Photos of TV.

Better than real TV.

More awesomeness at http://www.mikesacks.com/wp/photos-of-tv/

There's a "thanks" tag!

Check out www.banknotes365.com , a fascinating compilation of the notes that bank robbers pass to cashiers. Today I learned that bank robbers are often jarringly polite.

Put the money in the bag, now.
Thanks.

male, 25, Five Star Bank, Pavilion NY, 11:30a

TV Review: Stargate: Universe

Stargate: Universe

The Stargate franchise has always been a guilty pleasure of mine. There has always been something about the show... sci-fi which doesn’t take it self too seriously, perhaps? It’s creators, Brad Write and Robert C. Cooper, were able to take sci-fi and fantasy mythology, combine it with a Jess-Wedon-like self-effacing sarcastic whit, add in some healthy doses of not to shabby action, and package it all into a single quick moving serial sci-fi series. No matter how you felt about the show, the original Stargate series, Stargate SG-1, despite many “series finales” in it’s final years, managed to continue on for 10 full years, an impressive feat.

Despite how long the series ran, there were issues with the show. Issues which only got worse with age. Richard Dean Anderson decided to leave the show in its 8th season, and while his replacement was Ben Browder (of Farscape fame), the show just wasn’t the same without Andersons cranky attitude and unwillingness to listen to authority. The spinoff, Atlantis despite having a fresh universe to explore, new characters and some very strong actors, also failed to capture a massive audience and struggled through most of it’s 5 seasons. Add to this, that Battlestar Galactica had brought serious Sci-fi to the front of popular culture and Stargate’s demise was all easy to predict. In the end, Stargate just seemed to light and campy in comparison. What at one point made the show enduring, now suddenly aged it. And so one day in the middle of March 2007, Stargate SG-1 went the way of Startrek: reruns. Less then 2 years later, it’s spin-off, despite frequent appearances from cast-members from the original show (and a certain doctor, from a certain Startrek becoming a regular) Atlantis also came to an abrupt end.

But this wasn’t the end for Stargate. Two direct to DVD movies were used to finish off the storylines of SG-1 that were left open by the shows sudden cancellation. (There are rumours of more in the mix, but those have apparently been postponed). And believe it or not, the movies weren’t that bad, but in comparison to BSG, they just didn’t have the same grit and realism and in the end they didn’t have the ability to the draw audience in.

But this still wasn’t the end because Write and Cooper weren’t done with the Stargate universe yet. They had the idea of a new series in which a group of individuals would be trapped millions of light years away from earth on a ship. The show would follow this group as they struggled to survive and find a way home (sound familiar?). Originally pitched prior to the writer’s strike, the show finally went into production earlier this year and just reached air in early October. Now, here’s the real surprise….it’s really good!

Sure, the plot isn’t exactly original but everything else about this show feels fresh and new. Ok, maybe fresh and new are not the write words…because quiet frankly everything about this show feels like a combination of Stargate and Battlestar Galatica. Despite that, it works. Write and Cooper have obviously learned from BSG. Stargate: Universe is darker, meaner, and generally more human. Characters, rather then tech, drive the stories forward and aliens have only made minor appearances so far. The show is, at least for the moment, not episodic, but instead many of the major story arcs take place over several episodes. While the plot doesn’t have the complexity of BSG, SGU has found a nice medium between serial and episodic storytelling. Here’s hoping they keep it that away.

Another BSG influence is the inclusion of a more realistic vision of space travel. Earlier Stargates relied on a Startrek style of space: big ships moving slow, small ships moving only slightly faster. There were almost never any scenes of real movement or energy in any of the Startrek or Stargate series'. BSG, on the other hand, used the model of realistic Newtonian physics for movements in space. Suddenly ships appeared to react to actual physics and no longer moved on a single plane through space. SGU, in an attempt to not forget where it has come from has taken it’s old model of space and added some BSG elements into it. Suddenly ships are moving faster and in three dimensions. As well, large ships are finally being given a context on screen that makes them look as large as they are suppose to be. Add to all of this that they are doing some very nice CG work and space in a Stargate has never looked so good.

Also making the transition from BSG to SGU is the documentary style camera. BSG’s camera work has always been hard to explain, but it basically felt as if a documentary camera crew was embedded within the BSG world and was filming events as they occurred. The camera was almost always handheld which meant shakes, missed focuses and plenty of mid shot zooms. The camera reacted to whatever was occurring on screen (such as shaking with explosions) and had a very organic feel to it. It was kind of like watching one of the Borne Trilogy movies… however I always felt that BSG had a less intrusive and less nauseating feel. SGU has taken BSG's camera work, missed focuses and intimate closeups and all, and made it their own. Visually speaking, SGU doesn’t have the same rugged feeling as BSG, and sometimes some of the camera movements feel a bit too deliberate, but in the end, it works with the show and that’s what matters.

