And the accomplice is... NBC!

So...

Yesterday, there was a hostage crisis at the Discovery Channel headquarters in Maryland. A man upset about mankind's threat to nature and the environment, as well as Discovery's sister network, TLC's, promotion of super-breeding, as seen in such shows as Kate Plus 8 and the other one with the 19 kids (sorry, I forget the real title) stormed the lobby with guns and explosives. He left several hours later in a body bag, shot dead by local police. Thankfully, none of the hostages were physically harmed. It was a dangerous situation. The man was clearly unstable and said he cared nothing for the people in the building. He had a remote detonator on him and pipe bombs strapped to his body. According to police reports he wasn't very cooperative and seemed ready to die.

I say again, thankfully the situation was resolved with no bomb blasts, and only the hostage-taker dead. It could have been worse, as, come to find out, NBC News stuck it's nose into the situation and actually called the lobby of Discovery where the man was holed up with three bystanders and proceeding to speak to the man for 10 minutes. Are you kidding me?! What was NBC thinking? This is a police matter. It's one thing to interview someone after a crisis is resolved, but to call to speak with the hostage-taker during a tenuous situation like this is beyond belief. They could have easily upset the man, causing the situation to become worse. For all they know, he had a grudge with media in general and could have taken offense to the call. Also, the police are the ones who should be talking to this man, not NBC News. They are lucky it didn't backfire on them. So lucky. Plus, they later revealed that they didn't inform police that they spoke to the man until after the situation was resolved. So, just to be clear, you not only call the hostage-taker, but then don't even inform the cops of what he told you - which could have been helpful to their handling of the situation. Shame on you, NBC. You put three innocent lives in jeopardy.

Now, I know you are ratings starved and always looking to make a splash, but this is simply immoral and wrong. I feel like NBC has become the go-to network for criminals to share their thoughts. Was it not also NBC that the Virginia Tech shooter sent a "care package" full of photos and a written manifesto? The behavior they displayed with the Discovery Channel hostage crisis only encourages this behavior, as if they are saying it's okay, we will listen to you. Go ahead, do your crime and we will publish your photos.. print your manifestos.

Even though the Discovery situation resolved without the hostages being killed, NBC committed a heinous act by interjecting itself into the situation. Just because they could make the call, doesn't mean they should have. Did ABC, CBS, Fox or any other's call? No. And if they had, what then, the hostage taker spends his time speaking to the media while the cops try to reach him. It's simply one more thing the authorities and the hostages shouldn't have to deal with. One more voice clouding up an already foggy situation.

If criminal charges could be brought against NBC, they should be. The reporter at NBC who placed the call, as well as the the supervisor who approved it should be held responsible. If I was a hostage or one of the cops, I would ask for their immediate resignation. There comes a point when a story isn't worth the cost.

The X-men Strike Back... in theaters.

So...

Just how hard is it to make a great X-men movie? Apparently, a lot harder than it should be.

In case you haven't heard, the X-men are coming back to theaters soon. Slated to start shooting later this month in London, X-men: First Class aims to tell the early days of America's favorite team of mutants and the origin of the Professor Xavier/Magneto grudge. After the muck of the last two X-men films (yes, I'm including X2, as well as X-men: The Last Stand), I was less than excited about another X-men movie coming to the cineplex under Twentieth Century Fox's stewardship.

But then Fox did something interesting. They hired director Matthew Vaughan (Stardust, Kick-Ass, Layer Cake) to helm the new X- film. Vaughan is a smart choice, a proven director with a diverse track record and legit fanboy status. With Layer Cake Vaughan proved he could bring complexity and edge to his movies (important for X-men), and with both Stardust and Kick-Ass he showed he could successfully adapt a comic book and infuse it with fun, excitement and, something that was lacking in the last three X-incarnations, color.

What do I mean by color? I'm not talking about diversity casting, I'm talking about the look of the film. The cinematography, settings, and art direction. The world of the X-men comics is full of color. The images literally leap off the page with interesting locations and distinct settings. Compare that to the films, which were gray and flat, more akin to Batman than the X-men. It's the old Empire Strikes Back dichotomy; just because a film has a dark subject matter, it doesn't mean the movie itself has to be shot dark.

This applies also to the X-stories, as well as the look. Plot-wise, the first X-men movie was by far the best of the three existing pictures, but even it is just okay. Yes, it's a solid start to the franchise, but it is limited in focus and, while a decent introduction to the world and characters, feels so small compared to the comic books on which it is based that it fails to do justice to the X-men property. What should have been the film that takes the concept and soars with it, then, X2, the sequel, only continues to sputter along under Bryan Singer's simplistic and underwhelming direction, with an ending that doesn't earn the major character death it provides due to a simple lack of logic (as in, why exactly can't Jean Gray just use her psychic powers to lift the airplane our heroes are on from inside the jet, rather than stepping outside to do it despite certain death?). The final film in the trilogy, X-men: The Last Stand (from super-hack Brett Ratner), is nothing short of insulting to X-men fans (from both the comics and the previous two movies), but at least it attempts to provide the thrills the X-men comics have always offered, something Singer did as if one hand was always tied behind his back.

Finally, with Vaughan, Fox seems to understand that X-men is about story as well as big-budget action. And in addition to Vaughan, Fox has hired some seriously talented actors (Kevin Bacon, James McAvoy, January Jones) to bring this new story to life. Billed as a prequel to the films, it looked hopeful that it could in fact serve as a reboot in the way that Spider-man is now being tackled or the recent Star Trek movie was done... or perhaps, dare I say, the king of the comic book reboots, Batman Begins, was made. Batman Begins is interesting because it actually began as a prequel to the original Warner Bros./Tim Burton Batman movies, but ended up being the start of a new Bat-series after audiences showed interest in seeing more from this new Bat-incarnation. With X-men: First Class we have a new direction under Matthew Vaughan and a new chance to do this franchise justice. Could this be to the existing X-men movies what Batman Begins is to the Tim Burton/Joel Schumacher Bat-films? I sure hoped so... until I heard that Bryan Singer is again involved in the X world, this time as a producer.

Plop! That was the sound of my interest in this movie splattering back onto the floor. Didn't the failed Superman Returns reboot finally prove to Fox that Singer can't handle comic book adaptations? I guess not, because now we have his hand in the pot again with X-men, all but assuring that this ne X-men movie will essentially be little more than a prequel to his flawed X-men films? This is the equivalent to having had Tim Burton or Joel Schumacher serve as a producer on Batman Begins. If either one of them had been, we likely would never have had Batman Begins or The Dark Knight, as it overwrites their Bat-films.

This new X-men film should be Vaughan's to Sheppard, and Vaughan's alone. When Singer walked away from the X-men to do Superman, he should have been done with the X-world. But they'd fact that Fox brought him back shows that they still don't get it when it comes to this franchise. Sure, First Class will probably be big, but it could be so much bigger. Of all the comics, X-men is the one that is the most complex, most appealing to adults as well as children in that it is closest to dealing with current events, as the mutant/human dynamic could be seen as a metaphor for a number of different issues.

True, there are some signs that this film could be intriguing. First, the characters are mostly mutants who are little known even to many X-fans. That gives Vaughan plenty of breathing room to use them in interesting ways without treading too heavily on continuity. Also, the film is rumored to be set in the 60s, and would hopefully take advantage of the Cold War vibe of that era to infuse the film franchise with some intrigue and spy-level suspense. The possibility of mutants going under cover on some sort of globe-trotting adventure excites me. Also, the filming location of London could prove to be a fresh look for the X-film world and capture the early New York setting of the X-men comics.

Hopefully, this film is a big, larger-than-life adventure with the depth and scope that the classic X-men comic stories always provided. And hopefully the studio heads at Fox realize that the original X-films aren't timeless classics, but more akin to the original Batman movies, which faded out and were replace by Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. If this movie can be made into the start of a new franchise, rather than a prequel to a less than stellar X-franchise so far, then X-men: First Class could be something I could truly get behind. If this film wants to get off on the right foot, my advice is for Matthew Vaughan to ignore any input from Bryan Singer.

Mosque my words.

So...

I'm beyond sick of hearing about this so called Ground Zero Mosque, which isn't even a Ground Zero Mosque. It's actually a Cultural Center that has a prayer room, and it's not located at Ground Zero. Rather, i's more than 2 blocks away. Yes, that's damn close to Ground Zero, but it's NOT Ground Zero.

Even though I'm tired of hearing politicians and pundits discussing this Manhattan Islamic Cultural Center, I'm going to chime in with my take on the debate. On one side we have the anti crowd, who opposes the building of the cultural center, which they call a Mosque (probably because it sounds scarier). Many of these naysayers, after all, are the ones who started all this furor by releasing fear-tactic blog posts and self-made videos such as this one (I've decided to retract the link to not give it the hits it doesn't deserve) in which it seems like a giant Mosque is going to overtake Manhattan and terrorists are just going to start flooding into America via some kind of magic Mosque portal. Of course, many, many Republicans jumped on this and are using it to add fuel to their fire for the upcoming elections. It's shameful that they would use 9/11 to campaign off of. But I guess that's nothing new. Heck, we even went to war in Iraq on the ashes of the World Trade Center. But to take a local issue and turn it into a national debate scares me because it opens up the discourse in other areas on whether Mosques should be "allowed" to be built there. Just look at the news, in Rutherford Country, Tennessee there was a recent meeting at the Courthouse about validity of building a Mosque in town.

