It's coming back. Quicker than I could have imagined! Sometimes, living under a rock has its advantages (like not worrying about when one of your favorite shows is returning). The show in question this time around: "The Tudors."
I know Colleen isn't a fan because the history, costumes etc aren't particularly accurate but I can't help it: I love the soap opera. The romances gone wrong, the affairs, Charles Brandon, Trevor Morris' brilliant score, the set design and costuming - it's all my cup of tea and I inhale it like it's on the brink of extinction which, strictly speaking, it is.
The fourth and final season of the show hits the airwaves on April 11th and I'm a bit saddened by the whole thing. I was hoping for a longer running show and the first few seasons set it up as a season per wife. Since he had six of them, I assumed we'd get six seasons of awesome but that's not to be and this will be the last we see of Henry VIII, at least for now.
Just saw the new preview/behind the scenes promotional video for the last episodes and am impressed (as usual). Looks like more action, more sex, a new queen (or two) and lots of Charles Brandon who, if you haven't figured it out yet, is none other than the superbly handsome and talented Henry Cavill.
Did I really just post back to back pictures of the smoking hot Cavill? Why yes I did! Hope Keanu and RPattz don't get jealous (not to mention hubby).
Where was I again? Those images keep distracting me.... oh yea, "The Tudors." Here's the preview video Cavill for Season Cavill 4. Mark your Cavill calendars for April 11th!
You already know that I'm at the movies, a lot, but that's not what I'm referring to. Does anyone even remember the TV show "At the Movies"? It's what they started calling the show that was once "Siskel & Ebert At the Movies" and then "At the Movies with Ebert & Roeper". I stopped watching the show when Siskel passed on. I gave Roeper a chance and heck, even watched a few episodes when I stumbled on the show while flipping through channels but I never searched it out.
When Roeper gave up on the show, ABC decided to take it in "a new direction" and hired Ben Lyons and Ben Mankiewicz. I don't know Mankiewicz from a hole in the wall, but I've always thought of Lyons Jr. as a quote whore over exaggerator who can't talk about a movie at anything but surface level. I hadn't been watching the show for a while so these news didn't bother me though I felt sorry for people who actually listened to these two for movie recommendations.
After merely a year of work, the Ben's have received the proverbial boot and been replaced by a duo that may actually bring me back to "At the Movies". The new pairing of A.O. (Tony) Scott of the The New York Times and Michael Phillips of the The Chicago Tribune have years of experience and are writers I read on a regular basis which immediately has me interested. The fact that they'll "battle it out" on TV for 30 minutes once a week is simply a nice bonus.
I was taking a browse over Peter Sciretta's well written article on this new age of "At the Movies" when he made a few comments which made me stop and consider this entire TV review business.
Overall this is good news, but I honestly don’t believe there is a place for a half hour movie review show on television anymore. To me a television movie review show is almost like the movie listings in the Sunday morning newspaper. Who uses the movie listings in the paper anymore?
I fully understand where Peter is coming from and for the most part, agree. It seems that even the most rudimentary internet users have figured out how to navigate movie times at their favourite spot which also, usually, includes links to reviews or a star rating. That said, "At the Movies" may not be serving the same purpose it did 10 years ago (namely a listing of what's coming out and what to watch/avoid) but it is providing something else: a discussion.
I tune into movie podcasts because I love the discussion and even if I can't participate, they usually bring up points which spark other conversations. In the case of websites, you can interact with the podcasters and other listeners directly and I think "At the Movies" can provide a similar service. I'm looking at this new embodiment of the show as an extension of the writer's reviews and a chance to take in differing opinions bounced off each other. True, 30 minutes doesn't give you a whole lot of time for in depth discussion but it's a nice springboard and as a film lover, the opportunity to see Scott and Phillips engaging in discussion is enough of a selling point to tune in. I wonder how many others feel the same way?
The Saturn Awards are given away annually and I've always thought of them as (for the most part) picking out "the best of the best" when it comes to sci-fi/horror/the supernatural.
