"Hairspray" review

If I took a few steps toward manhood with Live Free or Die Hard last week, I took a step back today with Hairspray, but the movie so harmless and bright that I really don't care. Based on the Broadway musical (which itself was based on the non-musical 1988 John Waters film), Hairspray is a light, frothy little movie that will at the very least put a smile on your face.

The story centers on young Tracy Turnblad (played charmingly by newcomer Nikki Blonsky), a plus-sized teenage optimist living in a segregated 1960s Baltimore. When given the chance to dance on the American Bandstand-esque TV show, she becomes involved in a racially-charged battle for integration. Along the way, she involves her mother (played humorously by John Travolta in drag) and father (an always entertaining Christopher Walken) and the hunky dancer Link Larkin (played with surprising talent by High School Musical's Zac Efron). Although race is a central theme of the movie, it is never dealt with in a heavy-handed way. When coupled with the themes of image and weight, the movie becomes more a message of tolerance; a breezy reminder to embrace those that are different and too accept their unique contributions.

The actors seem to give the movie their all, and the performances as a whole are quite good (although I couldn't really understand much of Michelle Pfeiffer's sultry singing under the actress's heavy affectations...). The music itself is cheery and catchy, and complements perfectly the film's bubble-gum tone. And I'm happy to say that this is the first movie-musical I have seen in years where it didn't seem completely obvious that the actors were being dubbed--it really felt like they were there singing live, instead of lip-syncing ( one thing I hated about The Phantom of the Opera and Moulin Rouge...).

It's not a perfect movie, and not a very deep one either, but it is high energy, and sometimes that's all a good musical needs. And while the movie won't change anyone's life, it's a step in the right direction for the modern movie-musical revival. (*** out of four)

Babies and wizards

A couple of quick updates, intended to make up for some massively blaring omissions from my blog in recent weeks:

• Wendy and I found out that we're having a baby girl! As you can see from the counter at the bottom of this page, only 157 days to go! Now if we could just decide on a name...
• Only slightly less exciting is the fact that I finished the final Harry Potter book on Monday, and though I won't spoil it here, really enjoyed it overall. I have a few minor quibbles about some of the ends that seemed too neatly tied-up, as well as a few pacing issues (could the three main characters have been in hiding for less than 600 pages, please?). But again, a most satisfying conclusion to a fantastic seven-book fantasy. I can't wait to see what Rowling has up her sleeve next.
  

"Live Free or Die Hard" review

Having now watched Bruce Willis in his latest Die Hard sequel, I can officially declare two things: Bruce Willis is one bad 50-year old butt kicker, and Live Free or Die Hard is possibly the worst title for a movie I have ever heard. Luckily, the movie is much better than its title.

Since I have never seen any of the previous Die Hard movies (I haven't ever seen the original Rocky either, so either I'm only half-a-man or just really lazy), but my Die Hard ignorance didn't really detract from my enjoyment; here's basically all you need to know: Bruce Willis plays Detective John McClane, who is apparently really unlucky and also really capable of wielding a big gun. Or causing lots of thrilling explosions. Or crashing a lot of cars. Or scowling at a lot of dumb bad guys, usually before killing them. Mindless as it is, the movie is actually pretty fun.

There are few action sequences in particular that I was sorry to see end: a noisy helicopter vs. police car chase and a horribly destructive (and awesome) showdown between a semi-truck and a really sleek-looking F-something jet (do you see how uncomfortable I am with all this man-lingo?). Lots of booms and bangs and crashes and kills (mostly bloodless), and really just a lot of good clean "manly" fun (with a heaping dose of some manly PG-13 action-movie cussing). (*** out of four)

In response to my previous post about the sanitization of movie sequels and how the trend hasn't historically helped a franchise financially...the jury's still out on this one. While Live Free or Die Hard has been well-received by critics, it will probably end up grossing roughly the same amount of money as did the franchise's previous sequel (1995's Die Hard with a Vengeance, runner up for the worst movie title ever), not including the inflation of ticket prices. So while it will likely be a profitable movie, (and possibly a franchise-savior), there's no way to know if its mild success is due to the tamer PG-13 rating.

Entertainment Weekly recently ranked the original Die Hard as the best action movie ever. Now that I've been initiated into the Die Hard-fraternity, I think it's probably time for me to check it out. Not coincidentally, I've also picked up chewing tobacco and scratching myself in public. Thanks for my introduction to manhood, Bruce!

"Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" review

I saw HP5 last night on the IMAX 3D screen in Sandy, and wasn't disappointed. The producers have once again managed to tell a visually-arresting story while still maintaining much of the book's emotion and spirit. Although these movies continue the long-running story from previous films, it never seems like we're repeating ourselves. The performances seem fresh, the tone varies from film to film, and we can actually see forward progress in the characters we've come to love. (And the 3D for the final 20 mins is pretty cool if you get to see it.)

There is much to love in this installment. As I mentioned before, the sets, costumes, and special effects are all top notch and contribute perfectly to the illusion of a wizard world that exists alongside ours. And while the performances across the board are first rate, I especially loved the actresses cast to play Dolores Umbridge and Luna Lovegood, who were both perfect for their very eclectic roles.

I had heard it said that this film lacked the whimsical spirit of the book, but if that was really the case, it didn't bother me. (Frankly, all I remembered from the book was Umbridge, which they interpreted very well.) The movie was also a little funnier and lighter than I had expected, which was pleasantly surprising. That's not to say that the story isn't dark, but the biggest challenge I saw to this movie was its very talky nature--it could have used an action scene about midway through the movie (such as Ron's quidditch debut, for example). Rather than being scared, I think some smaller children might just be bored. And the ending felt a little rushed--I wouldn't have minded another 10-15 mins of revelations or explanations.

As for where this movie stands against the rest of the films in the series, I'm still trying to decide. While it has some of the emotional depth of the third movie, it also lacks some of the action of the fourth. Though it isn't my favorite in the series, it also isn't my least favorite. I'd probably put it somewhere in the middle, between number 4 and number 2 (so for those of you keeping track, I'd probably rank the Potter movies like this: 3,1,4,5,2). It's a very good movie, and an admirably efficient adaptation of an 870-page book. I can't wait to see it again. (***1/2 out of four)

One note for the HP producers who undoubtedly frequent my blog: bring back composer John Williams for #6 and #7, pleeeeeeease!

