Friday Free-For-All

All doubts gone; James Cameron IS revolutionizing film...by using stuff from his other films

Concept art is perhaps the single coolest behind-the-scene thing involved in movies besides the guy whose job it is to make sure Rachel McAdams is properly stuffed in her corset. It's where dreamers get to ignore budget and practicality and just let their imaginations run wild, spitballing and flying on the wings of paint and pencil. Geez, you know it's a day when a Pixar movie comes out when I spew happy-clappy, Disney crap like that. At any rate, I remember checking out Ralph McQuarrie's art for Star Wars; it was almost more awe-inducing than seeing the movie (unlike puppies which are aww-inducing or woodshop projects, which are awl-inducing...I could keep going, but I won't). I guess viewing concept art is comparable to what it was like in the old days when people would "read books" (some of them had fancy pictures and such!) and use their "imaginations." Thank God we don't have to do that anymore. The latest concept art leak comes from Marketsaw, which is dedicated (as far as I can tell) to 3D movie news and making sweet verbal love to James Cameron.


They acquired some art from the upcoming book that goes behind-the-scenes of Avatar, a movie that now physically cannot support the weight being put on it, even with the might of James Cameron's ego. Click on this fancy link (Marketsaw) for the full image. A word of warning: for no good reason, that 3D blog affixed to JC's buttox is an eyesore. It has three different colors of text, plus bold and underlining and a myriad of other HOLYCRAPLOOKATTHIS features. Also, another word of warning, the concept art may destroy your opinion of what's about to be unleashed. As near as I can tell, someone stole Ripley's power suit from the end of Aliens and is walking through Degobah with some wreckage of ships from Terminator behind him. In the other image (not included) is some genetically modified dinosaurs from Jurassic Park chasing a ship from Terminator through the Amazon. Sure, there could be a good story or characters behind this, and the 3D could be the coolest thing to happen to anybody since that one guy was told he'd be the corset checker on the new Rachel McAdams movie...or this could just be a fun little sci-fi movie. Side note: If you'd like this blog to be in four different colors and have flashing, glittery boxes around stuff, I'd do that for you. I really would. I love you that much.

Weekend battle plan: Get high...that's a metaphor for seeing Up, not an endorsement for meth

Truth be told, if you want to go see Drag Me To Hell, I'm good with that. Hell, if nothing else, success for this movie may be a message to the studios that crap out horror films that suck worse than finding out you were almost the guy who got to be Rachel McAdam's corset checker. It may show them that, if the movie is actually good, it will do even more money. More than likely, we'll still be getting Saw 17 (sorry, they use those classy Roman numerals, so I think it's Saw IVXIWS+2...is that right?). The big thing to take home, however, is that you must see Up There's just no good reason for you to avoid a movie like this. It has cross-generational appeal, which in Hollywood terms means it's going to do enough money to leverage a bank. Why would you not go see this? Every single one. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. I mean, Cars was their worst and I STILL think it's pretty decent. Mathematically speaking, many of you went to go see Paul Blart Mall Cop, so if you don't go see Up, you're saying that you'd rather support Kevin James buying a second gold-plated toilet to crap in than giving the artists at Pixar your support. Or, to put it another way, you are a bad person.

That's my recommendation: See Up or you are morally bankrupt. If you want to see Drag Me to Hell, that's fine too. But you need to see Up at some point. I'll be watching.

On DVD: Hell if I know. I saw that there's a Harlan Ellison documentary that went straight-to-DVD that I'll be watching, but I'm not going to recommend something like the Renee Zellweger movie to you. Ugh. I don't think I did the appropriate justice to the story I told on the radio today, but you get the idea. People went in to see New in Town optimistic, full of life, and ready to contribute to society. They came out pessimistic, longing for death, and anarchists. What I'm saying is, if you rent this movie you may turn into a serial killer. There hasn't been much hitting DVD lately because the studios all want you going to the theater. I do too (go see Up), so I'll just leave it at no recommendation for this week.

Fearless, flawless box office predictions

Last week was another good one for me, I've been on a streak lately. I'm about 1/80th as happy as Rachel McAdam's corset checker, which is still an incredible amount. Clearly, Up is going to be first, but by how much? Will Night at the Museum 2: We've Run Out of Good Ideas possibly steal some thunder? If the answer to that question is yes, the answer to life is no. I'm thinking that we're going to see another precipitous drop for Terminator Salvation, based on the fact that it's quite bad. Much like Wolverine, it got what it was going to get early on. It will limply make a ton of money overseas and enough domestically to justify it's existence and to continue the cycle of another lifeless franchise. It really makes me admire the Harry Potter model. Regular installments that have good directors and keep getting better. That's admirable. Here come the haikus.

Here's how I see it:

1.) Up - $67 million

Pixar is perfect.
I wish them even more success.
Wow, I'm a suck up.

2.) Night at the Museum 2: Museum Stupider - $31 million

Major first weekend.
Here's hoping for a drop off.
As in, off a cliff.

3.) Drag Me to Hell - $25 million

Horror fans unite!
You see all the crappy films,
you'd better see this.

4.) Terminator Salvation - $18 million

In a little while,
we will forget this happened.
Bye-bye to McG.

5.) Star Trek - $13 million

It keeps making cash.
See what happens when it's good?
Please, someone notice.

WILDCARD - Angels and Demons - $12 million

Another sad sack.
Forgettable is the word.
Summer '09: Blah.

Have a great weekend gang.

Quick clips for Thursday May 28

Maybe it's time we accept defeat

Brethren and sistren (I'm fairly sure that's not right) of the movie-lovin' world, perhaps it's time to admit that we've been bested by the bastards of box office, we've been ravaged by the ruiners who reboot, that we've been crushed by the criminals of celluloid.

I'll lay it bare for all to consider: Perhaps it's time to stop getting mad at remakes.

Fox Studios (which I will from now on refer to as FFS...the last two letters stand for "Fox Studios") is supposedly (according to BloodyDisgusting.com) remaking Alien. This has caused many people I follow to commit cyber Hari-kari (which is nowhere near as fun as cyber Harry Caray). I understand the desire for self-immolation after hearing such a thing, believe me I do. But it's time we face facts. From the time of the Star Wars prequels until now, things have been bleak and they ain't gettin' less bleaker anytime soon. We live in the era of remakes and reboots, some good (Star Trek) and some bad (The Honeymooners...I just picked one and this thing was on TBS recently...uggggh). Thing is, WE have to change, because they aren't going to.

Every time it's reported that they're remaking (insert said beloved property here), people flip their shit. They lose it in a fit of verbs and nouns hurled furiously into the interwebs. Nobody cares. In fact, they may like it because their film is being discussed, which is all "they" care about anyway. I'm not saying that I'm not going to feign outrage for the sake of humor (which, let's face it, is hard enough to conceive on a consistent basis), but I'm going to say it:

I'm not letting remakes get to me anymore.