I saw a few tweets last night about the awards but I didn't bother checking out any of the winners until a few minutes ago and BHAM! Awesomeness!
Remember "Moonlight"? That little TV show I talked about a few months back? The very same one hubby and I have been watching over dinner? Yeah, THAT one. It won an award. It took home the "Best Series on DVD" prize and for good reason too - it a bloody good show.
Word of waning if you do decide to shell out the $26 (I paid WAY more than that) I won't stop you (actually, let me help: get it here!) but I'm warning you now, they went cheap on the release - no extras whatsoever but still worth every penny.
It's not enough that The A-Team movie will be shot in Vancouver. If you're a hardcore fan, and trust me, there are a lot of us, you'll likely love all things related to the 80's TV show. I don't have memorabilia but whenever I skip by the show on TV I can't help but stop and take in the greatness of Hannibal and his classic "I love it when a plan comes together." Iconic I tell you, iconic.
Now you can have the greatness of "The A-Team" on your computer all the time. Someone has gone ahead and created a pack pack of icons which you can download for free over here.
I thought this would be a great time to share the opening credit sequence (which I love) but looking for it I spotted this lego version which kicks a whole lot of ass. Enjoy!
In the comments for my mini-review of “Gossip Girl”, Monica brought up another show which I hadn’t heard of and after a little reading, I decided to give a few episodes a shot and see if it was any good.
“Privileged” is another CW show though this one appears to cater to a slightly older audience. It stars Joanna García as Megan, a Yale educated writer with aspirations to become a journalist – a task that hasn’t gone well. In the first 10 minutes of the show we learn that she’s living in NY’s Meat Packing District writing a story that wasn’t assigned. She gets fired and through some crazy events, ends up in Palm Beach, as a tutor to the Baker girls. She has to ensure, by whatever means possible, get the girls into college but obviously, they have other ideas.
The show didn’t start off on the best footing and from the opening credits, I knew something was off. García doesn’t seem to fit the role and frankly, the writers haven’t given her much to work with. She comes across as a blubbering fool rather than a Yale educated woman with high aspirations. To make matters worse, all of the characters on the show seem badly realized to the point that I can’t even recall the names of the main characters (I had to look them up). The basis of the show has potential to be interesting but an episode an a half in, the story hadn’t moved; Megan was still at some party which (surprise!) the sister she was trying to avoid was at and the two were re-opening old wounds. The pilot also introduced what I assume will be the love interest Will, the wealthy next door neighbour who happens to come over to the house for breakfast (apparently this is a common occurrence). Though handsome, he comes across as a bit of ditz and though I’m sure there’s more to his character which will develop as the show goes on, I can’t be bothered to find out what that something is.
Though it clearly wants to be something more, “Privileged” is completely uninteresting. It lacks the energy, chemistry or presence of “Gossip Girl” and though it could potential get better as the season progresses, I could only manage to get though 1.5 episodes before giving up out of sheer boredom.
I would be surprised to find out that this has been extended to a second season but you can never be sure about TV Networks. They often cancel the good shows to keep crap on the air. This is one to avoid.
I seem to have fallen into the world of teen literature and TV and what better way to continue the trend than with a new TV show? Thought Gossip Girl has been on for a year, I'd yet to see an entire episode of the show and while trying to decide what to start watching, I recalled a conversation with a guy I met who was over from the Vancouver Island. Talking movies, we came to discover that we shared similar tastes (for the most part) and he mentioned his addiction to the TV show so I figured it was worth a look. I started with one episode thinking that if I didn't like it, I wouldn't put the effort into the rest of the series but that's all it took: one episode to get me hooked.
In a period of a week I managed to watch a season and a half of the show - catching up with the entire first season and what has aired of season 2. It's not brilliant but it's darn entertaining but what keeps me coming back are the constant changes in the characters. One minute you love them, the other you hate them. The basic premise of the show is following a group of young socialites who call Manhattan and specifically the Upper East Side home. Like "The OC" and "Beverly Hills 90210" before it, it's a bit convoluted but unlike those other two shows, I didn't give up part-way through a season.
