Television show: Demons

There is just something about vampires and other such creatures of the night that everyone wants to see. Dracula, the Werewolf, Frankenstein, and on and on for over a century now. It's a theme we all seem to never tire of.

The BBC recognizes this of course. They constantly have television shows that either focus on this theme or include it. And in 2010 they will be debuting yet another show firmly ensconced in the otherworldly.



Demons will preimere right after Dr. Who finishes The End of Time pt 2 and introduces the new, geeky kid as the Doctor. I'm sure more than a few fans will want a distraction from the end of David Tennant's tenure as the Doctor. This new show seems to fit the bill.

Now I always tend to enjoy European depictions of vampires, lycanthropes and such. There is just a flair that seems to be added that probably comes from the centuries of rumor and mystery on the subject. Whatever the reason, I just enjoy Eurpoean, and especially British versions more.

The storyline is pretty basic though. The last of the Van Helsin's is needed (likely because some aspect of a secret base or weapon requires the bloodline) by a modern day secret society of vampire hunters. The stories we have grown up with are all true and more. Thrust suddenly into this other world within our own is a young man that has to learn quickly what is going on.

Obviously there will be the battle-hard veteran that will watch his back. There will be no end of baddies that will be seeking him out to kill him so they will be safe to graze upon humanity forever without fear. There will be a love interest that is questionable in loyalties (a young looking vampiress) and unattainable of course. And the young man will grow into his role of the hero that never knew he could be.

Still as rote as some of the background seems to be, and as oriented in the youth culture as it is, the show seems to have potential. The CGI effects and make-up look good. The styling of the show mixes modern and old goth well. There is a dark feel while obviously employing some action too. In a way it reminds me of the style of Torchwood in it's early episodes.

This will not be a Buffy the Vampire or Angel type show. At least not at it's beginning. Which bodes well for the program. And I hope it does not fall into the trap of Twillight. If it can avoid these pop fads there amy be a show that will really take off.

The question I am left with is how long will it be before some American television (probably cable if we are lucky) network takes the idea and copies it? With shows like Santuary, Supernatural, and so on all the craze these days and with copies of Brit shows (Leverage, The Office, Life on Mars, ect.) the new in thing on American television you just have to imagine that this too will be copied. One can only hope that the American version is closer to the Office copy than say the failed near-verbatim yet highly flawed Coupling version.

Ultimately only time will tell how well this develops. And until then American television fans will try to enjoy David Tennant in his new show about a lawyer that doesn't do trials. It's a comedy, and honestly sounds to bland for American tastes. American shows about lawyers are so focused on trials and law these days I'm not sure if this show will work. Maybe if it's more akin to Night Court or Ally McBeal than say The Practice or Law & Order (given they are dramas).

But back to the point at hand. Do you think the supernatural shows are overdone? Have you seen your fill of vampires and goblins? Do you want the ghosts and inhuman creatures to be banished to television void or are you looking forward to another try at it? What do you think and will you check this show out?

Dr. Who - End of Time pt 1 - thoughts

So having seen the Dr. Who episode End of Time Part 1 I am both filled with questions, and potentially filled with dread. But the episode started off to a pace that was way under par, so my feeling now is surprising.

The fact that the Master is back was great. I really like John Simms as the Master. Plus there was the assurance that The Master cannot die off, just as other standards of Dr. Who - the Daleks as an exaple - should not.

But for all the energy that John Simms brought to the episode, literally, the first 20 minutes or so are just flat. We get to see Donna and her grandfather again. Both we find out are integral to the plot. Just how is the real question.

Throughout the episode I was wondering how the Master will cause the death of the David Tennant. Until it hit me that he won't do it. I think that the grandfather is the one that will do it. Though Donna might be a cause, though that seems remote.

Basically we know, fans of Dr. Who that is, that the next episode will be the first appearance of the 11th Doctor. Which is something I'm not looking forward to. But I think that the sum total of the existence of the 10th Doctor will be revealed as well.

In the next episode I believe that we will find out that the 9th Doctor did not kill all the Time Lords. Like the Daleks, just a few escaped. And they have been waiting, judging the Doctor on what he did and has done since killing almost every Time Lord and Dalek. He will be put on trial, a trial that will sure find him guilty (having breached Time in the Water of Mars episode).

But back to the episode at hand.

Some things in this episode just don't make much sense. Like the Doctor walking into the line of fire of the Master. How could he have been so sure the Master wouldn't just kill him? Especially if he is so ravenously hungry that he is eating people regularly. I mean a Time Lord must contain a whole lot more energy than a human right?

What is that damn drumming the Master hears? Is it the judge of the Time Lords (Timothy Dalton) bringing the Doctor and the Master to trial for their crimes? Is it some fixed point in time that the Master fears understanding (like The Architect of The Matrix Reloaded)?

I liked the fact that EVERY human, except Donna and her grandfather, become the Master but it still doesn't make sense. If the device was to fix or heal an entire planet, how did it overwrite the genetic data of all humans to make Master clones? Are all the clones linked to the original Master - thus they all die if he dies? Will Donna, or her grandfather, sarifice their life to resequece all the Master clones back into regular people?

And what about that line that Torchwood is defunct? I know Captain Jack Harkness went to space for a while, but does that mean the show is done? Will the 11th Doctor ever meet up with Jack in the future, and how might that go? Wouldn't UNIT have rushed in to recover everything they could from Torchwood before someone else got their hands on all that potentially deadly alien stuff?

Obviously all of these issues will not be completely resolved in the next episode. Likely the return of the Time Lords, the Doctor being a renegade again, the death of Donna (she is supposed to burn up now that she has her memories, and possibly the power, back) and the eventual escape of the Master are all things that will be left for the 11th Doctor to figure out and deal with.

Overall, I was a bit disappointed by this episode. All the hype and anticipation of the departure of David Tennant's Doctor and the arrival of the new, geeky, kid (who am not impressed by) created a huge bar to hurdle. This episode did not do it. The next may, but that's a lot of information to cover in 1 episode.

Either way, I am a Doctor Who fan, and I will be watching next week.

2009 list - Top Videos of M V Consulting, Inc.

Throughout 2009 M V Consulting, Inc. (the parent company of Black Entertainment USA) has really delved into the video arena. We spent the year creating and improving our ability to provide quality videos, for commentary and entertainment value.

We appreciate all the views we have received, and will continue to bring you the best of what we can provide. And we did notice what you our readers and the public loved, and what was of less interest. So here are the top 5 videos of 2009 as determined by views by you:

The top of the list is definitely an entertainment value video.

T-Shirt Car Wash


Number 2 is on the other side of the spectrum. This was a video commentary on the first news event of the year, that the major media as ignored all year long.

Oscar Grant murdered by police - commentary by Michael Vass


The 3rd place video goes to another entertainment value video, part of a review of a bar. It seems, I'm guessing, that guys pushed this video higher than most of the rest.

Scoreboard Binghamton NY


Going in another direction again, the fourth place video of the year goes to a sports competition. Las Vegas was great and the competition was fierece. I look forward to going back.

Las Vegas APA pool tournament - round 2


And rounding out the top 5 videos is another sports related video. This is of course just the beginning of talk in the US about the World Cup in 2010.

2010 World Cup Groups - and England vs. USA


So as you can see from the collected videos out production values ahve increased substantially throughout the year. We will continue in that quest, and look forward to your comments and viewership in 2010.

Please do let us know what videos you enjoyed, and would like to see more of. Your feedback is always valued.

**As a bonus, here are a few of my favorite videos not created by M V Consulting, Inc.

Ataque de Pánico! (Panic Attack!) 2009


Franken Denies Lieberman an 'Additional Moment' to Continue Speaking on the Senate Floor


The Muppets: Bohemian Rhapsody


The Obama Stimulus: Predictions vs. Reality


Alchemy at World of Vass - yes I know it's another of mine. I just thought it came out really well for a commercial.

Your pets cause global warming so eat them

Maybe it's me but I wonder what PETA is going to say about a recent article by AFP on how pets are the next global warming (or are they using the new 'climate change' slogan) problem that needs to be solved?

Don't believe me?