We're reasonable people. We can go back to the original films/TV shows/bubble-gum-comic-strips and celebrate them because technology has all but guaranteed that we will be able to do so in perpetuity. Yes, they are sullying the good name of something wonderful and original when it was first conceived (but look what they've done to capitalism...or Jennifer Love Hewitt...I can keep going with this one). Point is, the Alien remake will likely suck. It will likely be derivative and stupid and feel less professional than a fan-flick. Then, when FFS is done with that, they'll move on to devour some other good idea, like a pack of wild cannibals in a nudist colony. That's what they do: They ruin shit you love for profit. So do a lot of other studios.

So instead of dwelling on the massacre of dreams, let's make a deal you random, faceless people out there not reading this. Let's say that anytime we report about a stupid, awful remake, we mention something (however briefly) original and cool that's happening. Like, Moon comes out in June (hey, that rhymes) and I can't wait to see it. See, you counteract the evil of a sci-fi remake with the power of an original sci-fi thought. The power of originality compels you.

So, in conclusion, mock away for the purposes of blogs or tweets (check out BloodyDisgusting on Twitter...my plug for their inspiration regarding this post), and then fire back with something cool to cleanse your pallet, but let us no longer ACTUALLY be furious about remakes. We just fake it for moderate fame and little fortune, you know, like porn stars.

Who dat Doctor?

I may be the only person who laughs every time that I see the Who Dat Ninja in Tracy Jordan's office on "30 Rock." Hence the title of this post. Anyhoodles, I was reading an article about "Dr. Who" the other day, it was in "Wizard Magazine's" list of top Sci-Fi TV shows ever (a list as suspect as the highest-profile guest star on a "Law and Order" episode) and thought "hey, why isn't there a "Dr. Who" movie? This isn't because I'm a huge fan. I'm not. I have barely watched a handful of episodes...but I like the idea. I like the look of the show, the feel of the universe, and the conceit that allows different actors to play the same character. My God, that's more than most big-budget franchises have going for it. Well, the BBC had a story on Who and the possibility of a movie was sort-of-kind-of raised. This isn't really an announcement of them moving forward with things, but it is a step in (what I think) is the right direction. First of all, if they make a movie it will give me the right opportunity to get working on my new "Who's on first" routine (tentative title: "Who's in first...at the box office" ZING). Second, and more importantly, it could actually be quite good. With a bit more budget and the same creative force driving things, it would be inspired. Plus, I like that they don't use these burly lumberjack guys for the lead role. You could potentially see a Hugh Grant (not suggesting that, don't murder me) with the starring role in an action/sci-fi vehicle. That's cool. Color me moderately intrigued (my favorite Crayola).

Tom Cruise is indecisive about things other than religion and women

For a guy who is certain about crazy shit, Tommy can't pull the trigger on stuff he should know by now...like what movie to do next. He's currently circling The 28th Amendment, The Materese Circle, Lost for Words, The Tourist, and Motorcade. Now comes word he's considering an action-comedy with Cameron Diaz called Witchita about a spy who does stuff with Cameron Diaz, who plays a single lady. That's what passes as an idea these days. Personally, I think I know why he's confused, as almost all of these involve spies, intrigue, suspense, or action of some kind. They all sound terribly generic and not particularly "career resurrecting." Take Valkyrie, a perfectly competent movie (if you get past the funny pants and eyepatch on Cruise), that did perfectly competent money. It didn't put him on or off the map. He's looking for the next step and none of these sound like it. The problem is, he's already gone "villain" in Collateral, so that wouldn't be a big game changer to do again. He's done the wacky cameo in Tropic Thunder, so a comedy wouldn't even feel strange. I honestly think that he needs to consider some kind of serious, dramatic and challenging role. Here, Tom, do this: Call Sean Penn and ask him what movie HE thinks you should do. He's been winning Oscars like it's his job. Call Danny Day Lewis and ask him what's up. Or, if all else fails, find a brilliant director (like you did with Paul Thomas Anderson for your best performance in Magnolia) and get involved with that project (has Darren Aronofsky got his Robocop yet?). Just some advice. Feel free to go Matt Lauer on it.

Quick clips for Wednesday May 27

Is this because it's my birthday?

Because it is my birthday, and that's the only reason I can think of that I would come in to find THIS today:

Do you know what that is? That's the characters from Pixar's first fairy tale. I'm fairly sure that this was posted on the internet, like, 50 years ago...but I don't give a Bantha poo-doo. It's my special day, and I'm going to treat this image and description (it's coming later on, hold your knickers) like it's a big ole present. According to The Pixar Blog, someone made mention of Brave at a press conference, and rumor mongers (who, MOI?) ran with it as a potential name for the short that will accompany Toy Story 3. Sources reveal (to other people, I'm source-free, unlike my mouth in the presence of my grandma, which is to remain sass-free) that Brave is just the internal name for The Bear and the Bow, which is like how my "internal name" is Cougarface. The description is actually the most important part and, again, is probably a century old to people who look for such things, but here it is for those who don't. Reese Witherspoon will voice Merida, who is a princess of some kind but wants tob e an archer (shades of Robinetta Hood? Or, you know, Robin Hood...Robin can be a girl's name too you sexist pigs). Merida has a fight with her mom, does something stupid, and has to fight against evil and an ancient curse. Sounds about right. I'm guessing the curse has something to do with a bear otherwise the name is as appropriate as calling a movie by Terrance Malick "timely." The burning in my loins to see what Pixar does with a fairy tale can only be described as "epic," and if you've never had epic loin burning, you are missing out.

At least it's exciting possible bullshit sequel news

Most comedies that are beloved by others strike me as just marginally funny. This is likely because I'm a contrarian douchebag, but whatever the case, the exception to my skepticism has been Anchorman, one of the funniest movies out there. You tell me that you don't guffaw when there's a street brawl between news studios that prominently features a trident. For months, nay years now, the principle featured players have been lightly discussing a sequel. Unfortunately, that discussion has consisted of the following "Yeah, that'd be cool" followed by silence. Well, prepare for a response to "that'd be cool" because Moviehole is reporting that everyone (meaning the makers of Anchorman, not you and I) are meeting next week to see if a possible sequel can actually happen. This is via the mouth of Will Ferrell (with all his lips have done, if that mouth could talk...), who said it on an Australian radio show, so you know it's 100% legitimate. Sequel rumors have taken this series interesting places, but I for one am just hoping we get to see the 80s version of Ron Burgandy, as are the guys at Slashfilm.com. Think of the material that decade can offer. The question, I suppose, involves the meteoric rise of Paul Rudd and Steve Carrell. Will they be willing to play second banana (or tangerine, the fruit choice is theirs) to Ferrell? My guess is, yes, yes they will. Why? Because unlike famous dramatic actors, the willingness of comedic actors to do cameos, guest spots, or bit parts is much higher. They follow the funny like Eddie Murphy followed his junk in the Playboy scene of Beverly Hills Cop. I made that reference because I had to force myself to remember a time that Murphy's movies didn't give me murderface.

