Apparently, from what I read, this new animated version of A Christmas Carol is more true to the original story.  It is somewhat darker in tone with and ending that is not quite as up as what we have received from Hollywood in other versions.  It is also more scarier than other version.  The movie is produced in Disney 3-D.  This version of 3-D is not the typical 3-D where things "pop" out at you (which is, indeed, kind of fun sometimes) but is much more subtle.  This makes it more realistic and restful to the eyes.  The best part of Disney 3-D is the un-parallel clarity of the image. Even 70MM was never this good.  I wish films that are in 2-D would be filmed this way.

I love old science fiction movies that make an attempt to be somewhat realistic with the science they have at that time.  Rocketship X-M (1950) is one of those films...a group of scientists blast off from earth in a rocket to explore the moon...the film tries to be scientifically accurate (I said TRIES).  The rocket gets off course and the scientists land on Mars where they find an advanced ancient civilization that is in ruins...only cave-man like people roam the planet!   This discovery evolves into a message that if earth doesn't stop its war-like ways, we will wind up the same way!

A movie like this is interesting to see old technology...they sent this rocket off into space without computers...everything was switches and dials.  Also communication was limited...after the rocket got to a certain altitude, they lost contact because the technology then could not send signals that far!

I watched the second episode of Vampire Diaries and I am already done with that show.  The first episode was interesting...however, the second episode was not much different than the first.  The special effects were the same (vampires popping up from nowhere, black crows mysteriously flying about) and I have had enough of people running through dark scary forests.  The show was mostly talking this week with very little action.

The Office debuted with a smashing first episode...all about the evils of gossip and rumors.  The well written script illustrated how loose mouths can destroy people even when the rumors prove to be false.  Last season I was a little afraid that perhaps the show was slowing down, but this episode showed that it still can be brilliant.

Community is a show about life at a community college.  The problem with this particular show is that its characters are not very likable. The main character is a womanizer and will do anything to get the attention of the girl he's interested in.  He's a little unscrupulous and a little cocky...not a good combination for sympathy.  I am not visiting this show again.

I had high expectations for Glee, the show about a high school teacher's glee club...it seems to be the darling of TV critics.  However, I was certainly not wowed by this show...matter of fact...I found the whole hour disappointing.  All the characters were stereotypes (maybe that was done on purpose), and most of the writing was predictable.  The big question is...how did Fox wind up buying this show...it seems like such a non-Fox concept.  How did the producers ever convince Fox to do a show about a GLEE club.  This show will not get a repeat viewing from me.

Vampire Diaries was a better show.  Well done and photographed inventively, the show, despite being a TV  rip-off version of Twilight (last year's big box office vampire hit) the show was an enjoyable hour.  This show will get another vieweing from me next week.

THE START OF THE FALL TELEVISION SEASON HAS ARRIVED!!!!!!! Thank Goodness! I will begin to do what I do every new season---try to sample each show at least once (I always try to do that but somehow I really don't watch EVERY show!)

The season starts off with Melrose Place---a show that was on in the eighties.  But it has been "updated."  I guess by updated they mean 1) a huge proportion of characters under 24 years of age (even the police detective was a little too young) 2) plenty of ethnic actors and actresses (I think every race was represented) 3) lots of language that I don't understand ("this camera is sick" which I think means "this camera is great!") 4) loud music playing in the soundtrack all the time, and 5) close-ups and quick editing.  The show was just awful---but to the extent that I will probably watch it again next week---I just got to see what they are going to do with these characters!

Homicidal was a William Castle film of 1961.  William Castle was a director famous for having gimmicks in his film---he brought us the Tingler (a tingler was let lose in the movie theater), House of Haunted Hill ("Emerg-o-vision"---where a skeleton flew out of the screen), and 13 Ghosts (where you needed to put on special glassed to see the ghosts).  Extract has a fright break---shortly before the "terrifying" conclusion of the film, the director shows a clock on screen---all action ceases---and the director tells the audience that this is their opportunity to leave the theater and wait outside if they feel they cannot stand the terror anymore!  The movie was entertaining---I can't say too much about the story without giving the fun of watching it away.   I'll just say it was about a woman who inexplicably kills people---what is her reason---does she have a reason---watch the movie and find out!

The story is concerned about a rape that took place and is told in flashbacks thru four different viewpoints of the ones that were present (the bandit, the wife, a passerby, and even the testimony from the dead husband!)  Each one, of course, puts their own spin on the story.  What is the truth?...Hmmmm.

