fenngibbon's Recent Comments
Ritchie Updates on SHERLOCK HOLMES - Aug 22, 2008 - 09:07am
AMiSHPiRATE: Wouldn't that be cocaine, not opium? Wow, I can't believe it took me until now to realize the implications of Robert Downey, Jr. playing a famous coke addict (though Doyle did have Holmes kick the habit in later stories). As for giving more attention to Holmes' physical prowess, wouldn't that be like a Rambo film where more attention was given to Rambo's love of fine china?
AMiSHPiRATE: Wouldn't that be cocaine, not opium? Wow, I can't believe it took me until now to realize the implications of Robert Downey, Jr. playing a famous coke addict (though Doyle did have Holmes kick the habit in later stories). As for giving more attention to Holmes' physical prowess, wouldn't that be like a Rambo film where more attention was given to Rambo's love of fine china?
Iron Man Disses The DARK KNIGHT - Aug 17, 2008 - 09:52pm
I think a few people didn't quite get my complaint about TDK. My complaint was that the whole Two-Face subplot at the end would have formed the logical basis of the third film, and, assuming they wanted to stop at a trilogy, Batman willing to become a hunted criminal for the greater good would have been a good way to end it. Instead, they chose to cram it in at the end of TDK as a tack on to the main Joker plot, with the result that a lot of the nuance that would have enriched the plot had to be sacrificed. And sorry, maybe I missed the exposition, but why Two-Face goes after Gordon's family rather than Gordon needed more development. I got thinking about Batman Begins and TDK, and it seems to me that in both films Batman is a force for order fighting against the forces of chaos, but the nature of the chaos is different in the two films. In Batman Begins Batman is fighting against forces seeking chaos for the sake of redemption; basically, the logic is that the destruction of Gotham will provide mankind with a catharsis so that it will then be able to evolve into something better. In TDK, Batman is fighting a force seeking chaos for the sake of corruption; basically, the Joker's logic (and it is logic) is that mankind is basically evil and by stripping off the veneer of civilization the evil will run rampant. The point is, in both movies the chaos is, ultimately, purposeful. The Two-Face character represents something different: chaos with no purpose. It's random chance, the flip of a coin. The reality is that the Joker did not "win" by corrupting Harvey, because while he stripped off the veneer (which was cracking anyway), Harvey didn't become evil, which is what the Joker was looking for (evil might not be the best term, but it's late and can't think of any better way to put it right now). Harvey became neutral (if he were evil, he would have killed the Joker). Had Two-Face been the central villain of the third film, the three films would have constituted a triptych: Batman fighting chaos-for-the-greater-good; Batman fighting chaos-for-the-greater-evil; and Batman fighting chaos-as-a-neutral-force. With Two-Face not in the picture (presumably), what villain can fulfill this larger thematic sense? And forget my idiosyncratic take: what remaining villain or villains in the Batman universe allow for any larger themes beyond "beat up the bad guys" that Nolan seems to want to go for? Especially since Nolan doesn't seem to want to get into the more fantastic aspects of the Batman universe (so Mr. Freeze, Clayface, and even Poison Ivy seem unlikely). Would TDK have been a lesser film if Dent had disappeared after the hospital and was presumed killed in the explosion, the Joker is captured, Gordon and Batman talk of how Gotham weathered the darkness and that a brighter day was ahead (or something like that), and then the movie ends with seeing a shadowy figure, the sound of a coin being flipped, and the last shot showing Dent's lucky coin ending marred side up? I don't think so. My problem with TDK is that they took a great film and made it less great by adding this unnecessary bit at the end, and to top it off, enhanced their chances that the third film will be a lesser effort by robbing it of a solid, logical potential plot.