The biggest reason I'm tired of hearing about this Cultural Center is because there are so many more important issues to discuss right now in America, from the economy, to the wars, to Immigration that this is a distraction. In the same way that Freedom Fries and Senior Death Panels were. It's essentially a Witch Hunt and I'm worried that Muslims are going to become bogeymen, dragged out by the Right-Wingers to scare us and keep us distracted from the bigger issues.

I'm also concerned that if the Cultural Center were to be moved, it would open up the floodgates. If Muslims can't build here, then maybe next year they can't build there. And, let's say, they do move the Cultural Center. Where should they move it? Manhattan is only so big. This argument could easily turn into a "no Mosque in Manhattan" one or maybe even a "no new Mosque in New York" rally. Maybe that's a bit extreme, but then again that's how it always starts: with something small.

I'm not insensitive to the feelings of the 9/11 victims' families. But it's an overstatement by politicians who say that all 9/11 victims' families are against the construction of the Cultural Center, as so many have done. It bugs me in the same way that John Boehner and Mitch McConnell continually say they represent "the American people" or "the American people are opposed to" XYZ. With all due respect, if you knew what the American people wanted, your party wouldn't have gotten your asses kicked in the 2008 elections. Point of fact, many 9/11 victims' families are for the Cultural Center, as they see it as a way to bridge the divide; the Cultural Center is intended as a place to reflect on the devastation of 9/11 and how destructive radical Islam is.

This whole Cultural Center debate should have been a local issue, but you know we're screwed when Newt Gingrich chimes in with comments like, and I'm paraphrasing, "we shouldn't have Mosques in America until they have Churches and Synagogues in Saudi Arabia." Hello, Newt, we're better than Saudi Arabia. But, sadly, it is a national issue now, egged on by misinformation and Right-wingers inflaming their base, which has spilled over into mainstream America. Newt also claims that it is wrong that the Islamic community demands Religious intolerance from us, but in Muslim countries they ask for submission. He isn't entirely off there, but, again, we are not a Christian or Jewish nation. And these are American citizens attending these Mosques. Do I wish other countries were as fair to other religious as we are. Yes! But punishing American-Muslims and Islam is the wrong way to go. We should take it up with the countries and their leadership, not through religion.

With so many so divided the best and fairest thing would be to revert back to Constitutional law, which essentially states that this Cultural Center has the right to be built there. In my opinion, there's a really good opportunity here for Islamic leadership in New York to say "even though the law is on our side, our intention was not to create this controversy and so we are moving the Cultural Center elsewhere." But then, to where? And, for that matter, what then? If they bow to pressure here, maybe they will next time, too? It's a slippery slope.

The Ironic thing, of course, is that their defiant attitude is a very American one.

Freeing the anchor (babies) by changing the 14th Amendment.

So...

There's a lot of talk in the news about immigration reform (whatever that means these days) and illegal immigration, which has turned to discussion about the 14th Amendment. For those who don't know, the 14th Amendment is the addition to the US Constitution that grants automatic citizenship to anyone born in the United States. It was drafted after the Civil War in response to African-Americans and newly freed slaves, allowing them and their children to be free citizens on America, whereas before they did not have that right upon birth. Congress at the time did not consider the current plight of immigrants nor the economic burden of illegal border crossings on this country, but many believe that the section of the 14th Amendment which grants automatic freedom to those born in the US should still be upheld. Others, however, feel it allows too many to take advantage of a Constitutional addition not written for it's current usage, such as those who enter this country for the sole purpose of having their children granted US citizenship. There are even charter trips for groups of non-US citizens that come here from other countries, jetting pregnant foreigners to US soil, booking them the living arrangements and allowing the expectant mothers to give birth to their babies in US hospitals (at US taxpayers expense), then return home so that one day their children can just come freely into this country.

Those who want to keep the 14th Amendment the way it is claim that to adjust the 14th Amendment would be punishing innocent children, which is a tough case to sell to the American people. There is also the argument that we should not change the Amendment, as it is equal to changing the Constitution. This later argument is flimsy, because the Amendment itself is already a change to the original Constitution. Also, there are so many differences in American culture that the founding fathers couldn't have predicted (though they did an amazing job of creating a Constitution broad enough to be timeless) that Constitutional ratifications and changes are sometimes necessary. While not an excuse to go trampling all over the Constitution, there are instances where Government must examine it for a changing society.

Those who want to modify the 14th Amendment to remove the automatic citizenship clause claim that it promotes illegal immigration, as non-citizens cross the border to have their babies in this country illegally for the sole purpose of giving them citizens. In addition to flying into this country, as I mentioned above, along the Mexican border US hospitals are getting flooded with expectant illegal immigrant parents sneaking into the country and having what is called "anchor babies." The term anchor babies refers to the baby being put into the position of, via their automatic citizenship, tethering the illegal parents into America as immigration and customs enforcement (ICE) is often unwilling, understandably, to kick the parents of the US citizen child out of the country since the child is a legal citizen. This baby then acts as the anchor who ties the child down while not only the parents stay here, but other members of the family enter the country as once the child turns 18 he can sponsor family members to get them citizenship. Not only is it unfair to those who wait patiently to be granted citizenship, it's a burden placed on an innocent child who has no say in their future.

To those who say that changing the 14th Amendment to drop the automatic citizenship clause is cruel and simply wrong to punish the children of illegals, is it not cruel and wrong to do otherwise? What about the child who has to grow up knowing their parents have broken the law for them? Is that fair to give the child a life where the first act they committed as a citizen is to have broken the law? And what about living with the fear that their parents are illegal immigrants and could very well be (however unlikely) deported? Not to mention the burden of having to often bring in other family members? It is wrong and unfair for a child to have to grow up where there parents are not able to have the best life they can have as illegals in the country, yet it would be wrong to just make them citizens. It's a hardship no child should have to go through. Also, it is dangerous for the parents to cross over illegally for the sake of the child. By changing the Amendment, it would discourage expectant mothers from risking their lives for the journey to America to give birth here and thus not endanger the child, either.

Never mind the cost of illegal births or the unfairness of it to immigrants who follow proper channels, automatic citizenship is simply a danger and unnecessary burden for a child to take on, through no fault of their own, and should be modified in the 14th Amendment. For the sake of the expectant parents and the child-to-be it is the right thing to do.

A word on Sprint's new hotness, the Samsung Epic 4G.

So...

Today, Sprint finally announced the release date of their version of the Samsung Galaxy smart phone, dubbed the Epic 4G. As the name suggests it is a 4G compatible phone (meaning that it's good only for those areas that have 4G coverage, otherwise it's 3G). It's a pretty spectacular phone, I'll be the first to admit that, but it's not a phone that's unique to Sprint. AT&T, Verizon and even T-Mobil all have their own version of the Samsung Galaxy. The ONLY difference with the Sprint version compared to the other companies is that Sprint's Galaxy has a slide-out QWERTY keypad. This keypad is a pretty handy feature, allowing the option to either type touch screen or on a normal, albeit smaller, keyboard. However, this keypad isn't without it's faults, it does make the phone a bit heavier. With or without the extra weight, though, I don't think the keypad should make the Epic a more expensive version of the galaxy than it's competitors since, again, it's almost the same phone.

Unfortunately, that is exactly what Sprint is doing: charging their customers an extra fifty bucks to get their Samsung Galaxy. Now, this phone is already available on AT&T and T-Mobil and both retail for 199.99. The same price as the Iphone 4, mind you. And over at Spring, the uber-hot EVO (Sprint's first foray into 4G territory) also retails for 199.99. Expensive, but reasonable. You would expect the new Samsung to sell for that same amount as Sprint's previous 4G phone, if not the price of the same phone at AT&T and T-Mobil. I mean, how could it actually cost MORE than the King of all smart phones, the Iphone 4G? But I guess Sprint has decided to make an extra buck by sticking it to the customer and charging them 249.99. This is clearly part of the reason for the long delay on the Epic's release date. Based on the high sales of the EVO and the high level of interest in the Epic, Sprint has jacked up the price an extra fifty dollars, making it the most expensive smart phone on the market. Worse, Sprint suckered their customers by setting up a website so users could pre-pre-register for the Epic 4G, so customers could be assured they would get the advanced forms necessary to get the phone on it's release date. Sounds nice, but they then counted up all those site visits and pre-pre-registrations and decided they had enough interest to be able to jack the prices of the phone up.

Worse, Sprint has always prided itself on having cheaper plans than AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobil. Dan Hesse, Sprint's CEO, has a commerical running where he boldly proclaims that for 69.99 you can get everything (mobil, text and Internet), whereas at AT&T and Verizon you can only get mobil calling and text for that price. Now, users that sign up for the Samsung Epic are required to pay a shady $10.00 "premium content" fee. This is a fee that isn't required for their other smart phones, but is something they began to require for the EVO and continued with the Epic, even though those phones don't do anything different than their other smart phones - they still access the same sights. It's because they are 4G, I guess, and it's a sketchy way to claim that their plans are 69.99, when, in fact, they require an extra 10 buck fee making the plans 79.99. As more and more phones come out with 4G capabilities, I guess the new price, whether they advertise it or not, will be 79.99. The funny thing is that very few markets actually have 4G capable cell phone towers set up, so the 10.00 fee really shouldn't be applied to those markets since they aren't getting the "premium content" as intended.