"The Vales, specialists in sustainable living at Victoria University of Wellington, analysed popular brands of pet food and calculated that a medium-sized dog eats around 164 kilos (360 pounds) of meat and 95 kilos of cereal a year.

Combine the land required to generate its food and a "medium" sized dog has an annual footprint of 0.84 hectares (2.07 acres) -- around twice the 0.41 hectares required by a 4x4 driving 10,000 kilometres (6,200 miles) a year, including energy to build the car."

So this theory, backed up by John Barrett at the Stockholm Environment Institute, indicates that dogs, and cats, are more dangerous to the environment than cars. Of course hamsters and even goldfish were not left out of the analysis. In each case it was found that a pet is an additional burden to the planet.

What's the solution proposed? PETA and animal lovers will really get a kick out of this.

"But the best way of compensating for that paw or clawprint is to make sure your animal is dual purpose, the Vales urge. Get a hen, which offsets its impact by laying edible eggs, or a rabbit, prepared to make the ultimate environmental sacrifice by ending up on the dinner table.

"Rabbits are good, provided you eat them," said Robert Vale."

Taking this "solution" to its logical end, it means that ANY pet is only worth having if you eventually eat them. And I'm not reaching on that conclusion. Mr. Vale wrote a book on his conclusion titled Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living. Do you get his point?

I admit that I have never believed in global warming. Nor global cooling a couple of decades before that. Nor the latest trend/fad of climate change (a true act of verbal idiocy - the climate is constantly changing and has been since before man existed).

But I would never condone the views that Vale and potentially other eco-fanatics will inevitably present. Pets, of all kinds, are not meals. They are members of families and valuable companions.

Perhaps it is just me, but I feel that a pet is far more important than some questionable science that is politically based and factually proven to have been manipulated and promoted for self-interests.

Where are the animal lovers? Where is PETA, a group that has no problem attacking virtually every group they consider even marginally against animal rights? I mean they went after the Pet Shop Boys just because of the band's name, and I have yet to see anything about this - which I feel is far more serious in its implications.

I may not agree with all the tactics and thoughts of PETA, but I respect the fact they have strong convictions. I love dogs, and I really fear the thinking Vale and others have for this political fantasy dressed as science. PETA and pet lovers need to say something. Because in a world of "Change you can believe in" I guarantee that at some point Al Gore will get in his private jet and tell some political group across the world that pet levels need to be reduced worldwide and it will help feed the hungry too.

Don't believe me, but already the Government has said that CO2, our exhaled breaths, are a danger to the planet. Which means the Government will want to regulate that CO2, and if a pet is more "deadly" than a SUV or car... well you can imagine what happens next.

2010 remakes, sequels, and everything else

Lastly are the films of 2010 that are a crap shoot. These are films that are revisions, remakes, ideas and sleepers that are likely to either be great or absolutely miserable. Sometimes it's just too hard to have an opinion, especially so far ahead of time. But making an opinion is what you read this for right?

Mortal Kombat - supposedly there is another film in this series coming. Is it a revisioned restart (al la Star Trek) or another sequel? It's not clear. Filming with 3 original cast members was started and stopped in 2009. Theoretically there could be a film in 2010. Will it be worth seeing? Not if it is even the least remotely like Mortal Kombat Annihilation.

Scream 4 - Yes, it never ends.

A Very Harold and Kumar Christmas- How is this possible since Kal Penn is now an Obama flunky in D.C.? I guess President Obama decided to finally shrink the Government by 1 job - Penn's.

Jackass 3 - Well it's the only work Johnnie Knoxville can get, or is qualified for.

Daybreakers - good concept, but its an early January film. Studios have no confidence in its ability to make money. But sometimes a decent film slips into the January slot.

When in Rome - I'm over 15 so I wouldn't see this film if I was paid 3x my annual salary. But some people like this kind of drivel.

Valentine's Day - see When in Rome

Shutter Island - Leonardo DiCaprio's hypefest is waning. It has Max Von Syndow, and Scorcesse. Beyond that, I bet it's completely forgetable.

The Crazies - revisioned Romero films are a rage in Hollywood these days. Too bad I don't think those films are good (the revisioned ones). This will likely be no better than the other remakes.

Brooklyn's Finest - lots of stars, including Don Cheadle, Wesley Snipes, Ethan Hawke, and Vincent D'Onofrio. It could be great, a big sleeper hit. Or it might be bloated by all the star weight and posturing. Not sure.

Machete - I want Danny Trejo to do well in this film. It's about time he gets to have a bigger star. But this film is anyone's guess.

Nightmare on Elm Street - revisioned remake of a classic. Normally this means instant failure. But it has the benefit of NOT being a Rob Zombie film. I still don't think it will be worth the money, but as a DVD buy it should be decent.

Shrek Forever After - Mike Meyers really needs another job.

Five Killers - unless you love Ashton Kutchner and/or Tom Selleck this is a film worth ignoring. Not as bad as some I've already mentioned in 2010, but not good by a long shot.

Footloose - yes 2010 is filled with remakes. Since it's not the 80's anymore the question is will this same 'White boys can't dance' theme work in this film like it did in the past? Dance films are popular these days (for whatever reason).

The Last Airbender - anime fans get their own live action film. Will this be worth it? That's likely the only twist M. Night Shyamalan will bring to this film. Still it can't be as bad as Dragonball Evolution could it?

Little Fockers - people love Ben Stiller, I have no idea why.

Zookeeper - everyone loves talking animals right? Right?

Burlesque - we know Cher can act. She spent decades proving it. So either she thinks Christina Aguilera can act also, or she was paid a crazy amount of money to be in this film. Either way this will bring in tons of money from teen boys (and older guys) that want to see her (either woman) in tight clothes. Hopefully it will be better than Glitter (which should be easy to do if any of the actors are awake onscreen).

Ok, there you have it. The good bad and ugly of 2010. Now all you have to do is decide which ones you agree with me on as the year goes by. Let me know what you think as the year progresses.

2010 movies to avoid like a plague

Given that the movies that seem to have the most hype also have been on the list of movies that I think will be good in 2010, there is also a fair chance they won't match the hype and be among the list of the worst movies of 2010. But that's a gamble and I've made my bet. As for the rest of the films in 2010...

Here is my list of films that I am ABSOLUTELY sure will be horrendous wastes of time and money. I could be proven wrong, but I doubt it.

Tooth Fairy - Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson needs a new agent. He is not a great actor, never was. He was decent in action films where he didn't need to say a lot and could use his muscles often. Kind of Arnold Schwartzennager. But unlike the now Governator, Johnson has yet to build up enough action films to allow him to make these awful kids movies he seems hell-bent on starring in. Just wait for the bargain bin DVD sale.

I Love You Phillip Morris - Jim Carrey is the opposite of The Rock. We love his comedic skills. The man is funny. But put him in a serious role and you are looking at a bomb of a movie. Make that film about a prison escapee, with a gay love story at its heart, and you are looking at a film that even DVD sales won't help. But France might like it.

Cop Out - I like Bruce Willis films. He is great as a cop and authority figure. He brings a great everyman quality to the films he is in. But none of that makes him capable of making a bad film good. Oh, and Tracy Morgan just isn't that funny.

Alice in Wonderland - Yes I will stand alone on this one. I know that Johnny Depp is in the film. I know Tim Burton directed it. But people forget that both men LOVE extreme cinema that is anything but mainstream. And the story of Alice in Wonderland is really nigh incomprehensible to the mainstream as is. It will be a good art film, but no where near a commercial success.

Clash of the Titans - Fans of the original movie will be disappointed. Fans of Transformers will likely be in love with this film. Everyone else will have moments of appreciation of the CGI, and depression at the plot in this revisioned movie.

The Back-up Plan - Jennifer Lopez is the star. Do you really need another reason to avoid this film? Ok, it's about artificial insemination as the key plot device.

Wall Street 2 - A thinly veiled political message packaged in a sequel that really is well past it's prime.

Robin Hood - Russell Crowe is no Erroll Flynn. It's another film trying to improve on a universally accepted perfection in movies. The only positive is that it should be better than Kevin Kosner's try at it.

Sex and the City 2 - Did anyone really want a sequel to this rehash of a truly mediocre television show brought to the big screen?

