... the best part was when it ended."

The above line applies to this movie, not because it stinks to high heaven. I mean, it does stink. The plot is pure 80s cheese, with a healthy R rating to show for a little bit of nudity and some foul language, but the dialogue REALLY bogs the movie down at various points. Yet, at the end, there is the single catchiest tune in the world - the title track for the movie itself - that I first recalled many many moons ago when I saw this late at night on TV. The song alone kept this movie in my head for these many years. So when I spot it out of the corner of my eye at ye olde video shoppe, I fell to my knees, thanked the heavens above, snagged the box and prayed that the clerk wouldn't tell me that they really didn't have the tape that went with it. Alas, the movie was mine. After all these years (it was released to video in 1990).

I'll get to the movie plot in a bit, but lets get back to the tune, shall we. It rocks. I know that different strokes are for different folks, so for background info, this one falls into a heavy new age vibe. Think Missing Persons, Scandal or The Cars ... if that's your bag, then the song will take with you. Its catchy. Its hard, but not heavy. So imagine my surprise when I stick with the credits to a) take in the tune and b) find out who the artist is ... that I see the name Carol Bozzio. Bozzio, you may or may not know, is the name of the duo from Missing Persons. Carol is the sis of the drummer, Terry Bozzio. Terry's wife was the hot blonde singer in MP. Had I not known any better, I'd have sworn this tune was one either rejected by the other Bozzios for a MP recording or held onto by Carol (and boyfriend/now-husband Eric Jorgenson) because it simply rocks good enough to make a name off of. The shame of it all is that neither the movie nor the band take off. Still, there I was last night, rewinding the tape to replay the tune about 10 times. Its that good and that catchy.

OK, movie time ... let's see ... devil is on the run, being chased by a dude named Chaser (the movie revels in complexity as you can tell). Back on earth, wallflower Maggie is getting set up on a blind date with a male version of idiocy. The couple setting them up are the garden variety yuppie scum. They're on their way to a birthday party for another couple: a jock and bimbo couple. Devil possesses wallflower Maggie and she becomes (anyone? ... anyone???) ... the Girlfriend from Hell. Who saw that one coming!?!?!?!

DevilMaggie then proceeds to be the life of the party, running down nuns, freaking out the religious couple who join in on the fun, screwing the souls out of the males in the party group, and then being met again by Chaser. This is where it gets dull. Chaser has to give the whole backstory and this sucks your soul on its own as it makes the movie both nonsensical (well, beyond what it already is at on that scale) and agonizing. Fortunately, it all comes down to a semi-predictable ending (no, the Devil doesn't lose ... the chase merely contunues on another planet, safely away from our partygoers), the title track revs up and the 99¢ I paid for the VHS are MORE than rewarded.

Did I mention the tune rocks? This may be the single solitary movie I've ever witnessed that is salvaged simply by one musical peice. I mean, the Steve Vai-as-devil guitar solo in Crossroads was pretty f*ckin' cool, but the movie had some quality to it as well. This one rests soley on the strength of the 4 minute musical ending as the credits roll. Best 99¢ I ever spent!

Movie Review: Fast Food

I'm not sure which is worse ... being Jim Varney and having this pit stain (FAST FOOD) on your acting resume (ok, so he's dead now ... still!) ... or being Clark Brandon, and this being the pinnacle of your career. Consider the case of Brandon. A two-bit TV actor, best known as Eddie on The Facts of Life (Jo's boyfriend), this movie was the final one on Brandon's acting resume - he would write and direct a few others ... but on the strength of this schlock?

Anyways, the plot is really simple ... two ne'er do wells get kicked out of college, where they have been for over 8 years. They get real jobs by converting pop's old gas station to a burger shop. When Wrangler Bob, who had designs on the gas station property when it was up for grabs earlier, tries to horn the upstarts out, the new kids on the burger block add some secret aphrodisiac to the secret sauce (see how this all just writes itself!), and watch everyone sleep with everyone else.