Still, even though it's disappointing to see the changes in Sprint's customer service and their up until now low prices, the service plan pricing is still on par with the other mobil companies. And the phone is pretty awesome, though in my opinion not worth the extra 50 bucks. But, really, if you want a phone that is not going to be obsolete in two years, and you want the QWERTY keypad, then you really don't have a choice but to pay the extra money. I guess I should be use to this by now considering how long the cell phone companies have been monopolizing Americans with outrageous pricing and unbreakable contracts. Really, the only wonder is how long it took Sprint to join the club.

FYI, Sprint's Samsung Epic 4G releases August 31, with pre-registration beginning today.

An open letter to Ben Quayle, candidate for Arizona's 3rd district.

So...

Ben Quayle, son of former nitwit Vice President Dan Quayle, today you put out an ad saying that you were "raised right" and that Barack Obama is the "worst President in US History." Really? Obama has only been in office 18 months and already you feel justified in making that claim. Let's see, James Buchanan laid the framework for the Civil War, Herbert Hoover brought the country the great depression and let's not forget George W. Bush, who I don't even need to list the devastation he brought about. Ben, this is desperate. And I know there are 9 other candidates running against you in a very crowded Arizona Congressional race, and I understand you need to stand out, but that claim is just sad.

Let's also not ignore the obvious attempt to distract from the swirling storm surrounding the accusations that you wrote for the dirtyscottsdale.com website as a regular contributor named Brock Landers (the porn moniker from "Boogie Nights") who sought to find the hottest chick in Scottsdale, drank whiskey alone to avoid "emotional setbacks" and banged strangers at other people's houses. First you denied any association with the site. Now, you say you did post, but only to "drive traffic to the site." Ummm... okay, sure. Keep in mind you didn't post under your real name, so how exactly were you trying to drive traffic to the website? By putting up pictures of skanky women and pointing out their flaws?

Furthermore, do you expect anyone to believe that you did not post as Brock Landers when at first you denied that you even posted on dirtyscottsdale.com, but now admit that you actually did, only not as the person the site's founder claims you did? Come on, you expect us to believe that? You're credibility is clearly shot. And how is this having been "raised right"? How is this not dirty politics reminiscent of Bill Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that women" fib. We don't need another sketchy politician in Washington, we've got them in spades.

If you win you will have set the tone for your term as one based on lies. But hey it worked for George W. Bush and you don't seem to think that was so bad.

"Everything's better in Israel."

So...

The title of this post is a quote from the latest episode of Covert Affairs. In it, our heroine gets entangled in a story line involving an Israeli spy. Throughout the episode the spy talks about how wonderful Israel is and at one point our heroine says maybe they could meet up again on the French Riviera and he says no, they should meet at the beaches in Israel because they are the best in the world and, in fact, everything is better in Israel.

Sigh. It's getting really old, Hollywood. Really, it is. The line has been crossed between political ideology and unbiased storytelling. It's gotten to the point where when you tune into a TV show it seems to quickly shift into an ad for the wonders and greatness of the Jewish nation. It doesn't help that, and this isn't racism, this is just simple numbers, most of the writers, directors, agents, producers and executives in Hollywood are Jewish.

In Hollywood, they like to say they want to hire writers who have experience in certain fields to set them apart. Say, if you want to work on a cop show, it helps to have been a former cop. Experience over imagination, is the viewpoint. It's a silly view to begin with, but it does allow them to find reasons to hire or not to hire. Say if they don't like you on a personal level, well, they have a technical excuse not to hire you so they don't have to flat out say we don't like you. Mind you, this isn't some official rule, more like a rule of thumb. However, this stance doesn't seem to apply to Jewish writers. And the problem with that is, other than the hypocrisy of it, is that we then get writers who fill the scripts with what they know. Just as a cop would write about what he knows on a cop show (being a police officer), a Jewish writer would write about what he/she knows... which often boils down to plots about Jewish issues and all things Israel.

Seriously, next time you watch a show turn on your brain and listen/look for it. Now, I understand the controversial nature of this post and the fact that any perceived criticism of Israel or the Jewish people in general grants you an automatic anti-Semite label, but if we can get past that petty name calling I think there is a real discussion to be had here on the effects of an overwhelmingly Jewish entertainment industry on American television.

I mean, what would happen if there was an American (Jewish or otherwise) on an Israeli TV show and he said the line "everything's better in America"? Most likely ridicule and a criticism of American elitism, if not charges of racism. There's also a danger in tying American TV (and thus America) with Israel so heavily. Imagine if the entertainment business was predominately Muslim. Would we not draw the concern of Israel? Plus, even though Israel is a strong ally of the United States, it is still a separate country with it's own policies and agendas, many of which don't align with our own. If Israel comes under fire for something, like the recent blockade of Palestinian supplies headed for the Gaza strip, it's important that American isn't seen as blindly supportive of Israeli policies. With international TV syndication and distribution at an all time high, we have to keep in mind that for many places in the world their view of America comes from television.

Nobody outside of Hollywood talks about Israel the way the writers on these shows do. So the question is: should there be a bigger distinction between the character's voice and the writer inserting his ideology when it comes to Israel and Jewish issues? Maybe a better way to look at it is if Hollywood is supposed to write for people or write to people?

Inception quick review.

So...

Inception is one of the most difficult films to explain since, well, the last Leonardo DiCaprio movie, Shutter Island. Part heist film, part globe-trotting spy adventure, part tragic love story, with a heavy dose of The Matrix, it's a movie set in a near perpetual dream world (similar to the actual Matrix in The Matrix), but it's not a movie about dreams per se. Dreams are the back drop here, and the movie examines the way they effect us and the way we effect them. But director Christopher Nolan (The Dark Knight) is more interested in focusing on the demons that haunt our subconscious than on the nature of dreams themselves.

DiCaprio plays Don Cobb, who leads a veritable "dream" team of corporate spies who break into very important people's heads to steal ideas when they are most vulnerable: during their sleep. The term inception refers to the concept of planting an idea into someone's head, like if, say, you want a CEO to think sell instead of buy. It's a nearly impossible feat, but DiCaprio takes the job anyway once he is given the chance to clear his name for a crime he didn't commit years earlier. Ellen Page plays the newest member of his team, and is thus saddled with all the scenes where the film attempts to explain, via Page, the technology that allows DiCaprio and his crew to perform these mind crimes. Most of the time the film is vague and nonsensical about how they do any of this, but the visuals are so incredible (M.C. Escher meets Stanley Kubrick) that you hardly care while waiting for the next scene.

Page is the the odd-man out, both in the course of the story and acting wise. The smug sarcasm she displayed in Juno (and every film since) is barely concealed here and with her dopey teenage looks she comes across as an amateur among professionals. Otherwise, Nolan does a great job populating the film with a mixture of familiar and not-so-recognizable faces who all gel together so flawlessly you almost have trouble deciding who you like watching more. DiCaprio, as always, makes a strong case and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (TV's Third Rock from the Sun) pulls out all the stops, perhaps none more so than during a gravity defying sequence in which he has to wrangle several sleeping bodies down an elevator shaft.

The beauty of Inception is that it isn't needlessly complicated. Though throughout the course of the story Nolan takes us further down the rabbit hole (dreams within dreams within dreams) he manages to find ways to keep everything clear for the viewer. Although one doesn't need to see Inception multiple times to "get" it, the movie is worth seeing again and again simply for the scope and beauty of it all. Nolan has created a near-perfect adventure movie for thinkers; a more nuanced and grounded version of The Matrix sans the oppressive machines.

Best viewed: the bigger the screen, the better.

Covert Affairs - Episode 2 - quick review

So...

I tuned in for the second episode of USA's new series Covert Affairs, following last week's better than average pilot. Sad to say this week's outing was a big, fat letdown. The story wasn't engaging and was downright boring at times, the ending was predictable, and Augie, the blind CIA agent, is quickly becoming one of my least favorite characters on TV. For one thing he's too smug and always has this knowing smile on his face like he's better than everyone. On the "it's ridiculous for a blind guy to be doing this" front, Augie teaches Annie (the new agent) how to fight up close and personal so that she doesn't get her butt kicked. Occasionally, the writers seem to remember that he can't see and on one occasion solve that problem by simply saying "I guessed" after he tells Annie she is doing a good job with her boxing lessons and she asks, "how would you know?"

There's also a new character introduced who adds nothing to the show's dynamic. Played by Sendhil Ramamurthy (Mohinder on Heroes) he literally drags every scene down he's in with a flat performance. Also, his character doesn't seem to have a strong enough role to keep him around, other than his orders to keep an eye on Annie in case her mysterious and possibly dangerous ex-lover shows up. Like there aren't a million other ways to do that without adding someone to the cast.