Marmaduke - Live action versions of comic strip characters never work. Didn't Garfield end this concept?

The A-Team - I really would like to be wrong about this. I liked the 80's television show. But revisioning of television shows to fit on the big screen just don't work. At least Ben Stiller is not in this fiasco waiting to happen.

Jonah Hex - Ever hear of the comic book? I didn't think so. This is a comic book to movie conversion of a 3rd rate comic book that no one cared about 38 years ago. Even comic book fans will avoid this. And if you think the plot might help, you haven't read what the plot is.

SAW VII - When a horror movie (slasher, whatever) goes to 3-D for a sequel you just know it's all over.

Red Dawn - Another revisioned remake of an 80's film. Sure to be filled with political messages straight from the far-left field of view. The only thought that might be of interestr is how Hollywood might resolve America-bashing with a movie that is supposed to be pro-America. I really hope I am wrong on this one, but the November launch date does not give me reassurance (it's a slot only slightly better than January).

Yogi Bear - I'll say it again, live action films don't work.

The Green Hornet - Reaching way back in television time, this is a revisioned retread of the 60's show. I just can't buy Seth Rogen as the Green Hornet. Likely the writing will target campy and hit on awful. I shudder at what it will be like.

Next up are the films that are too ugly to classify as good or bad.

2010 movies you will want to see

As 2009 is ending it's time to look forward to what movies will be coming in 2010. Like in many years recently past there will be a decent number of remakes and revisioned films, several conversion films, and more than a few major movies that have huge anticipation.

Instead of trying to list every film that will be in theaters in 2010 I will instead hit on some of the best, and worst, ideas that Hollywood has to offer us. I'm sure that I will be as right and wrong on these films as most movie reviewers always are.

The films you might want to see include:

Legion - Though it is a January film - normally an indication of a horrible film - this looks like it has potential. I think this might be a film that will appeal to those who enjoyed the original The Prophesy movie.

The Book of Eli - Denzel Washington is known for his ability to act and to pick quality films to appear in. Which surprises me as this film is slated (last I noticed) for the graveyard of January. I have high expectations for this film, I hope to not be disappointed.

The Wolfman - Benicio Del Toro is a great actor and should be perfect in this remake. The addition of Sir Anthony Hopkins adds to the potential of this being a quality film. The moderating thing is that the film is a remake, which in Hollywood these days is a 70/30 proposition against a quality film. But so far the movie trailers say it will beat the odds.

Death at a Funeral - A remake of a British film of the same name, subject and likely everything else except the color of the cast. That's a good thing as Hollywood writers seem to be the laziest and least creative in the movie making world these days. From the movie trailers I've seen this should be a hit for Chris Rock and Martin Lawrence. Thank you England.

Iron Man 2 - War Machine. That says it all.

Prince of Persia: Sands of Time - A risky bet, but the effects look great. If the Hollywood writers kept the storyline from the video game intact this should be a great video game to movie conversion. If not, which is likely, this will be a revisionist waste of time to capitalize on fans pocket money. But it should be worth finding out in theaters.

The Expendables - There is no lack of hype for this film filled with former 80's (action) stars. Sylvester Stallone, Mickey Rourke, and Dolph Lundgren get to flex their old muscles against relatively younger jet Li and Jason Statham. For action movie junkies this is a must see.

MegaMind - Yes this is an animated film. Yes it's meant for kids. Even so I think this will be The Incredibles of 2010. The concept seems great even though it will feature Will Ferrell and was created by Ben Stiller. If nothing else it will rake in cash.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 - It's a Harry Potter movie, how can you not see it. Honestly, Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson have really grown into solid actors and this should be very entertaining. Hype aside, this should be the big hit (box office) of the year.

And that's the list of the good. Now comes the bad.

Ataque de Panico!

If you have not seen this video on Youtube, than you have to see it here. It is a video that honestly has more of a story, better visuals, and better effects than virtually any SyFy original (ie. revisioned copy) film, and more than a few major movies in the past several years.



Believe it or not, this was made by Fede Alvarez for $300. I love the effects and wonder how he got all of that done for so little. No matter how he did it, the video is great!

But here is the kicker. Alvarez has now joined Neill Blomkamp as a new director for Hollywood. Considering the skill of the above video, the budget, and the slick forethought to not include any dialog so it basically fits in any country, Hollywood is getting more than they deserve.

I'm not sure what the first film for Alvarez will be, supposedly it won't be a continuation or expansion of this video, but he is going to get $30 million to make it. I'm getting goosebumps at what he might be able to do with that kind of money with his vision. That is, as long as the Hollywood studios leave him alone.

Fede Alvarez, we are watching out for you.

The latest Iron Man 2 movie trailer

Well it seems that I may be wrong on several aspects of the new Iron Man 2 movie due out in the summer of 2010. According to the latest movie trailer my thoughts about Whiplash are mostly incorrect.



Still my theory about the Black Widow seems to be on firm footing. Also my thoughts about War Machine seem to still be very plausible if not dead on the mark.

One of the best things about this new film seems to be what I have been hoping since the original film. That the War Machine character would be as kick ass as in the comic books all of this is based on. Between the first trailer and this one I imagine that War Machine will be stealing the limelight from Stark.

Given all of that, I still find the Whiplash character the weak link of the film (with no offense to Mickey Rourke - I mean the plot). This guy is so smart that he can make his own design of the "unique" energy coil Stark uses to keep himself alive? A technology that was beyond all of the scientists at Stark Internantional combined in the first film, and now this guy can make his own version in a relative garage?

That aside, it looks like this film might be worthwhile. It might just match all the hype and expectations. Which would be a great change of pace for movies these days. Now if they could just get something in there about Titanium Man.

Top quotes of 2009

The annual Yale Book of Quotations list has come out and it is a revealing look at America in 2009. The top 10 quotes of the year, as selected by Yale, cover health care, advertising, waterboarding, a heroic action, a blast of nonsense, and a shock to the nation among it's topics.

The top quote as selected by Yale associate librarian Fred Shapiro is not one I would have selected. It may be one of the least known quote among the list. But at Yale it tops the list because

"That struck me as embodying the friction and polarization on the role of government." - Fed Shapiro

The number 1 quote is:

"Keep your government hands off my Medicare." Speaker at health care reform town hall meeting in Simpsonville, S.C., commenting on the government-created Medicare program, quoted by The Washington Post on July 28

I can understand the thought behind the quote, and I agree with it. But it still does not ring number 1 to me.

I would likely select the nuber 4 choice as the top of the list:

"You lie!" Wilson's shouted retort to Obama's address before a joint session of Congress on Sept. 9

Not only because it is a first to my knowledge, and an affront to the Office of the Presidency, but because it turns out it was true. Still it was an act that should never have occured, the apology that followed seemed sincere enough.

Number 3 on the list is one that is so popular it reminds me of a catchphrase that defined the 80's (Where's the beef?):

"There's an app for that." Apple's advertising slogan for the iPhone

A quote from early on in the year was perhaps the bravest and most heroic of quote all year:

"We're going to be in the Hudson." Captain Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger, responding to air traffic controllers asking on which runway he preferred to land US Airways Flight 1549 on Jan. 15 before he landed in the Hudson River.

And of course no one can forget the gaffe of President Obama that revealed an insensitivity and distrust of authority that honestly seems to abide in all people of color in this nation - normally with reason:

"The Cambridge police acted stupidly." Obama, commenting on a white police officer's arrest of black scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. at his home in Cambridge, Mass., at a news conference July 22

The rest of the quotes really don't seem that big to me. They are either too obscure to have been widely known (Jesse Ventura's quote), or just so damn stupid it isn't worth repeating (Kanye West).

If I had to pick a couple more top quotes I might go with

"I believe Michael was murdered, I felt that from the start. Not just one person was involved, rather it was a conspiracy of people." - Latoya Jackson on the death of her brother Michael, Jul 13, 2009. She turned out to be at least partially right.

"The officer leaned (in), was straddling over him and pointed his gun directly into the backside and shot (Grant)." - Attorney John Burris describing the Jan 1, 2009 murder of Oscar Grant by then-BART officer Johannes Meserhle. The trial of the case has been delayed 1 year.

