Did ya hear about Alan Keyes?

If you follow politics at all, you've probably heard of Alan Keyes. Or at least you've seen him on TV. Short, excitable-looking African American ultra-conservative who put on such a fantastic show running to the right of everyone in the 2000 Republican race? Yeah, him.



Well, Alan is... Alan is kind of special, really. Most public representatives of the "Religious Right" are careful to cloak their agenda of hate in the guise of being traditional constitutional-conservatism, but not dear Alan. Alan is right up front about it: anti-choice, virulently anti-gay, right down the line.



Aaaaaaanyway, the last time anyone heard from this clown was back during the election when Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter, Mary, became a brief object of media fascination (culminating in John Kerry's gasp-inducingly clumsy would-be gotcha invocation of her name in a debate) and Keyes got himself quoted as follows regarding the "gay" issue in an interview:



"The essence of ... family life remains procreation. If we embrace homosexuality as a proper basis for marriage, we are saying that it's possible to have a marriage state that in principal excludes procreation and is based simply on the premise of selfish hedonism."



Gee, ya think they asked him specifically about Mary Cheney being a "selfish hedonist" next for a money quote? You bet they did. Take it away, Alan:



"That goes by definition. Of course she is."



See what I mean? How can you not love such openess and honesty from a purveyor of faith-based hatred? Suffice it to say, that last part lit a fire under the media's butt and they went back for more. An article from Washington Times Online... (from whence these quotes were taken and which you can read in full here:)

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040901-093347-1067r.htm

...reports that someone finally did ask Keyes what he would do if HE had a lesbian daughter. As they reported it:



"Keyes said if he had a lesbian daughter he would love her but tell her she was sinning."



Hey, y'know what would be really interesting?



I mean really, really, really interesting?



(oh, hat tip to bloggers Oliver Willis, Andrew Sullivan, and Daily Kos for this, BTW)



Fast forward to today. A gay-equality march in Maryland lists the following for their scheduled events: (bold-highlights are mine)



"March to Lawyer’s Mall (in front of the State House) for the rally, featuring community leaders, Judy Shepard, and Maya Marcel Keyes, the self-described queer activist who is also daughter of ultra-conservative Alan Keyes, whose recent campaign for senator from Illinois included his calling Mary Cheney a “hedonist.”



shorthand: Alan's daughter is a lesbian.



Well, well, well...



Okay, aside from the obvious schaudenfreud (sp?) of seeing yet another acolyte of Religious Fundamentalism get smacked in the face by a little thing called the real world, the basic story here really isn't so big: An anti-gay-rights politician has a gay daughter. At best, it's a TV movie. But then it gets a little tragic...



Unlike Dick Cheney, who made it subtly but unmistakably clear in his Vice Presidential Debate that his administration's anti-gay stances are not necessarily his doing (remember his near-mutinous moment in the debate when Edwards broached the topic and Cheney merely joined his rival in mutual man-to-man "good family ya got there" praise and refused to even mention Bush's ammendment to ban gay marriage?) Well, sadly, it doesn't look like Alan Keyes is quite the closet-progressive so many suspect Cheney is...



Nope, apparently Alan Keyes has approached the issue of gays in his family the same way he and his fellow so-called "religious" right allies seem to want to approach the issue of gays anywhere else: He threw her out of his house.



How do we know that? Well, Maya Keyes has a blog of her own, and she's keeping the web up to date on her adventures right here:

http://www.xanga.com/item.aspx?user=Xmisled0youthX&tab=weblogs&uid=196061776



Alright, look... I posted this because I find it interesting and relevent. Keyes considers himself a culture-warrior, and part of my mission with this blog is chronicling the actions of those who favor censorship which he certainly does. This is news about him, and it's going to be a big story.



I want to stress that it's also a NEW story, and there could be dimensions we don't know of yet, but right now I think it's fair to say that IF this is all true, Alan Keyes has revealed himself to be a hypocrite and world-class creep. I respect those who disagree with the various dimensions of gay rights issues, and political issues of ALL stripes, but some things are bigger than politics and this is one of them. If Alan Keyes really did throw out his own child because she's gay, then Alan Keyes is even less of a man than I thought he was. For all those who look to Keyes because of his supposed Christian values, look to this news and see for once and for all: IF this is all true, Alan Keyes has no business calling himself any kind of Christian.