Stack-ranking the "Harry Potter" films

I'm somewhat ashamed to admit that I haven't yet seen Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, but we've got our tickets to see it in IMAX 3D on Monday. So to keep me occupied in the meantime, I thought I'd rank the four previous Harry Potter movies from best to worst (although "worst" in the case of HP movies really is a relative term...). So if you'll keep in mind that I love all of these movies, here we go:

1. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban: At first viewing I was disappointed with this movie, mostly because it left out a lot of meaningful moments from the book and wasn't as faithful to its literary source as the first two movies in the series. However, upon repeat viewings, this movie has really grown on me. The visuals are moody and memorable, the acting is first-rate (Hermione has never been less-annoying), and the tone is the perfect balance of whimsy and malice. And this movie gets extra points for John Williams' perfect score, which has a prime spot in my Ipod rotation.
2. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone: The first movie in the series had the uneviable task of welcoming the world to a cinematic Hogwarts and its associated magic. Happily, it pulled it off very well. Upon repeat viewings, the film is unnecessarily slow and overly loyal to its source, but it is also perfectly sentimental and appropriately innocent for an 11-year old Harry and his young audience. And could the casting have been more inspired?
3. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire: This is definitely the most exciting of the first four movies, and remains a very entertaining and fast-paced adaptation of a 700-page novel. This movie's strengths include a streamlined and focused screenplay and some terrific performances (such as Brendan Gleeson as Mad-Eye Moody). A couple of nit-picky complaints: I sorely missed John Williams score, and Michael Gambon's Dumbledore gets a little more feisty and cranky than I ever pictured him in the book. Altogether a very fun movie, and how great was that creepy graveyard scene?
4. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets: This movie already had two things going against it: the associated book was my least favorite (too similar in structure to the first), and director Chris Columbus did little stylistically to distinguish this movie from the series' first film (though I complained about it at first, the producers' decision to shift directors from film to film--starting with #3--really helped breathe life into each film). Having said that, Chamber of Secrets does boast some very funny Ron-centric moments, introduces us to cute little Ginny Weasley, and gives us one last chance to enjoy the perfectly patriarchal Richard Harris as Dumbledore.

So there's my batting order: 3, 1, 4, 2. What do you think? How would you rank the first four movies? And for those of you who have seen #5, where would you rank it with relation to the other four movies?

"Transformers," "Ratatouille" reviews

My movie-going habits seem to come in spurts, as I'll sometimes go weeks or months without seeing a new movie, and then suddenly I go see a bunch of them all at once. So in keeping with that spirit, here are a couple of quick reviews for movies I watched over the past few days:

• Transformers: Say what you will about Michael Bay--whose movies are sometimes frustrating examples of excess--but when it's time for car chases and explosions and pure delightful cinematic chaos, he seems to be right at home. Since action is really the only thing anyone interested in Transformers wants to know about, I'll just cut to the chase. The action is fantastic, especially during the last 20-30 minutes of the movie. The Transformers themselves are a wonder to behold, and thanks to the wizards at ILM, fit seamlessly into this 13-year-old boy's fantasy--they really look amazing. (I also loved that they used the original voice of Optimus Prime.) The story, on the other hand, is messy and silly. Bay tries to make this an Independence Day-type ensemble, but the only character that really works in this movie is the one played by the charismatic Shia LeBeouf (the future son of Indiana Jones, reportedly). It's too intense and crass (Bay calls it "edgy") for most children, which is a shame, because most kids are justifiably dying to see this movie. But for the grown-up kids, it's really a great ride. (*** out of four)

• Ratatouille: Pixar has done it again: I loved this movie. Mixing oodles of charm with a witty script and a decent little moral, Ratatouille is the type of movie that you wish we'd see more of. It's as close to perfect as a family movie gets: it's clever without being crude, funny without being silly, and uplifting without being heavy-handed. As I'm sure you know, it's the story of a food-loving rat who accidentally gets heavily (and secretly) involved in a the kitchen of a once-great Parisan restaurant. But what would happen if France's most notorious food critic gets wind of a rat in the kitchen? Of course we know that the movie will end happily even before it's begun, but it's really the journey that's so much fun. Visually, the movie is a treat to watch (as we've come to expect from Pixar), but the movie in general is a "delight to the senses" (a phrase coined by my bro-in-law, Peter), with a bubbly musical score and a theme that will make you hungry for fine food. It's a rare film that is truly appropriate for the whole family without being insulting or dull to any of the age groups. Pixar is now 8 for 8; I wonder if they're hiring... (**** out of four)

Will Harry Potter die?

Even before the book comes out, the biggest question surrounding Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is undoubtedly "Will Harry Potter live or die?" Of course I have my own opinions, which are admittedly based largely in what I want (rather than what would make sense), but I think our scarred hero will indeed survive the series, if nothing else but to give millions of readers worldwide the happy ending that they all signed up for when they picked up the first book 10 years ago. Read my lips: Harry Potter will not die. (I'm almost starting to believe myself!)

"Wicked," "Mary Poppins" reviews

Wendy and I just got back from a fantastic weekend in NYC, and found much to love (mostly in the form of Roxy's cheesecake and Max Brenner's chocolate). But of course two of the highlights were the big musicals that we saw on Friday and Saturday nights: Wicked and Mary Poppins, respectively. Here are my thoughts:

• Wicked: This is every bit as much fun as people said, and then some. Even Wendy, who at times scoffs at a good musical, found herself captivated by this whimsical alternate take on The Wizard of Oz. The music is catchy and bright, the sets are colorful and dynamic, and the story is told with energy and charm. Though I thought I knew about the story, there were still several surprises that put a smile on both of our faces. If I have one complaint about the show, it's that we never got to see the Wicked Witch flying around the audience like I fully expected to see...still, it was a lot of fun, and worth seeing if you are ever in NYC.

• Mary Poppins: We were also really excited to see this one, since it is one of our favorite childhood movies. You've got to hand it to Disney--they spare no expense when it comes to creating a spectacle on-stage. The sets were incredible; they were detailed and creative and constantly changing (they reminded me of the old Sunset Boulevard sets in terms of their grandeur). As for the show and story itself...we sort of wish we had seen this one first, since Wicked seemed to be so much more lively and consistently entertaining. Don't get me wrong, Mary Poppins has a few high-energy numbers that brought down the house (especially "Step in Time"), and is never without something interesting to look at, but missed a bit of the magic of the movie. In talking about it with Wendy afterwards, we decided that the Broadway Mary and Burt didn't quite have the same charm and personality as did good old Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke, which could have helped the show feel a little lighter. Additionally, the show varies from the movie's story a bit, adding several new songs and characters that didn't necessarily enhance the story. Having said that, there is probably nothing bigger on Broadway, and it was a very fun way to spend a Saturday night.

The curse of the family-friendly sequel?

What do The Legend of Zorro, Evan Almighty, and Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer have in common? Interestingly, they are three sequels in dying (or at least ailing) movie franchises that have been released with a tamer MPAA rating than their predecessor(s) in an attempt to attract a wider movie audience. What else do these movies have in common? Each of them has made less than their predecessor--some of them (Zorro and Evan) making significantly less than the originals.

Now I'm all about keeping movies free of unnecessary excesses. But if I were the people in charge of greenlighting these movies, why mess with the audience that made your first film a success? Apparently someone liked that Zorro killed his enemies in the first film, and apparently someone liked the risque humor of Bruce Almighty. And apparently someone thought it was pretty great to see--wait, what was it really that people saw in Fantastic Four anyway?

But I digress...I'm just curious to know why producers these days think that their movies have to be everything to everyone. If they're going to make a sequel to a beloved movie, why not try to appeal to the audience that loved the movie in the first place? Tomorrow another "family-friendly" sequel comes out for a movie that was decidedly not family-friendly: Live Free or Die Hard, with a franchise-first PG-13 rating. What's next? Rambo IV: Waterguns and Smokebombs?

Let's see if this sanitized-sequel box office trend continues. And it might help if any of these sequels was actually worth seeing...

What will get me through Friday:

Steven Spielberg released this picture yesterday. Now that I've seen it, I'm actually starting to believe this movie is going to happen.


