Reviews

Bill, because I have a tremendous amount of admiration, respect, and love for you, I offer this critique in a style I'm positive you'll appreciate.

New Rule: "If your comedy blows, stick to the talk shows." Very similar to your saying: "Don't be funny, guard the money." You said this to an unruly political guest who deserved it. As I recall, his bomb was a comedic attempt while insulting another guest. He fully deserved the negative reactions as well. But good advice goes both ways so, I'm glad to help.

New Rule: "We get it . . . more or less" You don't have to explain your references. When you use a good reference and we're laughing, ride the wave. No further explanation is required. Otherwise it's like a form of reverse-heckling. Or, like watching the narrated version of Bladerunner at the peak of a beautifully crafted scene, to have it destroyed by a voice-over. (That's a reference by the way).

New Rule: "Truth in advertising." For example, any of your guests, the politicians, scientists, doctors, not in the entertainment industry, don't have to be entertaining. However, I have every expectation for you to be. If you want to stick to your rant on a singular topic or do an impromptu roast on someone in absentia, then say so upfront. Wait! I may be wrong. The title does say Live from Oklahoma, not Live Comedy from Oklahoma. Sorry, please feel free to disregard this one.

New Rule: "Read the room." Actually this is an old rule. For, every good comedian knows when to pivot to the funny stuff. If you don't remember how, just watch some of your past show's political guests as they try "not" to answer a question. With all those writers, couldn't you spare one to help with some alternate jokes? I haven't seen someone bomb this bad since your gal-pal Ann Coulter on the Comedy Central Roast of Rob Lowe. (That's ref number two).

New Rule: "Network." I'm sure there's an excellent support system for you, so use it. For example, do the LA Show-biz lunch thing with Dennis Miller and Eddie Murphy. They too used to be funny. However, they don't come off looking like a douche. Perhaps they can give you some tips.

Bill, you have one of the most topical and important shows on TV with Real Time. Even when comparing to Jon Stewart and your immediate neighbor, John Oliver. You have an eclectic and stellar collection of guests such as, Seth MacFarlane, Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson, and one of my favorites, the late Werner Klemperer (Colonel Wilhelm Klink) who had several appearances on Politically Incorrect, and even guest hosted like Seth did. But unlike Jon and John, your talk/news show skills didn't translate to a solo performance. Are you just better with guests that effectively punctuate your run-on rants?

Lastly, 5 starz to Amazon for refunding my purchase of this vid. Excellent service as always. If only I could get that kind of service from theatres.

I was introduced to Mrs. Maisel through Amazon's "on deck" feature. I think this a bit intrusive and reminds me of the old Columbia Clearing House's annoying "director's choice" where the company sent a DVD without asking. I sent every one of them back. Likewise I kept deleting Mrs. Maisel because it's a choice that was made for me, not by me. Then, I finally watched the first episode and my mood quickly changed. It quickly became obvious that Amazon knows what make me laugh. I should've never stressed about this in the first place as all Amazon Studio's creations are hits, so far. And, Mrs. Maisel is another one. What a delight. Constant laughs, start to finish and I got to see some of my favorite actors working. Tony Shalhoub as Abe Weissman, Mrs. Maisel's father is a strong supporting character and as funny as we're accustomed to. Alex (Lois Griffin) Borstein is, Susie Myerson, Maisel's impromptu mentor also funny and a strong supporting character. However, Rachel Brosnahan as the lead, Miriam 'Midge' Maisel was the most surprising. Whereas, I can expect only the greatest comedic performance from the aforementioned, I only know Rachel from Netflix's "House of Cards" and WGN America's showing of "Manhattan" about the America's development of the first two Atom Bombs. Both of these are dramas so, why would I expect her to be funny? Well, she did it and I'm hooked. Definitely an eclectic skillset which I'm looking to seeing more of.

Since the early part of the new millennium, Ronald Moore, Dick Eick, and J.J. Abrams gave us examples of how great Sci-Fi can be. All their Sci-Fi reboots have been homeruns in my opinion. This opinion seems to be shared by many of my fellow reviewers, acquaintances, as well as main stream periodicals. Rolling Stone said of one Si-Fi reboot, that it was the best show on television. When writers, producers, and the other crewmembers decide to take on Sci-Fi projects seriously, to explore the more complicated aspects of humanity (or other life forms), the bar is raised for everyone. But how do you polish a show that featured giant talking carrots? I appreciate the talent and other works of Billy Mumy and Jonathan Harris. In 1968, at seven years old, I started watching Lost in Space (LIS). I found much of it unwatchable. Can you get a permanent neck injury from excessive cringing? One can forget bad SFX, but bad dialogue can't be un-watched, forgotten, or easily forgiven. However, Netflix has taken on a new LIS project that helps fade these memories with a freshly, re-imagined take on the Space Family Robinson. To start with, is brilliant casting. Dr. Smith is now a woman with a sorted past that steals this identity from the real Dr. Smith briefly played by Billy Mumy. Judging by the smile and his later-found picture ID, he was probably a nice guy. This is a sharp contrast to Parker Posey's take on the doctor as an uber-manipulative female with a very costly survival instinct to whoever gets in her way. After seeing some of the late Jonathan Harris' interviews, I would like to think that he would've approved of Parker's performance. The robot is now an alien that has been re-purposed from a military machine, attempting to recover stolen alien tech, to a totally devoted automaton protecting young Will Robinson. However, it's a fraught relationship so, stay tuned. And, Billy Mumy was not this young in the original LIS. John Robinson is played by Toby (Capt. Flint) Stephens. He is a much different version from the original as well. He's not the brains of the mission this time. This responsibility falls to Aerospace Engineer, Prof. Maureen Robinson played by, Molly (House of Cards) Parker. Adopted daughter, Judy Robinson is a Medical doctor who seems the same age as her red-haired, half-sister Penny. And, Don West, who later joins the Robinsons, is not Mark Goddard's version of the straight-laced Major. Ignacio Serricchio's version is that of a self-absorbed opportunist and smuggler, but with a patina of an actual conscience. My one criticism is that the character flaws although effectively revealed through dialogue and flashbacks, without taking the audience out of the moment, is maybe a little thick. There's deeper meanings and secrets to be discovered in this richly woven tapestry. Hopefully, we'll see more in another season. Netflix does have a great reputation of choosing and sticking with their projects. And, I'm glad they're following the standards set other successful reboots because, I'm spoiled now. I can't watch Sci-Fi just for great CGI. I have to experience a great story as well.

