DC COMICS REINVENTS ITS UNIVERSE. 
So read the headline of today's venerable (!) newspaper (?!?!) USA Today. The full article can be had by clicking here. I'm sure you thought I couldn't possibly keep quiet about this. And you were right. For those not in the know, DC Comics is whining that they are #2 in the market behind Marvel so they are going to "reboot" the entire DC Universe and its characters and start all issues over with #1. Everything that you ever read in every DC commic book basically never happened. This "fresh and radical new" direction is being spearheaded by Geoff Johns (writer responsible for the whole "Blackest Night" phenom) and Jim Lee (artist who some people apparently seem to like who was responsible for that memorable Image Comics team book . . . um . . . they were so forgettable I can't remember what they were called). Sadly, this "bold new" idea for DC is a sad mishmash of old, old ideas; some of which failed miserably. And more sadly, this time around it's gonna be a worse disaster than the "DC Implosion". The article in USA Today is full of quotes by the two men and that's very useful as I take issue with every boneheaded statement they make. F'rinstance. . .
***
The paper states that "Johns promises a focus on the interpersonal relationships within DC's trademark superteam (The Justice League)." Johns is quoted as explaining "What's the human aspect behind all these costumes? That's what I wanted to explore. . .The approach is very much about who they are behind the masks and how they interact together and how these personalities mix. With the world's greatest superheroes, how does that team actually work? Do they all get along?" This, to Johns, apparently seems like a new idea. It, in fact, WAS a new idea when Stan Lee & Jack Kirby etc. did it 50 years ago in a little thing called "The Marvel Age of Comics". Stan's FANTASTIC FOUR and AMAZING SPIDER-MAN et. al. revolutionized comics by bringing these "real life" problems and interactions into the world of comic books. It was truly revolutionary; so much so that DC quickly did the same thing in the latter 60's and every comics company has been doing it ever since. A groundbreaking original idea from Geoff Johns in 2011. I don't think so. Since every comic book released since the mid-60's has already integrated such "interpersonal relationships" as a matter of course, I can only assume that Johns intends to make DC superhero comics into soap operas. Just what your average superhero fan wants to read.
***
Another stated goal is for the comics to "...reflect today's real-world themes and events". Again, you mean like Stan Lee did in 1961?!? Or perhaps like DC itself did starting in the late 60's with it's award-winning GREEN LANTERN/GREEN ARROW title written by Denny O'Neal and drawn by Neal Adams?!?! But truly, is anyone really reading comics to experience the "real world"? Superhero comics?!??! I don't think so. A vital approach in the 1960s. A silly approach in the 21st century. I and every other comic book fan read comics in order to escape the real world. Once again, if I didn't want escape, I'd read something else BESIDES superhero comics. And that's what people who DON'T read comics already do. So why would they pick up a comic book now? Answer: they wouldn't. And they're not going to. Sorry Geoff & Jim. Let's move on.
***
Jim Lee is "redesigning" the costumes of every superhero at DC in order to "... make characters more identifiable and accessible to comic fans new and old". Another ridiculous statement. If you want characters to be "identifiable" you would leave them in the costume's they've had, in some instances, for the last 75 years. I don't want to take issue with making the characters more "accessible" to fans by changing the costume. I frankly don't know what that means. A superhero's costume is either good or bad. Accessibility doesn't enter into it. However, if you take a look at the rather weak drawing at the top of this post, you will see that Aquaman's costume looks exactly the same, Superman's costume looks exactly the same except the little red shorts are gone (a bad design move, by the way, as it will make Supes look like he's wearing long johns now), Green Lantern looks . . . well, exactly the same as do Batman and The Flash. In fact, the only changes are for the worse: there's Wonder Woman's pathetically ugly costume which a co-worker says makes her look like J. Lo and then there's Cyborg looking like he's wearing a trash can. If this is any indication of what's to come, DC superheroes will either look practically the same or worse. I mean, if you want to see examples of Jim Lee's character designs, take a look once again at his old Image Comics characters. No one ELSE is lookin' at them. That blue & white streaked Superman a few years ago -- now THAT was a brand new and radical change (which also didn't work, you'll remember). These so-called changes seemed about are almost non-existent. If Jim Lee's not going to drastically alter their look, why crow about it to the press? As usual with Jim Lee and his fellow Image Comics artists, it's once again all "image" and no substance.