"What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?" - House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.), July 27 2009. Perhaps the clearest explaination why Government and the economy is screwed up.

Those are some of my top quotes of 2009. What would you pick as the top quote to define the year?

TIME looks at Pelosi, I reflect on video

As I was serching for "accomplishments" of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi - trying to understand how TIME could ever consider her for Person of the Year - I ran across a theme that I've said often at my political blog VASS.

"Liberals believe that you can say anything, do anything... as long as it is completely what they agree with. Otherwise they will shut you down."

It was on this theme that the cries of Speaker Nancy Pelosi insulting Americans at the Tea Party's falls upon. It is this theme that encapsulates President Carter and Clinton (and Pelosi too) claiming that ANY disagreement with the policies of President Obama and Democrats is based solely in racism.



And the list goes on and on.

But I ran across a couple of interestig things on Freedom of Speech and stating your mind that most probably never think about. But maybe we should. Maybe entertainment will make that thought easier to have.



Just substitute President Obama or Speaker Nancy Pelosi for Senator McCarthy


You don't have to agree with me, but just think what television, movies, and life would be like if you just let Person of the Year runner-up Nancy Pelosi ramrod all your decisions through Congress? If our politics can't be filled with free thought, how can you imagine our entertainment to be so?

If Speaker Nancy Pelosi is to be one of the paragons of 2009 I am led to remember a video I've shown here before. And I would say that Pelosi and those of her mindset would be more akin to the view of China or other socialist nations than America in the following video:



Again, you may not agree but it is a thought, via entertainment, that's worth having if you want to read how TIME waxes gloriously about Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Golden Globes 2010 nominees

Well it's that time of year again. Yes, the nominees for Golden Globes are out, and our first indications of Oscar Award nominees is in. The big question I have every year at this time is has anyone even seen anything that got a nomination?

In movies the top films are:

'Avatar' - too much hype to live up to

'The Hurt Locker' - $16 million, people saw this?

'Inglourious Basterds' - $120 million

'Precious' - $38 million - the winner, it just tugs on liberal heartstrings more than Pitt or Clooney make them swoon

'Up in the Air' - $4 million, who saw this besides reviewers?

Best Comedy/Musical

'500 Days of Summer' - $32 million, seriously?

'The Hangover' - $277 million, it should win but won't

'It's Complicated' - Meryl Streep has to win for something, and it has Alec Baldwin (liberal favorite) and Steve Martin

'Julie & Julia' - $94 million

'Nine' - they're kidding right?

Best Animated

'Coraline' - $75 million

'Fantastic Mr. Fox' - $30 million

'Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs' - $122 million

'The Princess and the Frog' - $28 million - most likely to win since it's the "first" Black Disney Princess, thank you Obama effect

'Up' - $293 million

And then there is television. While I can't see how the television shows did for the year, I can say that if I were to pick the best shows I'd wind up with NCIS, Eureka, Torchwood and Doctor Who. Of course the last 2 won't count since they are British. Still there is nothing that beats them from what I have seen on tv, especially broadcast. But give it a bit of time and there will be an American copy just like Life on Mars, Hustle and The Office among others.

Best Television

'Big Love'

'Dexter'

'House' - If I had to guess, based on what I have seen, this should be it

'Mad Men' - The sure winner

'True Blood'

Best TV Comedy/Musical (I haven't seen any of these. Would Eureka be comedy?)

'30 Rock' - the winner, Alec Baldwin strikes again

'Entourage'

'Glee'

'Modern Family'

'The Office'

Best TV miniseries

'Grey Gardens'

'Into the Storm'

'Little Dorrit'

'Taking Chance'

'Georgia O'Keeffe'
(Not one of these matches Torchwood's Children of Earth in my opinion. Too bad it's British)

The surprises for me have to be that Michael Jackson's This Is It is not up for a Globe. How this is possible I can't imagine. I am sure that it will win something at the Oscar Awards though. And yes, it's just because he is dead.

The Soloist also missed out. Which is a surprise since it was rumored to have been an early Awards contender. With Jamie Foxx and Robert Downey Jr. you would think it would be a shoe in. Then again, the damage from Foxx earlier this year may have been a factor.

On the television front, how did the remake of The Prisoner miss out?? Though it warped a bit of the original shows premise, it was a quality miniseries. It had big stars and I think Sir Ian McKellan was a solid Number 2. Plus the twist at the end was mostly original and unexpected.

But like always, the nominees seem to have little to do with the view from the public.

Annie Leonard is at it again

If you have some spare time and want to laugh Annie Leonard is at it again. You may recall her from the inaccurate, misquoted, lie filled video The Story of Stuff. If you don't know about that your kids probably do. I covered that at Annie Leonard – Story of Stuff misrepresentations.

Well now that Cap & Trade is approaching a final vote to "necessarily skyrocket" your electric bills while President Obama kicks back in Copenhagen, Leonard decided to put in her warped views. But I have to give her this, much like a broken clock being right occassionally, she gets part of this video right. I guess you have to chalk it up to the law of probabilities - everything is probably if only infantessimally so.

But before your kids go to school and learn more brainwashing (sorry I mean 'get educated') on this subject I present you a correction, and then her video. It's kind of like the disclaimer that has to be shown to kids in Britian before they can see Al Gore's factually corrupt An Inconvienent Truth (which he will not discuss with anyone - go figure).





Perhaps one of the most telling things about this new fanatical ultra-left video is the lesson Annie Leonard learned from creating the first. Annie Leonard choose not to include any sources of her "facts" stated in this video. I suppose that having everyone point out her misquotes and falsehoods stated in the factsheet from the first video was her wqake up call that parents and others pay attention to what she is spewing. Or she just decided to do what Al Gore does, just ignore anyone that might provide opposing facts and questions.

If you watch any video of Annie Leonard I suggest you do so from the point of view that you might have with when seeing a bad B-movie. At least you don't have to pay for the bad script and cheesy effects.

The PGA without Tiger Woods - does it matter?

And so it begins. Now that Tiger Woods has decided to step away from golf while he and his wife resolve the now public issues, advertisers and golfers are running from him. The greatest golfer, arguably ever, is quickly learning who his friends are.

I won't speak about what Tiger did or his wife's reaction. That is a private matter for them both. But I will comment on the reaction this is having. And like dominoes the effect is just triggering more and more reactions.

Gillette is now the first of the major advertisers to step away from Woods. While not quite running, they are going to quickly minimize the ads that feature Tiger. Gillette claims this is their attempt to help Woods minimize his public presence. Which oddly enough sounds more like they are trying to not piss of women that might buy their product because they somehow link it to Woods actions.

So far Nike has remained the most dedicated to Tiger of all the advertisers. Which makes sense as Tiger has done everything they could have hoped for with their golf equipment line. With Woods out of competition, it's hard to know exactly what will happen to future ads in 2010. Still I think there will be something that features Woods and Nike. And I commend that in at least the fact that they acknowledge what was done for them. Plus I hate rats fleeing a sinking ship, before it starts to sink.

In the world of golf there are mixed comments. There are those that wish the Woods family encouragement in their efforts to resolve this issue. There are those that have shared their feelings about similar troubles, like John Daly. These are respectful comments that I think make sense, though the best are those that refuse to speak about a private matter.

Then there are golfers like Colin Montgomerie. His comments that focus on his ability to win now just annoy me.

"I feel that it gives us more opportunity of winning these big events now."

It rings petty, considering that it is an admission that were the best golfer in the world around, he and others like him, could never have a chance. Montgomerie is just not that good.

I can't wait to see how Montgomerie feels when he sees what winning without the presence of Woods means. Inevitably the prize purses in the PGA are going to drop without Woods. The viewership of televised events, and likely the number of events covered, will drop. A Lot. Because no one really cares if Colin Montgomerie wins, but everyone cares if Tiger plays.

The big question to the PGA and professional golf, even advertisers, has to be what will happen if Tiger comes back? What happens if Tiger doesn't come back, or he is incapable of the dominance he has had in the sport? What happens to all the charities and organizations that Woods created and sponsors? Perhaps John Daly summed it up well

" They always say there is no one bigger in golf than the game itself. But Tiger is."