The movie comes out on May 22, 2008. Only 11 months to go!

In other news, Fox released the final trailer for The Simpsons Movie, which looks similar to previous trailers, with a few silly exceptions. (My favorite part comes during the last 5 seconds, which still has me giggling...). See the trailer here and then go see the movie on July 27.

Indiana Jones and the Lost Legos?

The Wall Street Journal had an interesting article the other day about the recent lucrative licensing deals that are being created to coincide with the upcoming Indiana Jones sequel. Lucasfilms, who has been so successful in merchandising its Star Wars films in virtually every market possible, is hoping to do the same with their Indiana Jones franchise. Among the partnerships that are being forged include, of course, Legos, as well as deals with M&Ms and Burger King, among others.

It's interesting to note the difference in the marketplace since the last time an Indy film (Last Crusade) was released back in 1989. Although I was young back then, I hardly remember any merchandising that went along with the film's release (especially when compared with another huge hit that also came out that summer: the Tim Burton/Michael Keaton Batman). Today it seems like it's hard not to imagine a movie being cross-promoted at fast food chains and in toy store isles (anyone else getting tired of seeing Black Spidey, Shrek, or Cap'n Jack on everything we touch?).

But seriously, how cool does that Lego Indy look? I'm almost praying our baby is a little boy so I can start stocking up on all the cool Indy toys!

"Breach" review

We finally saw Breach, a spy thriller that we'd been meaning to catch up on since it was in theaters back in February. It tells the true story of Robert Hanssen, the worst spy in U.S. history, who was finally brought down back in 2001. I vaguely remember hearing the story, but didn't remember the whole story. And though some of the details are slightly sordid, it's a fascinating true story in our nation's recent history.

The movie tells the tale of Hanssen's fall through the eyes of an ambitious, young FBI agent-in-training, who is assigned to be a clerk for (and spy on) Hanssen. Since we already know from the film's very first scene that Hanssen is brought down, the suspense doesn't lie so much in where he will end up, but in how he gets there. There is relatively little action, but the movie moves at a brisk pace and is never dull (though pay close attention to the dialogue, or you'll be lost pretty quickly--watch this after the kids have gone to bed so there are no distractions).

The acting really is first-rate, especially from Chris Cooper, who plays Hanssen with so many layers that you don't know if you should pity the guy, root for him, or hate his guts. He could so easily have become a caricature--a shallow, one-dimensional traitor whose motivations are so black-and-white that the audience doesn't even have to think about how they feel toward him. But gratefully, Cooper (with some guidance, I suppose, from the screenwriters and director) chooses to play Hanssen as a morally-conflicted, socially-awkward anti-bureaucrat. He is amazing to watch. (Laura Linney and Ryan Phillippe also do good work in their leading roles.)

Though it's being advertised as a thriller along the lines of The Bourne Identity or a Jack Ryan movie, it probably has more in common with director Billy Ray's fascinating last film, Shattered Glass, which I reviewed here in April of last year. As with Glass, Breach details the difficult and complicated world of moral gray areas--not just in Hanssen's double life, but also with those in the intelligence community that are forced to lead lives of half-truths in order to bring the real truth to light. It's a tough--but ultimately satisfying--film to watch, because so of the movie's conflicting themes (family, religion, patriotism, career progression, etc.) feel so close to our own reality, even if we're not being spied on by the government. (There's a little coarse language, and some occasional references to Hanssen's sexual preferences that you should be aware of.)
(***1/2 out of four)

Dwight = Frasier?

In one of the stranger stories I've read recently, Roger Friedman from FoxNews.com is reporting that NBC is considering a spinoff to The Office featuring Dwight (Rainn Wilson) in a lead role. While this is still just considered gossip (especially considering the source), it's made me think about this a little bit, and I'm not sure I love the idea. Here are a few reasons:

• Spinoffs rarely work. For every Frasier, there are a dozen Joeys.
  
• It's not like The Office is a franchise like CSI or Law & Order that can co-exist independent from each other...
• The Office isn't nearly the huge hit that NBC is trying to make it--it regularly loses its timeslot to both Ugly Betty and Survivor (although in the 18-49 age group it does pretty well). Things will get even tougher for the show when it moves up against CSI and Grey's Anatomy.
• Finally, Dwight is a wonderful supporting player on a show with many odd (and terrific) supporting characters. But as soon as you put Dwight front and center, isn't he just a little too left-field to carry his own show? (You thought Michael Scott was weird...). All I'm saying is that it might be better creatively if you let the supporting players remain supporting players...

Like I say, it's just a rumor at this point. But in my opinion, NBC is about ready to "shrute" up a good thing. What do you think about a Dwight spinoff?

Comfort food

Wendy and I have been sick for the past couple of days. You know how it is--you've been curled up in the fetal position for 12 hours, hoping for some relief. When the sun starts setting again, you start to panic because you think it's going to be another night of consistent crawling toward the bathroom on hands and knees. For Wendy, the only thing that brings her comfort at a time like this is...Disney's Sword in the Stone?

I suppose we all have them: movies that just make us feel like we're little kids again. Movies that give us hope when it's gloomy outside. For me, I'd have to say my comfort food is Disney's Pinocchio, although yesterday I settled for Cars (very cute, by the way). Other sick-day favorites: Mary Poppins and Lord of the Rings. I also enjoyed curling up with To Kill a Mockingbird, which I'm reading for the umpteenth time (doing my Atticus research...).

What is your comfort food when you're sick?

Sean Connery says "no thanks" to fourth Indy

Although I'm sure the fourth Indiana Jones (no title yet) will still be fun without him, the news of Sean Connery's choice not to appear in it saddens me. His statement, which you can view here, shows that he's still a class act, but wouldn't it be classier if he just un-retired and took one last adventure? And come on, Spielberg and Lucas, pull out the big guns (or checkbook...) and give him what he really wants!

Man, it makes me want to go watch those movies again, RIGHT NOW!!!

"Hairspray" trailer

Admittedly, I don't know much about this musical other than the fact that when on Broadway, one of the lead female roles was often played by a man in drag. So I don't really know what to expect from this big-screen adaptation, but it has a couple of things going for it:

• a big, pedigreed cast, including Michelle Pfeiffer (where has she been?), John Travolta (in drag), Queen Latifah (as a blond?), and Christopher Walken (always brilliant), among others
• a PG-rating: when was the last time a big screen musical was PG? Annie? Not that a PG-rating necessarily means a movie will be good, it just tells me that it won't focus as heavily on some of the seedier elements like other recent musicals (Moulin Rouge, Chicago, Dreamgirls) have done. The industry seems to have the impression that musicals won't sell unless they are "edgy." I guess we're about to find out...
  

Then again, here are some of my reservations:

• not since Mrs. Doubtfire has a woman in drag been funny (sorry, Norbit)
• High School Musical heartthrob Zac Efron has a big role as...the naughty rocker? What's next, Elmo as Hannibal Lecter?
• the movie opens up on July 20, one day before the final Harry Potter book is released. Honestly, who's going to be thinking about hairspray on a day like that?

Click here to watch the trailer, and then tell me on a scale of 1 to 10 how likely you are to see this movie. Right now, I'm a 6.