It's bloody addictive and I pretty much watched the entire first season over a 2 day period the weekend after Christmas. Curious by my addiction, hubby has watched a few episodes of the show and surprisingly, he's mildly interested. How do I know he's not faking interest? He asks me what happened in the last episode and why the characters are doing what they're doing. Yesterday, he even mentioned to me that the show goes back on the air on Monday night.
First few episodes of the show had me hating Blair and Chuck but I must admit that as it stands right now, these two are the more interesting characters in the series - particularly Chuck who is so bad he's good.
Nothing spectacular about the acting other than to say that it's solid overall. Blake Lively is great as Serena but again, it's the apparently mean people who shine and both Ed Westwick (Chuck) and Leighton Meester (Blair) are excellent. Overall, it's a fun and entertaining show which also manages to touch on more than just the superficial. Who knew?
And in case you need more convincing earlier this year NY Magazine published a feature on why "Gossip Girl" is "genius". It's a fabulous read and one I highly recommend!
Fellow blogger and fearless leader of the Vancouver BSG Meetup Group (known around these parts as The 13th Colony) Val, is coordinating a massive lead-up to the conclusion of BSG (for those not in the know, that would be Battlestar Galactica). From the group's blog, I give you the skinny:
We’re having viewing parties each and every week from the first weekend in January 2009 and continuing through the end of March. We’ll start with two 4.0 Refresher sessions, then settle in for ten Friday nights to watch the final ten episodes, and finish it off with a “cry over your coffee” post-mortem session after the dust has cleared.
Our location for all 13 events is the LaFontana Caffe in Burnaby, a cool coffee place with plenty of seats and one very big screen. The owner is a 13th Colonist, and he’s happy to have us overto watch with him. Since there’s no cover charge or event fee, we’re asking that everyone who shows up orders off the menu, to make sure it is worthwhile for them to have us there.
There are loads more details at the blog and at the group's Meetup page. If you're a fan and in the Vancouver area, you owe it to yourself to check out the show with the dedicated group of fans. They're fabulous and always put on a kickin' event!
Yes, I have a fascination with Vampires. For the most part, folks grow out of this stuff when they get out of high school but for me, the vampire mythos has a lot more going for it than a bunch of sexy 100+ year old guys. Maybe it's because I started my love with the horror creatures started with Anne Rice but any way you cut it, I'm always on the lookout for a new take on the vampire. I've already talked about how much I loved "Moonlight" but I've been expanding my horizons.
Earlier this week I saw the first episode of the UK miniseries "Ultraviolet" and I'm not as drawn in. I'll see it, mostly because I recognize a few faces and the first episode was intriguing, but it's exactly the type of show you expect from the Brits: smart and understated. I usually like these so I'm thinking I was in the wrong frame of mind when I saw the first episode. I plan on catching up with this one over the next few days.
One show that I've really been looking forward to is Alan Ball's new HBO series "True Blood". Based on a series of novels by Charlaine Harris, Ball's show takes place in a fictionalized present where Vampires have "come out" to the world - thanks in part to the invention of Tru Blood, a synthetic blood that fulfills all of a vampire's dietary needs. This particular story takes place in a Louisiana town and focuses on a Sookie Stackhouse, a waitress with mind reading abilities, her family and friends and a vampire named Bill.
The first episode was pretty interesting. I loved the opening few minutes before the credits but must admit that I'm still getting used to seeing Anna Paquin as "sexy" though I do love her mix of vulnerability and ass-kickery. As for Stephen Moyer as Bill - I'm not quite sure about him. He's no Mick St. John but there's a maturity to his character that I appreciate. What I'm having particular trouble with is how quickly their relationship has developed (2 episodes and they're dating) but I think that's something I can get used to. Bonus points to anyone who can figure out the connection between Moyer and another show I mentioned earlier in this post.