***
The new comics also will now be available via apps or online at a special DC site where you can read the comic books. If the comics are available online for free, why would anyone buy the actual comics? And here I thought this was about increasing sales? But if however the comics are available online for a FEE, why would anyone shell out money for a comic book they won't actually own? Music you buy on itunes you can burn to a cd and have a permanent copy of; comic books you buy online you look at and . . .uh, that's it. There goes your money. Do we really think that's gonna happen? Jim Lee shockingly says, "We're allowing people who have never bought a comic book in their lives to download them on portable media devices and take a look. Having the ability to give people access to these comics with one button click means we're going to get a lot of new readers." Really? Is Jim Lee so egotistical or blinkered as to think someone who never read a comic book in his life will care whether it's printed on paper or available to download merely because he's "redesigned" some of their costumes and they're starting over at #1? Either way, non-comics fans are not gonna bother. Why would they? They don't read 'em now. I have no interest in basketball so I'm not going to watch it on TV, on my ipod, on my laptop or projected on the big red ass of a baboon! No matter how you package it, it's spinach and I say the hell with it. That's exactly what non-comics fans are going to feel: how exactly does this mean jack diddly to me since I don't read comics in the first place? This begs the question: who are all these changes meant to attract?
***
Either you read comic books or you don't. No amount of costume tweaking and issue renumbering matters to the Joe on the street who has no interest in comics. The only people DC has to worry about making money from are the comics fans. Non-comics fans aren't going to buy 'em no matter WHAT DC does. So what is the feeling of comics fans? Well, pretty much as I would predict: apprehension or hostility. One fan online commented that he viewed it as "a kick in the crotch" to readers who have stuck with DC reading for many years. This is true. The main reason I myself stopped reading comics in 1996 was that I had become fed up with the constant "reboots" of the characters (main offender: DC). This is another instance of the rehash nature of this so-called "brand new and fresh" DC reinvention touted by Geoff Johns & Jim Lee. It's nothing new and we comics fans have been sick of the reboots for years now. Ever since CRISIS ON INFINITE EARTHS in 1985, DC creators have felt they had license to constantly reboot characters and delete every story that happened before their own new "#1 issue" came out. And then, after about a year, when that "reboot" failed, another creative team would reboot the reboot. And so on. I mean, how many different versions of Hawkman have there been. And how many freakin' JUSTICE LEAGUE #1's, for that matter. Well, here comes yet another one, folks. The problem is that nobody is going to bother reading these books and emotionally investing anything in the characters because we know full well that, in about a year or two, everything we read is going to be "deleted" as "never happened" and we're going to start all over again for the umpteenth time. And again and again after that. Why do you think comic book readership has declined from the high of about 7 million copies an issue in the early 90's to the 10,000 or so print runs of today? Because we got sick and tired of having our "iconic" characters jerked around every year or so. Geoff Johns seems to think this is a new idea long overdue. Sadly, DC has been doing it for the last 25 years ad nauseum. The LAST thing we need is another reboot; this time company wide. So rather than a bunch of little mistake, we're getting ONE BIG ONE! Johns and Lee also are planning to demonstrate DC's brand new "diversity" by bringing back war comics and western comics titles. Yeah, we all know how well THEY sell. For this so-called "brand new and fresh" idea, Johns and Lee had to go all the way back to the 1940's to steal THAT concept.
***
It shouldn't come as a surprise that Geoff Johns seems to think all this stuff he's mentioned is "new and original". After all, didn't he think BLACKEST NIGHT was an original concept when fandom at large saw that it was obviously a copy of Marvel's popular MARVEL ZOMBIES series. Johns and Lee laughably keep tossing around the words "icon" and "iconic" about the DC characters. They don't seem to realize the irony of the situation. The characters WERE icons; that is, until Geoff Johns and Jim Lee get through smashing them and reconstructing them into a lesser, pale imitation of the characters which have lasted 75 years. They will no longer be icons no matter how you delude yourself, guys. Jim Lee's telling statement in the article says it all regarding what they're trying to do: "You're trying to have your cake and eat it, too. You're trying to keep the iconic elements there, but at the same time freshen up the look so that people are intrigued by what they're seeing and hopefully come and sample the wares." The fact which Lee seems to be missing here is that the meaning of the phrase "trying to have your cake and eat it too" illustrates that its impossible to do that. You can't "have your cake and eat it too". You can't wipe out the entire history of a character which made that character an icon in the first place and expect to still have the icon. The icon is gone. You've erased it. It is the ultimate evidence of a lack of creativity or talent when a creator "reboots" something. Alan Moore needed no such "reboot" to do all he did with SWAMP THING. All his classic work was done in the context and full history of the comic book character and he felt no need to retroactively erase everything that had gone before. If you have to do that in order to bring a so-called fresh approach to a title, perhaps you're not good enough to be writing that book in the first place. Alan Moore's classic final "pre-Crisis" story "Whatever Happened to the Man of Steel" two-parter actually took issue with the "reboot" trend on the brink of John Byrne's needless "reboot" of Superman in 1986. The fact remains that those two Alan Moore Superman issues are 100 times better than John Byrne's entire run of the "rebooted" Superman issues. And where is John Byrne's version of Superman now? On the dust heap with every other such reboot. How's it feel, John? When it's YOUR version that's been erased, I'll bet it doesn't seem like such a good thing to do anymore.