Wrangler Bob sics a corporate spy on the kids ... Traci Lords, to be precise. Her role in this movie is way too breif, but the scenes do maximize the memory of her prior career in film. Alas ... no nudity, though. Spy chick uncovers the success in about 2 minutes after being hired on. The whole thing goes to court. The kids get off. Wrangler Bob makes a mad pursuit for the evidence of secret sauce, and in the process of a rousing game of hot potato (in slo mo, no less), the sauce hits the floor where it starts melting ... or steaming ... I really don't care to know which specific reaction because at this point, I'm bored to tears. Anyways, the fumes send everyone into a lovesick orgy (well, minus the nudity one might expect at such). The male and female leads hook up at the end of the movie. Never saw that coming, did ya? I mean just because it happens in EVERY OTHER PEICE OF CRAP FILM surely doesn't mean you'd look for it in this high quality peice of ... cinema.

Anyways, for fans of cheesy 80s B-movies, this one is for you. Traci Lords and Jim Varney are equally worthwhile viewing. The rest ... pretty pathetic. Maybe Facts of Life fans will get a kick out of Brandon. Dunno, don't care. Tracy Griffith, as the female lead, seemed to do the most for me. Yeah, that's it ... I think I'm back on redheads now.

SIDENOTE: Tracy Griffith (her own site here ... suchi chef???) played in Sleepaway Camp III (as the character Marcia Holland) ... I think I may have to check this out again! I didn't have much to say good about that flick last time. Maybe my view will change this time around.

Movie Review: Monster

OK, so I know I should be reviewing Frightmare (aka Horror Star), which was last Wednesday's Weird Wednesday offering at the 'Mo. However, it was genuinely so bad that I walked out of it. So no review on it, other than you should have a frontal lobotomy before watching it. Or perhaps I just wasn't drunk enough.

Anyway, as part of the festivities o' love this weekend, sweetums and I went to see "Monster". Yes, that heart-warming tale of a serial murdering prostitute and her female lover. Yeah, I know. Not a very romantic movie. But one worth watching nonetheless.

The first thing I noticed in this film was the amazing transformation of actress Charlize Theron into serial killer Lee Wuornos. From the makeup job to the attitude to the edge that this woman had, I saw no part of the woman who was so stunning in The Devil's Advocate and last year's remake of The Italian Job. One thing disturbed me about her performance, though. Whenever Lee started getting "in your face", it just kind of reminded me of Michael Keaton in Beetlejuice (with the wide eyes and the mannerisms). But aside from that, this woman captured a very difficult role, and I'm pretty sure there is a shiny gold statue waiting for her on February 29th.

Christina Ricci's casting as Selby, Lee's friend and eventual lover, seemed a little off. With the somewhat bob style haircut, she looked a lot like her character of Wednesday Addams. She even looked about 13, only a little more filled out. But she played the mousey Selby adequately enough, given that this movie really isn't about her.

Now I'm sure you've all heard about the plot, so let's just summarize it a bit. Prostitute falls in love with a woman, gets beaten and raped by a john, kills this john, then kills a lot more. Simple, right? Wrong. I'll tell you right now, that from my point of view this wasn't an easy movie to watch. Having had a few friends of mine raped, I can understand and even condone what Lee did at first. Rape is a horrible crime, and I would not oppose a victim killing their attacker, especially if they were beaten, violated and still in danger like Lee was with her first john.

Now, where the movie really gets difficult is with her subsequent killings. She lets some johns live, whereas she kills others. Her criteria? Are the johns nice to her. If they're mean and angry, she pretty much killed them all. Otherwise, she was nice to them. The first killing I really understood, but with each subsequent one I saw how she cared less and less about taking a life. Her final killing was really a tough one (you'll see why), and really showed how she had crossed the line.

One of the questions that you'll find yourself asking when you watch this movie is how we, as a society, can let things like this happen. According to the facts as presented in the movie, Lee was pretty much abused from day 1. She was never given a chance to grow up as a kid, and started turning tricks at age 13. How can we let down an individual like this? In the movie, she also goes looking for legitimate work, but finds none available to her. After this, she gave up hope and went back to hooking. I may be the bleeding-heart, let's save the world liberal of this blog, but if we can't give people a chance to better themselves, then we are condemning everyone who slips up and makes an error in judgement, or is forced into a bad situation such as Lee. It's a movie that makes you think on several levels about what could have been done to prevent this woman from murdering other humans. Maybe the answer is that nothing could have been done. Maybe if she had been given a chance, she wouldn't have killed. In the end, everyone has to come up with their own answer. But it's a good flick, and one that will win at least one shiny statue in 2 weeks.