I think a few people didn't quite get my complaint about TDK. My complaint was that the whole Two-Face subplot at the end would have formed the logical basis of the third film, and, assuming they wanted to stop at a trilogy, Batman willing to become a hunted criminal for the greater good would have been a good way to end it. Instead, they chose to cram it in at the end of TDK as a tack on to the main Joker plot, with the result that a lot of the nuance that would have enriched the plot had to be sacrificed. And sorry, maybe I missed the exposition, but why Two-Face goes after Gordon's family rather than Gordon needed more development. I got thinking about Batman Begins and TDK, and it seems to me that in both films Batman is a force for order fighting against the forces of chaos, but the nature of the chaos is different in the two films. In Batman Begins Batman is fighting against forces seeking chaos for the sake of redemption; basically, the logic is that the destruction of Gotham will provide mankind with a catharsis so that it will then be able to evolve into something better. In TDK, Batman is fighting a force seeking chaos for the sake of corruption; basically, the Joker's logic (and it is logic) is that mankind is basically evil and by stripping off the veneer of civilization the evil will run rampant. The point is, in both movies the chaos is, ultimately, purposeful. The Two-Face character represents something different: chaos with no purpose. It's random chance, the flip of a coin. The reality is that the Joker did not "win" by corrupting Harvey, because while he stripped off the veneer (which was cracking anyway), Harvey didn't become evil, which is what the Joker was looking for (evil might not be the best term, but it's late and can't think of any better way to put it right now). Harvey became neutral (if he were evil, he would have killed the Joker). Had Two-Face been the central villain of the third film, the three films would have constituted a triptych: Batman fighting chaos-for-the-greater-good; Batman fighting chaos-for-the-greater-evil; and Batman fighting chaos-as-a-neutral-force. With Two-Face not in the picture (presumably), what villain can fulfill this larger thematic sense? And forget my idiosyncratic take: what remaining villain or villains in the Batman universe allow for any larger themes beyond "beat up the bad guys" that Nolan seems to want to go for? Especially since Nolan doesn't seem to want to get into the more fantastic aspects of the Batman universe (so Mr. Freeze, Clayface, and even Poison Ivy seem unlikely). Would TDK have been a lesser film if Dent had disappeared after the hospital and was presumed killed in the explosion, the Joker is captured, Gordon and Batman talk of how Gotham weathered the darkness and that a brighter day was ahead (or something like that), and then the movie ends with seeing a shadowy figure, the sound of a coin being flipped, and the last shot showing Dent's lucky coin ending marred side up? I don't think so. My problem with TDK is that they took a great film and made it less great by adding this unnecessary bit at the end, and to top it off, enhanced their chances that the third film will be a lesser effort by robbing it of a solid, logical potential plot.
Iron Man Disses The DARK KNIGHT - Aug 16, 2008 - 06:42pm
Saw both movies, and liked Iron Man a bit more. I don't really see them as comparable films (the tones, themes, etc. of the films are just so different that it's almost like comparing two different genres). I just think Iron Man is better because it holds up from beginning to end, while the end of TDK dragged the movie down. The whole Two-Face thing, rather than being tacked onto this movie, should have been the basis of the third movie. I don't think you could have made a 2+ hour extravaganza, but you could have have a tight, compelling 90 minutes or so that would have been a thematic continuity with the previous two films. Instead, we got a confused, rush mess at the end (SPOILER: Sorry, but going after Gordon's family still doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me), and we're left with the prospect of a third film that's not going to have the same punch as the first two. Please note that I'm not criticizing the basic idea, just that it would have worked as a whole separate movie where various points could be developed as opposed to being crammed in at the end. And for what it's worth, The Prestige sucked, in large part because both of the leads were a**holes, and Nolan tried to ram down the viewer's throat the idea at the end that the bigger of the two a**holes was somehow the hero (I don't know else how to interpret the guy going off with his daughter with Michael Caine happily tagging along).
Saw both movies, and liked Iron Man a bit more. I don't really see them as comparable films (the tones, themes, etc. of the films are just so different that it's almost like comparing two different genres). I just think Iron Man is better because it holds up from beginning to end, while the end of TDK dragged the movie down. The whole Two-Face thing, rather than being tacked onto this movie, should have been the basis of the third movie. I don't think you could have made a 2+ hour extravaganza, but you could have have a tight, compelling 90 minutes or so that would have been a thematic continuity with the previous two films. Instead, we got a confused, rush mess at the end (SPOILER: Sorry, but going after Gordon's family still doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me), and we're left with the prospect of a third film that's not going to have the same punch as the first two. Please note that I'm not criticizing the basic idea, just that it would have worked as a whole separate movie where various points could be developed as opposed to being crammed in at the end. And for what it's worth, The Prestige sucked, in large part because both of the leads were a**holes, and Nolan tried to ram down the viewer's throat the idea at the end that the bigger of the two a**holes was somehow the hero (I don't know else how to interpret the guy going off with his daughter with Michael Caine happily tagging along).
Comicscape: Character Contrast in the Dark Knight - Jul 23, 2008 - 07:52am
While I liked the movie in general and Heath Ledger definitely should be nominated for an Oscar, I wasn't at all wild about the ending. I mean, Harvey going after the corrupt cops and mobsters made sense, but that last bit of vengeance and its ultimate resolution, well, I was going to say it made little sense, but as I'm writing this, I'm thinking that the problem was that it was too rushed. I understand what Nolan was doing and why, but, quite frankly, dropping the Harvey Two-Face subplot would have made the movie better. And then they could have taken the Two-Face storyline and made that the basis of the third movie, which would have a) given them a logical direction for a sequel (I've seen a couple of reviews that raise questions as to where Nolan goes from here with the material, and I'm wondering as well); and b) allowed Nolan the chance to round off the story in such a way that the three movies could be viewed not just as separate works but as three parts of a greater whole.
While I liked the movie in general and Heath Ledger definitely should be nominated for an Oscar, I wasn't at all wild about the ending. I mean, Harvey going after the corrupt cops and mobsters made sense, but that last bit of vengeance and its ultimate resolution, well, I was going to say it made little sense, but as I'm writing this, I'm thinking that the problem was that it was too rushed. I understand what Nolan was doing and why, but, quite frankly, dropping the Harvey Two-Face subplot would have made the movie better. And then they could have taken the Two-Face storyline and made that the basis of the third movie, which would have a) given them a logical direction for a sequel (I've seen a couple of reviews that raise questions as to where Nolan goes from here with the material, and I'm wondering as well); and b) allowed Nolan the chance to round off the story in such a way that the three movies could be viewed not just as separate works but as three parts of a greater whole.
