Alexander

Funny! And not a bad idea for an energy policy, either!

Reminds me of the Bob Dylan song where he says: "Hey, there buddy. You wanna be like me? Pull out your six-shooter and rob every bank you can see. Tell the judge I said it was all right. Yeah!"

I'm kind of surprised this one hasn't come up yet: In either mono: Or stereo versions...

BA-dum-bump!

That's pretty shocking...

I placed an order last night! I'll let you know what I think when I get my copy!

I agree with Jim. Going after Madonna's daughter is tacky. Like her mother, Lourdes is Italian American and excess facial hair is a common complaint among Mediterranian woman. Check out Madonna's high school pick above. She had some serious eyebrows going on herself. If anything, she's to be commended for not insisting that her daughter pluck and wax to satisfy some WASPy feminine ideal (like her mother, she'll probably wait until she's old enough to move out). I know it's a common joke to bash Madonna for her talent or lack thereof, but you know what? She's been doing what she does for almost thirty years now. If she was the no-talent everybody thinks she is, she never would have made it past her second album. Clearly, she's doing SOMETHING right because people still buy her records. It's not my thing. My wife owns several of her albums, and there are things I like better than others (I think "Hard Candy" is horrible, mainly because Madonna is just getting too old to pander to the kids), but on the whole I respect her for her talent for staying in the game.

I am, I confess, completely bewildered by the negative reactions I've seen on the web about this film. My wife and I went to see it tonight (we were both fans of the show during its heyday, although I lost interest and stopped watching during the last couple of seasons. I honestly can't remember if I even bothered to watch the series finale). I went in hoping for something better than 1998's (was it REALLY ten years ago?) "Fight the Future" and - well - that's exactly what I got. The film (without giving anything away) is essentially a 90 minute long episode of the series. But it's a good episode that delivers suspense, some creepy scenes involving mysterious goings on in a makeshift hospital, and lots of wonderful Mulder and Scully moments. Many of the negative reviews focus on the lack of aliens and government conspiracies (I knew that this was going to be the case months ago, even though Chris Carter has kept the details of the plot under wraps. Is this why I wasn't disappointed?). These critics seem to forget that "Mythology" episodes were only occasional and that most of the show was made up of just these kind of "freak of the week" episodes. This is a "freak of the week" show. If you enjoyed episodes like "Beyond the Sea" (which was actually very similar to this film in terms of plot) then you'll enjoy this film. If you have no idea what episode "Beyond the Sea" was, you might be better served going to see something else (there's a direct reference to "Beyond the Sea" in the film. I caught it. I wonder how many other people did?). I liked it a lot. Any thoughts?

Me too!

First off, bear in mind that this is the same soap that one uses to wash dishes. I doubt that there is any discernable film left on my dishes after I wash them. I have been using this method for about 40 years with excellent results. In regards to toothbrushes, remember that this is the same device that rubs up against your gums, so by definition it is not abrasive. Record surfaces are far more durable than human gums! I saw legendary 78 collector Joe Bussard do that on a documentary with a precious Gennett or something. I thought he was putting on the filmmaker! Actually, Joe uses a shoe brush to clean his 78s. He claims that it does no damage to the records, but shellac might be different from vinyl in that regard. I certainly wouldn't scrub an LP with a shoe brush.

I was kinda hoping some of them were going up for sale. There aren't a lot of 78s on the market anymore. Most of the good ones are in the big collections. I always wonder what's going to happen to Joe Bussard's collection when he passes on. Will it be broken up and sold off? Or will it be donated to a library like this one is? As much as I want this music to be preserved, I'd also rather it be in the hands of people who appreciate it instead of gathering dust in the basement of some archive.

Assuming you like Frank on Capitol, you owe it to yourself to check out two early Frank Reprise albums, "Ring a Ding" with the Great Johnny Mandel, and "Swingin' Brass" with Neal Hefti. These are among the greatest albums of his career, period. He also did his superb bossa album with Jobim and Claus Ogerman on Reprise. I also dig Frank's collaborations with Basie on Reprise, as well as the Ellington session (which is VASTLY underrated). Sometimes I really enjoy spinning a Frank Reprise album. There are some great ones. "Moonlight Sinatra" is a great album!

