Sliding Into Oblivion-Sliders Season 3

In the mid-1990s, I was a fan of the FOX television show, Sliders.  For the record, I didn't think it was the best show ever made.  Some of the plots, in fact, were very derivative of other films and television shows.  But the cast (Jerry O'Connell, Sabrina Lloyd, Cleavant Derricks, and especially veteran character actor John Rhys-Davies) were an ensemble that worked well together even as I had initial misgivings about the viability of Derricks' character Rembrandt Brown.  They had chemistry.  And watching the third season on DVD made the power of that chemistry abundantly clear.

Sliders, for the uninitiated, is a show about a young scientist who accidentally creates a technology that allows the travel between parallel universes (each having its own earth).  The problem is that they are lost without their originating coordinates and unable to return to their own version of Earth (Earth Prime).

So even as the plots became extremely derivative (one episode involves tornados which were popular due to the film Twister, another is a blatant rip-off of the film Tremors), the chemistry between the characters Quinn Mallory, Wade Welles, Rembrandt Brown and especially Professor Maximilian Arturo made the show, at its worst, entertaining.

Having started graduate school around the beginning of the third season, I started to lose track of the show. It also didn't help the the FOX network had started to randomly shuffle the program around in its schedule (a sure sign that a network was trying to eliminate a show by making sure its fans had problems finding it (thereby lowering its ratings).  It became very surrealistic as one week I witnessed the death of main character Professor Arturo, and another week he appeared back in a new episode (this mystery was solved for me as I watched season three and the opening of the episode, which I had previously missed, set the episode up as a flashback).  Then the show was cancelled on FOX and moved to the Sci-Fi network which was unavailable on my cable provider at the time.

The demise of Arturo (brought about by John Rhys-Davies firing due to having insulted new producer David Peckinpah's wife at a party years earlier), and the introduction of Kari Wuhrer's Maggie Beckett character, destroyed that chemistry.  Maggie Beckett was an annoying character, Wade Welles becomes petty and annoying, and Quinn Mallory moves from likable nerd to an unlikable character full of angst.  Even Rembrandt Brown, the one character who remains ironically the most likable is occasionally tetchy.

I found this destruction of a very likable show, with a very flexible premise, very sad.

Be Kind Rewind

I think I am becoming a Michel Gondry fan.

So much so that I very much enjoyed Be Kind Rewind despite the fact that it was not the best received of films by the critics and the public.

Gondry first came to my attention when I was teaching, for the first time, an animation class using traditional (non-computer-based) techniques.  I was introducing stop motion animation when my teaching assistant brought Gondry's music videos for The White Stripes to my attention.  Needless to say, I was amazed by the animation and the visual style of these music videos (particularly the one for "Fell in Love with a Girl".  It also made me a fan of The White Stripes.

Then I viewed Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.  While a significant portion of the creativity of that film does fall to screenwriter Charles Kaufman (as evidenced as well by his screenplay for Being John Malkovich), it was an amazing film with jumbled the narrative structure in a way that was reminiscent of films such as George Roy Hill's Slaughterhouse Five, but managed to remain a visually stunning, but sweet love story.

Be Kind Rewind is clearly not at the creative level of Eternal Sunshine, but manages to be just as sweet in its nostalgic examinations of Passaic, New Jersey, Fats Waller and the era of VHS narratives.  Mos Def worked well for me as a low-key character (as opposed to his portrayal as Ford Prefect in The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy).  And no, I didn't find Jack Black the annoyance that many others did.  

Is Be Kind Rewind a great film?  No.  But it is a very enjoyable film, and a heart-felt one at that, if you happen to be in the right mood.  It made me nostalgic in all the right ways, made Passaic come alive as a community (check out the documentary included on the DVD as well; it is very good), and gave me a laugh or two.  I also smiled the whole way through the film.

I give it a VC ranking of 6.5/10.

The film rankings:

1: Even Mystery Science Theater 3000 cannot save this film!!! 

2: Only watch if it is on MST3K.

3: Why did you watch this film?

4: Mediocre, but not a bad film.

5: Average film.

6: Good film.

7: Excellent film.

8: Why don't you own this film?

9: You don't have this film (there must be some good reason, right)!?!

10: I wouldn't be caught dead without this film!!!

