Whether you’ve read the original Dickens story or seen one of the many movie or TV adaptations available of “A Christmas Carol,” it’s common knowledge that Scrooge is seen as miserly, unpleasant, wishing ill of all cheery Christmas celebrants with a swift, “Bah, humbug!”

That’s the general take, changed by all actors who play him based on their talents. And that’s what I’ve arrived at, simple as it may be, in what became an idea for the holidays after picking up a copy of “A Christmas Carol” from the library last week: Why not go through all the available adaptations, seeing how each actor plays Scrooge, the differences between the growls, the harsh words, and of course, the makeup? The actors who have become Scrooge are prestigious indeed: Reginald Owen, Alistair Sim, George C. Scott, Albert Finney, Kelsey Grammer, Michael Caine (the victims of his abuse were Muppets), and even cartoons got in the act, such as Mister Magoo, the Looney Tunes characters, and of course Scrooge McDuck in “Mickey’s Christmas Carol.”

So it was with a Netflix account and access to my local library (as well as to other VHS and DVD stock by way of the ability to place items on hold from other libraries) that I began this, well, I wouldn’t say quest, but I suppose it could be considered more of a dormant interest that’s come alive.

The first available adaptation comes from MGM in 1938, starring Reginald Owen as Scrooge, and he looked very familiar indeed. His use of bits of Dickens’s dialogue is far less pointed than how later actors spoke the words. Being that it was 1938, audiences already had enough pointed words and situations in their lives. With Owen, Scrooge’s statement that those poor who would rather die than go to the workhouses should die and “decrease the surplus population,” is of course just a way to move him along. He’s certainly contemptuous of humankind, at least those who can’t contribute directly to his business and therefore his livelihood.

Right off, Owen’s eyes looked familiar. They’re not hardened eyes at all, certainly not in the way of George C. Scott. Then I realized. Those eyes, the wrinkles around those eyes would serve him well in one particular film, my favorite film of all: Mary Poppins. He played Admiral Boom, who always marked the arrival of every hour with cannonfire, or a “time gun,” as he referred to it.

Now of course, what with three ghosts of Christmas Past, Present, and Future, Scrooge has every right to be nervous about what comes next, especially with the final ghost (in a black robe with a face never seen, performed by D’Arcy Corrigan), who would almost seem to be an inspiration for Bergman’s vision of Death and appropriately so in “A Christmas Carol,” what with the last outing ending at Scrooge’s grave.

In any adaptation of “A Christmas Carol,” any good adaptation, the supporting cast serves the story just as well as the actor playing Scrooge and here, there’s Gene Lockhart as Bob Crachit, whose wife, Kathleen, plays Mrs. Crachit and June Lockhart, years and years before “Lost in Space,” plays one of the Crachit daughters. And just as important as the supporting cast with a dislike for Scrooge until the end is the role of Tiny Tim. Terry Kilburn plays the young boy and it’s a touching performance, considering the appreciation Tim has for all things Christmas and all things family. It’s not at all too cutesy.

And when the end of the film is reached when Scrooge sees what life can be if he is kinder, Owen’s lightened features are certainly a welcome sight, not unlike that of Ann Rutherford circa ‘38 as the Ghost of Christmas Past.

On the “Christmas Carol” DVD, watch “Jackie Cooper’s Christmas Party,” which features appearances by Clark Gable, Norma Shearer, Bette Davis, and Marie Dressler, among others, as Jackie invites his sizable football team and apparently the rest of his neighborhood for a Christmas party, but finds that his mother would be subjected to less stress if one of the MGM stages was host to it. I do like 1934’s “Treasure Island” because of Wallace Beery as Long John Silver, planning deeds in the shadows while merely serving as the ship’s cook which I know is true of every performance of Silver, but with Beery, those intentions are hidden just a little bit more than most.

But Jackie Cooper’s performance as Jim Hawkins always bothered me because he plays it too much. In that “Christmas Party” short, watch when he speaks to Norma Shearer. Natural, good-natured, even a little sheepish. Jim Hawkins wanted adventure, surely. But Cooper’s Hawkins is just too much done at once.

Getting back to “A Christmas Carol,” the biggest surprise comes even before you put the DVD in. Either on the back of the case, or the Netflix envelope or the Blockbuster case or wherever you might get the film, the running time causes a bit of a shock. 69 minutes. No matter, though, because it runs quite well. Just enough of the story used for a ’30s studio production.

