TV Review: Journeyman

Topping off the hero sandwich that makes up just about the most perfect night of television is Journeyman on NBC, Mondays at 10:00 (PST).  At first, one might think that this is a re-imagining of the NBC show from years back, Quantum Leap. I’ll admit, it has it’s similarities, but the major and most important difference is that our hero Dan Vassar, played by Kevin McKidd, is attempting to have a normal life with a wife and kid as he uncontrollably jumps away on time-traveling trips.

It’s the uncontrollable nature of his traveling that makes for some of the most interesting drama on the show. In the first episode he was able to provide some proof to his wife Katie, played by Gretchen Egolf, that his time-traveling tales are true, but that still doesn’t make it easy when he jumps away on one of his trips in the middle of an airplane ride, or on the way to one of his wife’s black tie functions.

The more Dan travels back into the past, the more determined he’s becoming to try to help people. As we saw in last night’s episode, “Emily,” he was feeling committed to helping the title character, but he also felt a need to see some justice done to one of her tormenters. As he did so, his ex-fiancee/co-time-traveler, Livia, played by Moon Bloodgood, warns him not to stray too far off track, because sometimes that can lead to disaster.

(SPOILER) Dan feels vindicated when he learns that his actions had brought justice to the man who had abused, but then he quickly realizes that by making sure the bad guy got caught, he had changed the timeline and in doing so took away an event that was helping his disbelieving brother believe Dan’s time-traveling stories.

From the previews of next week’s episode, “Blowback,” we also see that the man that Dan was instrumental in locking up in prison is out and has tracked down Dan and his family. It looks to be an exciting installment in this show that keeps getting better every week.

My only complaint about Journeyman is the fact that it was relatively easy for him to prove to his wife that his time-traveling problem was real, but he rarely, if ever makes any attempt to prove what he’s saying is true to his brother, Jack, played by Reed Diamond. While it makes for an interesting plot device to have this conflict between the two brothers, sometimes it seems a bit too obvious that if he just made a little effort, he could have his brother on his side, which would provide a valuable asset.

All in all, in this age of excellent television, Journeyman ranks up there with the best of the new shows this season and is definitely worth checking out!

Movie Review: Spider-man 3

"This suit, where'd this come from? The power, feels good... But you lose yourself to it... "

When I was in high school, Spider-man was the comic series that I read the most. I loved how Peter Parker was just this awkward young guy who just happened to have this super secret identity—in a sense it gave me hope to face my own awkwardness. When the movie franchise started a few years ago I was thrilled with the result. The director of all of the Spider-man films, Sam Raimi, has been able to give the movies the right balance of humor and stylized film making that has made it possible for a guy clad in blue and red tights not to look ridiculous.


Now that we're on the third installment, the series is becoming quite comfortable with it's characters and storytelling. As I was watching, it struck me how much like a continuing series on television this franchise was becoming, and in light of shows like Lost and Heroes, I think a TV show about an established super hero would do very well. So it was with that thought it mind that I started evaluating Spider-man 3.

As part of a continuing series, I thought this "episode" fit in very well. We're continuing the personal relation ship drama that Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) is having with Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst) and Harry Osborn (James Franco). We're seeing characters show up that are important in the comic books like Dr. Curt Connors (Dylan Baker) who eventually becomes The Lizard and Gwen Stacy (Bryce Dallas Howard) who fills her comic book role of being a love interest in a romantic triangle with Peter and Mary Jane.


There were problems, however, when I began thinking of this movie as a stand-alone story. My biggest problem with it was a storyline involving Harry Osborn following in his dad's footsteps as The New Goblin. I'll try not to give away too much, but let me just say there's a short-lived change of heart that does nothing more than take up time in the story because by the time the climax to the movie happens, they had ended up at the same stage the began at.


The other problem that I had with this installment is the fact that there were 3 villains in this movie. I thought we'd learned years ago in Batman Returns that when you try to cram too many villains into a 2 hour movie, someone besides the hero gets the shaft—the audience. As a childhood fan of the Spider-man series, I was really excited to see the Venom villain realized on film and I felt a bit disappointed at how lightly that character was handled.

Will all of this being said, I don't want anyone to think that I didn't like this movie—there are many things to love about this film! It has a great message. In addition to the standard themes of "with great power comes great responsibility" and putting the needs and safety of others above your own personal satisfaction, there's an additional message to this movie that we all of the potential for good or evil in our lives, and it's up to us to choose.

All in all, I would recommend this movie. It might not be the best of the series, but it definitely fits in well will the overall story of the trilogy and I for one hope that this is a series that's nowhere near finished running its course.

Movie Review: Children of Men

The year is 2027, and the world has gone to dystopian heck.

Eastern Europe, North American and African societies have collapsed, with the refugees pouring into England. Humankind is on the brink of extinction, as no child has been born for the last 18 years.

This is the setting for Alfonso Cuarón's Children of Men. While it may not sound like a good time at the cinema, it is one of the most startling and interesting movies I've seen all year.

Like his previous films such as A Little Princess and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Cuarón is a director with a distinct and imaginative vision. He's certainly one of my favorite directors, and I'd encourage you to watch all of his films.

In Children, he throws aside his playful sense of fantasy and replaces it with grim, gritty reality. It's a bit like George Orwel's 1984 meets Blade Runner with a helping of Shindler's List. Humanity is (sadly) cheap in 2027.

Clive Owen stars as Theo Faron, an ex-political activist turned bureaucrat who seems to be swimming through the cluttered wasteland of London with little to live for. He joins up with his still activist ex-wife, played by Julienne Moore, in an attempt to help save the world's last hope: a baby.



Owen is an unlikely hero, more flawed and human than any big-name action star. Here Owen stumbles through rubble, swigs alcohol, ducks stray bullets, and eventually finds some hope in life from helping someone else. He's filthy, unshaven, and a bit worn out... and yet he's also noble.

What I liked most about the film is that though it is very dark, you find yourself rooting for Theo to not only survive the journey, but also find some reason to live. He's a realistic and believable protagonist, one whom you wish you could hand a cup of hot coffee or some dry shoes.