Weekend box office results: Yep, I'm just now getting to this

You know what, if they all got an extra day to tally up their cash, I get two extra days to post the results. That's my rule. Also, since this is the most boring thing I do on this blog (well, I think it is, you likely think something that I think isn't boring is more boring, but be nice to me on my birthday), I'm going to Haiku it up again. Again, as I've said before, all it takes to change my behavior is a quick comment. Let me know if you're for or against the Haiku, or anything for that matter. I'm all ears (not literally, that would make sex very loud).

Here are the results (from the 4-day weekend):

1.) Night at the Museum 2: You still like this shit - $70 million (Accuracy of prediction - 89%)

Alas, Ben Stiller.
I remember your first show.
Where did your soul go?

2.) Terminator Salvation - $52 million (Accuracy of prediction - 70%)

Dear Mr. McG,
your movie was so stupid
my brain still hates me.

3.) Star Trek - $29 million (Accuracy of prediction - 98.5%)

Enjoy the success!
Top movie of 2009!
...but here comes Harry.

4.) Angels and Demons - $27 million (Accuracy of prediction - 89%)

Can't touch Da Vinci,
at least in box office terms.
No more Langdon, please?

5.) Dance Flick - $12.5 million (Accuracy of prediction - 94%)

Wayan bros back again
whether you like it or not.
I'm choosing the "not."

Overall accuracy of prediction - 88%

All of a sudden
I don't entirely suck!
I take what I can.

Friday free for all

Fear the teddy bear

Giving the appropriate credit for this rumor is going to involve a lot of linking. So let the linking begin. Slashfilm.com is reporting that UpcomingPixar found a post on Pixar Collector that confirms the new character in Toy Story 3. Oh yeah, I'm going this far around to get to a Toy Story 3 spoiler. Deal with it. Anyway, the character is this guy:

His name is Lotso (supposedly) and he will destroy you. As Pixar is prone to doing, the chubby purple crusher of dreams (but excellent cuddler) was sneaked in as an Easter Egg in the preview for Up, which I'm sad to have not watched already like all the other online movie guys who are way cooler than me. Pixar is known for their Easter Egging, just check out Slashfilm's WALL-E Easter Egg post, and is also known for thinking outside the box. Chances are, if Dreamworks had made the movie...HA (sorry, the thought of them making a film as emotionally sophisticated and clever as Toy Story would be like a toddler splitting the atom). Anyway, if they had made the series, we would likely be seeing some kind of obvious/stereotypical villain. Like, we'd have an iPod that was all evil or something (I guess it would insist on playing that one song you regret having put on your iPod over and over again when you put the thing on shuffle...I get the piss jitters just thinking about that). Instead, the gang who made me weepy-eyed during the last installment may have found a clever way to flip-the-script, with a stuffed animal bad guy. I can't wait for his Randy Newman song "I Hug to Kill." By the way, we all know that stuffed animals are the home for the souls of executed convicts, right? Look in their eyes, you know I'm right.

Weekend battle plan: TERMINATOR SALVATION WILL EAT YOUR SOUL

I know you will see it anyway, so I don't even know why I bothered putting that in all caps (I even went to the lengths of holding down the shift key, not just caps locking it...that's how concerned I am that you're going to see this movie). People are saying that it's (and I'm going to make up a quote here) "a fun summer movie." Those people must think that falling into a vat of baby poop is "fun." There's no joy in that movie. None at all. There's no awesome action shots, not one single "hey, we did it, we escaped the killer robot/blew up the whatchamajigger/procreated with Bryce Dallas Howard" moment. It is joyless and devoid of intellect. Seriously, when you've seen it, let me know and I'll tell you the top three dumbest things about it. Oh, and when defending it, remember that you're defending a movie written by the guys who wrote Catwoman and directed by McG. Let that wash over you. I'm also not recommending that you go out and see Night at the Museum, because you may not want to be permanently sterile. Seriously, how you gonna do Darth Vader like that. I know it's not the literal character from the movie, but between this and the last time he was on the big screen screaming "NOOOOOOOOO" at the end of Revenge of the Sith, I'm thinking he's gone from "greatest bad guy of all time" to just "minor douche." Sadface. So, what do you do this weekend besides spend time outside grillin' and chillin' (or in my case, moving....ugggh), well...make this Indie week (or small movie week). By now, you've likely seen Star Trek (maybe twice...once in IMAX) and Angels & Demons and this week's releases are underwhelming, so use this pause in the summer to get your film lover on and see something smaller. In some areas, The Brothers Bloom is out. In others, I think Moon is playing. In Omaha, Film Streams has Paris 36. Find SOMETHING small and see it.

That's my recommendation: Use the pause to see something non-blockbustery.

On DVD: I'm going to go ahead and give the nod to Valkyrie, if for no other reason that Bryan Singer has earned that right after X2 and The Usual Suspects. Sure, it's basically a well-cast History Channel movie, but come on...NAZIS are blown up and shot at and stuff. More than that, it's kind of the type of thriller that works better just watching it on DVD. I'm not saying you HAVE to watch this, but if you want a DVD recommendation, that's it.

Fearless, Flawless Box Office Predictions

We all know the top four movies, that much is a given. I'm going to have to use the Wild Card option more than likely this weekend (can't decide if people will go for the turd bird that is Dance Flick or Wolverine? I know, that's something to really spend time worrying about. Okay, so unless I hear objections (cue sounds of crickets chirping) we're going to be doing Haikus every time out on these box office things. I don't really offer that much insight anyway. Oh, and this will be for the whole 4-day weekend (Memorial Day rules) and not the mamby-pamby Fri-Sun shit.

Here's how I see it.

1.) Terminator Salvation - $73 million

The guys who wrote this
also wrote the Catwoman movie.
They must be stopped now.

2.) Night at the Museum 2 - $69 million

Same things happen here.
Still not funny in my book.
Et tu Jonah Hill?

3.) Star Trek - $35 million

This movie still rules.
Dare I say it's box office
lives long and prospers?

4.) Angels and Demons - $21 million

This one has issues.
Totals won't near Da Vinci.
If only I cared.

5.) Dance Flick - $11 million

Another spoof flick?
The Wayans won't go away.
People still see these?

WILDCARD - Wolverine - $10.5 million

Won't top $200
Still, for a movie that leaked
Not exactly bad.

That's it. I won't be blogging Monday and you won't be reading it anyway. See you on Tuesday, when I'll be sore from moving!

Quick clips for Thursday May 21

What Blart hath wrought

Not happy merely being the untalented, unfunny blobby boob who slimed all over Scientolo-semi-hottie Leah Remini, Kevin James will now put his permanently Oreo-stained mitts all over Rosario Dawson. Oh, not for realsies; she would totally rock his junk with a stiletto if he tried that shit in real life. According to Variety, the lovely Ms. Dawson will ruin the goodwill she has accumulated by seeking a paycheck in The Zookeeper, which is already the worst movie of 2010. Don't believe me, here's the plot: Zoo animals teach the zookeeper how to date and mate. Mmm, poop sandwich. Every time I hear a pitch like this, I wonder how I'm not already in Hollywood writing screenplays. The studio payed $2 million for the idea. That's not a lie or some sick joke like capitalism. No worries though, the screenplay should be rock solid, as it was written by no less than five people. That's right, it took five people to properly capture the voice of the monkeys who make doin' it suggestions. Rocketing up my coveted "List of Hate," I've decided that Kevin James is the celebrity I now most revile. Not because of his success, but because he's devolving the state of comedy. We were so close, what with the uptick of Judd Apatow, to having a genre that wasn't soiled with the filth of Rob Schneider (do you KNOW how long it takes to scrub that out?) or Jim Carrey's slapstick stuff. Even the non-sophisticated comedies (a la Role Models) were getting funny. Now...we get elephants inevitably making schlong jokes. Yippee.