While the pilot offered a potentially worthy replacement to Alias, the follow-up seemed instead like a poor man's copy of the later show. Even Piper Perabo, who was admittedly less mundane this week, improved her acting only by mimicking Alias heroine Sydney Bristow's (Jennifer Garner's) facial expressions and mannerisms. Let's not forget that so far the mysterious and possibly dangerous ex-lover is a variation of the mysterious and possibly dangerous absent father that Sydney Bristow dealt with.

There are, of course, a few interesting bits, like where Annie is learning spy techniques on the fly, such as how to pick certain kinds of locks. In the case of the locks, though, it almost feels like a last minute script addition and thus a missed opportunity to really flesh out this idea of what it would really be like to be a rookie CIA agent. It's as if the writers can't figure her character out yet. One minute she needs to be be shown how to open a door, the next she is the only one at the CIA who can see the truth about the case they are working on (never mind the fact that the audience realizes something is amiss even before she does).

Second episodes are usually where a series can either spread its wings and fly or collapse under the weight of its own concept. Covert Affairs seems to be a case of the later. I'll check out next week's offering, but if it's as lackluster as episode 2 I'll probably bail on this show.

Verdict: fading fast.

The Sorcerer's Apprentice quick review.

So...

According to the credits of The Sorcerer's Apprentice 6 different people worked on the movie's story. That doesn't include the countless other names associated with the script who didn't receive credit. This isn't untypical for a big Hollywood release, as often the film is rushed into production to meet a release date picked out before shooting even commences, not to mention all the talking heads, AKA creative executives, involved in the project who can't make up their minds about the direction of the screenplay - thus the necessity for several different writers. With a few talented ones, the mash-up of ideas, pages and story beats can come together flawlessly. With less talented scripters, however, the result can be quite messy. Such is the case with The Sorcerer's Apprentice, which feels like three competing scripts all patched together by a broken wand.

Oddly enough, the movie starts well, presenting itself as a breezy, FX laden fantasy about dueling magicians - one good, one evil - who are trying to find the last descendant of Merlin, a boy who offers the only hope of stopping the greatest Sorceress ever to have lived, Morgana la Fey (of King Arthur fame), who is fated to return and enslave the Earth under her dark spell. One magician wants to kill the boy, the other wants to train him. You can probably guess from the movie's title who gets to him first.

The first half of the film is solid. There's a couple forced jokes, mostly to unnecessarily lighten up Nicolas Cage's good magician, but the pacing is spot on and the characters are all likable, charming or deliciously evil, as called for. The sorcerers perform a few clever tricks that should wow the audience, including a nifty sword fight where the combatants are on opposite sides of the room, and there's also an ingenious way of trapping the spirits of various dark sorcerers. At times, the magic itself gets a bit too unfocused, to the point of "if they can do that, why can't they do this," but the director keeps things moving so that one hardly has time to reflect on it for long.

It's really the back half of the film, after the apprentice's actual training begins, that things start to unwind. One minute the young apprentice, played by Judd Apatow regular bit player Jay Baruchel, displays no skills, the next he is able to conjure a magic plasma ball in no time flat. I know he's the chosen one and all, but it would have been more believable had the film set up his abilities earlier on, especially since the first time we meet him he is only ten years old.

The acting also begins to go downhill from this point on, with Cage unsure whether to play the magician comically or seriously. His role is eventually just diminished, as if the director could no longer make up his mind if his character is a help or a hindrance to the story and just decided to cut most of his lines.

Baruchel, of course, meets up again with the dream girl he first met at ten and for some reason begins channelling a bad impression of Woody Allen. She's gorgeous and, in typical Hollywood fashion, falls for his goofy looks and nebbish behavior; her fate is as predictable as the direction a rabbit is pulled from a hat. It's a shame that after such a promising start the film decided to go with such a conventional third act.

The ending also feels rushed, as if everyone was looking at their watches and trying to jam in as much as possible. A little breathing room would have been welcome between all the magical frenzy. It got so bad that I couldn't tell if certain resolutions were left unclear on purpose (sequel?) or if it was just bad editing.

Judging by the quality of The Sorcerer's Apprentice, I wouldn't hold my breath for a part two.

Best viewed: free on TV, on a very slow family night.

Covert Affairs quick review.

So...

Last night, USA premiered it's big new summer show entitled "Covert Affairs." It's about a pretty young CIA trainee, played by Piper Perabo, who is suddenly thrust into the spy limelight before her training is officially complete. Chaos and close-calls ensue.

Perabo, who is perhaps most famous for playing the "new dancer" in "Coyote Ugly," is mundane, but watchable in the role, a sort of Sydney Bristow-lite. Her character is surprisingly flirtatious, a reversal on the James Bond stereotype. Though unlike Bond, she is written to be tougher than she looks, the typical female hottie who kicks butt despite her perfect figure. Still, there are a few scenes where she displays the appropriate wide-eyed wonder and fear to sell the idea of a rookie agent under fire for the first time. It's also nice that the writers allow her to make some critical mistakes early on that a more seasoned agent would clearly avoid.

A few other characters round out an interesting cast. There's the married CIA Director who may or may not be cheating on his wife, who happens to also be the trainee's boss. There's also Anne Dudek (formerly "cutthroat bitch" on House), who portrays the trainee's sister, and takes what should be the least interesting part of the show (that of the person who has nothing to do but set the trainee up on dates) and manages to turn the role into the show's heart. I can't say the same for a character called Augie, a blind CIA agent who is quickly partnered with the trainee. Though he carries around a piece of technology that allows him to navigate his surroundings easily enough (a little too easily), and his office computer comes with a handy braille keypad, it's still as preposterous as the idea of a blind secret agent sounds, and at times, in fact, downright laughable, like when he manages to pick up all the hot chicks when he goes out because, as a blind man, he doesn't judge them based on their looks. Please...

Still, despite it's shortcomings, the pilot offers a satisfying escape for an hour, mixing sexual interplay with espionage and intrigue as the trainee out fights and out thinks various bad guys in an effort to track down a missing Russian assassin. Though there are a few predictable beats along the way, the story mostly zigs when you expect it to zag. In a summer of reruns and reality, it's quite refreshing.

Verdict: Not exactly appointment TV yet, but worth checking out during a slow summer TV season.

Haven quick review.

So...

You know a show has problems when actor Eric Balfour (pictured above) is the best thing about it. You see, based on his track record (Hawaii, Conviction) Balfour is known as something of a pilot killer in the TV industry, and judging by the look of his new show, that trend seems destined to continue. Only this time, surprisingly, Balfour is not the one to blame.

This week, SyFy premiered "Haven," about a pretty young FBI agent (of course) who is sent to catch a fugitive headed to a small coastal Maine town called Haven, only to discover some of the town residents possess superpowers. Sounds like an interesting concept. Too bad the show goes nowhere with it.

Word is that all the town residents actually have super-abilities, but the pilot fails to inform us of this. It also fails to give us a purpose for the show to continue, as it basically ends, spoiler alert, with the main character (the cute FBI chick) taking some vacation time to stay in Haven. She does this because she stumbled upon a picture of a woman who looks just like her, though taken some fifty years in the past, and she wants to investigate this mysterious photo since she knows so little about her own past. I suppose we can assume that the FBI girl will also get caught up in various town supernatural events, but since the pilot fails to make that clear it's only a guess.

There's actually a similar show on SyFy right now called Eureka, about a town inhabited by people who are all geniuses that invent various cool gadgets, which often get the town's sheriff into trouble. On paper Haven basically takes that concept and swaps the super-smart with the super-powered, only in the later's case it's a whole lot more boring.

While Eureka has it's moments of charm and spunk, Haven plods along with bad dialogue and listless storylines. For example, the fugitive plot is muddled by a mediocre thread about a boyfriend out to kill his girl for a very small sum of money, which, when you think about it, doesn't make sense given the time and effort he put into their relationship. There's also the start of a love triangle between the federal agent, the town's deputy and the laconic drifter played by Eric Balfour (the aforementioned pilot killer). While the deputy and the FBI agent (actress Emily Rose) sputter together, the few scenes between Balfour and Rose offer just about the only source of spark in this otherwise dreary place.

Visually, sitting through Haven is like observing dull paint dry. The cinematography is drab and gray, as if the cameraman decided to turn out all the lights and then put a tarp over the camera itself. The locations all feel confined, in a cheap sort of way, rather than the claustrophobic look I'm sure the director intended. Stopping into Haven gave me the same sense I imagine you have when driving along an old highway and you encounter engine trouble, thereby forced to pull off the road and into the kind of run-down, one-star town where you just can't wait to get the car fixed and get the heck out of, never to come back to again. Thankfully, with Haven, I can just change the channel.

Verdict: Save yourself the trip.

Is Arizona a racist state?

So...

Arizona is my home state. It is also my home. I may have lived in Los Angeles for many years now, but Arizona will always be where my heart lies. Right now, it's mixed up in a whole heap of controversy because of it's enforcement of a certain law that states that police officers have the right to ask for identification of anyone suspected of committing crimes or being stopped for traffic violations. Notice how I said enforcement, not interpretation or even making up. You see, the law already exists, Arizona is simply carrying it out.