"On the Lot" still on the air...for now

I have a confession to make: Wendy and I couldn't muster up enough interest in On the Lot to watch the whole thing last night. On the one hand, it's becoming a most fascinating failure--a huge fiasco coming from some pretty big names (Spielberg and Burnett). On the other hand, I don't care how bizarre the show's shortcomings are, it's outright dull! We sat through one of the movies (the ring in the toilet one) but just couldn't sit around and listen to the judges or the hostess make things more awkward than they already were.

As I browsed EW.com today, I noticed a short article describing some of the strange happenings surrounding the much-hyped show. Though Fox claims that it's sticking with the show through August, it sounds to me like they are trying to kill the show slowly (like trying to shoot a deer with a BB gun). Click here for the full story.

I still argue that a show for amateur filmmakers is a great idea, but I think the American Idol format is what killed the show (as well as some really boneheaded producers). While I'm sorry I recommended the show to my loyal readers, the show could just as easily been fantastic, so I feel vindicated. Still, for those of you (like me) that devoted precious time to this strange show, I'm sorry. I guess there's nothing left for us to do but focus our attention on So You Think You Can Dance...

"Pirates 3" review

First things first: continuing this summer's crappy trend, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End is not as much fun as the first two Pirates movies. It's too long, too slow, and too confusing, at least for the first two hours. (Yes, you heard me, the movie is two hours and 45 minutes long! Normally the length wouldn't bother me--the previous Harry Potter was the same length, but it was consistently thrilling and fast paced.) Having said that, when At World's End finally gets going, it floats nicely into a frantic, dizzying, delightful finish.

As I mentioned, there's more story here than is worth mentioning, with every sort of pirate being introduced and given his or her own little subplot. Because there are so many new stories to tell, there isn't time to address the stories we're all really interested in. Case in point: Johnny Depp's Captain Jack isn't even introduced until about 40 minutes into the movie! To add to the frustration, the other likable or interesting characters (Will Turner, Elizabeth Swann, Captain Barbossa, etc.) don't get their storylines addressed until nearly the end of the movie, amidst all the chaos. And what kind of a pirate movie waits until the final 30 minutes to stage a swordfight?!?!

Having said all this, it would appear that I disliked this movie; to the contrary, when it finally gets to its conclusion, it satisfactorily ties up all the loose ends (from each of the three movies), even giving some surprising plot elements you might not have expected. The climactic battle takes place in a swirling maelstrom, complete with rain and explosions and lots of delicious special effects and death. So if you had asked me at about the two hour mark, I would have said it deserved ** out of four. Thanks to the final 40 minutes or so, it earns *** out of four.

This summer is disappointing me a little bit so far; I really hope Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix doesn't disappoint, or I might have to reconsider a new hobby...

On the...chopping block?

For both of us that have been watching the new reality show, On the Lot, we may need to try and recruit a few more of our friends to watch--the show is doing horribly in the ratings, and though it's summertime and there's not much else to watch, I fear Fox may do something drastic if ratings don't improve...

To initiate the newcomers, the show is basically American Idol for filmmakers. Yesterday's episode gave us a chance to watch, for the first time, 1-minute short films from each of the 18 finalists. Some of the films were interesting, some were dreadful (so much potty humor!), but only one or two was completely successful (I'd say the lucky penny one and the safety factory were the only outright "winners").

Being the first time the judges have had to address each finalist individually, I'd say they were...awkward. Carrie Fisher--who in other situations has been very blunt--seemed to have a hard time saying what she was really thinking; call it the Paula Abdul syndrome (her teeth looked a lot better though...). The guest judge just mimicked everything Carrie Fisher said. Only Garry Marshall seemed to be able to say anything constructive. I also don't love the hostess--she uses her hands in annoying ways, and just doesn't seem very genuine (where's Cat Deeley when you need her?). Let's hope things get better as the show moves on.

Having said those things, the show does have the potential to be very interesting. Let's hope people catch on. Spread the word!

I'm "Lost" and loving it

OK, just to be clear: I am about to talk about last night's killer Lost finale. So if you haven't watched it yet (Brett), kindly go watch it and then come back.

Now onto the show: I can't tell you how pleased I am with last night's season finale. It was scary, funny, sad, touching, and completely mind-boggling. I LOVED it. So, in no particular order, here are a few of my comments about the big game-changing episode:

• I loved Hurley's big moment of triumph. So nice to see the big guy catching a break. And wasn't it great that the silly VW actually served a purpose...
• There were a few moments during the finale (Mr. Friendly's demise at the hands of Sawyer, Jack kicking the crap out of Ben) when I am actually sort of scared to admit that I felt a little bit of bloodlust...but MAN did it feel good to see some of those jerks brought to their knees!
• Charlie: even though they've been telling us he was a goner for months now, part of me still believed that he'd somehow get around it. I was equal parts shocked and touched when he heroically gave his life to "save" the rest of the group. (Let's just hope they really do get saved!) And how sweet was it to see the former altar-boy doing the cross-thingie as he died--felt like a nice bookend to his life's story. Wow!
• Jack and his women: though I didn't really feel like the love business had much of a place in this finale, it's about time Jack said how he felt for Kate. I just wish it hadn't come 2 minutes after he kissed Juliet...what a mimbo!
• Sawyer: Although his brooding is annoying, it felt realistic at least, considering how he just killed a man with his bare hands just a few episodes back. I'm glad to see that it is affecting his poor tortured psyche.
  
• Mikhail (eye-patch guy): Will this guy ever die? Can't say I would hate seeing him lose his remaining eye (I know, there's that bloodlust again...).
• Penny: Who is (or was) Naomi, anyway? Whose boat is it if it isn't Penny's? Who are the people that Jack called?
  
• Locke: I'm glad he's not dead, but was it really necessary to kill off Naomi? And WALT?!?! Where did he come from?
  
• Future Jack: was everyone else as blown away as I was that Jack's flashbacks were actually flashforwards?!?! How did they get off the island? Who got off the island? Who was in the casket? Who is Kate with now? Why do they need to get back to the island? And does this mean that flashbacks are gonzo, and now we'll have flashforwards?!!? Either way, I loved it. LOVED it.

So now we wait until February 2008. What a great way to end the season, though. What did you think? Were you as satisfied with the finale as I was?

"On the lot"

Since everyone's all chatting about American Idol, I thought I'd ask if anyone had stuck around to watch the new reality show, On the Lot, that followed AI. Wendy and I watched most of it, and were actually pretty interested in the concept (50 amateur filmmakers get a chance to compete for a film contract), and may just give the show another shot on Thursday (coupled with the new So You Think You Can Dance). You just know it's going to be good when there are already heroes and villains after the first episode.

(One thing that I didn't like, however, was Carrie Fisher's strange teeth: she looks great until she opens her mouth, when she transforms into Princess Leia's botoxed grandmother...)

I haven't been a filmmaker myself since my early teens (ah, the good old days of Barbie slasher films...), so I am curious to know what I missed out on. And since most good TV is absent again until January, will you all commit to watching On the Lot with me? Is that so much to ask?

The next great fantasy epic?