For the dedicated 007 fan, I recommend adding this movie to your Bond collection. I always enjoy a good behind the scenes documentary, especially all the human drama and minutia involved in making Hollywood magic. I have to say as far as movie making documentaries, this one's the best so far. This is a brilliant and methodical collection of interviews and news clips covering the Bond saga from 1962 to 2012's Skyfall. Going far beyond the special features that accompany the DVD/Blu-Ray collections, there are many fresh revelations of the decisions, relationships, litigations, collaborations, betrayals, controversies, successes, and failures that went into the creative processes of Fleming, Broccoli, Saltzman, and many other talents who framed the Bond mythology. The movie begins with an intro from our newest Bond Commander, Daniel Craig. It seems a fitting choice to begin the 50-year anniversary tell all as he grew up with Bond. The interviews include super villains as well. Beginning with Christopher Lee, The Man with the Golden Gun 1973, it's revealed (to me at least) that he's a "distant cousin" of the late Ian Fleming. I'm glad he's still with us to share his knowledge of Ian's real-life WWII Naval Intelligence experiences which was the impetus for the Bond character development. Interviews are not just for the Hollywood elite either. The film makers include the surviving siblings, children, associates, and friends who, in my mind, contribute greatly to the Bond perspective. As the film progresses to interviews with the actors who played Bond, many new facts are revealed in a "he said, she said" style and old facts re-confirmed as well. For example, the reasoning behind choosing Welsh actor, Timothy Dalton, before Pierce Brosnan, is well known by many of us older fans, but maybe not by the newer generation of fans. However, most glaringly absent from the main characters' participation, is the first Bond, Sean Connery. In spite of this, Mr. Connery's pro/con experiences are told in absentia and in a seemingly fair manner carefully avoiding any pre-judgments leaving that privilege to the audience. Harry Saltzman and Albert R. (Cubby) Broccoli were the original Bond producers but died in 1994 and 96. Although not available, many home movies and other footage were carefully edited in to give us a fairly complete perspective of the working and personal relationship between these two men. This part of the story is greatly enhanced by the daughters. Barbara Broccoli and Hillary Saltzman. I'm captivated as they recall loving memories of their fathers, and can't help wondering why they were never "Bond girls." These two women are as beautiful as any of the ladies who've filled the ranks. Then, the story is the "passing of the baton" to the surviving Barbara Broccoli and her step brother Michael. They continue the Bond saga with a set of new challenges, such as, choosing the first "Blond Bond," Daniel Craig, which was very controversial at the time (another new fact to me). Sharing what 007 means to them, the last few minutes are a montage of closing comments and analogies from many of the feature's participants including former Pres. Bill Clinton.

For me, I'm always slow in warming up to a change with my favorite characters and Bond is no exception. However, the actors who have holstered the Walther PPK, have done an excellent job in my estimation. I'm not one of those "so and so was the real Bond" type of fans . . . So far.

As a companion movie, I recommend "Bond Girls Are Forever." It's a 2002 documentary, ten years before this one. It's done in a different style as Maryam d'Abo, herself a Bond girl, solely does the interviews in "Globe trotter" fashion.

There's people that prefer the drafting board to computers, prefer a typewriter to word-processing software, prefer film to digital cameras, etc. The list is extensive and the people on it are usually dismissed and eventually forgotten as technology moves forward. CGI creates better special effects; digital images can be deleted without wasting film; and Computer Aided Drafting and Manufacturing creates better, more accurate products. However, the case for analog over digital methods in music continues to be made. Musicologist Dave Grohl brings this debate to the court of public opinion in "Sound City." Called to the witness stand is a variety of fellow artists from the 60's to present which includes Paul McCartney, Stevie Nicks, Tom Petty, Neil Young, John Fogerty, Barry Manilow, Rick Springfield, et al. All these participants not only testify to their in experience with the studio but on the influences and differences of digital over analog methods on music culture. It's made apparent early on that this documentary is more than just a "day in the life" of musicians and how they created the art we enjoy as Dave later affirms:

"It all started with this idea that I wanted to tell the story of the board. The conversation became something much bigger. Like . . . in this age of technology, where you simulate or manipulate anything, how do we retain that human element . . .? How do we keep music to sound like people? That feeling that I got when I was young, Oh, I could that too."

