…at least according to Time magazine:
Can’t argue with their choices. I love what was written at the end of their description for the song “Heroes”:
When U2 went to Berlin to make Achtung Baby,they were trying to make this song. The entire Arcade Fire catalog came out of this song.
Ok, I think I’ve done enough David Bowie related posts for now. I’ll give it a rest…until his next birthday! 😉
I couldn’t find the actual post, but as I was thinking about posts from my old blog that I wanted to re-post to this new one, there was one that simply had to appear again. The video below is from the Feb. 9, 1956 episode of I’ve Got A Secret, a game show involving celebrities figuring out, natch, what “secret” the person appearing before them has.
In the case of one Samuel J. Seymour, it turned out his secret was something both unique and quite incredible: As a very young child, he was present in the Ford Theater the night that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated.
The fact that he could still remember some of the details all those years later is incredible. I think it’s fair to say on the night of the taping of this program Mr. Seymour was the very last living person to have been present at the Ford Theater that tragic night.
Count me among those who has a pleasant memory of the original 1985 version of Fright Night. That vampire movie may not rank up there with the original Dracula or Nosferatu, and my memories of it may be hazy with time (I haven’t seen the film in its entirety probably since around that time!), but I recall having a few chills and plenty of laughs (intentional!) regarding that horror/comedy hybrid.
When I heard that a remake of the film was being made, I wasn’t terribly perturbed. The original was hardly one of those movie “classics” one is incredulous the studios movie studios would dare consider remaking. When I heard Jerry the vampire would be played by Colin Farrell and would feature David Tennant in the showy role of Peter Vincent (originally played by the late -and great!- Roddy McDowall), my interest in the film spiked. I like both actors quite a bit and thought each could take their roles and push them toward interesting directions.
The 2011 Fright Night came and disappeared from the theaters rather quickly. The reviews were generally pretty positive (on Rottentomatoes.com, the film has a 74% approval from critics and 64% approval from audiences. Not bad, although the original film scored a higher 93% and 71%, respectively). I remained curious to see the film.
Yesterday, I finally got to do just that.
The remake of the film follows almost the exact same storyline. The first half of the film, in particular, is quite effective, leading to the film’s best sequence wherein Jerry first attacks, then chases down our protagonist, his mother, and his girlfriend. That extended chase sequence, which concluded with a hilarious -then grisly- cameo appearance from one of the main actors in the original film, was the movie’s highlight and was suspenseful as hell.
At that point, I thought the film was a complete winner and couldn’t understand why audiences weren’t drawn in much more.
Alas, immediately after that sequence it became clear why. Quite simply, the movie ran out of gas. Colin Farrell’s Jerry became a one dimensional threat, stalking the protagonists but not really doing this stalking all that effectively. Given his fearsome abilities, was it really that urgent for him to hunt them down like he did? The fact is, he had all the time in the world to wait them out, and realistically they couldn’t go to the authorities to report a vampire without getting locked up…or worse.
After that brilliant chase sequence, we’re also introduced to David Tennant’s Peter Vincent. In this incarnation, he’s a flashy Las Vegas magician with a past history, we find, with our vampire. The introduction to Vincent is quite vulgar and funny, but, like Colin Farrell’s Jerry, his character rapidly becomes one note and predictable. The movie flat lines, leading to a climax that wasn’t anywhere near as suspenseful as the chase presented earlier.
In the end, the first half of the film easily earns 3 stars. The second half, unfortunately, was a very mediocre 2 stars. Because of that flat second half, I can’t recommend the film. A pity.
I first heard about this fascinating story a little while back. When exactly I can’t remember, but this video from CNN is probably the best update (to now) of that particular story, involving a very mysterious looking shape -a UFO?- discovered by sonar at the bottom of the Baltic Sea.
The most fascinating thing about the story -other than the odd shape of the object!- is its size. That combination adds to the mystery. According to the report, we’ll have to wait until at least May, when the Baltic waters become smoother, before getting a closer look. I’m curious to hear what they find then!