Since I've been listening to my Lord of the Rings soundtrack again (I come back to it about every three months...), I've been feeling an empty place in my heart for a good old fashioned fantasy epic. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix looks great, but I know the story already. I really wanted to love Narnia, but only ended up liking it. I didn't even bother with last year's Eragon, and based on the reviews, I'm not sad I missed it.

So what will be our next great fantasy adventure? New Line Cinema (the studio who produced LOTR) is hoping to ride the fantasy gravy-train again this winter with The Golden Compass, starring Nicole Kidman, Daniel Craig (blond Bond), and Eva Green (Bond's most recent babe). The trailer looks flashy and thrilling, but I don't know anything about the book it's based on. Should I be getting excited, or will this be another Eragon?

"The Holiday," "Dreamgirls" reviews

The one advantage to Wendy's crummy morning sickness is that we're finally catching up on some of the movies we've been meaning to see:

• The Holiday: I didn't have a lot of expectations for this movie, and got out of it about what I put into it. Cameron Diaz and Kate Winslet swap houses for a week and fall in love with Jude Law and Jack Black, respectively. There's not really anything unpredictable about this movie, and not a whole lot of hilarity either. That said, there are some really beautiful houses and a couple of cute moments. Not really anything to write home about, but could have been worse (Cameron Diaz and Jude Law's characters are sorta sleazy, though...). (**1/2 out of four)
• Dreamgirls: This movie, however, I had high hopes for, since I like a good musical, and think Jennifer Hudson is pretty great. She didn't disappoint--her performance is natural, charismatic, and worth her Oscar. When she's on-screen, the movie is energetic and emotional. When she's not, it plays a little like a flashy made-for-TV musical, with decent acting and some inconsistent and ineffective plotting. I understand that the movie has a Broadway musical to live up to, but did there really need to be so many songs?!?! The music is good and as singers, the actors were terrific, but I felt like sometimes the songs got in the way of the story. That said, there's a lot of talent involved in this movie, and it was fun to see it on display. (*** out of four)

Cool new "Transformers" trailer

When I was a little boy, I was what you might call a medium Transformers fan. I watched the cartoons and wanted all the toys (but only succeeded in getting one or two). I don't remember, though, the names of many of the characters, and can't say that the phenomenon affected me quite like He-Man did.

That said, I just finished watching the latest trailer for the upcoming Transformers movie, and I've got to say, I'm pretty excited for some big, loud, crazy Autobot-action. Watch the new trailer here.

Michael Bay is a very divisive director with a few big hits (Armageddon, Pearl Harbor) under his belt. I've got to say, though, that what the man lacks in substance, he makes up for in style; this movie could be really fun. What do you think?

I eat my hat!

Two things happened on TV last night that are making me swallow my pride and admit that I have no idea what I'm talking about:

• Goodbye, Melinda Doolittle. We'll see you on the Grammys next year. As for Blake and Jordin, I wish you the best. But for me, you've sung your last song. I'm officially on strike against American Idol again. At least until next January...
• How intense was Lost last night? I would have given real money to bet that Charlie would speak his last words, but it wasn't so. I still think that he's a goner before the season ends, but we'll just have to wait and see. And what about Desmond's vision? A helicopter? From where?!?! Does that mean the end of Claire & Aaron? I CAN'T WAIT for next week's finale!!!

What did you think of last night's TV events? Anyone else mourning Melinda's departure?

Vampires on CBS; "The Amazing Race" returns next spring

CBS just got finished announcing its new fall schedule, and you'll be glad to know that The Amazing Race will be back for another installment, but not until January or February. The network also announced a number of new shows, including Viva Laughlin, a musical comedy-drama co-starring Hugh Jackman, and Moonlight, a mystery/romance/drama with a private investigator who is also a vampire.

For the sake of my vampire-phile (or how about vampophile) readers, here is the network's description of Moonlight:

MOONLIGHT, from prolific movie producer Joel Silver ("The Matrix," Trilogy), is about Mick St. John (Alex O'Loughlin, upcoming "White Out"), a captivating "undead" private investigator who uses his acute vampire senses to help the living… instead of feeding on them. In an agonizing twist of fate, Mick was "bitten" 60 years ago by his new bride, the seductive and beguiling Coraline (Amber Valletta, "Hitch"). Immortal and eternally as young, handsome and charismatic as he was then, Mick is sickened by Coraline and other vampires who view humans only as a source of nourishment. With only a handful of undead confidantes for company, including deceitful ally Josef (Rade Serbedzija, "24"), Mick fills his infinite days protecting the living, and trying not to think about how his life would have been if he hadn't followed his heart. However, after six decades of resisting, he wonders if it's time to pursue the love of a mortal. He has his eyes on Beth Turner, a beautiful, ambitious reporter who has been covering the ongoing plague of unusual murders. But would Beth even consider giving up a normal life to be with him, and can Mick risk the pain of seeing himself as a monster in her eyes? As Mick lives between two realities, fighting his adversaries among the undead and falling in love with Beth, he knows he needs to figure out a reason to keep "living."

Yes, but does Mick sparkle in the sunlight?

You can bet that Wendy is already trying to set the DVR to record Moonlight, which won't air until Friday nights in September. Get out your garlic, men!

Melinda vs. Blake

OK, I haven't been following American Idol religiously over the season, although my DVR has made it easier to catch most of the performances from this season's most interesting contenders, who just so happen to be, in my opinion, on their way to next week's finale. Yes, I'm talking about Melinda and Blake.

For the record, I realize the pros and cons of choosing either performer: Melinda is clearly the more skilled singer, but a little tougher to market to a very fickle young marketplace. Blake, on the other hand, is hip and contemporary and "takes risks" (as Simon says), but so often his risks fall flat on their beat-boxing bottoms (like last week's HORRIBLE Bee-Gee covers).

I'll make no bones about it: my vote is for Melinda. She's the only one I've voted for regularly throughout the season, and she's the only one I would even consider buying an album from. That said, Blake is no slacker ("He's an artist!" my sister Jennie gushes), and I wouldn't be disappointed or surprised if he won either. We'll just see next week who really brings their best to the finale.

Can we all just agree that Jordin shouldn't/won't make it to the finale?

30 episodes of "The Office" next year!

Remember how I mentioned a few days ago that most shows these days only get between 22 and 24 episodes during a TV season? Well, with our ever-changing TV landscape, it looks like networks are trying to do anything they can to avoid low-rated reruns. This includes the aforementioned shift in the Lost schedule (no repeats and no breaks between episodes), which itself is mimicking the successful 24 model adopted by Fox a couple of years ago. Now NBC is jumping into the mix, announcing today that it has ordered 30 half-hour installments of The Office to air over the upcoming season. That's about 6 episodes more than we received this year.

I think there are a few reasons for this announcement (which is unprecedented for a sitcom): NBC is moving The Office back to the 8:00 p.m. (Utah time) hour, where it will go up against TV's two top shows (CSI and Grey's Anatomy). More new episodes mean more opportunities to gain ground during a really tough time slot, especially if CSI or Grey's is a rerun.

Additionally, I'm guessing NBC is trying to get all the leverage it can from a show that is still increasing in popularity, and that is likely to become more and more expensive to produce (due to the rising popularity of several of the show's stars). In other words, get as many episodes out now before Steve Carell and John Krasinski (Jim)--both of whom have rising movie careers--get too expensive to keep on the show.