Paul Newman, in what might appear as a bit of apparent miscasting, does a superb job as the Mexican bandit---to the unattentive eye, he is unrecognizable as Paul Newman for the first few minutes of the film.  William Shatner plays a preacher and once again appears to "overact" in a role that should have been played more subtly.  Edward G. Robinson plays his role with gusto and is always interesting to watch.  Laurence Harvey has a part that required the least amount of acting in any of his films---mucn of the time he is tied to a tree!

Inglorious Bastards was mostly fun...it's a story (not true) about an elite corps of Jewish undercover soldiers who go behind enemy to kill German soldiers in their own special way (they show no mercy, they kill them, and then they scalp them).  It's all sort of done in a fun way so we can revel at the Jewish soldiers getting their revenge on the Nazis.  My only grip with the film (and it's a big one) was that so much of the film had subtitles.  I would say about 60-70% of the film was subtitled.  I know, I know, the elite love subtitles...it's so much better that way they say.  I disagree!  I was so busy reading subtitles during the many, many dialogue scenes, that I completely missed much of the acting and the re-acting of the players.  I had no idea which words were being emphasized during the on-screen discussions.  A key scene where a American spy who was posing as a German official was spoiled by reading the subtitles---to realize how he was exposed made more sense by watching the scene than by reading the scene.

I miss TV Guide...the old one that is.  I was cleaning out a drawer today and I came across a few copies of the old TV Guide with it was designed to be held in one hand.  It was wonderful.  All the listings for the whole week for all hours.  One could peruse what was going to be on for the day or jump ahead a few days to see what was going to be on during a day-off.   There were little summaries of the program content  (Ben Hur:  A Roman slave competes in a chariot race).  The articles preceding the program listings discussed important issues about TV.  So compact and yet so helpful.

We did subscribe to the new version (unfortunately we got like a three year subscription---we didn't realize how bad it was going to get), however, we will say goodbye to that come this September.  The listings are pitiful and completely unhelpful (no daytime listings and no local listings).  Many of the articles are not even about TV (they discuss movies and music).  They have no serious reviewers of TV shows. 

By the way...those old TV guides are not going to be thrown out---I will keep them as old friends.

After seeing it today, I am amazed that I have never had the pleasure of seeing You Can't Take It With You.  Winner of the Academy Award for Best Picture of 1938, the film is a perfect feel good film, with lots of important life messages.  Directed by Frank Capra, it is all the equal to his other film of American It's a Wonderful Life.  It's the story of a happy (although not rich) family, headed by Lionel Barrymore, who are free-spirits in life.  One of them falls in love with the son of a rich industrialist.  They plan to marry, but the families must meet and come to terms.  Of course, they life styles clash and eventually Lionel Barrymore makes the rich and selfish industrialist see the error of his ways.  Wonderful!

To me, Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian was far better than the first one (which is on my truly abysmal picture list).  The sequel, although not one of those laugh out loud films, provided me with lots of smiles and a few good chuckles.  The story was a little confusing (like that even mattered in this special effects laden film) and it was hard to follow why certain things were happening the way they were.   Written by the two guys who write the TV show Reno:911, the film reflected much of that shows irreverent humor.  And I was quite amazed that the film left out bathroom jokes that seem so mandatory in kid's films today.

Hallelujah!! Today was a successful day at the movies!  We saw two and both were terrific.

Up is the most enjoyable movie I have seen in years.  It's a funny, thoughtful, sweet movie with lots of good messages thrown in.  Very few films are imaginative as this one.  If a film could be considered "perfect" this would be it.  This is the movie that should win the Oscar as best film...but of course, by nomination time the Academy will have forgotten all about it.

Drag Me to Hell is a campy scary film.  I did jump in my seat a few times. The story is about a young girl who has a gypsy curse put upon her.  The rest of the movie is all about how the curse affects her and her plan to get rid of the curse.  Certainly not a great movie but nevertheless the 90 minutes ride is fun

Double feature today...and quite opposites in film genre.

The first film we watched was 1935's Crime and Punishment starring Peter Lorre.  Based on the famous Russian novel, the movie is a very philosophical story about a promising young writing student (his expertise is in crime) who commits a murder.  At first he's OK with it...he feels he has gotten rid of one of society's problems and at the same time helping some good people out.  However, it soon weighs heavy on him as the local police detective hunts him down.  I don't know how accurate it was to the famous book, but the film was enjoyable as it was.