***
And that's the point, I think. Geoff Johns and Jim Lee -- you are no Stan Lee and Jack Kirby. Not even close. You're not Steve Ditko or Denny O'Neil or Neal Adams or Berni Wrightson or Steve Englehart or Dick Dillin or Paul Levitz. And you're sure as hell no Julius Schwartz. The utter gall of someone who thinks they can throw out all the classic work of much more talented creators because their own new take on things has to supercede all others is distasteful, disrespectful and outlandishly stupid. Why do you have to eliminate everything done by all these past creators before you can do your own version? Afraid your work won't stand up to theirs? I can't think of any other reason. If not, then all these changes your making could occur without any such company-wide reboot. It could all be done in an ACTION COMICS issue that's past the number 900 without making it ACTION COMICS #1. Again. The same online fan I mentioned earlier also wrote that this entire DC reboot kinda makes the entire back catalogue of 75 years of comic books "useless". That's not true. The reboot itself is useless. All those old comics will always be there for us to reread any time we want. When this new DC reboot goes down the drain. . .and it will. . .there won't be anyone in years to come going back to read them. And there certainly won't be any hardcover reprint collections of Geoff Johns and Jim Lee's abortive attempt to separate the the reader from his buck. We will always want to revisit Gardner Fox's JUSTICE LEAGUE OF AMERICA or look at Dick Sprang's BATMAN art. These and hundreds of other writers and artists managed to make classic comic books which have obviously stood the test of time -- and they did it without having to "reboot" the work of previous creators. Carmine Infantino's "New Look" Batman didn't need to start over with a #1 but continued in the next issue of the regular comic. When Barry Allen first got dosed with chemicals and became the new Silver Age Flash, his solo title continued with the old Golden Age Flash's issue numbering. And when Julie Schwartz created the Silver Age of Comics itself by revamping Golden Age character like the Flash, Green Lantern, etc. he did just that. They were completely new characters with new identities, new costumes, in some cases different powers and they were in every way new. Geoff Johns, Jim Lee and DC Comics' management don't have the balls to do that. I mean, how would that affect the merchandising??!?! And if you're not going to do an actual company-wide revamp of every comic character you publish, why pretend it's anything other than what it is. A cheap marketing ploy to drum up some press. See you on the unemployment line, Geoff and Jim. The clock just started ticking...
^^^^
For more insights visit this excellent article from wellyousaythat by clicking here.
S PLANTING THE SEEDS OF MAN'S DOOM!" Thus screams the trailer for "MONSTER FROM GREEN HELL". This is the film that answers the burning question: "What happens to life in the airless void above Earth's atmosphere? Will life remain untouched, unharmed by its flight through space or will it change into . . . what?" Ready. . .steady. . .off we go! After a lot of knob-twisting, the heroes of our movie misplace their rocket; it comes down in Africa. In Green Hell. A native is killed by a massive dose of snake-like venom. All the natives believe it was a monster that killed the man. Not only the people but the wildlife are afraid to venture into the jungle region known as "Green Hell". In fact, rear-projected animals are shown fleeing from our giant monster friend who resembles a bug-eyed beetle with tiny flapping wings. Our two butterfingered rocket scientists who've lost their rocket are Dr. Quent Brady (DALLAS' own Jock Ewing Jim Davis) and Dan Morgan (Robert E. Griffin). Not enough parents name their kids "Quent" anymore! Well, six months after the rocket crash, Quent and Dan read newspaper reports about riots and monster sightings in Central Africa; exactly where their rocket went down. Six months?!?!?! Nothing like an efficient, speedy search and recovery mission, gentlemen! Of course, our two scientists aren't exactly the sharpest scalpels in the tray. Quent has a wild theory that radiation just might cause mutations. "You've seen pictures of the survivors at Hiroshima, haven't you?" Quent asks Dan in an attempt to prove his radical theory. "Well, sure," replies Dan. "Radiation did that, Dan." Exactly what kind of scientists ARE these two and what seat of higher learning gave them diplomas?!?!