TV Wasteland: High Hopes on the Fringe - Jul 21, 2008 - 06:47pm
There was a mini-episode of Doctor Who for a charity event last year called Time Crash where the Tenth Doctor met the Fifth Doctor. You can find it on YouTube. And there is a story going around that there are plans to have Tom Baker back on Doctor Who at some point. Whether he'll be playing the Fourth Doctor or not seems to be the question (Baker himself has said he'd like to play the Master).
There was a mini-episode of Doctor Who for a charity event last year called Time Crash where the Tenth Doctor met the Fifth Doctor. You can find it on YouTube. And there is a story going around that there are plans to have Tom Baker back on Doctor Who at some point. Whether he'll be playing the Fourth Doctor or not seems to be the question (Baker himself has said he'd like to play the Master).
TV Review: REAPER - Cancun - May 23, 2008 - 12:01pm
I have to say that I liked this episode. Yes, the escaped soul of the week was just a mcguffin to do the Sock gag, but it was a funny gag. And as for not ending on a big cliffhanger, good! I've always thought the season finale cliffhanger is pure sadism, designed to screw with the viewers and gin up interest in the next season. Thing is, I'm going to watch next season; they don't need a hook (if they really want a hook to bring people in, have a episode where Andi needs to wear an outfit like the one she wore to the wedding). Sam's dad (or is he?) surviving being buried alive is enough to keep me wondering without torturing me. Though I am thinking that maybe macthorn is onto something with that Sam is the grandson of the Devil theory. The Son of Devil story has been done a lot (The Omen, South Park, etc.) but I don't think anyone's done a grandson of the Devil story.
I have to say that I liked this episode. Yes, the escaped soul of the week was just a mcguffin to do the Sock gag, but it was a funny gag. And as for not ending on a big cliffhanger, good! I've always thought the season finale cliffhanger is pure sadism, designed to screw with the viewers and gin up interest in the next season. Thing is, I'm going to watch next season; they don't need a hook (if they really want a hook to bring people in, have a episode where Andi needs to wear an outfit like the one she wore to the wedding). Sam's dad (or is he?) surviving being buried alive is enough to keep me wondering without torturing me. Though I am thinking that maybe macthorn is onto something with that Sam is the grandson of the Devil theory. The Son of Devil story has been done a lot (The Omen, South Park, etc.) but I don't think anyone's done a grandson of the Devil story.
Comicscape: Sucking Life with Gabe Soria - May 15, 2008 - 05:48am
In the last few weeks I haven't been able to see Comicscape on the site until Thursday morning, but all the time stamps here say Wednesday. Is this some weird quirk of the computers I'm using or something else?
In the last few weeks I haven't been able to see Comicscape on the site until Thursday morning, but all the time stamps here say Wednesday. Is this some weird quirk of the computers I'm using or something else?
Joker's Bodybags, JLA's Home Search & MPAA Madness - Apr 18, 2008 - 11:59am
Just saw the GI Joe pics and I suspect that it's going to be choc-a-bloc with special effects and actions sequences, since they clearly aren't spending any money on constumes--but just HOW are they going to film any large group action scenes when they apparently only have one suit for the whole crew? And when I heard they were casting Sienna Miller as The Baroness, I cringed, because, while I rather like Miller, I thought she just wasn't right for the part--she just lacks the physicality, both in terms of height and body shape. But then I saw her in costume and..., well, actually, I cringed some more, because I was right. What is she supposed to be doing--playing a prepubescent Baroness in a flashback?
Just saw the GI Joe pics and I suspect that it's going to be choc-a-bloc with special effects and actions sequences, since they clearly aren't spending any money on constumes--but just HOW are they going to film any large group action scenes when they apparently only have one suit for the whole crew? And when I heard they were casting Sienna Miller as The Baroness, I cringed, because, while I rather like Miller, I thought she just wasn't right for the part--she just lacks the physicality, both in terms of height and body shape. But then I saw her in costume and..., well, actually, I cringed some more, because I was right. What is she supposed to be doing--playing a prepubescent Baroness in a flashback?
One More Hour on the Island - Apr 14, 2008 - 10:57am
I have to concur; I'm not loving the reformat; I had to guess which article was TV Wasteland, which is not a sign of user-friendliness. And why does Sarah Jane Adventures: Revenge of the Slitheen say "Conclusion?" It's not a continuation of last week's episode.
I have to concur; I'm not loving the reformat; I had to guess which article was TV Wasteland, which is not a sign of user-friendliness. And why does Sarah Jane Adventures: Revenge of the Slitheen say "Conclusion?" It's not a continuation of last week's episode.