And so the case is made that it's the analog imperfections that retains the human quality much like hand-made furniture as compared to the mass produced. But the film is not a total dis on technology. It's stated quite clearly that it was the "Neve" sound board that much homage is paid to including an interview with sound engineer Rupert Neve himself. For although this was the pinnacle of technology, it was still analog technology. As the film's humble narrator/producer conducts a multi leveled journey spanning many decades of music, digital methods continued to penetrate the music culture. In all these examples there are those who reject it, those who embrace it, and those who find a middle ground for old and new technologies to coexist in their vocation. Some prefer a set of drums and others use an electronic drum machine. Eventually, Sound City couldn't compete with the digital world where artists steadily became more like computer music "file makers" rather than instrument trained musicians. Through many examples we are shown that in music, in spite of the advances in recording and producing technology, many musicians can preserve the "human" quality with state of the art "analog" technologies. Come to think of it, one of my favorite composers "Vangelis" uses a variety of electronic and digital methods. But he's still very much in charge of the mood his music inspires. This quality would probably be lost if he just programmed a computer to play his compositions. Dave never forgot where he came from. This was the impetus for making this film and the reason for preserving the Neve board which now resides in his private studio. He waxes some heavy philosophy but never comes off preachy which could easily turn this movie into a "vanity project." In fact he comes off very altruistic with his many homages to the staff and studio where he cut his first album with Nirvana. And to top it off is Jam sessions including many of the artists who were interviewed throughout the feature.

16 FEB 1988, Baltimore Maryland, at the Senator theatre, was the premiere of "Hairspray" and a simultaneous AIDS benefit. John Waters and Harris, Glen, Milstead sans his alter ego, "Divine," were the star attendees supported by many A-list celebs as well. This is a good place to start a documentary of the rich, stormy, sexy, and wild history of Divine. It was also considered a turning point as well as legitimizing a John Waters production by the "so-called" mainstream Hollywood standards. It's been a long road for the both of them who first met at 17 years old, doing a variety of independent, and counter culture projects. They didn't start out with dreams of big movie making deals rather, their efforts were purely for their own circle of influence. Only later, when friends and others liked these efforts, did this hobby develop into "Dreamland," an official production company. Further flashbacks reveals Glen's life as a not quite "out of the closet" gay child growing up in an uber-homophobic, late 50's East Coast Baltimore suburbia. At school, he suffered brutal bullying. He tried to fit in with a dress code that evidently didn't fool a rather sophisticated Gaydar in this otherwise Ozzie and Harriet utopia. He even had a girlfriend who still remembers him fondly. Glen had a loving mother, supportive in some aspects, recognized Glen's love of pretty things, style, and fashion. The family was affluent enough to get young Glen his own hair salon. He was the most sought out hair stylist in the neighborhood. Thru overheard gossip of customers, his mother had further evidence of Glen's true id. However, she chose to bury her head in the sand about his orientation. After deciding to make his orientation official, as well as his vices, mother and child parted ways. Now Glen was fully engaged with his film projects and new life. It was Glen's brutal treatment that would serve John Waters and Glen well as the two went forward. John tapped into Glen's traumatic past and channeled the best and worst Divine had to offer. "Making lemonade from lemons" is always a mark of real genius. Divine became an underground Goddess with a body of work that included quite of few music albums. This was beyond the Waters/Glen partnership. Not because of any ill feelings, John just couldn't make a film every year to keep up with the growing demand for Divine. In fact John expressed his happiness for his friend's opportunities. Glen proved his versatility when he went mainstream as himself in 1985's "Trouble in Mind" with Kris Kristofferson. Able to play both female and male parts, he went back to drag in 1988's "Hairspray." Now established in two different cultures, he was set to play a male role in "Married with Children." However, he died the night before he was to begin work. He and his mother had fully reconciled just before this. She and others have good and bad memories but all loved him greatly. These basics and greater details are told by excellent interviews with equally great stock footage denoting a well-researched and complete documentary.

Years ago I was never a hardcore Divine fan. Not because I disliked him. I just didn't venture down the path of counter culture. I vaguely recall glimpses and was somewhat interested. Then thanks to tremendously more age, slightly less ignorance, and Frys Electronics' vast DVD and Blu-Ray inventory, I recently got "Pink Flamingos." I became a fan instantly appreciating the counter-culture scope of Divine's performance. I appreciated the risks he and John Waters took considering a somewhat conservative time. Every one of the cast's performance was way ahead of society's acceptable norms as well. I enjoyed it enough to watch all the "behind the scenes" additional commentary provided by John Waters. Now enlightened, I put "Female Troubles," Polyester," "Lust in the Dust," "Trouble in Mind," and "Hairspray" on my wish list. I'm glad I didn't get them yet because my palate is better prepared and cleansed now to enjoy these features with this documentary. In fact, if you haven't seen these previous John Waters/Divine projects, I'm strongly suggesting this documentary as a necessary precursor. That is, if you're the type of patron who feels that knowing an actor's bio can enhance this enjoyment so much more (or less).

