At the Aisle Seat: "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen"

   Welcome, everyone!  I've noticed that, for some reason, my Xanga has been getting a lot of activity of late.  After you've visited, please feel free to either sign my guestbook or leave a comment.  I'd love to hear from y'all!

   OK, I've decided to wait a week to review the new Transformers film.  Mainly because I wanted to see how it did at the box office.  So, without any spoilers or further ado, here we go...



   If you haven't seen the 1st film, no worries.  There's a nice synopsis at the beginning to this one.  It's gets you up to speed cuz you need to be prepared to hit the ground running! 

   There are a whole batch of new Autobots & Decpeticons introduced in this film, the biggest of which is the main protagonist the Fallen.  FYI: the Fallen is the name of one single Decepticon.  Actually, he's the original Decepticon.  (Before the film's release, there was some minor confusion about this.  Initially, folks thought that the Fallen was a group of Decepticons that formed the gigantic Transformer.  That would be wrong.  The gigantic Transformer is Devistator, which is formed by the Constructicons...)
   The most contraversial Transformers are the Autobot twins of Swipe & Mudflap.  They're the ones that have the gold tooths (singular for each of them) and talk & act like rejects from "Yo! MTV Raps."  I'll admit, they are really annoying.  They don't really serve much of a purpose to the film beyond the forced comic relief.  I wished that the writers would have had some other Autobot characters instead, like maybe Kup and Hot Rod (from the animated film)

At the Aisle Seat: "X-Men Origins: Wolverine," "Star Trek"

     It's that time of year again!  The (so-called) "Summer Blockbuster" Movie season has begun!  And, that also means the return my blog's very own movie review column, "At the Aisle Seat." 
   For this edition, I'll be covering the 1st 2 big films of this season in the order of their release dates.  And, as always, I shall do my best to keep things spoiler free!

   First, "X-Men Origins: Wolverine."

   It's been a couple of years since the semi-disappointing "X-Men: The Last Stand" (aka "X3: The Last Stand").  I say "semi-disappointing" because there were a few really outstanding things that occurred in that film: the use of the Danger Room, more Colossus in action, and the brilliant Kelsey Grammer as Hank McCoy/the ever-loving blue furred Beast!

   Now, with this new entry into the X-Men film franchise, the ever-popular mutant Wolverine is featured front-n-center!  This film delves into the mysterious past of the primal mutant, from childhood into his maturity into adulthood. 
   This film borrows a great deal from all of the various comic book stories about Logan & his past.  However, it does so in such a way that fans of those tales won't be bored.  To mention which stories would be giving away much of the plot of this movie.  Suffice it to say, if you've ever read any Wolverine comics, there's a lot of really cool "easter eggs" for you to discover!

   The other really cool thing about this film is that it firmly entrenches itself in the Marvel Mutant Universe.  There are more mutants in this film than the previous 3 X-Films combined!  The best of which are Deadpool & Gambit (both of whom were featured in the film's trailers).

   Ryan Reynolds was excellent as Wade Wilson, aka Deadpool, "the Merc With the Mouth."  He really nailed the character without making him too campy/comic-booky.  So, for those of you that are expecting a mutant-powered version of "Van Wilder," forget about it!  Reynolds' Deadpool is spot-on with the original comic character!  Oh, and just so you know, yes!  He does deserve his own spin-off movie, which is now in pre-production!

   One of the biggest surprises, for me, was the performance of Taylor Kitsch as Remy LeBeau (aka Gambit).  While he was rather light on the Cajun accent, Kitsch brought out the mutant's "devil-may-care," debonaire nature rather convincingly.  Obviously, if you're familiar with this character, there were some minor tweeks made to his physical appearence.  However, much like the leather uniforms from the previous X-Films, the adjustments made to bring Gambit to the big screen doesn't detract from the original's character design at all.  Confused?  Well, when you see this film you'll understand what I mean. 

   Regardless, this is the best X-Film since X2: X-Men United.  I give it 4 out of 5 stars. 

   Oh, and by the way, you should really watch the entire film!  Much like last year's "Iron Man," there are some pretty cool things in store for those who sit thru the end credits!  Trust me!

   Next is the new "Star Trek." 

   Now, before I go any further, I'd just like to state that I'm not what you'd call a "hardcore Star Trek" fan, otherwise known as a "Trekkie/Trekker."  Granted, I'm a fan of the film franchise(s) and some of the various comic book lines.  I also have a more-than-passing knowledge about the various Trek franchises.  But, I cannot quote "chapter & verse" all things Trek. 
   Basically, I'm not a "closet Trekker."  I've, like most people who are into pop culture, enjoyed the previous 10 films.
   'Nuff said.  With that out of the way, we now return to your column, already in progress.....