Somehow I think it's going to be quite a while before we see ads like the following again:





And it will be a long time before we see this in golf videos



Sadly I think we have all witnessed the end of the Tiger Woods era. No matter when he comes back, I think his spirit has been broken. He will still win, and he will break records. But the greatest moments of his career will likely be behind him. In a way it's just a shame to know we will never see what he could have been. And we will never see his kind of ability again in our lifetime, of that I am sure.

Pee-wee Herman is back

Some of my readers probably never have heard of Pee-wee Herman, nor his real world creator Paul Reubens. That can either be taken as a plus or a negative depending on your taste in comedy.

Either way there is no question that for a time, Pee-wee was the hottest comedian on television. He had a successful Saturday morning show that was good for kids, but held lots of laughs for adults that could read between the lines. He had made 2 successful films. All was going well.

Then Reubens did something that nearly killed Pee-wee completely. Reubens was caught doing a very adult act in a quite seedy film theater. The reaction was hardly the minor inconvienence of George Michael, it was more akin to the image bash that Tiger Woods is currently living.



Every sponsor disappeared, and Reubens was unable to find any kind of work. He languished in this realm for a time until he got a break with a "minor" role in the original film of Buffy the Vampire Killer. His take on a vampire death was a scene stealer and reminded some that talent is not the same as media exposure.



There were several other minor roles over the years, but nothing to the level of Pee-wee.

Of course Reubens was in a love-hate relationsip with Pee-wee. Not unlike Leonard Nimoy's feelings towards Spock, perhaps even the relationship of Gollum and The Ring, Pee-wee was what Reubens was known for.

But now, decades after the event, and at a time when the youth are more than prepared to see for the first time the great hits of the past, Reubens has made peace with his famous alterego and brought him back to life. The only question is how big a return will it be?

I say how big because Paul Reubens is funny. As annoying as the Herman persona can be, it works. On the big screen and on the small it conveys something to audiences of all ages. And it's far more original than most anything else out now in any medium you can name.

I'm hoping all goes well for Reubens and Herman alike. I thought he was a funny man, and the onslaught of negative publicity for something that hurt no one was unfair (though it was a bit creppy - like George Michael). He's paid his dues, more than most entertainers.

So I think it's time that another generation learn how to dance to Tequila!

Nina Simone's Sinnerman on television commercials and movies

I was thinking about commercials again last night. There are several (recently cell phone commercials) that are using a song that probably everyone knows from the climax of the Thomas Crown Affair remake with Pierce Brosnan. But the question is what is the song that really makes that scene move?

It's a catchy song and I had to figure out who made it. Turns out that the song, Sinnerman, is old. Real old. It goes back to roughly 1900, but the version that we know today was the Jazz Gospel version done by Nina Simone in 1965. The full song goes as follows:



This song is great. But what you may not have noticed is that it's having a surge of interest lately. Since 1999 the song in some version (usually this one) has appeared in 12 movies. It's been on 11 television shows, including Top Gear in the U.K. and the anime series Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex 2nd GIG. That does not include the multiple television commercials and video games it can be found on as well.

Nina Simone, who died in 2003 at the age of 70, was an pianist, singer, songwriter, and civil rights activist. Her musical style encompassed classical, jazz, blues, gospel, pop and R&B. Her music is still often samples by hip hop artists and she was an influence for Mos Def among others.

There are even plans for a movie based on the life of Simone. It's expected to be released in 2012. May J. Blige is planned to play the role of Simone. I only hope that Blige can do justice to this artist both musically and in her acting.

If you are interested in hearing more of Nina Simone's work you won't have trouble finding her work. She has albulms spanning 1959 up to 2009, though the albums from 1997 on are compliations and remixes of her work. Her last album was in 1975 making her career span 16 years, which is better than many artists today.

So the next time you hear Sinnerman on a television cmmercial or in a movie, you won't have to wonder who did that song any more.

List of 2009 movies - quality and money

Well it's that time of year again. The time when everybody creates a top 10 or best of list for 2009. And of course I will throw in my thoughts to the mix.

In terms of movies there isn't a lot to say. Most of the drivel from Hollywood is what we have been getting for quite some time now. Half thought out revisioned remakes of ideas done far better in the past. That goes for the revisioned comic books, movies, television shows and books that all hit the silver screen this year. But, against all odds there were a few movies that were actaully worth the money.

1. Watchmen - How could you not see this film? It was the rare exception of Hollywood taking a great story (from a comic graphic novel) and not revisioning it. The result was a beautiful and shocking twist on the concept of what is a superhero.

2. Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince - the kids are almost all grown up. The film continues the saga of Potter and friends, and it's still an interesting fresh movie several films into the series. The acting continues to improve and the story is modeled well after the books.

3. Angels and Demons - How can you go wrong with Tom Hanks and Ron Howard in a movie based on a Dan Brown book? It wasn't the DaVinci Code, but it sure beat the flood of films this year.

4. Sherlock Holmes - Yes I know it's not out yet. But I'm willing to bet on the acting ability of Robert Downey Jr. In addition his choices of films has been among the best in the industry. movie trailers can lie (and often do) but I'm willing to go with the talent and say this will make the cut.

And those are my top movies of 2009. But if you were wondering, here are the movies that made the most money (which has nothing to do with the quality of the film):

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen - a movie only matched in its stupidity by the amount of CGI onscereen at any time. This is proof that hype can overwhelm quality if you throw enough money at a marketing campaign. $402 million

Harry Potter and the Half-blood Prince - Number 2 on my list, it brought in $301 million. Proof that quality can make money too.

Up - Parents love to take kids to animated films. This one happened to be worth the time as well. $293 million

The Hangover - the surprise hit of the year. I never saw it, it seemed to sophmopric to me. But it brought in $277 million so there must be something to it. Likely to produce a sequel of some sort next year.

Star Trek - This revisioned make-over of the classic original television series was lauded long before it hit a single screen. But after seeing the film I found it more stilted than Shatner doing poetry. If this is the future of sci-fi I feel really bad for the next generation. $257 million. Revisionist sequel guaranteed.

A couple of other notable film revenues for the year:

Twillight: New Moon - just a question, has anyone over the age of 25 seen this film? No one I know over 25 has. $256 million and another film sure to come.

X-men Origins: Wolverine - Destroyed a great idea and character for big money. The only thing good about this film is the payday it made for Hollywood. But a sequel will happen to continue the pain. $179 million

Fast and Furious - Even Vin Diesel can't save a bad idea. Though it did make enough to guarantee Deisel will continue to star in a few more films. $155 million

GI Joe Rise of Cobra - Hype wins again. An insulting film that makes you want to see Wolverine again. Only exceeded in stupidity and boredom levels by Transformers. Sequel will happen even though anyone above 6 will cringe. $150 million

Angels & Demons - It made a respectable $133 million. Not bad for a sequel, though more was expected.

Terminator Salvation - Not the best continuation of the series. Christian Bale made a good John Connor, but the rest of the film was lazy and as bleak as the future it redises in. But the story ain't over yet. $125 million

Watchmen - Number 1 on my list only made $107 million. Perhaps it was just too much for audiences to take in. Especially compared to the low-brow low-quality films that topped the money list.

Tyler Perry's Madea Goes To Jail - Love or hate Perry 2 things are true. He is the biggest boost to getting Black actors in movies since Sidney Poitier and he makes money. What will Madea do next? $90 million

Michael Jackson's This Is It - The last tribute to the King of Pop. $72 million and it really isn't even a film.

Land of the Lost - People went to see this? $49 million

Notorious - The worst thing about this film is it probably made enough money to spawn equally bad expoitive cash grabs. $36 million and I have to wonder how doing anything (including sleeping) wasn't better than the film.

Pink Panther 2, Old Dogs, Halloween 2 (revisioned remake), SAW VI, Fame (revisioned remake) - I'm just amazed that none of these films, though all bad, did better than Notorious. I really hope that doesn't mean a trend of dead rapper movies.

Well that's my list, what do you think? Did I miss anything?

What connects Congress and college football?

Football (American style) is a bedrock of our nation. From peewee leagues up to the pros in the NFL, America loves the sport.

On the other side of things, Americans have never had much love for Congress. In my 40+ years of life I have heard multiple generations decry how miserable Congress is at doing ANYTHING. The most recent iteration of Congress is arguably at least as bad as average, if not worse.