In doing so the police officers, Local and State Government officials, and policy makers in AZ are being labeled as racists. Asking for an ID is suddenly the equivalent of asking for papers in Nazi occupied France? Please, don't cops usually ask for ID when they pull people over? I don't know what state other critics of this law live in, but where I am they most certainly do. Now, if the police were to pull people over for no reason, then yes, that is a violation of the law, but I've seen that happen regardless of someones skin color. Heck, a cop in California (of the "we shall boycott Arizona" petition) once pulled me over because I had out of state plates at the time and they wanted to check me out because, apparently, some criminal had fled across the California border in a stolen car that matched my car's description. This was even though I had done nothing wrong driving-wise and didn't even have the same license plate as the wanted felon. I was happy to comply, because I was innocent and in my own way I was contributing to catching a supposed bad guy. If you have done nothing wrong or are not "up to no good," then you have nothing to worry about.

Arizona is a truly beautiful state, nothing short of a desert paradise with clean skies, lots of open space and friendly people. Phoenix is a big city, but it doesn't feel congested or enclosed the way LA does. And Scottsdale is a haven for resort town lifestyle. But underneath all that is a dangerous criminal element. Due to it's proximity to the Mexican border, there are concerns for human and drug trafficking. The police do an incredible job of keeping this element tucked away from public sight, something LA (who is so critical of Arizona's enforcement of the law) has been unable to do. Consequently, Phoenix/Scottsdale feels like a safer place to live. Maybe LA shouldn't worry so much about criticising other places, like Arizona, but should concentrate on their own troubles. Then again, all the noise they are making over this Arizona issue does detract from their problems, such as being broke. But at least in LA they have an understanding of the threat of illegal immigration. Other places, like Washington DC, which is located nowhere near the border, are planning to actually sue Arizona for enforcing the law. Talk about a waste of money. If you want to try changing the law or coming up with a political solution, fine, but suing? Can we really afford that right now, Washington? And President Obama has yet to come down to AZ and speak with our Reps and the police and see the border threat first-hand.

Supporting this law does not make someone a racist. It's simply the right thing to do. It's an attempt to control the influx of illegal (as in breaking the law) immigrants in order to better serve the people that are here legally. Maybe once we toughen up on enforcing the law and decrease the incoming illegal immigrant population, we can do something to properly accommodate all the aliens that are already here, to say nothing about the drugs and humans being smuggled over the state line. It's also the right thing to do for all the people that came here legally, paid their dues and sacrificed. What kind of message does it send if we wave aside with a wink and a smile the people that came here illegally, but still ask the people that are following the law to stick with it?

People say this is America, a nation of immigrants. And we can still be that country! But we have to be realistic. Being a nation of immigrants doesn't mean being a nation of illegal immigrants. What's more, we just can't afford it anymore.

Whatever happened to "drill, baby, drill!"?

So...

Just how bad is this BP oil spill mess? I know someone in Louisiana right now helping process the Insurance claims resulting from the BP disaster and she says it is far worse than we see on TV. BP has actually closed off many of areas of the beach to the general public and also to news crews (for "safety purposes") so that they can't see some of the worst damage to the coastline. The sections they have opened they have taken to cleaning up before photo ops and going so far as to cover up their spill by bringing in fresh sand to dump over the tarballs washing up onshore. This is clearly an attempt to hide the evidence, if you will. Also, she said the TV is simply unable to capture the awful smell of the beaches now present, which she equated to being at a gas station after someone has let the pump run way over the amount their tank allows, spilling onto the ground and soaking the air with a foul, pungent gasoline scent.

What makes the ordeal worse than just the sights and smells of the spill is how politicians are dealing with it, or it some cases not dealing with it. It bugs me when they latch onto a disaster like this one and use it to advance their chances of reelection or in many, many cases take pot shots at the current administration, rather than simply diving in and getting the job done. Take Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. He has made no efforts to hide his political affiliation and Presidential aspirations. Clearly, if the Republicans were back in power it would help his career goals. So rather than work with the Federal Government, he criticizes and attacks them all day long for things that aren't even under their control, like his accusations that they aren't sending enough National Guardsmen, when in fact he is the one not using the over 2,000 troops at his disposal, and stages cheap photo ops that show him on the beach cleaning the oil or riding out in the boats to investigate the marshes. It's really quite pathetic to see him use this tragedy to advance the Republican and his cause so heavily.

I'm not saying I'm pro or anti Democrat here, but I don't think anyone wants to see this mess turn into another talking point. The Republicans blame Obama for not acting fast enough and compare his handling of the oil spill to Bush's handling of Katrina. Clearly, they are just bitter about all the flak they took for Katrina and are reaching for something... anything they can use to attack the Democrats in the same manner. No one can be ignorant enough to see any similarities between the BP disaster and Katrina. First of all, we knew Katrina was coming. The White House watched it hit and then watched the aftermath... and still took over 3 days to respond even as footage was coming back of people struggling to make it out of New Orleans alive. With the BP spill it was more sudden, and I do agree that the White House should have responded faster and stronger, but with Katrina it was far easier to send in troops to rescue people than with the spill, where people don't need physical rescue, but financial reassurance that their livelihood isn't gone along with the fish. I'm not saying Obama is perfect, if anything this shows the failure with which he selected his cabinet and those surrounding him in the West Wing, such as Rahm Emmanuel, his Chief of Staff, who should never have been hired in the first place. I also feel that this is one area where experience would have helped in the White House, and had Hilary been elected she would have brought a stronger temperament in the Government's response to BP execs. Bottom line, what I don't want to see is Republicans hindering the Democrat's efforts to clean up this mess and help the people of Louisiana. It's not right, and even though the Democrat's came out against Bush for Katrina, they still fought to help deal with it.

I wish that instead of taking a "no, no, no" attitude toward everything Obama wants to do, the Republicans would instead step up to the plate and say they are willing to work with anyone, even the (dun, dun, dun) dreaded Democrats, for the good of the American people. It's called compromise, and we sent you to Washington to figure out a way to help us, not hinder the President. If Obama's policies fail, they will be his policies, and you guys can fall back on that. At least you would have tried something.

Instead, the GOP is acting like cowards, not taking chances simply because they got booted out of office in 2008. They have a policy of do nothing so that Obama is unable to do anything, figuring the American people will get frustrated and kick him out of office during the next election cycle. It's so obvious, too, which makes it that more upsetting. I wish the Republicans would take some responsibility, instead of complaining that all Obama does is blame things on Bush (which he doesn't, at least, not nearly enough considering Bush is responsible for most of the messes the US faces today) and making every little thing a political face-off. By the same token, I wish Obama would stand up and actually do something to get his policies enacted, rather than letting everyone walk all over him. That's where a good Chief of Staff would come in handy in help facilitate all this.

But back to the oil spill, there's sadly nothing we can really do about this one except wait it out and hope BP manages to beat the odds and build a successful relief well. Part of me is afraid we won't have learned out lesson and will soon be back to the "drill, baby, drill!" mentality that got us here in the first place. Already, we have Republican Senators apologizes to BP (thanks a lot, Joe Barton) and quietly remaining pro deep sea drilling, which has clearly proven to be a dangerous, unstable endeavor. What we should be asking is why are countries like China so far ahead of us in terms of energy and alternative fuel sources? Aren't Communists supposed to be the bad guys... why are they getting this right, yet we can't?

I'm also worried that sub-consciously the fact that BP is a British company is an excuse not to make any substantial changes with the oil industry. If it was Exxon or Chevron or Shell who was behind this spill, which I hope people realize it could have easily been, then maybe we would be quicker to put forth stronger sanctions and regulations against the oil companies. But because it's a British company, maybe without even realizing it, I wonder if there is the sort of thought process that this would not have happened had it been an American corporation?

I hope I'm wrong.

Grown Ups quick review

So...

I find it interesting that on the same weekend one of the better movies this year was released (see my previous post), we also saw the unspooling of one of the worst movies so far this year. I'm talking about Grown Ups, which I actually walked out of about forty minutes into a free screening, and I still wanted my money back. Not even the pretty New England forest scenery saved this film, if you can even call it a film, since it essentially boils down to a bunch of past-their-prime comedians sitting around a lake attempting to poke fun at each other.

Sadly, a few days later, I found out I was unable to escape my fate of suffering through this flick, as I ended up at a friends house where he suddenly popped in a studio copy of the film and forced me to sit through it again. He argued that it was one of those movies that was so bad it was funny. Oh, how I wish it were one of those movies. Instead, I was treated to another serving of fail, which began with a nearly twenty minute long funeral (at least, it felt that way) and then saw five childhood friends reunite over the July Fourth weekend at a lakeside cabin. The funeral is awkward and it just goes downhill from there. Even for a comedy, the scenes have little transition from one to the next, which makes the movie jarring at times. Worse, sometimes the scenes serve little purpose but to advertise various products, such as a certain Southern Fried Chicken brand.

You would think that with all the so called talent in Grown Ups (Adam Sandler, Kevin James, David Spade, Rob Schneider) there would be at least one LOL scene. Unfortunately, half the time the cast seems asleep. The rest of the time I can't tell if the jokes are being improvised or if someone actually wrote this crap. Too bad for Adam Sandler, since he is credited with the screenplay he loses either way. Even poor Chris Rock gets wasted in a role that seems like it was scripted for someone else, and then at the last minute someone decided they had better put a black man into the movie.