NEW AMSTERDAM: Honor - Mar 20, 2008 - 06:37pm
I'm glad that other people were just as confused by this review as I was; I was afraid that I'd suffered a minor stroke. As for the show, I don't think it's bad, but it's not particularly great, either. I actually can't think of anything else to say about the show. That probably means something.
I'm glad that other people were just as confused by this review as I was; I was afraid that I'd suffered a minor stroke. As for the show, I don't think it's bad, but it's not particularly great, either. I actually can't think of anything else to say about the show. That probably means something.
Man Versus What? - Mar 02, 2008 - 07:14pm
"THE OGRE (SCIFI, 8PM EST) The seductiveness of Nazism is explored through the eyes of a simpleton in this 1996 fairy-tale history of World War II, directed by Volker Schlondorff and based on Michel Tournier's 1970 novel The Erl King." For some reason, that description doesn't look right for a Sci-Fi Channel original movie starring John Schneider.
"THE OGRE (SCIFI, 8PM EST) The seductiveness of Nazism is explored through the eyes of a simpleton in this 1996 fairy-tale history of World War II, directed by Volker Schlondorff and based on Michel Tournier's 1970 novel The Erl King." For some reason, that description doesn't look right for a Sci-Fi Channel original movie starring John Schneider.
CLOVERFIELD - Jan 19, 2008 - 06:03pm
I wasn't bothered by Blair Witch Project, but the shaky cam in Cloverfield made me really nauseous, so I would advise people to be forewarned on that score (I'm still experiencing bouts of illness a day later). I'm kind of curious as to how it works on TV. That aside, I thought it was pretty good, though I'm annoyed as heck that I didn't notice that one thing at the end (see earlier comments). I did hear that little blurb at the end credits, though I didn't catch what was said, so thanks for the clarification (especially because it means two things).
I wasn't bothered by Blair Witch Project, but the shaky cam in Cloverfield made me really nauseous, so I would advise people to be forewarned on that score (I'm still experiencing bouts of illness a day later). I'm kind of curious as to how it works on TV. That aside, I thought it was pretty good, though I'm annoyed as heck that I didn't notice that one thing at the end (see earlier comments). I did hear that little blurb at the end credits, though I didn't catch what was said, so thanks for the clarification (especially because it means two things).
After the Credits - Dec 05, 2007 - 09:59am
At the end of the credits in the remake of "The Producers" they have a little musical number with all the actors thanking the audience but saying they should go now, ending with Mel Brooks singing "Get out!" and then saying "It's over."
At the end of the credits in the remake of "The Producers" they have a little musical number with all the actors thanking the audience but saying they should go now, ending with Mel Brooks singing "Get out!" and then saying "It's over."
Billie Piper Returns to DR. WHO - Nov 28, 2007 - 08:22pm
I'm wondering how they're going to bring her back. She's in an alternate universe and I was under the impression that reopening the connection would very likely destroy both universes.
I'm wondering how they're going to bring her back. She's in an alternate universe and I was under the impression that reopening the connection would very likely destroy both universes.
Michael Caine Describes Ledger's JOKER - Oct 02, 2007 - 08:10pm
How about a little love for Cesar Romero's Joker? Don't bother throwing anything; I'm going into hiding now.
How about a little love for Cesar Romero's Joker? Don't bother throwing anything; I'm going into hiding now.
THE SIMPSONS MOVIE Hits DVD Dec 3 & 18 - Sep 25, 2007 - 09:59pm
The suggested retail price seems a bit high, but I suspect it'll actually be about $19 when it appears at Wal-Mart, Target, etc. And regardless, if the recent parity between the American dollar and the Canadian dollar continues, the Canadians are the ones really getting screwed on the price. I'm more curious about the release date in North America. I know a lot of people wait until the last minute to buy gifts, but a lot don't, and I would imagine that they'll lose some business putting it out only a week before Christmas. And, given the recent parity between the American dollar and the Canadian dollar, the Canadians are getting screwed on the price.
The suggested retail price seems a bit high, but I suspect it'll actually be about $19 when it appears at Wal-Mart, Target, etc. And regardless, if the recent parity between the American dollar and the Canadian dollar continues, the Canadians are the ones really getting screwed on the price. I'm more curious about the release date in North America. I know a lot of people wait until the last minute to buy gifts, but a lot don't, and I would imagine that they'll lose some business putting it out only a week before Christmas. And, given the recent parity between the American dollar and the Canadian dollar, the Canadians are getting screwed on the price.
THE DRESDEN FILES: The Complete First Season - Sep 10, 2007 - 01:35pm
Tjanson: Okay, it's TV. So what? I understand making some changes for the different format (I'm not wild about the Uncle Justin thing, but I can see why they'd do it), but there were a lot of changes that, as I said, were just done for the sake of doing them. How does changing Murphy broaden the appeal? How does changing Bob's backstory do likewise? And I'm sorry, but the hockey stick thing was just a stupid jokey thing to do and, as I've already said, makes no sense with the overall character, either in that it implies he's trying to hide his nature or in that it implies that he doesn't take his role as a wizard seriously (which both the books and TV series indicated he does).