The story moves about deftly, with hand-held cameras and some very long, natural shots. Cuarón does an amazing job with making the film feel natural, as if you're truly there. I often found myself cringing, ducking bullets, and really worrying about the characters on screen. I was on the edge of my seat for the entire span of the dvd.


The troubling thing about Children of Men is that this bleak future seems all too possible. It was almost like watching a real-world documentary from 2027. The loss of some personal liberties and security we've seen recently in America is echoed in Children... and it makes one wonder how far they might go.

I'd recommend for people not afraid of a hopeful story set in a very believable dark future.

Rated R

Daniel m. Davis
www.steamcrow.com

Movie Review: Surf's Up

They do it for the joy and the rapture and the slow-motion instant replay...

I remember 12 years ago when I was sitting in the theater watching Disney/Pixar’s Toy Story for the first time. The big selling point of the film was that it was the first all-CGI animated feature. Fortunately it also ushered in the fantastic era of Pixar story telling that always exceeded their technological feats.

So now fast forward to 2007 where hand drawn animation has been relegated to daytime animated cartoons and direct to DVD releases and CGI animation has become so commonplace that the story has to be interesting or entertaining enough to draw in audiences, and not just the fact that the images we’re seeing were completely hatched in a computer.

With all of this in mind, it’s so nice to see that a movie like Surf’s Up can provide computer generated visuals that instill a sense of awe, while telling a story that’s unique, touching and entertaining.

Surf’s Up is about a penguin named Cody Maverick, voiced by Shia LaBeouf (Transformers, Disturbia) who doesn’t fit in with his family in Antarctica because of his love of surfing. He soon gets his big break as a sports recruiter comes and signs him up to compete in the Penguin World Surfing Championship.

Story-wise, this film has a lot in common with the beach movies of the 1960s. There’s the mysterious surf hero named Big Z, voiced by Jeff Bridges (Tron, Seabiscuit); the goofy side-kick dude, voiced by the stereotyped Jon Heder (Napoleon Dynamite, Just Like Heaven); and the beach girl love interest, voiced by Zooey Deschanel (Elf, Bridge to Terabithia)—all of which kept reminding me of the Gidget movies, where the wise and seasoned surfer had to straighten out the naive newcomer.

What makes Surf’s Up so unique is that it’s filmed in a documentary style that mimics many of the reality TV shows that are on the air right now.  This is quite a daring thing to do because of how popular reality TV is—it would be easy in an animated feature to make it look too planned out to work in that format. Fortunately, the animators do an excellent job and combined with the natural voice acting, make you feel like you’re watching something that was captured live on camera instead of being painstakingly posed frame-by-frame.

So, how did this movie affect me? Well, let's just say that when I watched Cars, it didn’t make me want to drive race cars; when I watched The Incredibles, I didn’t want to go out and become a superhero (well, at least no more than usual); but by the time Surf’s Up was over, I was actually getting excited about the prospect of going out and learning how to surf! The CGI animation was so expertly done that I was actually feeling like I was getting a taste of what the sport is actually like. Over the last few years I’ve been lamenting the fact that the movie industry has all but abandoned traditional, hand-drawn animation, but here is a movie that would definitely not have been as effective if it was done any other way.

I think that Surf’s Up was hurt by all of the recent penguin movies. I for one sighed a bit when I saw the first advertisement for it, but take my advice—forget all you know about March of the Penguins or Happy Feet, put on Surf’s Up and get ready for a fun ride!

Movie Review: Elizabeth: The Golden Age

I, too, can command the wind, sir! I have a hurricane in me that will strip Spain bare if you dare to try me!

I went into watching Elizabeth: The Golden Age without having seen the first Elizabeth movie from 1998, so I was a little concerned about how lost I could be if this movie was a strict continuation of the first. If anyone else shares my concern, let me reassure you that not only is this a chapter out of the life of Queen Elizabeth I that stands on it’s own very well, but it’s also very accessible to those who aren’t into Old English history.


This chapter out of the life of “The Virgin Queen” portrays Queen Elizabeth I, played once again by Cate Blanchett (The Lord of the Rings, The Good German), as she is in jeopardy of having her kingdom overthrown by a crazed king of Spain who believes that this Protestant Queen is corrupting her people by straying from the Catholic faith. He employs spies and traitors to put into place a plan aimed at dethroning Elizabeth and placing England under Spanish rule.

I have to admit that this movie started at a pace that made me feel like it was building to something big. Everything that was said and done came across with an air of importance. And while the actual battle for England didn’t occur until the very end, there was plenty of treachery, intrigue and genuine surprises to keep me interested.


Just a word to all of the “chick-flick” haters out there: Yes, this is a costume drama and yes people do speak with accents and different languages (with subtitles), and yes there is romance in this movie with a love triangle between Elizabeth, one of her ladies in waiting and Sir Walter Raleigh, played by Clive Owen (King Arthur, Children of Men), but these aspects never detract from the fact that the themes, mysteries and reversals portrayed here are just as interesting and poignant as when told in a modern setting.


Since I did notice as the movie was starting that there were about 20 women in the theater and only 3 men, including me, I feel that I need to emphasize a recommendation for this movie. Since I haven’t seen the first I can’t say whether or not it’s more or less of a “girly” film than the first, but it was definitely an entertaining film for me, a guy, that was well worth the price of admission.

New TV Round Up

I remember a few years back when there were only one or two shows on that I’d bother taking the time to program my VCR to record. Most everything else I could take or leave. Some of these shows, like Survivor, I’d start watching regularly out of habit more than actually seeking it out because I was a fan.

Nowadays, though, television has changed dramatically… and for the better! There are so many good returning and new shows on now that I’m seriously considering letting some fall by the wayside simply because I don’t have the time for all of them.

Returning Shows

I’ve enjoyed NBC’s The Office since it’s American premier. I think it’s grown beyond what the original creators thought it could and it doesn’t show any signs of wrapping up or wearing down. I was worried a bit about how they were going to handle the show now that the two main romantic hopefuls were finally together, but from the looks of it I think the office antics will keep the show from falling into the hole that most shows experience when the romantic tension is gone.