Next: Alistair Sim’s Scrooge from 1951.

Bookmark to:
     

1 Comment »

I liked the original the “Miami Vice” television show … at least most of it. It was stylish, kinda dark (for television), and made the best use of music in the medium at the time. When I heard Michael Mann, the individual who rose to fame off his real (or perceived) role in creating the look and feel of the television series, was making a “Miami Vice” movie, I had high hopes. I like Mann … or at least every other one of his films. He knows how to tell a story. He knows how to get you hooked. He can weave an action sequence, and he makes pretty good use of music. He’s a big picture kind of guy. Not that he thinks about big pictures; he understands the bigger picture. So “Miami Vice”? Yeah, I was interested. Interested enough to think I may even lift my self-imposed ban on films derived from other sources. Maybe.

And then I saw the trailer and was left very unimpressed.

I’ve read of all the tales of trouble on the set, which is sometimes the smoke in the smoke and mirrors act to get you to see a film that can’t stand on its own. Controversy and strife sell, and this movie had both in spades by all accounts. Shootings, drug addiction, partying, natural disasters and a skyrocketing budget all made the entertainment news. Colin Farrell and Jamie Foxx (whose name is spelled like that of a porn star) were on board, though, and they are both considered talented actors, so all things should have been in place for a kick ass time at the ol’ cinema.

But that trailer did nothing for me.

I wanted a “Miami Vice” movie that sizzled off the screen. I wanted style and action and attitude. I wanted angst and appropriate music (not cover versions of songs made popular by the television show). I wanted a “Miami Vice” movie that sold itself. That trailer showed me none of that, but it did show me a fifth generation copy of all those things.

Watching that trailer, the only thing I could tell about the film was that it was a cop movie using the “Miami Vice” title. It could’ve been any cop film with any title. Hell, why not call it “Narc 2”? Oh, I know. “Miami Vice” is a ready-made franchise. The show changed television and fashion. The show launched singing careers (which proved God wasn’t only dead, but that Satan had taken over). The show made Mann a household name. The series showed viewers that television stories could be done a different way. Mann would have some pretty big shows to fill if he wanted his film to have the same impact, which may have been the problem. Maybe he didn’t care … and maybe that’s not an entirely bad thing.

I understand that Mann is an artist. He doesn’t look at film the same way as the Wayans brothers do. He sees it as a canvas, and while the end product may not exactly be art, he has an artist’s sensibility about the way he does things. Unfortunately, “Miami Vice” feels like he’s trying to gild shit. “Miami Vice” has already been done. It didn’t need to be done again. It couldn’t really break new ground … at least not while it’s called “Miami Vice.” But Mann couldn’t hear that. He thought he could try, and the end result produced a trailer that projected my second biggest fear (the first being that it would a direct clone of the television series). It was a trailer for a film with no heart, no vision, and no sense of self. All those things had been set in the television series, and this was just an attempt to recapture the magic in a whole new way, and not even the most talented writers or directors can do that. Magic is magic because it only happens once.

When I saw that trailer, I immediately thought, “No way am I going to see that. It just confirms everything I think about old television shows being made into films.” And while it did have Mann’s name going for it, that actually made it worse. You can almost understand someone else doing it and getting it wrong. This, however, was unacceptable.

“Miami Vice” the film? No. It’s unnecessary, and desperate, and I expect more from Mann. An extended version DVD, which Celebrity Watchdog George Anthony Watson keeps threatening to buy me, with all the bells and whistles won’t do the trick, either. Mann’s next film better be a masterpiece, or I’m writing him off for good.

Bookmark to:
     

2 Comments »

Hey Gang-

I’ll be in Las Vegas December 3rd through 5th for a two-day film festival summit called, oddly enough, the International Film Festival Summit. The summit takes place at the Luxor Hotel, so, if this interests you in the least, come on by.

A few years ago I was the keynote speaker in New York at the very first IFFS event where I bombed terribly. The total lack of sleep might have contributed, but I was way off my game. Anyway, I’m just being honest. It was a lot of fun to meet festival directors from all over the world face to face and exchange ideas about exactly how to best put on a film festival as well as service filmmakers.