Originally posted on my previous blog, May 2009…
EW.com has a pretty fun list of famous, well known songs that are subsequently covered (and, in the readers’ opinion) destroyed by other artists:
http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20219751,00.html
I have to agree with many of their choices, and my personal least favorite is the Madonna version of “American Pie”. Just baffling. On the other hand, I don’t have as much of a problem with No Doubt’s version of “It’s My Life” or Tori Amos’ version of “Smells Like Teen Spirit”. To me, the former song wasn’t all that great to begin with (nor, I hasten to add, was it terrible), so I didn’t really mind the remake. As for Ms. Amos, it certainly was dangerous (creatively anyway) to take on such a popular song and make her version. I felt it was a decent enough job
Not included in the list is my least favorite remake coming from someone whose original music I consider among the best ever: David Bowie. On the otherwise incredible album Aladdin Sane, Mr. Bowie does a cover of The Rolling Stone’s “Let’s Spend the Night Together”. Mr. Bowie’s version is…well…bizarre. I like the way the song begins, but by the time it reaches its mid-section…ho boy. I suppose its not the worst thing Mr. Bowie’s ever done (in a career as long as his, there were bound to be ups and downs), but still. Judge for yourself:
Moving away from the worst, how about some of the best? Mr. Bowie may not have hit the ball out of the park (IMHO!) with “Let’s Spend the Night Together,” but his cover of The Velvet Underground’s “Waiting For the Man” is just as good -if not better!- than the original, again IMHO:
And the original Velvet Underground version:
Yesterday Apple revealed the extent of their financial success during the past quarter. And quite a haul they had:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/24/apples-cash-on-hand_n_1229529.html
The bottom line? From the article:
The company posted a quarterly revenue of $46.33 billion and a quarterly net profit of $13.06 billion.
A net profit of 13.06…billion?!
What makes the above link worth clicking is that we’re offered 9 things you could pay for with this amount of cash.
Whether a fan of Apple products or not, there is little denying the amount of money the company makes is nothing short of staggering.
One of the more fascinating things, after all this time writing this blog, is seeing what posts wind up being searched out by people and which aren’t. Some post I was certain would get multiple views long after being posted…and didn’t. Some I knew from the outset would be interesting for people for a limited time and were. And some I wrote thinking they’d have a very short shelf life and was surprised to find they had staying power and people kept searching them out long after they were posted.
I’d like to think this happens because whatever I wrote was so fascinating, so blindingly unique, so intellectually challenging that of course people would come back to revel in my oh-so-brilliant analysis.
The cold hard reality, alas, is that I was simply very, very lucky stumbling onto a topic that people out there found interesting. This then is one of those blogs that when I originally wrote it figured it would elicit some mild interest before fading away. Today, nearly two years later, it still draws some interest. From March of 2010, here’s my (mildly belated) review of a perplexing film called Anamorph.
So I’m feeling pretty damn sick over the weekend and, as the illness drains from my body and I’m feeling up for some light TV fare, I turn the television on and, on the IFC channel (or was it Sundance?!) a movie titled Anamorph begins. Instantly I’m thrown…the title of this 2007 film sounds like it belongs to a kiddie TV show you’d find lodged between G. I. Joe and The Transformers on some lazy Saturday morning. I watch on, realizing rather quickly that this movie is about as far from kiddie fare as you could imagine.
In fact, Anamorph turns out to be an ambitious, indeed overly ambitious film that can be accurately billed as something “inspired by” (or, if you’re less charitable ripping off) Se7en and Fight Club. However, lest I sound too critical right off the bat, the movie does feature plenty of food for thought on its very own, even if the influences mentioned are there.
Anamorph features Willem Defoe as Stan Aubray, a NY detective who is at the start of the film presented as an introverted oddball. He lectures at a school while (barely) still working at the Police Department. Five years ago he was involved in the notorious “Uncle Eddie” serial killer case, and it now appears “Uncle Eddie” might be back.
But things aren’t always what they seem…
The short review: The film is decent, well-acted, and keeps your interest through its run time. However, there are so many elements to the story that ultimately are never appropriately resolved and, thus, confuse the viewer that I can’t unequivocably recommend it. I suppose if what you’ve read so far has you intrigued, then give the film a whirl…just be prepared to not get tidy answers to all the questions posed.
Now, I’m going to get into the movie’s details, something I can’t do with giving a very clear…
SPOILER WARNING!!!
Still there?
Ok, here we go: I enjoy almost every type and genre of film. Science fiction, fantasy, suspense, thriller, horror, comedy, drama…you name it and there’s a good chance I can offer an example of a film in said genre I’ve enjoyed. Often, films in the various genres that make me think, or rather those that don’t spell everything out, are particularly intriguing. 2001: A Space Odyssey is a classic example of just that. There is little dialogue and much is left for the viewers to figure out. The same goes for Mulholland Dr., perhaps my favorite David Lynch film. I was absolutely confused by what was going on until we arrived at the audition scene. Suddenly, I understood what Mr. Lynch was doing, and the film became, at least to me, absolutely fascinating.
