007 in '007: The PreRamble

If this can possibly be believed, I finally saw Casino Royale this past Saturday night, after weeks of The Don badgering and heckling me for not doing so already. It was never a matter of thinking I wasn’t going to like it; quite the contrary – I was certain I would. But Bond is this little universe many of us have grown up with, and once the floodgates opened and phrases like “Best Bond ever” and “Negates everything that came before it” started being tossed around, I instinctively pulled back a little bit, and my interest somewhat waned. I’m not going to review Casino Royale at this time, but suffice it to say despite being pretty taken by the whole affair and recognizing that this is where the series should have been when Pierce Brosnan took over, its existence didn’t poke even a minor hole in all that came before. Indeed, Casino Royale may have given me an even deeper appreciation for the series.

Which leads directly to a project that will be ongoing here at The Rued Morgue over the next 12 months: “007 in ‘007” – a laid back exhumation and autopsy of the longest running movie franchise in film history; a franchise so needlessly and obnoxiously repetitive that the mind almost boggles at its ability to keep on truckin’. Of primary importance will be reviews of each film, but the project may veer into other areas, analyses, lists and/or commentaries along the way if and when inspiration hits, so it's anyone's guess what this could morph into.

Having received for Christmas (thanks to my dad & JJ) Volumes 2 & 3 of the James Bond Ultimate Edition DVD box sets and having the other two on the way (thanks to some clever eBay bidding on my part), my love for Bond has in recent weeks been reinvigorated. For some bizarre reason, the last time I collected Bond was on VHS as a teenager. I skipped not only the previous DVD releases, but also – inexplicably - the laserdisc versions, which should have been a no-brainer as they were my first opportunity to own the series in widescreen. Since obtaining these sets over the holidays, it’s beginning to feel like fate: Bond has never looked as good on home video as he does on these new releases and I'm glad I waited.

In some cases it’s been years since I’ve seen an installment and in two cases, I’d never seen them at all! While these new sets feature much previously released-on-DVD bonus material, for me it’s all brand-new and quite a treat to sift through. On top of everything else, these editions feature newly recorded commentaries by Sir Roger Moore on all seven of his outings and as Rog is my favorite Bond, his thoughts, memories and anecdotes are icing on the cake sort of fare. Say what you will about Moore (I may not even argue with you), but I don't see Sean Connery taking time out of early retirement to reward loyal fans with the same.

So if you are a Bond fan, hopefully you’ll check in to the Morgue periodically and see how the project is coming along and throw down your own insights. If you are not a Bond fan, there’ll be plenty of heckling and poking fun along the way. After all, if Roger Moore is my ideal 007, it should go without saying that I don’t take Bond as seriously as the idea of this project might imply -- and yet I wouldn't tackle it if I didn't love me some Scaramanga, Blofeld and Tiffany Case.

First up? Comin’ outta the gate with my favorite Bond flick of them all (if for no reason other than to get it out of my system): Roger Moore’s freshman outing, Live and Let Die.

Lynchendental Meditation

Thanks to The Don I'll be seeing David Lynch's much talked about Inland Empire on the 24th at the lovely Paramount Theatre in Austin, TX -- with Lynch himself in attendance! Of course, it's hugely doubtful there'll be a chance to go one on one with the man -- but as I've often said to many a fellow Lynch Nut, of all my favorite filmmakers, he's the only one to whom I'd have no idea what to say. Lynch is the kind of guy whose voice and vision stands on its own.

Which leads me to his other latest endeavor, the book entitled Catching the Big Fish: Meditation, Consciousness, and Creativity, a piece which strikes me as noteworthy because David Lynch doesn't write books every day, and certainly not on subjects that are personal to him. It's nearly 200 pages of Lynch talking about (in the words of the Amazon description) "his personal methods of capturing and working with ideas, and the immense creative benefits he has experienced from the practice of meditation". If you're at all like me, it sounds like a bunch of new age hooey...but if like me you love the man's work, you're also hard-pressed to dismiss this effort to reach out to the public on the matter. (One wonders if Terry Gilliam could benefit from these philosophies?) I'm not exactly rushing to Borders to pick this up, but I'm pretty sure I'll own a copy within the next couple weeks; it's very reasonably priced for a hardcover.

I got "My Borders Monthly" in my e-mail box last night, and it was pimping the book, along with an excerpt titled "The Pace of Life", a brief excerpt from the audio version of the book, and an engaging Q & A with Lynch. Check out the links, as I think you'll come away from them with a slightly different attitude toward this work. It doesn't strike me as the kind of text that's specific to Lynch's audience; this seems like fare that might benefit anyone engaged in creative endeavors.

