A MERCIFUL GOD WOULD EXPLAIN THIS ONE: Why does it say, on top of Lucy's new box of Cheerios, "Once your consciousness has been raised, it cannot be lowered"?
Seriously? It's just a toasted whole-grain oat cereal, not Doug Henning's transcendental meditation theme park, isn't it?
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
AI RUNNING COMMENTARY: Jen's in Cleveland and the girl's asleep, so that leaves y'all:
Also, that Bob Dylan/Victoria's Secret ad is creepy like a Cronenberg movie.
Camille: I didn't think it was possible to sing Stevie worse than Justin Guarini. You did.
JPL: That was the ass end of ass. You could almost hear him counting the steps to that awkward attempt at dancing. He is just really, really clumsy and amateurish, like watching Greg Brady try to become Johnny Bravo.
LaToya: Meh. "Ooh, Baby Baby" is not a song on which one can shine, and she did not.
Amy: Awkward attempt at a glory note at the end of "Dancing In The Streets", but otherwise solid. She may not be Vanessa Olivarez 2.0, but actually Nikki McKibbin 2.0. She might last a while in this show, and I'm sorry I missed her performance last week.
Conan O'Sinatra: That was weak, yo, and Randy's calling 'em straight tonight.
Jennifer: I don't know that it's that the haircut made her appear utterly generic, or that her singing was just always good-but-never-great. Pass.
Jasmine: I thought it was a little passionless, but it's been a bad night, and she was less sucky than most.
Diana: "Do You Love Me?" No. Vocally, it was a'ight, but the stage presence felt as forced and hokey as an animatronic robot at Chuck E. Cheese's.
Fantasia: It's her competition to lose, and this confirmed it. Voice, charisma, looks, uniqueness: she's got the package better than anyone else this year.
George: Everything about this was good except the towel. If charisma and stage presence are what win this competition, he'll have no problem going far, even if he's way too in love with his up-and-down boppy move.
Also, that Bob Dylan/Victoria's Secret ad is creepy like a Cronenberg movie.
PUT UP OR SHUT UP DAY: Last year, though it may not have been that hard, I correctly called Clay and Ruben as the two AI2 finalists just two weeks into the season. It's time to make this year's prediction, because I feel it's just as inevitable.
First, the surprising part (maybe): I feel comfortable in predicting that Fantasia and LaToya -- despite both clearly leading the pack right now -- will not both be in the final pairing, and I feel strongly that they won't both even make the final three. Every year on Idol, as I and others have noted, a more talented black woman gets eliminated before a mediocre white singer with a more compelling narrative arc and energized fanbase. (Tamyra went before Nikki; Trenyce before Josh.)
So this year, I'm guessing LaToya gets axed before the Pencil Boy, John Peter Lewis, leaving us with a final three of Lewis, Fantasia Barrino and Mr. Happy, George Huff. For a final two, right now I'm thinking Lewis and Barrino, but I'm going to revisit that prediction in a few weeks.
If you'd like to register alternate predictions, do so now. No prize except the glory bestowed upon you by the rest of us, and the thanks of a grateful nation.
Tonight: Motown Night, and if you miss guest judge Verdine White's glorious appearance from last year, fret not: Ashford and Simpson are judging tonight. Solid!
(As a rock.)
First, the surprising part (maybe): I feel comfortable in predicting that Fantasia and LaToya -- despite both clearly leading the pack right now -- will not both be in the final pairing, and I feel strongly that they won't both even make the final three. Every year on Idol, as I and others have noted, a more talented black woman gets eliminated before a mediocre white singer with a more compelling narrative arc and energized fanbase. (Tamyra went before Nikki; Trenyce before Josh.)
So this year, I'm guessing LaToya gets axed before the Pencil Boy, John Peter Lewis, leaving us with a final three of Lewis, Fantasia Barrino and Mr. Happy, George Huff. For a final two, right now I'm thinking Lewis and Barrino, but I'm going to revisit that prediction in a few weeks.
If you'd like to register alternate predictions, do so now. No prize except the glory bestowed upon you by the rest of us, and the thanks of a grateful nation.
Tonight: Motown Night, and if you miss guest judge Verdine White's glorious appearance from last year, fret not: Ashford and Simpson are judging tonight. Solid!
(As a rock.)
MY BLOOD RUNS COLD: Ever stop to wonder what became of your middle school crushes? Me neither. (Lie.)
Yeah. So, I got curious about a cinematic crush from my skate-geek days today. Fametracker had bupkiss -- I suppose her career no longer registers on the Richter scale of fame since she hasn't done a movie since 1988.
But then I discovered that this dude over here has got the largest collection of Michelle Meyrink images on the web.
It took me about six seconds to decide that I'd be more psyched than disappointed if the pictures turned out to be -- unsavory. While such viewing might have compromised and corrupted a strangely durable and well-preserved naive nerdboy crush of mine, I probably would have been left feeling more decadent than debased by the experience, you know? Nothing profound; nothing sacred would be tarnished. Her appeal wasn't that of a virgin saint or romantic ideal, after all. It was more more like that of Louise Brooks updated for the '80s as an anime protagonist who really, really liked math.
