CosmicBills

But ... if you're a good parent, then your kids will know not to listen to the TV commercial and will instead listen to you. So really, it's just an overreaction on your part.

The video is at the bottom of the article. I don't think it's that outrageous -- just has nothing to do with JC Penny. Regardless, the ad made me laugh. JC Penny Ad

I want your sexy body.

Remember, Empire was the best of the original Star Wars -- why? Because the second act of a trilogy is always the most emotional, demanding and dark. The third part inherently has to be lighter (hence, Ewoks), and more uplifting. I still feel Begins is the better of the two. We'll see though when I go and see it again this week.

Yeah, but 18 of those PDs would have been INTs by someone with decent hands.

But you're missing the point a bit. I'm not saying he needs to have backstory to be an interesting or full character -- not at all. But he needs to have STORY on the screen that's consistent. If the Joker were just crazy and hell bent on anarchy, that's fine. That's one story. That's what he starts out as in this flick. But then they GIVE him a reason and logic and SANITY when he forms a second, totally separate plan. It's a HUGE disconnect from where he starts the film. Initially it's about the mob and Batman, then he makes it something 180 degrees different. And that sort of thing does not work with a character who's just "crazy". It was trying to give the Joker a different pathos half way through the movie, but you just can't do that. Had they kept the Joker as just insane, they could have cut 30 minutes of his screen time out, and it would have instantly tightened the movie and brought the story back to it's main focal point: Harvey Dent. And it would have worked beautifully because Dent's transformation would have been tied in concretely to the Joker's plan. Instead, they left it bloated and the story wandered. As a result, the characters (all of 'em) suffered. Also, for a super-hero movie, there's almost no action. There are two scenes? Maybe. That's rare for these sorts of movies (and not necessarily a bad thing). But I think it's bumping some people because it is clearly more of a thriller than an action flick -- but people are going in expecting it to be an action flick.

I don't agree that it's just the last 30 minutes that are the problem. Mind you, I'm approaching it strictly from a story-telling perspective which might not matter to a lot of folks. I did enjoy the flick and do think it's worth checking out. However, it's just not a classic or as well told as the original or even Spider-Man 1 & 2. The main problem was related to this note below ... Yes, Ledger was great. However, the character of the Joker was empty. There was nothing, and I mean nothing, to him. There was no story, no plot, no motive (other than chaos). All of that is fine -- if he's a side character or background character. But it's not fine when you devote over 90 minutes of screen time to JUST that character. Burton's Joker, much more comic book, actually had a story with a background and an arc that you understood. He also had a clear motive and reason. Goyer's Joker did not -- which was the point he was trying to make. But the problem is, it was wildly inconsistent. Without going into detail, look at the beats: We start with a heist and plot line that carries over for the first hour of the movie -- then it gets dumped, quickly. Which works if the Joker is just about chaos and can't be classified as other villains (as they say). But then he GETS a plan/motivation that bucks the original one and goes on doing a "social experiment" which, had he been doing all along, would have been amazing IF the story was Batman's story. But it's not. The real problem with the story is that it's Harvey Dent's story -- but they got so caught up in how fun Ledger is on screen they forgot his character has zero depth which results in boredom. So instead of keeping it Harvey's movie, they tried to make it the Joker's when he doesn't have a story to tell.

Just got back from the show. Won't give any spoilers, but will sum it up: It was entertaining, but story wise it was a mess. Still worth seeing and most will enjoy it. But it's not close to as good as Begins. It's too scattered and goes off the rails several times.

And you'll get this one too ... Watchmen Trailer

Act II is up.

Thanks guys! Clearing the Cache worked.

I admit, I dig that show. I wanted to hate it. But I couldn't. Did you watch this webisode yet?

I tried changing my avatar. I took down the old one, and loaded a new one. On my control page, the new avatar is there. But when I post, or check the threads, the old avatar is there. Any advice?

I recently got hooked on "How I Met Your Mother" (don't ask) and fell in love with Neil Patrick Harris. He's just fantastic. And -- having always been a fan of Whedon, when I heard there was a musical webisode out staring NPH as an evil genius who signs directed by Whedon, I had to check it out. If this is the future of web-entertainment, we're in for a treat. Warning: This is a long part 1 of a 3 part webisode. ... but it's worth it! Link to Whedon's message about the webisode: Master Plan

So you're saying they acted like the Insurgents in Iraq who are killing our soldiers? ... Reason 1003 why this movie will never get made.

You obviously haven't read enough of LSI's posts ...

Well, you're actually right Big Cat. Temple of Doom should be the one with the credit because it was Spielberg who forced the ratings board to add the new PG-13 rating because he knew that an R rated Indy flick would limit their audience. Red Dawn jumped on Indy's bandwagon, though both got the ratings at roughly the same time, Red Dawn would have been an R if it weren't for Temple of Doom and Spielberg. That's when you know you have clout in Hollywood -- when you can get the ratings board to add a whole new rating for your movie, simply because you ask.

If they make it terrorist porn (like the original was Commie porn), there's just not a market for it. The BO has been terrible for any sort of war movie or films dealing with the war -- so remaking an invasion action flick (whether it's Russians, Iranians?, Canadians) probably won't track well enough for them to market. That's a hunch ... the only way it gets out of development is if Traitor (which opens soon and looks awesome) does record numbers at the BO -- which it won't. I will put my minions to work on it!!!

There is about a 0% chance this ever gets out of development.

GO !@#$ YOURSELF!

Don't jinx it!!!! I'm still hoping I can talk my way into a pitch meeting for BHC4!

He's made a lot of great movies. Ones I consider classics: 1. Coming to America (funniest movie of the 80s perhaps?) 2. Beverly Hills Cop 1 & 2 (3 was an abortion and never should have been made) 3. Trading Places (also in the running for funniest movie of the 80s) 4. 48 Hours (great, gritty cop flick to contrast with BHC's lighter tone) 5. Shrek 1 & 2 (yes, they were animated, but both are hysterical) 6. Bowfinger (A criminally underrated movie -- and he co-wrote it) 7. Nutty Professor (To think, the other Klumps almost got cut out of the script in pre production) 8. Dreamgirls (I didn't swoon over the movie like others, but his performance was amazing. Should have won) That's a pretty damned good average. Some of these are really seminal movies in their genres. That said ... I doubt he retires.

I'm not sure you'll ever get that. I don't think they ever did that (with the pictures in the cast list) unless the movie called for it (like Animal House or those sorts of comedies).

Best Boy is just a term for the department heads' assistant (electric and grip). Key Grip runs the show on the crew. Grips are the back bone of any production. Without them, nothing would get done. A grip does anything and everything when it comes to the physical labor of a shoot. They set up tracks, dollies, stages, move lights, mounts etc. Anytime there's a "set up" the grips are the ones moving the stuff and setting it up for the director and actors. They work the hardest of anyone on the set.

It's more of a style thing than any legal reason. A lot of 80s and early 90s flicks had elaborate opening credit sequences where all the players and below the line people were credited (City Slickers which I just watched for example). However as the Hollywood style has become more "gritty/realistic" in the past decade or so, editors and directors (who do the opening sequences) have opted for a "cut to the chase" approach as to not break the mood. Now, who gets top billing is something stipulated in contracts (which are constantly changed throughout the post production process and are a pain in the ass). The norm at the beginning of a flick is: Production Company, Director, Star, Title, Actors, Casting, Editor, Visual Effects, Exec Prod, Producer, Writer, Director. The reason why the Director gets two credits in the beginning is because the director does not get any at the end, whereas all actors do.