I’ll be moderating a panel called “Guerilla PR for Film Festivals” on Tuesday, December 5th at 2 to 3 PM and expect to certainly introduce helpful new ideas for fests trying to get off the ground. Here’s the panel description:

This session will provide a number of suggestions and tools detailing how to leverage the internet, media, and filmmakers themselves to promote their festival. Additionally, the session will go into how to use local resources to reach out to targeted groups to increase attendance.

I plan to make a major announcement regarding the next edition of my film festival book.
But, more importantly, on Sunday, December 3rd, I’ll be looking for something to do in Vegas. In fact, I’ll be looking for something to do every night I’m there — is there anything cool to do in Vegas?

Anyway, visit the IFFS web site for more details. If, for some reason, I don’t respond to my actual name, it’s because I’ll be going by my Vegas name, “G-Bone.” Don’t ask. Well, you can ask, but you have to be in Vegas.

Gore gone!

Bookmark to:
     

2 Comments »

One of the biggest childhood favorites that I gladly admit to loving is “The Last Dragon.”

Many film buffs based in knowing cult classics or bad films in general just know what film I’m talking about and they just can’t help talk about and bask in all its pure horrid presence.

But back when the CW was simply WPIX Channel 11 in New York, their rotating limited library of films were cyclical to the point where I knew what would be on before it came on. I recall always reading TV Guide and cutting out the small pictures advertising certain films appearing within the week.

“The Last Dragon” is a bad movie, but sadly it’s a good memory of my childhood. To a young boy like me, this was the action genre at its finest, with amazing performances, and a climactic battle that rivaled Luke and Darth.You can stop laughing now.

Anyway, “The Last Dragon” is the worst kind of Bruce Lee homage. Imagine a kung fu film built in the same vein “The Wiz” was. A young man named Bruce Leroy (Taimak, whose acting is at par with Hayden Christensen) who is genuinely a martial arts buff and appears at low rent theaters dressed in traditional garb of kung fu masters eating popcorn with chopsticks finds himself at the mercy of a local shogun.

This Shogun is named “Sho’ Nuff the Shogun of Harlem” who also walks around in Samurai garb and the traditional hairdo. He finds himself hating Leroy, and plans to kill him, while Leroy battles an evil music promoter, and searches for an ultimate power known as “The Glow.”

This leaves the film open for a lot of music blaring over the dialogue nine times out of ten, wildly neon set pieces, and a ridiculous montage of Bruce Lee scenes playing while Leroy goes orgasmic and kisses his love interest who happens to be the local popular VJ.

I was never sure if “The Last Dragon” was honestly intended as a film aimed for the African American demographic a la “The Wiz,” or if it was an honest spoof of martial arts films that marketed on the pop of the eighties in the process, because if you watch this you know the film is laughably bad, but you can’t help but wonder if the actors know this.

Suffice it to say, “The Last Dragon” is swill, but the dialogue is often times so catchy, and the scenes so memorable, you’ll find yourself recollecting it whether you realize it or not. Watching Leroy eating popcorn with chopsticks while the audience behind him in the theater mimics the martial arts movie playing, or the Shogun of Harlem.

Later spoofed in a Busta Rhymes music video, “Sho’ Nuff” the Shogun is probably the most memorable aspect of this film for all the wrong reasons. With long hair, a bright red outfit, and teeth he flashes like a dog, Julius Carry (who thankfully went on to better things) utterly defines the term over the top with a villain that’s too cartoon to be threatening.

“The Last Dragon” is not particularly a bad film to me, but more a bad film that I can’t help think of with fond memories, because I’ve seen it repeatedly, and couldn’t help gush over it, especially in the climax where Leroy catches a bullet with his teeth, and proceeds to mimic Bruce Lee’s signature Kung-Fu arm wave in a multi-colored sequence.

Oy, why I ever loved this film, I’ll never know. But you have to respect it for being so bad without apology. “The Last Dragon” shows that obsessions with Bruce Lee can lead to awful results.

Oh yes, word has it Taimak is trying to fuel a sequel to this. ‘Sho Nuff.

Save the cheerleader, save the world.

Bookmark to:
     

6 Comments »

I was leaning against a railing outside my local theatre, waiting for a friend who was supposed to show up a half hour ago. We were going to eat and then catch “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom,” which I had already seen, but liked enough to watch again. Those mine carts got me every time.