Now the question you might have is what do the 2 have to do with each other?

Congress is now debating on being involved in college football. Yes, while there is 10% unemployment in the nation, while President Obama is seeking to create another stimulus to do what the first did not, while American troops are under fire in Iraq and Afghanistan, Congress is debating football.

The shock I have on this is beyond that I had for the claims of creating or "saving" jobs while unemployment levels rose for months in a row. I was more amazed than when Congress claimed they could create a program that does not spend more than it costs (ie Health Care Reform). This is about the worst idea, and timing yet.

Can you imagine this? The Government, particularly Congress, can't balance a budget, can't manage anything, can't even read laws they are enacting yet they want to be involved in college football? Can you imagine how convoluted college football will become once Congress gets their hands on this.

Texas Representative Joe Barton is the one behind this disaster waiting to happen. Considering all the things in front of the House of Representatives right now, I would think that his constituents in Texas would want him focused on many other things beside college Bowl match-ups.

HR 390 - The College Football Playoffs Act - is the bill in question. If you are represented by Rep. Barton in Texas I suggest you go to his contact page - found at this link - and tell him to forget about a Government controlled college football and focus on jobs, the economy, health care reform, the deficit, Iraq, Afghanistan, or any of a dozen other far more serious and responsible issues.

**for more political information see VASS
For great gift ideas check out Alchemy at World of Vass and/or World of Vass **

Is South Africa now sexist instead of racist?

For more than half of my life South Africa was a nation divided by segregation and racism. And I wish that that was the full extent of their flawed and divisive system, but the truth is that they were like this for well over 100 years. But now that apartheid is gone, South Africa seems to be moving forward to just discriminating against women.

At least this is what I get from the recent protest against Jennifer Hudson. It has been reveiled that Hudson has been picked to portray Winnie Madikizela-Mandela in an upcoming movie. And there are those in South Africa that oppose this.

The film is to be made in South Africa, with a director that is from there and made several other films about the nation and it's troubled (to say the least) past. In each of Darrell J. Roodt'd prior films (Sarafina and Cry, The Beloved Country) a mix of American and other actors too on prominent roles. That is what enabled these films to have a life outside of South Africa and to be seen across the world.

But that's not good enough anymore it seems

"This decision must be reversed, it must be stopped now," union secretary general Oupa Lebogo said in The Times. "If the matter doesn't come up for discussion, we will push for a moratorium to be placed on the film."

Now here are 2 very good questions I would ask Lebogo. First, if this film is not allowed to be made as is, who does he think will see the film and thus promote South Africa as a nation changed from the ways of discrimination and strife? Without a huge name as Jennifer Hudson, does anyone believe that this film might ever be seen in America - or likely any other nation? It may sound mean, but the fact is that I don't recall seeing a South African actor winning an award for a film made in South Africa.

The second question is a bit different but even more pertinant. Why was there no protest about Clint Eastwood's film Invictus?

It stars 2 Americans, Matt Damon and Morgan Freeman, playing prominent South Africans. It has an American director. It was filmed in South Africa, promoting that nation. But it's about men.

The film for Hudson is about women. That's the only difference. Well that and the fact the Jennifer Hudson film is even more connected to South Africa than Clint Eastwood's movie.

It seems to me that this protest in South Africa is just an admission of sexism which replaced the apartheid system in that nation. It's a repression of the people of that land. And it will ultimately hurt South African, not help it.

I guarantee that if Jennifer Hudson does not star in this film, it will be relatively unseen. The movie might be a hit by SA standards, but that's about it. A bad remake of a worse zombie film in America will outperform the SA film in numbers of movie-goers, international attention, and revenue. That's just a fact.

So before South Africa pisses of Jennifer Hudson, women, and Hollywood I think they should shut up. They need the revenue the film will bring their nation. They need the positive attention. They need the support of women as much as they needed it when Nelson Mandela was locked up and Apartheid was the rule of their land.

Star Trek Online

As many know, I love Massively Multiplayer Online games (MMO). I have played almost every single major title that has ever been released. I got hooked with Everquest, and have been playing them all since. The last I had is Warhammer Online, but it's time for something new.

Star Trek Online will be coming out in February 2010. There is a lot of anticipation on the game. Here is one of the latest videos on the gameplay.



As you can see from the images the space battles look like it was the emphasis of the graphics and game design. In other videos you will notice the lower level of graphics for characters even more. So the question that comes to my mind is if the game will live up to even most of the hype?

Another game that had a lot of hype and was somewhat inferior in graphics was Star Wars Online. As I recall there were a few question about the graphics, and the level tree that was being used. As well as the whole resource decay issue. The game was a failure even accounting for the hype that nothing could live up to.

Star Trek Online (STO) also cannot possibly live up to the hype that its source material has created. Even if this game runs perfectly smooth at launch and had no bugs (neither of which will happen) it could not live up to expectations. So that may save it to some degree among fans.

But is the game worth it? Well the general word out is that the game is decent. That there is content and diversity. But until there is a community playing, who knows.

I hate to guess about video games. There are so many unknowns to try to figure out. Actual gameplay can often be deceiving, and critical elements of the game may never be even hinted at in a preview. World of Warcraft had no hype and stormed the MMO community. It created fans that ranged from casual gamers to the very hardcore. And its kept them. But before the launch there really was not clue how good it would be.

I want STO to be a good game. I want to join up and have a Klingon cruiser blasting away at the Federation, Romulans, and the Borg (yep they are in the game - though not as playable characters). But I'm just not sure.

Lesser graphics are never an indication of how a game might turn out by themselves. But like with the Matrix Online (now defunct) it's one part of many potential problems that can spell the doom of a game.

Currently the game is in closed Beta. Lot's of things are likely being tweaked and added. No word has leaked on how good or bad things might be. so the question remains, is this being put out to cash in on the hype or is it what the fans have been waiting for?

We only have 2 1/2 months to go to find out.

Win a $3 million dollar home for $30

Yes this is real. No, M V Consulting, Inc. is not involved though I wish we were. This is the the result of the compassion and efforts of Dennis Rodman and the Mission of St. Francis.

The Mission of St. Francis is a non-Government funded private organization that helps people that are in need. They have been helping people reclaim their lives without becomeing Government dependant for 40 years. But this economy has been as difficult for them as for everyone else, even as those in need have grown.

Dennis Rodman has joined in bringing attention to what the Mission does, and to help raise funds for their effort. This has led (with a super generous offer from a Florida family) to the Rodman Raffle.

A purchse of a $30 raffle ticket before December 25th qualifies you for a chance to win a 6 bedroom 6 1/2 bath Ft. Lauderdale waterfront estate that also has:

1000 sq ft Master Suite

Ocean access

4 car garage

Game room

Wet bar

Pool

Security system

Wood and Marble floors

Hurricane impact widows and doors

Dennis Rodman as a neighbor

The home is valued at $3 million, and the winner of the raffle will receive the title and deed free & clear. The proceeds of the raffle will go to the Mission of St. Francis to allow them to continue to help those in need as they have done for 40 years.

M V Consulting, Inc. loves to hear of and support celebrity donations and many causes. This is another such cause that we are happy to bring to our readers attention.

I will be entering the raffle. I recommend that all my readers who have the means do so as well. Even if you don't win the grand prize you will have the knowledge that your support has helped an organization that has given 10,000 people the means and ability to fight drug addiction.

To purchase a raffle ticket and to see photos of your potential new home go to

RodmanRaffle.org

Fan shows support for Black Entertainment USA

Well I just wanted to share an interesting item I received the other day. One of my long-time readers purchased a couple of items from my Alchemy at World of Vass online store. In particular was an early Christmas gift.

I was sent a couple of photos of the Christmas gift, a sweatshirt as can be seen below



I haven't been sent photos of people in the various items they have bought at my stores before. I think its rather cool to see real people using the high quality items I sell. And I look forward to getting more photos from my fans and customers out there.

Obviously if you haven't been to Alchemy at World of Vass, or World of Vass, you won't be able to send me a photo to get published. But if you would like to have you're photo (and a quote with the photo) appear on this site, with/in one of my items, please do send it to info@vassconsult.com - subject: happy customers. If I get enough of them I may dedicate a seperate page justr for my customers out there.