With Anamorph we start with what appears to be your typical serial killer movie scenario. Like Se7en, the serial killer is as brilliant as he is disturbed. Our serial killer poses his victim’s bodies in increasingly bizarre “scenes” that he creates. By making these elaborate scenes with the often grotesquely butchered bodies, our killer appears to be “talking” to his pursuers, bringing them into his insane world.
As mentioned before, “Uncle Eddie” first showed himself five years before. Through the course of the movie, we find that a group of cops, including Defoe’s Stan, investigated the case until they thought they knew who the killer was. They broke into this man’s house to arrest him and one of the cops, thinking the suspected “Uncle Eddie” was holding a gun (he wasn’t) shot him dead. Despite this, the police are convinced they had the right man. As if to prove the fact, the “Uncle Eddie” crimes suddenly ceased.
But, five years later, new victims appear and things become very muddy. In public and before the media, the police department is certain these new killings are the work of a “copycat”. In private, they appear less sure…Was Stan, the lead investigator in the original case, wrong in fingering who “Uncle Eddie” was? Did the five year old raid kill an innocent man? And if so, were these new killings the work of “Uncle Eddie”? But can we completely discount the possibility that we are dealing with a copycat? As the film moves along, there appears yet another question: What exactly happened to the last female victim of “Uncle Eddie” some five years before? Whatever it was, the young woman’s death and fleeting flashbacks the film shows suggest Stan and this woman had a very strong relationship.
What follows, in the present, are more victims, including one of the original officers on Stan’s group, and hidden messages in the scene of each crime. The term “anamorph”, as we find, relates to clues left behind by the killer. In this case, the killer is referring to old paintings that, when viewed head on, reveal an image. When looked at from another, sometimes severe angle, a hidden image within the painting becomes apparent. Our killer, as it turns out, is hiding clues in his artfully designed slaughters.
Given the hidden message concept, the viewer is thus clued in that we are dealing with hidden meanings in this movie, as well.
As the movie progresses, it becomes clear that Stan may have dirtier hands in this whole affair than is first apparent. To begin, and as mentioned before, he has flashbacks to the events of five years before, from the raid to the last murder attributed to “Uncle Eddie”, the young woman Stan had some kind of relationship to. In the flashback to that last murder, Stan arrives at the scene of the crime after the fact. The last victim lies on a dock beside the water. However, later in the film, Stan recounts to the woman’s friend that HE pulled her out of the water, that HE held her until she let out her last breath. Yet clearly in his earlier flashbacks Stan arrives AFTER she is removed from the water and well AFTER she’s dead. Adding further confusion to the whole thing is that later still in the film, Stan appears to have flashbacks of the woman being stabbed before falling into the water. The flashbacks, up to that moment, were personal to Stan. Were these flashbacks also Stan’s? Did HE kill the woman?
That implication seems to be the case. But where the film ultimately -and sadly- fails is that too much is left for the viewers to sort out, and details are left so vague that arguments can be made for too many alternatives. For example, one could assume that Stan had an affair with this woman, and it went sour while he was investigating the original “Uncle Eddie” crimes. Now (and I’m guessing here) it is possible, perhaps even probable, that Stan killed the woman and made it look like it was the work of “Uncle Eddie”. After all, his police task force already had an idea who “Uncle Eddie” was and were closing in on the killer. Stan, in this scenario, commits the “final” “Uncle Eddie” crime knowing the police (and he) will soon arrest the killer. After Stan commits this crime and his group raids the suspected “Uncle Eddie” house, the man is killed, thus “resolving” the crimes without anyone suspecting that Stan performed that last murder.
Sounds good…except that if this was indeed the case, then Stan, to cover his tracks, has to be the one to kill the suspected “Uncle Eddie” in the raid. After all, it is not in Stan’s interests that the man be taken alive. If he were, there would be the very real possibility that this man might admit to all his crimes yet (of course) deny having anything to do with that last killing. Once he does, and given Stan’s relationship with the last victim, wouldn’t the police begin to eye him as a suspect in that crime? Thus and as mentioned, Stan has to be the one to kill the suspected “Uncle Eddie” in the raid. He can’t just hope someone else does the deed. But the fact is that Stan DOES NOT kill the suspected “Uncle Eddie”. In fact, I didn’t even get the impression he was gunning for him during the raid at all. If anything, he seemed to be hanging back.