Perhaps, what will give this show it’s best chance at survival - since the Space Network seems to be doing everything it can to kill it by airing it on Friday nights - is the acting. SGU has an impressive list of B+ TV and character actors. Robert Carlyle (best known from The Full Monty) leads the cast that includes Lou Diamond Phillips (I’m a celebrity….get me out of here!...ok…he’s done lots of other stuff as well), Justin Louis, Ming-Na (Two and a Half Men), and Jamil Walker Smith, to name but a few. Sure most of them are not household - or even industry - names, but they are all surprisingly good. Even David Blue, who plays the role of the comic-relief/math guy who wasn’t supposed to be there, works well (although I think the show should have darkened his character up a bit more).

All in all, the new series is worth watching. It feels like a mash up of Stargate SG-1 and Startrek: Voyager but grown up a bit. Sure it’s not perfect, but nothing is. Give it a few episodes and see if you can turn it off…I can’t. While it doesn’t fill the hole that was left in my heart at the end of Battlestar Galatica, it’s a step in the right direction. And I’ll take what ever I can get with this really weak season of TV.

Movie Review: Paranormal Activity (2007)

Paranormal Activity (2007)

Determining whether a film will be decent or not is always a tricky deal, but in 2009 it’s really been anyone’s game (a game involving throwing darts blindfolded and people bobbing for apples in a pool). Many of the films that we all had such high hopes for have been disappointments (9 (2009), Zombieland (2009), etc.), while movies we thought would be absolute crap turned out to be not too shabby (Law Abiding Citizen (2009), Surrogates (2009), etc.); hell, Uwe Boll is getting the best reviews of his career with Rampage (2009)! However, if there is anything systematic to come out of this chaos, it’s the triumph of the newbie’s, mavericks, left-fielders, and/or revisionists, and their philosophy of less-is-more, which is responsible for making not only the best movies of 2009, but of the decade (possibly more). Whether it’s the Duncan Jones freshman effort Moon (2009), or veteran Kathryn Bigelow’s reemerging The Hurt Locker (2008), better movies were made for less, generating greater profit margins for those who truly deserved and needed them. Prior to the fall season, the greatest success belonged to the excellent District 9 (2009), a $30 million film that certainly made its money back during the theatrical release (and then some)! But now, in the Halloween season, the bar has been lowered/raised again, in the form of Paranormal Activity (2007).

For a film that cost $15,000 to make and is well on its way to reaching the $90 million mark at the time of this writing, you could say that the profit margin is looking pretty good for the filmmakers (we’re talking 70s porn numbers here)! But then again, it took years for the film to see the dark of night. The viral marketing campaign certainly paid off, and the gradual daisy chain of important people that finally passed the film up to Czar Spielberg is not without merit; however, without the internet, Paranormal Activity would still probably be just a small film that was a consuming investment for first time filmmaker Oren Peli (formerly of the gaming world). Despite all of this, what the bottom line comes down to is that all the hype/buzz/tingling is justified, because Paranormal Activity is actually an excellent horror movie, one that will actually scare you.

For the few unaware, Paranormal Activity presents the final days of young couple Katie (Katie Featherston) and Micah (Micah Sloat) in the form of archival footage shot by Micah himself. The ending was a given anyway, but the real fun is how they get there. Essentially, Katie has been periodically experiencing a strange presence since she was eight. Now in her late 20s, and three years into a relationship with Micah, the presence has returned, and it certainly feels evil. In an attempt to both help his girlfriend and radiate his machismo, Micah buys a camera and starts to film everything at night by placing it at the foot of their bed. From there on in, things get weird, and continue to do so until the inevitable happens. In essence, the thin plot dissolves into watching the couple spiral out of control and into madness, where a demonic force is no doubt waiting. In the end, a lot of things go bump in the night.

Filmed with one camera on one set with unknown actors, the film puts more faith in the power of suggestion then most films would dare, but it’s a gamble and gambit that truly works, for the benefit of everyone. The grainy images from the camera reinforce the current obsession within digital culture of broadcasting oneself. It’s like The Blair Witch Project (1999) for the decade of YouTube and MySpace. It’s not to say that the camera is sentient, but more like a confessional (a la reality TV, no surprises there), where we’re just talking to ourselves, but we need a lens to listen. Of course, you don’t have to go far to find the social commentary, but that’s what makes it even more terrifying; everything feels real, and so the fear is real. But as an extra punch, just to raise the fear a bit more, the filmmakers employ a small but incredibly convincing array of special effects that will make you wonder not just how the hell they did that on such a budget, but how the hell they did that period.

In the end, Paranormal Activity makes for a film that truly gets under your skin. All the reflections and reflexes aside, the film reduces everything about a horror movie down to its primal fear, and then it throws it at the camera, literally. All that’s left is dread, even when the lights come up.