Check out Ryland Walker Knight's writeup/review of the book over at The House Next Door.

Pete Martell: There was a fish -- in the percolator!

Swimming Pools & Movie Stars: Random Thoughts about Little Children

Little Children (finally!) opened at the Crossroads Bijou this weekend; for those of you who don’t live in San Antonio, it’s also on 100 or so other screens across the country. After months of building it up in my head as this probable piece of celluloid perfection (due to numerous factors), and then subsequently worrying that it couldn’t possibly live up to the hype (due to experiencing the "letdown" too many times to count), I discovered a work even more rewarding than I’d imagined or hoped. There isn’t a weak performance or moment on display, and its characters & situations left me with as many questions as they did answers. It’s unsettling material that also frequently had me in stitches, and as the end credits rolled, I was a weeping mess -- I'm still trying to figure out why that was.

Many S.A. Morgue readers know Jackie Earle Haley and many probably also know he’s been racking up awards from various critics organizations, as well as snagging a recent SAG nom for his work in the movie. Viewing Jackie in his other recent role as Sugar Boy in All the King's Men was the type of experience I often encounter when seeing a close friend performing on stage or in a film - regardless of the quality of the performance, I'm always aware that I'm watching someone I know playing a character.

Jackie's Ronnie in Little Children is a different story. Somewhere in the midst of probably his third scene, I found myself unable to wrap my brain around the fact that I've known the figure onscreen for 7 or 8 years. There was not only nothing left of the person with whom I associate, but he somehow ceased to even look like Jackie. Yes, Mr. Haley is more than deserving of the accolades he’s received - and yet he's only one reason to see this film.

Most of the above says more about me than the movie, and I’d have to see it a few more times before attempting any kind of review. The film is better discussed than reviewed anyway, so who knows if or when I’ll even try. Little Children has been compared to Kubrick. Via director Todd Field’s sterile, removed--yet inexplicably non-judgmental--approach, that doesn’t seem an overstatement. Like a Kubrick flick, it has the power to polarize; for each person who loves it, another will loathe it, which certainly indicates a measure of strength. It may even somewhat be the movie that detractors of Eyes Wide Shut have often claimed it should have been – a relevant commentary about the contemporary complexities of marriage (which isn’t to bag on Eyes, a work I dearly love). Oddly (I guess), Field played piano player Nick Nightingale in Kubrick’s swan song.

Despite my enthusiasm for all the attention that not only Jackie, but also Kate Winslet, Patrick Wilson and the film itself have been given, it’s a weirdly noticable oversight that more recognition hasn’t been heaped upon Todd Field. More than any other film I’ve seen in ages, this is clearly the vision of an assured, meticulous director. He’s amassed some awards & nominations for its adapted screenplay (co-written with novelist Tom Perrotta) and the film’s got some “Best Picture” momentum (including a Golden Globe nom) - yet the directing kudos have eluded Field. It’s not that the screenplay isn’t award-worthy, but it’s the type of script that in the hands of someone less capable could easily have ended up feeling like a Lifetime TV movie. Little Children is all about Field’s direction -- how he visually and stylistically chose to interpret the material he helped put to paper. (In fact, it's easy to imagine Field directing the film in his head during the adaptation process.) If the film is hated by a viewer, I don't think it'll be the material that offends - it'll be the way the material's been presented that gets under their skin. Same thing goes for those who love it.

Maybe the oversight will be rectified come Oscar time, but it could end up being one of those bizarre predicaments where the movie’s up for Best Pic, and yet the director fails to be given a nomination. For all I know Field couldn’t care less. Despite four noms, Stanley Kubrick never won an Oscar and he didn’t seem too bothered by it (or at least his work and credibility didn't suffer). Had I the intelligence and insight to make a movie this strong, the ability just to do it would, I believe, be reward enough...which isn't to imply such aspirations have evaporated -- quite the opposite: Little Children is the kind of fare that will inspire a certain breed of filmmaker. It provides reassurance that there's still room in the marketplace for creative complexity and that a movie can still be produced without worrying about how it'll play in Peoria (or indeed anywhere, for that matter).

Field did however just win the "Visionary Award" at the Palm Springs International Film Festival. Maybe an award named as such is the most appropriate for what he's achieved with this film. Anyone who can present the world of mind-numbingly boring suburbanites -- a topic that's been dramatically and comically explored from seemingly every possible angle in recent years -- with such freshness and familiarity, must be a visionary of some kind.

The flawed institution of wedded bliss is only one of Little Children’s numerous topics. It’s best you discover the rest of its world on your own. Find out what this movie means to you, as what it meant to me will likely be irrelevant to your own experience.

Now on Tuesday I must go rent Idiocracy and see my friend Kevin Cacy strut his stuff when Mike Judge's latest hits DVD.