"Or when people gave all that money after rainstorm Katrina"

"30 Rock" may have had a let-down for the last few episodes, but even at its weakest it still produces a gem like "rainstorm Katrina." Anyhoo, this isn't a post about the hilariously skewered conservative mythos via one Jack Donaghey. No, this is about Variety's report that Will Smith is taking on Hurricane Katrina. Specifically, the former rap-tor turned current charming Oscar stalker is adapting the life of John Keller, an ex-marine who helped rescue 244 of his neighbors after the flooding. It's going to be written by John Lee Hancock, who has a name that would be perfect for a 50s rock star, a serial killer or an action hero. He wrote A Perfect World (Kevin Costner's best film...which is the equivalent of the most attractive syphilis-ridden blind date you've been set-up on) but also wrote The Alamo (oh...oh, lord no). What this tells me is that Hancock has the subtlety needed (maybe) but can also royally screw this up and turn it into a quasi-action/adventure movie (sample Will Smith line "Don't that just float your boat?"). To be sure, the real-life Keller is a man deserving of much praise...but I'm curious as to what kind of big-screen Katrina movie we're going to get here, especially from notorious panderer Big Willie. Spike Lee already did a whole lot to document the cause, you know, but making a documentary, but a big-budget movie with Will Smith reaches a whole different crowd (meaning, ones that don't have HBO). Hell, 7 Pounds was still a hit despite the jellyfishing, so you know that people will see whatever this man does. I hope that Willie reaches inside and doesn't make a movie about one man's heroism so much as he focuses on both the resilience of abandoned residents and the larger questions that surround the events. We all know where the fingers are pointing, now let's see a dramatized version of why...preferably one without the schmaltz.

The 10 reasons why the "Lost" finale ruled (alternate title "Suck it, Doubters")

Immediately after watching the season finale, my wife turned to me and said "Wow, some people are going to hate that." We launched into a discussion of how much we loved it, why some viewers were going to pull the "shark jumping" card, and argued the value of patience. I'm betting that 99% of people who didn't like the episode had a complaint similar to my friend Steve's; they wanted more "answers." I get it. We've been unwrapping a present for about 5 years now, and we really want to ride the bike that we know is inside. But, the anticipation is even better. You're never more excited than in that moment, so you have to really enjoy it. Besides, they have 16 hours to explain everything away, and have set themselves up beautifully to do just that. Having given everyone a full week to see it, I will now launch into spoiler-heavy territory and give to you, the 10 things that ruled about the finale.

10.) The gang got back together - It was great for the past, well shit 3-4 seasons, to see everyone we care about scattered around doing their own things, but when Hurley and his van pulled up and when Juliet sided with Jack and the whole damn gang came together, I got a little misty eyed. Admit it, when you saw EVERYONE working together to pull off another of Jack's "no way in hell this is going to work, in fact, you should do the opposite" plans, you got a little excited. Not Kate taking a jungle bath excited, but excited.

9.) Feeling the feelings - I'm not a huge fan of all the "will they/won't they" BS on the show, but as Abbie and I talked about during the episode, the only reason people do anything is for "love" (provided you extend that definition to mean sex stuff as well). Jack admitted his love for Kate, wanting to reboot to have a second chance with her (nice). Juliet confirmed her love for Sawyer and called him out on his love for Kate as well. Kate, in her defense, admittedly loves both of them. Point is, things were all said and confirmed. It was nice to have those words instead of longing looks.

8.) The stakes got bigger again - Without going too much into something you know will appear on this list later, how great is it that we're dealing with obviously larger stakes here again? When it was just a handful of people left on the island that Jack wanted to go back for or when it was just about reuniting people or love or such shit it wasn't as significant. We're talking about nukes, time paradoxes, and the ultimate battle for humanity's soul. Now THAT'S significant.

7.) Sawyer vs Jack round eleventy billion - Simply put, I love it when these two knock the crap out of each other. It's like they are just so physically incapable of communicating successfully that they have an uncontrollable urge to unleash violence whenever together. Love it.

6.) Rose and Bernard got a semi-happy ending - Whether or not it lasts, it sure was nice to see this older couple "retire." It was a sweet pause in an otherwise depressing and crazy season. Good for them, they got at least 3 years to relax on the beach.

5.) Answers we got - We actually got a surprising number of things solved. Here are a few: (1) Is Jacob real and if so who is he? (2) How did Marvin Candle lose his arm? (3) What was "the incident?" (4) What lies in the shadow of the statue? (5) What was the four-toed statue originally? (6) Why are some of the Losties more important than others? That's just a few, there were more, but come on, that's not bad for one episode (plus, they gave other hints to set up more conclusions).

4.) Locke's reveal - You can claim that you knew, but you didn't. For the second year in a row, John in the box was a huge shocker. How great was it that this character, who we've loved, is dead as dead can be and yet still can continue on the show. Sure, they could be resetting everything with the whole bomb blast, but how cool was that moment when John's corpse rolled out?

3.) Ben's moment - Equally as good was Ben Linus fulfilling his role. Finally, here was a controlling manipulator who was out of answers and at the end of his rope. Clearly, the "loophole" that was needed was that the "leader" of the "others" was the only one who could see Jacob, so that person had to be convinced to kill him. Since John wasn't John, Ben was still the technical last leader of the group. Geez, that line from Jacob "what about you, Ben?" was so awesomely harsh. Loved it. Especially given the last line from Jacob "they're coming." How could you not love this episode?!

2.) The end-game is finally here - We were promised Good vs Evil back when Locke was playing with Walt. We knew those were the stakes. We also knew that it would have a larger significance than a mere microcosm of Dharma vs Others or whatnot. Much like the Greeks, Romans, and modern Americans with their fantasy football teams, champions are chosen to represent two sides who do battle like a chess set. They were chosen specifically for this purpose. This IS the final chapter, because we now see the people behind the pawns.

1.) We finally got a bad guy - The only problem with the show has been the lack of one driving villain. Sure, Ben is slimy, but not quite a bad guy out and out. Now we get "the man in black," who could be Esau and is likely Smokey. That's incredibly awesome. You can't deny that, at least.

To make a long post that's really just filler for a slow news week finally close, there was far more to like than dislike about this episode and about the show heading in. If you watch the show, you have from the beginning and thought at that point (when you first decided to watch it) that it was going to have something to do with a battle of good and evil like this, so you know this is what you wanted. Enjoy it. Don't get greedy and want answers now. Breathe deep, relax, and get ready for next year.