Way, way too much music (considering that I'm not working this summer). I got: Jay-Z: "Unplugged" (mainly for the Roots playing backup), Nas: "Illimatic," "Spirits in the Material World: A Reggae Tribute to the Police" (features Toots and the Maytalls AND Lee "Scratch" Perry!), Prince: "Batman" (I used to own this and have been thinking about it since I saw "The Dark Knight." I got it used for about five bucks), "Backbeat" (the original soundtrack to the early '90s film about Stu Sutcliffe. First, because I'm obsessed with anything Beatles related. Second, because of the participation of Dave Grohl and Thurston Moore). I also ordered online (used through half.com) two collections of early Leadbelly recordings and (through CDUniverse) a JSP box set of Sister Rosetta Tharpe recordings. This does not count the Blind Lemon Jefferson album I got online yesterday, or the two CDs I picked up at Borders (Blind Willie Johnson and Mississippi John Hurt)! Time to go on another CD diet (as soon as my orders arrive)!

A friend of mine from high school, with whom I had kept up for years after graduation, had a terrible accident on the LA Freeway on her motorcycle about eight years ago. She was wearing a helmet, but it had no padding. For padding she had put a folded t-shirt inside. She was also driving a motorcycle that got stuck in high gears and it was impossible (she says) to stop. When she realized that she couldn't stop, she apparently tried to pull over to the side of the road in order to wipe out, but she was blind sided by a passing car. She was in a coma for several days after the accident. They had to remove some bits of her brain in order to keep the swelling down. When she came to, she was a completely different person. She was 30 when the accident happend, but she acted like she was 14. I remember a letter she sent shortly after her release from the hospital. Her syntax was all messed up. It was like nothing I've ever seen outside of Oliver Sachs. I ran into her in a bookstore a couple of years ago. She didn't recognize me at first. Then she said, "Oh, yeah! You were a lot skinnier back in high school." Remember that she HAD seen me since high school, but she couldn't remember it. Her last memory of me was me at 17. Very sad. Anyway, count your blessings. I will NEVER get on one of those things as long as I live.

Jeez. Glad you're still with us! I've been in several car accidents (mostly as a passenger. Only once as a driver) and I know exactly how you feel. You keep thinking about it, about how completely unexpected it was. The one accident I've been in as a driver wasn't nearly as bad as yours, but it was serious enough to deploy the airbag and total the car. I still think about it every time I pass the spot where the accident occurred (and I'm much more careful about watching out for black ice).

Um - I don't think so. Yeah (spoiler alert):

To me, it's almost the exact opposite: 1) Bale - I think he captures the young Bruce Wayne's inexperience and confusion well. Remember that in the last film he had only just become the Batman and this film takes place less than a year later. He's still very new at this and he's still unsure of his mission. 2)Kilmer - I think he was the best up until Bale and I think he was wasted in a horrible movie. He actually gave Bruce Wayne some inner life, which Keaton completely failed to do. 3)Clooney - Again, great potential, but wasted in a lousy film (with a bad director). He really could have embodied the "millionaire playboy" side of Bruce Wayne (another thing Bale does very well, I think). 4) Keaton - A funny guy whom I've enjoyed in other films, but completely wrong for this role. First, he didn't actually give Bruce Wayne any kind of character. He just did "Michael Keaton" schtick. Two examples: There's a bit where Bruce is trying to tell Vicki Vale (ugh...Kim Basinger) his secret. He's talking about how ordinary guys "Get up and eat breakfast and go to work..." It's total Michael Keaton, straight out of MR. MOM (not a bad movie, btw). The second is a scene where Wayne is confronting the Joker. He suddenly wields a poker and shouts, "You wanna get nuts? Come on! Let's get nuts!" Here, he's doing Beetlejuice (another great movie, btw). There's absolutely no sense of who Bruce Wayne IS. It's just Michael Keaton in a tux. Michael Keaton in a rubber batsuit. Michael Keaton in a black turtleneck. I think that Burton's Batman films were decent Burton films, but horrible Batman films. Thing is, if I want to see a Burton film, I'll go see BEETLEJUICE, EDWARD SCISSORHANDS, or ED WOOD. I'm not looking for Tim Burton's brand of weirdness in a Batman movie. I'm looking for BATMAN's brand of weirdness in a Batman movie.