My Name is Earl is another show on NBC that is going strong. I really enjoy these “sit-coms” that don’t feel the need to beat you over the head with a laugh track every time the writers felt they were being funny. Instead they deliver a more subtle humor that in many cases tends to be more intelligent.

If you’ve never seen My Name is Earl, check it out. It seems to fly just below many people’s radars while it’s possibly one of the best-written comedies out there.

It seems like a few years ago, a show like NBC’s Heroes wouldn’t have had enough support from the network enough to give it a fair chance to grow an audience. I’m glad that such a well-conceptualized show is being given so much network respect. I think this is positive fallout from the success of ABC’s Lost, which is supposed to return in January or February sometime.

Heroes is definitely a show that I make a point of to see every episode even if I have to record it or buy it online. (Although I don’t think I’ll be buying it anytime soon since it’s no longer available on the iTunes Music Store.)

New Shows

The first show that made me start to feel very optimistic about the new TV season is NBC’s Chuck starring Zachary Levi (Less Than Perfect). Chuck is a well-written, frequently very funny show about a computer repair nerd who accidentally get’s thousands of the nation’s secrets implanted in his brain. Since he then becomes the only “copy” of the materials the government has he becomes enlisted by two competing spy agencies to assist them in protecting the country. This is a show that doesn’t try to take itself too seriously but is a lot of fun!

The Bionic Woman, which is also on NBC (a trend?), was developed by The SciFi Channel’s Battlestar Galactica co-executive producer David Eick, and I think the connection shows. Beyond the obvious connection of being a campy 70’s show that’s been updated for modern audiences, it also has the same dark feel of BSG, and many of the minor actors.

While normally this would be the type of show I would be excited to embrace, when placed up against all of the other great shows on the air, this is surprisingly one that I’m thinking of making a conscious effort to skip. Really, how much time can I spend watching TV every week? Especially considering the three shows that I’ve saved for last—

At first glance, NBC’s Journeyman would appear to be a re-imagining of the show Quantum Leap. While in some aspects this is true, the creators have done an excellent job of making the characters and situations seem very real and believable (within the reality of the show), so that I feel much more of a connection with the time traveling Dan Vassar, played by Kevin McKidd (Rome, Nicholas Nickleby).

Journeyman has enough of an episodic flow with self-contained storylines that it should be an easy show for viewers to pick up on without feeling too lost, but there’s also the ongoing mystery of why he’s time traveling in the first place, that should be an interesting topic to explore. This show is quickly becoming one of my favorites.

One new show that I really didn’t expect to like as much as I do is NBC’s Life. The premise of the show is that a former police officer returns to the force after having been framed and wrongfully imprisoned for years. While in prison Charlie Crews, played by Damian Lewis (Band of Brothers), gets a keen insight into the criminal mind, and also develops his own unique perspective on life. All of this combines into an investigative technique that is really fun to watch unfold.

I really think that I’ve saved the best for last with ABC’s Pushing Daisies. I must confess that the thing that initially turned me onto the show is that it was going to be narrated by one of my favorite, but rarely seen, actors Jim Dale (Pete’s Dragon, The Harry Potter Audiobooks—by the way, Jim, if you’re reading this, e-mail me. I’d love to design a Web site for you).

Watching Pushing Daisies is like watching Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. It is so well written in a storybook style and the art direction and acting is so charming that it’s a real treat! It really seems like the producers take as much time and care with all aspects of this show that they would normally take on a feature film.

Pushing Daisies is about a pie maker named Ned, subtly played by Lee Pace (Infamous, The Good Shepherd), who has the unusual ability to bring people back from the dead with a touch. He uses this talent by teaming up with a private investigator and touching crime victims and asking them how they died, and then he touches them again and they go back to their dead state. The problem is that if he keeps them alive for longer than a minute, then someone randomly in the vicinity dies instead. Also, in waking up his recently dead childhood sweetheart and keeping her alive, he in unable to touch her or else she’ll become dead again.

I watch every episode of this show with the fear that it’s going to be cancelled because I’ve seen too many good shows that seemed too unique to be embraced by the general public. (Ever heard of Firefly?). I can also imagine that this show would have very high production costs which would mean it would have to do really REALLY well for the network to keep it going.

I’m sure there’s much more out there to watch, but I’m going to try to keep it reasonable. These are the shows that I’m hoping will be embraced by the world at large and have long and fruitful lives. I know that by letting shows like The Bionic Woman go off of my schedule I run the risk of getting wrapped up in a different show that gets cancelled and then having to catch up with this also-ran (if it survives), but I guess that’s a chance I’m going to have to take.

Movie Review: Night at the Museum

Our Night at the Museum

I must admit that after seeing the previews for Night at the Museum, I was genuinely worried that this would be another one of those weak movies with a weak plot that ruins the movie by packing all of the funny parts into the preview. I am pleased to say that I was very pleasantly surprised.

This is one of those movies that takes into account that adults will be seeing the movie alongside their children. When I saw it in the theater, there were several places where you could hear adults laughing out loud. Ok, I admit it. I was one of them. But when I heard an 81-year-old Dick Van Dyke deliver the line, “No, Mr. Fredricks was my father,” I couldn’t help myself.

The premise behind the script is that because of an Egyptian curse, everything in the museum comes to life each night with the setting of the sun. When the rays of the sun once again peek over the horizon, all of the museum pieces return to their inanimate state. Now, this does present some inconsistencies at times. For example, at one point, the information desk is completely destroyed by a tyrannosaurus skeleton on a rampage, but then the desk is magically restored when the sun comes up. However, in another case, our hero Larry Daley (Ben Stiller) gets in trouble when the museum director spots fire extinguisher foam on a caveman display. However, the writing is so clever and entertaining, that you are willing to overlook these “reality” breaks.