It's always refreshing to see the backstory of how evil develops. In past days it was too easy to show the simplistic "Snidely Whiplash" versions of villains twirling their handlebar mustaches. It's even better when the villains redeems themselves. And the cherry on top is when a 53 old moviegoer can enjoy the same film among a theatre full of children albeit the crying babies. (Note to parents: don't rule out giving your bundles of joy just a very tiny bit of Night-Time Tylenol about an hour before the movie starts. They're too young to remember being there anyway, and everyone else doesn't have to hear their screeching, thanks).

In the tradition of those writers who helped bring to the screen the latest versions of: Darth Vader, Dr. Baltar, and Mila Kunis's witch: Theodora, They've shown, very effectively, the complicated layers of how evil develops from otherwise good souls. Such is the case in this departure from the original sleeping beauty re-imagining. Angelina's winged Maleficent starts as a loving but aggressive protector of her home. But like two of the above mentioned characters, betrayal and heartbreak provide the catalyst of transformation from peace and love to revenge and hate. Then, to vindicate the audience from having any misplaced empathy is, the redemption. The catalyst for this is the love between Maleficent and Aurora played by Elle Fanning who adopts her as her "Fairy God Mother." This is quite a departure from the animated version I saw some 43 years ago which was 12 years after its 1959 release. And Angelina's version of Maleficent is equally as different from Eleanor Audley's (voiced) version. Not to disparage the original, I like this story re-told, much better. I can remember not being that impressed at 10 as I am by this latest version. Other moral lessons such as the effects of greed, ambition, fear, etc. are well taught without the unnecessarily preachy exposition. To me this makes a film experience that can be enjoyed by children and adults alike. This is one the better efforts put forth by Disney. Let's hope the tradition continues with the upcoming Star Wars features. Too bad Walt didn't live to see CGI and the latest talent Lastly, I'm hearing these rumors about this movie being Angelina's big comeback? Hmm, I never knew she was gone. Then I'm always re-watching Gia and Tomb Raider in between her projects.

I'm behind on my other reviews, but after seeing this I had to put a rush on it before anybody else got the chance to lock down this blatantly cheesy, tacky, title, which I'm very proud of.

I consider this a long-overdue project. In an industry that is seemingly low on fresh ideas. I don't know why this wasn't done earlier. I wanted to see this since the 2003 HBO interviews with the Iceman Killer, "Richard Kuklinski." And this 2012 film was worth the wait. I'm not a wannbe longing to be one of these characters, but I do have favorites in this genre. I enjoy films like, Goodfellas, Casino, Godfathers I, II and III, etc. However, when a story is real, it makes the cinematic presentation all the more special to me.

The overall story stays true to the best of my knowledge, per the interviews and documentaries. The storytellers here decided to start in 1964, bypassing Mr. Kuklinski's childhood. This is a decision for which I'm grateful because although I don't have Mafioso or other gang ambitions, I do sometimes admire the code of ethics that have amongst themselves. In Richard's case, I started to empathize with him and that he had a strong aversion to killing women or children. However, he watched all this away as he revealed a childhood killing of an animal which I will spare the reader the gruesome details.

And the timeline is strongly represented by automobiles scenes which I appreciate. However, I noticed 2 continuity errors. Now, some errors like a windshield that's cracked in one scene and undamaged in the next or a watch that mysteriously switches wrists from scene to scene can be forgiven. However, as someone who takes his automobile religion seriously, some errors are more serious blasphemies. The continuity errors. I noticed were: a steering column ignition switch in the first murder scene stated to be 1964. Such features were not available till 1969; and a 1976 New York St. scene with some 1980s cars and taxicabs. As logic follows you can always show an earlier car in a later timeline, but not vice versa publisher doing sci-fi with time travel elements. However, the movie makers did me a solid and earned their redemption. That is, they gave me the opportunity to leer and drool over plenty of 1960s, Mopar eye candy. Most notably was the 1968 2-door fast-top Dodge Monaco during a clandestine meeting scene. And to a lesser degree, because they were 4-doors, a couple of 68 Plymouth Fury's. (I'm partial to the two door fast tops like my 1968 Plymouth Sport Fury with Center Console). Indeed, the cars gave me an adequate taste of nostalgia as I grew up in the Musclecar Era. Of

Other timeline examples were given equal attention. Those cheesy 70 mustaches, sideburns, mutton chops, hot pants, clogs, beanbag chairs, and a variety of styles and furnishings indicative of the times represented were just as abundant.

