Now, let’s lighten the mood, shall we?

One of the coolest things about our upcoming move to a new apartment is the fact that we will have digital cable, and thus will be able to get TiVo. I don’t get a lot of time in front of the TV (not that this is a bad thing), but the time I do have is currently pretty miserable. There are about three shows I like to watch and I can’t ever seem to catch them when their on.

One of these is the Discovery Channel’s “MythBusters”. The show is now in its third season and shows no sign of slowing down. In fact, the show is growing, literally. Since the show began, the cast has continued to grow.

Now I had pretty solid opinions of the show’s creators (Adam and Jamie) back in season one. But with the “build team” added to the mix, I realized the “favorite MythBuster pool” had gotten much deeper.

If you have a favorite MythBuster (you can read their bios here, if your not sure) post a comment and let me know. To avoid skewing the results, I recommend you post your comment before reading my opinions below.

…

Obviously, being one of the show creators earns Adam Savage bonus points. Adam strikes me as the “loose cannon”. The guy who has good ideas, but maybe not the best execution. The kind of guy you invite to a party because you know he’ll do something crazy. I like Adam for his sense of humor and his wackiness, but he can be a real cry baby sometimes.
(Adam B+)

Again, being an original cast member, Jaime Hyneman has an advantage. Jamie is the polar opposite of Adam. He’s remarkably stoic and painfully precise. Jamie is the guy you’d call if your clothes washer quit working. You know he’d figure out the problem and he wouldn’t embarrass you about your pink bunny boxer shorts that gummed up the machine. Jamie does have a sense of humor, just not a very good one. Still, I admire the fact that Jamie takes his job seriously. That gives him an edge over Adam, in my book.
(Jamie A-)

Now on to the “build team”.

Grant Imahara strikes me as a bit of an appendage on the show. I can see how they might have wanted to even out the guy/girl ratio on the build team, but Grant just doesn’t seem to have the personality to be a MythBuster. He seems more like your run-of-the-mill MIT grad student. I’m sure he’s brilliant, but does he have style? I just don’t see it.
(Grant D)

Since my wife thinks that Tory Belleci is “hawt”, you might think that jealousy would taint my judgment of his myth busting prowess. But I am above such petty emotions. Tory is great fun to watch, mostly because he’s reckless. It’s kind of like watching Funniest Home Videos. You know the kid is going hit the dad in twig-n-berries eventually, so you keep watching to find out how. Tory tries to be serious with his projects, but inevitably, he either hurts himself or catches something on fire. (And don’t get me started on his bicycle antics on the car-pole-vault episode.) But, the same thing that makes Tory fun to watch makes him a poor MythBuster. I don’t want to see Funniest Home Videos. I want to see MythBusters. And besides… He’s a ugly punk who’d make a terrible husband for my wife.
(Tory B-)

I’m sure that my long-time readers can guess how I would feel about a San Francisco, vegetarian artist. But let’s be fair. Kari Byron really is one of the more solid contributors to the show. She is very creative and capable when it comes to building some of the stranger myth busting contraptions and she clearly takes pride in her work. I also give her credit for her willingness to get her hands dirty from time to time. But I just can’t get over her incessant blithering whenever animal products show up on the set. I’m not saying I would jump with glee if I had to man-handle a pig carcass. I’m just saying Kari needs to get over it. Stuff dies… then we eat it. Get used to it. (However, I must admit that Kari is babe-ilicious. See the silver body paint episode. Rowwwrr! Oh! Is my wife reading this?! I LOVE YOU, HONEYYY!)
(Kari C+)

Speaking of my wife, let me tell you a little about how awesome she is. She is one of the only people I know who can enjoy her femininity (i.e. purse shopping and pink nail polish) but she also loves football, hockey, and NASCAR. I am the luckiest man alive. I have huge respect for a girl who can be a girl and still enjoy guy stuff. I think that’s why Scottie Chapman is my favorite MythBuster. Scottie is a good looking girl, but her resume includes horse training, building race cars and testing video games! Scottie is a punk princess in the best way. What makes her a great MythBuster is the fact that she has fun, stays safe, and seriously blows stuff up. When it’s time to do something dangerous like cut metal with fire, she’s dead serious. But give her a machine gun and a dead pig and she’s gonna make sausage with a smile!
(Scottie A)

In all fairness, Scottie only barely edges out Jamie in my book because, to be totally honest, she’s a lot better looking that he is.

This just in…

Madonna (the “entertainer”, not the mother of our Lord and Savior) has declared that, “Most priests are gay.”

In other news…

Most “entertainers” are stupid.

We now return you to your regular programming.