The Rued Morgue will return...

...in "007 in '007"


Stay tuned!

Really Big Finish

Doctor Who Season Two (or Season 28, depending on your anal-retentiveness) has been a string of entertaining highs and lows, in terms of both quality and intensity. It’s been a season of returns, renewals and reinventions. We’ve met Cybermen, a werewolf, clockwork robots, Queen Victoria, Madame du Pompadour, and at the edge of the universe, maybe even Satan himself. We visited a current parallel Earth and also a New Earth in the year 5,000,000,23. There were trips to 1953, 1879, 2012, and the 51st century -- a time that led to a tour of 18th century France. Sarah Jane Smith came back to us and Mickey Smith said goodbye. K-9 was blown up and put back together. Jackie Tyler died, but Pete Tyler lived. Throughout the adventures, there were only three constants: the Doctor, his TARDIS and Rose Tyler – at the end of the two-parter “Army of Ghosts” & “Doomsday”, we bid a gut-wrenching farewell to one of them.

Read the rest of this recap by clicking here to prepare for battle at The House Next Door.

Fingers on Lips!

A suburban neighborhood. A different time. A major televised event. Missing residents. An abusive father. Alien abduction. “The Idiot’s Lantern”? Nope. But Doctor Who’s latest, “Fear Her”, has so many elements in common with that episode, it’s impossible not to draw a comparison.

Now I bagged on “The Idiot’s Lantern” something hardcore, and “Fear Her” has probably just as many flaws...yet there’s something about its itch that I don’t quite know how to scratch. While it’s hardly a season high point, its charms have slowly grown on me over time and multiple viewings.

To discover how much of a Doctor Who nerd I really am, click here and read the rest of this recap at The House Next Door.

The Sexy, Surreal Slice & Dice of Nip/Tuck

Tonight FX delivers the Season Four finale of its highest rated series, Nip/Tuck. Based on the 14 episodes presented thus far, this season's subtitle should be “The Apology”, because after the disaster that was Season Three, that’s what was owed to long-term fans -- and it’s largely what producer/writer Ryan Murphy and his band of twisted lunatics delivered.

Nip/Tuck's charter mission—a commentary about the evils (and occasional benefits) of cosmetic surgery—has been all but abandoned at this point. There's still at least one patient/surgery per episode, but most of them are played for laughs or shock value (and sometimes both) and rarely leave lasting impressions. After three seasons of exploring themes that were tidily summed up by the oft-repeated catchphrase of the Carver ("Beauty is a curse on the world"), maybe there isn't much left to say? The show has often been accused of promoting sexist themes, which is a tad shortsighted, as it primarily holds up a mirror to what's beneath the surface, that which cannot be fixed through botox injections and boob jobs: Nip/Tuck is really about people making atrocious life decisions (surgery being only the tip of that iceberg). On the rare occasion someone on Nip/Tuck makes a good decision, you can bet the positive fallout won't last long, as they'll soon enough make another bad one, dragging the character back to their moral drawing board. It's impossible for anyone on this series to be content for any length of time, and the day someone finds true happiness, it'll be time to close up shop.

To read the rest of my latest dissection, make an appointment at The House Next Door.

Child Helps Promote Little Children

UPDATED!

This must be one of the most inventive bits of marketing I've ever seen:



Little Children is a flick I've been dying to see for what's now seeming like an eternity, and it's anyone's guess at this point what exactly New Line's doing with it. It opened in October and played on 30 or so screens to decent business, but the studio thus far hasn't expanded it. There's been some talk of a wide release around the New Year, which ultimately would probably be a good time to do it, as it isn't exactly holiday fare. But for those of us who were expecting to see it a couple months ago, it's been a frustrating, tedious wait.

Hey New Line! Why don't you market this film to the people who tune in to Desperate Housewives every week? If you could get just a twentieth of that show's audience to head out to the theatre to see it, you'd have a nice, indie hit on your hands.

Here's a map of the cities/theatres it's still playing in (type your Zip Code in for specifics). If you can, go see this movie. Do it for me, because it isn't playing in San Antonio or even Austin.

UPDATE! Jackie Earle Haley wins Best Supporting Actor from the New York Film Critics Circle for his work in Little Children! Click here to read the story. Way to go, Jackie - it's about time, my friend!

Mr. Blue Sky

Dear Russell T. Davies,

What the hell do you think you're doing to Doctor Who?

Read the rest of my love letter to Mr. Davies by clicking here and visiting The House Next Door.

David Tennant named "Best Doctor"

Um, yeah...what the title says. To read the finer points of the matter, click here.