Playing the lead character is Michael Shannon, whose "Iceman" like style of acting was honed long before this feature, the highly successful HBO series Boardwalk Empire, or other movies such as Bug with costar Ashley Judd. In any of these you'll see his mastery of the totally unreadable veneer between a cauldron of emotional complexities and the outside world that he can break and a millisecond to express a range of personalities. And yet, can employ a different style altogether to play the super villain Gen. Zod in Man of Steel. (Note: could this be our new Lurch for any future Addams Family remakes? Sorry reader, I love this guy, but I just couldn't resist). Winona Ryder, who plays the Kuklinski housewife is definitely no hausfrau. So, she's no longer the girl from Heathers, Mermaids, or Beetlejuice, she still has the same cuteness wrapped up in a more mature 41-year-old package. Winona and Michael have one of the most passionate love scenes, brief as it was being interrupted by their children that I've seen in a long time without nudity. To me, Winona always appears as a pleasant surprise. Whenever I am in one of those "whatever happened to" ponderings, I'll see her again as Spock's mom. Ray Liotta, whose no stranger to gangsta stories, whether playing the good or bad guy, is an excellent choice to support this story. A couple of scenes leaned towards the over conventional with the gun pointing. However, Mr. Liotta played it fresh enough that I wasn't left feeling that I was watching one of his earlier films. If you want to see his diversity, he's quite good comedic actor as well. Search for him in the 2002 episode of Just Shoot Me Liotta? Liotta! Or movies like Observe and Report. Surprising new to the silver screen gangsta squad is Chris Evans. I totally didn't recognize him out of his Marvel comics uniform till I read the credits. He plays his role convincingly well as Kuklinski's temporary employment recruiter and body disposal specialist. James Franco plays in what has to be one of the briefest scenes in the movie for someone of his current ranking. He's definitely one of Hollywood's workaholics. And yet, were all still patiently waiting for Pineapple Express 2!!! Friends star David Schwimmer is one of the first to sport the bushy, cheesy, 70s whiskers. He plays one of Ray's protégés who, after some good scenes is given a typical Mafia retirement package. And lastly, Robert Davi. Ever see the 1989, 007 feature: License to Kill? Well, that's him. He gives an excellent performance as a higher ranking, decision-making level boss. That is, until his own case of sudden lead poisoning in the aforementioned Dodge Monaco (Dad, can I have the car if you're shot?) He's another actor that I like to see working and keeps very busy, I just don't notice as much as I do my other favorites. The Iceman was worth the wait and worth the price.

I heard JJ Abrams in a recent interview expressing his experience with movie trailers and how scenes are selected in a way that the actual movie is a letdown. Well, that's not the case here as JJ and crew put together a preview structure that ensured a complete and pleasant surprise. It's my opinion that just like the first ST from JJ, these current actors portray the Enterprise's characters better than the originals (with due respect of course). Chris Pine met with and studied William Shatner for the first JJ Abrams feature. However, his Kirk interpretation remains very unique and he spares us the less than enjoyable Shatnerisms. Such as . . . that . . . annoying . . . dramatic . . . pausality . . . of Shatner speak. Zachary Quinto's Spock, dealing with the complexities of love with co-worker Uhura has migrated from the first film as well. Spock has to master his emotional, human half if his relationship with Zoë Zalandra's Uhura has any hope of lasting. As a viewer I love these inside glimpses rather than just the "talking the mission" expositions. Zachary has an excellent ability to transform between Zen like calmness and absolute rage at warp speed without being unrealistically theatrical. Equally Simon Pegg as Scotty, Anton Yelchin as Chekov, John Cho as Sulu, and Karl Urban as Dr. McCoy show equal ownership of their characters with an "amped up" set of skills as compared to the TV portrayals. That is, I don't get the impression of the chain like structure orbiting the lead character as in the original 60's TV series. Rather, everyone seems to have equal or at least semi-equal footing displaying confidence and skills in their duties. To compare with the TV crew that in spite of all their education and skills were quite helpless without the captain. I never understood how the engineer "Scotty" in the TV series who was known to have taken part in ship design, just can't figure things out until that suggestion from Kirk. Only then would the light bulb come on with the over the top "Aye that just may work after all." Or, the helpless female Uhura who's quite incapable of performing the duties she mastered without the strong arms of her captain. Well, you'll see none of that nonsense with JJ's muster mister!! For this new crew has totally upstaged the originals. This movie as well as JJ's first effectively conveys that everybody is equally capable of saving the day. (Hmmm, maybe the rumors about a certain actor's scene stealing in the original series are true). These comparisons are not to disparage the original actors and their abilities. I'm sensitive to the available: technology, budget, and overall 60's attitude toward weekly episodic TV production whether sci-fi or other genre. And the original ST did have a healthy supply of veteran guest actors such as Edward G Robinson's Klingon appearance. But truly a greater depth, range, and overall performance, was never expressed by the original cast, in that original setting. I enjoyed the story as well however, I didn't feel it was quite as strong as the performances. I understand the "wink and a nod" to the earlier elements. The resurgence of the villain "Khan" although not a repeat of earlier scripts, leaves me wondering "OMG are they running out of ideas this early in the game?" Or, "Is this newly rebooted franchise on a diet of old stories?" Maybe so, but personally I'm hoping for totally new adventures. In fact this is my version of the Enterprises five-year mission statement: "To Seek out New Stories and ideas . . . To Boldly Go Where No Producer Has Gone before" I think this needs a little polishing but would you agree with the overall message? Otherwise, it would seem that the new ST is doomed to do an endless cycle of reboots as seen in some movies. CGI and other SFX are excellent as in the first film. However, the least accolades goes to the Enterprise which seems more prone to easy bruising in a fight. But this does add to the dramatic license as we see many forever nameless crew members sucked into space. (It is sucked or blown into space)? I like that it's scaled up from the original to about twice the volume. However, I'm not too keen on the features. The CGI artists stated their reasoning for the new design changes, I just don't agree with them. And I will admit to some bias on my part. For in late 2007, quite by accident during an Internet search, I came across the CGI artist: "Gabriel Koerner" who I've been a fan of ever since although totally unsuccessful in contacting him. He modeled up his own version of the starship which you can search for as: "Gabriel Koerner Enterprise Reimagined." The Enterprise is just as strong a character as any of the crew. And likewise, it also has to be done right. And that's exactly what Gabe did. For example, he has sharply defined counter-rotating, multi colored elements just behind transparent nacelle domes that's truly hypnotic. As compared to the plane Jane version in the movie in which one CGI staff person said "I never liked the little light show on the front of the nacelles." I guess it's all a matter of taste but I'll take Gabe's version any day. Gabe worked on the new Battlestar Galactica, Enterprise, and quite a few movies. However, it's a mystery to me why he wasn't hired for the 2009 or this latest ST movie. As a 3-D CAD monkey, I would love to pick his brain one of these days. But as hard as it seems to be to contact him I stand a better chance of meeting one of the actors.