What does constitute for humor is often a mixture of jokes we have seen one too many times already over the past few years. Male nudity? Check. Fat guy falling down for no reason? Check. Fat guy eating anything he can get his hands on? Check. Old guys hitting on hot teenage girls? Check.

Most of these "jokes' don't even make any sense, such as when David Spade refuses to wear any pants when he wakes up in the morning at the rented house the grown ups are all staying at, his reason being that he has to wear them at home. Okay, so you live alone at home and, what, force yourself to wear pants there, but when you are staying with friends and their families (including little kids) you refuse to wear pants at their house? It's like the filmmakers were forced to put in a shot of a man's bare ass because both The Hangover and Forgetting Sarah Marshall did it, even if it makes even less sense here than it did in those movies.

Is it asking too much for these comedies to create their jokes out of logic and character, rather than just tossing them out blindly and bending the story around them? Even logic, though, may not have helped Grown Ups, as the film has little in the way of character to go with it. Adam Sandler, for example, is introduced as a tough Hollywood agent who spends the first few minutes yelling at someone on the phone, threatening to pull Julia Roberts out of the other man's picture. In the very next scene, though, he is am entirely different person, patient and loving. I found myself even asking why the movie bothered to show us his job, since it doesn't gel with his character from then on, especially the part where he sticks his finger up another man's butt (I kid you not). Maybe I was over-thinking Grown Ups, but I was honestly so bored that I couldn't help getting lost in my thoughts. The alternative, of course, was to watch the movie.

Best viewed: Don't.

Knight and Day quick review

So...

I saw Knight and Day this weekend. It is easily the best film so far this summer and one of the best of this year. Basically, it's the perfect summer movie, with the right mix of action, adventure, romance and comedy. I had so much fun watching this movie and not knowing where the story was headed next that it felt like I had just stepped off a roller coaster when I walked out of the theater... or more appropriate to the movie, an out of control 747. A lot of that had to do with the amazing stunt work that essentially left my jaw on the floor for most of the film. Tom Cruise did an outstanding job with the action scenes. In fact, I haven't seen someone that spry since Daniel Craig went leaping around from place to place in the last two James Bond movies.

Cruise plays a man of mystery who sweeps Cameron Diaz off her feet when he saves her life early on and in doing so inadvertantly gets her caught up in a dangerous chase between spies. If that sounds like the plot of a James Bond movie, that's probably not far off. Only unlike the James Bond series, this film lets its hair down and its bow tie loose.

The script also features a few little story beats (which I won't spoil) that were particularly ingenious ways to get our characters from point A to point B that I can't believe we haven't seen before in a movie. The two stars themselves, Cruise and Diaz, felt natural together, with chemistry that leapt off the screen via some witty back and forth banter. They actually made the romance stuff as much fun as the "ohhhh, look, they blew up a chopper" stuff, no easy feat in a movie season known for asking audiences to shut off their brains. And not once did I even come close to thinking about Tom Cruise's recent off screen behavior, something I can't say I felt when sitting through his last big screen adventure, Mission Impossible 3.

That's because the screenplay is easily one of Cruise's best since A Few Good Men, and really gives him a chance to shine, reminding us why he is the movie star that he is. It's also because Cruise is working with a director at the top of his game, and everyone involved obviously cares about making a great movie, not just turning in something acceptable to meet the studio's deadlines.

But it isn't just Cruise who excels here. Diaz also throws herself (sometimes literally) into the role of your average tomboy next door mixed up in the spy game, and in the end we have a movie that appeals to women as much as men. Unfortunately, the studio screwed around with the film's release date so much that most people aren't even aware it opened this weekend. The brass sold the movie and not the date, something Toy Story 3 avoided the weekend before. I expect this movie to open soft as a result of this and subsequently turn people off because, as we all know, when a movie opens soft audiences take it as a sign that it isn't a very good film. A shame because I strongly recommend this one as smart, fun adult fare.

Best viewed: opening weekend.

Random Photo Day! Everything you need to know about LA.

So...

Look close. This photo pretty much sums up Los Angeles.

Why I'm not going to Comic-con this year.

So...

The San Diego... er, I'm sorry, International Comic-con is coming up in less than a month now. This is actually the first year in quite some time I won't be attending. Though it's always been a blast, over the years it has gotten a little too chaotic. The convention floor is usually a fun place to roam and check out all the merchandise for sale, or in some cases, simply being given away by studios desperate for geek buzz and free promotion. There's also a ton of freaky and/or hot denizens dressed up in super cool costumes to be on the watch for. One year I saw an entire army of Slave Princess Leia's, a man dressed as Spiderman villain Electro using a machine he built that could zap people if they got too close, and a girl with a missing leg who went as Rose MacGowen from the movie Grindhouse: Planet Zombie (the chick with the machine gun leg). But in recent years it's gotten so crowded you can barely walk the floor and see this stuff. I guess I needed a break this year.

Or maybe it was the 2010 offering of panels that failed to entice me into going. In years past, the con has offered up some pretty cool TV shows coming into town to hock their goodies via cast and creators showcasing clips, sneak peeks and Q and A sessions. Shows like Lost, Heroes, X-Files, Star Trek and Battlestar Galactica. This year we have... White Collar, Glee, Bones, Castle, and Community?? Huh? Maybe it's just me but I fail to see how any of those shows relate to the pop culture, comic book, scifi/fantasy theme of comic-con. Are they just letting anyone into this thing these days?

To be fair, there are a few shows coming that are more in the vein of traditional comic-con programming. There's V, Spartacus, Vampire Diaries and Eureka. But, with the exception of maybe Eureka, those shows just aren't any good. Nowhere near the draws that Lost and Battlestar Galactica were, to be certain.

On one hand it's cool that the con has gotten so mainstream and studios have finally caught on to this marketing bonanza, but on the other hand there is the fine line of what is acceptable for promotion at an event called Comic-Con. We all know the studios have no discretion, so the con organizers should take some responsibility over what they allow into their halls for promotion, especially since the event isn't exactly free. In fact, many people travel from all over the world to go to this event, booking hotel and airfare to do so. Does anyone really think they come all this way to see Glee or White Collar or Spartacus?

In any case, I plan to be back next year. Hopefully the programming will have improved. If not, there's always plenty of free loot to pick up.

Politicians make great criminals, and criminals make great cable news anchors.

So...

Today CNN announced that disgraced Governor Eliot Spitzer will be getting his own show on their Primetime lineup, wedged in with Larry King and Anderson Cooper. The word that comes to mind is pathetic. I'd heard CNN's ratings were in the crapper, but are they so desperate as to tarnish their reputation as a legitimate, independent (as opposed to Right Wing Fox and Leftist MSBBC) news organization by hiring a criminal to push his viewpoints and agendas on viewers. Honestly, whatever he has to say will be clouded by his scandal involving using public money to fund his prostitution fueled adventures. Do viewers really have that short of a memory. And what happens when the next political sex scandal inevitably boils to the surface? Does Spitzer refrain from commenting or does he simply invite the offender on his show to give him some good publicity, the way CNN has done with him. In a sense, CNN is as much of a whore as the hookers... er, I'm sorry, "escorts", Spitzer hired while in office, paying him for a little ratings attention and quick income from new commercial opportunities.

I guess controversy and criminal charges is the way someone gets a job in news these days. But be careful, politicians thinking of going into the news field, and make sure you "step out" with a bonafide female hooker or you could end up shunned like Larry Craig or Mark Foley, who cheated with men instead of women. Apparently, there is a line someone in news has decided it is or isn't acceptable to cross. I guess it's okay to have an affair if you are a Democrat, but not a Republican. In the case of Republicans, however, it is acceptable to be a racist. Just ask Pat Buchanan, who is now a commentator for MSNBC news. Speaking of MSNBC, what about Rod Blagojevich, who is currently standing trial for attempting to sell President Obama's vacant Illinois Senate seat to the highest bidder? He's now a pundit for the network. I have to wonder, since NBC has been courting him so heavily for their reality programming, are they attempting to legitimize him for viewers - after his name has been so heavily tarnished - by putting him on MSNBC, just so they can score ratings points on their man network, NBC, which features him on its reality shows? I also find it both disgusting and ironic that after MSNBC had countless news stories about what a crook he was, they now use him as a go-to speaker about some of the most important political issues. I guess it all depends on what sells. At the time they needed him to be the bad guy because that's what was selling ad space. Now, they decide the guy they turned into such a controversial figure could be a ratings boon for them. But wait, if he is going to be on Celebrity Apprentice, we don't want to tarnish that brand by putting on a crook... I know, let's put him back on MSNBC, only this time cast him as a political insight with a unique viewpoint on various topics!

I guess the easy solution is to not watch. But darn it, if this trend keeps up I won't have anywhere to turn to for actual news.

The A-Team quick review

So...

Here's another movie I saw recently, one I actually was hoping would turn out better than it looked... a sort of Charlie's Angels with dudes. Well, I can say that The A-Team definitely has it's moments, both good and bad. On the good side we have Liam Neeson, Bradley Cooper, "Rampage" Jackson and the lead dude from District 9 (you know, the guy who slowly turns into an alien) all giving it their best. There are some enjoyable scenes with them working together as a team, hamming it up and tossing off one-liners as they wrestle their way through impossible situations, such as one set piece where they escape from a crashing plane by climbing into a tank in the plane's cargo hold and then sailing the tank (thanks to some well placed parachutes) out of the airplane to avoid going down with it. Now, if that doesn't sound like your cup of tea, well then, this movie definitely isn't for you. But if you don't mind over-the-top action that defies all logic, you may find this a decent two hour excursion.