4/5

McS

Album Review: Cracker - Kerosene Hat (1993)

Cracker - Kerosene Hat (1993)

Cracker certainly had a couple of hits on their hands (“Teen Angst (What the World Needs Now)” and “Happy Birthday to Me”) from their excellent 1992 eponymous debut, but a mere year later they had an absolute smash in “Low.” While the song displayed more of an alt-rock sensibility, its delivery held fast to the band’s original attitude, not to mention the essence of weed and alcohol. In taking all of the folk-rock bravado, blues-rock swagger, and humorously ironic lyricism from Cracker and giving it a bit more polish, a little less twang, and a good extra dose of electric crunch, the band forged their definitive album with Kerosene Hat (1993).

The opening onslaught of “Low,” “Movie Star,” and “Get Off This” is undeniably the strongest of any Cracker album before or since; all three are instant classics, setting the tone for and incredibly strong album. Even when the slower songs arrive, such as the fantastically absurd title track or the refreshingly honest “I Want Everything,” the good times are still to be had. The most amazing thing about Kerosene Hat is its ability to just be a fun record throughout, even more so than their debut. This is archetypal Cracker, as virtually every album since has ascribed to this formula. The rockers, cruisers, ballads, and shuffles are all firmly established here in their finest form, often duplicated but unfortunately never replicated on the band’s subsequent efforts. David Lowery’s lyrics are at their abstruse best, always dry, but loving every minute; John Hickman’s guitar has the perfect presence (in addition, his offering “Lonesome Johnny Blues” is one of the albums most hilarious track, not to mention it being the self-referential offering); David Faragher’s bass is at its beefiest, with his writing contributions providing additional meat (see the romping genius of “Sweet Potato”). But the real killer here, however, is the plodding “Euro Trash Girl,” one of the several hidden tracks at the end of the album and the Cracker song to end all Cracker songs (their definitive song on their definitive album).

All in all, it’s difficult to really say more about Kerosene Hat besides it being fantastic. If there was ever a one stop shop for Cracker, I would say pick this up and leave the various best of compilations on the shelf. That’s not to say that Cracker didn’t produce anything good after, far from it, this is just probably the best place to start for the uninitiated. Kerosene Hat is not only a well made record, it’s also perfectly timed, arriving through a window in the alt-rock scene that was ideal for an album of its kind, before pop and post-grunge threatened the musical landscape of folk-rock. While this is certainly a contributing factor to the subsequent decline of Cracker, their 1996 follow-up The Golden Age just wasn’t that good. Kerosene Hat would also be Faragher’s final outing with the band, making sort of the end of Cracker’s golden age (now isn’t that ironic)! In the end, Kerosene Hat is Cracker at its best, right before the bottom fell out!

4/5

McS

Movie Review: Zombieland (2009)

Zombieland (2009)

A few years ago, the comedy-horror genre was given a champion with Edgar Wright's Shaun of the Dead (2004). Both touching and hilariously hyperbolic, the film is a cinematic force to be reckoned with, remaining unsurpassed in 2009, despite the much touted challenger Zombieland. Even on its own, Zombieland is a bit of a disappointment relative to its own buzz, a condition that seems to be making waves in 2009.

Despite the movie’s ultimate flaccidity, Zombieland gets off to the right start, with director Ruben Fleischer weaving together alternating vignettes of the primary “narrative” involving the protagonist Columbus (played by a dependable Jesse Eisenberg, a.k.a. Ellen Page’s male doppelganger), his/the world’s back-story, and the learned lessons on survival in “Zombieland”. And there in lies the early genius of Zombieland: the meta nature of the film’s zombie concept, grounded in more than a half-century of zombie knowledge from its critical discussion and representation in film. As terrifying as a zombie outbreak would be, the lessons we’ve learned from the frustration of watching the dumbass victims in past films are on full display, with Columbus deconstructing these mistakes and isolating their stupidity. What’s left is basically a dramatization of the recent works of Max Brooks; the real plot doesn’t even matter (and that’s really just people surviving while travelling to their respective destinations, hence the characters’ names being cities). All of this is incredibly enjoyable (and strangely logical), especially when Columbus meets up with Tallahassee (a fantastically zany Woody Harrelson). Together, they make sport out of killing the undead, and I can’t imagine a better way of spending my time. But alas, it can’t last. Eventually Columbus and Tallahassee meet up with the curiously scheming sisters Wichita (Emma Stone) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin), where carnal emotions then come into the mix. Columbus is naturally smitten with Wichita, providing an amusing but unnecessary sub plot. From this point on, the film’s zombie killing and clever inward eye take a backseat; instead, there is a segment involving Bill Murray that arguably does more harm than good, as the film’s prior momentum is essentially “double-tapped.” The film never really recovers from this, and the initial survival logic is basically disregarded, resulting in a conclusion that makes no sense whatsoever and is only mildly entertaining.

In the end, Zombieland follows the recently familiar path of having a neat concept yet ultimately being unable to fully live up to its hype; it just needs more! And despite an excellent first half, the film’s third quarter derailment is permanent. All in all, however, Zombieland is not a bad film, it’s just not what it should have been; I mean, you know there’s a bit of a problem when you leave a movie called Zombieland wanting more zombies… right?

3/5

McS