Hot Finds @ The Record Convention

Interesting tidbit at this show ... not as heavy on any video products. Not to worry. I did get bored and venture into a mom & pop shop the night before and luckily spotted one 80s classic that never got its due (GIRLFRIEND FROM HELL) and sifted around for another curious find: FAST FOOD - starring Jim Varney (that's Ernest to the rest of you) and Traci Lord. Watched FAST FOOD already and it was pretty crappy. Full review coming up tomorrow. GFFH is on tonight's docket and should be up for review soon as well.

At the show, I made quick work of $33 in picking up an old relic by Graham Bonnet and a cheap used copy of Gary Moore's Still Got the Blues For You. On the latter, I paid $8 for one song ... willingly. Its a damn good song (title track) that has been sorely lacking from my collection ever since its release. Graham Bonnet's CD was a 1981 bit entitled "Line Up" that had, not surprisingly, a solid musical lineup: Cozy Powell, Mick Moody, and Jon Lord topped it off. The CD is best summed up by an Amazon reviewer, stating: "if you want to hear what promted ritchie blackmore to hire him for rainbow...give it a listen." And to that, I would concur. However, the CD was made AFTER Bonnet would be in Rainbow, as well as AFTER his erstwhile stint as Journey frontman (heard the song or two on the box set from that era ... BAD fit). But this WAS before Bonnet started the band that set him in motion for the present: Alcatrazz. From 1983 on out, Bonnet was and always has been defined as the first man to disagree famously with guitar wiz Yngwie Malmsteen. Granted, Yngwie merely needed the band to launch his own solo career. But having often wondered why Bonnet used to crack on the axe slingers he had worked with in the 80s (including no less than Steve Vai in addition to Malmsteen) as being less than skilled due to lack of time on stage, I suppose I can understand when you look at a track record that covers guys like Richie Blackmore, Journey, Whitesnake, MSG, and others. Still ... the guys from the 80s were no slouches.

The CD itself ... not bad for its day. Sounds like early Whitesnake (before the radio hits) with a lighter frontman vocal sound. Catchy, and there's even a nice cover of the oldies hit: Be My Baby. Easily woth the $25 paid for it, and a nifty addition to the rarities subcollection in my CD lineup.

Important Dates for Mankind (the part in Houston)

3/2 - Lisa Loeb & Dweezil Zappa (Rythm Room) - I was curious if they were still an item. Apparently so. I'd normally take a pass on Loeb even though I'm completely down with that geek chic thing she's got working overtime. I'm envious as all hell of Dweezil, but the real question is whether or not he'll do any guitar solos. More importantly, I demand he do "Having a Bad Day" from his first solo album (which, sadly, is not available on CD anywhere that I've seen). Sucky part here is that this is a Tuesday night show. Debating it. If anyone else in the free world is up to it and serving as my own personal chauffer, its worth mentioning to me as I might be swayed to make it worth one's while.

3/5 - Yngwie Malmsteen & George Lynch rock Houston! Yes, THE Yngwie J. Malmsteen (so as not to be confused with all the other Yngwie Malmsteens out there) will be hitting a big stage once more. This is gonna rock! $20 gets you in, the floor is General Admission. Did I mention this will rock?

ADD-ON: Yngwie will be playing with Rudy Sarzo on bass. Sarzo, formely known as the "talented one" in Quiet Riot, also played in Whitesnake and briefly with Ozzy, during the Randy Rhoads era. Check the latest tour photos, though ... its like Elvis in the 70s. Caught him in a club once, though ... same physical condition. DUDE STILL ROCKS!!! ... and the performance aspects of the show are still top notch as well.

ADD-ON II: The G3 tour recently done with Yngwie, Satriani, and Vai will come out with a tour CD and DVD ... I'm totally open to receiving random gifts, everyone!!!!

3/6 - Martina McBride (RodeoHouston) - What the hell is a country act doing in here? Man, this lady's voice is ideal. One part Pat Benatar vocal chord belter, one part Linda Ronstadt crooner. To hear her version of Somewhere Over The Rainbow (available on her latest CD), is to experience one of life's wonders.

4/11 - The Darkness (Engine Room) - Already mentioned, already booked, ticket in hand. Caught the CD at Target on the racks and I noticed that Kerrange Magazine referred to the bad as the best to hit the scene in 20 years ... kinda underscores my own take that there's no good band to emerge since 1989. I mean we're pretty close on the date, at least.