The bottom line is, as much as I want to see Keyes and all of Keyes' ilk suffer as much political embarassment as possible, this is ultimately a sad story, made sadder still by the fact that it's playing out in thousands of homes across the country that will never make the news. It's true, sure, that Mrs. Keyes will likely find friends and allies in this difficult time in rights groups and other friendly entities who will see her need (and the big potential news story connected to her need, of course) and help her out.



You can bet I'll be following this one, as more details emerge...

Read more »

About "The Fantastic Four"...

Did you watch the Superbowl? I watched the Superbowl. I'm from New England, so it was sort of required even though I was technically at work.



I usually don't watch for the game, because I don't "follow" professional Football closely enough to really elevate one game above the others even if it is the big one. But I usually at least tune in for the commercials, (am I the only one who's already sold on the innevitable plush "Esuvees"?) specifically the movie trailers, which are usually early looks at the big summer tentpoles of the year.



The big news this time was the first non-teaser spot for "Batman Begins." At this point, early praise has become a cliche: Yup, the cast is unbelievable. Yup, I love the cool "Year One"-reminiscient brown-ish color scheme so much of it seems to have. But what thrills me about this spot is our first peek at The Scarecrow. Can I just say how much it thrills me that he actually is a guy dressed like a scarecrow? I know this is something only "fanboys" are supposed to care about but, honestly... the costumes are important. It's part of what makes the genre cool and different. If your lead is dressed like a bat, it's fine for the bad guy to go about with a burlap sack on his head. It's just cooler that way.



But speaking of this... the new "Batman" isn't the only comic book franchise making a go of it in theaters this summer. Marvel Films, who are still technically the driving force behind the new studio fascination with the genre, has "The Fantastic Four" coming out. It's a big project, with a budget somewhere in the $130 Million range, and the franchise it represents is one of the very biggest as-of-yet-untapped properties in all of comics. So why didn't it have a Superbowl spot?



Logically, it'd be because it's not quite ready for one. But it could also be just the latest in the long string of publicity-related bad luck the project has had. Unlike "X-Men," which fans approach with cautious optimism, or "Spider-Man," which had fans largely elated the moment Sam Raimi was announced as it's director, the project just can't seem to get any traction among the "fanboys" that the studios claim to so greatly despise but so transparently rely on to build pre-release hype.



Ever since Marvel Film's Avi Arad got "misquoted" as saying the film was aiming for a "sitcom" vibe, the buzz has been unrelentingly negative and hasn't caught a break since. Some of this can be, admittedly, chalked up to the geek community being just this side of paranoid about a Marvel project that seems to have so much more heavy studio/marketing influence upon it than the Spidey or X-films, but there's also the rumbling of something deeper going on. Something that makes me think that those who dismiss the "fanboy" concerns over this could likely find themselves walking out of the theater on "F4's" opening night echoing Joaquin Pheonix's astonished utterance from "Signs," namely: "the nerds were right!"



But let's not jump to conclusions. Let's do the grownup thing and make a list, or two lists, rather; of reasons to be looking forward to "The Fantastic Four" and also the reasons to be, well... a little worried about "The Fantastic Four."



Let's do the happy list first:

REASONS TO LOOK FORWARD TO "THE FANTASTIC FOUR":

Because it's "The Fantastic Four!" It's probably the single biggest Marvel franchise yet not made into a film, and fans know that it's got the potential to be one of the all-time great superhero action films. A stretching super-scientist, an invisible woman, a guy who lights himself on fire and a hulking muscleman made of orange rock, locked in endless combat with mad scientists, monsters, intergalactic invaders and a power-mad Eurotrash dictator in an armored suit. Even if you're not a fan, how can you not want to see a movie about that?

Michael Chilkis as "The Thing!" Is this not the niftiest peice of comic-hero casting since Patrick Stewart as Charles Xavier? The "Shield" heavy will play a football-hero turned space-pilot who mutates into a superstrong creature made of orange rock. It's just cool is what it is, and he gets to be the one with a catchphrase!

Because... because... Okay, I'm already all out of reasons to look forward. And I'm not trying to be cute about it. Not a good sign.

REASONS TO BE REALLY KINDA SORTA APPREHENSIVE ABOUT "THE FANTASTIC FOUR":

Because it's "The Fantastic Four." There's a reason why this wasn't the first film out of the gate for Marvel. Consisting of a unique fusion between characters rooted deeply in kitschy 1960s familial archetypes and an overall universe rooted in pulp-era popular-science (fiction or otherwise,) it's never been a surefire bet that the First Family of the Marvel Age could be morphed into a more "21st Century" framework with the same ease with which "Spider-Man" embraced angsty young-adult romance or that "X-Men" connected with culture-war allegory. And you need only look at the boxoffice gross for "Sky Captain & The World of Tomorrow" to know why adopting an unstuck-in-time pop-art otherworldiness simply isn't considered an option for a project like this at the Studio level.