Right. So anyway, flush with anticipation, I hit the link and uncovered a grotesque spectacle that made me ashamed to share this guy's mild obsession: 300 some-odd still images clipped unceremoniously from Real Genius.
The horror. The Horror. . . Brutally, brutally disappointing. Just plain wrong. I think I finally understand: Some copyrights are desperately in need of enforcement.
Yeah. So, I got curious about a cinematic crush from my skate-geek days today. Fametracker had bupkiss -- I suppose her career no longer registers on the Richter scale of fame since she hasn't done a movie since 1988.
But then I discovered that this dude over here has got the largest collection of Michelle Meyrink images on the web.
It took me about six seconds to decide that I'd be more psyched than disappointed if the pictures turned out to be -- unsavory. While such viewing might have compromised and corrupted a strangely durable and well-preserved naive nerdboy crush of mine, I probably would have been left feeling more decadent than debased by the experience, you know? Nothing profound; nothing sacred would be tarnished. Her appeal wasn't that of a virgin saint or romantic ideal, after all. It was more more like that of Louise Brooks updated for the '80s as an anime protagonist who really, really liked math.
Right. So anyway, flush with anticipation, I hit the link and uncovered a grotesque spectacle that made me ashamed to share this guy's mild obsession: 300 some-odd still images clipped unceremoniously from Real Genius.
The horror. The Horror. . . Brutally, brutally disappointing. Just plain wrong. I think I finally understand: Some copyrights are desperately in need of enforcement.
Monday, March 29, 2004
INSERT WOOD HERE: Six things I know I loved about last night's Sopranos:
Seriously, what's next: Michael Kinsley as a corpse on 'Six Feet Under'? Katrina vanden Heuvel as a magician's assistant on 'Carnivale'? Will Larry David find some way to annoy Katha Pollitt on the next 'Curb Your Enthusiasm'? Could they bring back 'Oz', only to find some role for Andrew Sullivan?
1. Dutch oven.
2. Referring to the NYT Weddings Page as "the women's sports section." It's good to know that I share some of the same interests as mobsters.
3. Oh, A.J. Still, it's not as bad as what a college debate teammate did to a friend in high school -- she shaved off one of a sleeping roommate's eyebrows, and left it to her to figure out whether symmetry required shaving off the other or penciling something in.
4. What I love about the show are the details -- A.J.'s expecting to go to Trenton State or Ramapo, but with dreams that a state school out west might take him . . . perfect.
5. Oh, Feech, you greedy man. Good for you that Tony has matured . . . for now.
6. Lawrence Taylor? Nice. David Roth? Deteriorated. WIESELTIER? That's a cameo.
Seriously, what's next: Michael Kinsley as a corpse on 'Six Feet Under'? Katrina vanden Heuvel as a magician's assistant on 'Carnivale'? Will Larry David find some way to annoy Katha Pollitt on the next 'Curb Your Enthusiasm'? Could they bring back 'Oz', only to find some role for Andrew Sullivan?
Sunday, March 28, 2004
COLLATERAL CARNAGE ... OR FILMAGE, REALLY. One of the best things (and I do mean "best") about going to see the new Dawn Of The Dead was that the trailers playing beforehand included most of the big dollar summer blockbusters. They were queued-up there in front of the zombast like a slick pyrotechnic-and-CGI buffet, inspiring awe, dread, tight anticipation and vague misgivings by turns. I've poked around for more info, and now offer an under-informed rundown of the ones I can already tell I'm going to watch no matter how bad their reviews are.
Today: demons past, demons present. Tomorrow: epic flicks from our heroic history.
Demons Present
I, Robot -- July 16 -- "It is the future. He fought the horror of robots programmed to kill." About time somebody did an update of the 1984 Tom Selleck classic, Runaway, don't you think? And who better than Will Smith?
Including a super slick pseudo-site for the product that serves as the central premise of the film, the promotional material for I, Robot is uniformly rich, shiny and enticing. It promises us the plausibly futurisic world of Minority Report and yet another twist on the now standard 21st-Century antagonist that we've recently enjoyed in such fine films as Matrixonator III - Revolutions Of The Machines. If the script turns out to have half the shine of the promo websites, I'm sure I'll be quite happy with the experience.
There has been a predictable amount of whining and tearing of hair in the "don't profane the classics of my childhood" department, with many IMDB posters worrying that the film will take too many liberties with Asimov's original work, play too much like the saccharine A.I. or resemble the interminable Bicentennial Man (which was also adapted from an Asimov short). After a few hours of clicking around, I can't tell what the forces behind I, Robot have retained or tried to "be true" to beyond some recognizable characters and Asimov's three now-famous laws, which I'm geek enough to quote here just because I can:
1) A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2) A robot must obey orders givein to it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
I have to say though, that since the original work (not the whole body of Asimov's robot-related work, but the "I, Robot" title itself) was a collection of short stories I'm inclined to withhold judgment about any deviations in this update, hold my breath, and hope against hope that the script writers can connect their selected dots from the collection in a way that creates a compelling world, at once conceptually faithful to Asimov and on-pace with current concerns about and visions of our increasingly automated future.
