Junkie: Don't Worry About Will Smith

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Monday, 8 April 2013

"Jurassic Park" and the Summer of '93

Posted on 20:10 by mohit
The summer of 1993 was my first big movie summer. It was the year I I first regularly started watching new movies in theaters on my own, the year I started paying attention to what was going on at the box office at the time. Prior to that, I'd kept an eye out for the yearly Disney animated moves, but I didn't really have a sense of the business of movies, or how the successes and the failures were determined.

I know exactly when that changed. My parents got the Sunday edition of the Los Angeles Times every week, and I always liked paging through the "Calendar" section devoted to the entertainment coverage to look at the movie ads. L.A. is a movie town, and with few exceptions, studios always took out ads for new releases in the Times' "Calendar" section. And then one week, twenty years ago, they put out their yearly summer preview edition. The cover art showed Arnold Schwarzenegger locked in mortal combat with a dinosaur, in honor of the coming box office clash between "Last Action Hero" and "Jurassic Park." As I read through all the write-ups of the summer's films, and the predictions of their chances at the box office, it began to dawn on me. There were going to be winners and losers. There were stakes here that went beyond the movies simply being good or bad.

I still was a kid in '93, so of course I was focused on the kids' films like "Dennis the Menace," "Rookie of the Year," "Free Willy," and "Super Mario Bros." When "Mario" bombed, it was the first movie I think I really appreciated being a bomb. There were movies I'd liked that hadn't done well before, but I hadn't quite been able to tie the failure with box office performance prior to that point. So when "Last Action Hero" was trounced by "Jurassic Park" a few weeks later, I knew what it meant. I noticed when that summer's big hits like "The Firm" and "The Fugitive" stayed in the public eye and in the larger conversations about the movies, becoming points of common reference. I hadn't seen either of them, but I saw so many clips and read so much about them, that the awareness was there, long before my parents rented them from the video store the next year. I distinctly remember this article talking about possible tiered pricing schemes, that suggested charging top dollar for the most popular films, like "Jurassic Park" and "The Firm," and only half as much for Pauly Shore's latest comedy, "Son in Law."

Did this affect my view of the movies? Did I become more cynical about them? Not really. I still saw very few movies in theaters, so the box office game hardly affected me personally. Also, I was still young enough that I couldn't really differentiate between the good and bad movies, so it didn't really bother me if something I was looking forward to tanked and got bad reviews. All I knew was that it would still come out on video eventually. I remember being confused, but not disappointed by "Super Mario Bros." when I saw it. A few years later I would learn to appreciate some of the other consequences of being a bomb - no sequels, the talent involved taking hits to their reputations, and in the worst cases, companies like Carolco disappearing completely. And sometimes this would happen to perfectly good movies that didn't deserve it.

But the summer of '93 was the summer of Michael Jackson's "Will You Be There," from "Free Willy" playing endlessly on the radio. It was the summer of every female relative of mine reading Amy Tan's "The Joy Luck Club," because the movie was coming out that fall. It was the summer I noticed a cute guy named Leonardo DiCaprio getting a lot of press for his performance in "This Boy's Life," a couple of months before he'd land his first Oscar nomination for "What's Eating Gilbert Grape." It was the summer of listening to the "Jurassic Park" soundtrack over and over again, which we bought on cassette tape, long before the days when the studios would release them for free, as just another piece of promotional material.

The funny thing is, I can't remember if I actually saw "Jurassic Park" in theaters that summer. I remember watching it lots of times on VHS and on television, but did I ever see it on the big screen? Were my memories of it from a visit to the theater, or am I just remembering the ubiquitous marketing campaign and the making-of specials and the tie-in merchandise? I think I still have a few "Jurassic Park" pogs laying around somewhere.