Another thing that makes this movie work is the actors. Ben Stiller is able to keep the movie grounded while everything around him is in utter chaos. Stiller is always good at playing the straight man in the midst of ridiculous situations. If you liked him in Meet the Parents, you will like his performance in Museum. Another refreshing surprise was to see Dick Van Dyke, Mickey Rooney, and Bill Cobbs as the retiring night watchmen. These gentlemen still have their comedic gifts even in their twilight years. Owen Wilson and Robin Williams also play their parts perfectly, and if you can believe it, Robin’s character is actually quite subdued, playing the part of the wise sage, Teddy Roosevelt. If there was one performance I did not enjoy, it was Ricky Gervais (The Office, UK version) as the museum director. His performance was just too overacted to be believable.


So overall, this movie does not have a life-altering message, except perhaps to never quit and always do your best, but I must say that we were definitely entertained. From the moment my 6-year-old daughter grabbed my arm when the T-Rex came after Ben Stiller, to the car ride home where all my kids kept repeating the lines delivered by a giant Easter Island head, (“Hey dumb-dumb, give me gum-gum.”) We had fun. Kids and adults alike will enjoy this movie. That is, unless you happen to spend your free time sitting on your porch in a creaky rocking chair yelling at kids to “Get off the lawn!” By the way, the scenes with the monkey were still funny even though I had seen them hundreds of times in the previews.

Book Review: Never Eat Alone

The concept of “networking” long held for me a faintly parasitic connotation. The idea that one should view a relationship merely as a means to getting a dream job seemed like an abuse of friendship or a betrayal of trust. Moreover, I wondered if I would ever feel like I really “deserved” the job if I suspected that simply knowing the right person was a significant factor in the hiring decision. This is why I was so skeptical of networker extraordinaire Keith Ferrazzi’s claim that “I have over 5,000 people on my Palm who will answer the phone when I call. They are there to offer expertise, jobs, help, encouragement, support, and yes, even care and love.” Love?!? OK, so the first thing that comes to mind is that anyone who will tell you that he has over 5,000 contacts on his personal Rolodex is narcissistic, insecure, and was likely attention-deprived as a child. Of course, the next thing that comes to mind is: how do I be like him?

In his book Never Eat Alone, Mr. Ferrazzi makes a considered effort to persuade cynics like me that networking can be a genuine, mutually beneficial enterprise. The basic idea is nothing new: seek out the most successful people around you and ask for their help and guidance. What distinguishes Mr. Ferrazzi’s book is his insistence that you can feel good about networking because you honestly believe you will give back more than you get. To prove his point, Mr. Ferrazzi says that when an opportunity to help presents itself, he envisions himself as a switchboard, parceling out “as much information, contacts, and goodwill to as many people as possible.”

Seeing networking relationships as reciprocal partnerships and being a helpful hub of goodwill sound nice enough, but these aims take for granted an extensive and carefully maintained circle of friends (which you probably don’t have). Fortunately, Mr. Ferrazzi has provided you with a book full of suggestions to develop the skills needed to turn your personal acquaintances into a well-oiled success machine. Here are some the best:

• Be bold. Find the audacity to introduce yourself to people who don’t know you. Set a goal of introducing yourself to one new person per week. For motivation, try weighing your fear of embarrassment against your fear of failure.
  
  
• Never eat alone. Constantly seek to include others in whatever you’re doing—eating, exercising, running errands, or taking a coffee break.
  
  
• Share your passions. Friendships are created and maintained not by the quantity but the quality of time spent together. Use shared interests to engage old and new contacts by planning events that bring you together and give you a chance to solidify your relationship.
  
  
• Be a conference commando. See conferences not primarily as a place to gain insight, but an opportunity to extend your network and do business. Get inside access to events and people by volunteering to help the organizer. Better yet, be the organizer (or speaker for that matter).
  
  
• Master the “deep bump.” A favorite technique of politicians, the deep bump is a two-minute conversation in which a bond is formed by looking deeply into the other person’s eyes and heart, listening intently, and revealing a little about yourself that exposes some vulnerability.
  
  
• “Ping” contacts to maintain relationships. A ping is a quick, casual greeting that helps you stay connected to the people in your network. Ping acquaintances you want to get to know better about once a month; ping friends at least once a year (birthdays and holidays are ideal).Pinging, suggests Mr. Ferrazzi, can be an efficient way to multitask during a cab ride to the airport or time spent in the restroom.
  
  
• Seek out super-networkers. Super-networkers are persons who maintain an extraordinarily large network of friends and associates. Super-networkers are often employed as professional headhunters, lobbyists, fundraisers, politicians, journalists, and public relations specialists.
  
  
• Take advantage of the strength of weak ties. Recognize that the most important people in your network may be your acquaintances, since unlike your close friends, they generally occupy a different world with information and people you don’t have easy access to.

Sound like a lot of work? It is. Thankfully (albeit near the end of the book), Mr. Ferrazzi admits to an obsessive compulsion for networking and concedes that his is not the only path to relationship success, an acknowledgment which was a source of great consolation for me. Perhaps the dream job will come despite spending only moderate amounts of time networking; perhaps one can get by without having to ping contacts while using the restroom after all. Here’s hoping.

Movie Review: Flyboys

What is it, exactly, that makes a movie into a blockbuster? Is it the name-brand actors that populate the cast, Like Oceans 11 and 12? Is it an engaging story that captivates the audience long before the movie is made, like Titanic? Is it the millions of dollars the studio pours into pre-release marketing in hopes of a record-breaking opening, like Happy Feet? Well, it’s a shame, but for some reason Flyboys seems to have missed most, if not all of these opportunities.

Flyboys is a World War I era film centered around Blaine Rawlings, played by James Franco (Spider-Man, Tristan and Isolde), who looses his ranch in Texas to creditors and is left with nobody and nowhere to go, so he decides to go to France to become a biplane pilot before the United States had officially entered the war.

When Blaine arrives, he quickly bonds with fellow Americans who have joined up with France’s Air Force for various reasons but who all must quickly learn how to trust each other as they learn how to use the new invention called an “airplane” in a wartime setting.