Cloud Atlas is a film adaptation from a 2004 David Mitchell novel bearing the same name. This is a montage of six different stories, in six different timelines and how they're connected. The plot is complicated as there's constant shifting between these stories and their timelines. Such connections are maintained by: many trinkets; tattoos or birthmarks; music; references to a deity called Sonmi 451; love letters from an earlier timeline; etc. All are cleverly placed in what gamers call an "Easter Egg" rich environment. However, As far as I can tell, these clues are not intended to be easily discovered in a first viewing. Rather it seems more geared toward the dedicated fan that will see this multiple times as a cult classic. But I simply don't feel that same dedication although as a home viewer I did watch this movie twice. For me it's simply not the go to movie that I'll repeatedly watch like Bladerunner to discover new details or de-construct the SPX scenes. That's because Atlas doesn't give me the same payoff as my other favorites. However, as a viewer you get more out of it. My enjoyment was mostly in the visuals and the joy of seeing some my favorite actors as well as a couple of new faces perform. Since the film has no forced over the top dialogue or performances, the filmmakers provide a cringe free environment that allows me enough flexibility that I can enjoy the movie the way I want and for that I'm grateful. They gave me a choice of whether to torture myself with the details or simply sit back and relax. I chose the latter. There is however, a couple of glaring exceptions regarding visuals. The CGI is mostly excellent except during a chase scene which very much reminded me of the horribly modeled uni-motorcycle chase in the movie Lockout. The makeup effects are the biggest offender which is simultaneously impressive and disappointing. For the most part I could tell who was playing the various Characters. And for those I couldn't tell or miss-guessed, there's a visual summation in the credits to clear things up. And I was pleasantly surprised in a few instances. The makeup artists use their expertise to apply gender and race bending. Such as: Ben Whishaw who is 007's new Q branch director, as a very attractive older woman; Susan Sarandon as a bearded male college professor; Xun Zhou's interpretation of a male hotel bell hop; and Halle Berry as a black reporter, a white girl at a party, and a 1930's Jewish gal pal to an aging composer. She's beautiful in any shade. However, one conversion is only effective in one direction. That is, the Non-Asian to Asian conversions. These are: comical, awkward, and some can say even racist. This comes off as convincing to me as John Wayne playing Genghis Khan in The Conqueror and handled with the same delicacy as a Popeye cartoon's portrayal of Japanese during WWII. The prosthetics are embarrassingly bad and look uncomfortable for the actors to wear. Their foreheads looked as if they were encased in a totally inflexible plastic. On the other, the Asian to non-Asian transformations are entirely convincing and extremely attractive when applied to Xun Zhou who plays a blonde, long haired village girl and Doona Bae as a slightly freckle-faced red haired woman. To summarize, Cloud Atlas in spite of a few flaws is an enjoyable movie. It's just not destined as one of my favorites in Sci-Fi. And I will see the next project from these movie makers. They're the same people who gave us the Matrix movies which I thoroughly enjoyed. They're currently working on Jupiter Ascending which will also have Doona Bae who I'm very impressed with.

Special features: this is also a rich tapestry of detail as the filmmakers effectively explain all the reasoning, scheduling, and methods used in this project. Each actor participates thoroughly and enthusiastically in interviews to give us "their take" on the film. They effectively convey a true belief in the project other than just drawing another paycheck.

This is going to be different from a regular review because I'm a Battlestar Galactica/BSG fan. So, I won't simply make the detached commentary but express some genuine concerns for the future of this franchise and all the people that make the magic.