Quick clips for Wednesday May 20

Finally, flopping schlong pays off

When they tell you that dressing in a pink banana hammock and shaking your man hose in people's faces won't do wonders for your career, you point them towards The Hollywood Reporter, which told me that Chris "Party Boy" Pontius is going to be in Sofia Coppola's new movie. Now, his character will likely be a variant of his real life personality (hopefully with significantly less exposed nutsack), but he's still in a Sofia Coppola movie and you aren't. More alarming than this casting is the repeated description of the plot, which still sounds like a variation of The Gameplan, only with a "decadent, bad-boy actor" in place of the football player. This, of course, reminds one of Johnny Knoxville, who I believe is right now getting peed on for beer money. I'm surprised that Coppola would be cool with this kind of casting, but she probably knows somebody who knows somebody and that's how it all goes down. What I'm saying is, I need to know more people. On a side note, despite the wretched plot synopsis and terrible casting (Stephen Dorff? Really? He's the lesser of two Dorffs. He may be lesser than Dorf.), I'm really holding out hope that Coppola returns to form here (seriously, if Francis can't, some Coppola should at least make good movies these days). Not to put undo baggage on Sofia, but she's one of a handful of female directors with enough clout to actually get attention. Someone tell me why there aren't more successful female directors? Do you direct via penis? I thought she'd be the one to finally score the Best Director win for the ladies, but this plot sounds like she'll be more likely to hoist an Emmy for a very special episode of "Two and a Half Men."

Pixar makes movies, Dreamworks makes money

Movies are a business. I know that. But when I hear small rumblings of a backlash against Pixar, I want to punch people in their word holes. Other than Cars, which was not that good and has been turned into a big cash cow for the studio, they don't whore out every product until it is sucked dry. I'm mentioning this because Dreamworks is developing a "Monsters vs. Aliens" TV show to go with the "Penguins from Madagascar" TV show that's on the air and the "Kung Fu Panda" TV show that's in development. Nobody is saying that the sanctity of Monsters vs Aliens is being defiled but the point is that Dreamworks comes up with a concept, not a movie. They see visions of toys dancing in their heads, not scripts or storylines. Lately, it's seemed like there's an undercurrent of people who are sick of Pixar being so praised, as though a studio intelligently and delicately crafting one quality film a year is somehow annoying. Sorry that they're good and continue to do good things, I'm sure you can jump their shit after Cars 2, which I'll agree is a terrible idea and a waste of time. Dreamworks is a fine studio, but this is just evidence of the difference between quality and cash-cowing. Also, I'm really looking forward to Up, which I've been told is just as good as everything else Pixar has ever done. Until I'm buying Ratatoille-brand pesticide, I'm going to continue to hold the studio up as the example of how to keep dignity and make money (they should give lessons to every Vh1 reality star).

Terminator Salvation review

I've thoroughly read online that we're good to post reviews now. So, here goes. Warning: If you've got a "No Fate But What We Make" tattoo, you're going to want to look away.

Robolobotomy

Terminator Salvation be damned
Ryan Syrek

What the hell did you expect when you hired the guys who wrote Catwoman?

Writers John Brancato and Michael Ferris, who jointly ended Halle Berry’s career, have penned a script so stupid it should have its own reality dating show. Terminator Salvation is a cautionary tale of a franchise gone wrong. It also further cements Christian Bale’s status as actor most in need of a throat lozenge.

Although most Americans would score better on a quiz over the Terminator mythos than on a citizenship test, here’s a primer: In the near future, evil robots have taken over the planet. Caught up?

Brancato and Ferris spoil the one original thought they had over the opening credits, which show Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington) donating his body to science before receiving lethal injection in 2003. Fast forward to 2018, where destined savior of humanity John Connor (Bale) is engaged in the robot killin’ that made machines go back in time to try to kill him in the last three movies. John’s mission yields a superweapon that could end the war: an off button for the robots (yep, seriously).

Marcus inexplicably shows up and meets Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin), the young soldier from the first film who will paradoxically be sent back in time later on by John and will become John’s father. Marcus helps protect Kyle, meets Blair (Moon Bloodgood) and saves her from rapists. They then snuggle in front of a fire (awww). This works out for Marcus, and not just for “Moon Bloodgood is hot” reasons, but because she eventually sets him free after he is captured by John’s gang for a reason you can guess either (A) from the previews or (B) from the lethal injection scene. If you haven’t figured it out yet, congratulations, you might like the new Terminator movie. Then a bunch of stuff explodes.

Despite some incredibly sweet new robot models (motorcycle terminators = awesome) and one hyper-cool CGI cameo, director McG has made a movie worthy of his moniker: nonsensical. John again does not achieve his savior status, actors like Bryce Dallas Howard are shown literally just standing around (so is Common…but that’s okay) and the whole thing ends having not furthered events one iota. In every way, things would have been the same (perhaps better) had this film not existed.

Hey, at least the trailers for Terminator Salvation looked cool. Stick with those if you want to live.

Grade – D+

Quick clips for Tuesday May 19

All of this may be lies

On slow news days (or weeks), we turn to lies and half truths. It's just how movie blogging rolls. I was going to talk about Terminator Salvation but was just informed that I have a press embargo on that (hint: there's a reason). So, instead, here's some stuff that's likely bullshit. Remember, I vouch for exactly none of the following. Latino Review got their hands on the image below, which is supposedly an early design for Mickey Rourke's character in Iron Man 2 (for the full image, click on the link, that's why it's there).

There's every possibility that this is (A) fan hokum, (B) so early that it no longer resembles anything close to what is going to be in the final film, or (C) actually a drawing of what Kevin Costner is going to look like when he dresses in the blood-soaked armor he's going to use to kill us all. Also, there's still no word on exactly who Rourke will be playing. I've heard Whiplash (not the Taco Bell mascot), Blacklash, and Backlash. I'm pulling for Eyelash or Fancy Sash, but those aren't looking good. Also, he's supposedly Russian (wait, can he do accents?), which would account for the involvement of the definitely Russian Black Widow (mmmm Scarlett Johansson...you don't need to talk much in this role...right?). That would make him the Crimson Dynamo, which sounds like a female stimulation device. Whatever the case, enjoy this potentially real but likely totally fake illustration!

See this and weep

Unlike the above story, the following is very, very real. Oh, you'll think it's a Funny or Die clip or something. It isn't. This happened. Get ready.