The night was extremely foggy, and I thought my friend’s mom might have found the conditions too dangerous to drive in and opted to keep her son safe at home. I was going to give him a five more minutes, though. If I waited any longer than that, I’d miss the trailers, and I hate missing trailers. If I miss them, I feel like I didn’t get the entire film experience. (Going to the theatre with me is a lot like going to the airport. I need to be there an hour early because I’ll be damned if I miss a preview for a new Spike Lee joint.)

I noticed someone approaching me from the the parking lot. At first I thought it was my friend, but this guy was wearing a trenchcoat, and I couldn’t recall my friend ever wearing one of those. Then the stranger flicked out a butterfly knife and started doing the normal tricks with it.

“This isn’t going to be good,” I thought to myself as I reached for my butterfly knife.
As I twirled my knife open in an equally flashy display, the guy said, “We’re going to miss the trailers if we don’t go in now.”

My friend had a way of making entrances.

I’m sure ninety percent of you have seen the Indiana Jones films. If you’re like me, you enjoyed them. The rest of the world seemed to, too. So that begs the question: Why aren’t there any successful imitators?

Hollywood has tried to make films to dethrone the ruler. “Romancing the Stone” was Indy inspired, as was “High Road to China.” And when “The Mummy” came out a few years ago, people quickly compared it to the Jones sagas. Those films didn’t quite work the same way, though, and I don’t understand why. It’s such a simple formula that a bunch of kids could duplicate it.

The adventure film, a Hollywood staple for far too many years, has a few variations on the same theme. The Indy films kind of played off all of them without using too much of any one thing, and with an overt wink of the eye. For some reason, filmmakers haven’t been able to duplicate the feel of the trilogy, instead opting to go too far in one direction or another. It seems like it should be easy to do, but Hollywood has somehow made it rocket science.

Granted, there were talented people working on the Indy films. Very talented people. That’s not to say they’re the only people who could’ve done that, though. None have, however, and that makes me fear what could happen if the fourth film is ever made. Why? Because the poisoned fruit of Tinseltown may have infected George Lucas and Steven Spielberg, as is evidenced by their recent films.

Any Indiana Jones work to come from these one-time kings of cinema will be tainted by years of bad rip-offs that should never have seen the light of day, but have changed public perceptions of what an adventure film should be. And then there’s the fact that Spielberg has some new moral grounds that he’s put in place the last few years. All of this could spell disaster for what was once an enjoyable franchise. (And let’s not even get into Lucas and his constant script problems.)

The fourth film may never happen, and I’m content with that. I’d rather see nothing than a pale imitation like all the other movies that have come out since. I fear the powers-that-be will think they have to re-invent the wheel, and that just isn’t the case. What made the Indy films so fun was that they were inspired by old movie serials and all their cornball excesses, something I think Hollywood feels audiences are too jaded for these days.

If the fourth film is more “King Solomon’s Mines” and less “Radar Men From the Moon,” I’m bringing that butterfly knife back to the theatre and slicing every copy of the film. It’s the right thing to do … and it’ll be fun. Lucas and Spielberg — consider yourselves warned.

Bookmark to:
     

1 Comment »

Welcome to the first Film Threat Hate Mail Blog Entry! While Hate Mail is nothing new to Film Threat, finding its roots in the letters section of the original print magazine and residing as its own section in Back Talk, here at the Film Threat Blogs it is an entirely new entity.

The bulk of our daily email correspondence deals with folks wanting to get reviews for their films, wondering when their films will get reviewed and wondering how to speed up the process of the former topics. Seldom, nowadays, do we get legitimate Hate Mail. That has changed, however, as the ever-popular Frigid 50: The Coldest People in Hollywood 2006 brought out the haters. So here you go, the latest and greatest Hate Mail to Film Threat:

From: Jon Taylor

Yea I liked how you guys made mel gibson number one. lol and I also bet you guys are all a bunch of jews running this website. That’s nice, since I read that retarded article you wrote that’s the last time I come to this website versus all the other sites that I can bookmark and go to. I had your link posted on my site of 2 million visitors a day and now I’m taking it off. Your guys are so childish.