(via Drudge)

Friday is date night for Tammy and I. We try to do something special together, just the two of us. We usually go out to a nice dinner, then catch a movie or go shopping. Now, before you start calling me mean names for doing such girly stuff, let me tell you what we did last Friday. We went to the dirt track!

I love my wife so much. She is anything but girly. She loves to go rock climbing and when we snuggle on the couch on Sunday afternoon, it always involves watching NASCAR or football, depending on the season.

I have a little history with dirt track racing. I raced thunder bombers one summer back in college. Please, check out this article in which I wax nostalgic about those days of dirt and steel.

Going to the track is a great sociological experience. You ain’t seen no red neck ’til you been down to the races on Friday night. Now, don’t get me wrong. I have plenty of respect for the working class and I’m a Texan through and through, but if you like people watching as much as I do, then there’s nothing better than seeing Granny whoop and holler for her boy in the 15 car. She most likely will have nacho cheese running down her chin or, if your really fortunate, it’ll be Copenhagen instead.

If you will recall, last year I posted about the impending release of the new Dukes of Hazard movie. Due to the relentless march of time, they movie is almost here and, from the movie trailer I can see that my prediction of “the most sucktacular movie of all time” seems to be safe. Every scene in the trailer that includes Jessica Simpson’s Daisy is full of raunchy double-entendre that I’m quite sure Simpson herself did not really understand. And there are several clips in which “Stifler” and Knoxville, playing the Duke boys, seem to have left the set of the Dukes of Hazard and stumbled onto the set of American Pie 4.

Now, I have to confess something here. It’s not easy for me to admit, being a hard core geek, but when I was a young niblet, I was a huge Dukes fan. As I gained wisdom with age, I learned that “red neck” is not a desirable title and shed almost all vestiges of the lifestyle… almost. I’m still a NASCAR fan and have a favorite driver, even though I can’t help but make fun of the ridiculous southern accent that is the language of NASCAR.

I do still have some respect for the original TV series and I take it seriously when one of the original cast members cuts loose on the Hollywood version. Ben Jones played the lovable Cooter on the TV series (and was later elected to Congress… wow). He now runs a Dukes of Hazard museum and is the most outspoken of the original cast. He posted a news item on his web site concerning the new movie and I think it needs to be shared. You can read the entire post here.

The folks who love our show have kept it alive and well, despite the lack of respect it has been shown by “Hollywood” … The “Dukes” movie is a sleazy insult to all of us who have cared about the “Dukes of Hazzard” … Ours is a classic family show with positive values, great action, wonderful slapstick comedy, mighty fine country music, and a very gifted cast who had great chemistry … I haven’t seen the film, but I have read the script, I’ve talked to a lot of people who worked on the set, and I’ve seen the raunchy t.v. commercial. Frankly, I think the whole project shows an arrogant disrespect for our show, for our cast, for America’s families, and for the sensibilities of the heartland of our country. Unless they clean it up before the August 5th release date I would strongly recommend that true blue Dukes fans hold their noses and pass this one up. And whatever you do, don’t take any youngsters to see it. As plain as I can put it, the only thing this movie shares with our show is the title.

So there you have it. Cooter says, “No!” and I am inclined to agree.

All too often mass media reports stories that are not news to anyone except maybe mass media. You know what I’m talking about. How many times have you read head-lines like:

I.T. Managers Hate Buggy Software

Some Hollywood Romances Are More P.R. Than Love

Student’s Don’t Learn Much in Last Few Weeks Before Vacation

Solution to Stinky Subways is Regular Bathing

I think you see where I’m going with this. Recently, another story high on the “duh” scale has seen a lot of press.

An AP-AOL poll on American’s views of Hollywood shows that 69% or respondents feel movie stars are bad role models. Now, pardon me for a moment. … DUUUHH!!! … ahem … Sorry about that. Couldn’t help myself.

Earl Ledbetter, a movie fan quoted in one of the many articles on this poll, said, “They just don’t have the morals,” he said. “They marry and divorce, sleep around a lot.”

Wow. Who knew? I thought all those movie stars were the best source around for political, social, and moral standards. You mean those people who make millions of dollars by pretending have bad morals and pretending to have sex with everything that moves do in fact have bad morals and have sex with everything that moves?! NOOO!! Martha! Get the kids! We’re moving to an anti-Hollywood convent to save ourselves from the Devil’s celluloid sin!!