Ohmygodohmygod. I want to thank Slashfilm.com for their assistance in ruining my dreams for the forseeable future. What kind of sick bastard made this? I mean, this is obviously a film about a pedophile who dresses up like Fozzie Bear from The Muppets in order to ingratiate himself with children. It was also made for the price of two dollars and a ham sandwich. I want you to take a minute and think about all the films that haven't happened and realize that this one did. The best part, the guy from "Jag" is in it. "Hey, guy from 'Jag,' are you sad that you were famous once?" "Hey, piss off, I'm still working." "Really, because I thought CBS had canceled that procedural show to make room for a procedural show that was a spin off of a procedural show." "Yeah, but I'm in movies." "Really, are you in Star Trek?" "Um, no. It's a kid's movie." "Oh, that's cool, is it like one of the Pixar movies?" "No, it's live action." "Oh, really. Hmm, are you in Harry Potter and the Pisser of Doom?" "No, it's Gooby." "What the hell's a Gooby?" "SCREW YOU! I WAS ON TV! I DRIVE AN ESCALADE! I'VE SEEN CELEBRITY BOOBS! I EAT AT GOOD RESTAURANTS!" "Yeah, but you were in Gooby." "Kill me."

I'll take names that are as unfamiliar as Mjolnir for $1000, Alex

Kenneth Branagh's Thor is creeping up on us. The first step: casting. We now know (as has been reported all over the interwebs) that Chris Hemsworth is Thor and Tom Hiddleston is Loki. To answer your owl impression ("Who? Who?"), Hemsworth was Kirk's daddy in Star Trek and Hiddleston is some foreign actor who is apparently, like, talented and stuff. I don't know. This leaves really only a few key roles, and we all know Karl Urban is going to be offered one (he's got a right of first refusal for all sword-bearing roles). The more interesting questions are who is going to play Sif, the one female role of note, and will there be any famous person involved? I think that the best evidence of how to cast a film like this is actually the oft-mentioned Star Trek. You want to cast people with a body of work that you can refer to (Simon Pegg for example) but who aren't iconically identified elsewhere (cough, CHRISTIAN BALE, cough). Although I applaud casting unknowns if they deserve it (for the record, I thought Hemsworth was the wobbliest performance in all of Star Trek and he was in it for like 5 minutes), but I do like the idea of casting somewhat familiar faces that work. To wit, why not use a Rachel McAdams as Sif? She needs the franchise and is undeniably gorgeous. What about casting someone somewhat familiar in the role of Thor's allies? It doesn't have to be a huge name, like maybe a TV star of some note (like Jorge Garcia as the fat guy that's in Thor's clique). Just curious as to whether or not a movie like this needs SOMEONE we've heard of. It's not like Thor is a household name like Spiderman or Mr. Clean.

Quick clips for Monday May 18

Wake me for Boggle: The Movie

Let's get something straight here; I like board games. I like them so much that they were among the first parcels transported to my new home. They have a place all picked out for them. I play them often. I just realized that I've gone too far in defending my pro-board game position and now sound like a loser who would conceivably dress-up to play live-action versions of "Clue." (Psst, I totally would). That said, I do not need to see movie versions of board games. To further elaborate: No one needs to see movie versions of board games. Don't be pulling the whole "people said the same thing about movies based on theme park rides and look how good Pirates was." (A) It had Johnny Depp. (B) It had effing pirates; if Geena Davis isn't involved, ANYONE can make a good movie with pirates. (C) Talk to me after the Rock's take on Tomorrowland (yep, seriously). As far as board games go, were I kept in the dark for the rest of eternity regarding what shape and or form an adaption of Candyland would resemble, my soul would rest each night on a puffy cloud without worry. And yet, today brings news from multiple outlets that Peter Berg is in talks to direct Battleship. Now, on the one hand it seems like a good opportunity to have a naval action movie (if only there were other sources available for the basis of a naval action movie, like say the last 2000 years of human experience). I, however, am holding out hope that it will actually follow the board game, and involve people sounding bored to death calling out numbers and letters for two hours. Think of the thrill when Marlon Wayons calls out B28 and Ashton Kutcher says "you sunk my tugboat." Why do I think there's some photoshopped version of Ashton and Marlon "sinking tugboats" already online somewhere. Anyway, happy Monday, here's a board game movie!

The A-Team gets a team

That title is just sad, but I'm tired enough to not give a squirt. Joe Carnahan is making The A-Team movie. He's like the seventh bastard to try. How hard can it be? They're a group of former soldiers who shoot out the tires and engines of random bad guys for innocent and troubled folks. I mean, they're making a goddamn Battleship movie, and you can't get the A-Team together? Reportedly, Common is in negotiations to play BA Baracus (that's Common the rapper/actor [raptor], not Common the adjective). Also, word on the street (that's a metaphor, I would have no idea what happens "on the street" I heard it through IESB) is that Bradley Cooper may be playing Face (that's Face the character, not Face the body part). This makes Bradley a hot Internet property, with him being rumored for The Green Lantern as well. Problem is, he claims to have heard nothing about the superhero project. Hey, Brad, buck up. You may get to star in the adaptation of a mediocre 80s show that I loved (mainly because William "The Refrigerator" Perry starred in one episode)! That's just as good as starring in a major franchise, right? What about working with Common? That has to be a goal of every talented actor, right? I mean, Sir Lawrence Olivier never worked with Common. Daniel Day-Lewis hasn't worked with Common. That puts you in rarefied air, doesn't it? Good luck shooting tires and engines!

Weekend Box Office Results: God only slightly more powerful than Spock

Wow, that was a lot closer than anybody who made Angels and Demons thought it would be! Star Trek damn near pulled off an upset over the Popicidal sequel to the most boring blockbuster ever! Now, the good news for Ron Howard and Tom Hanks (besides, you know, the rest of their lives) is that the first movie did insane money overseas, so they could really care less how well this does domestically. It will likely chug past around $150 million here and make like $400 million overseas. Anytime you can pull down half a billion for making a movie about a guy who sees things that happened and then describes them, you have to be satisfied. The more interesting question is this: Will Star Trek be the big winner this summer? Sure, Harry Potter is gonna get his, but will this be the surprise second-place finisher? Can it outlast Transformers 2? Do you care? No? Fair enough.

Here are the results:

1.) Angels and Demons - $48 million (Accuracy of prediction - 97%)

A big dip down from the opening of The Da Vinci Code despite featuring 100% less self-mutilating albinos. I haven't made it out to this one yet (psst, I probably won't), but I hear that it was more exciting than the first one...meaning that it didn't actually act as cinematic Ambien.

2.) Star Trek - $43 million (Accuracy of prediction - 99%)

Wowza. This bodes quite well for the boldly goers, as the dip was very small for a non-Summer weekend, let alone a blockbuster-laden time frame. This will fly past $200 million (although it takes a bigger body shot this weekend with Terminator: Salvation aiming for the exact same audience). This has a shot at $300 million. That's right, a Star Trek movie has a shot at $300 million. Bow down to JJ Abrams right now.

3.) X-Men Origins: Wolverine - $15 million (Accuracy of prediction - 82%)

Stopped the bleeding a little bit from last week, but T4 should just about do it for this movie. It really doesn't have a good chance of clearing $200 million, which is a shame for such a potent franchise. That's right, I just implied Hugh Jackman is impotent (not really, please don't Australian punch me).

4.) Ghosts of Girlfriends Past - $6.5 million (Accuracy of prediction - 100%)

Don't look now, but this movie is going to clear $50 million before it hits video. We like to talk about the $100 million movies, but this will be profitable before Wolverine is. Also, I love Jennifer Garner. You didn't think I'd forget, did you?