It’s moments like this that I wish I was Jewish so I could just go “uh, yeah, and…”

From: Larry Nelson

You need to get a life. Mel Gibson was drunk. Who cares. I’ll watch him and his movies in a heartbeat. He’s a great actor!!!

Yes, he was drunk. And driving. Last I checked, regardless of whatever hateful bile he spewed, that’s a pretty bad thing itself. Why didn’t MADD get pissed about this anyway?

From: Roman Polanski

Jebem vam mater, zikice. Ako ne budem ja onda ce to neko drugi budite sigurni, pas vam mater jedan dva Now you can look for some jer like you who can translate this zikice go to hell

Um… I think this is Hate Mail, because of the whole “go to hell” part but the rest… anyone care to take a stab at translating? Oh, and Mr. Polanski, call me next time you’re in the States, we’ll get a burger…

From: Alan Marble

Just thought you should know in case you don’t… I found about you and your ratings from NewsMax, commenting on Mel Gibson. Otherwise….never heard of you. For many years, I have no longer cared ANYTHING about Hollywierd, the current movie business nor anyone in it. Haven’t seen a movie in a theater in over a year and don’t plan to. Don’t watch the Emeys, the Academy Awards nor anything related. Don’t care! With very few exceptions…there is Nothing there. Empty, Void. In other words: You, your ratings, the people you rate, Hollywood movies, the whole mess…are not relevant to the real world. What they think, say, do is of no value. (Except for subject matter in a college psychiatry course) What used to be is no longer. Good luck and good bye to a sick place.

Don’t care? That makes two of us…

There you have it, the fresh crop of Hate, for you to read and enjoy. Comment below if the feeling moves you, and you can always send your own Hate Mail through our Support form.

Bookmark to:
     

9 Comments »

Rachel is willing to die and sacrifice herself for religion.

Levi is educated at home and taught that religion plays a role in everything from math to science through special textbooks that angle toward the creationism theories.

Make no mistake about it, the children in “Jesus Camp” are one stone’s throw away from being suicide bombers.

The reasoning for this, Ms. Tucker explains, is that if Muslims can have camps to train children to fight for their religion and sacrifice their lives, why can’t they?

This is from a woman who lives in America, the supposedly evolved country.

To which she eggs on her audience that they’re going to war, while the children, in the most disturbing sequence, clutch their fists screaming “War! War! War!” Meanwhile, the children feel they need to be saved. What harm could a five year old do that doesn’t stem from innocence and ignorance? I’m still wondering.

But Tucker isn’t solely to blame. She’s only a part in a wider range of bad parenting, to which she merely influences in her utter ignorance. She prays that the devil doesn’t ruin her Power Point presentation for the camp.

The children in “Jesus Camp” are the religious equivalent of stage families. They think they want to be there, they think they believe what they’re doing is right, only because at a young age they’ve been taught it was, and seek to satisfy their wholly flawed parents reflecting their views onto them whether they like it or not.

After watching “Jesus Camp” I wasn’t all that surprised. I mean, religion in the wrong hands is a wicked and potentially damaging tool in the hands of the wrong groups of people.

The kids look healthy, and basically seem well off, but you can sense something just isn’t right in their minds. They want to satisfy their parents, they’ve convinced themselves they believe what they’re saying, and their only ambition revolves around their religion.

Then they’re told they’re guilty, they’re told they must atone for sins when the adults never ask what they think a sin is, and never actually sit down to talk to a child to ask them what they’ve done and why they think it was wrong. Because they don’t need to. The children are clay, and they’re being formed.

This film shows how adults tailor their children to cater to their desires regardless of how inevitably damaging they may be to their children. Particularly from Rachel, a very young girl who while well intentioned, is also noticeably disturbed in many ways.

She approaches a woman in a bowling alley giving her a pamphlet about god, and only beams with pride when her father congratulates her and murmurs “You’re finally being obedient.”

What is witnessed in “Jesus Camp” is the potential creation of adults with disorders, both mental and physical. They drill these children with almost immense guilt and dissatisfaction that the children will never be able to fulfill into early adulthood, and it will inflict potential harm to themselves and to their loved ones. And they’re also told that thanks to abortion many of their best friends couldn’t be there with them, which leads to passing around of plastic embryos.