These bonehead scientists set off on their bonehead mission to Africa. You may have guessed already that this is a bonehead movie. Of course this fact alone does not make it a bad movie experience. That depends on the movie's enjoyment level. And just how enjoyable is "MONSTER FROM GREEN HELL"? Well, first things first. The giant wasp (for that's apparently what the monster is supposed to be) is indeed great fun. The buzzing sound of its wings as one approaches Green Hell causes an animal stampede. Local European missionary Dr. Lorentz (played by Boris Karloff's THRILLER veteran Vladimir Sokoloff) watches the sped-up stock footage elephant stampede and astutely comments: "
They were frightened!" OK, so there's a certain enjoyment in bonehead dialogue, too. The sight of the monster wasp's big, goofy face emerging from the jungle foliage to lift a man off his feet with its pincers (or whatever they're supposed to be) to carry him off for lunch is great. Even better is when Dr. Lorentz and his companion Arobi (Joel Fluellen) finds the victim's good luck charm lying in the monster's footprint! Priceless! In fact, all these scenes of Dr. Lorentz and his guide emerging from the underbrush and holding inane conversations with each other brings to mind the Monty Python's Flying Circus jungle expedition sketch: "If they were the ones filming us . . . who's filming us NOW?!?!" I wonder if one of the Pythons caught a sixties television airing of this film. The next time you watch MONSTER FROM GREEN HELL, take a look at the 29th episode of PYTHON entitled "The Money Programme" containing the "Lost World of Roiurama" sketch and see if you don't recognize some of the same nutty feel in both.
Next our two rocket scientists (I love how the irony is built right in) finally land in Africa and hire a native guide named Murray (sorry . . . Mahri) to take them to Lorentz's mission: a month's trek through the jungle. Here, tedium begins to set in as MONSTER FROM GREEN HELL morphs into STANLEY AND LIVINGSTONE. In fact, bucketloads of footage from STANLEY AND LIVINGSTONE are inserted into MONSTER FROM GREEN HELL; so much, in fact, that Jim Davis's antiquated costume (with pith helmet) only exists to match the footage of Spencer Tracy from a distance in the footage from the earlier film. Just before all patience with animal stock footage runs out, we are saved by the bonehead script. Our party hears ominous drumming. Murray (sorry ... Mahri) explains they are tribal war drums. "I hope they haven't seen us." states Quent as we immediately cut to millions of tribal warriors running towards the camera like they're in an Abbott and Costello movie! OK, all this stuff is pretty funny, I'll admit. But does it make MONSTER FROM GREEN HELL an enjoyable movie? Hold on, hold on, I'm getting there. We've gotta watch more of the film before judgment is rendered.
Feather-hatted natives attack and chase our party of boneheads for a while. And a while longer. Actually they're chasing Spencer Tracy's party but we'll overlook that. But OK, so where's the giant bug-eyed monster during all this? Brush fires and spear impalements are all well and good but this is supposed to be a big bug-eyed monster movie. The boneheads elude the million tribal warriors by presumably ducking behind a tree. Sadly, they're now running dangerously short of water. "The sun beat down as though it hated us" narrates Quent. I'm beginning to know how it feels! Dan collapses from exhaustion. Quent offers him the last of his water but Dan protests (he must've heard the rumour that the last swig is made up entirely of backwash spit). "Drink it!", grouches Quent almost sounding annoyed, "Drink it or I'll pour it on the grass!" Another laugh. Things are looking up. For the viewer at least. Jim Davis is at least as crotchedy as he'd later be at Southfork.