Like most of the movie, the "airtank" scene is loud and rambunctious, filled with about a million different things going on, or in some cases off, at once. At times, the soundtrack is so jumbled that you can hardly make out what anyone is saying, especially those aforementioned one-liners. That's okay, the dialogue throughout is rather weak ("They specialize in the ridiculous" is one gem I happen to remember), so the one-liners here probably weren't all that great anyway. And despite all the noise the movie makes, it doesn't really have that much to say. It's not exactly a new story and the director clearly doesn't have anything new to add to the genre the way he did with his previous work (Shootin' Aces, Narc). Instead, he tries to honor the original TV show it's based on, clumsily most of the time, and bring in a more conventional studio-friendly movie.

What does work, again, is the team interplay. It's fun to watch as our heroes navigate a twisty plot that aims to be a bit more complex than your usual summer fare. While not quite up to the clever adaptation that was Charlie's Angels, it does connect a bit more than many of it's counterparts.

Best viewed: first week rental.

Robin Hood quick review

So...

I saw a couple of movies recently. The first was Robin Hood, which I very much enjoyed. Going in, it was a movie I was not at all excited about seeing and, in fact, probably uttered a groan or two about whenever a preview came up on the TV. First of all, I'm a proud fan of the Kevin Costner Robin Hood incarnation, which is as near perfect a Robin Hood movie as Hollywood has ever made. And this new version from director Ridley Scott didn't look anything like Robin Hood, which, for my money, is all about high adventure, not bloody warfare, as the previews for this new take indicate it containing. There's also the "why factor" as in "why make another Robin Hood, Hollywood?" I have seen first hand how cowardly the executives here are as they pass up original script after original script in favor of something with a brand name.

I guess I shouldn't have underestimated the brilliance of Ridley Scott, though. If anyone can take a "been there, done that" property and fashion something creative out of it, it is he. With Robin Hood, he has crafted a story that is unique to the mythos of Robin Hood (in a surprisingly good way) and which actually works better if you take everything you know about Robin Hood and toss it out in favor of being open to a new portrayl that retains only some of the ingredients of the Robin Hood legend we all know and love. In fact, this new take is actually somewhat hampered by the title "Robin Hood" itself. While it may bring attention and name recognition, audiences might be disappointed to learn that instead of the merry men and the Sheriff of Nottingham, for example, they are given a band of decidedly un-merry ex-soldiers and a traitorous new villain, portrayed with much gravitas by Marc Strong. Also, in place of the usual Robin Hood ho-hum story we get what amounts to a "loose" prequel, which retells the backstory of Robin Hood, with a few new twists and turns thrown in for good measure. For instance, Robin is now a solider who sneaks away from the Crusades by assuming the identity of a dead Knight. Maid Marion is the dead man's headstrong wife, who eventually links up with her husband's impersonator in order to save her village from a corrupt new King.

The movie has a good deal of well-choreographed action (think Gladiator with crossbows) and strong performances to back that action up. Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett as Robin and Marion, specifically, are a hoot to watch get together. The film's run time is long, but thanks to an excellent score and brisk editing it doesn't feel it. The ending, sadly, is a bit anti-climactic, but still left me wanting to see what's next for this new "Robin Hood."

Best viewed: a Saturday matinee at the theater.

Top 5 things about LA.

So...

The easier list by far is to pick out 5 things about LA that suck. I mean, there's so many options to choose from that narrowing it down would best involve sticking up a city map and throwing darts at it and then just talking about whatever spot the dart lands on. That said, certain aspects of Los Angeles do have their charm and so I thought I would list off 5 things about LA that really stand out. These 5 things alone are reason enough to justify living in this over-hyped, over-crazed, over-blown smogtown. So without further ado...

1. Griffith Observatory. If you go at night it offers an unobstructed view of the entire LA skyline. If you go on a clear night you almost forget about the abundance of smog infecting your lungs. And if you go early enough you can take a peek at the cosmos through their impressively large telescope. When I went, the lens was pointed directly at Saturn and I could make out several of that planet's over 65 moons and, of course, it's famous rings. The word spectacular doesn't even begin the describe the feeling of climbing up the stairs in the observation dome and seeing another world as an astrologist tells you all kinds of interesting facts about our galaxy. In addition to the center's telescopes, there are tons of cool exhibits and displays to check out and you can even touch various rocks from the moon and Mars. I also thought it was cool to weigh myself at different stops to find out what I would weigh on various neighboring planets, including Pluto, which despite recent controversy, the Observatory insists is a planet. As if all that isn't enough, the have a planetarium that shows no less that three different movies on any given day. My advise is to go on a warm summer night, but plan to get their by sunset so you have enough time to see all the exhibits and get tickets to the planetarium show, as they usually sell out.

2. Malibu. Despite the illusion that LA has perfect beaches, most of them are covered with crap or are located next to either an airport or a smoke tower spewing God knows what into the atmosphere. If you head Northwest you can even get a view of some lovely oil rigs off the shore. Beautiful! But in Malibu they actually do have a white sand beach, nestled in a quiet little cove that, after, like most everything else in LA, you pay your 15 bucks for parking, you can walk down to and spend the next 4 hours relaxing at (or 8 if you have another 15 bucks). Duke's Restaurant in Malibu is pretty sweet, too. It offers great dining with a perfect view of the ocean because, well, you are literally sitting on the beach. When I went no less than three whales breached the surface of the water just beyond our table as they made their way North. The only downside is the water is frigid 99% of the time so forget about going in without a wetsuit.

3. Venice Boardwalk. I wouldn't recommend going in the water here, either, not because it's usually cold, but because it's always dirty (a staple of most LA beaches). However, if you do go in the water I recommend bringing a surfboard and going to Washington Street, where the waves are pretty consistent. At the boardwalk itself, it's fun to people watch and simply walk the sidewalks investigating all the junk people are trying to peddle. Once in a while you might even find something worth buying, like some great sidewalk-sold art. I like taking a bike and bypassing all the slower skateboarders and rollerbladers. The posh ultra-modern beachside houses are fun to look at, as well.

4. Hollywood Bowl. An oasis in Hollywood from the congestion of people, cars, noise and general headache. One of the best concert venues around, with great views from any seat and great sound everywhere. The variety of acts range from Tom Petty to African tribal music to John Williams. Don't feel like sitting in an actual seat? Bring a picnic basket and stretch out on the back lawn.

5. And finally my favorite thing about LA is it's proximity to other, better cities like San Diego and Orange County (where Disneyland is at).

Why I heart San Diego.

So...

This weekend I went to San Diego. I usually go there about 3 times a year, and would go even more time allowing. It's such a beautiful seaside community, a community being something more than just a simple city, like Los Angeles. San Diego's essentially a big city with the heart of a small coastal town. The people are beyond friendly, plus, with two major colleges in the area, there is a large population of young adults, particularly in the hip Pacific Beach area. There is also a large military presence that adds to the uniqueness of San Diego, and TONS of pristine beaches, parks, hiking and biking trails and other outdoor-centric activities.

SD additionally has one of the best, most accessible and cleanest downtowns I have ever been to. In most cities Downtown is either an overgrown business park or a dirty, dingy place to be avoided at all costs. In San Diego, it is a four-star destination, an urban hotspot, updated to preserve the historic brick buildings, but with a contempory flare, and full of shopping, theaters, great eateries and other attractions. At night, in the Gaslamp district, the people watching makes for a journey onto itself, particularly if there is a convention in town, like the annual San Diego International Comic Con. I love walking the streets and just not knowing where I'll end up. In Downtown San Diego, you can do that while feeling perfectly safe. And if you ever get tired, they have bike-taxis that will take you back to your car or hotel for between 5 to 10 bucks.

The San Diego Zoo is located not far from downtown and is simply one of the best zoos in the world and hands down the best in the US. To say it is HUGE is an understatement. You could easily spend the day there and still not see everything. You can get lost in the "lost jungle," as they call the area where the tigers, hippos and various exotic monkeys are housed. Tired of the lush foilage, visit the Arctic region, where polar bears riegn supreme and, for the kiddies, there's a mysterious polar bear cave they can explore and crawl around in pretending to be a bear themselves. There is a kid's section of the zoo that has a bug house and, near that, is a reptile house the adults will enjoy too, where the Zoo keeps all kids of venomous snakes you can get up close and personal with, like the spitting King Cobra and a Santa Catalina rattlesnake, which is found only on one island in all the world and is extra special for it's lack of rattles (ironic because it is, after all, a rattlesnake).

I love the way the shopping and dining blends seamlessly into the Zoo, such as the treehouse cafe or the African bazaar, which is modelled after a trading village and is nestled in between thick vegetation so that, for a moment in time, you might feel like you have stepped into another world. If you don't feel like walking, you can always take an air tram from one side of the Zoo to the other, the kind like they used to have at Disneyland. The air tram is a "cool" way to get an overview of the zoo and downtown San Diego at large. There's also a fun double decker bus that zips you around and affords a unique perspective on most of the popular animal denizens.