Finally, NBC announced that it is renewing Scrubs for one last, abbreviated season (18 episodes I think). Having more episodes of The Office will help plug the holes left by the departing hospital sitcom.

I think The Office news is good overall. I just hope that the increased episode count means more episodes like the George Foreman-centric "The Injury" and less of episodes like the unnecessarily crude "Women's Appreciation." And for crying out loud, could we just lock Jim and Pam in a closet and force them to make out...er, make up...!?!?

"Music & Lyrics" review

We watched the new Hugh Grant/Drew Barrymore rom/com last night, and overall enjoyed it. Hugh Grant is basically playing a variation on the same role he plays in every romantic comedy--quick-witted, well-dressed, slightly neurotic, mostly charming--and is quite funny at it. As a former member of an 80s pop band who has been recruited by a Britney Spears-esque pop star to compose her new song, Grant gets to do a fair amount of singing and dancing, which is pretty funny. Drew Barrymore plays the plant-watering lyricist--yes, a plant-watering lyricist--who falls in love with Grant while helping him compose the song.

While the movie has its charms--the music, in particular, is almost annoyingly infectious--it does fall victim to some of the unfortunate cliches that plague today's romantic comedies. For example, Barrymore's ex-boyfriend, whom she has successfully avoided for months, just happens to be dining at the same restaurant as she and Grant right after she reveals how horrible he was to her. I also get really bugged when the two main characters sleep together the moment they share their first kiss, like that is just the obvious next step right after a kiss (doesn't anyone "neck" anymore?).

That said, it's a breezy 90 minute time-waster, and cute enough to justify one viewing. You probably won't remember the movie's story longer than 2 hours, but its songs will likely lull you to sleep (and still be in your head in the morning...). **1/2 (out of four)

"Help me"?

Forgive another Lost-centric post, but I just have a few comments about last night's mind-boggling (but fascinating) episode (read no further if you haven't watched the episode yet!):

• First, a fascinating equation: Uncle Rico + old man makeup - mustache = Roger Work Man
• Next: how creepy was it when Ben took Locke into that creaky old shack and started talking to...a chair! It was only through some very meticulous slow-mo (thanks, DVR) that Wendy and I were able to ascertain that there really was someone sitting in that chair--someone that looked, in my mind, suspiciously like a shadowy, long-haired version of Locke himself. WEIRD. (Watch the video in slow-mo here.)
  
• Speaking of Locke, did anyone see that ending coming? Looking back on it, I guess if Ben really did what it looks like he did, at least poor Locke got some closure and answers over the last couple of episodes before he checked out. But come on, Lost without Locke? I'll believe it when I see it.
• Finally, tortured youth or not, Ben is one crazy, buggy-eyed freak.
  

I'm not wrong to be LOVING this show again, am I? What did you all think of the episode?

"Lost" to get lost in 2010!

As you may have seen reported this morning, the producers of Lost have signed an unprecedented new deal with the network to continue producing the show for three more years, bringing the show to a final conclusion in May 2010. Here are a few of the details:

• Each of the next three seasons will run without interruption or repeats from February through May (meaning that we'll have to wait until February to get any new episodes after this month's season finale...).
• The remaining three seasons will be fairly abbreviated seasons, with only 16 episodes each (the previous seasons have produced 24-25 episodes each).
• The show will be moving to an earlier timeslot to try to bring back the family audience. (Does that mean that we'll see less of Sawyer & Kate alone in their cage/tent?)

You might have remembered me saying that the producers and network were negotiating about whether or not the show would remain on the air for two more seasons (the producers' wish) or three more seasons (the network's wish). Looks like they both got their wish, since the show will be around for three more TV seasons, but will only have to make 48 more episodes, the equivalent of what the show produced during the first two seasons.

I think the news is welcome, since it gives us a bit more hope that they are really moving toward a definitive conclusion. It's also nice to know that we won't have to wait weeks between new episodes or have to deal with reruns. As much as I love Lost, I now know that only have to wait three years for some definitive answers. Bravo!

"Spider-man 3" review

Let me start out by answering the big question: is Spider-man 3 as good as Spider-man 2, the series’ standard for geeky greatness? The answer is no, unfortunately. The newest sequel doesn’t have near the pitch-perfect emotional complexity of the last. That said, Spider-man 3 is not a total disappointment...

Picking up not long after where Spider-man 2 left off, we finally see Peter Parker in a happy place. His relationship with M.J. is going better than ever, he’s found balance in work and school, and the entire city is in love with his superhero alter-ego. Of course things go awry fairly quickly, as Spider-man is introduced to not one, not two, not three, but four enemies. And therein lies the big problem with Spider-man 3: with so many villains, so many stories, so many conflicts, there is little time to devote to developing any one of the arcs very well. The movie has, in a sense, a bad case of villain-itis.

I think I can see why the filmmakers wanted to involve more villains and more stories: they wanted to give it a different feel from the other two movies, each of which had one major villain. I suppose they also wanted to be able to create varied areas of conflicts for Peter Parker: guilt/revenge (Sandman), competition (Venom), friendship/loyalty (New Goblin), and our internal struggles between right and wrong (Black Spider-man). Sadly, only two of these villains really gets much development, and the others (Sandman and Venom) seem to exist only to appease the comic-book’s fans and provide flashy, loud action sequences.

There are things to recommend for the movie, though. The acting is good, especially from the three main leads (Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, and James Franco), who seem more natural and at-home in their roles than ever. (Dunst’s performance is particularly refreshing, since I can’t stand her in most everything else she’s done…). The quiet moments between Peter Parker and M.J. are especially welcome, and serve as a nice break from the chaotic, sometimes clumsy action scenes. I also really liked the internal struggle of good and bad that Peter Parker observes in himself; there just wasn’t enough of it to say that it was really thought-provoking or meaningful.

I feel about Spider-man 3 roughly the same way I felt about last year’s X-Men: The Last Stand: so much potential, so many interesting stories, so little time to explore any of them very well. In a world where so many of our popcorn movies are devoid of any complexity, you still wish that Spider-man 3 wouldn’t have tried to be everything for everyone. Overall, though, it is a fun way to spend two and a half hours, with a few genuinely funny and thrilling moments. Expect it to break all sorts of box office records. (*** out of four)

Bloodsuckers and Widowers: A Love Story

I'm sad to report that yesterday, Wendy reported to me that she was falling in love with another man. It's true: his name is Edward (the tramp!), and he just so happens to be a vampire.

Yes, that's right, Wendy is the latest to fall victim to the charms of Stephanie Meyer's vampire romance, Twilight. Since last month, I've watched not one, but four of my family members (all female) find themselves debilitated and distracted by the apparent page-turner. Here are a few other examples of the book's power (with only the slightest of exaggeration):

• Jennie found herself glued to the book in a window seat while flying over the Hawaiian islands. "Are we there already?" she asked, oblivious that we had just crossed four time zones.
  
• Katie couldn't bring herself to come to the phone to talk to me about my wife's then-secret pregnancy because she was "more interested in vampires right now."
• Kristen purchased and finished Twilight and its sequel, New Moon, within three days time. She then promptly gave Jackson three days worth of neglected bottles.
  