I appreciate the support that all my readers, fans, and visitors provide every day.
And I enjoy seeing what you all might look like.

No matter how you support my blogs, I thank you. And I wish everyone a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays.

Movie remakes: Good and/or Bad?

The tradition of remaking a film that was successful somewhere or sometime else is a revered way of doing business in Hollywood. It's something that has happened in all genres and media, probably back to the original 6 stories of the Ancient Greeks. But lately it seems that this has become one of the driving forces in modern motion pictures.

Hollywood just doesn't seem to have an original idea in its head. Or at least the execs don't seem to think the public can understand a new concept. Which means more likely that the execs can't. Either way, as we go further into this new century we seem more likely to copy something than create something.

Now if all of the remakes were good, or at least as good as their original inspirations, I don't think anyone would care. But millions of dollars, and more importantly hundreds of hours of screen time is being wasted on crap. We are being led in the desert and asked to chug sand as if it were champagne. At least that's my opinion.

But a friend of mine recently brought up a good point, I think. The thought is that most movie-goers today have no idea about the originals films that are being copied. And often, as in the case of the Adventures of Robin Hood (with Errol Flynn and the definitive Robin Hood movie), the original films are being shown far less often with later copies being shown far more often. As in this case the Kevin Costner revisioned remake is far more common than the Flynn original - thus some younger viewers may not know of a superior film existing.

So it makes me wonder, how many people have not seen the original films being copied by Hollywood now? How many people prefer the remakes to the original films? We there is no better way to find out than to ask.

The following list are an original film and it's (most) recent remake. Let me know which you have seen, and/or which you prefer.

12 Angry Men (1957, with Henry Fonda)* - 12 Angry Men (1997)
One Hundred and One Dalmatians (1961, animated)* - 101 Dalmatians (1996 live action)
Alice in Wonderland (1933) - Alice In Wonderland (1951, 1985, 1999, 2010)
Alfie (1966, Michael Caine)* - Alfie (2004, Jude Law)
Amityville Horror (1979) - Amityville Horror (2005, Ryan Reynolds)
Assault on Precinct 13 (1976, John Carpenter - director) - Assault on Precinct 13 (2005, Laurence Fishburne)
The Bad News Bears (1976, Walter Matthau)* - Bad News Bears (2005, Billy Bob Thornton, Greg Kinear)
Bangkok Dangerous (1999, Thai film)* - Bangkok Dangerous (2008, Nicolas Cage)
La Cage aux Folles (1978, French film) - The Birdcage (1996, Robin Williams)*
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956)*! - The Invasion (2007, Nicole Kidman)
Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory (1971, Gene Wilder)* - Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005, Johnny Depp)
The Thomas Crown Affair (1968, Steve McQueen)* - Thomas Crown Affair (1999, Pierce Brosnan)
Carrie (1976, Steven King book conversion)* - Carrie (2002)
Charlotte's Web (1973, animated)* - Charlotte's Web (2006, live action)
Les liaisons dangereuses (1956, French) - Cruel Intentions (1999, Ryan Phillippe)*! - Dangerous Liasons (1988, Glen Close)
Night of the Living Dead (1968, George Romero director)*! - Night of the Living Dead (1990)
War of the Worlds (1953)* - War of the Worlds (2005, Tom Cruise)
The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951)* - The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008, Keanu Reeves)
Death Race 2000 (1975, David Carradine)* - Death Race (2008, Jason Statham)
Fame (1980, Irene Carra)* - Fame (2009)
Yojimbo (1961, Akira Kurosawa) - A Fistful of Dollars (1964, Clint Eastwood)
The Fly (1958) - The Fly (1986, Jeff Goldblum)* - The Fly (TBA)
The Sons of Katie Elder (1965, John Wayne)* - Four Brothers (2005, Wark Wahlberg, Andre Benjamin)

The list just keeps going. But I think you get my point. Keep an eye out for my list of the best and worst remakes ever.

Note - Any movie marked with an * means it was the best version in my opinion. A movie with a ! means this is the best version of several movies based on the same film.

Tiger Woods parody on Saturday Night Live - good or bad?

Like the Saturday Night Live of old, the buzz for Monday will likely be the parody on Tiger Woods. There is controversy in this one, not only for what was done but also because of the celebrity guest - which was Rihanna.

In case you missed it, here is the skit in question



Now just looking at that, I think it was damn funny. It would have been funny if the guest on SNL was anyone. It's funny even though it's about "domestic abuse" as some like to call it.

But I think the controversy is overblown here. This is not making light of domestic abuse. The incident this is based on is not domestic abuse. Let's keep this focused on what it is. This is about a fight between a husband and wife - solely because the husband was caught cheating.

Couples of every description have fights from time to time (non-physical). More than a few members of any couple tend to cheat. These are facts as old as the world. And it is a fact that when the secret comes out, the other member of the couple is going to be pissed. That's not abuse, it's a natural reaction to the situation.

Rihanna was involved in domestic abuse. Chris Brown beat the hell out of her. There is no justification for this and it had no cause other than his own misguided and commoditized sense of what is a Black man. I stand by the thoughts I had on that and wrote about.

Now the SNL skit is what comedy is about. It takes a subject that is normally taboo and speaks about it in a broad sense. It twists the pathos and makes us smile where we might cringe. It's no different than the jokes about 9/11, or war, or anything else you can imagine.

The way Tiger has handled this private matter was bad from the start. SNL picked up on that and ran with it. And they did so in a tasteful manner in my opinion. But in a world of PC insanity, doing anything that any liberal might object to is tantamount to committing a crime. Which is a shame.

I think that if this skit were insensitive to Rihanna, she wouldn't have done the show. Or she would have said something about it. But neither is the case. As they shouldn't be.

But having seen the skit, what do you think? Is this just taking an unfortunate situation and making fun of it's comedic pearls or is it a slap in the face of a serious issue that remains largely unspoken?

Movie Preview: Death at a Funeral

One of the more interesting films to be coming out in 2010 is something that no one expected. It's a Black film - not by Tyler Perry - about a family dealing with the death of the patriach of the family. This is a comedy, so don't think you can't see it. And oddly enough it's a remake (in parts word for word) of a British film of the same name that you probably never heard of.

Death at a Funeral is a film starring some of the best Black comedic actors (and comedians) around now. But don't think this is a film only for African Americans. This looks to be a film that everyone can see and laugh at.

Chris Rock looks to be making a strong showing in this film as the son trying to keep his family from imploding, or exploding, or getting exposed (literally), at the funeral of his father. Martin Lawrence is his single, womanizing, more successful brother, and favorite of his mother. These 2 men are at the center of a whirlwind of events that make it clear why tragedy is the mirror twin of comedy.

When I saw this tralier I was just laughing out loud. The timing looks to be superb. The jokes are just spot on. The acting looks like everyone wanted to make this work.

The film also stars Tracy Morgan, Danny Glover, James Marsden, Regina Hall, Loretta Devine, Zoë Saldaña, Kevin Hart, Luke Wilson, and Ron Glass. And as I mentioned this is a remake, but in an odd twist on things Peter Dinklage who starred in the original British film will also be in this version.



Now as I mentioned this is a remake. Which sets it apart from the ususal Hollywood trend of revisioning a film. Thus it does not suffer from the pain a revision inevitably creates for an audience. This is also the 2nd remake of the film as there was a Bollywood version of it as well, which again is odd (since the film came out in 2007) but also is a clear indication of the comedy in the film.

Even though the American version contains numerous scenes that are verbatim of the original, the differences between the English stiff upper lip culture and a more animated African American culture makes this copy fresh. Still I want you to know where the ideas come from. Here is a movie trailer from the original



Either way, a film touching on the taboo of homosexuality in the Black community, while injecting the humor of the dysfunction that is family, and including the cast that it does is worth the time. I have to say the thing that really sold me on this film was the following line that is at 2:18 on the movie trailer

"Let me get this straight. Our father was romantically involved with a guy that could fit in his pocket... And you're mad because he's White?!" - Chris Rock to Martin Lawrence

What England is saying about playing team USA

Well it only took a second before fans of the US soccer team felt a twinge of pain today. Once we found out that were were playing England in the first match of the World Cup group play the plan became who else might we have a chance against in the group.