5.) Obsessed - $4.5 million (Accuracy of prediction - 89%)

Bye-bye Beyonkee. I shall not talk of you again for months. YESSSSS!

Overall accuracy of prediction - 93.4%

Didn't even need my Wildcard this week. Now that's awesome. I think I've gotten the hang of it. This works much easier when people just do as their told and see what they're supposed to. Happy Monday gang!

Friday free for all

Nope, not gonna happen...me and this shovel won't let it

Despite what my good friend and excellent human being (despite his Detroit Lion's addiction) has theorized and rumored, Steven Spielberg is not, I repeat, NOT going to make a sequel to ET. How do I know this? Well, he said so, for starters. Last month in Empire Magazine, the 'Berg said, and I quote "I’m never going to make E.T. II — E.T. is a closed story. It had a beginning, middle, and a definite ending, and we had nowhere to take it except to go home with him. Nor did I want to bring him back to Earth for a second time." Yes, there was briefly a discussion about ET II after the first one came out, and even a script, called ET - Nocturnal Fears, perhaps the worst title ever conceived. I mean, seriously, doesn't that sound like a movie in which Eliot experiences one of "those" dreams? This rumor first began with an anonymous "source" in the same tabloid that has brought us such stories as "Man gives birth to live shark" and "Is Oprah cheating on Steadman with a Walrus?" (answer: Yes). I know that anything is possible in Hollywood, but Spielberg already tried to ruin his classic once by taking the guns out of the FBI chase sequence and adding in digital walkie talkies (everybody run, the FBI can...um...call for more backup?) in the "special edition" (special meaning special here), so I think he's learned his lesson. So, that rumor is as debunked as a summer camp that's been demolished.

I think Devin at Chud.com is going to think I'm stalking him

How creepy is it that on Twitter you "follow" people. Can't they say "subscribe" or something? "Following" people sounds much more perv-friendly than it needs to. Anyway, the bearded, verbose, opinionated guy at Chud.com has actually engaged in a bit of Twitter banter with me recently about Star Trek, a subject on which he is passionate as hell and on which I am...you know, moderately aroused by. I did love, love, love this last one, but prior to that...let's just say I never had a Tribble chubby. Well, Devin has now posted a list of 5 things Star Trek 2 should avoid, and I wanted to (A) repost it and (B) address it...so let's do that!

5.) Leave Khan out of it

Agreed, entirely agreed. The best way to redeem the new episode's only major weakness (a creepy Space Miner villain....oooooh) is to prove you can create a better one. It shouldn't be too hard, you have all of infinite space to work with. My suggestion: an evil space pipe layer (Devin started it with a "space minor" joke, and I want to keep the Kirk-banging-extraterrestrial-broads joke going).

4.) Leave that bumpy Ewok out of it

Again, agreed. It wasn't too obnoxious, but whatever the hell that gnome thing was could get really cumbersome. We don't need an explanation for why acne-ridden Willow isn't there anymore, you can just dispose of Scotty's sidekick.

3.) Don't tie the next movie in to "Lost"

Disagree. Many, many audience members didn't even get the "Slusho" reference in the first Star Trek. This is akin to saying to Hitchcock "You don't have to appear in your films." JJ knows he doesn't have to make any references if he doesn't want to, but if he does, that's okay. It's his stamp he's putting on this. I know we all think that this is "our" movie, but he's making it, and if he wants to take a second to wink at himself and his friends, that's fine by me. It's nonobtrusive. Now, if it becomes more than a Dharma logo in the background, I agree, but I don't think he's that stupid.

2.) Don't start on Earth

Devin points out that most Trek films do. I personally don't care about this. So...whatever. Start on Gurlork or whatever the hell planet you want.

1.) Leave the original cannon alone

I agree to a point. I think they need to show that they respect the original series, making a few winks-and-nods, but not follow it as though it were a roadmap. Seriously, you don't want to see a tribble? You don't want to see a few reimagined things, just to see what they could look like? I think you shouldn't remake the previous stuff (because many of them were pretty awful) but why not at least acknowledge some of it.

I think if I were to give any advice, it wouldn't be in the "don't" form that Devin proposes, so much as in the "do" form. Really, it's just two things: (1) Be imaginative - Keep the action but also explore things that warp our perceptions (like "The Left Hand of Darkness" by Ursula LeGuin); (2) don't feel the need to give everybody a defining moment - We now know the characters, but if you want to serve each of the 9 members of the crew, you can't....it's "Lost" syndrome. Anyway, I'm eagerly looking forward to this (and not fearing it as some long-time Trekkers are).

Weekend Battle Plan: Angels and Demons is "blockblustery" enough!

This will be short, I am going to go buy a house in a few minutes (wish me luck). Ben Coffman, our esteemed film reviewer, has assured me (in my stead) that Angels and Demons is going to get a B grade from him (his review is forthcoming...probably not until Monday, but whatever). So, I guess that's fine to see if you haven't seen Star Trek. If you haven't seen that one, by God you communist prig, you need to get yourself there NOW!!!

That's my recommendation (told you it would be quick): Get the to Star Trek (again, or for the first time) or, if you've seen that and have some kind of passion for the dead-inside Robert Langdon, you can see that and survive.

On DVD: I haven't seen S. Darko yet, which is what I'm reviewing for the week. I've been a little busy this week, back off. So, I guess you could rent Taken (wherein a giant Liam Neeson protects his teenage daughter...played by distinctly non-teenage Maggie Grace) or try out the direct-to-DVD sequel to Donnie Darko, because it has Elizabeth Berkley in it, so it's not like it can be bad.

Fearless, Flawless Box Office Predictions

Okay, real quick this week. We know that Angels and Demons is number one, and that Trek will go two...but how high for each?! I'm thinking Trek will have a surprisingly sturdy hold and that Angels, like most men who brag about their sexual prowess, underperform decisively. Also, there's a mess for that final position (thanks Wildcard!) let's see if this streak can continue. When I'm busy, you get Haikus, so here goes:

1.) Angels and Demons - $51 million

This could be too low
Then again, no controversy
More cash if pope mad

2.) Star Trek - $42 million

Will hold very strong
Take that Wolverine, you suck
Kirk will bitch slap you

3.) Wolverine - $9.5 million

Hope you had some fun
We will forget you were here
Deadpool? Not so sure.

4.) Ghosts of Girlfriends Past - $6.5 million

I don't blame you, Jen.
I blame Matt McConaughey.
I do his voice well.

5.) Obsessed - $3.5 million

Beyonce you suck.

That's not a haiku.

WILDCARD - 17 Again - $3 million

Again? No thank you.
One time is more than enough.
Poor Matthew Perry.

Happy weekend! See you on Monday!