Wait a minute. More stock footage of lions and birds. More trekking over the plains. More boredom threatens. Did I hear someone mention the word "padding"? Wait! A poison watering hole. Some good shots of delirious actors' faces superimposed over the long march. Jim Davis' drunken stupor face (meant to show a lack of water) is priceless indeed. But where oh where's the big bug?!? Oh, here comes the rain. "Africa is a crazy place." observes Quent. Nice shot of the bearers in silhouette framed by lightning. Almost Lewtonesque. Almost. A bearer is startled by a bolt of lightning and drops a box. Right on Quent's head! Bonk! Best place for it. Down goes Quent but he's fine (all things being relative). A blow to the head is guaranteed to be the least damaging spot on Quent's anatomy. More trekking. Crossing rivers. Waterfalls. I think Quent just stepped in lion poop. Oh wait a minute. Quent's collapsed and has to be carried in a litter. He awakens at Dr. Lorentz's hut. Dan speaks for all of us when he observes: "He may be conscious but I think he's still a little light in the head." Poetry. Sheer poetry. Dr. Lorentz has already buggered off on an expedition but we meet his daughter Lorna. (Lorna Lorentz?!?!?!!!!!) 
Lorna is played with a permanent scowl all through the picture by Barbara Turner; who just happens to be Jennifer Jason Leigh's mother. Oh, let's hope she doesn't fall for Quent, the big lummox. Uh oh, looks like the monster has killed Dr. Lorentz. Lorna's in Quent's arms. Bad luck. Also, bad luck about your father, too, Lorna. Nothing's left but the doctor's shoe. Giant wasps are allergic to Thom McCann's. Inside the shoe is found a stinger from the giant wasp. Quent examines it under a microscope. "Living tissue inside the horny outer ring." Is Quent describing the stinger or something else? Yep, it's wasp tissue all right. But we haven't seen the buzzing fella for such a long time. I miss the big goof. Come back, Buzzy; the movie needs ya! They're lapsing into a Quent/Lorna romantic subplot. Make it stop! Make it stop!
Up until this point, Arobi (remember him?) is the only character who seems to have any sense. But fear for him, dear viewer. He's going out on an expedition with the other boneheads to look for Buzzy. Oh Arobi, what are you thinking? Was it peer pressure? Hey, there's 
a monkey in a tree throwing coconuts at the boneheads! Folks, meet the audience identification figure in the film. Nice aim, Bonzo! We appreciate it! The expedition comes upon a village littered with dead natives; no doubt covered in giant Buzzy bites. Buzzy, Buzzy, wherefore art thou, Buzzy? The screen sickens for you. Say, aren't these boneheads approaching the Mesa of Lost Women??? Our heroes next find a giant footprint the size of a small ditch. Quent deadpans: "Typical wasp markings." Typical bonehead script, thankfully. Wait. King Kong-like trumpet fanfare announces the sudden appearance of . . oh no, it's just an erupting volcano. I think the giant wasp asked for more money and was fired. Come on guys, we're at fifty minutes already!
Night falls around the campfire . . . and everywhere else presumably. The first night scene we've had since that thunderstorm ages ago. Our party goes to sleep. Just then a buzzing noise is heard announcing the typical nocturnal appearance of a giant wasp. Known for their nighttime activities, wasps. So, Buzzy fights a stop motion boa constrictor (nice!) and wins. At night. Great glowing bug eyes you've got there, Buzzy. Maybe that accounts for your late night stroll. After all, we all know what radiation and nighttime did on Blood Island! The giant wasps surround surround the boneheads. Boneheads set a brush fire and scare the bugs away. Is it me or does this movie seem a lot longer than it is?
The next day the buzzing sound returns. Jackpot! Quent, Dan, Arobi, Lorna and Murray (sorry . . . Mahri) appear to be right in the middle of the giant wasp colony. Dozens of buzzing big bugs with the queen among them. This is gonna be great! All the boneheads are gonna get eaten! Triffic, the grenades are having no effect! Ha! They're gonna get eaten! Get 'em, Buzzy! The wasp corners the boneheads inside a cave. This looks like the end. Bonehead canapes for Buzzy! Hey, great! Bonehead Quent throws one grenade in the box of grenades and seals all the boneheads alive inside the cave. Way to bury yourself alive, bonehead! The giant bug was too big to get in the cave anyway . . . and frankly Buzzy can't believe the boneheads were that dumb! What happens next? Well, I'm not gonna spoil the whole movie for you, am I? You're gonna have to watch it for yourself. I know you want to. And as for the burning question: "is MONSTER FROM GREEN HELL an enjoyable film? Well, it's certainly more fun than THE BLACK SCORPION but that's not saying much, I'll admit. Certainly there are a lot of movies more fun than MONSTER FROM GREEN HELL. A whole lot. But, if you're in the mood for a bonehead big buzzing bug movie, I can honestly say you'll probably get a chuckle or two out of this one. So if you've got nothing better to do, pop this one in the player. I mean, what would you rather be watching? Sparkling vampires???
here is a selection of his poetry and music. 