Choice Track Saturday#3

(3) Wicked and Weird - Buck 65

The title of the song "Wicked and Weird" is not only reflected in the songs' "chorus", it is also an appropriate description for the track itself. Buck 65 (born Richard Terfry) is a Canadian hip-hop artist from Nova Scotia who mixes blues, country, and rock influences in his music. So while Buck 65 raps, his voice cracks and creaks in such a way that his voice seems more suited to country music, yet it is perfect in this track, as well as the rest of the Talkin' Honky Blues album it comes from. Continuing the country influences, one hears slide guitars and rock organs amidst the synthesized beat. And the subject matter of Buck 65's rap details his aging car, forty parking tickets and "the Good Book", subject matter normally more in tune with its country influences. All in all, an addictive track that somehow makes me wish that, like Buck 65, that the heavenly gates will ultimately provide excellent car service and great old music played at 78 r.p.m.

...a political suggestion.

The subtitle of my blog is "Music, Movies and More".  The more can be any number of issues including, but not restricted to, political issues.   In that spirit, I would like to talk about one of the most ridiculous political moves in recent history.

I am a fairly partisan democrat.  Which sometimes makes me feel like I have masochistic tendencies.  Its not because I have issues with what most of the democratic party stands for.  It is more that I am frustrated by how easily the democrats in the Congress and in the Senate fold under pressure in not supporting their ideology.  The most recent example is the debate surrounding extending the Bush era tax cuts which are set to expire this year.

Now, the tax cuts, as they are currently written, themselves are causing serious problems with the national budget increasing the national debt (the eight years of the Bush administration after these cut saw the national debt increase four trillion (with a "t") dollars.  So the democrats initially supported continuing the tax cuts for those making under $250,000 while allowing them to expire and return to Clinton era tax rates for those making over $250,000.

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that businesses both large and small managed to do all right under the tax rates from the Clinton era.  But now, what used to be the middle class, is hurting and needs help.  So the republican insistence that they will filibuster any tax cut that doesn't include cutting taxes for those who are making a very comfortable living seems extremely ridiculous.

So why won't the democrats push this legislation?  Why won't they bring it up for a vote?  Why are they scared of republicans filibustering a tax cut bill in the Senate?  Isn't this what the democrats need to not only keep seats in November, but maybe even increase their majorities?  Either they will give the American people a popular tax cut for those who need it, or make the republican look foolish and elitist blocking its passage.

I have an even better idea.  Let's introduce a tax bill that completely cuts income taxes for those making under $250,000.  No taxes.  No withholding for taxes.  Then, let's make up the lost revenue by increasing the taxes on any money earned over $250,000.  Basically for everyone, the first $250,000 will be completely tax free.  Need an economic stimulus?  How about all those millions of working class people having more money in their pocket.  The economy will recover quickly.  Worried about increasing the national debt?  Make the tax cuts expire in ten years, unless Congress decides to extend them.

Can you imagine the republicans campaigning against these tax cuts?  Even if they do, so what?  What the democrats will have done is to take the tax cut issue away from the republicans.  It will be harder for republicans to campaign effectively by painting their opposition as "tax and spend".  If the bill passes, the democrats benefit.  If the bill fails because of republican opposition, the democrats benefit.  It seems a win-win situation.  Why the politicos in Washington cannot see this (apologies to those in Washington who aren't blocking this legislative effort), defies any reasonable explanation.

I am afraid that Jon Stewart was correct when The Daily Show talked about how will democrats [screw] up the tea party gifts they were being presented with during the midterm elections.

Defending Your Life

Sometimes you take a chance when purchasing movies on DVD.  You may find a movie that has a particular actor whose work you find compelling.  Or maybe you are a fan of the director or screenwriter.  Or maybe you heard good things about a film from the critics.  Whatever the reason, you decide to take a chance.  And sometimes the movie lets you down; it was a risk that didn't pan out...

...but sometimes you are pleasantly surprised.  This was the case for me when I purchased Albert Brook's Defending Your Life.  Now I have always like the self-depricating personae that Albert Brook plays from film to film; he is like a Woody Allen without all of the depressing baggage.  And I was a fan of Brooks' other films such as Lost in America despite the fact that that film plays out like a film with a terrific first and second act, but Brooks decided that writing a third act was too much trouble; that film seems to end prematurely.  

This is most definitely not true with Defending Your Life, the most complete and likable Albert Brooks film to date.  Co-starring Meryl Streep, Defending your Life has a unique premise.  When you die, as Brooks' character does at the beginning of the film, you are sent to Judgement City where they determine whether you lived a fearless life, and deserve to move on to the next level, or whether you have let fear rule your life and need to be sent back to Earth to try again.  Within this premise, Brooks manages his usual string of witty, sarcastic lines guaranteed to run the gamut from simply amusing to full, out-right belly laughs.  Unlike his other films, however, Brooks manages a sweetness that tempers his most sarcastic outbursts, and the ending of the film is justifiably sentimental and touching without descending into maudlin melodrama.