Because of director Tim Story. I don't mean to beat up on Story, I'm sure he's a great guy and all that, but seriously, how's a film geek supposed to respond when a project that (for reasons described above) requires the surest of and most commanding of directorial hands to live up to it's potential AND avoid the toxic influence of never-get-it-never-will studio marketing buzzards is placed in the hands of a director who's only prior effort was "Barbershop," at best an above-average feature-length sitcom pilot? And who's 2004 release, "Taxi," qualifies as just about the worst buddy comedy since "Chill Factor." Bottom line is, Story may yet turn out to be the best man for the job, but he's got no clout of his own and usually that means it's the studio driving, not the director. And thats a big problem waiting to happen...

Because the cast, aside from Chilkis, is worrisome. Iaon Grufud is a fine actor, but he looks miscast as Mr. Fantastic. Emphasis on looks. Jessica Alba is bad casting for any role, being that she's a spectacularly limited actress known only as a garden-variety factory-issue "hottie" in the Shannon Elizabeth/Tara Reid mold. Chris Evans... look, the Human Torch is the broadest and hardest-to-screw-up on a character level figure in the franchise, but isn't it a little odd that Sue Storm's younger brother should look so much older than her? Julian McMahon's turn as Dr. Doom has thus far only been witnessed by lucky fans who downloaded some early footage, such as yours truly, and it wasn't really encouraging.

Because of the "improved" Doctor Doom. Comics are not movies, movies are not comics, that much is understood by even the most hardcore fan. Thus, often, changes need to be made to get stuff onscreen, including changes to "fundamental" backstory and character elements. That being said, what is known thus far about the "retooling" of perenial F4 bad guy Doctor Doom for the film just smacks of, at best, unecessary interference and, at worst, evidence of a complete misunderstanding of the franchise and it's appeal. Doom of the movie is yet another "evil corporate magnate," the go-to baddie for unimaginative action/suspense scripts trying to be more "today" (see also: "The Manchurian Candidate" remake.) Apparently this is to make Doom more "relevant." The comic-book Doom is a third-world dictator who threatens the Western World with weapons of mass destruction... yeah, nothing relevant about that.

The film's only trailer is, well... bad. Seriously. Did you SEE this thing? Since it played before "Elektra," probably not. Look at it here:

http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/fantastic_four/

The studio doesn't seem very confident in it: When "The Incredibles" came out, paying homage to Silver Age superheroes in general and "The Fantastic Four" especially, the go-to half-kidding query among film pundits was "the guys making the 'real' F4 have their work cut out for them." But then came the studio's response, that they... um... indeed have their work cut out for them, and that the film was going to have to be "kicked up" to not be a letdown after "Incredibles." The movie isn't as good as someone paying homage to the source material? Hm...

And then the most recent signal of the same: The film was scheduled for the July 4th weekend, in direct competition with Steven Speilberg's "War of the Worlds." The competition did have a superbowl spot ready, and it seems the F4 producers took one look at that big crumbling freeway and boldly... backed off, moving the film ahead a week to compete with the "Bewitched" remake. Hm...

Sigh.

Look, I don't want to be so down on this project, but so far I think I've made my point: There's just not much to get excited about. It could turn out that all the early impressions have been wrong, and if so I'll be the first to post right here how relieved I am to have my predictions and premonitions proven wrong. But right now, many of us "nerds" are justifiably looking to this as a letdown waiting to happen, and until some further proof otherwise is seen, right now it's looking like "the nerds were right"... even if they desperately wish not to be.

Read more »

Don Feder's Oscar Schpiel

NOTE: As before, this post involves a political pundit taking aim at the Oscar Nominations in order to further his/her own political agenda. Thus, it contains potential spoilers about the film's in question. I'll try to tread as lightly as I can over the specifics, but if you haven't seen some of these films (specifically: Clint Eastwood's "Million Dollar Baby") you may wish to read at your own risk.



Don Feder is a political writer, and at that he's pretty damn talented. He's also, by manner of his postings, (which you can read at his website donfeder.com an ally of the so-called "Religious Right," and at that he's pretty damn loyal. Yesterday (Friday, Feb. 4th) he posted his thoughts on this year's Oscar nominations at David Horowitz's website, frontpagemag.net, and, Mr. Feder, on your rationale here I find you pretty far off base.