So the mind wanders again…Perhaps Stan IS “Uncle Eddie”, and the man who committed these new crimes IS a copycat “Uncle Eddie”, albeit one that knows Stan was the original. But that also doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. The crimes are so damn elaborate that it seems impossible someone could simply “copy” something so extravagant. And, further, if Stan was the real “Uncle Eddie”, then wouldn’t he have figured out the copycat and his methodology a whole lot quicker? Add to the mix at least one character, an art dealer, who may or may not be a figment of Stan’s imagination and you’ve got even more confusion.
Still, despite all these criticisms, I admit the film kept me watching until its (very vague) ending. So, to reiterate, I cannot recommend this film to those seeking a movie that offers at least some sort of clear resolution to the plot presented. If you’re still curious to see the movie, do so. But this is one case where I can’t help but wish the filmmakers offered more solid clues as to what path they wanted the viewers to follow.
For those who enjoy William Gibson’s works, or those who simply enjoy reading an interview conducted with a prominent author, this may be right up your alley:
http://www.salon.com/2012/01/22/william_gibson_i_really_cant_predict_the_future/singleton/
I’m of two minds with Mr. Gibson and his novels. I’ve read many of them, not all, and while I admire the hell out of how he writes (he creates some of the most incredible descriptive passages), I find I’m not always as big a fan of the actual stories he’s telling. The early ones, such as Neuromancer, were pulp inspired works that reminded me of similar stories in Heavy Metal magazine. His later works, the last one of which I read was Spook Country, feel like they could use more actual plot.
But, oh those descriptive passages!
One of my all time favorites examples of one of those descriptive passages that really turned my head appeared at the start of the second chapter of Spook Country:
The old man reminded Tito of those ghost-signs, fading high on the windowless sides of blackened buildings, spelling out the names of products made meaningless by time.
Incredible, incredible stuff. I wish I could write a passage as good as that one!
For what it’s worth, my favorite William Gibson book is a collaboration between he and author Bruce Sterling, The Difference Engine. If you have yet to try any of Mr. Gibson’s works and find the interview with him interesting, I highly recommend you give that book a try.
Once again reaching into my bag of old posts, this one is from December of 2009. I re-post it because very recently I also re-posted my thoughts on the Roger Moore Bond film Moonraker (read about that here) and decided to post my slightly more detailed opinions on all of Mr. Moore’s Bond films in light of an article from Entertainment Weekly. Re-post begins in 3…2…1…
This article ran a couple of weeks ago in Entertainment Weekly and is available to be viewed online:
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20244755,00.html
To many, Sean Connery IS James Bond, but I have to admit, I’m not as hostile as some are regarding Roger Moore’s take on the character. He was certainly different in the role, and if there is some criticism to point out about his take on the character, it is that at times he seemed a little too suave and/or fancy to be a killer secret agent. But to me the Moore Bond film’s worst “sin” was that for each “good” one released it seemed to almost always follow that the next one would be mediocre or downright wretched.
For what it’s worth, my take on Mr. Moore’s Bond films.
The Best: For Your Eyes Only – Granted, those watching it for the first time today may feel it is tame, but I loved the stripped down -and non-gadgetry filled- plot. The stunt-work is also first rate. Only real debit is that Roger Moore was beginning to look a little old for the role. The Spy Who Loved Me – I suspect even those who don’t think much of Roger Moore’s Bond films like this one, a reworking/remake of You Only Live Twice (my least favorite Sean Connery Bond film). Unlike YOLT, the plot here was presented, in my opinion, far better than in the Connery vehicle. Jaws (Richard Kiel) makes for a truly memorable heavy. Only real debit is that Barbara Bach (the spy who loved him) turns out to be more of a damsel in distress than the deadly Russian spy she’s advertised to be. Certainly a sign of those times. I suspect if the film were remade today, her character would be far more independent and lethal. Live and Let Die – Moore’s first outing as Bond was one of the actor’s best. He appeared incredibly comfortable in the role, as if he had always been there. The plot is rather nonsensical (and some today might even argue borderline racist), but the action sequences (especially an escape from a pond filled with alligators that has to be seen to be believed) make this an enjoyable romp.