Now granted, this poll was conducted by Doctor Who Magazine, which is hardly an accurate cross-section of the viewing public. In fact, I swear I recall a similar poll conducted by DWM in the past where Sylvester McCoy, during his tenure, nabbed the #1 spot. (The article claims Tom Baker has always ranked #1.) To wit: the current Doctor likely has a better chance of scoring big than one from the past. UPDATED! A-ha!! The old memory ain't so foggy after all -- the story above has been updated since I linked to it to reflect McCoy's 1990 win. I rule!!

Yet the fact that Chris Eccleston comes in at #3, with only 11% of the vote compared to Tennant's 28%, is high praise for Tennant indeed. It's nice to see that you can't keep a good Doc down with Tom Baker trailing less than 2% behind Tennant. So over half the people polled chose either Tennant or Baker as their fave.

In other Who-related news, this year's Christmas special, "The Runaway Bride", will screen on BBC1 on Christmas Day at 7 PM and a week later on New Year's Day, Who's second spin-off series, The Sarah Jane Adventures, premieres on BBC1 at 4:50 PM. Apparently this one's the opposite of Torchwood, and will very much be geared toward kids (it seems even moreso than its parent series.)

Lastly, the official BBC Doctor Who website counts down the days 'til "Bride" by offering up some new goodie each day. Hammer around on the honeycomb looking graphic - at the time of writing they're up to #5, which is a snazzy set of downloadable "Runaway Bride"-themed Christmas cards.

Beast Feast

As “The Impossible Planet” drew to a close and “The Satan Pit” begins, two deaths occur: A pair of redshirts take it for the team. I had to watch “The Impossible Planet” several times before locating them prior to their passing -- a man and a woman; security drones working for Mr. Jefferson (Danny Webb), and they do appear in numerous scenes, subtly registering existence. The funniest moment occurs early on in “Planet”, when the Doctor and Rose are first brought before the rest of the crew. Look closely to the far right of the screen -- Mr. Jefferson clearly ushers them out of the room before they can even be introduced. This two-parter sports a claustrophobic, tight-knit cast, and the pair’s existence isn’t even verbally acknowledged. They have no dialogue, no names and aren’t featured in either episode’s credits. Mind you, this is less of a criticism than an observation of the peculiar; such obvious worm dirt rarely features on Doctor Who.

Perhaps the redshirts are indicative of an even larger issue, and that being the numerous homages paid to other sci-fi & horror within the story. “The Satan Pit” unveils an intense action sequence so ripped from Cameron’s Aliens, it doesn’t even try to cover it up. Instead it proclaims, “That was one of the greats, and now we’re going to offer up our humble stab at it”. Aside from one glitch in the process, it works marvelously, too.

Read the rest of this article by clicking here and feasting at The House Next Door.

Self Explanatory

Avenging The Avengers

In the midst of all the Bond-age going around, it seemed like a good time to mount a defense for a true underdog: the oft-maligned and unjustly scorned 1998 film version of The Avengers. Make no mistake, The Avengers is not a great movie, but it’s far from the train wreck it was painted upon release -- and since it’s never shaken that stench, nor stirred up a massive cult following, the Morgue aims to set matters straight.

I’m a huge fan of The Avengers TV series – well, let me rephrase that…I’m a huge fan of the Diana Rigg / Emma Peel-era[1]. If anyone might’ve been a harsh critic of this redux it was going to be me, but upon seeing the film’s trailer, it became a must-see movie. The style, the vibe, the look – everything about that 2 minutes smacked of slavish faithfulness to the series. There was no other popcorn flick I was looking forward to that summer as much as this one. So you can imagine how my heart and hopes sank when the buzz started mounting. Word from across the pond following the British premiere was dire; Warner Bros. opted to not screen it for U.S. critics, so reviews were scarce upon its U.S. opening.

Regardless, I went to an early screening on opening day and was weirdly entertained by what I viewed. It wasn’t the masterpiece of which I’d dreamed -- nor was it the steaming pile I’d been hearing about. Were people seeing the same film as me? A quote I distinctly recall reading after the Brit premiere: “I don’t know what that was, but it certainly wasn’t The Avengers”. Um, yes it was…and there’s no way it could ever be mistaken for anything other than The Avengers. Of the many who were so quick to trash the movie, I wondered who’d even seen an episode in at least 20 years. Maybe that person meant, “It wasn’t Patrick Macnee and Diana Rigg”. If so, fair enough - it’s not, nor could it have been unless the movie was set in a nursing home for retired secret agents...bringing me to the film’s problematic conundrums, which I’ll address before moving on to my likes.