That's right, our Vinnie was born 100 years ago today May 27, 1911. Join us over 
Paul Giamatti plays Paul Giamatti; an actor who is appearing in a stage production of UNCLE VANYA. He finds the role so demanding that it's taking a physical toll on him and making him an emotional wreck. After seeing the aforementioned "Soul Storage" advert in "The New Yorker" magazine, Paul ends up in the futuristic office of Dr. Flintstein (David Strathairn) who offers a medical procedure which can remove and store the soul. Most souls, when removed from the body, resemble black or gray lumps and are stored in glass canisters in a storage facility. After much self-debate, Giamatti agrees to have his soul removed; the actor is nonplussed to discover his soul resembled a tiny chick pea. Dr. Flintstein assures him that the size and appearance of a soul has no bearing on its quality. After his soul is removed, Giamatti finds himself feeling much "lighter" and is no longer tortured by mental and emotional stress resulting from his role as Uncle Vanya. However, his acting suffers drastically. 
Meanwhile, it is revealed that there is a black market in stolen souls. Shady Russian soul traffickers obtain requested types of souls for a price. They utilize a stable of "mules": women who have had their own souls removed and therefore can have stolen souls implanted inside them so they may carry them across international boundaries to deliver the hot souls to the customer. One such "mule" named Nina (Dina Korzun) manages to steal Giamatti's soul for her Russian boss' wife who happens to be an actress (a bad one) in a Russian soap opera. The wife Sveta (Katheryn Winnick) thinks she has purchased the soul of Al Pacino but sadly that soul was unavailable; the only "good actor" soul Nina could find was Paul Giamatti's. Nina uploads Giamatti's soul and takes it to Russia where Sveta uses it to become a fine actress. Meanwhile, Paul Giamatti is concerned about how he has been behaving without his soul and wants it back. When Giamatti goes to retrieve his soul, he finds the storage box empty. Dr. Flintstein has some bad news; Giamatti's soul seems to have been "misplaced". While they do their best to recover it (it's probably been shipped to New Jersey for storage, Flintstein suggests), Giamatti has the soul of a Russian poet uploaded into him for the meantime. Having carried Giamatti's soul, Nina finds herself strangely drawn to watch Giamatti's films and, through a serious of events, Nina and Paul meet up and the soul theft is revealed. Giamatti insists that Nina take him to her boss in Russia to get his soul back. This they do but convincing Sveta not only that the soul she possesses ISN'T Al Pacino's but also that she should give it back to Giamatti is not going to be an easy sell.
COLD SOULS is indeed a very interesting film. While it certainly is worth watching, I cannot say that I actually enjoyed it overmuch. In fact, the film is very downbeat which surprised me. I expected more of a lighter feel to the film but obviously its soul is weighing the film down because at times it seems rather heavy going. This is not necessarily a criticism; only a misconception on my part about what the movie would be like. The film is deliberately shot in cold, bleak tones; especially in the Russian winter scenes. After all, the film is called COLD SOULS so its probably silly to expect much warmth from it. But don't get me wrong. The film is actually funny; but the humour arises from the situations and there are no belly laughs. There is a wry humour going on which necessarily comes from a rather dark place. Again, this is not a bad thing. The performances are all uniformly excellent. Giamatti, Korzun and Strathairn are wonderfully good as are Emily Watson as Giamatti's wife and Katheryn Winnick as the vacuous soap actress who suddenly obtains real talent and refuses to relinquish it. Barthe's script is very detailed and thought out; she takes the "soul storage" concept to its logical conclusion and gives us an intricate entire new world to play in. Unfortunately, there's not a lot of "play" going on but quite a lot of angst and misery. Usually, I love that kinda stuff but even I, in my morbid depths, found it to be a bit of a downer. All in all, COLD SOULS is definitely worth a look but only when forearmed with the above warning. The film has been criticized by some for being a little too reminiscent of BEING JOHN MALKOVICH; it is true that, while certainly not a ripoff of that earlier film, COLD SOULS did remind me quite a lot of it. Of course, MALKOVICH was much more light-hearted than SOULS and therefore probably much more enjoyable. However, I think the "ripoff" charge is too extreme. There are definite similarities but both are very different films. And yes, folks, if you are finding yourself weighed down by your own souls, the "Soul Storage" company is in fact an actual real company and you can have your soul stored by 
ANVIL: THE STORY OF ANVIL (2008) is a celebrated 
BAGDAD CAFE (1987) is one of those movies which begs to be called "quirky". And this it certainly is. A broken-down cafe/gas station/motel in the middle of the desert seems to collect bizarre characters like barnacles. CCH Pounder as the extremely loud owner of the cafe is wonderful and Marianne Sagebrecht as the wandering German tourist who winds up at the Bagdad Cafe is simply sublime. Jack Palance also stars as a sort-of vagabond artist. Disfunctional relationships are epidemic but the film is fascinating to watch unfold. A slightly dodgy, seemingly forced penultimate scene doesn't manage to sink an otherwise delightful film full of oddballs.