The Syfy channel's re-imagined BSG has a strong fan following and deservedly so. It seems that most true fans will remain loyal. This loyalty allows them to forgive some truly unwatchable, cringing, and mood destroying moments of bad writing and acting indicative of some shows. They do so because of an uncontrollable hunger for the next project which can only be satisfied with the next movie or episode. It's analogous to people that prefer a favorite restaurant based on the name alone. However, some fans have a more discriminating judgment and taste. That's the type of fan I am. I need more than a full belly. I need taste, polite and expedient service, and ambiance. The entire experience must be enjoyable. If not, I rarely come back unless there's an expectation of a better experience next time because I know that the staff are capable of doing better based on their reputation. Or I have such a strong emotional tie that I simply want to see them do better.

In 2003 Ronald (Ron) Moore and David Eick of R&D TV raised the bar on weekly sci-fi TV dialogue with the BSG miniseries. The scripts were as highly detailed as the work from their award-winning CGI artist. They beat the odds and overcame obstacles as well such as, overzealous fans of the original BSG version from the 70's and Syfy channel's horrible productions at that time. In fact I missed the 2003 launch and didn't watch the pilot till the 2005 series launch. Admittedly I've been slow to warm up. But I've been hooked ever since thoroughly enjoying Ron and David's continuous rising of the standards not just on their own series, but on the entire sci-fi genre. And of course I heard the protractors, some of who I know that are still stuck in the late 70s, longing to see the cigar chomping caped Starbuck with his hairdryer like Ray gun. Surprisingly most of these naysayers are about 15 to 20 years younger than I. Obviously they're victims of brainwashing parents. However, my loyalty was vindicated as R&D TV earned many awards and accolades including, Emmys and Rolling Stone magazine's endorsement as the best show on TV, even when compared to entertainment other than sci-fi. To no lesser a degree I enjoyed Caprica as well and I'm still disappointed that a second season wasn't produced.

The latest BSG project, Blood and Chrome is a prequel where we see a young Galactica and a young Adama both in their prime and with their war faces on. The CGI geniuses upstaged themselves yet again with a fresh from the factory, full metal jacketed Galactica bristling with turrets that hopefully we'll see used in later missions. Neither is any detail spared in the interior. We are treated to a multileveled, fully populated and mechanically complex hangar deck and we see the old style rail-like shuttle which is an obvious wink/nod to the old series. Other ships in the Colonial and Cylon fleet are modeled maintaining the BSG theme while expressing the level of evolution to the timeline depicted. The premise can't be better in my opinion. A fresh from the Academy, William Adama working his way up the ranks is an excellent idea that genuinely caught me by surprise. Hopefully this direction will inspire a new series with infinite possibilities and many seasons. Fans of BSG and Caprica will enjoy some familiar faces working again. As I recall from podcasts commentary during Caprica, the explanation for such appearances were: they're the grandparents or other miscellaneous relatives of the later characters. I found this to be a more acceptable than just a convenient explanation. Will we see Nicki Clyne and Kandyse McClure find a role in future of BSG projects? Pleeeeeease?

And yet the dialogue this time seems to be out of step with proved BSG standards. It turns out Ron Moore wasn't involved this time leaving David to fend for himself. Could this be the missing ingredient? It would seem that such a behemoth as BSG fares better with more than one helmsman at the controls. Of course that's just my hypothesis based on observations as an eight year fan. I'm not privy to the inner workings of the decision-making outside of what's revealed in standard commentary. Whatever the reason I have to say, sadly of course, that the dialogue this time was a definite fluctuation in the steady stream of excellence R&D has produced in the past. I definitely can't agree with the protractors and their knee-jerk attacks. Nor can I go along what the blind faithful. R&D and its entire staff deserve a more critical thinking/analysis than that. And that's entirely their fault for they set a standard that doesn't allow me to watch any sci-fi with much compromise no matter how good the CGI is. But my hunger for more quality BSG is still there stronger than ever. So back to the kitchen, fire or hire as many chefs as it takes to give us BSG fans the same high-quality cuisine that we know you're capable of, thank you.

Special Features: A little on the light side in my opinion because I feel I never get enough of the behind the scenes featurettes. The CGI artist and supervisors give us a fairly good overview of their latest magic. The new BSG has always hired the best and brightest and I've heard Ron Moore himself sing their praises. There's an interview with David Eick as well.

Comedy Central consistently delivers great quality shows with their Roasts. Everybody was super funny and who knew that Mike Tyson could deliver good humor as well. One special thanks goes to Jon Lovitz for the joke of 2011 that has gotten me consistent laughs with everyone I meet and "shoehorn" Charlie Sheen into the conversation. It goes: "And now a joke . . . how much cocaine can Charlie Sheen do? . . . Enough to kill 2 ½ men." If Mr. Lovitz knew how many laughs I get repeating his joke, he'd charge me royalties. William Shatner made a few cranks to the Sheen rotisserie without hamming it up too much. Jeff Ross who's such a regular to these events that his peers love to note that this is the only job he can get. He also adds the right amount of seasoning to the roistering Warlock. The late Patrice O'Neal is an excellent roaster as well and has a funny exchange with William Shatner that doesn't go off-topic too much. The only person that either didn't understand who the Roast was about, or was incredibly ill prepared, was Jackass's Steve O. Still anybody willing to run into a reluctant Mike Tyson's fist has my vote for a future invite. And speaking of future invites, thank you very Comedy Central for not having that, annoying, face-licking, attention grabbing, Andy Dick (head) whose only goal in life now seems to be in seeing how many people he can make cringe till their necks snap with his inappropriate distractions. And of course I can mention all the other roasters and the excellent job they did, but I'm getting a little lazy at this point. Seth McFarlane is the perfect Roast Master in my opinion who perfectly keeps the flow going between Comedy Chefs taking their turn at the Rack-Of-Sheen. He has a mastery of being incredibly funny without stealing attention.