Screenwriter Don MacPherson undoubtedly wrote the script with Macnee and Rigg’s characterizations of John Steed and Emma Peel at the forefront of the concept. And really, how else would one write such clearly defined, iconic characters? Remove stars Ralph Fiennes and Uma Thurman, and it isn’t a huge stretch to picture Macnee and Rigg playing the parts. It’d be blasphemous to write them any other way and still call the movie The Avengers.

Let’s get Mrs. Peel out of the way first. No actress could’ve done justice to Rigg’s definitive performance. Rigg as Peel is like James Arness as Marshall Matt Dillon. Leonard Nimoy as Mr. Spock. Bob Denver as Gilligan. I’m hardly an Uma devotee and despite my pre-release enthusiasm (ahem…that sounds filthy), never harbored illusions that she’d live up to Rigg. She is probably miscast, but what actress wouldn’t have been? All that said, she’s surprisingly watchable and most importantly, wears leather like a second skin and catsuits with confidence. Her British accent is consistent, even if a tad flat. She plays Peel with a light, flirty coolness, paying homage to Rigg’s legacy without xeroxing the past. For every complaint one might have about Thurman’s take, there are kudos to be given – to be sure, this was an odd job.

Fiennes is a bit more complicated. He’s far more even than Thurman, but his biggest problem is in choosing to make the role his own, rather than play it with the carefree demeanor Macnee infused into Steed, as it appears to be written. Fiennes instead wants his Steed to be serious, never minding that the material doesn’t really call for it. He plays Steed as Bond minus the sex and violence – the equation totaling an emasculated secret agent of sorts. Forgive Fiennes this transgression -- had he invoked Macnee, he likely would’ve come across as a dandified homosexual. For once the famous Seinfeld quote can be corrupted: “And everything would have been wrong with that”. Macnee straddled the fence in this area due to the naïveté of ‘60s TV audiences and the ongoing conviction of his performance…but whittle the Steed basics down to a 100-page script, and you might as well cast Rupert Everett (which, now that I think about it, would have rocked).

So at this point you might wonder what exactly it is that I like about this movie (even I’m having a tough time getting there). Outside of its conceptual devotion to the original, I like The Avengers for the sheer scale of its out-of-time-and-place imagination (which again, is what the series was always about). The plot revolves around the megalomaniacal Sir August de Wynter’s (played to the robust hilt by Sean Connery) plan to control the weather and sell it to world leaders. Audacious! Clima-terrorism!! Control the weather and you control the world!!! Few screen villains concoct such ideal schemes. Blowing up the world is a hell of a lot less fun than making it snow in San Antonio. It’s nearly impossible to tell where Connery’s heart is throughout the proceedings. Is he phoning it in? Is he hamming it up? Does it even matter? When the granddaddy of all super spies channels Goldfinger, Largo and Blofeld into one deliciously camp creation, it’s best not to ponder the how’s and why’s. Accept that this is unique film history, whether you like it or not.

The film exists in an idealized ‘60s pop limbo where normal rules of spy fare simply don’t apply. Nor does it look anything like our reality. It exists in one place only -- the hyperreal world of John Steed and Emma Peel, which is a wholly distinctive universe. It's a world where deadly, remote-controlled mechanical bees attack our heroes. Where villains gather together dressed in rainbow-coloured teddy bear costumes. Where Eddie Izzard plays a mute henchman and Shaun Ryder is one of his lackeys. It feels like a greatest hits package of the TV series. Scene after set piece echoes many an Avengers episode of days gone by – it’s difficult to believe any true fan wouldn’t find themselves intoxicated by the attention paid to detail.

Borderline amazing is the film working at all. Early test screenings led to hasty, massive recutting. I’ve read that the original cut ran anywhere from 115 minutes to 2 and half hours – its final running time is a measly 89 minutes; imagine if literally more than a third of the film is missing! Despite the cuts, and perhaps due to the film’s somewhat compartmentalized structure and fairly simple plot, it miraculously moves along with an amiable stride. Aside from a few minor continuity glitches, one wouldn’t guess it was such a rape victim. And yet I cannot help but think of what might have been, what director Jeremiah S. Chechick and MacPherson envisioned.

Bits of the excised material can be glimpsed in the trailer (the only real “extra” on the DVD); IMDB also provides a list of numerous cut scenes. It’s a travesty that the stink still surrounding The Avengers is likely the only thing keeping a Director’s Cut DVD from happening. IMDB users rate (at the time of writing) the film a paltry 3.3/10. In comparison, IMDB users currently rate A View to a Kill (which coincidentally co-stars Patrick Macnee) a whopping 6/10. I’d put Moore’s swansong up against The Avengers and challenge anyone to prove Bond's superiority. Same for Moonraker. Heck, I’d even put it up against The World Is Not Enough, which came out a year after The Avengers, and is as bloated a misfire as anything the Moore era produced (which is not to bag on Moore's Bond, who is, strangely enough, my favorite).