Quite a few things impressed me about this movie, primarily how well it was served by the modern special effects technology of our time. The portrayal of the dogfights conveyed well how naked these pilots were up in the sky with no canopy over their head, nothing much thicker than paper around them, and no parachutes to escape with if they should go down. All of this reinforced to me how dangerous these aerial dogfights actually were.


Another great thing about this movie was how true to the period the relationships seemed. In the last few years, Hollywood has seen fit to take historical events and put fictional characters in them to tell the story, such as Titanic, U-571, and Pearl Harbor. The problem with this is that in the process they usually introduce modern sensibilities into these storylines that don’t always mesh with the historical setting. I was refreshed that the romantic plot in Flyboys was every bit as innocent and noble as I would have expected people to act in 1910.


What made this movie even more meaningful to me was that, at the end, they updated us on what happened to the characters after the story portrayed in the movie was over—even showing a picture of the actual people portrayed! I had no idea that this movie was based on a true story and people and was left scratching my head as to why a bigger deal of that wasn’t made when the movie was promoted.

Ultimately, I’m sorry that Flyboys didn’t do better at the box office, because I think everyone really missed out on, not only a great ride, but a great story about a world that was waking up to a new century with new technologies and ideas. I would definitely recommend this film.

TV Review: The Black Donnellys

When my wife and I first saw commercials for NBC’s The Black Donnellys, we immediately thought that we’d pass. We’ve never been much interested in violent gangster shows and the “family above all” theme that was being tagged to the previews didn’t get us interested. But when Heroes was over and we hadn’t changed the channel yet, we got hooked into watching the premier episode.

What caught our attention was the brief family history as told by Joey “Ice Cream” during his deposition. You see, Joey, in prison, narrates every episode. He’s either talking to his lawyer, the cops, his cell mate, anyone who’ll listen. Actually he has such a motor mouth it’s a wonder he didn’t bring down the family years ago, but that’s the charm of it—there's enough comic relief to lighten-up what would otherwise be a very dark show.

The Black Donnellys is about 4 Irish-American brothers whose family has ties to the Irish Mafia. The oldest of the boys, Tommy, has good intentions, but constantly has to clean up the messes his delinquent brothers are making, and in the process he inadvertently positions himself to be the leader of the neighborhood—ultimately destined to command the Irish mobs, in time.


As the weeks have gone by we’ve enjoyed this show more and more. Last Monday, unfortunately, it wasn’t on! After some digging around on the Internet I’ve learned to my great disappointment that NBC appears to have cancelled it. I thought for sure, that with the success of The Sopranos and The Godfather, that this show was bound to be a hit. I thought that the fact that none of my family or friends were watching it was just a reflection on my family and friends, not the country at large!

Currently NBC is continuing to show the unaired episodes of the show online at www.nbc.com. the are also available on iTunes. I know that networks track the traffic they get in such systems, so consider this my appeal to the world to visit NBC, watch at least the pilot episode and see if you don’t agree that it is a great show. Maybe we can get NBC to give The Black Donnellys another chance!

Music Review: Tim Finn – Imaginary Kingdom

This is not as much of a music review as it is an announcement. Tim Finn’s album
Imaginary Kingdom (links to iTunes)
is available now to purchase in the United States. Since I’ve been a fan of all things Finn (Tim Finn, Neil Finn, Crowded House and Split Enz) for at least 20 years, it’s hard for me to be objective about this latest release in providing a review—all I can say is that I love it.

The opening song, “Couldn’t Be Done” hearkens back to the once-banned song “Six Months in a Leaky Boat (links to iTunes)” by Tim’s original band, Split Enz, which is a nice sound to hear—almost as if it’s a rebirth for him, or a return to his roots.

There is a great variety of sound on this album. It’s easy to hear influences from the different stages of Tim Finn’s music career in the various songs. “Dead Flowers,” for example, could easily feel at home on a Tim Finn era Crowded House Album.

Fans of the movie The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe will no doubt be familiar with the song Tim Finn provided for the soundtrack, “Winter Light” which is also included on this release.

While his younger brother Neil has achieved more commercial success, Tim’s music is in no way inferior and is deserving of much more attention than he usually gets. Do yourself a favor and check it out for yourself!

Movie Review: Casino Royale

Vesper Lynd: It doesn't bother you; killing all those people?

James Bond: Well I wouldn't be very good at my job if it did.

When a friend suggested going to see the new James Bond film, Casino Royale, I was more interested in a night at the movies than the movie itself. Not being much of a James Bond fan, if I was ever inclined to watch one of the previous movies, I was content to do it on the small screen in the comfort of my living room.

I’m sure that most of my reasons for not being crazy about previous Bond movies are the same things that would make people love them—the miraculous coincidences of his gadgets, the sexual puns and innuendo, his almost super-human ability to remain cool-headed amidst impending doom—instead, these gave me the attitude that if I’d seen one, I’ve seen them all.

But much to my surprise, once the opening credits began I knew that there was something different about Casino Royale. Instead of the artful silhouettes of nudes jumping around the screen, it was a brilliantly animated sequence that set me up for the action and themes of the movie. Plus, being a graphic designer myself, the artistry behind the credits was well worth the price of admission.


Daniel Craig (Munich, The Road To Perdition) was a brilliant choice as the new Bond. Though he’s handsome, he’s not the smooth, suave and debonair Bond that Pierce Brosnan was. Instead he’s rugged and visceral, like a cross between Steve McQueen and Mel Gibson.

Casino Royale is based on the first book in Ian Fleming’s James Bond series and shows us how he became a “Double-O” agent and how he handles his first “mission.” It’s great to see the studio restart the James Bond franchise like this. The changes aren’t as drastic as the way the Batman franchise was restarted with the movie Batman Begins, but I really liked how much more realistic everything seemed to me. Bond makes mistakes. He trusts too much. He’s reckless. He also gets hurt and has to convalesce for a while. It’s also nice to be shown by the events in this movie why he is emotionally detached and distrustful in future stories.