   For the better part of a year now, all I've heard from the Trekkies/Trekkers are the moans and groans about how this new film was going to suck, that it wasn't really "Star Trek" anymore because the original cast wasn't going to be in it.
   To those people, I say this:  The original cast of actors are either too old to carry a film of this magnitude or dead.  This new film is not your "grandfather's Trek." 
   While I understand and feel your pain (I still really dispise the new so-called "Battlestar Galactica"! [Starbuck's supposed to be a guy, not a biker chick!]), in this case, i really believe that the moderization of the Trek franchise works...and it works really well!

   Unlike how Ronald Moore jacked up "Galactica,"  JJ Abrams & company fine-tuned the original characters and brought them to the 21st (23rd?) Century!  They didn't do anything too radical, such as arbitrarily change the gender of any characters (Starbuck & Boomer aren't supposed to be women!).

   We finally get to see the earliest days of the Enterprise's crew, as well as the starship's maiden voyage. 

Couch Potato Chronicles: What's Wrong with "Late Night with Jimmy Fallon"

My First Xanga Blog "Swipe"...

Couch Potato Chronicles: What's the difference between "Smallville" & "Heroes"...

   This is a topic that has been perplexing me for a couple of years now.  And, actually, I've figured it out a while ago.  However, it wasn't until the last couple of weeks (read: episodes) that it was truly confirmed for me.

   I've had quite a few conversations about the TV series "Heroes."  Mostly, folks have asked me for my take as to why "Heroes" isn't as good now as it was during the first season.  Well, in order for me to answer that, I want to make a comparison between "Heroes" & "Smallville," which is in the middle of its 8th season right now.

   Simply put, I am of the opinion that the creative braintrust of "Heroes" have been taking themselves way too seriously.  They seems to believe that every episode must be of "earth-shattering" importance (to use the comic book cliche).  And, because of this so-called significance, each episode of "Heroes" has getting more and more darker & heavier in content & tone.  

   This is something that used to plague comic stories since the late-80's.  Comic book creators/writers believed that the comic stories had to be more darker, grittier, edgier--just like Frank Miller's "The Dark Knight" and Alan Moore's "Watchmen."  The reality was that these comic creators became so self-aware, so pious, that they almost single-handedly caused the hobby to implode upon itself.

   Fortunately, there was this "little" thing in the early-90's called "the Image Revoultion" which helped to change this attitude.  In spite of the fact that the stories became more artistically-driven, comics became fun again!  The stories were exciting to follow.  The best example of this was the epic "Death of Superman" stories.  Yes, it was kind'a darker & edgier, but not do much as to drown out the characterizations, which allowed the reader to care about the events which unfolded.

    What does this have to do with "Heroes" & "Smallville"?  Elementary!

   The reason why "Smallville" continues to be popular & successful, even after 8 seasons, is simple.  There's a balance in story content.  The tone of each episode strikes a balance of light & shade.  Yes, there's a lot of story details.  There have been some seriously dark story elements; for example, the recent Clark/Lana plotline, as well as what's going on with Chloe's marriage to Jimmy Olsen.  However, there's always some really cool, lighter story elements, such as Clark's trying to keep his secret from the ever-curious Lois.

   In "Smallville," there's no dwelling on the heavier aspects of the story.  Why?  Because the "Smallville" braintrust knows what the fans want.  They do not want to be constantly emotionally hammered, nor do they want constant silliness.  They want a balance.  And, "Smallville" regularly scores that balance.

   What made "Heroes" great during that 1st season was that there was an attempt to strike a balance between light & shade.  For example, while Peter was dealing with his powers and Sylar was continuing to menace the world, there was Hiro's journey to becoming the hero that he was destined to be.  I think that the mid-1st season mantra pretty much says it all: "Save the cheerleader, save the world."  There was balance.

   However, because of its overwhelming success, "Heroes" began to take itself way too seriously.  It grew to be darker & heavier.  It ceased being fun.  Every episode was about uncovering more details of the overall conspiracy.  It almost became some sort of "superhero soap opera."

   I don't know about you, but I grew mentally exhausted of the same thing, episode after episode.  So much so that, when the 3rd season started, I just gave up trying to follow it.  The stories made my head hurt.  I plan of watching it once the season is completed, either by renting the DVD's or watching on-line.  This way, I don't have to wait for a whole week or whatevers to follow the stories.

    I believe the best thing that the producers of "Heroes" can do for next season, should there be one, is to return to trying to achieve that balance between light & shade.  Make the show fun again.  Stretch the story concepts.  Return the tone of the show back to the "Save the cheerleader, save the world" days.  Get off of the whole self-importance kick.  Not every episode has to be of "earth-shattering" significance.  

   By doing this, I believe that "Heroes" could return to its glory days of the 1st season.

   So there you have it.  My take on this topic.  I'd love to hear your take.  

   Until next time, as always, stay tuned...