Soak it all in now ...

Uh-huh. And WHY not a music link for:

THE GOD OF GODS??

See, everybody needs a few things in their collection that cause even close associates to ask "Why did you buy this?"

Courtney Love: America's Skank...

... but I mean that in a good way.

Finally, after 5+ years, Courtney Love undertakes with America's Sweetheart to remind us again why we should think of her as more than the widow of this generation's musical genius. This latest effort falls short of that mark. The scattered brilliance of her previous three major release efforts with Hole rank among my favorite albums of the 90's, but there's little here that fulfills the expectations those albums set. Maybe it's time she rethinks her whole musical career.

I recall the heady days of 1994 when I was finishing up an internship at KLOL with Dayna Steele. In the days that followed Kurt's death, I had hoped someone would grab the reins of the musical movement and keep it on course. Courtney did exactly that with Live Through This when it was released. The album had the same power-punk roots with the same glossy texture as Nevermind. Discussing Hole with David Sadoff, DJ of the Sunday night "Exposure" show, I asked him his thoughts on Pretty on the Inside and he told me that if I liked Live Through This then I probably wouldn't like the earlier effort. (Looking back now, I suppose he presumed that I was not really into the very alternative stuff and was partial to the corporate-polished variety. Screw him: I judge each album on its own merits.) I bought the album anyway and found it a revelation. That's musical anarchy at its finest. I think it far surpasses Bleach in terms of its authenticity and power. But I still got where Live Through This was coming from and enjoyed it as well.

I was skeptical when Celebrity Skin came out that it would be too pop, too removed from its roots. But if Live Through This is bitter, melted chocolate poured down your throat, then Celebrity Skin is a bowl full of sugar delivered with a punch to the face. There was plenty of power there and the album was produced in such a way as to make it palatable to anyone familiar with 80's new wave type stuff. In short, I thought all three albums were spectacular though they had wildly different tones to them.

Now there's this. With grunge's death years ago, Courtney seemed to be able to handle the transition and I thought Celebrity Skin was an indication of her ability to adapt and survive. For that reason, I expected America's Sweetheart to blow me away in an all new way. But in fact it sounds like the bastard child of Celebrity Skin and Live Through This. Why is that a bad thing? Because I expected her to go forward, not recyle the past. Granted, 'All The Drugs' comes the closest to realizing the pop-punk combo, but that's not enough. Most of the other tunes err on the side of CS's slickness but without the gut. If you took the Frehley's Comet album, softened it up and changed the lyrics to reflect that Southern CA mentality, this might be what you have. I'm a huge Ace Frehley fan, but Frehley's Comet was a far cry from his KISS work and America's Sweetheart is a far cry from Hole.

Probably most annoying is the further exaggeration of her singing style to almost self-parodic proportions. The choking puffs of words thrown up throughout the songs say less that she is disenchanted and more that she is indifferent - to the song, to the album, to her entire musical career, perhaps. I guess several million dollars' worth of sales can satiate most rebels' fighting urges, but I doubt we'd have heard anything like this from Kurt Cobain. He seems to have had a legitimate punk spirit, one that was apparent in In Utero moreso even than Nevermind, and worldwide fame and fortune seemed not to have changed that. Courtney however strikes me as one of those disaffected teens who adopt the punk mentality as a costume more than a sensibility. Once she won her fame, and especially after she wrenched her way into the Hollywood scene, she seemed to have no more use for her anger. The bilious screams are now as affectatious as Britney Spears' sex-kitten purrs - a complete act. And though Celebrity Skin made a decent stab at poking holes in the fragile shell that is the Hollywood lifestyle, one doubts her anger the more we see how desperately she wanted in. One doesn't get any sense that she's really tired of living in luxury and hobnobbing with the glitterati.

Maybe it's just that Courtney's too old to pull this act off anymore. Listening to her howl on this record is something like what one would feel watching Jim Carrey talk out of his ass at age 50 or watching Sharon Stone trying to play the hot chick. The moment is over and it's just not believable anymore. I'm not expecting Courtney to become a diva that exclusively sings the American standards, but there are plenty of other ways to manifest her idiom.