When it comes right down to it, The Avengers should probably never have been turned into a film. The whimsical, flirtatious, non-cynical nature of the concept is rooted in a time and place that bears no resemblance to today. Surely there’re a surplus of Avengers fans that abhor the piece, but they’re missing out on the filmmakers' affectionate attempt to do right by the show’s spirit, rather than modernize it into something rooted in the present. Do that and you end up with movies like The Saint or the Mission: Implausible flicks. Maybe these are better films than The Avengers, but do they embody the spirit of their source material? I can picture such an Avengers film and it would be anything but The Avengers.

Lest anyone believe I've got beefs with Bond, that's not the case. Here are my Top Five Favorite Bond Theme Tunes:

1. "Nobody Does It Better" by Carly Simon
2. "Live and Let Die" by Paul McCartney and Wings
3. "Tomorrow Never Dies" by Sheryl Crow
4. "For Your Eyes Only" by Sheena Easton
5. "Licence to Kill" by Gladys Knight

[1] I’ve seen bits and pieces of the Honor Blackman/Cathy Gale era, but the videotape quality is pretty rough and they lack that Avengers feel. Seen most of the Linda Thorson/Tara King period, but it's too camp even for my tastes. Never seen even a single episode of The New Avengers. So why the indulgent qualifiers? Maybe I’m no more of an Avengers authority than the Doctor Who viewer that’s only ever seen Tom Baker.

We Must Feed

Consider the notion that three types of viewers partake in the new series of Doctor Who:

1) Classic series viewers who prefer safe, dramatic territory that doesn’t rock the nostalgia boat.
2) Classic series viewers who enjoy seeing Who’s boundaries pushed in as many different directions as possible.
3) Viewers who never watched the classic series and are only familiar with this version.

“The Impossible Planet” and its second half, “The Satan Pit”, satiates all three types with writer Matt Jones’ engaging concoction of science fiction, horror, religion, myth, chaos, H. P. Lovecraft, Alien, and several doses of classic Who itself. Yet the story feels anything but recycled--ideal fodder even for the uninitiated. Never seen Doctor Who? Tonight would be an excellent opportunity to dip your toe in the pool.

Read the rest of this recap by clicking here to worship at The House Next Door.

SlayStation

The AP is reporting numerous incidents of violence surrounding today's release of Sony's PlayStation 3 - and in Connecticut, no less. This is the sort of thing I'd expect in Texas, New York or California...but Connecticut? (The previous statement assumes I'd expect to hear about it all, which I actually would not.)

Isn't this the kind of thing we normally associate with drug addiction and dealing? Is that what's going on here? Are these acts committed out of a need for the money to be gained from selling the machines, or are these people who genuinely must own this technology at any cost?

If it's the former, then I guess I can wrap my brain around these atrocities, although there are still some major issues that need to be addressed concerning the release of this type of technology.

But if it's the latter, then there's something far more wrong with a certain sector of the country than I'd previously suspected. Of the two scenarios I proposed, the first one leapt to mind after a bit of thought. My gut reaction to reading this was that the desire for these machines was so intense, that people would kill to own one. I've seen the way my kid and his friends hypnotically react to their video games, and while I sincerely hope they'd never go as far as what's being reported, it wasn't a stretch for me to imagine that certain types could and would.

I believe the late, great Timothy Leary was the first to suppose that computers and related technology would be the drugs of the future. At the time, it seemed odd coming from Mr. LSD himself, but it's looking more and more like he may well have been onto something. And regardless of which of the two scenarios I proposed (could well be both as there were already several incidents) is correct, this technology is as dangerous as crystal meth, cocaine, nicotine and alcohol all wrapped into one shiny, boxlike corporate package.

Worst of all, there's no regulation going on here. Anybody with $400 can get one if they'd waited in line for days on end. But the supply is low and the demand is high. If they don't have $400 or the supply has run out, then is this where we end up?

Barry Does Bacharach (...& Many More!)

Earlier this year when Barry Manilow released "The Greatest Songs of the Fifties" and it became his first #1 album since 1977's "Live", I was more than a tad disheartened. I wanted such an event to be centered around an album of Barry originals, not a bunch of covers. A case of having shit in one hand and wishin' in the other? Possibly. Only I didn't have that, because I didn't buy the "Fifties" disc. Why? I only liked maybe two of the songs he chose for the album. Hence the "shit" joke; there's very little music from that decade I care for (maybe if it had been an album full of Jerry Lee Lewis covers...which, quite frankly, would be tres cool...or a total disaster...ahem...).