The Good-But-Not-Great Moore Bond: Octopussy – Roger Moore was looking very old by this point (this was his second to last outing as the super spy), but the film was nonetheless an enjoyable “let’s-hit-the-audience-with-everything-but-the-kitchen-sink” tongue-in-cheek action extravaganza…at least to me. On the other hand, I can’t argue too strenuously with those who view the film far less charitably. Again, I think its a decent -if not great- film.
The Worst Roger Moore Bond films: The Man With The Golden Gun – You would think that after the success of Live and Let Die the people behind and in front of the cameras would re-work their magic of the previous film, improve upon it, and give us an even better bang for our buck their second time out. You’d be wrong. TMWTGG is so lukewarm and forgettable that I’m still astonished the movie’s villain, Scaramanga, is played by the legendary Christopher Lee…and even he is not all that interesting. Worse, the final encounter between Bond and Scaramanga, something the film was building up to during its entire run time, winds up being too brief and incredibly anticlimactic. A major disappointment. Moonraker – Roger Moore’s worst Bond feature, although if you hunt around some of my previous posts, you’ll find that upon seeing it again recently, I had to admit the first twenty to thirty minutes of the film was not all that bad. The rest of it, alas, remains pretty dreadful. A View To A Kill – Moore’s last swing at Bond proves a strikeout. David Bowie (by now you must know how I feel about him) was at the time sought by the movie’s producers to play the villain, but when he backed out Christopher Walken (sporting a definite David Bowie “Let’s Dance”-era look) stepped in. Mr. Walken and Duran Duran’s theme song may be the only good thing about this weak, weak film, which also features one of the most nonsensical plots.
The eBook of Haze, my very first novel, is available for free starting today and going through January the 25 on Amazon.com. So, if you have a Kindle or read books via Kindle software on your mobile device, iPad, computer, etc., please take advantage of this offer:
http://www.amazon.com/Haze-ebook/dp/B0041OSGTI/ref=ntt_at_ep_edition_2_6?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2
Haze was my first attempt at writing a full novel and remains, to this day, my most personal work. When I first conceived of the story back in the early to mid-1990’s, I was going through some peculiar personal issues. I had graduated from College and was working at a hospital while trying to make a career in art/writing. I was also starting to work for an Independent Comic Book publisher as an inker, but even in those early days when sales were high I had a suspicion the ride wouldn’t last. Added to all that, I was also in the process of getting married and considering what I would ultimately make with my life.
And during that time, I caught a cold/flu that I just couldn’t get rid of. Usually when I catch something, my illness will last three or four days, tops. This one dragged on for a couple of weeks. By the time I was approaching the end of the second week of being dreadfully ill, I finally decided to see a Doctor (I was really sharp back then!). The Doctor heard what I was going through and promptly began a series of tests on me culminating in chest X-Rays. The Doctor feared I had developed Pneumonia.
Luckily, I hadn’t, but my condition was serious enough to be prescribed a regimen of medicines which eventually took out that cold/flu. Throughout that time I slept very badly and was like a zombie during my waking hours. Worse, my thoughts were increasingly discombobulated, to the point where I could barely concentrate on things at work or home.
One day after seeing the Doctor and while driving home from work, I spotted a bus on the side of the road. It was out of order and its rear hatch was open. In my weakened mental state, the open hatch and exposed oily machinery looked alien, quite literally like something from out of this world. I was so struck by that image…so much so I feared I had just suffered a hallucination. Upon reaching my house I had the beginnings of Haze brewing in my mind. In those early days of coming up with the story, I envisioned someone not unlike me as the protagonist, young and at a crossroads in his life, exposed to visions from another world. I wrote the first few pages, wherein my protagonist sees this alien bus-like device on the road and comes to the realization that through illness he’s been exposed to visions from other worlds.
But as good a start as that was, I quickly reached a dead end. At least with the idea of a man peering into other dimensions.
Instead, I moved off into other story directions. Rather than seeing other dimensions, I had my protagonist see visions of a famous dead actor. And rather than a science fictional story, my novel became a murder mystery with supernatural elements. Alas, the actual inspiration to the book, that sequence with the alien-looking bus, was ultimately cut as it didn’t fit in with the story I was now telling.
I learned quite a bit while writing Haze, both in terms of the mechanics of novel writing as well as the efforts involved in trying to create something you can be proud of. The experience was alternately exhilarating and frustrating, and more than once tried my patience. Still, I’m proud with the final product and am happily continuing the writing experiment I began all those years before.
I hope you enjoy the novel as well.