Director Alex Proyas was also responsible for the ill-fated Brandon Lee vehicle The Crow, and 1998's under-appreciated sci-fi noir Dark City. His aesthetic choices in those films were strong and edgy and I'm excited to see what he might do with a mainstream blockbuster project.
Demons Past
Van Helsing -- May 7 -- Another remake; this time of a hit 1987 children's flick, The Monster Squad. Starring Wolverine and directed by Stephen Sommers (whose high-grossing, artificially butter-flavored sins include The Mummy and The Mummy Returns) Van Helsing is promoting itself as an orgiastic CGI action-fest that pits a lone hero against an assembled army of standard-issue horror film baddies run by -- and this is where it really gets creative -- the evil Count Chocula ...erm... Dracula. Sorry.
In a reassuring move, the film is being promoted concurrently with the related video game and a set of collectible monster trading cards. It also looks like the swashbuckling, shadowy protagonist will be carrying a weapon similar to "The Glave", which I'm sure you'll all remember from the strange Freudian (latency period) daydream that was Krull way back in 1983. I kid you not.
Though every nerve is my body was screaming its anticipated disappointment throughout the preview reel, and though I can't find a single byte anywhere on the web to persuade me that Van Helsing will be anything but utterly awful, I will inevitably plunk my $9.50 down to see this fiasco. What else is a guy who thought Fright Night II "wasn't really that bad" going to do?
Tomorrow: The Alamo & Troy.
Big Fat Hairy Thanks to the industry publicity machine and pop-culture archive that is The Internet Movie Database for doing what they do, and making diversions like this possible for me. One day soon, I will pony up for their expanded subscription service.
Which schlockbusters are you looking forward to?
Today: demons past, demons present. Tomorrow: epic flicks from our heroic history.
Demons Present
I, Robot -- July 16 -- "It is the future. He fought the horror of robots programmed to kill." About time somebody did an update of the 1984 Tom Selleck classic, Runaway, don't you think? And who better than Will Smith?
Including a super slick pseudo-site for the product that serves as the central premise of the film, the promotional material for I, Robot is uniformly rich, shiny and enticing. It promises us the plausibly futurisic world of Minority Report and yet another twist on the now standard 21st-Century antagonist that we've recently enjoyed in such fine films as Matrixonator III - Revolutions Of The Machines. If the script turns out to have half the shine of the promo websites, I'm sure I'll be quite happy with the experience.
There has been a predictable amount of whining and tearing of hair in the "don't profane the classics of my childhood" department, with many IMDB posters worrying that the film will take too many liberties with Asimov's original work, play too much like the saccharine A.I. or resemble the interminable Bicentennial Man (which was also adapted from an Asimov short). After a few hours of clicking around, I can't tell what the forces behind I, Robot have retained or tried to "be true" to beyond some recognizable characters and Asimov's three now-famous laws, which I'm geek enough to quote here just because I can:
1) A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2) A robot must obey orders givein to it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
I have to say though, that since the original work (not the whole body of Asimov's robot-related work, but the "I, Robot" title itself) was a collection of short stories I'm inclined to withhold judgment about any deviations in this update, hold my breath, and hope against hope that the script writers can connect their selected dots from the collection in a way that creates a compelling world, at once conceptually faithful to Asimov and on-pace with current concerns about and visions of our increasingly automated future.
Director Alex Proyas was also responsible for the ill-fated Brandon Lee vehicle The Crow, and 1998's under-appreciated sci-fi noir Dark City. His aesthetic choices in those films were strong and edgy and I'm excited to see what he might do with a mainstream blockbuster project.
Demons Past
Van Helsing -- May 7 -- Another remake; this time of a hit 1987 children's flick, The Monster Squad. Starring Wolverine and directed by Stephen Sommers (whose high-grossing, artificially butter-flavored sins include The Mummy and The Mummy Returns) Van Helsing is promoting itself as an orgiastic CGI action-fest that pits a lone hero against an assembled army of standard-issue horror film baddies run by -- and this is where it really gets creative -- the evil Count Chocula ...erm... Dracula. Sorry.
In a reassuring move, the film is being promoted concurrently with the related video game and a set of collectible monster trading cards. It also looks like the swashbuckling, shadowy protagonist will be carrying a weapon similar to "The Glave", which I'm sure you'll all remember from the strange Freudian (latency period) daydream that was Krull way back in 1983. I kid you not.
Though every nerve is my body was screaming its anticipated disappointment throughout the preview reel, and though I can't find a single byte anywhere on the web to persuade me that Van Helsing will be anything but utterly awful, I will inevitably plunk my $9.50 down to see this fiasco. What else is a guy who thought Fright Night II "wasn't really that bad" going to do?
Tomorrow: The Alamo & Troy.
Big Fat Hairy Thanks to the industry publicity machine and pop-culture archive that is The Internet Movie Database for doing what they do, and making diversions like this possible for me. One day soon, I will pony up for their expanded subscription service.
Which schlockbusters are you looking forward to?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)