• Most recently, Wendy bought or borrowed two pregnancy books, and quickly cast them aside for the more romantic persuadings of Edward and his infernal fangs. "I don't even remember that I'm pregnant when I'm reading about my hunky vampire!"
  

I'm pretty sure that if we husbands don't put a proverbial stake in the heart of Ms. Meyer's witchcraft, we'll promptly be served with divorce papers (signed in blood, of course). Brethren, unite!

I...CAN'T...WAIT!!!

It's really the mother of comic-book movie franchises. The Mona Lisa of superhero flicks. And it's rebooting again, coming up on May 4. Yes, I'm talking about Spider-man 3, and if I sound a little excited, well...that might be understating it a bit.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not really a comic-book movie nut; there have been more stinkers (Ghost Rider, Fantastic Four) in the genre than real winners. But when moviemakers get one right, man do they make me feel like a 10-year old boy all over again. I mean seriously...fast-paced action, killer special-effects, teen angst, romance...Spider-man movies have it all. And Spider-man 2 was even cooler than the first; here's hoping that Spider-man 3 will continue that trend!

Watch a trailer here, and then go buy your tickets here; I've already bought mine. Isn't it time we all revisited our youth?

Is "Lost" good again?

I really hope my sentiments aren't premature, but right now the answer to the question is YES, "Lost" has been really good in recent weeks. True, the Nikki/Paulo episode was morbid, but in a very logically-satisfying way. But at least the recent Locke and Kate episodes felt relevant and moved the story along. This pleasing trend was magnified tonight in the very intriguing, very smart, very revealing Juliet-centric episode. Why was it so satisfying? Probably because it gave us some good answers, and restored a bit of our waning faith that the producers aren't just making it up from week to week. It feels really good to say it: "Lost" is finally worth talking about again!

I wish I could say the same for "24," which, after starting the season strong, has lagged in recent weeks under the heavy burden of a boring White House, Jack's unconvincing family history, and an interminable nuclear bomb/terrorist plot. I was pleased, though, with this past Monday's finale, which at least promises to bring us back to a character whose past was left up in the air, and which will bring Jack Bauer back into the forefront of the show. I hadn't given up complete hope, but the prospect of a new direction for the remainder of the season brings some promise to an otherwise lackluster "24" season.

Man I love my DVR!

Miscellaneous Movie News

Here are a couple of mildly interesting tidbits of information about some upcoming movies. I don't know how I feel about a few of them, but I'm interested to know what you think:

• Variety has reported that Shia LeBeouf ("Holes") has been cast as Indiana Jones' son in the upcoming sequel. (Indy has a son? Will he also be named after a dog?)
• Maggie Gyllenhal ("Stranger than Fiction") has taken over Katie Holmes' role in the upcoming "Batman Begins" sequel, "The Dark Knight." This is the latest in the previously announced cast additions of Heath Ledger as the Joker and Aaron Eckhart as Harvey "Two-Face."
• Disney formally announced this week that "Toy Story 3" is in production for release in 2010. Both Tom Hanks and Tim Allen are confirmed to be returning.
• Disney also announced its return to 2-D traditional animation for the upcoming "The Frog Princess," to be set in New Orleans. They also announced that the film's heroine is Disney's first African-American princess and will be added to the company's ever-lucrative group of princesses at its worldwide parks. The film will be released in 2009.
• Finally, M. Night Shyamalan has announced that his next film, "The Happening" (his first R-rated movie) will be "a paranoid thriller about a family on the run from a natural crisis that presents a large-scale threat to humanity." What do you want to bet that the large-scale threat will be defeated by a few errant glasses of water?

Though I'm so over Shymalan's ego, I'm curious to see what Pixar and Disney are up to, and hope Pixar can help Disney start making consistently cool movies again. Any thoughts?

Justin's 10-Word Reviews

Since I have gotten behind with my reviews but know my readers demand to know what I have seen lately, I'm going to experiment with 10-word reviews (starting after the title) for the movies I have seen lately. Let me know what you think:

• "The Bridge to Terabithia": Not a fantasy, but touching coming-of-age family drama (*** out of four)
  
• "Ghost Rider": Silly, nonsensical, clumsy comic book adaptation. "The Mummy" meets "Constantine." (*1/2 out of four)
  
• "Stranger than Fiction": Thoughtful, breezy & unique comedy-drama with a sweet gooey center. (***1/2 out of four). ("&" doesn't count as a word)
  
• "The Illusionist": Moody, mysterious, enchanting score, slightly frustrating but overall satisfying conclusion (***1/2 out of four)
• "Flushed Away": Mildly clever moments sprinkled throughout a noisy, crude, "family" mess (** out of four)

I'm also anxious to see "The Prestige" and "Music and Lyrics," but I'm secretly saving my movie bucks for the upcoming May movie binge that I'm planning. Can you believe that we're just over two months away and still haven't seen a trailer for "Pirates 3"?!?!

"Lost" on life support

OK it's official: "Lost" is starting to bug the crap out of me. While last week's time-travel episode was unique and intriguing, as part of the larger story all it did was frustrate me. Add to that last night's dreadful episode featuring a clairvoyant (and nearly naked) Thai tattoo-artist, and I'm seriously starting to wonder if the folks behind "Lost" have lost it themselves. ABC's promos kept touting last night's episode as answering "three of Lost's biggest questions"; all I was able to find out was that Jack's tattoos mean absolutely nothing of interest. No insight into why the Others are creepy child-kidnappers. No interesting revelations about the Dharma Initiative. NOTHING from our favorite characters back on the beach.

The whole time I just kept asking myself, why aren't Kate and Sawyer grilling this kid about his origins and everything happening on the other island? Why doesn't Jack ask something meaningful of his captors, instead of blindly just going along with everything they do and acting mad about it? WHY DON'T PEOPLE JUST TALK TO EACH OTHER INSTEAD OF GIVING EACH OTHER PAINFULLY "MEANINGFUL" GLANCES OVER AND OVER AND OVER!?!?!

Judging by the show's dwindling ratings (the last episode didn't even hit the top 20 shows for the week and received its lowest numbers ever for a new episode), it's clear that I'm not the only viewer that is losing interest. So there it is: "Lost" is on my endangered list. I'm still watching, but I'm finding little joy in it as I once did. And it makes me enormously upset to see that my once-favorite show is now flying off the hook.

What would save "Lost"? One suggestion I have would be to bring back J.J. Abrams, who co-created the show but has gone on to direct "M:I:iii" (and tonight's episode of "The Office"). Or simply decide that they'll tell the story that has yet to be told and get it over with. Don't get me wrong--when "Lost" is good it's SO much fun, but it has become tedium as of late. So my simple request to producers (who I'm sure frequent my blog) is to just make the show good again. Is that so much to ask?

Napoleon vs. Ricky Bobby

One of my faithful readers (Clay) requested that I give a little blog-love to the upcoming Will Ferrell/Jon Heder ice-skating comedy, "Blades of Glory." To be honest, when I first saw the trailer, I wasn't overly excited about the movie: Will Ferrell and Jon Heder have some pretty uneven track records (Ferrell in "Bewitched," Heder in anything but "Napoleon Dynamite"). That said, when they get it right, they knock it out of the park (Ferrell in "Talladega Nights" or "Elf" and Heder in, well, "Napoleon Dynamite"). Plus, it's getting some online buzz that has at least a few people excited. So here's hoping that the movie is silly perfection. Check it out here.