That's coming out next year. If 300 is any indication of the director's talents I'll definitely be skipping that one. It's still WATCHMEN! I'd see it even if Joel Schumacher directed it!

As is the usual case, I think that the die-hard comic book fans are going to enjoy this much more than the average movie goer. I mean, sure there's a lot of running around and blowing stuff up. It's a comic book movie! But there's a lot going on APART from the explosions (even when Ledger isn't on-screen). As was the case when BATMAN BEGINS was released, a big part of the film's appeal for me is how well they've adapted the best elements of the 50+ year run of the BATMAN comics to the screen. If your knowledge of the character is based largely on Saturday morning cartoons, reading the odd comic book when you were a kid, or the Adam West show (or - God forbid - the earlier films), then I don't think you'll get too much out of it. But if you've read and digested 30-odd years of comic book mythology, if you can compare the film to the interpretations of Dennis O'Neal, Frank Miller, Jeph Loeb, Alan Moore, and other writers who have helped to define the book over the years, then I think you'll get a lot more out of it. I mean, for me (anyway) watching this film was far from a passive experience. I kept thinking to myself: "Now this element of the film is clearly drawn from "The Dark Knight Returns," while this element here comes from "Year One." I like how Nolan juxteposes Alan Moore's Joker with Jeph Loeb's Harvey Dent in this scene..." I'm not saying that I'm smarter or more perceptive, but just that this film really wasn't made with the average filmgoer in mind. Put it another way: One of the things I really disliked about Burton's interpretation was the way in which is completely disregarded the comic book origins of the characters. It said: "Hey, you don't have to know anything about Batman or the Joker to appreciate this film. Come on in, and I'll tell you everything you need to know." And geeks like me sat there going, "The Joker isn't the guy who shot Bruce Wayne's parents! The Joker wasn't a gangster named Jack Napier! The Joker doesn't HAVE a known history!" It was almost as though Burton was saying, "Thanks for the inspiration, but I'll take it from here." (Burton did this again, much to my disgust, in "Sleepy Hollow," which ran roughshod over one of my favorite short stories). Finally, with THE DARK KNIGHT, with IRON MAN and THE INCREDIBLE HULK (as well as the three SPIDER-MAN films) filmmakers are making films that the GEEKS appreciate. And frankly, everybody else can go fuck themselves. These films are for me and people like me. Go see "Mama Mia" if this is too long or too explode-y for you.

I like some heavy metal (mostly the '70s stuff and the '80s stuff that spun off of the '70s stuff - Sabbath, post-Sabbath Ozzy, Dio-era-Sabbath, post-Sabbath-Dio...I also like the first Guns N' Roses album. I don't have much use for the big-hair pop-metal of the mid-80s). But I LOVE Middle Eastern music, and I think it's a shame that once again American culture is pushing its way into every corner of the world. I mean, big ups to these kids playing what they want to play, but I sure do love me some traditional Iraqi music (or even some Choubi).

My 90 year old grandmother successfully battled cancer twice recently. I honestly think that the key to her success is her attitude. She never let it beat her. Keep going. Find something you LOVE to do and do that thing. It will make a difference.