THE KING'S SPEECH (2010) predictably won the Best Picture Oscar. I haven't really seen the other nominees but this film certainly isn't "best picture" calibre. It's a nice enough movie; don't get me wrong. However it's oddly cold and uninvolving. Colin Firth's performance is fine (frankly he did more impressive acting in DORIAN GRAY) and Geoffrey Rush's performance is . . . not so hot. Helena Bonham-Carter is surprisingly fun as the Queen and Guy Pearce is woefully miscast as abdicating Eddie. The film seemed more like a TV movie and I can't think of any reason why it won best picture other than Hollywood's continuing tendency to vote for something "respectable". Perhaps another director could've brought more verve to the film or at least have conjured a little tension or suspense. Oddly many of the most historical, interesting and suspenseful events take place off screen i.e. the crisis leading up to Edward's abdication and the governmental struggles which resulted in Neville Chamberlain becoming PM and, subsequently, stepping down in favour of Winston Churchill. Granted, the film isn't specifically about these events (although they are integral to the plot) but perhaps that leads us to question whether a film should've been made about these subjects instead of the admittedly weak theatrical potential which finds the climax of a film the delivery of a radio speech.
THE LAST SUNSET (1961) is a Western directed by Robert Aldrich starring a strong cast including Kirk Douglas, Rock Hudson, Dorothy Malone, Carol Lynley and Joseph Cotten. Ah, what a mess! Kirk is an outlaw type who rides in on his old flame Dorothy Malone who is married to a drunken coward (Joseph Cotten) who is planning a cattle drive across country from Mexico to Texas. Lawman Rock Hudson is chasing Kirk with a warrant and plans to haul him in once they cross the border into his Texas jurisdiction. We are of course meant to identify with Kirk despite the fact that he is responsible for the death of Rock's brother-in-law and sister (who hanged herself in grief). Revenge-seeking Rock Hudson agrees to help Kirk on the cattle drive because . . . well, I don't really know. If all this doesn't make much sense, that's because the whole movie doesn't make much sense. Everyone's motivations seem to change from scene to scene. One minute Rock is out for Kirk's blood and the next he's grinning at some of Kirk's silly antics. Dorothy Malone clearly doesn't love her older husband and is strongly drawn to her old flame Kirk Douglas; until of course she falls in love with Rock Hudson instead in seemingly one afternoon. Kirk, who's been carrying a flame for Malone all these years, sees Hudson and Malone canoodling and, after about 5 minutes, decides to marry Malone's daughter Carol Lynley. And Joseph Cotten is removed from the film halfway through in so convenient a manner it's insulting. I guess while Kirk and Rock are tossing Dorothy back and forth there's simply no more screen time left for Cotten. Give this one a miss, folks, and watch RED RIVER instead.