Tjanson: Okay, it's TV. So what? I understand making some changes for the different format (I'm not wild about the Uncle Justin thing, but I can see why they'd do it), but there were a lot of changes that, as I said, were just done for the sake of doing them. How does changing Murphy broaden the appeal? How does changing Bob's backstory do likewise? And I'm sorry, but the hockey stick thing was just a stupid jokey thing to do and, as I've already said, makes no sense with the overall character, either in that it implies he's trying to hide his nature or in that it implies that he doesn't take his role as a wizard seriously (which both the books and TV series indicated he does).
THE DRESDEN FILES: The Complete First Season - Sep 09, 2007 - 08:23pm
I find myself rather conflicted when I heard the news that the series was over. I thought it was okay, but it just wasn't the Dresden Files. Poetic license is one thing but the show made pointless changes: why was Murphy changed from a short blonde (which was a factor in the stories) to a Latina? Why replace his staff with a hockey stick? He's listed in the Yellow Pages under "Wizards" so it isn't to hide what he is. And while Terrence Mann did a good job as Bob, why change the character from some sort of fairy spirit (again, some thing which mattered in some of the stories) to a wizard's ghost? If the show had been all by its lonesome that's one thing and it would have been fine, but if you're calling it the Dresden Files and basing it on the works of Jim Butcher, then I think a fairly high degree of fidelity to the source material is crucial.
I find myself rather conflicted when I heard the news that the series was over. I thought it was okay, but it just wasn't the Dresden Files. Poetic license is one thing but the show made pointless changes: why was Murphy changed from a short blonde (which was a factor in the stories) to a Latina? Why replace his staff with a hockey stick? He's listed in the Yellow Pages under "Wizards" so it isn't to hide what he is. And while Terrence Mann did a good job as Bob, why change the character from some sort of fairy spirit (again, some thing which mattered in some of the stories) to a wizard's ghost? If the show had been all by its lonesome that's one thing and it would have been fine, but if you're calling it the Dresden Files and basing it on the works of Jim Butcher, then I think a fairly high degree of fidelity to the source material is crucial.
Cast Photo of Operation VALKYRIE - Sep 05, 2007 - 09:31am
"Someone give those guys some prunes; they all look a little constipated!" They're German officers; that's the way they always look. I wasn't thrilled when I heard about Tom Cruise in this movie, but the more I see the better it's looking.
"Someone give those guys some prunes; they all look a little constipated!" They're German officers; that's the way they always look. I wasn't thrilled when I heard about Tom Cruise in this movie, but the more I see the better it's looking.
Fifth Season of DR. WHO Delayed to 2010 - Sep 04, 2007 - 10:03pm
Are the three specials in 2009 going to be 2 hour things? Because if they are that works out to half a season, and half a season is better than none. Even 3 regular episodes is better than nothing, and if this is what is needs to happen to keep Tennant around, I'm for it. Not only has Tennant been a good Doctor, but let's face it: they're on #10 now, and they can only have 13 incarnations, so they really do have to think about the pacing.
Are the three specials in 2009 going to be 2 hour things? Because if they are that works out to half a season, and half a season is better than none. Even 3 regular episodes is better than nothing, and if this is what is needs to happen to keep Tennant around, I'm for it. Not only has Tennant been a good Doctor, but let's face it: they're on #10 now, and they can only have 13 incarnations, so they really do have to think about the pacing.
Warner Bros Options Darker WIZARD OF OZ Revision - Aug 22, 2007 - 07:40am
Isn't SciFi channel doing this already with the Tin Man miniseries later this year?
Isn't SciFi channel doing this already with the Tin Man miniseries later this year?
Katie Holmes as WONDER WOMAN? - Aug 19, 2007 - 01:26pm
While I would agree with Lawless during her Xena days, I see her on BSG and I just can't imagine her playing WW now. She still looks good, but she just doesn't say "Amazon" to me now. Likewise, a few years ago, I'd also have suggested Angelina Jolie, but now, same thing as with Lawless (she actually looks quite frail in some recent pics). The real problem with almost all the actresses being bandied about is that they're not believable as an Amazon warrior. They don't have to be hyper-buff, but you do need someone with the right physical presence. That's why Lawless makes sense: if you watch Xena, she wasn't ripped but she did have an athletic solidity to her. Same with Jolie once upon a time. I've seen older pictures of Carpenter that are encouraging, but in her more recent appearances she seems to have let that athleticism go in favor of glamour. Right now, the only actress I can think of with the right sort of body is Jessica Biel, but you'd have to dye her hair black (unless you're going to pull an idiot stunt like Cathy Lee Crosby as WW in that TV movie) and I'm not sure how she'd look with a dye job. There is Tsianina Joelson, who played Varia on Xena. She looked very believable as an Amazon queen on that show, but I haven't seen her lately. The more I think about it, the more I'll be surprised if this movie is ever made. Others have expressed worries over the lack of compelling villains, but I'll just add that I don't know if they'll find an actress with the right build, physicality, looks, and height to make it believable. Maybe I'm wrong; maybe there's a statuesque fitness competitor with a good boob job and acting ability out there waiting to be discovered But I do know if Katie Holmes or some other actress with slender build and pipe cleaner arms is picked you might as well make it a parody, because people will just laugh.