The action in Casino Royale was top notch. There wasn’t any fancy camera work to disguise poor stunt work or fight choreography but just straight-forward shots to let us be amazed by what they were doing and to enjoy the ride.


The filmmakers also do a great job at making a movie that’s essentially about a high-stakes card game, exciting. For a poker-ignoramus like myself, they're also able to explain the game enough for me to be interested in what happens next. I suppose that you could say that this movie was made to capitalize on all of the popularity poker is having right now, and I’m sure that’s true, but the card games were intermingled with enough intrigue and action that it never became dull or boring.

If you are concerned about the effects of gambling on teenagers, you might want to have them avoid this movie, otherwise I’d recommend it for anyone teen to adult who’s up for a good ride and a refreshing start to what was becoming a tired franchise.

Movie Review: Lady in the Water

When I saw the early trailer for M. Night Shyamalan’s movie, Lady in the Water, it appeared to be about a lonely superintendent who finds a mysterious woman-like creature in the pool, like a mermaid or something. As the release of the movie approached, it turned out that she was from a strange place far away and was being chased by these wolf-like creatures and for some reason, she needed the superintendent’s help. It turns out, the actual movie is much less interesting than either of these ideas.

Lady in the Water is about an apartment’s superintendent named Cleveland Heep, played by Paul Giamatti (Tim Burton’s Planet of the Apes, Sideways), who discovers a lady in the swimming pool named Story, played by Bryce Dallas Howard (How the Grinch Stole Christmas, The Village, Ron Howard’s daughter). She turns out to be a creature from the ocean that has come to find her human connection and then to return home. It becomes Cleveland’s task to figure out whom she needs to connect with and how to help her return home.

M. Night Shyamalan has built himself a name as a storyteller who weaves an intricate web of story elements that ultimately come together to provide his audience with a surprising and satisfying conclusion. Unfortunately, he apparently knows this, and is inclined to not only repeat the pattern in this movie, but also to talk to the audience about it as events unfold. In fact there’s so much talking in this movie that it totally saps away any mystery or suspense.

Usually I go to a movie hoping to be immersed in the imaginary world being portrayed on the big screen. I’ve never seen a movie that removed me from that experience more than this one did. From the opening prologue which totally took away any mystery about who she was, and on throughout the rest of the film, words like “contrived” and “convoluted” kept coming to my mind. The story seemed to meander along hoping to be linked together by the reciting of a bedtime story that was, coincidentally, exactly what was occurring. Instead of finding an interesting way of showing us what was going on, M. Night resorted to telling us. That might have worked in a book, but not in a movie.

Another thing that brought me out of this movie-watching experience was the fact that M. Night himself, who has usually played very small cameos in his movies, took on the role of a character who is a writer. This was such a significant part that I couldn’t help but be reminded that he is a writer also, and so he must be making statements about his own importance to the world through this part he was playing in his movie. This wouldn’t have bothered me nearly as much were another actor playing the part, but for some reason he felt he needed to do it and I couldn’t help questioning his motives.

I’m afraid I can’t recommend this movie. I was hoping for something that might be a departure from his usual formula, not a dissertation on what makes his movies what they are. Instead I would recommend watching 1948’s Mr Peabody and the Mermaid, a comedy about a man who actually finds a mermaid in his swimming pool; or 1994’s The Secret of Roan Inish, a drama about a young girl who discovers an ancestor of hers married a selkie—a seal who can turn into a human. I think a cross between these two films is what I was hoping for, anyway.

Movie Review: Cars

Knowing that I’m a big Pixar fan, I decided that I would try to be as impartial as possible in watching the new movie, Cars. I did a good job too—I thought. At first I was jaded as I heard Randy Newman’s Disney/Pixar logo fanfare at the beginning and I thought, “Oh yes, this is a John Lasseter film and he ALWAYS uses Randy Newman.” Then I was cynical as the movie started and I thought, “Is this going to be an hour and a half long Chevron talking car commercial?” And then the race began… I was hooked.

The story is about Lightning McQueen, voiced by Owen Wilson (Wedding Crashers, Shanghai Noon), a rookie on the racing circuit with a huge fan base and even larger ego. When his arrogance leads to botching his easy victory which ends up being a three-way tie, a showdown race is scheduled between the three winners in California for the following week.


On the way to California, his impatience causes him to be stranded in Radiator Springs, an old forgotten Route 66 desert town with an unusual automobile population. It’s here that he learns that his one-man-team/win-at-all-costs mentality is not the way to find true happiness and make real friends.


Pixar definitely is the top CGI animation studio for technological innovation and it showed in the smoke left by the squealing tires and the visual depth of the crowds in the opening racing scenes. The reflections on the cars actually made me think that they must have used real cars in places. The realism was amazing!


As with all Pixar films, their technological prowess never upstages the depth and charm of their characters. Owen Wilson is perfectly cast as the self absorbed speedster, and the Radiator Springs gallery of misfits all have their special charm and appeal. Tony Shalhoub (Monk, Galaxy Quest) does a perfectly unrecognizable accent as the obsessive Luigi, the European auto mechanic; Paul Newman (Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Sting) has a powerful presence as the road weary Doc Hudson; but perhaps the most memorable of the bunch will be Larry the Cable Guy (Larry the Cable Guy), who voices the innocent and brash Mater, the tow truck.

I have to say that Pixar has done it right again. While I wouldn’t classify this as my most favorite of their movies, it in no way tarnishes their reputation for putting out the finest in CGI Animation, if not the finest in family entertainment.

I dare you not to enjoy this movie.

Movie Review: Firewall

The kinds of things I look for in a suspense thriller are a dangerous adversary, a likable protagonist, an overwhelming crisis, and a sense of real danger. Firewall has all of these qualities and more as it ups the ante by having the crisis set around the main character’s family who are taken hostage. The interesting twist is that his family is being held as hostages in his home with him. This creates the ever-present danger that if he fails to comply with the kidnapper's demands, he runs the risk of having his family killed right in front of him.