A story yesterday said that while Courtney was at a post-Grammy party - heaven knows why, other than further proof of her immersion into the lifestyle (can you imagine Kurt at the Grammys') - she whipped out her right breast as a sort of mocking send-up of Janet Jackson. Sadly, this act is precisely the type of thing one might expect of her these days: a hackneyed ploy for yet more attention that is utterly unoriginal. The same could be said of her new album.

**ADD-ON** Apparently, I am not alone. From Rolling Stone:

"But the shocker is Love's ravaged voice. No matter what you've heard about her real-life problems, nothing could prepare you for how busted up she sounds. Hell, it took Rod Stewart thirty years of rum-and-Cokes and Swedish models to do this kind of number on his throat. Her voice gets processed through filters and overdubs, but she's still in rough shape, stumbling over consonants and running out of breath... Courtney Love used to have something to say, voicing her female audience's fantasies of freedom and power. On Hole's 1994 masterpiece, Live Through This, she inhabited teenage misfits, bored housewives and beauty queens with total conviction. But on America's Sweetheart, she can't find the emotional intensity that made her a star. So she settles for the role of a hapless circus act staggering down the red carpet -- and Paris Hilton does it better."

Movie Review: Ebony, Ivory, & Jade

Why would I torture people with a review of this sick movie for days on end without spilling the beans? Good question ... reason is that this is a genre that never gets due respect. The concept of three hot chicks taking on the world and being the hero is a concept that seems sorely underserved in the hearts and minds of the public. Perhaps it was the debasement of said genre that Aaron Spelling gave us ... although he deserves high praise for making Farrah Fawcett-Majors a publicly accessible commodity to be swooned over.

But there's more to the eye than Charlie's Angels. Somewhere around the mid seventies, this whole concept just freakin took off and exploded. And I say amen to whatever it was that set it off. But I'll admit to being a bit uneducated as to what may serve as the fundamental source of this fantasy. All I remember as a young strapping lad was that it would be really cool to run into a Lynda Carter lookalike and be tied up with that rope that makes you tell the truth. But enough of my own overactive fantasy life.

This little ditty of a movie is the classic cheese variety pack that one would expect of a title like it has ... but with no actual nudity, nothing to really challenge the senses at all, save for an attempted rape scene. Plot is as follows: two budding female track stars (one white, one black) head to Hong Kong for an international meet, they're kidnapped along with a local (hence the trio of colorations) who is a friend to the white chick but befriends the black chick. The local serves as the intermediary of sorts as you can tell. The rivalry between the two Americans is that they're basically 1a & 1b in the track world, so there's some tension, but ironically, most of that tension is just racial angst played out on the big screen.

That angst carries over as the dads get involved once the chicks get kidnapped. I know I left out that little fact, but just sit there and read anyways. Black dad is the working class variety who just knows the embassy folks aren't gonna give a rat's ass about his daughter. The white dad runs a grocery chain and is willing to pay any price to get his daughter back, to the point of ignoring black dad's concern for his black daughter. Follow all that? Good. Now forget it.

This is all just mere triviality for the movie. The real selling point here is that EVERY chick in the movie knows karate. The two American chicks stop about 2-3 crimes in progress once overseas by taking on the lesser skilled martial artsmen in Hong Kong. Damn if we don't make em better here in the good ol U.S. of A.

What's perplexing in this movie, though, is that the chicks spend most of the movie losing out, because they get kidnapped and a few plots to escape are busted. Dammit! I was sold a bill of goods. When I see a DVD cover promising me Ebony, Ivory, & Jade with three hot 70s chicks in martial arts poses, I expect to see some kick ass chicks ... well ... kicking some ass. I don't expect to see them bound and gagged in a spider hole while some Mexican plays an Asian mafia ringleader, thank you very much! About the time you realize what a disappointment the movie is, you really begin to appreciate the reasons for putting some T&A into the plot. But then you're deprived of that as the credits roll and you realize this movie was a whole lot of nothing. What a pile of crap. I think I'm gonna watch it again this weekend.

Bigger point is that the DVD was purchased for less than half the Amazon price at the new DVD Trading shops opening up around town. These seem like a treasure trove of unexplored riches that need to be mined by the B-movie loving crowd. Good deals can be had for under $10, although sometimes they miss a few price points: Jack Frost II was priced used at about the same as spotted at Best Buy new. Tsk tsk.