Lastly, no matter what a person does, I have a certain amount of respect for some one that tells a boss to (FOAD) and still get another job. Way to go Charlie.

Capt. Jack Daniels is the term my ground school instructor, a former USAF flight instructor and current airline pilot used when referring to the growing concern of alcohol and substance abuse among commercial airline pilots. Both he and I could never figure out what drove a person to such behavior. That is, someone who gets the fly jets for a living. Pilot, astronaut, or actor is the top jobs kids dream about doing when they grew up. And with training and education almost equal to that of doctors, it's truly a tragedy when someone throws that away. Why? This film won't answer that question for it's not the usual airline disaster movie or anatomy of a plane crash treatment. Although we'll be introduced to lack of maintenance, mechanical failures, and legal finger pointing, the main purpose here is the human story and the myriad of cascading consequences through very strong character development. Denzel Washington who plays alcoholic Pilot "Whip Whitaker" shows us very convincingly the struggles and denial associated with his character's addiction. I say convincingly because although I enjoy all his previous work some of his earlier journeys into darkness came off a little "over the top" such as in Training Days. But to me this is the first time I believe that "damn, this guy's got some problems" as he takes us through Whip's substance abuse journey of: Denial, grief, and finally redemption. Denzel's performance is definitely the strongest but he's joined by an excellent supporting cast who I empathized with as well. As a Sherlock Holmes fan I was delighted to see the pretty blue-eyed redhead, Kelly Reilly sans her stifling Victorian clothing. She plays a heroin addict "Nicole" struggling with a heroin addiction as well. She's Whip's love interest from a chance encounter while Whip was recovering from his "physical" injuries. Set in the Atlanta area this Brit's southern accent is just right for the "most northern city in the south." I was glad to see Nicole get cleaned up just before the "southern fried hag" transformation, a fate that (from my observations), befalls many 20-30 something's in the ATL area given just the right cocktail of smoking, drinking, and drug use. That some of the most beautiful women even by my jaded CA. standards can throw away their looks is another mystery in my mental rolodex. Next I was also treated to Don Cheadle in between his Ironman movies to portray legal eagle, "Hugh Lang." Bruce Greenwood's "Charlie Anderson" is an equally supportive character during Whip's downward spiral. I can't wait to see the next Star Trek's "Capt. Pike" performance. Law and Order SVU's Tamara Tunie is the religious Stewardess "Margaret Thomason." And John Goodman's "Harling Mays" is the good-humored drug pusher with a heart of gold as the dependable go-to person for a variety of non-drug related favors as well. (Check him out in Argo).

My only complaint? The story ends too soon. I'm left with the longing to see more of Whip and Nicole. Does Whip mend relations with his co-workers? Who else remains in Whip's corner besides the inner circle? After all, besides his personal faults which he's punished for, he did save 96 out of 102 lives and was elevated to hero status. However, it's said that to leave questions is more ingenious than answer all of them.

Special Features (iTunes Extras): The plane crash was semi-accurately depicted as the filmmaker's researched and spliced together actual accounts from different scenarios.

Set in 1858, the last 2 years of the antebellum era, we see the Django played by Jamie Foxx marching in a slave chain gang when Dr. King Schultz, a bounty hunter liberates him in a most hilarious way. That is, by killing one of the slave traders and injuring another. When describing these actions, it shouldn't be funny by any standards yet, the genius and style of Quinton Tarantino makes it so. Quinton himself went on the other side of the camera to give us a brief but very explosive performance. I'm belly laughing at people getting shot, maimed, and blown up as if I was watching Looney Tunes. But there's plenty of drama and character development to enjoy as well. We see Django transforming from a timid slave into the confident bounty hunter sidekick to Dr. Schultz played by Christoph Waltz. And we see Dr. Schultz haunted by the atrocities of the antebellum era.

I really enjoyed seeing Christoph Waltz playing the polar opposite of his SS character in QT's 2009 Inglorious Basterds, while maintaining his Austrian accent. Equally as delightful was Don Johnson who rejoined the QT team (see Machete 2010). Hopefully we'll see him as well as others to be regulars in Mr. Tarantino's movies. Leonardo DiCaprio is brilliant as the Slave owner/Mandingo fighting promoter and with the introduction of his character, Calvin Candie; the brutality escalates exponentially and with historic accuracy. But still Quinton's movie style goes from a horrific brutal scene to a humorous moment at light speed. In fact at one point I unintentionally drew attention to myself as I laughed just a little longer and a little louder than the rest of the audience at the cartoon like demise of a slave mistress. I won't give "another" spoiler by describing the scene exactly, but I thought it was one the hilarious moments as only Quinton can do with this subject matter.

Django is further evidence of genius arising from humble beginnings. Not bad for a boy who started as a video store clerk. I'm just glad I was one of the polite customers who always rewound.