It is a wonderful film, and one of the best $5.00 I have ever spent in the cut-out bin at Walmart.

I give it a VC ranking of 10/10.

The film rankings:

1: Even Mystery Science Theater 3000 cannot save this film!!! 

2: Only watch if it is on MST3K.

3: Why did you watch this film?

4: Mediocre, but not a bad film.

5: Average film.

6: Good film.

7: Excellent film.

8: Why don't you own this film?

9: You don't have this film (there must be some good reason, right)!?!

10: I wouldn't be caught dead without this film!!!

The Beatles, Ed Sullivan Show, February 9, 1964

Just finished watching the first Beatles appearance on the old Ed Sullivan Show.  What a schizophrenic experience.

First of all, whenever The Beatles take the stage, the energy level in the program expands exponentially, despite the fact that it is obvious that John, Paul, George and Ringo are visibly nervous on their first American television appearance.

Ed Sullivan himself is fine, and one can understand why he was on the air for twenty-five seasons.  This episode, by the way, was the nineteenth episode of the seventeenth season.

Most of the remaining entertainment was remnants from previous eras of entertainment.  Outside of The Beatles, the most interesting act was the celebrity impressions of actor Frank Gorshin (who would later become The Riddler on the 1960s Adam West-Burt Ward Batman series).

In particular, Gorshin's Kirk Douglas impression was spectacular (and one he repeats later for the short stop motion animation, The Big Story [Daid Stoten & Tim Watts,1994])

Outside of The Beatles and Gorshin, one of the most entertaining parts of the program is the minute long Anacin commercial (pain, depression, tension, anxiety, fatigue, pain indeed).

The scene from the stage production of Oliver! was typical of musicals from the era, and this style would be functionally dead by the end of the decade (with the box office failures of Star! and Dr. Dolittle).  It is, however, interesting to see future Monkee Davy Jones as the Artful Dodger.

Far worse are magician Fred Kaps and the comedy team McCall and Brill.  These acts have not aged well at all.  Wells and the Four Fays, the acrobatic group, are fine, but are very anti-climatic after The Beatles second set.

The Beatles perform their biggest hits of 1964 including "All My Loving", "'Til There Was You", "SHe Loves You", "I Saw Her Standing There" and "I Want to Hold Your Hand".  The Beatles prove what a great live band they were here.

Shirley Collins and the Albion Country Band

Once again this weekend, the advantages of the iTunes store became apparent to me.  I was able to pick up No Roses by Shirley Collins and the Albion Country Band.  This album was listed as a four star album in both the red and blue versions of the Rolling Stone Record Guide.  It is also listed as being out of print in both of these reference books, as of 1978 and 1983 respectively.  Yet, there is was on the iTunes store as digital downloads.  After sampling a few thirty second clips of songs on the album, I took the plunge.

What I found was an album featuring much of the sound that made the first several Fairport Convention albums so appealing.  This is perhaps not so surprising in that Richard Thompson, Ashley Hutchings and Simon Nicol appear among the twenty-four other musician from the English folk-rock scene of the late-1960s and early-1970s.

If there is a flaw in this album, it is that Shirley Collins voice does not mesh as well with the electric backing tracks as, say, Sandy Denny's voice drives the classic Fairport Convention albums.  Collins, who in her youth travelled with Alan Lomax collecting folk song information in the southern states of the United States, was an expert in English folk music.  She also was instrumental in combining folk and jazz mediums prior to No Roses, so she definitely had the music experience for such a recording.  And yet her fine voice does not alway appear comfortable in such company.

All in all, though, this is a worthy recording and one I recommend to 1960s and 1970s folk-rock fans.

On a scale of 1 to 10, No Roses ranks an 7/10 

The VC movie and music rating system works like this (ranking from worst to best):

1: I wouldn't be caught dead with this album!!! 

2: You have this album (there must be some good reason, right)!?!

3: Why do you have this album?

4: Mediocre, but not bad album.

5: Average album.

6: Good album.

7: Excellent album.

8: Why don't you have this album?

9: You don't have this album (there must be some good reason, right)!?!

10: I wouldn't be caught dead without this album!!!