Before I get into this, I want to point out that Horowitz is an admirable scholar and that his Front Page site is "fair" in a way that most "conservative" news outlets never are. It's to his credit that he offers equal time to "hard-right" fellows like Feder and moderates like Andrew Sullivan. Check the site out here:

http://www.frontpagemag.net



Here's the thing, folks. The "religious right" was planning on using The Passion and The Oscars as a post-election hammer with which to bludgeon it's Hollywood enemies whether it was nominated or not. In the absence of nomination, the attack has been predictable: Pick peices out of the nominated films that make them appear "liberal" (read: not-explicitly-religious-fundamentalist) and contrast them against the "holy" Passion. Also present is propping up Passion's boxoffice numbers, in order to turn the standard occurance of non-blockbusters racking up Academy nods into another chapter into the myth that Mel Gibson's torture-porn zealotry is "a film of the people."



Feder sticks to this script like glue, and in the end that's what hurts him: The outline doesn't fit real life, and anyone with even a basic knowledge of real Academy "politics" can see that. Read his original, whole article HERE: (spoiler warning)

http://www.frontpagemag.net/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16873



Take a look at his thesis statement here:

"The Oscars are Hollywood’s way of celebrating its values – the agenda of a gang of celebrity cretins who need a teleprompter to think."



Truth is, The Academy is comprised of thousands of people from all aspects of the industry, not only actors and directors but also writers, crewpersons and technical engineers. While it's true that actors make up the largest voting bloc, "celebrities" (cretins or otherwise) are a minority and many are too busy during the year to vote on the awards themselves. (you have to see all the nominated films to vote.)



He gives away some spoilers, a'la Michael Medved, in the exact quote about his case studies, but I can tell you he zeroes in on "Million Dollar Baby," "Kinsey" and "Vera Drake."



"Two were box-office bombs. “Kinsey” earned an anemic $9 million and “Vera” $2.3 million – one-tenth the box office of “Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid.” “Baby” has yet to prove itself."



"Bomb" is a little on the extreme side. "Kinsey" never opened "wide" and "Vera Drake" is a small, independent British film for which 2.3 Million is a respectable take. This is basic business stuff, and standard for Oscar nominees.



Kinsey has a single nod in an acting category, and not even for the actor playing Kinsey. The film is only mentioned here, I suspect, so that it can be feigned that this is about more than The Passion, and because the "religious right" so despises Kinsey that they had planned a year-long assault on the film are a little dissapointed that it doesn't have more acclaim for them to complain about.



"At the same time, “The Passion” (winner of the People’s Choice Awards) will go down as one of the most popular movies of all time, grossing $370 million in domestic box office receipts, and $611 million worldwide. It received a backhanded compliment from the Academy -- three nominations, all of them technical."



But wait... is he really suggesting that being a big-grosser should qualify one for an artistic achievement award? Does this mean he'll also demand a Grammy for Eminem?



“Spiderman 2,” the summer blockbuster ($373.5 million) that praised virtue, also got three minor nominations. “The Village” got one nomination (also minor)."



Nice sleight of hand here, attempting to woo action fans and film geeks by trying to create some link between "Spider-Man" and "The Passion." The only thing they have in common is that "Spider-Man 2" is a better film about a put-upon hero making sacrifices for the greater good than "The Passion" could ever dream of being. Why is "The Village" in here? You've got me.



He goes off on "Baby," playing spoiler for the whole thing so I won't repost it. But listen to this:

"Eastwood has been in the industry long enough to know exactly how to butter Hollywood’s agenda bread."



Clint? Is he serious? The actor the New York Times labled as "facist" for "Dirty Harry"? The former Republican mayor? Who campaigned on behalf of Ronald Reagan? Is buttering-up "liberal" Hollywood? Does he honestly believe what he's saying here?



“Spiderman 2” was the number 2 top-grossing movie of 2004, as well as a rarity -- a sequel that exceeded the original. It was fresh, exciting, and dealt with serious subjects in a serious way. It was nominated for Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, and Visual Effects – rather like being nominated for a seat on the Burbank city council."



On this, sir, we agree. One out of one-hundred ain't bad, eh?



"M. Night Shyamalan’s latest movie, “The Village,” was reactionary in the best sense of the word – rejecting modernity, while positing the virtues of a bygone era. It was nominated for Music (Score)."