While I would agree with Lawless during her Xena days, I see her on BSG and I just can't imagine her playing WW now. She still looks good, but she just doesn't say "Amazon" to me now. Likewise, a few years ago, I'd also have suggested Angelina Jolie, but now, same thing as with Lawless (she actually looks quite frail in some recent pics). The real problem with almost all the actresses being bandied about is that they're not believable as an Amazon warrior. They don't have to be hyper-buff, but you do need someone with the right physical presence. That's why Lawless makes sense: if you watch Xena, she wasn't ripped but she did have an athletic solidity to her. Same with Jolie once upon a time. I've seen older pictures of Carpenter that are encouraging, but in her more recent appearances she seems to have let that athleticism go in favor of glamour. Right now, the only actress I can think of with the right sort of body is Jessica Biel, but you'd have to dye her hair black (unless you're going to pull an idiot stunt like Cathy Lee Crosby as WW in that TV movie) and I'm not sure how she'd look with a dye job. There is Tsianina Joelson, who played Varia on Xena. She looked very believable as an Amazon queen on that show, but I haven't seen her lately. The more I think about it, the more I'll be surprised if this movie is ever made. Others have expressed worries over the lack of compelling villains, but I'll just add that I don't know if they'll find an actress with the right build, physicality, looks, and height to make it believable. Maybe I'm wrong; maybe there's a statuesque fitness competitor with a good boob job and acting ability out there waiting to be discovered But I do know if Katie Holmes or some other actress with slender build and pipe cleaner arms is picked you might as well make it a parody, because people will just laugh.
EUREKA: Duck, Duck, Goose - Aug 09, 2007 - 07:33am
I'm not entirely sure, but as she was fading out I think Sarah slurred "See you at home," which would mean she survived.
I'm not entirely sure, but as she was fading out I think Sarah slurred "See you at home," which would mean she survived.
Damon Will NOT Be Kirk - Jul 28, 2007 - 07:31pm
"I know. They'll use that age erasing software from X3 and the slimming FX from Shatner's DirecTV commercial so he can still play the role :)" There ain't enough computing power on the planet to pull that off.
"I know. They'll use that age erasing software from X3 and the slimming FX from Shatner's DirecTV commercial so he can still play the role :)" There ain't enough computing power on the planet to pull that off.
DARK KNIGHT'S JOKER At Comic Con - Jul 27, 2007 - 12:47pm
All the names are the first names of victims of Jack the Ripper, aka Red Jack.
All the names are the first names of victims of Jack the Ripper, aka Red Jack.
SLEUTH Trailer - Jul 11, 2007 - 07:47am
Actually, I think Austin Powers was based on Caine's character Harry Palmer (I think the flashback scene of a young Caine and the exploding car in Goldmember was from a Harry Palmer movie). And, having seen both Sleuth and Deathtrap, I can state with absolute conviction that the only thing those two movies had in common was that they were both mysteries that starred Michael Caine.
Actually, I think Austin Powers was based on Caine's character Harry Palmer (I think the flashback scene of a young Caine and the exploding car in Goldmember was from a Harry Palmer movie). And, having seen both Sleuth and Deathtrap, I can state with absolute conviction that the only thing those two movies had in common was that they were both mysteries that starred Michael Caine.
Smoking to Affect Movie Ratings - May 11, 2007 - 07:35am
I can't wait until this kicks in: the following movie is rated R for strong language and smoking.
I can't wait until this kicks in: the following movie is rated R for strong language and smoking.
"Hot Fuzz" - Apr 20, 2007 - 12:33pm
Everything I've seen about this movie says it's going to be good. I am wondering, however, why the reviewer only gave it a B, as there was nothing but love in the review.
Everything I've seen about this movie says it's going to be good. I am wondering, however, why the reviewer only gave it a B, as there was nothing but love in the review.
Eric Johnson is Sci Fi Channel's "Flash Gordon" - Apr 12, 2007 - 01:53pm
Based just on the available picture, I'd be inclined to say maybe this guy's father would be more appropriate--or at least anyone who doesn't look all of 16.
Based just on the available picture, I'd be inclined to say maybe this guy's father would be more appropriate--or at least anyone who doesn't look all of 16.
Jet Li in "The Mummy 3" - Mar 22, 2007 - 08:55am
Having heard nothing about this movie until this story, all I can ask is, can this be called a sequel to the first two movies? Are any members of the casts of the first two movies going to be in it? Any references to the earlier movies? Any sets? If the only point of commonality is that all the movies involve mummies I don't think it can be rightfully called a sequel, especially if the third movie involved a Chinese mummy (or is Imhotep going to be resurrected and travel to China for some reason?).