Moving on. I've got no beef with Barry doing cover tunes as a means to an audience - heck, I did the same thing with Barry's songs when I wrote my play "New York City Rhythms" - so it'd be hypocritical for me to condemn this strategy.

Last week the Barrister released the followup "The Greatest Songs of the Sixties", which from a track listing standpoint was the flip side of the last album per my tastes. There is in fact only one tune on here I never cared for (You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin'); the rest is all stuff I really, really dig - and Manilow does way right by the material. This time around he didn't come out of the gate at #1 - but instead #2 (beaten only by the soundtrack for the TV series Hannah Montana...go figure)! Still, props to my man for scoring big two times in a row.

He covers three Burt Bacharach tunes - Raindrops Keep Falling on My Head, This Guy's In Love With You, & What the World Needs Now is Love. The latter two are outstanding versions; Raindrops seems just slightly lacking, although I can't quite put my finger on what's missing. It might just be because B. J. Thomas' version is just so friggin' definitive, and then Ben Folds Five's live cover redefined it, and there probably isn't a lot of room in my head for a third version.

I remember when he announced the album some months back, he jokingly said something along the lines of "Don't expect a bunch of Beatles songs - this is me after all". Well he did see fit to include one Lennon/McCartney tune, And I Love Her, which is just as syrupy sweet as it oughtta be.

But the real Coup for Ruediger here is Barry singing Blue Velvet. Now here's the song that my favorite movie of all time is named after, and indeed the song is so inextricably tied to David Lynch's masterpiece at this point, it seems clear to me that Barry has as sick a sense of humor as I've always suspected. It may not quite top Bobby Vinton's version, but it is superior to Isabella's take.

Thank you Mr. M! I'd ponder whether or not you're going to do "The Greatest Songs of the Seventies", but you already have - back in the '70s when you released all those great albums.

And if you ever read this, hopefully you are amused by...

Frank Booth: "Baby wants to fuck! Baby wants to fuck Blue Velvet!"

(Special thanks to my dearest JJ for giving me the CD for my birthday!)

More Faceless Ones (Not a Sequel)

“The Idiot’s Lantern” is the halfway point of the second season of Doctor Who, and as such there’s a transitional feel to the proceedings. With Mickey out of the picture, the Doctor (David Tennant) and Rose (Billie Piper) are left traveling on their own once again, and they seem to have moved past some of their earlier-in-the-season push and pull antics. Appearing more connected due to recent events, team spirit has returned to the TARDIS and Elvis on The Ed Sullivan Show is their target destination. Of course it goes without saying the Doctor’s unable to get them to New York and instead they end up in 1953 London, the day before the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II. (Just once I’d like to see him miss and end up in Mozambique -- anywhere but the British Isles.)

Meanwhile, something sinister brews at Magpie’s Electricals -- the woman on Mr. Magpie’s (Ron Cook) TV is talking to him. How is his shop’s overnight success connected to the missing faces of the many who’ve spent just a tad too much time in front of their new tellys? And how do the Connolly’s, the family down the street, tie into everything? And why is nobody allowed to visit dear old Gran, who’s been locked away upstairs?

To read the rest of this article, click here and tune in to The House Next Door.

In the Steel of the Night

The cliffhanger was a staple component of classic Doctor Who, and many a fan has bemoaned the new series’ self-contained storylines eroding this old standby. Two-parters seek to bring that thrill back to the forefront a few times each season, and “Rise of the Cybermen” ended on a wonderfully tense hanging from the cliff: Our heroes surrounded by Cybermen, and the Doctor shouting, “We surrender!!!” -- only to be greeted by a chorus of “Deletes!!!” from the steely automatons.

“The Age of Steel” picks up right where we left off, and the Doctor whips out the precious TARDIS power cell and miraculously obliterates the oncoming force. Something of a letdown, eh? I thought it was anyway, but then I remembered the countless weak cliffhanger resolutions from the original series, which gave some perspective. With Doctor Who, the cliffhanger must be properly executed; the strength of its resolution should be secondary. (Perhaps this applies to cliffhangers in general?)

Read the rest of this article by steeling away over to The House Next Door.

To The Devil...A Daughter

Last week’s review of The Devil Rides Out led me to a first-time viewing of the only other Hammer film based on a work by author Dennis Wheatley – To The Devil…A Daughter. Released in 1976, the film also holds the distinction of being the last Hammer horror film ever made.

Starring Christopher Lee, Richard Widmark, Denholm Elliott, Honor Blackman and a very young Nastassja Kinski, this is very much of an adult piece, whereas The Devil Rides Out has a vaguely more “general audiences” feel to it…ahem, allow me to cut through the bullshit pretension here: Nastassja Kinski at the tender young age of 16 displays full frontal nudity.