And there's the answer to that question. He must be joking. The reactionary villagers of "The Village" are the good guys? That he can glean that says an awful lot about how much of an artistic failure "Village" really was and even more about how Feder just doesn't really have an argument here.



"The Academy Awards are more than Hollywood thumbing its nose at those whose patronage pays for the extravagant lifestyles of actors and directors. Winners achieve recognition they rarely deserve."



"Deserve?" It's an industry award, with voted winners.



"Then the sheep flock to the Oscar-winning film – and in turn are indoctrinated in the industry’s worldview. Thus, those adorable statuettes might be seen as an army of little soldiers marching into battle for Hollywood’s favorite causes."



Okay, so, let me get this right: When people blindly obey the command of Pat Robertson and James Dobson to flock to indoctrination from "The Passion," their exercising some kind of vox populi dollar-vote of their true feelings... but if they blindly trudge to the Academy Award winner.. then their sheep?



"The spectacle that will take place three weeks hence at Hollywood’s Kodak Theater has nothing to do with art and everything to do with ideology."



The same could be said, sir, of this and all other politically-motivated "film" columns like this one.

Read more »

REVIEW: Boogeyman

As always, let's let it stand that a mild spoiler warning is in effect...



For whatever else may be wrong with it, "Boogeyman" has one of the best opening scenes I've witnessed in awhile. Expertly photographed, well-acted and scored, perfectly setting up the visual motifs that one generally expects from a film called "Boogeyman." It's one of those scenes that captures an "I've been there" childhood-experience moments, then beautifully transforms it into a large-scale "your worst nightmare" sequence; one of those scenes that any good spook story needs.



Unfortunately, the end of the beginning spells the beginning of the end of anything really cool or notable coming from "Boogeyman."



The story: Our 20-something hero has issues. They seem to stem from having had his father walk out on him, and (it's implied, then puzzlingly dropped) the resulting mental deterioration of his mother. It's not that simple, of course: Our hero, as a boy, insisted that his father didn't walk out... rather, he's sure that his father was really sucked into the closet by The Boogeyman. Despite an apparently lengthy run of therapy, this belief has left him traumatized to this day, and terrified of closet doors as a bonus. Advised that "spending the night" in his old, now-abandoned house will cure his ills (no, really, thats actually what happens,) he hunkers down for a night at the old homestead to "face his fears." No prizes for guessing that the house is plenty scary-looking enough without a Boogeyman present, or that suspicious locals and yes, even "the girl that got away" start turning up to propel the story.



I won't spoil the ending for you, but I don't think it counts as the same thing if I tell you something that most definately ISN'T the ending, (or, rather, the "answer.") I only bring it up because it's absence is sort of a pleasant surprise. Anyway, here goes: No one in the principal cast of "Boogeyman" ever turns out to actually be The Boogeyman in their previously-unknown schizophrenic alternate-personality. Remember when that sentence would seem like a given? But for the last few years, "the bad guy is really the good guy's eeeevil other-half" has become the go-to "gotcha" for sub-average thrillers, so I found it sort of a nice surprise that "Boogeyman" doesn't go for it even though it would easily "fit" the movie.



The flip side of the coin is, sadly, that "Boogeyman" doesn't really "go for" much of anything. It's well directed and moves at a fluid pace, and for awhile there it looks like we may actually be heading somewhere interesting; but instead it bogs itself down in a clunky "all hell breaks loose" finale that would be welcome if the film had bothered to give us more reason to care about what's going on and what it all means.



I was hoping that the film was going to highlight some of the "origins" behind the mythology of "Boogeymen," (it's generally thought that the term is a modern evolution of swamp creatures or "boggy-men" of old European folklore,) or at least create an interesting mythology of it's own, but sadly this is not the case: There's as little going on with The Boogeyman himself as there is with his titular film. The closest we get to a "big idea" in this case is that the movie seems to imply that The Boogeyman is not only "The Closet Monster" but also "The Monster Under the Bed" and "The Bathtub Drain Monster,"along with a few others I might have missed (he's also, apparently, "The Runs-Out-of-Ideas-and-Just-Runs-Up-The-Stairs-And-Decks-You Monster," but I'd never heard of that one before.)



This is one of those scary movies where at (or near) the finale, as surviving characters stand around gravely intoning "it's over...", it's only the audience that seems to think "it's over... except for how you explain all those missing people and property damage." For awhile, it looks like the film might even head into interesting psychological dimensions about fear and trauma, but in the end all we've got is a gussied-up monster movie, featuring really one of the most dull-looking "monsters" in a good while.