You can read the full article in many places, but here is a couple:
CBC
Yahoo News

My history with the Hitchhiker’s Guide (hereafter referred to as the HHGttG) began when I was sixteen. My folks tasked me with delivering a car to my sister who was at Texas A&M. It was a twelve hour drive and my first road trip alone. I went to the library looking for some books on tape to keep me awake. And there it was. The complete thirteen hour BBC radio series, the HHGttG. Perfect! The only think I knew about it at that tender age was that it was supposed to be very funny. Thirteen hours later, I was a bona fide fan.

You can learn more about Douglas Adams, the creator of HHGttG, and the evolution of his work at DouglasAdams.com. There you will learn that the radio series came first (1978), then the books, and the rest followed. He was working on the screen play for the film in May of 2001 when he died of a sudden heart attack.

Now, on to the review!! Anytime I go into a movie based on some other material that I’ve already enjoyed, I adjust my expectations. If you go in expecting something less than the original but still entertaining, you’ll usually come out pleased. In this case I was much more than pleased.

HHGttG the movie did surprise me by encompassing only the first book, which was only the first few episodes of the radio series. But this is a good thing. By selecting less subject matter, the movie was able to get lots of good material in without feeling rushed.

The script did contain a fair amount of “expected” material all of which was done very well. Purists will argue, but I was very pleased. The thing that really made this movie for me was the physical humor. They added a good amount of yuks to make up for the things that just don’t translate from book (or even radio) to screen. A couple of these physical humor scenes had me stomping my feet I was laughing so hard… seriously. Tammy was very embarrassed.

The most important thing about this movie, whether you are a HHGttG virgin or a life-long fan, is that it captures the Douglas Adams spirit; the utterly bizarre, off-the-wall, and very Brittish style that makes any incarnation of the HHGttG so enjoyable. If you don’t “get it” then the author’s goal was achieved. If you laugh because (or even though) you don’t get it, then you have experienced the joy that was Douglas Adams.

On less ethereal terms, the movie is superb. Well written, well cast, well played. I love the special effects, especially the yarn vomit scene. And it was such a wonderful treat to see creatures created by Jim Henson’s Creature Shop. I was washed over with nostalgic memories of “The Dark Crystal” and “Labyrinth”.

There’s not much more I can say about this film. It’s one of those that you really have to see to understand. So, let me put my grins where my mouth is… umm… right… and just say that I’m giving it four out of five.

A couple of weekends ago, I had a big movie weekend and watched eight flicks… EIGHT! Friday’s theme was stuff I’d heard about and might like; Bourne Identity, Bourne Supremacy, Napoleon Dynamite, and Anchorman.

I’ve already done reviews for the Bournes and for Napoleon. Anchorman didn’t merit a review, other than maybe “blech“. I mildly enjoyed Old School, but Anchorman was not Will Farrell’s best work.

Saturday’s theme was comic inspired movies; XMen, Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and Hellboy.

Obviously, XMen is a slam dunk. Most people consider it one of the first real comic-book based movies, as it stays as true as possible to the mood and characters of the original material. No need to review this one. It’s a classic.

So, I’m left with three reviews to do and time is ticking. With each passing slumber I come closer to forgetting the details, so I’m going to buckled down and review all three right now. Hold on tight.

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is loosely based on a comic book of the same name, written by Alan Moore, who also wrote Constantine (which I hope to see soon).

The premise is very literary, which I love. A half dozen characters from what can only be described as the Victorian era’s sci-fi literature are lumped together to make a team of super heroes. To be honest, I had not heard of most of them, by name, but I knew their stories. Washed up African adventurer, Allan Quatermain; suave and neurotic, Captain Nemo; Mina Harker, from Bram Stoker’s Dracula; The Invisible Man; Dr. Henry Jekyll and Mr. Hyde; and Dorian Gray, one of my favorite Victorian bad guys. All are forced to learn team work in order to save the world.

The special effects are very well done. The acting is on par with Sean Connery, in other words, terrific. The script is engaging though sometimes cliche. All in all I really enjoyed the flick. Enough, in fact, that I want to dig up some of the original graphic novels and learn more about the story.

On the down side, I found a review on IMDB by someone more familiar with Alan Moore’s original work. Turns out Hollywood really bent this one over.

If you liked this movie, I’m not going to fault you. There are some cool things going on in the background, and the premise itself is intriguing. But PLEASE read the book. Its the only way to know what really could have been.

Still, the movie is good on its own, so I give it three out of a possible five grins.

To be fair, Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow is not a comic book. But it should have been. It was the brain child and life-long dream of Kerry Conran. The show is influenced by… nay… emerced in the 1940’s sci-fi serial hero format. This could easily have been screened right next to “The Green Hornet”, “Buck Rogers” or “Flash Gordon” and it would fit right in, right down to the far fetched technology and cheesy dialog.