More "Indy" news

Here are a few interesting tidbits of speculation (meaning unconfirmed) about the upcoming "Indiana Jones" sequel. From RottenTomatoes.com,

• Three of the leading ladies from the series (Karen Allen, Kate Capshaw, and perhaps even Alison Doody) will be returning for cameo roles.
• John Rhys-Davies is likely to be back in the sidekick role.
• Sean Connery seems to be returning to play Indy's dad.
• The flick will take place in the 1950s.
• The movie will make a huge truckload of money.

One bit of information was confirmed this week, however: Paramount announced that the movie will be released on May 22, 2008. (PLEASE don't let this movie suck!)

Am I getting "Lost"?

Well thanks to the holidays and some other TV distractions, I hardly felt those three months of abstinence from "Lost." Last night I reviewed several of the most recent episodes in preparation for tomorrow's episode; as I was trying to fall asleep, I mentioned to Wendy that the most recent episodes of "Lost" represented both the best and the worst of the frustratingly addictive show:

The Best

• Sawyer's pace-maker
• Ben Linus/Henry Gale vs. the white bunny rabbits
• There are two islands?!?!
• Desmond the Clairvoyant

The Worst

• Colleen's hubby taking out her death on Sawyer (who had nothing to do with her death)
• Colleen's hubby insisting that Kate confess her love for Sawyer
  
• Sawyer and Kate getting it on against the bars of a bear cage (I mean really, right there in the open, in a cage!)
• Ignoring the show's original stars/stories
• Occasionally redundant/irrelevant flashbacks (a.k.a timekillers)

Having said all this, I don't want anyone to think that I've bailed on my formerly favorite TV show (recently dethroned by "24"): when it is good, "Lost" is REALLY good. I mean seriously, just thinking about how great Season 1 was makes me think that I owe it to producers to let them crank out a few stinkers (including the most recent, DREADFUL episode with the aforementioned cage-love). So I am cautiously optimistic that a few more months of planning will help the show be what it once was; I would gladly put it back in a two-way tie for my favorite show if it could prove its worthiness to me...

Harry Potter 7 coming on July 21!!!

Well the news is finally official: "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" will be released in bookstores around the world on July 21, 2007.

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,660191984,00.html

While I initially resisted the HP book-phenomenon, I think I was finally convinced to get into them in 2000. My enjoyment of them has only increased with each excellent movie adaptation, to the point that Wendy and I have actually chosen to join with the crowds at midnight for the past two book releases. Now I've never dressed up like a wizard, nor would I consider myself as well-versed in all things "Potter" as some, but I get a little chill when I think about holding the last Harry Potter book in my hands. I'm not sure I want it to end...

Oscar Nominations

The Oscar nominations came out today, and seemed for the most part to include no big shockers. The biggest surprise, however, is likely to enrage my sister-in-law, Kristen: the musical "Dreamgirls" led in total nominations (8), but was shut out of the major categories, including Best Picture and Best Director. It did, however, receive nominations for Eddie Murphy and Jennifer Hudson's supporting roles.

The Best Picture nominees include the Brad Pitt drama, "Babel," Martin Scorcese's "The Departed," the independent favorite, "Little Miss Sunshine," the Royal Family drama, "The Queen," and Clint Eastwood's Japanese-spoken war epic, "Letters from Iwo Jima." For a complete list of the other nominees and plenty of commentary from people who know better than I, click here.

Since I haven't seen any of the Best Picture nominees (and likely won't), I can't say I'm terribly excited for this year's awards. I am, however, looking forward to seeing Ellen DeGeneres as the host; $10 says she'll wear a pant-suit instead of a gown...

The Amazing Race: All-Stars

CBS just announced the teams for the upcoming Amazing Race: All-Stars, coming on Sunday, February 18:

http://www.cbs.com/primetime/amazing_race11/
Wendy and I got into the race around season 4 or 5, so I don't know a few of the teams, but of those I know, I can't decide who I'm more excited to see: Charla & Mirna vs. the coal-miners or the beauty queens vs. Rob & Amba. This is going to be GOOD!

Masochists, Unite!

Well, it's that time of year again: smoggy air, after-Christmas sales, and the return of Fox's winter schedule. What that means for some is a sudden bounty of DVR-clogging programming, perfect for these long winter nights. Yet for me, the return of Fox's "24" and "American Idol" signifies America's delight for (and absolute obsession with) pure, unadulterated pain.

"American Idol" represents the best and worst of our society: We rejoice in the discovery of new talent, embrace the show's finalists, and devote two of our precious weekday evenings to the talent competition. But no less pleasurable (or disturbing) is our unhealthy obsession with horrific, embarrassingly bad "singing." Why do we enjoy seeing people utterly destroyed in front of terribly insensitive judges? Why are we absolutely entranced by impressions of the cowardly lion? Or black, male, talentless Celine Dion wannabes? Why does it make us so ridiculously happy to see nerve-wracked Idol-hopefuls understandably forget lyric after lyrics? Because we're masochists, that's why.

Skeptical? Look no further than the fictional, terrorist-heavy world of my Fox favorite, "24." Where else is behavior that by any other standard would be reprehensible (if not criminal) is not only permitted, but encouraged? Witness a few examples from this week's season premiere: two separate shoulder-stabbings, numerous bloody shootings, a freaky vampire-ish Jack Bauer-escape, and one casualty-heavy nuclear explosion. And yet through all the gory mayhem, those who give it a chance find themselves utterly addicted, and with the simple snap of a neck, we're pulled into another stress-filled 24 hours. Masochists, I tell you...all of us. At least until May...

What were your favorite cringe-worthy moments from the "24" and "American Idol" premieres?

"Night at the Museum" review

Ben Stiller's latest is a whimsical family-friendly adventure akin to other PG-rated adventure-comedies like "Jumanji" and "Zathura." It's fast-paced and inoffensive, and quite often very funny. While Stiller plays the same put-upon, unlucky fellow he plays in nearly every movie, here the typecasting works in the quirky context of a museum-come-to-life (and-run-amok). Though the concept is fairly silly and decidedly far-fetched, Stiller and the rest of the cast (filled with comedy vets old and young) keep things light enough that the time passes pleasantly enough. While I knew that I would laugh at Owen Wilson's cowboy, I was surprised to find myself smiling at nearly everything spoken by Mickey Rooney's grumpy old night guard and Ricky Gervais' communication-challenged curator. (Robin Williams and Dick Van Dyke also get a few laughs.) It's not a classic movie that I'll need to watch over and over, but it was breezy enough to make for a decent holiday diversion. (*** out of four)

Delta, Delta, Delta may I help ya, help ya, help ya?

I don't really know much about this potential merger between US Airways and Delta, I just know I don't want to lose my SkyMiles. If you want to sign a petition to voice your opinion, click here.

"Indiana Jones 4" coming in 2008!!!

Can't tell you how excited I am that this is finally going to happen.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3ied0764c52ea0c6b79e5a439cf257d65d

Only about 18 months to go...