Quick clips for Thursday May 14

Yesterday's "worst idea ever" title holder is defeated in less than 24 hours

In what can only be described (with a nod to Kanye West) as the defeat of the century of the generation of the decade of the second week in May, someone has managed to put forth an idea shittier than the shittiest of shit sounding ideas that was shat out yesterday (don't worry Rob Liefeld, in my book, you're still the shittiest). According to Variety, Abel Ferrara (best known for directing Harvey Kietel's wang to glory in Bad Lieutenant) is going to "reimagine" Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. I know what you're thinking; you're thinking "McDonald's burritos really weigh down my colon...oh, and Ryan must be talking about that terrible sounding Keanu Reeves remake of Jekyll." First, apologies to your intestinal tract. Second, no, I'm talking about a different project wherein Forrest Whittaker and 50 Cent are going to be the leads in a "contemporized" version. For the record, "contemporized" now means "jam-packed with sewage." Once again, the best part is always the quote from the producer who really wants you to believe he's thought this out. In this case, our quotation whore is Luc Roeg, who noted "The combination of such formidable talent in front of and behind the camera will turn this wonderful gothic story into a modern classic for a whole new generation." If this motherlover said that with a straight face, he needs to be elected to office immediately. I mean, "formidable talent?" 50 Cent sort of sucks at rapping...and THAT is what he does best. "Modern classic?" You mean, like, my family and I will hang out and discuss how that 50 Cent movie changed our perception of humanity? "Whole new generation?" Really? That sounds so...I don't know, poetic. "My fellow citizens, I stand before you today with renewed hope for our generation. When they said, you can't turn a wonderful gothic story into a modern classic, we said 'yes we can.'" Stay tuned for tomorrow's "worst news ever," which may just be a new recurring theme for this blog.

If you have any ideas involving vampires, we'll buy 'em now

The Hollywood Reporter wants you to know that any idea you've ever had involving people who suck blood is a good one and is valuable. The latest news is that DreamWorks has picked up the rights to remake Fright Night. Yes indeedy. For those unfamiliar, the film was an 80s gem that followed a kid who figured out there was vampirism afoot and nobody would believe him. It was also a comedy, which made it kind of unique. For the record, I am officially done with the following horror themes:

Vampires
Werewolves
Vampire/werewolves
Werewolf/vampires
99% of zombie movies

That said, there is an interesting thing potentially to be explored here: Humor. I can't think of the last successful horror comedy movie (in fact, I can't think of many at all, let alone good ones). Plus, with the vampire boner (wow, that's a scary phrase) that everybody has these days, a little riffing on them (non-Scary Movie obvious style) would be nice. Like, make your lead vampire who all the ladies fall in love with gay. Point is, although I'm against the greenlighting of any more vampire anything on sheer principle, wouldn't it be nice if there was a bit of intelligent humor to be had on the subject. In the absence of intelligent humor, I'll take 2 hours of nonstop Twilight jokes.

Lost recap: Well, either you're in or you're out

Read no further if you haven't seen last night's (once-more-with-feeling) "game-changing" episode of "Lost." I remember when we saw the season finale of season 4 and everyone said "ah, the show is about time travel," and everybody just assumed that was the driving force and concept behind the show and the rest of the episodes would play out using that theme. I also remember back during the first season when I theorized waaaaay back then that this island was actually the garden of Eden and that the driving force behind the events were biblical or religious in nature. Turns out, there may have been some truth in that, and in revealing that twist, I fear many will abandon the show. Their loss.

Here's what happened alongside my thoughts and reactions, we'll do this separated by the two storylines (both kick ass).

1.) We open with the big reveal: Jacob (in white) and someone else who is clearly his foil (dressed in black, wearing a beard, clearly evil). We see The Black Rock coming in, the evil dude says "Why are you bringing them here, you know what will happen, they'll fight, be corrupted, and it will end." (Or something close to that). Jacob says "it only has to end once, everything else is just progress." The evil one says "I want so badly to kill you" and says he's looking for a loophole in order to do so. And at once we see the entirety of "Lost" exposed. Jacob has chosen his champions (Jack, Kate, Sawyer, Locke, Sayid, Hurley, and Sun and Jin) to be pit against whatever forces the evil one has. Underneath the statue, which is revealed to have a crocodile head (which Internet research reveals is Sobek, an ancient Egyptian God known to be a "repairer of evil"), the two are playing an eternal game. Is mankind basically good? Will they do the "right" thing, no matter how hard it is? Greek Gods used to do this over and over again, as did biblical stories ("Job" anyone?) "Lost" tells the last in a series of these contests. We see as Jacob "repairs" the characters earlier in their lives, the effects of which we haven't seen yet. We see him convince Kate stealing is bad, comfort Jack after surgery, encourage Hurley to return to the island (and gives him that mysterious guitar case), console Sawyer after his parents death, remind Sun and Jin of their love, heal John after his fall, and take Nadia from Sayid (which is the only seemingly non-repair in the whole show...was this punishment then, doled out for shooting little Ben...speaking of which, in the recap show, Damon Lindelof seemed to confirm that Ben remembered Sayid shooting him, noting "it was when Ben's trust issues started." Interesting). More on Jacob's story later, but for the record, although some will hate this, I love it. I love the mythological aspects of the story, I always have. It doesn't cheapen the science at all, as the story has always blended the two (see, "Man of Science/Man of Faith" and little things like the fact that Ms. Hawking's research lab was beneath a church).

2.) Jack is ready to blow the island up. No need to recap how, but it's revealed that Sawyer and Jack are both in love with Kate, which is the cause for everyone to support the kablooie plan. Jack and Sayid snag the guts of Jughead the bomb, sneak into Dharmaville (where Sayid gets capped by Ben's dad...payback is a beyotch), and eventually the bomb is tossed into the well (after Marvin Candle loses his hand and Phil is killed). Then, sadly, Juliet (who was crushed by Sawyer's continued love of Kate) dies and blows up the island...maybe. The final fade to white will piss some folks off, but is just as good a cliffhanger as there can be. The question for the summer will be "did it work? Did they reset time?" The answer is yes, but with caveats, more on that below.

3.) We find out that what lies in the shadow of the statue is (in Latin) "He who will save us all." We see that the box that the people were carrying through the jungle was Locke's body. He is, in fact, still dead (which they told us over and over again "dead is dead"). Inside the temple, Ben kills Jacob, who refuses to comfort Ben the way he did others. Turns out, Locke wasn't Locke but the evil dude who was on the island with Jacob from the beginning. Before he dies, Jacob says "they're coming," which is the sign to me that the bomb worked. "They" are Jacob's soldiers, his champions (the Losties) and they are going to be brought forward in time. Things are different, but not entirely, we'll see next season that things are reset and that the "war" is upon us. We now know the sides, the "evil" guy versus "Jacob's gang" and at stake is the world as we know it.

Wow. Now, much like I admired Knowing for being willing to go full-on sci-fi, so too do I love "Lost" for it's willingness to take chances. Some will cry "shark jump," but this is (I believe) where the show has been going since the onset. I for one, can't wait to see where it goes from here. More on this next Wednesday, as in the absence of "Lost" we can only discuss it.

Programming note - Blog will be late tomorrow...I'm buying a house