Other things I recommend doing in SD are checking out Balboa Park, Seaport Village, Coronado Island and also taking a haunted history of San Diego tour, where, at night, a tour guide will show you around various macabre parts of the city.

One thing I strongly advise against doing, though, is going to Tijuana, the Mexican town on the other side of the California border. For one, it's a shithole. It's disgusting and, unless you are into donkey shows, there is absolutely nothing to do there except walk around and look at the same thing over and over. Seriously, it feels like the same three people selling crappy trinkets on the same block no matter how far you walk. It's a deja vu nightmare. And then, when you do decide to get the heck outta dodge, you have to wait 3 to 4 hours in the same line to cross back over the border with Mexican citizens visiting the United States. There is no separate US citizens line, even though Mexican citizens make up like 85% of the line. If you are driving, expect at even longer wait.

IMO, if you want to see a much better border town go to Nogales just outside of Tucson, Arizona. It's quieter, cleaner and the architecture is much more visually arresting.

There is literally so much more to explore in San Diego, though... so much so that it would be impossible to blog about it all in one post. It's definitely one thing I will miss about Southern California.

Best TV series finales of the last decade.

So...

With both 24 and Lost ending recently there has been a lot of talk in the news lately about series finales. Which ones are the best? Which are the worst? Today, I'm going to talk about the best series finales of the past decade because, frankly, I think pretty much every news source has left off some amazing series enders. This list is in no particular order, by the way.

1. Monk. This mostly undiscovered gem of a show basically put USA on the map as a serious network and inspired their whole "characters first" approach to TV. It also led to the very similar and way inferior Psych. The Monk series finale is on this list because it expertly wrapped up the mystery of who killed Monk's wife, a mystery that has been a big part of the show since episode one, and dealt with Monk's OCD in a way that brought closure, but didn't feel like Monk wouldn't be Monk anymore. Every other supporting character also got a great send-off that wasn't shoehorned in at the last minute, but rather built up from little bits and pieces here and there seen throughout the shows' history.

2. The Shield. The finale for this show was really an extension of the series and taken on it's own it's a credit that it's as awesome as it is. Six seasons worth of storytelling boiled to a head in a sad, yet satisfying ending that would make Shakespeare proud.

3. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. The second of three Star Trek spin-offs (and the darker, more "realistic" of the Star Treks) that popped up in the late nineties, this series technically closed shop in 1999, but it's such a brilliant finale that I had to included it on this list. I love the way this finale took the two big mythological elements of this show and managed to do the impossible by winding them down together and making them feel connected. I also loved that all the characters (I lost count at 13) got the proper send-offs they deserved and that everything was wrapped up in a bow without feeling forced. Another thing this finale did which all finales should take note of: the show ended in a way that brought total closure for the characters, but left the viewer with a feeling that a new journey was beginning for them. One door closes, another one opens.

4. 24. After an uneven season, 24 heated up when Dana Walsh was ID'd as a mole and Jack Bauer finally went rogue, realizing that the greater good he always fought for was no longer being served by the White House and it's Commander in Chief. I loved that this finale was all about Jack, even though he really didn't appear in it too much. Also, the final scene between him and Chloe was fittingly emotional given that this is 24 we are talking about.

5. Lost. A lot of people seem to be a little disappointed that this finale didn't wrap up more of the island mythology, but, personally, I like that it gave us enough hints to be able to puzzle out answers to most of the questions for ourselves and left the others open for plenty of debate and interpretation. How long before we have a Lost 101 class at some prestigious Ivy league school where the final grade includes an essay on what the smoke monster really is?

6. Rome. A series that was cancelled after two seasons by all accounts shouldn't have even had time to give itself a good, let alone great finale. But that's where you can tell good writers from bad ones. This finale really hit home just what fans were going to miss with the loss of this well-crafted, intriguing drama. I like this finale because it had a lot of smart, subtle nods to previous episodes, such as Pullo's realization about being a secret father and Cleopatra pulling the wool over Marc Antony's eyes.

7. Friends. A little forced with the whole Ross-Rachel will they/won't they drama finally getting resolved after, what, 10 long seasons. But the Chandler-Monica plot was top notch, and Joey and Phoebe were game for a few great last lines. Plus, it's nice to see an ending that leaves it's characters in a good, happy place.

8. Sex and the City. The season leading up to this finale was probably the weakest, but the resolution was sweet. All the characters were in a better place and seemed to have found what they were looking for over the course of the show. That is, until the movie came along and ruined everything!

9. Scrubs (the first time). Even though ABC decided to bring this comedy back after the fact as a kind of spin-off, the original finale was so darn good that no one bothered to tune in after that because it felt like it was all over. The finale was funny, moving and had JD coming to a few good realizations about his life based on another day at the hospital. In short, it was pretty much like any other episode of this witty little show.

10. ER. Bringing back all the original characters gave this finale closure by making the episode feel like it was coming full circle, but I like the way it really just played out like yet another day at the hospital, which, to the characters, it was. A lot of shows try to use this formula for their finales, but ER is one of the rare exceptions where it succeeds beautifully.

11. Alias. This show started to go down hill halfway through season three when they introduced Sydney's "long lost" sister. It was a desperate attempt to find some kind of replacement character to hang the show on should Jennifer Garner decide to walk away, which she, thankfully, didn't. Two and a half years later that sister was dead, leading up to the ultimate fate for her father and killer and series baddie Arvin Sloan. This finale had a few surprising deaths on the good guy side as well, but ended happily with out two favorite heroes, Sydney and Vaughan, reunited and essentially riding off into the sunset together.

Top 8 summer 2010 movies to watch for.

So...

Even though summer has officially started as far as Hollywood is concerned, I decided to post some thoughts on the 8 movies I am looking forward to this season. Originally, I was going to do 10, but I couldn't actually find 10 movies to get excited about this year. In fact, the whole month of May looks like a waste to me, so let's start with June.

1. Marmaduke. This movie is based on the beloved comic strip, where a dog moves with his family to their new suburban neighborhood home and subsequently gets into all kinds of mischief and mayhem. Sounds generic, but the preview is hysterical and the title character, a lovable, goofy dog, is voiced by the perfectly cast Owen Wilson, who cracks me up just by talking. Opens June 4.



2. The A-Team. Based on the 80s TV show, this movie follows a group of wrongly imprisoned American soldiers who escape and become soldiers for hire for lost causes. The safe bet is that this movie will be trash, but I'm really hoping to be surprised. And the preview is growing on me, especially the dialogue which seems to actually get funnier each time I hear it. And with Liam Neeson starring maybe, just maybe, The A-Team might be a kick-ass popcorn flick in the vein of Charlie's Angels, but with dudes. Opens June 11.



3. Toy Story 3. Do I really need to explain what this one is about? I love the first two and, like Marmaduke, Toy Story is a movie I can take my nephew to. I'm in. Opens June 18.



4. Knight and Day. Yes, it's got Tom Cruise in it. Yes, it's got Cameron Diaz in it. But despite that the previews are starting to look more and more exciting with each new one the studio releases. The stunt work has strong wow potential and the chemisty between the two stars looks legit. I love a good spy movie, and this could be a light, yet serious romp in the vein of True Lies. Opens June 25.



5. Inception. The story's got something to do with people being hired to invade other people's dreams and steal secret information from them. Think dream spys. I'm actually on the fence about this one, but a growing curiosity factor and the fact that Leonardo DiCaprio is in it make it enough of a draw for me. The special effects in the previews look totally mind-blowing, but it also looks a lot like The Matrix, only with dreams instead of computers. I'm also wary of anything revolving around dreams themselves, because there really are no rules or jeapordy when nothing is real. If Chris Nolan can overcome this problem with some actual stakes for the characters during the dreams and find a convential storyline to hang the visual mayhem on then this may be a winner. Opens July 16.



6. The Sorcerer's Apprentice. This film barely made the list. On the surface this movie's plot about a centuries old magician and his new apprentice trying to save the world from the dark forces of evil sounds dumb. And also the movie kind of looks dumb, but it's from the people that made National Treasure so I'm willing to go out on a limb and get my hopes up. If you can get past Nic Cage's awful haircut, he's actually not too badly cast for this role as he looks like something of an outcast, rather than the tough guy action hero he is so often miscast as. The downside is the same people who made this movie and National Treasure also made National Treasure 2. Also, the guy playing the new apprentice seems like a poor man's Justin Long. We'll see... Opens July 16.



7. Dinner for Schmucks. The only live-action comedy I'm looking forward to this summer. Paul Rudd plays a smug jerk who invites a loser played by Steve Carrell to a dinner party where he and his friends try to top each other by bringing the biggest schmuck they can find to said party. Steve Carrell is hit or miss with his movies, but Paul Rudd has been on a hot streak lately and the two of them together, with their personalities, is enough to get me into the threater despite the shaky premise. Opens July 23.



8. Salt. The preview shows promise for a nail-bitting spy mystery and some intense action-adventure. Angelina Jolie plays the title role, in which she is a Government operative mistaken for a Russian spy en route to kill the US President. She looks perfect in what was a role originally meant for a guy and this could be a smart summer film in the vein of the first Mission Impossible, only (fingers crossed) less confusing. Opens July 23.