That said ... Sunday is the Infinite Record Convention ... media of all varieties on display, and I'm spending like a drunken sailor. Truth be told, I'll probably just be there with a massive Valentines Day induced hangover.

Archival Matters: ST: The Motion Pic/DC

A genre warhorse, Star Trek:TMP has weathered much criticism for matters from production schedule snafus to retread scripting, much of it deserved. The film's market success, however, did provide substantial proof that in spite of all problems and mixed critical reception, demand for big-budget science fiction existed. It's good, therefore, to see what Robert Wise could do for the film by way of rehabilitiating some cutting/inclusion/duration choices over which he originally had no control (upon leaving the project).

The interview segment at the end of the VHS Widescreen version, while upbeat, does provide new info (to me) on misunderstandings and disagreements on the set. Those interviewed seem still to believe that Nimoy originally didn't want to do the movie, while Nimoy in his most recent biographical book states that it was a misinterpretation of confusing and bogged-down negotiations. More interview material lends credence to Nimoy's story, since the project actually lumbered to a start without a finished script and actors were commonly rewriting their lines to cohere with what they thought was proper for that character's delivery style. In fact, that's the amazing thing about the whole endeavor: that anything could come from such chaos.

Some exterior establishing shots are added, a few travel shots are trimmed and unseen-'till-now explanatory crew exchanges reduce confusion as to the alien's motivation. Shakespeare it's not, but the Trek franchise has at least historically provided a superior TV alternative to "My Mother The Car" reruns. Also its continuing appeal is a constant challenge to network statistical methods that never recognized said appeal until a film broke ALL records (a generally idiot-proof event), which are probably used with little change by producers and studios today (anyone have data on that sad situation?).

Bad DVD Releases ...

Still behind on that review of Ebony, Ivory, & Jade, but I did finally answer the long sought question of my week ... whether Blind Spot has been made into DVD. It has. One major downside, though ... for the $26 DVD, you get ABSOLUTELY NO additional features. No extra interview footage, no nothing. WTF??? I hate to say it, but till I see this at about the $15 price point, I have no use for the DVD.

Spellbound, by comparison, has some great extras ... most intriguing being the "Where are they now" segment on the junior spellers. That one may gain my DVD bucks.

Lastly, an upcoming movie night: Friday - "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" - Angelika ... no idea what showtimes are as of yet. Looking for an 8/9pmish showing, though. After that, I plan on waking up sometime on Sunday.

"THE POPCORN YOU'RE EATING..."

The recent screening of the film KENTUCKY FRIED MOVIE (which I unwisely missed) was a rare opportunity to see that film on the big screen as originally intended. It was also a chance to take in one of the better TV parodies, which in this case was written for an era in which TV was a younger medium. This film, while not involving the same crew, is best understood as a companion piece to THE GROOVE TUBE, a previous take-off on the sort of stylistic ruts into which TV habitually places itself. And in a more serious sense, due to the phenomenon of cable and other competition to the traditional networks, we may be able to use parody works like these in the future in describing the demise of network programming, documenting as they do "what was wrong with television".

But these are, naturally, mainly works of comedy - from bathroom humor to artifice references and back to the bathroom again (as with the first AIRPLANE! film). Go to http://www.imdb.com and look up KFM and follow the links to its trailer, which is built around an interview with Producer Sam Bronkowitz. You'll witness one of the best referential trailers make prior to the one Steve Martin did for DEAD MEN DON'T WEAR PLAID. The skit-based production has blaxploitiation fake-outs like "Big Jim Slade" and "Cleopatra Schwartz", a Kung Fu feature called "A Fistful Of Yen" and a great phony image ad from an oil company with Bill Bixby.

The brand of humor here will be too subtle for many, but fans of the entertainment product of the late '70s will, shall we say, "understand the show". Not for mixed audiences, it's at least a guilty pleasure.

What Do the Grammys Tell Us?

Its easy enough to find reason to ridicule the Grammys. Jimi Hendrix never won a Grammy in his lifetime despite being a seminally influential musician both in his day and beyond. Similarly, how does one best capture the influence of artists that push the envelope towards newer (and sometimes better) realms yet don't always have the star power or sales record to warrant high profile awards? Its a tough call ... do you just reward artists who sell? ... of so, why bother voting? Just leave it for the Billboard Music Awards to tell us all we need to know.