FINAL RATING: 4/10

Read more »

Evil Dead 4 gossip... again

There are certain "dream projects" that get talked up for so long that, eventually, even eternally optimistic film geeks start to get a little "tell me another one" about them. One such project, or rather, "prospect," is that of Sam Raimi reuniting with Bruce Campbell to make another "Evil Dead" movie. (prior installments: "Evil Dead," "Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn" and Army of Darkness.") It seems like not a week goes by that we don't get yet another report of director Raimi (currently working on his 3rd "Spider-Man" film) either confirming or denying plans to continue the franchise that made him famous.



First it was coming. Then it wasn't. Then ED's "Ash" (Bruce Campbell) was going to battle the leads in a "Freddy vs. Jason" follow-up. Then that was dead. Then ED4 was back on. Then it wasn't. At this point, I'm not believing that ED4 is coming until ten minutes after I finish watching it.



Sometime last month, a new wrinkle was added as millions of web-browsing fans were met with the kind of news that immediately screams "Nightmare Scenario" to geekdom: "Evil Dead remake planned!" Nothing puts a film geek's shields up like the (lately) all-too-frequent prospect of a "cult" classic of yesteryear getting a "new, hip, fresh" makeover for the masses. The wrinkle to the wrinkle, however, thrust the issue into an entirely different paradigm: It was Raimi himself, and ever-present collaborator Rob Tapert, who would produce the remake through his "Ghost House" productions label, (which became a major financial powerhouse in the horror-movie game after releasing "The Grudge.")



And now the third twist: "Bloody-Disgusting.com," who can be counted on to scoop pretty much everyone when it comes to horror movies, has offered up an early tease of a coming interview with Raimi...

http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/index.php?Show=3270&Template=newsfull



...wherein he seems to drop this tantalizing bombshell: "There will be an Evil Dead 4, and there will ALSO be an Evil Dead Remake."



Ooooo... kay?



"Aint-It-Cool-News' " leader Harry Knowles joined in with some rumor-mongering of his own...

http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=19340



...floating the prospect that Raimi is seeking South Korean filmmaker Chan Wook Park to helm the remake.



So here's what I think is going on here:



In my estimate, Raimi and Tapert (assuming this is all true and not miscomunication of some kind) are trying to recreate for the "Evil Dead" franchise what occured for George Romero's zombie series when the "Dawn of the Dead" remake came out: The remake wasn't really quite so terrible as most fans (entirely logically) hoped it would be, it was a big hit with the public and it drew big money and interest toward Romero's "real" zombie follow-up, the in-production "Land of The Dead."



So what I'm guessing is that Raimi's "math" on this is reading as follows: "ED is still primarily a cult item, famous director or not. All the fans are going to go see it no matter what, but who knows who else will? So with a remake we can aim for a big 'no baggage' hit for Ghost House, and ED4 can only benefit from that as well." Good plan, if it works...



What makes me curious (and also cautiously cautious) about the idea of a remake is... as much as I love "Evil Dead", there really isn't that much there to "remake." It's a "look what we can do" indie horror opus, a showcase for early gore FX, Raimi's innovative directing style and Bruce Campbell's manic lead performance. All three of those elements, by design, won't be present in any remake, so what's left? A bunch of friends go to a cabin in the woods, read a book they shouldn't, bad stuff happens. In other words: There's seemingly limitless room for the right director, the right cast and the right FX team to have a good time and show their stuff, just as Raimi and company did in the first place.



And really, if remaking the first one is what it takes to finally get #4, fine. Do it.

Read more »

Just a few thoughts...

...About tonight's "State of The Union." I won't be watching live (I'll catch the news reruns later,) partly because I've got stuff to do, and also because I want to be in a more evening-like, non-cynical mood to watch what promises to be the surreal spectacle of a U.S. President spending most of the rundown of American democracy's "state" instead talking about the state of the new Iraqi democracy. Also, really, watching Bush struggle through a speech without any comical mispeak is sort of like watching Clinton struggle through the same without any comical mistruth, it's just kinda hard for me to take live.



But, before I go out, just four thoughts I think we all need to keep in mind these days:



1.) Having voted for Bush does not make you "moral."



2.) Having voted for Kerry does not make you "intelligent."



3.) The "red states" are not "The Heartland of America"...



4.) ...anymore than the "blue states" are "The Brainland of America."

Read more »

"BloodRayne" has a trailer

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Read more »