What is really land-mark about this film is that there was no set. The entire show was filmed on blue screen, with large props (okay, set pieces). Then the film is rendered in such a way as to blend the actors and physical props into the computer generated shots so that they match flawlessly. It’s got that old, colorized, grainy look that perfectly matches the real thing.

I got a real kick out of the story and characters. The script was stellar and the acting was great considering the flavor of the film. It was intended to be a little flat and cheesy, just like the 40’s adventure flicks, so I count that as a credit to the cast.

Mostly because of the ingenuity, but also because I really enjoyed it, I would probably buy this DVD if I saw it on sale. Thus, it gets four grins.

Last, but certainly not least is Hellboy. This film is based on the comic books by Mike Mignola, and from all I’ve been able to find, it is religiously faithful to them. Mignola was in the director’s back pocket which is how this genre should always be done.

Once gain, I am inspired to hunt down some graphic novels and learn more. I’m not a comic book nerd, never got much past Mad Magazine, but I really love these kinds of fantasy stories. Hellboy has only increased this feeling.

The story begins with a long flashback to the end of WWII. Nazis have enlisted the help of some mysterious mystics to summon up all sorts of nasty, ethereal, end-of-the-world type stuff, including a demon child … (highlite to reveal a slight spoiler) that will bring about the apocalypse. However, some crack US troops save the day and foil the Nazis. Yaaay us. The demon baby has already been summoned, though, and is taken in and raised by an American paranormalist.

Fast forward 50 years or so. Now there’s a super secret government agency that has employed the demon, Hellboy, and some other unexplainable characters to fight evil beneath the streets. As you can see this has the makings of a really horrible, Hollywood, super hero flick. But stick with me.

The comic book style saves this movie. It’s gritty and has brilliant comedic threads twisting throughout, most notably in the fight scenes. I really like how Hellboy is played. He’s an average joe, working stiff, kind of guy. It just so happens that he’s daily grind is fighting horrific beasts of the underworld. I particularly like the dead-pan way in which he looks at an impossible situation, like the subway train that’s about to run over him, and sums it up with a glum, “aww crap.”

The special effects, including tons of makeup, is tremendous. The story is very entertaining and the acting is off the charts for this genre. I will own this movie and eagerly await the sequel (slated for next year). Thus it garners a perfect five grins.

Whew… we made it. Thanks for reading!

I have found that the best way to judge a sequel is to watch it right after it’s predecessor. I really enjoy well thought out spy movies and have been looking forward to seeing the “Bourne”series for a while.

I’m not a huge fan of James Bond or that genre. Yeah, he’s got cool toys and gets all the chicks, but it’s just too predictable and silly. Why drop the guy into a pool of sharks or tie him to a table under an elaborate super laser, when you could just finish him off with a .32 slug to the forehead? Maybe I’m just too smart for Hollywood. But, then there are movies like “The Bourne Identity” and its sequel “The Bourne Supremacy”. The best of this genre are always based on spy novels, probably because people who read are also too smart for Hollywood.

This series concerns a poor fellow who’s lost his memory, Jason Bourne. He doesn’t know who he is or why he was found floating in the Mediterranean with bullets in his back, but he does know how to kung-fu the crap out anyone who tries to push him around, even though he’s not sure how he knows or why so many folks are trying to push him around.

As the story unfolds you find out that he is a government funded assassin. (That’s about the only predictable thing in the whole series.) And, since the government has lost track of him, they assume he’s become a rogue agent. Their solution? Kill him, of course. (Okay, I guess that was a little predictable too.)

The cinematography, the script, the special effects, and even the acting are all superb. The fight scenes were probably some of the best I’ve ever seen, not only in the choreography, but in the way they were shot. Everything happens quickly and is shot up close which quick movement as if you were standing between the guys while they punched, kicked and stabbed. Very exciting.

In the DVDs extra features, I learned why. These movies were directed by a couple of guys outside the Hollywood scene. They were indy directors who wanted their movies to look like indy films. They went out of their way to avoid Hollywood camera work, Hollywood scene blocking, and Hollywood predictability. Even the dialog was minimally directed. Let the actors act. And boy does it work!

Lumping these two flicks together for one rating is a bit unfair. Each of them is really good in its own right. Each of them is good enough to sit on the same shelf will all the great Clancy movies. (And Matt Damon is seriously threatening Harrison Ford, in my mind, for the perfect spy movie actor. Not overtaking, but threatening.) However, I do recommend watching the two in sequence to make them easier to follow, the same as I would recommend for the Lord of the Rings trilogy (even though it is a 15 hour marathon). I gave LotR five grins, and I’m hesitant to put Borne on such a high pedestal. But they really are excellent films, so I must relent and award only the second ever five grin rating.