Need I write anything more? Um, I need. This is not a great movie, but it is a surprisingly watchable one. The plot is somewhat engaging, even if at times incoherent.

John Verney (Richard Widmark) is an acclaimed occult novelist living in London. One afternoon at a book signing he’s approached by Denholm Elliott’s frazzled and desperate Henry Beddows. Beddows weaves a story and pleads for Verney’s help, telling him that if nothing else, he’ll get a great book out of it. Where this proposition succeeds is in it being laid out from afar; the viewer never hears the conversation – we witness it from Honor Blackman and Anthony Valentine’s perspective across the room. Why do I call this move a success? I cannot imagine any novelist taking Beddows’ words even remotely seriously; because we never hear precisely what he says, this problematic plot point is more easily glossed over.

We later find out the proposition involved Beddows’ daughter, Catherine, a nun arriving at the airport from Germany. It’s Verney’s job to essentially abduct her away from the man she’s with – which he does and ends up taking her back to his flat for safekeeping. Before long Christopher Lee’s Satan-worshipping Father Michael Rayner is pissed. Like Mocata (from The Devil Rides Out) before him, this is not a man with whom to trifle. Catherine belongs to him, and indeed has been groomed from birth for a very specific purpose…

The film’s final 15 or so minutes are as botched as one can imagine – the height of its absurdity involving this ludicrous blood-covered Satan-baby -- achieved via a hand puppet!! -- that crawls around Kinski’s vaginal area (leaving the viewer pondering whose hand is in the puppet). I kid you not…and it must be seen to be believed. Further, Lee’s character is taken out by Widmark throwing a flint stone at his head – and that’s it…he literally vanishes in a puff of black magic at that point.

I’m not going to bother writing much more about the plot as it would come across as unintelligible babbling...which doesn’t mean I’m not recommending the film; I am and I’m not. To The Devil...A Daughter is a pretty fascinating slice of Hammer film history, being the not-so-big finish that it is. Apparently Wheatley, who was a huge fan of The Devil Rides Out adaptation, was thoroughly disgusted and disgraced by the film and even went so far as to recant his generous offer that Hammer be allowed to adapt any of his books they saw fit (not that it really mattered since they went belly-up after this one and Wheatley died shortly after). On the other hand, the film made millions in Europe, only Hammer didn’t see a penny of it due to complicated distribution deals. It’s not like any Hammer film I’ve ever seen. It doesn’t possess the somewhat hammy vibe of their 50’s and 60’s output; this is a film made post-The Exorcist, and clearly Hammer was attempting to appeal to that audience with this more serious adult fare. (It often feels and looks a lot like The Omen.)

Perhaps even more worth a look than the movie itself is a 24-minute documentary on the DVD entitled To The Devil…The Death of Hammer, which includes very frank comments and thoughts from Christopher Lee, Honor Blackman, Anthony Valentine, director Peter Sykes and many, many more. There are some great stories from just about everyone detailing Widmark’s on-set prima donna antics, in which he went around calling the production team “Mickey Mouse” and proclaiming “This isn’t how we do it in Hollywood!!!” He even tried to walk numerous times. None of this comes across in the film, however, as he delivers a pretty decent performance all things considered. Lee goes on to speak of the film’s nonsensical final act, although he felt it was good stuff up until that point (which for the most part, I wouldn’t argue). Apparently Klaus Kinski himself was approached for the part of Verney, but when asked if he was insurable per the areas of drug use, reliability and the like replied, “Anything over 10 ten days I can’t guarantee.” Good lord…the times they have a changed.

The doc, with a 2002 production date, ends with Christopher Lee speaking of his current plans to remake The Devil Rides Out – four years down the road, I wonder if he still has such plans as I coincidentally theorized the remake in The Devil Rides Out talkback.

Rise and Shiny

“Rise of the Cybermen” marks the return of the titular foes that occupy the #2 spot (after the Daleks) on the Doctor’s list of most oft-encountered enemies. This two-parter is a more than worthy effort, and part of its success is its setting on a parallel Earth--the steely beastie boys get a clean slate over which to rampage, while their previously established history remains intact. Due to their origins, I’ve always had a soft spot for the Cybermen: Humans from the edge of our solar system who gradually replace their body parts with synthetics as a means of survival. This new story takes the concept to even darker levels by mixing it up with our over-reliance on technology and willingness to, without thinking, grab the latest cool gizmo and incorporate it into our daily lives, no matter what the eventual cost. This is a hard-hitting idea and frankly scares the piss out of me (not only in this story, but in real life, too).

Read the rest of this recap by bashing through the windows of The House Next Door.