The Grammys, however, rely on voting. That implies a bit of subjectivity on the matter. And sometimes, we get a noteworthy surprise or two. Norah James last year, beating Bruce Springsteen, being among the latest big surprises. Sometimes, the nominations themselves warrant a nod of acceptance. In my own preferred genre: instrumental guitar rock, such musicians as Joe Satriani, Steve Vai, and Yngwie Malmsteen have all been recognized ... nevermind that they all also lost. Every once in a while, there's also the great disappointment.

Witness 1989. Heavy Metal music was in its heyday. Metallica had finally put out an album that sold well enough to get the attention of all, had some serious musical credibility to serve the genre proudly, and was the hands-on frontrunner for Hard Rock Album of the Year ... only to lose out to Jethro Tull when the votes were counted. Jethro Tull? Hard Rock?? How the hell does one have a flautist in a Hard Rock band??? Shit happens, though.

So that brings me to my point ... what the hell is it that the Grammys really tell us? I ask this knowing that in my "advanced years" I see artists like Beyonce and Justin Timberlake as mockworthy comparisons to those artists of the 70s and 80s (ok, so many of the 80s artists were "mockworthy", too ... I get it). If we're really trying to sniff out the artistically talented types who represent the genres and musicianship at its finest, then where's the strong track record that shows this to be the case? Why are Hootie & the Blowfish as well as Starland Vocal Band such flashes in the pan when they warrant such high praise on any given awards show? Does this mean bands that endure through many years and several lean stretches deserve better? In that case, when does Bon Jovi get a Lifetime Achievement Award?

I dunno ... last year, I appreciated the surprise of learning about Norah James (I'd pegged The Boss as the winner like so many others). This year, I get Beyonce. Maybe its the disappointment that she's such a known quantity here in Houston. Maybe its that I despise much of what qualifies as "hip hop" and "R&B" as either derivative of lesser artforms or simple misidentified forms given the historical references I've grown accustomed to. Yeah, so most of the music that ever comes out is derivative of something else. Again, its not an easy question to pose.

Be that as it may, I had a much more enjoyable time watching Norah Jones on Austin City Limits Saturday night then the Grammys could have managed. I've put off buyig her music for the last time!

Infinite Record Convention

One of the best places to score some off-the-wall forms of entertainment, coming up on the 15th. Last few visits have found the best finds at the discount VHS booths as there's generally some real crap they're unloading for like a buck or two each. Rare imports and other quality music can also be found. Good for the metalhead, blueshound, jazz freak, or other music afficianado in your life. Ongoing debate here tends to be whether or not one should splurge for a big-ass concert poster that one vendor specializes in.

SIDENOTE: Latest Opera ads that pop up while on ClownCarBlog.com is one for a Twisted Sister Greatest Hits CD. Hell Yeah!!!

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!??!

The Future In Burial Technology

So this is what we have come down to? It's not enough that we have voyueristic television that peeps in on someone getting married or divorced or having a kid. It's not enough that we must know everyone's actions when they're alive. Now we also have to watch them when they're dead. Are we scared that they will rise up and reclaim the earth's surface? Or perhaps it's a future for headstones. You can put a ruggedized LCD panel on the headstone and get a live shot of the corpse.

But at least Otto will make a good looking corpse...

A Sweet Gift For Your Sweetheart

Adopt a Hissing Cockroach for Your Valentine

OK, so something is deadly wrong when any guy buys this for his non-entymologist girlfriend on Valentine's Day. Surely guys can't be so void of ideas for making a memorial Valentine's Day that they must resort to CNN for gift advice. I guess the only guy would would buy this is one who doesn't listen to his significant other.

"Everybody's marriage is falling apart except ours. See, the problem's communication... too much communication." - Homer Simpson

Well Now I'm Appalled!

Has swearing lost its power to outrage?

OK, first there was Bono swearing on The Grammies ... then Nicole Richie dropping another F-bomb on Fox. But Johnny Rotten calling people "f****** c*nts" ... that takes the cake. I cannot begin to express my shock and amazement of such behaviour of ANYONE hailing from The Sex Pistols camp. That's not the sort of punk rocker we've come to know and love!

Oh wait ...