The real gems of the show are the supporting characters namely Rutina Wesley who had a fantastic introduction to film with this year's How She Move and who rocks the role of Tara, Sookie's best friend. The other stand out for me so far is Nelsan Ellis who plays the restaurant's gay cook Lafayette. He's loud and flamboyant and he makes me smile each and every time he's on screen.
I've seen the first two episodes and so far, I'm not completely impressed, mostly because the show defies my expectations, but that's also the reason I'll keep watching. I've loved all of Ball's previous projects so I'm expecting that this one will grow on me and HBO will give it a chance to do so. "True Blood" has been picked up for a second season!
Another thing I quickly want to touch on is the show's opening sequence which, again, defies expectation yet beautifully fits in with some of the themes and moods of the show. I've posted the video below. Be sure to check them out if you haven't seen them yet. If you're looking for a higher resolution version, one can be found at Digital Kitchen.
I blame it all on UK blogger buddy Ramchandra, who accidentally watched "Moonlight" thinking it had something to do with Stephenie Meyer's "Twilight". There were an amusing group of Tweets surrounding the confusion but it all ended with a hearty recommendation. Since CBS/Warner have yet to release the show on DVD, I had to find other ways of tracking it down but after a little searching, into my possession came the first 12 (which means there are still 3 episodes kicking around out there that I haven't seen - MUST find).
The show stars Australian looker Alex O'Loughlin as PI Mick St. John (who also happens to be a Vampire), Sophia Myles (the human love interest), Shannyn Sossamon (the vampire ex-wife - if vampires can have ex-wives) and Jason Dohring (as Mick's best friend).
The pilot for the show is not particularly good. The acting is a bit off, there's little chemistry between the characters, the dialogue is stilted and generally uninspired. It's not surprising that critics ripped it to pieces and even more surprising that CBS kept the show on the air after the critical reception but numbers speak stronger than critics and the show was viewed by a load of people which likely saved it from an early demise. For me, it was a matter of the DVD player skipping to the second episode right at the end of the first.
The second episode was a little better but it was the third that really sucked me in. I spent Saturday and Sunday watching nothing other than the show, even going back and catching up with an episode my DVD player didn't like. The big seller: O'Loughlin and Myles have great chemistry and the banter between the two when the show finds its footing is excellent. I'll admit, it also helps that O'Loughlin is very, very handsome.
Now that I'm done, I'm a bit disappointed. CBS has canceled the show and Warner hasn't found anyone else to take up the reins. Too bad, I was just getting into it too. Lucky for me, I still have a few more to watch. Guess what I'll be doing over the next day or so?
In the meantime, it's worth noting that O'Loughlin isn't new to me. I saw him in Feed a few years back, a film that really rubbed me the wrong way, and he's starring in the upcoming Whiteout with Kate Beckinsale.
And I leave you with this, it opens the pilot and makes for a great introduction to the character:
Imagine for a moment that you have a little garden gnome. One of those little green (or red) capped men who sit on your lawn, watching traffic go by and getting pissed on by passing carts and dogs. One day, he goes missing only to re-appear months later, feet missing, slightly bruised and with a surprising little package attached.
Well, turns out that it actually happen. Someone took a section out of Haiku Girl's favourite film Amélie, and took it to heart. Eve Stuart Kelso's gonme disappeared months ago only to be returned recently with a photoalbum of his adventures. Apparently, someone decided that the gnome would make a good travelling companion and he made the trek through hree continents, 12 countries. How cool is that?
While reading the story, I was reminded of a TV show I used to watch when I was little. Couldn't even remember the name but a quick Google search of "gnomes & tv shows" uncovered "The World of David the Gnome". Wow. This thing goes waaaaaaay back.
.jpg)
) but I'm warning you now, they went cheap on the release - no extras whatsoever but still worth every penny.