Having heard nothing about this movie until this story, all I can ask is, can this be called a sequel to the first two movies? Are any members of the casts of the first two movies going to be in it? Any references to the earlier movies? Any sets? If the only point of commonality is that all the movies involve mummies I don't think it can be rightfully called a sequel, especially if the third movie involved a Chinese mummy (or is Imhotep going to be resurrected and travel to China for some reason?).
"300" - Mar 09, 2007 - 04:09am
"Another observation: while no doubt true to the Miller/Varley original, one does start to wonder why all the good guys are white (actual Spartans would look Greek, not Anglo-Saxon) and all the bad guys are black, Middle Eastern and Asian." From what little I've seen the Spartans in the film don't look all that different from modern day Greeks (though maybe they should, since then Greece has experienced several invasions and the various ethnicities have intermixed) but I'll take your word for it since you've seen the whole film. Did they at least avoid having anyone in there who would look more comfortable sailing the fjords of Norway? But is it any surprise that the denizens of the Persian Empire, which stretched from India to Egypt, would have people who looked Asian, Middle Eastern, and African?
"Another observation: while no doubt true to the Miller/Varley original, one does start to wonder why all the good guys are white (actual Spartans would look Greek, not Anglo-Saxon) and all the bad guys are black, Middle Eastern and Asian." From what little I've seen the Spartans in the film don't look all that different from modern day Greeks (though maybe they should, since then Greece has experienced several invasions and the various ethnicities have intermixed) but I'll take your word for it since you've seen the whole film. Did they at least avoid having anyone in there who would look more comfortable sailing the fjords of Norway? But is it any surprise that the denizens of the Persian Empire, which stretched from India to Egypt, would have people who looked Asian, Middle Eastern, and African?
Warwick Davis joins "Prince Caspian" - Feb 08, 2007 - 06:51am
Great news. And it's not the first experience Davis has with Narnia; he played Reepicheep in the television version of The Voyage of the Dawn Treader.
Great news. And it's not the first experience Davis has with Narnia; he played Reepicheep in the television version of The Voyage of the Dawn Treader.
"The Dresden Files: Birds of a Feather" - Jan 23, 2007 - 09:47am
I am a fan of the books, and I have to say I am really disappointed. I can understand a few of the changes, such as having an actual person play Bob the Skull rather than just a collection of lights, and have Justin be his uncle, but a lot of the changes from the book seem completely pointless and sometimes downright adverse to the story. In the show, his car is just a jeep while in the books his car is a VW Bug called the Blue Beetle that's been damaged so many times it looks like a patchwork quilt and is practically a character in its own right. Bob isn't a fretting Englishman; he's a voyeuristic, wisecracking smart aleck. Murphy is an athletic, 5 foot tall, blonde hair, blue eyed cop trained in the martial arts (and, in re the reviewer's comments, is quite interesting). Is he going to be hanging out in that diner instead of Mac's pub? And Harry in the books is an old-fashioned, chivalristic kind of guy whose first appearance shouldn't have been in bed with a woman who doesn't appear to be a serious girlfriend (and what is it with the apartment?). This may sound like fanboy nitpicking, but if you've read the books you know these are not inconsequential changes, and, again, appear to be completely pointless, change for the sake of change sort of things. I'll keep watching just to see if it somehow ameliorates these problems, but so far, yuck.
I am a fan of the books, and I have to say I am really disappointed. I can understand a few of the changes, such as having an actual person play Bob the Skull rather than just a collection of lights, and have Justin be his uncle, but a lot of the changes from the book seem completely pointless and sometimes downright adverse to the story. In the show, his car is just a jeep while in the books his car is a VW Bug called the Blue Beetle that's been damaged so many times it looks like a patchwork quilt and is practically a character in its own right. Bob isn't a fretting Englishman; he's a voyeuristic, wisecracking smart aleck. Murphy is an athletic, 5 foot tall, blonde hair, blue eyed cop trained in the martial arts (and, in re the reviewer's comments, is quite interesting). Is he going to be hanging out in that diner instead of Mac's pub? And Harry in the books is an old-fashioned, chivalristic kind of guy whose first appearance shouldn't have been in bed with a woman who doesn't appear to be a serious girlfriend (and what is it with the apartment?). This may sound like fanboy nitpicking, but if you've read the books you know these are not inconsequential changes, and, again, appear to be completely pointless, change for the sake of change sort of things. I'll keep watching just to see if it somehow ameliorates these problems, but so far, yuck.
NIGHTMARE in 3-D - Oct 14, 2006 - 09:00am
What does the rise of conservatism in the 1990's have to do with eliminating Halloween? Most conservatives I know like Halloween (think about it: what's the moral of every slasher film? Kids who do drugs and have sex die). I can only imagine you're talking about the uber fundamentalists who think Halloween is Satan worship, but in most places a good snowstorm's more likely to stop Halloween activities than those people.
What does the rise of conservatism in the 1990's have to do with eliminating Halloween? Most conservatives I know like Halloween (think about it: what's the moral of every slasher film? Kids who do drugs and have sex die). I can only imagine you're talking about the uber fundamentalists who think Halloween is Satan worship, but in most places a good snowstorm's more likely to stop Halloween activities than those people.
