It's been a while, so I thought I'd just spin off whatever's on my mind:
  • Censoship run amok
It's been pretty disgusting lately. I think The Onion summed it up perfectly last week with it's headline, " U.S. Children Still Traumatized One Year After Seeing Partially Exposed Breast On TV". In the last month, we've seen censorship episodes from PBS, Ford Motor Company for a Superbowl Commercial, and even FOX's "The Family Guy". The most amazing thing about the Family Guy issue is that the episode in question (where we see an ANIMATED rear end) was broadcast years ago and was not censored then. Reading the plot of the Ford ad too -- it doesn't sound like that exciting or likeable a commerical anyway. Thank God we have a ton of Levitra and Viagra ads, as well as 60 regulation minutes of violence to look forward to this Sunday. "Why did Rodney Harrison hit Freddie Mitchell so hard, daddy?" "Why does daddy take medicine for his thingie, mommy?"
  • Superbowl non-hype
This Sunday's game should be pretty exciting. Will it ever be here? Two weeks between conference championship games and the title game is just too much. If Terrell Owens opens up his mouth one more time, I will light myself on fire. The only people I wish ill-will upon in my life are Jason Biggs, Ashton Kutcher, Mo Rocca and Michael Ian Black, but TO is about to join the list. In fact, he deserves to have his career ended on Sunday by some unfortunate Rodney Harrison hit. The one person who seems to have his head on his shoulders about the whole thing is TO's doctor who is advising him NOT to play on Sunday (though I'm sure the insurance company behind TO's contract is also hoping he sits). When it comes down to God and medical science, I'm going to go with science 99.999% of the time.
  • Oscar duds
I haven't seen all the films nominated in the major categories, but from what I have seen, nothing is Oscar-worthy. Sideways was a very good, enjoyable movie, but not a best picture. Same for the Aviator. Ray's coming in Netflix next week and I'll try to catch Million Dollar Baby in the theater sometime soon. Finding Neverland? Blip on the radar -- I doubt it could be that good. I'm disappointed that The Passion of The Christ didn't make it on the list and was snubbed in many of the categories. A stunning victory for liberal hollywood. Overall, 2004 was a pretty crappy year in the theathers.
  • I love TV
Tony Almeda back on 24, lesbians on the OC, a full season order of Lost, Season 3 of the Apprentice more interesting than Season 2, Carnivale in full swing, Deadwood and The Shield both starting up again in March. You can find me on the couch.
  • R.I.P. Star Trek
For the past 18 years, there has been at least one Star Trek series on television, starting with Star Trek: The Next Generation and ending this May with the series finale of the now-cancelled Star Trek: Enterprise. I am an unabashed Trek fan, and from 1987 to about 1999, every Saturday at 7pm was reserved for an episode of Star Trek in some incarnation. After '99, I guess I just lost interest. At it's absolute best, Star Trek was about the human exploration of both the extra-terrestrial galaxy and of humanity itself. It was exciting, thought-provoking and just plain fun to watch. Sadly, it didn't last and Star Trek turned into the NHL of dramatic programming -- overextended, dilluted, and just plain boring for its fanbase. Don't even get me started on the movies. Take a poll of people who call themselves Star Trek fans and I'm sure you'd find a number similar to the 77% of hockey fans who don't care about the impending cancellation of the 2004-05 hockey season and possibly more.

  • Bond, ____ as James Bond
So the new James Bond film has a title and a director, but not an actor to actually play James Bond. The new film is going to be called Casino Royale after the first novel in the James Bond series, written by Ian Flemming in 1953. A movie adaptation of this title was already make before, in 1967 as a spoof film starring Peter Sellers, Woody Allen and David Niven to name a few. It was pretty damn awful. The plot of Casino Royale the novel is pretty simple (James Bond goes undercover as a championship card player in order to investigate a Russian Spy who uses his winnings to fund his organization and is a pretty enjoyable thriller-type novel. It would be interesting to see how this gets adapted into a modern-day Bond film. Lately it feels the movies have been uninspired and you would have to go back to the films of the 60s and 70s to find a director who translated the excitment from a book's pages to the screen. Martin Campbell is set to direct this time (he also directed the first Brosnan-Bond, Goldeneye, and The Mask of Zorro). He seems like he's decent, but not the kind of person "to get the James Bond franchise back on track" as the producers and critics have both been saying. Quentin Tarantino was rumored to have wanted to direct a Bond-film. That would have been cool, especially if he could have avoided profiling to his usual audience of ADD-inflicted viewers. I would have chosen Guy Ritchie.

So that's all I have for ramblings. February is upon us and it sucks. I'm officially tired of winter, which is something I never thought I'd say.


Blogger Coolhand complained...

I agree with you most of the time. You have to say though that TO's performance was gutsy. But again, most of those people would be on my ill-will wish list, if I had one. Mo Rocca, Michael Ian Black, et al.: They're just not funny, even though they're always on, I Love The '80's.

I don't know if Passion should have made it to best movie. Well, maybe it should have, but the Oscars are never about the most popular movie. Plus, it just shows Jesus getting beaten to death, not much about his ministry. Kind of a bummer!

Check out my blog! coolhandra.blogspot.com

2/07/2005 10:22 AM
comment permalink  
Blogger jomilkman complained...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

2/19/2005 11:01 AM
comment permalink  
Blogger jomilkman complained...

i'm still a little new to comments and had to remove duplicate posts. sorry for the mess

anyhow, kudos to you for calling out michael ian black. his comedic repertoire consists solely of this contrived deadpan posturing that rides on the notion that he is somehow too cool/smart for his subject matter. first of all, anyone can deadpan. second of all, if he finds his targets so passe, then why has he made it a point to be involved with every installment of every permutation of the "i love the ... " series? third of all, the body of work you'd assume his attitude might be predicated upon is in fact severely lackluster, both as a performer (simply never funny in anything he's ever done) and as a writer (any credit goes automatically to brainchild michael showalter). one would think that after american pop binged on the umpteenth "i love 'i love the 80's'", it would have purged him and his coterie of anonymous talking heads in one great diarrheal blast. i think comeuppance is coming soon, though ... when they get the tables turned on them with "i love the 00's". i hope to be on that panel.

2/19/2005 12:43 PM
comment permalink  

Post a Comment