As is shown in common cult studies, one of the principles of cultists is instilling an impossible sense of guilt in their followers that they can never fulfill; this keeps them loyal die-hard followers. The children here are attacked at very young ages, and they’ll always feel this sense that they can’t fulfill a standard set before them, nor can they ever reach a life of true happiness for fear of sin.

Five year olds screaming and crying, Tucker preaching that she wants the children free of sin yet when she calls for the murder of a fictional character the children cheer.

“Jesus Camp” is an utterly disturbing account of bad parenting, and children falling to the prey of dangerous religious fanatics. You can’t help feel sorry for them.

American and Muslim extremists are not as different as you’ve been told. And they’re both very dangerous to the well being of humanity.

Bookmark to:
     

1 Comment »

Maybe I’m a bit of a bastard, but I believe people who like that the MPAA does its best to make directors censor their movies so that films are safe for families and sensitive adults should not watch movies. That’s right. If someone thinks the MPAA is an ally in the fight against “smut,” that person shouldn’t walk into theatres and should never obtain a rental card. Why? They spoil things for everyone else.

When adults get their morals all wound up over a film, that tells me the adult has a problem. I don’t care if it’s some religious man being outraged by “The Da Vinci Code,” or some woman screaming for the banning of a film like “Bloodsucking Freaks.” These people obviously don’t have real problems to worry about, or they don’t know how to handle the problems they do have, so they look for a strawman. The problem is that there are plenty of other people like them out there who will give them a chance to be heard and will take up their battle cry as if on orders by God. They really need a good cancer scare to put things in perspective.

There are movies I hate. There are those I think should never have been made, like “Snow Dogs.” I may even call for their eradication, but I would never ask Congress to do it for me. I would never try to enact laws to censor the people who make these films. If I do something like that, I realize it has the potential to bite me on the ass in the end. Instead, I’ll use shame tactics and avoid giving these films my money. At no time, however, will I seriously try to get the films banned or give the MPAA any kind of moral authority over what I can view. That’s the path of cowards and the weak, and those people need to get the fuck out of the way.

Life is filled with moments that aren’t “safe.” I know many of you crusaders realize this and wish your films could be the one safe haven in an unsafe world. After all, you should be able to watch “The Devil’s Rejects” without feeling uncomfortable (as one person told me). That’s utter bullshit. If you want safety, watch Hallmark movies, or avoid film all together. Your input is ruining the art for the rest of us who have to deal with your insecurities, and I’m sick of it.

I am a mature, responsible adult. If there’s a movie I think will offend me, I won’t watch it. I won’t cry about it. I won’t say, “I really want to see it, but it’s too nasty.” I won’t write my local senator. I didn’t watch “The Lake House” because I thought it looked dumb. I would never dream of banning it, though. There could be people out there who like it, and who am I to tell them what they should be allowed to watch?

Keep screaming, you wannabe censors. Keep saying that movies are “sinful works of art that cater to the lowest common denominator” (never realizing that the lowest common denominator is actually you). Keep renting movies that have been cut not only at the whim of the MPAA, but by some guy who has some fancy computer software and a religious agenda. They all know better than you what you can and cannot see. Of course, if you are so eager to listen to them, you should listen to me, too, and I’m saying you should put your money where your mouth is and stop watching movies. I think you’d be doing yourself and the rest of us a favor. We don’t want your input, and film definitely doesn’t need your voice dictating what writers and directors can and cannot do.

And if you’re wondering if this rant is about you, here’s a simple test: Do you disagree? If so, it’s about you.

Bookmark to:
     

1 Comment »

You got to hand it to the Turner Classic Movies (TCM) channel. Having Rob Zombie host the cult classics series is a stroke of genius. His love for the films, the first two weeks of which showcased Ed Wood and Russ Meyer, is infectious. And while he doesn’t reveal anything fans of these movies don’t already know, it will still be a cool education for the new kids on the block who will watch these movies only because Zombie is attached to them.

I don’t know how this project came about. I don’t know if someone at TCM contacted Zombie or vice versa. It doesn’t really matter. Just the fact that these films are being highlighted and looked at in a serious manner is good enough for me. Granted, I disagree with some of the picks (“Mudhoney,” for example), but something like “Freaks” is a cult classic no matter how you cut it.