I'm really surprised that no one has started a thread on this already. I saw THE DARK KNIGHT last night at a midnight showing at my local googolplex. The film started VERY late for some unaccountable reason (probably technical). The audience (which was PACKED, btw) got quite restless after about twenty-five minutes and some people started chanting, "Fuck Regal! Fuck Regal!" After another five or ten minutes (during which time I ate all of my popcorn), they started the fifteen minutes of previews (which, incidentally, included a teaser trailer for WATCHMEN, probably the most anticipated comic-book movie of all time). By the time the trailers were finished, the audience was REALLY restless and I despaired of being able to actually hear the movie over all of the griping (NEVER piss off a theater full of hard-core comic book nerds (the only people who would go see a BATMAN movie at midnight). I'm sure most of them were on their blogs before they even got home, registering their disgust throughout the world). I needn't have worried. The audience went deathly quiet from the second the WB logo appeared on the screen and pretty much stayed that way for the next two and a half hours. What can I say about this film that hasn't been said already in countless reviews? I was a HUGE fan of BATMAN BEGINS. After being disappointed (as a comic book fan) by two Tim Burton films and then disgusted (as a movie AND comic book fan) by two Joel Schumacher films (which completely squandered two potentially GREAT Batmen (Kilmer and Clooney)), I was eager to see what Nolan would do with this frankly dead horse of a franchise. Drawing his inspiration from Frank Miller's BATMAN: YEAR ONE and Loeb and Sale's THE LONG HALLOWEEN and DARK VICTORY, Nolan made the Batman film that got it right. Bale's performance as Bruce Wayne was note-perfect. Cillian Murphy made a very scary Scarecrow and Liam Neeson a nicely ambiguous Ra's Al Ghul. Was it a little overlong? A bit. Was there a bit too much pre-Batman Bruce Wayne? Maybe a little. The film had its flaws, but it immediately vaulted to the head of the class as far as comic book adaptations go. Now, 2008 has proven to be a very good year for comic book related movies. We've already had two excellent Marvel adaptations in IRON MAN and THE INCREDIBLE HULK. I haven't seen it yet, but I'm a huge fan of Guillermo Del Toro's so I'm very much looking forward to HELLBOY II (might even go see it tonight). Plus, Nolan's film not only has to live up to is predicessor, but also to the hype surrounding Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker (already incarnated, for many, by Jack Nicholson). Well, it does not disappoint. It is, in a word, perfection. Character driven in a way the Burton/Schumacher Batman films never were, THE DARK KNIGHT creates a number of completely satisfying, even engrossing, characters in Wayne, Harvey Dent (really never more than a walk-on for Billy Dee Williams and a complete waste of Tommy Lee Jones), James Gordon, Alfred Pennyworth, and the Joker himself. Even though she's miles away from Katie "Xenu" Holmes as an actress, Maggie Gyllenhaal's Rachel is probably the weakest point in the film. Not a cannonical character (she was introduced in the last film to give Bruce Wayne a love interest), Rachel really just seems to exist in order to be either wooed, kidknapped, or both. While she has one VERY strong moment in the film, she isn't as developed as a character as I would like. Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) is not a cannonical character either, but Freeman carries the role off through sheer charisma. I don't want to go on forever (and I don't want to put up any spoilers), so I'll just say that Ledger's performance as the Joker is everything that's been promised and more. It's a master class in taking a character that's been passed around among several other performers, as well as having a pop cultural existence all its own, and making it completely your own. His Joker bears no resemblence to anything that's come before, either in or out of the comic (save, perhaps, for Alan Moore's definitive THE KILLING JOKE, which seems to provide at least some of the character). It is unique, anarchic, iconic, and mesmerizing. The saddest thing about this film is knowing that Ledger can never reprise or surpass this performance. It's a perfect swan song. Aaron Eckhart, who is generally a solid actor who excels at playing assholes, does a fantastic job playing both sides of Harvey Dent. His eventual transformation from the fresh faced DA to the abominable Two-Face is genuinely tragic and horrific. The film's violence, btw, is competely bloodless (which is saying something for a film with two of Batman's most bloodthirsty foes), but that doesn't mean that it doesn't shock. My daughter can withstand most PG-13 movies, but I've ruled this one a little out of her league. Just try to sit through the Joker's (multiple) explanation(s) of how he got his scars without wincing.

Am I the only one who immediately thinks. "Arrangers assemble!" when they look at this thread title?