Tammy’s out of town this weekend and I decided to treat myself to a big movie weekend. I logged on to the internet movie database and picked several off of my wish list. Then I headed to the video store. When I walked in, the clerk smiled and said, “Hi, Trint.” Is it just me or is it weird that he knows my name. He doesn’t even ask for my phone number when I check out anymore. It’s not like I watch movies every weekend. Gosh!

One of the DVDs I picked was Napoleon Dynamite. I’ve been hearing so much about it and it seems so divisive (either you hate it or think it’s “friggin’ awesome”), I’ve been dying to see what all the hype is about.

I’m not sure I can fit this film into my normal “grins” rating system. It’s just too unconventional. Certainly it is a comedy, but it’s not a ha-ha laugh out loud comedy (although I did a few times). It doesn’t follow any Hollywood norms (which I usually praise movies for) and even the nerdy clichés have some inventiveness to them.

I’d have to say I enjoyed the show, but it did leave me… contemplative. While I occasionally laughed and often snickered at the plight of the socially handicapped cast, deep down inside me a 14-year-old kid with uncontrollable, spiky hair, poorly fitting clothes, and braces cried.

After watching the movie, I sat down at my computer. I wanted to see if any of my multitude of on-line friends were on. Neither of them were. I checked to see what was going on on my on-line role playing game, but all was quiet. I looked up at my mint condition theatrical release Lord of the Rings movie poster, then to might right, at my complete collection of LotR figurines from Burger King (that actually talk… awesome). I began to think, “Jeez… Maybe I am a nerd. Maybe I am Napoleon Dynamite.”

When I returned the DVD to the video store, the weekend clerk was there. He doesn’t know my name or my phone number. As he was retrieving my next set of movies, all comic book inspired, he asked me if I liked Napoleon. “Eh, it was pretty good.” Then he asked me if I had ever seen “Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow”… as he was handing me the DVD for “Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow”. “Umm. No. That’s why I’m renting it.”

“It’s really cool… if you’re into comic books and stuff. It’s kinda weird, but if you ever read the comic book then it’s really cool. Have you seen…”

Then he went into a long list of similarly nerdy flicks which I had not seen, some not even heard of. Suddenly, all was right with the world again. God had reminded me just in time that the difference between geek and nerd is like the difference between pi and 22/7. Not even close… after the first few digits.

Don’t forget, boys and girls, “Geek is sheik.” Now if you’ll excuse me, I have a +30% damage crossbow that’s crying out for orc blood. Friggin’ awesome!

Drudge linked an article today that reports that, at least with respect to Hollywood movies, sex does not sell.

At a recent convention of movie theater owners, the National Association of Theatre Owners came to blows over whether or not to spell theater with the r before the e. But before that, they actually got some good discussion in. Such as when their president, John Fithian, urged Hollywood film studios to stop making so many R rated movies and start putting out more PG and PG-13 flicks.

It seems that theater owners are tired of screening R rated movies and then losing money on them.

As any theater owner will eagerly tell you, American audiences like their movies PG and PG-13, not R, and certainly not NC-17.

Last year, five of the top-10-grossing movies were PG. Of the top 25, only four were rated R.

The article lists many overtly sexual films that have tanked financially in the last few years despite heavy marketing from studios and even some Oscar nods.

“Lolita”, “Striptease”, “Showgirls”, “Henry and June”, “Crash”, “The Brown Bunny”, “The People vs. Larry Flynt”, “Crimes of Passion”, “Wonderland”, “Original Sin”, “Eyes Wide Shut”, “Inside Deep Throat”, “The Dreamers”, “Closer”, and “Kinsey” just to name… well… a bunch.

Now, sex is still selling some movies. Goofy, slap-stick, “teen” comedies (ala “American Pie”) can be as sexual as you please and still make a profit. That’s really sad, but to some degree it makes sense. Kids love to watch shows that parody sex because they don’t yet understand how serious sex is and their MTV society doesn’t teach them otherwise. (BLARING BULL-HORN NOTE TO PARENTS: It’s YOUR job to teach your kids otherwise. Please don’t be prude about talking about sex. If you are, I guarantee your kids won’t be prude about having it.)

Still, it’s good to see some concrete evidence that Americans do not all have their minds’ in the gutters. Funny… if you look at a map of America, and you think of the gutters as being along both sides… sure enough, entertainment capitals New York and L.A. are as deep in the gutters as you can get. Hmmm.

You can read the complete article here.