CIVIL WAR - Sep 28, 2006 - 06:58pm
I understand the sentiment behind noblenonsense's comments, but never was a screen name more apt. Yes, you are correct to be afraid of what the government might do with such awesome power at its disposal yet in our system government power is subject to a variety of checks and balances. What checks are there on Captain America? That he's a good guy? As Patrick Henry said, "I will never depend on so slender a protection as the possibility of being represented by virtuous men." Again, I defer to shadowprime on this: allowing superheroes to run around loose and be okay with it because they're good people is fine so long as you maintain the suspension of disbelief. One you get rid of that suspension, which they did for CW, you have to follow through. As for the ludicrous implentation of the registration policy, such as using supervillains to hunt down renegades and superheroes having to give cops their code before they act, well, that's just proof that they're not presenting this in an evenhanded way (again, like they claimed they were going to). To be fair, maybe they did really intend to be fair, and found that it was just too difficult (the idea that one side is right and the other wrong is just the normal default mode of thinking for most people). But as I said above, the way it's developing, I think this turn was planned to make some sort of political commentary, and I think that's dumb because a) effective political commentary of this sort needs to be done with a light touch and this stuff ain't (I've seen a few things in the Front Line series where you have to dodge the anvils falling from the sky), and b) they run the real risk of ruining characters.
I understand the sentiment behind noblenonsense's comments, but never was a screen name more apt. Yes, you are correct to be afraid of what the government might do with such awesome power at its disposal yet in our system government power is subject to a variety of checks and balances. What checks are there on Captain America? That he's a good guy? As Patrick Henry said, "I will never depend on so slender a protection as the possibility of being represented by virtuous men." Again, I defer to shadowprime on this: allowing superheroes to run around loose and be okay with it because they're good people is fine so long as you maintain the suspension of disbelief. One you get rid of that suspension, which they did for CW, you have to follow through. As for the ludicrous implentation of the registration policy, such as using supervillains to hunt down renegades and superheroes having to give cops their code before they act, well, that's just proof that they're not presenting this in an evenhanded way (again, like they claimed they were going to). To be fair, maybe they did really intend to be fair, and found that it was just too difficult (the idea that one side is right and the other wrong is just the normal default mode of thinking for most people). But as I said above, the way it's developing, I think this turn was planned to make some sort of political commentary, and I think that's dumb because a) effective political commentary of this sort needs to be done with a light touch and this stuff ain't (I've seen a few things in the Front Line series where you have to dodge the anvils falling from the sky), and b) they run the real risk of ruining characters.
CIVIL WAR - Sep 28, 2006 - 01:41pm
I concur with shadowprime. Supposedly, the original intent was to treat both sides with respect, but clearly the minds behind CIVIL WAR decided that the pro-registration side is the villain, a point of view that, when thought about, is clearly insane. A world where licensing doctors, lawyers, even barbers and hairstylists is fine and dandy, but keeping track of people who could (and did, in the first issue) kill hundreds either intentionally or by negligence is wrong? Please. Of course, maybe they've taken is position because they're against ALL licensing and registration and they don't care for any government checks on who practices medicine, law, haircutting, etc. I rather doubt that, though; I suspect, the real reason for putting Iron Man, et al. in the black hats was so they could insert some heavy-handed political commentary about the real world. That's a shame for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that to score their political points they're going to seriously damage some of their mainline characters.
I concur with shadowprime. Supposedly, the original intent was to treat both sides with respect, but clearly the minds behind CIVIL WAR decided that the pro-registration side is the villain, a point of view that, when thought about, is clearly insane. A world where licensing doctors, lawyers, even barbers and hairstylists is fine and dandy, but keeping track of people who could (and did, in the first issue) kill hundreds either intentionally or by negligence is wrong? Please. Of course, maybe they've taken is position because they're against ALL licensing and registration and they don't care for any government checks on who practices medicine, law, haircutting, etc. I rather doubt that, though; I suspect, the real reason for putting Iron Man, et al. in the black hats was so they could insert some heavy-handed political commentary about the real world. That's a shame for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that to score their political points they're going to seriously damage some of their mainline characters.
Mania is the premiere online destination for fans of science fiction, fantasy, horror, and anime entertainment. It is the largest community offering profiles, video, science fiction movies, sci fi TV, art, sci fi comics, photos, cheats, blogs, science fiction books, forums and feedback. Mania offers insider entertainment industry info and original content for science fiction, fantasy, and horror entertainment genres including: video games, comics, gadgets, movies, television, toys, music, books, DVDs and more. © Mania Entertainment, LLC. 2001 - 2008
I've read the Charlaine Harris books upon which True Blood is based, and, based on the promos I've seen, I have a bad feeling about the series. Like the Dresden Files series on SciFi, my fear is that they're going to make a whole bunch of pointless, "just because we can" changes and make the focus on the issue of tolerance, which, if you're at all familiar with the books, is not what the story is about.