But there was huge commentary across the world. Well likely not about the US or our chances to win (though 66-1 is the best odds I ever recall for a World Cup), but about all the various match-ups. One thing I noticed was how British sports commentators were reacting to the news (I don't pay attention to American sportscasters when it comes to soccer).

It seems that Team USA is giving some in England a pause, if only momentarily. Which might be the 2nd best result that could have happened. The best of course being an overly confident boasting - which there is still time for.

There just isn't anything better than hearing anyone consider the American futbol team and use terms like tough and out-muscling. It's not as good as over-powering and strategic, but I take what I can get.

But is this fear they are speaking of, or just a low scoring match?

(Video contains the pre-group odds as well as commentary and dates of play times)

2010 World Cup groups and odds

Well the time for idle speculation is over. The groups for the World Cup starting in June 2010 in South Africa have been determined. And this will be interesting.

I will have a video with the odds of several of the favorites, and commentary about the USA vs. England match shortly.

But starting with Group A - South Africa, France, Mexico, Uruguay - I expect South Africa to make history. Never before has a host country lost in group play. But I'm pretty sure that's what's going to happen here. The probable winners in this group: France and Mexico.

In Group B - Argentina, Greece, Nigeria, South Korea - This should be a cake walk for Argentina. I expect them to win every match. The real questio in my mind is if Nigeria or South Korea also advance. I'd have to nudge over and say Nigeria.

Group C - Algeria, England, Slovenia, United States - Now this is a challenging group. There is a big question on what will happen. The fact that the US will be playing England first really sucks for the US, though the British commentators seem to think this might be a tough match. So assuming that we lose the first match, which is likely, our hope is to win against slovenia and tie Algeria. My bet, England and Algeria advance.

Group D - Australia, Germany, Ghana, Serbia - An easy group for Germany. Sadly Australia will be out quickly. But I'm not sure about Ghana and Serbia. My guess is that Ghana will pull it out due to the homefeild advantage. Germany and Ghana advance.

Group E - Cameroon, Denmark, Japan, Netherlands - I'm looking for an upset out of this group. Of course the Netherlands will win the group. Japan is the big loser. Again the question is Cameroon and Denmark. And I expect Cameroon to pull it out. I don't think many will pick that. Netherlands and Cameroon move on.

Group F - Italy, Paraguay, New Zealand, Slovakia - Wow Italy got lucky. This may the easiest group in the World Cup. Italy wins easy, and New Zealand will be on the same plane home as Australia. The choice left is pretty easy. Paraguay takes the group after italy.

Group G - Brazil, Ivory Coast, Portugal, North Korea - Well let me think. Brazil moves on, that's a no brainer. But I think that Ivory Coast will surprise some people. I think that they go to the next round after soundly beating Portugal and North Korea. My call, Ivory Coast and Brazil.

Group H - Chile, Honduras, Spain, Switzerland - This may be the most exciting Group out of all the group play. There will be battles in this group. Spain will take it, but I think they will have more trouble than most expect. Chile will make a good try but Honduras will pull out the big win in the group. Switzerland will give it a good try but I think they are the loser of that group.

Ultimately, I think the final match will come down to Germany vs Brazil or Argentina vs England. In either option I would go with the South American teams to win.

Look for my video shortly.

The impossible has been done - World of Warcraft undone

If you are one of the millions that play or have played World of Warcraft then you know the game is filled with content. Like all Massively Multiplayer Online games (MMO) there is more than enough to keep anybody busy for years. And that does not include the time to reach the next level up once you get past the first easy 10 levels.

If you are not familiar with these types of games I'll help you out. In an MMO a new player can go from level 1 to level 5 in generally 3 - 5 hours. Reaching level 10 requires another 8 hours of time to be invested in the game. To reach level 15 could take a week more time. To get to level 30 or more than several months of gameplay time. And since the max currently in WoW is 80, well you are looking at perhaps a year or more of hardcore gaming time, and far more than that for a casual gamer.

Obviously that's a huge investment of time. But for all of that gameplay, I have never heard of anyone out of the millions that have played the game, that has done everything the game has to offer. Such is the nature of an MMO. They can become a life of their own.

Of course I need to correct something I have said. I never heard of anyone essentially beating an MMO before today. It seems that a Tiawanese man has in fact done it. He has completed every mission and acheivement the game has to offer. That's 986 seperate items that involve the most difficult and obscure things offered in the game. Like gaining a complete outfitting of all epic gear (very hard to find each piece as they are rare), or eating 50 different kinds of food from across the entire World of Warcraft game world.

To some it may not sound like a big deal. But to gamers it is amazing. To my knowledge this is the first time anyone, EVER, has done everything a game has to offer. I honestly cannot imagine the time it has taken to get all of it done. And out of over millions of people playing the game currently and likely tens of millions that have played the game since 2004, only "little gray" has made this milestone.

Just thinking about it, finishing the unfinishable, completing the incompletable, it makes me wonder what else is possible. Maybe a President that could complete all of their campaign promises? Maybe a Congress that could balance a budget? Maybe a world without nuclear weapons?

Nah, that won't happen unless it's in a game. But then again anything is possible.

Wall Street 2 - what to expect

Ok, so Tiger Woods has a couple of girlfriends on the side. NO shock, so do most men with his kind of fame and wealth. If he were a rockstar or actor no one would be surprised. But this is a family matter for him, so I won't speak on the subject further. Celebrities and enetertainers deserve some degree of privacy too.

Moving on to other news I have no problem speaking about, Wall Street 2 is getting ready to hit theaters in 2010. Oh the joy. The theme of this movie? Greed is legal.

Yes, Oliver Stone has made the sequel to the very good 80's film. It will again star Michael Douglas as the powerful and successful Gordon Gekko. But this time Gekko is not the massive power broker he was in the first time. No the banks are the ultimate bad guys.

This falls directly in line with the views of extremist Stone. It also happens to be right in line with the ultra-liberal tone that Hollywood has been promoting for years now. But the question is if this will make a good movie?

Since about 2000 or so, Hollywood has increasingly made movies that are more political propodanga with filler than movies the public can enjoy. Not that politics has been something foreign to films. Dr. Strangelove is anti-war, anti-nukes, and against the cold war but it was still entertaining. Lions for Lambs, War Inc., and dozens of other recent films that no one watched in theaters of DVD are anything but entertaining.

From the sounds of what Oliver Stone has been saying, Wall Street 2 is more akin to War Inc. than the original Wall Street. It sounds as if it will be yet another film that pushes Stone's political agenda a the cost of the tickets audiences will pay. Which does not motivate me to see the film, which is a shame since I did enjoy the original.

"Wall Street can be the engine of capitalism" and create opportunity, Stone said to one student. "But they increasingly have not done that because there's more money in speculation."

That seems to sum up the view that the new film will be taking. It's a warped and skewed overly simplistic view of finance, capitalism, and Wall Street but that is fine if that is not the movie's theme. I don't want to go to a movie to debate politics, I do that for a living. I want to see a film to be entertained.

Well here is what I understand is the plot of Wall Street 2. Gekko gets out of prison and is a reformed man. He sees an implosion on the horizon and tries to warn the industry, but is ignored since he is a convict. At the same time he is trying to re-establish his relationship with his daughter. His daughter wants nothing to do with him.

His daughter is engaged to upcoming hedge-fund trader Jacob (Shia LeBouf). Jacob's boss gets killed, possibly by the top boss of the fund (Josh Brolin). Jacob wants revenge.

So Gekko decides to help Jacob in exchange for help with his daughter. Cue the laugh track, or whatever.

I'm bored just writing the synopsis. Considering the views of Stone, and Brolin, I don't get a good feeling about the film. Thinking of Gekko as a powerless good guy doesn't work for me. The fact that the simplistic acting skills of Shia LeBouf are the driving force of this movie (to attract younger moviegoers) is another strike against the film. Oh, Charlie Sheen is reported to have a cameo too.

Still the trailers are not yet out. But some stills are available.



If this were a stock, I'd buy the leap put option.