In the movie, Harrison Ford (Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark—do you really need me to tell you who he is?) plays Jack Stanfield, the director of network security at a bank in Seattle, Washington. The crisis begins as Bill Cox, played by Paul Bettany (A Beautiful Mind, Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World), uses his thugs to take Jack’s family hostage.


The ultimate goal of the hostage takers is to rob the bank. They place such complete surveillance on Jack that it seems virtually impossible for him not to comply with their demands in order to save his family. This is exactly what I liked about it. There were times when I thought there was no way he’d get out of it, and sometimes when it appears that he is going to get them out, it backfires and makes the situation worse.

To avoid spoiling any of it, I won’t say anything more about the plot. I will just say, that Harrison Ford is getting old. That’s not such a bad thing, though, but it was strange for me to watch this movie after finding out that he’s about 2 years older than my parents, who are now 62. The filmmakers actually used this to their advantage a few moments when he actually gets hurt! At one point, he had to climb around the side of a building and I started to think that they were stretching the believability a bit, but then he drops down on the ground and hurts himself and struggles to get up again. He’s also almost 20 years older than Virginia Madsen (Electric Dreams, Sideways), who plays his wife, but she did a very good job playing the mother of 2 children and I didn’t think about the age difference after a while.


My only complaint about this and other movies in this genre is that, while there were no questions left unanswered, the end of the movie came too soon after the climax. I like to have a little time to see that the characters are all really OK and that they are getting their lives back. At the beginning of this movie, his daughter calls him “Jack”, instead of “Dad” indicating that there must be some kind of rift between the two of them. I would have liked to see more of an emotional connection between them by the end.

Another thing that stuck out to me, though it didn’t bother me as much as other movies have, is that there was no foreshadowing left unexplored. Comments like, “Hey, his Radio Controlled car is messing up the TV!” or “Don’t forget the dog’s new special collar” or “Don’t feed him peanuts because they’ll kill him” all come back to pay off eventually, though not always as effectively as you might expect. Just once I’d like to see someone look longingly at a tube of toothpaste, or something, and never see it again—just to play with our heads.

Overall, Firewall effectively lives up to the suspense thriller genre. Although it didn’t get my adrenaline pumping as much as some other movies I’ve seen, it’s still a fun ride with strong actors and an engaging plot.

Movie Review: Mission Impossible 3

Mission: Impossible 3
Rated: PG-13
Starring: Tom Cruise, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Ving Rhames, Billy Crudup, Michelle Monaghan, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Keri Russell, Maggie Q, Laurence Fishburne.


Tom is back here as Ethan Hunt. This time he has left the field and is training agents. He's also engaged to be married (Monaghan), but of course he hasn't told his bride-to-be what he really does. His cover is that he works for the Department of Transportation and studies traffic patterns. Exciting stuff. Well guess what - he accepts a new assignment to rescue an agent he trained named Lindsey (Russell) who has been captured by the evil, sadistsic, and elusive black marketeer named Owen Davian (Hoffman). The rescue doesn't quite go as planned as Davian remotely kills Lindsey with a remotely detonated charge implanted in her head. Hunt and his IMF team go to Rome to capture Davian and figure out what he's really up to. They do capture him and find that he's after something called the Rabbit's foot (a McGuffin) although Davian is rescued in a bold and audacious rescue attempt. Next Hunt's new bride is captured, and it's a trade for him to get the Rabbits foot for her life - oh and he has 48 hours, oh and he's been declared a rogue agent and is on the run from his own department. Oh what will happen.

So first let's stop and ask, what do you really expect going into a Mission Impossible movie? Great stunts, non-stop action, great villain, solid ensemble acting, and a story that holds together. Well 4 out of 5 isn't too bad for this. The stunts and action are generally very well done, although there were definitely a few places that really exceeded the bounds of plausibility, and I mean really stretched the bounds of plausbility. I thought the Owen Davian character was good and Hoffman executed it well. The ensemble acting was solid although the IMF team mainly consists of Cruise with a bit of Rhames and Meyers and Maggie Q are needed to get the number of team members up to 4. They didn't have much to do, but did their bits very well. The story actually worked for me at the beginning until a scene near that end where a number of twists are revealed and things aren't what they appeared. The explanation didn't make much sense to me and the way they were revealed was too hurried and clearly suggests that the details of any story here are just an inconvenient obligation to fulfill along the way to creating adrenaline filled action sequences. Leaving the theater one is left with more memories and thoughts of specific moments or scenes rather than a sense that you've been told some kind of story. With all the out of work writers in Hollywood you'd think you could find someone who could tell a plausible and interesting story spanning an entire 2 hours. Tom, I'm pretty sure I can come up with something a lot better than this for MI-4, so call me and let's talk. That said I enjoyed the movie. The action scenes were intense, well executed and generally pretty original and the movie moved along well.

If they choose to do an MI4 I would welcome that, although I think a bit more work on the storyline would pay huge dividends. I can definitely recommend the movie as a good fun action movie and not much else. I didn't expect much else and thus was not disappointed.


Before I wrap up here, let's speculate about what could be done for MI-4. What if they put together an IMF (Impossible Movie Force) team to direct it. I'd like to see a Dream Team of directors/writers put together. My list would be David Mamet, Robert Altman, John Woo, and Steven Soderbergh. Would they accept this mission? Can they save this movie franchise before it self-destructs? Wouldn't you pay $8.50 just to see what that movie would look like?

Recommended for Adults: Yes. A fun action movie.
Recommended for Kids: I think the PG-13 rating is appropriate and would caution parents with children under 13 to use careful judgement as there is some sadistic violence and a (mild) sex scene.
Overall: Well done action movie with solid action and acting, but a weak ending.

Movie Review: Tristan and Isolde

In the first few minutes of Tristan and Isolde, I thought that it was going to be a poorly-done knock-off of Mel Gibson’s Braveheart. The movie unfolds as a medieval period film about warring kingdoms with a big battle at the beginning. I soon realized, that this wasn't intended to be a battle movie like Braveheart; rather, it was a tragic love story which takes place in an adeptly portrayed pre-Christian England.