Many of these films will never be given any kind of respect by “serious” film journalists and critics. That’s the nature of the beast. A film journalist who desires nothing more than to be respected by his or her peers will adopt the same point of view as his or her peers, and far too many of them like “Citizen Kane” and “The Godfather” and disdain all else. There are other journalists/critics out there who get it, though, and they don’t give a rat’s ass what their peers say. They are writing and speaking from the heart, and many of them understand what makes these films cult classics. Let’s be honest here, something like “Faster Pussycat! Kill! Kill!” may not be the best movie of all time, but it was one of the first to really put women into the bad-ass-drink-dope-and-have-wanton-sex roles and be totally unapologetic for it. Sure, it’s a little campy, but there’s also a morality play there, and that’s something some people will never get. Their loss.

I have a schedule for the films TCM is showing, and it goes into December. I’m hoping if the program is successful enough it will become a full-time thing, perhaps with different hosts. I’m a realist, though, and I know how these things tend to go. That means you have to enjoy it while you can because films like the ones slated to be shown aren’t being made anymore, and the audience may not be there to keep the show going.

Whether or not the series continues, nothing changes the fact that these are the films which inspired some of what you are seeing today, and they deserve some kind of acknowledgment. Zombie and TCM are doing that. And who knows? Maybe some kid staying up late on a Friday night will tune in out of curiosity and be so inspired by what he sees that he’ll become the next Meyer or Romero. Maybe he’ll decide to write about the films instead. You never know. But if the kid is inspired by these films, one thing is guaranteed: He won’t be one of those filmmakers/writers who only likes the “highbrow” stuff. If this series can produce one artist whose roots start in the underground, it will have done its job. If not, well it will be good while it lasts … no matter how short the trip.

Bookmark to:
     

2 Comments »

So, I took a hiatus last week mainly because Doug submits “Excess Hollywood” here now, and out of respect for the man, I refrained from posting that Tuesday and Thursday.

Anyway, I wonder why “Sa-turd-ay Night Live” hasn’t spoofed it just yet, but I’m not very surprised. NBC probably asks them to veer away from other NBC shows.

I just don’t get the big deal with “Deal or No Deal.” And no that wasn’t a pun. I’m serious. I just don’t get it. I remember when we had shows like “Jeopardy” that would actually challenge us, before, and now we have a dumb game show like “Deal or No Deal.”

It’s bad enough the show is terrible, but as Conan said in the Emmy’s, NBC is depending on Howie fucking Mandel now for ratings. How sad is that?

“Who wants to be a Millionaire?” was a step in the right direction, even if the show was pretty lame, and then “The Weakest Link” which was also a good idea with a bad result. Game shows where the contestants actually earn their cash with brain power, what a concept!

Shit, even “Wheel of Fortune” where people just essentially pick letters is a show where audiences and contestants have to think and plan to win their loot, but “Deal or No Deal” is ridiculous.

I know fans, and websites, and understandably NBC like to depict the show as suspenseful, and tense, and as an edge of your seat game show, but come on. People just have to decide if they want to deal or no deal. That’s all. That requires no challenge.

People will defend it as something that does challenge, but give me a break. You’re just choosing between one option or the other, that’s not challenging, and it’s not surprising a show that doesn’t take much of a challenge would be such a hit.

Hell, “American Idol” is essentially just a damn karaoke contest, and it’s a huge smash in this country.

Aside from the basically simple premise of choosing, and not choosing, every so often we have guest spots from quasi-celebrities, and Celine Dion who I like to call the anti-Christ, because seriously, that woman IS the anti-Christ. Screw George Dubbya.

So, it came to me, I want to pitch NBC a show called “Say Cat and Point.” Hosted by Pauly Shore, “Say Cat and Point” has a contestant in front of three metal suitcases, one of which holds a million dollars. The object of the game is for the contestant to say cat and point at the right suitcase that holds the money.

Why cat? Well, why the hell not? It’s a simple word, and can draw suspense. The catch phrase from Shore would be: “Say cat…” (Dramatic score) “and point.”

The audience would gasp, the contestant (a heavy woman from a town in the Mid-West) would grew nervous, and she’d play.

It would make for a perfect line-up with “Deal or No Deal,” wouldn’t it? Sounds like a dumb idea, but then you wouldn’t say that if you’ve ever seen “Deal or No Deal.”

“Say Cat and Point” coming this fall to NBC!

Bookmark to:
     

1 Comment »