The second feature we watched was Doris Day's 1966 film The Girl in the Glass Bottom Boat.  The film was rather silly but still fun to watch.  The movie is about mistaken identity at a NASA space center.  Apparently they think Doris Day, although she is just an assistant to an executive, is really a spy.  The title (the girl in the glass bottom boat) was arrived from a really short intro to the movie (she plays a mermaid on Catalina Island) that has absolutely nothing else to do with the movie.  It's always interesting to see these comedies from the fifties or sixties where women in the workplace were eyed as toys for the top executives.  And it's also nice to see how great men and women used to dress  Men always wore ties and women always wore dresses.  The main crime this movie committed was that it was 1 hour and 50 minutes long.  Doris Day films should never be longer that 90 minutes.

Ugh!  Star Trek has already become the biggest disappointing summer film for me.  The casting was terrible.  Captain Kirk was never annoying as an adult.  Why did they have him as a cocky, know-it-all, obnoxious young man.   It was as if adult Kirk and young Kirk were two different people.  Young Kirk did not have any of the mannerisms of the man he grew up into.  And what was up with young Mr. Spock...he looked so silly in that make-up---totally unbelievable.  And why did the producers decide to have Leonard Nemoy in this movie---he brought the whole thing down with his horrible stilted acting and his mumbling of his lines. And then there was the story!  I was confused with most of the story anyway, and then they introduce the aspect of time-travel.  Time travel is confusing as it is and they really treated that whole concept too casually.  When this movie ended I decided that I really didn't like it very much.  But, now, as I think about it more and more, I discovered that I really HATED it.  Star Trek has a great legacy and this movie, in it's attempt to create the story of the beginning of Kirk and Spock, has ruined much of the mystique for me.  This is not what I wanted the story of the beginning of Star Trek to be.

The Little Fugitive is a classic little gem of a movie.  Made for $30,000 in 1953 as an independent film, the movie stars non-professional players in a story about a little boy who mistakenly thinks he killed his brother and runs away to spend the day at Coney Island.  Usually, I hate independent films (I find them a little pretentious) however, this film worked for me.  What carries the film is the innocent acting that takes place and the excellent casting of characters.  Even thought the film has a documentary feel to it, it still comes across as a narrative story.  This certainly is not your typical movie!

Earlier in the day we went to see Ghosts of Girlfriends Past.   I went into this movie having very low expectations.  I was hoping that having low expectations and not expecting anything hilarious would make me like something about it.  I was wrong.  The movie was rather unfunny even though everyone tried really hard.  The main problem with the movie was that there was too much talking.  Everyone talked, talked, talked.  There was never really anything going on visually that was interesting.  There were only two scenes where the film became animated (a wedding cake scene and a race through the forest).   The glossy production values of this film, saved it from going on my Truly Abysmal Pictures list!

I was kind of excited to see Wolverine.  The movie started out quite exciting and had stunning visuals.  However, about a 45 minutes into the film, I realized that there wasn't much of a story.  The whole entire movie is about Wolverine on the run.  There is really nothing else to the story.  Thus, the movie got to be a little boring since the explosions, deaths, and chase scenes got a little repetitious after a while.  I can see why some would like this movie due to the visuals.  However, I wanted something more.

Since it was "Saturday and Let's Watch an Old Movie Day." we chose I Was a Male War Bride starring Cary Grant.  Directed by the very talented Howard Hawks, I was expecting a lot.  Cary Grant can be quite funny...however, this time he was burdened with an unfunny script.  Although the movie was amusing, it was never out-right funny.  And, it was a little bit too long.  It's a story about a love-hate romance between Grant and Ann Sheridan (who reminded me so much of Lucille Ball in this film) that culminates in them getting married and going through the red tape of coming back to America.  In a little bit of odd casting, Grant plays a French Officer (and he didn't even attempt a French accent in this film!)

The Prince and the Pauper is a 1937 film based on Mark Twain's classic novel of two boys (one is about to become the King of England and the other is a poor street urchin) who look alike.  They decide to change places one day to see what each other's life is like.  However, no one in authority realizes they did this, and no matter how they tell them they have switched no one believes them (until the end, of course!)  Errol Flynn has a supporting role in the movie.   The film was OK...it sort of moves along at a leisurely pace.  Apparently, one of the big selling points back when this film was released was the very detailed reenactment of the coronation of an English King that takes place near the end of the film. 