This movie is a retelling of an ancient legend that has many variations and has inspired other well-known stories such as Romeo and Juliet or the love triangle of King Arthur, Guinevere and Lancelot.

At the time the movie takes place, England and Ireland are enemies. Only Ireland is united under one king whereas England is broken up into tribes. If those tribes were to unite, then they will be much too strong for Ireland to dominate, so Ireland’s king does his best to sabotage England’s unification efforts. Lord Marke, played by Rufus Sewell (A Knight’s Tale, Arabian Nights), is the tribe leader most likely to unite England as king. He brings the orphaned boy Tristan, played by James Franco (Spider-man 1, 2 & 3) into his household where he raises him as a son.

The adult Tristan goes to battle and is believed to be dead after he is cut by a poisoned blade. He is sent away in a funeral boat but his boat ends up beached on the coast of Ireland, where he’s found by the King’s daughter, Isolde, played by Sophia Miles (Thunderbirds, Underworld). Isolde nurses him back to health in secret, and they inevitably fall in love.

Eventually, Tristan returns to England and is sent to a tournament to win the prize in the name of Lord Marke. Little does he know that the prize is the hand of Isolde in marriage.

One of the things this movie did very well was the getting-to-know-you sequences between Tristan and Isolde. There was a natural relationship that formed as she nursed him back to health. When the time came for Isolde to marry the king that Tristan was loyal to, the angst that the two of them feel, pitted against their need to be separated because of duty was very powerful. This movie effectively shows us these struggles instead of just telling us that they exist. It’s funny, but during this portion of the movie, I kept thinking about how good Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones could have been, if the Anakin and Padme sequences had been structured the same way that Tristan and Isolde’s sequences were.

One of the things that I really liked about this story is that Lord Marke is really a good guy! Isolde even begins to appreciate him after a short time. This makes what Tristan does even more despicable. It was nice to see the main characters actually struggling with the decisions as they attempted to balance duty and honor against their love for each other.

In the end, I was sad about the the fates that Tristan and Isolde were consigned to and for the mistakes that they made. I would classify this as a great morality tale. Often we believe that our feelings should rule over us always, and that if something “feels right” it must be good. But we need to always remember, that honor and duty aren’t just social conventions— they’re reminders that our choices and actions actually impact the lives of others, and ultimately, we're responsible for much more than just our own peace and safety.

Movie Review: Over the Hedge

Over the Hedge
Rated: PG
Voices by: Bruce Willis, Garry Shandling, Steve Carell, Wanda Sykes, William Shatner, Nick Nolte, Thomas Haden Church, Allison Janney, Eugene Levy, Catherine O'Hara, Avril Lavigne.
Directed by: Tim Johnson and Karey Kirkpatrick

This movie begins with RJ (Willis) sneaking into the cave of a hibernating bear named Vincent (Nolte) and attempting to steal his enormous stash of food. Caught in the act and accidentally destroying the pile as he tries to get away he is given a week to restore the trash or Vincent will kill him. RJ next runs into a little "family" of assorted animals led by Verne (Shandling). While the family has been hibernating for the winter their forest has been surrounding by a huge sprawling suburban development and a large hedge. RJ recruits them all to forage for food over the hedge. What they don't know is that RJ plans to take the fruits of their labor and turn it over to Vincent. What RJ doesn't expect is to find the real meaning of family.

This is a very well done movie. The writing and acting is very good. The story is well conceived and is perfect for children (I saw it with my 5 year-old), but has enough substance and genuine funny moments to capture adults. It's nothing deep to be sure, but it's certainly a fun way to spend an evening. All of the characters are fun and I think almost everyone will enjoy the character Hammy (Carrell).

My recent review of The Wild complained about the animation of the animals. The animation here looks much better and the scenes are well constructed and interesting. There is nothing particularly remarkable to say about the movie other than that it really holds together, entertains its audience and delivers on what you'd expect.

Recommended for Adults: Definitely fun entertainment.
Recommended for Kids: Definitely.
Overall: Very well done movie.

Book Review: Nurse Matilda (Nanny McPhee)

The Nanny You Need is . . . Nurse Matilda?

Some of you loyal readers may recall that Dennis and I both reviewed Nanny McPhee (Emma Thompson, Colin Firth, and Angela Lansbury), a little while back ( Dennis’ review ) ( Bryan’s review ). If you have not seen it, I HIGHLY recommend it. This charming tale of a homely nanny with a magical walking stick is a masterful adaptation of the book it is based on and in my opinion actually improves upon the source material. I consider it a must-see; a real gem that only comes along once in a while. Run out and rent or buy the Nanny McPhee DVD. This is one that I have now added to my collection even though I rarely buy movies anymore.

If you are anything like me, you often find yourself saying, “The movie was good, but the book was so much better.” After seeing the movie in the theater (or should that be theatre in honor of the book’s British origin), my kids and I were so excited to read the book that was the inspiration for the movie, Nurse Matilda. That said, this is one of those rare instances when I will say that the movie was superior to the book.

The copy I read was Nurse Matilda : The Collected Tales, which has all three Nurse Matilda books in one. The first thing you notice in the book are the many “Briticisms.” The most obvious is the use of the word nurse, which is more akin to the American use of the word nanny. In other scenes, the children eat swedes and roly-poly pudding with treacle . . . doesn’t sound very appealing to me, but they seemed to like it. These terms do however tend to create a foreign-feeling, which enhances the atmosphere of the story.

There are other differences between the book and the movie as well. One of the most glaring differences is that in the book, Mrs. Brown is alive. While there is a lopsided trend in children’s movies for portraying single-parent families (Toy Story, Land Before Time, The Iron Giant, Beauty and the Beast, Little Mermaid, etc.), in Nanny McPhee, Mrs. Brown’s absence and Mr. Brown’s preoccupation with providing for his large family, explained the rotten behavior of the children. In the book however, both parents are present and seem to be scratching their heads as to why their children are so ill behaved. This made them into complete dund