SUGAR HILL (1974) is one of those AIP pictures which combines its traditional bread and butter (horror) with the new cash cow blaxploitation. This, however, is towards the end of that cycle. The film is a revenge movie featuring Marki Bey as "Sugar" Hill who seeks revenge on local crime lord Robert Quarry for the death of her sweetie. Marki heads into the bayou to plead with voodoo priestess Zara Culley (Mother Jefferson from TV's THE JEFFERSONS) for the power to seek vengeance. Sugar gives her soul to voodoo god Baron Samedi (Don Pedro Colley) in return for voodoo powers and zombie minions. Marki Bey apparently never made another movie and maybe it's easy to see why. She doesn't do so well with crying or simple emoting; however she is rather wonderful during her vengeful moments. In comparison with most of the "Twinkie starlets" cluttering up movie screens these days, Marki Bey is a regular Judi Densch! Quarry is his usual wonderful bitchy self dismissing his blonde bimbo's advances and even cuddling with a poodle! Colley seems to have wandered in from another movie; however that's not a bad thing. His Baron Samedi is over-the-top and bombastic and sometime I expected him to break out in a sales pitch for the un-cola! The zombies of SUGAR HILL are actually very effective in a stylized way; they are always covered in nice cobwebs and their large, blank eyes are much like those featured in the Doctor Who adventure THE CLAWS OF AXOS with Jon Pertwee -- that is, almost like silvery ping pong balls. While no brain-eating goes on, the zombies are suitably creepy. All in all, well worth an hour and a half of your time. 
The BBC's 1983 teleproduction of MACBETH starring Nicol Williamson and Jane Lapotaire is good but not great. I don't seem to be able to find a truly satisfying version of the Scottish play. The earlier BBC production of the 1970's starring a young Ian McKellan and Judi Densch is VERY unsatisfying; in other words, I didn't like that one at all! This 1983 version is quite a notch better. While I adore both Nicol Williamson and Jane Lapotaire (both extremely quirky and interesting actors) I found them both rather tame in this one and the line readings lacked a good deal of emotion and actual connection with the material. Williamson fared far better when he played HAMLET. When all is said and done, this 1983 version of MACBETH will do until a better one comes along. If it ever does.
EAT PRAY LOVE (2010) is the true story of writer Elizabeth Gilbert's crisis of self which caused her to end her marriage and take a year to travel to Italy, India and Bali. For an "Oprah book", EAT PRAY LOVE is refreshingly non-male-hating. While I have not read the book, I actually found the movie quite good. Granted, it's "Hollywooded-up" with Julia Roberts as Liz but I actually found her to be wonderful in the role; she brings a depth of emotion to her acting which this particular non-Julia fan found surprising. Javier Bardem is also very good but the standout performance is by Richard Jenkins as Richard from Texas who actually deserved an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor, I think. The film is perhaps a little reminiscent of UNDER THE TUSCAN SUN (a film for which I admit to a great fondness) but it's good enough to stand on its own. And hey, the script was co-written by Eunice from SOAP so what's not to like?!?
CINEMA VERITE (2011) is the highly touted HBO movie about probably the original "reality TV" show from the early 1970s: AN AMERICAN FAMILY. Cameras followed around the "typical American family" the Louds during a time when coincidentally the family decided to self-destruct. Dad's philandering prompted Mom to kick him out of the house and file for divorce and oldest son Lance became the first openly gay man on US television. All this while the cameras were rolling. Now Tim Robbins and Diane Lane portray Mr. and Mrs. Loud in this new film version telling what happened behind as well as in front of the cameras. While watching the film I found myself wondering exactly what the point of it all was. Frankly, the HBO film seemed to be rather done by rote and didn't add anything to the story. In fact, the fact that actors are re-enacting events which we saw happen in reality on AN AMERICAN FAMILY made the whole thing seem redundant and needless. Robbins and Lane are adequate enough, I suppose, but they can't hold a candle to the real Louds. My reaction by the end of CINEMA VERITE was a sighed "so what". It seems to me all the effort went into recreating the original scenes technically than in emotionally involving the audience in the story. Oddly, the 2011 HBO movie seemed a coldly technical exercise while the original AN AMERICAN FAMILY documentary/reality series had the drama and emotion. If you wanna know the real story, go watch the original series.
Of course, the spectacular Paul Wegener (DER GOLEM's daddy) gives a wonderfully bombastic theatrical performance which suits the character of the black magician Oliver Haddo. Wegener's face was naturally even more satyr-like than Jack Palance and he actually looks scarier here than when buried under all that Golem makeup which frankly got in the way of his demonic visage. The photography throughout the film is masterful, painterly and dynamic; nothing less could be expected from veteran cinematographer John F. Seitz. And the direction by Rex Ingram, as I've said, is the briskest of the brisk keeping things moving along so well that the film seems to last far shorter than its actual running time. As a true classic of the silent horror film era, THE MAGICIAN can hold its own amongst the best of them. 