There were two episodes of The Office on tonight.   The first one was mildly funny.  What was really funny was how the office people started to kiss-up to the boss on how they loved soccer after they found out he was an ex-soccer player.  They all acted like they really liked soccer (does anyone in the U.S. really like soccer?). Gee, I wonder if that could happen in real life when the staff discovers the top guy likes soccer?

The second episode began to annoy me.  Enough with the jokes about how small the new office is.  And wonderful Pam would never really join MIchael in his new endeavor like that...she was always one of the more smart ones at his office.  I am almost afraid to say that the show has "jumped the shark."  The show is basically suffering from the syndrome that always happens when the head creator/writer starts another project.  He's distracted and does not pay enough attention to his main show.  He lets new people oversee it.

The show that's distracting him is Parks and Recreation---a very non-funny show starring Amy Pohler.  It's done in the style of The Office and most of the time it just seemed like a poor clone of The Office.  We turned it off after 15 minutes.

Film Noir is back at the Egyptian Theater.  Tonight we saw two extremely rare films.  The first one was 1947's Roses are Red.  A short (67 minute) murder story about a crook and a D.A. who look exactly alike.  A scheme is thought-up by the bad guys where they are going to knock off the D.A. and replace him with the crook.  The movie (helped by its short length) was quite entertaining.

The second film, 1946's Smooth as Silk, concerns a bitch and conniving woman who cozy ups to three different men at the same time in order to get ahead in her acting career.  Each man doesn't know what she's up to (she's good!).  Nevertheless, a murder eventually takes place and one of the men has a plan to reign her in.  Once again, as in the previous film, the movie's short length (64 minutes) kept the interest up until the end.  (this is one of those wonderful movies which when the story's climax is reached, it ends within 10 seconds---no epilogue!)

On the Riviera (1951) is a frothy bedroom type farce starring Danny Kaye.  He plays an impersonator in a Parisian nightclub.  Fortunately, or unfortunately, he looks a lot like a famous and rich playboy aviator.  Well, he winds up having to pose as the aviator and the expected complications arise between various wives and girlfriends.  The movie is very light entertainment.  It's enjoyable to see the 1950's perception of Paris and beautiful women.  One thing I noted...beautiful women in pictures like this one, were, even though they were in the young twenties, were mature.  They didn't look like the beautiful women that they cast in movies today---where they are look child-like and immature.  Danny Kaye was one of the best entertainers that ever graced the screen.  He could dance, sing, be funny, and be totally loveable.  The movie is the perfect legnth---90 minutes---not one minute too long or one minute too short.  It's too bad that this film wasn't filmed in Cinemascope---it was the perfect picture for the wide screen of the 1950's.

The Sign of the Cross is a 1932 Cecil B. DeMille epic about Nero and the persecution of Christians in ancient Rome.  The picture is a little dated with the acting, dialogue, and costumes, however, if one accepts that this was a legitimate and well-received movie in the 1930's then one can really enjoy it and get involved with the political intrigue and debauchery that takes place on the screen.  Charles Laughten is absolutely great as Nero---he looked as if he really had fun with the part.  The movie was made before the Hays Office was instituted...thus, the movie was rather sexy and violent for its time.  There is a orgy scene (mild by today's standards but it must have been quite shocking back then).  Similarly, the violence was quite graphic for the 1930's---Christians being eaten by lions and crocodiles and slaughtered for the entertainment of Rome.  There is one scene of a child holding her mother, dead in her arms, with an arrow through the mother's neck---that would disturb any child seeing that!

Since this movie is about the rounding up of "undesirable" Christians by Rome and the government approved slaughter of them, I wonder if this was filmed by Cecil B. DeMille in 1932 in response to what he saw what was going on in Europe with Hitler and the Jews.   In that respect and angle, this was quite a powerful movie for 1932. 

Ahhhhh.....three hours of Lost!  The first hour was sort of a recap of the series, with two producers explaining a little too much.  I don't know why they choose these two guys, they really weren't that good.  They tried to make little jokes between them which weren't too funny and didn't really seem very professional. 

The two hour premiere was top-notch.  Much was revealed about what is going on with that craaaaaazy island.  I always suspected time-travel had to do with something and I was right!  The island travels thru time---that's too wild!  There still are a lot of other unanswered questions to be examined---the four-toed monument, why people get healed on the island, and of course, the black smoke!  A remarkable show!