The thing is, I'm not particularly nostalgic for the movie itself. I liked it fine, but it didn't resonate with me, really. I didn't fall in love with it the way so many other kids did. In fact, it marked another first for me. It was one of the first big blockbuster summer movies I got all hyped up for, and pretty much forgot about as soon as the next one came along.
----
Read More
Posted in action, movies, scifi | No comments

Saturday, 6 April 2013

Bravo From Bad to Worse

Posted on 12:08 by mohit
There's been a lot written about how we're in a golden age of television. The cable model being able to appeal to smaller niche audiences has allowed television shows like HBO's "Game of Thrones" and AMC's "Mad Men" to flourish. Not so much has been written about the flip side of the equation, which is that reality shows are getting worse than ever, and spreading across the cable landscape at an alarming rate.

A few days ago I came across a press release for Bravo's latest slate of new and returning series. The network is one of the poster children for cable channels that have moved drastically away from their original branding. In the early days, it was an arts channel, home to "Inside the Actor's Studio," the early iterations of "Project Runway," and you could frequently find them running Cirque du Soleil specials on early weekend mornings. Now the channel is wall to wall reality programming, and their flagship is the "Real Housewives" franchise.

The new slate is an utterly depressing reflection of this. Nearly all their new and in-development shows are nominally differentiated variations on the same gut-turning formula of putting a group of spoiled, rich, ego-centric fame-chasers together and watching them behave badly in the name of furthering their dreams. "Below Deck" puts them on a yacht. "City Sisters" puts them in New York. "100 Days of Summer" puts them in Chicago. "Eat, Drink, Love" stakes out Los Angeles. “Southern Charm” tackles Charleston, South Carolina. And it's no mystery where "Princesses: Long Island," "Taking Atlanta" and "Ladies of London" are set.

The rest are a mix of human interest series that center around food, fashion, real estate, and rich people's problems. One of the shows in development is literally called "Rich People’s Problems," featuring Phaedra Parks, an attorney who was one of the "Real Housewives of Atlanta." Other new shows feature a "Divorce Diva," extreme parents, college admissions consultants, a songwriter mentoring youngsters in the music industry, a retired basketball player, newlyweds, two businesswomen opening a fitness club, and Courtney Kerr, whose gimmick is that she's on the hunt for a man in Dallas.

Some of these have some minor value as documentary shows, but mostly the audience is just expected to gawk at the subjects, the same way they do with the most awful examples of the genre, "Buckwild" and "Honey Boo Boo." You feel okay about it because they're getting paid, and many of the participants are rich and famous and want the exposure. However, it's all too clear what Bravo expects out of these shows: catfights, drama, hedonism, excess, and a few minutes of feel-good redemption now and then to ensure that the reality stars don't become completely unsympathetic.

These shows are heavily edited of course, to the point where most of the narratives are largely constructed. And so Bravo has made the logical choice this year to start developing scripted television, based largely around the same material. These include "Girlfriend’s Guide to Divorce," "Heiresses," and "High and Low." I think the titles are self-explanatory except for the last, which is about the staff of a restaurant and takes place during the 1980s. And I'm sure we can expect all the same character types that we see on Bravo's other shows - catty rich girls, emotional gay guys, hardworking dreamers, artists, foodies, divas, and hot messes.

Of course, this shouldn't be a surprise when you look at Bravo's list of returning shows, the ones that have kept them going. We're up to five regular "Housewives" spinoffs that have been on for multiple seasons, a third year of "Shahs of the Sunset," and two different "Million Dollar Listings." The last surviving competition show from the "Project Runway" days, "Top Chef," increasingly looks like an odd man out, despite its high profile, and “Inside the Actors Studio,” which has made it all the way to season nineteen, looks positively retro.

I used to watch Bravo quite a bit when I first got cable, back in the late 90s. I liked that it was a little pretentious and a little highbrow, and that it would take risks on shows like "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy." I think that's why this sad state of affairs stings worse for me than the similar declines of networks like TLC, A&E, MTV, and the others that have been swallowed up by similar reality programming.

I know that Bravo is far from the worst offender when you put it up against some of these other outlets. Heck, sometimes I find things on network television that I can't quite believe are real shows. Celebrity diving? Celebrity military boot camp? And "The Swan" is back?! It's clear that Bravo's bad habits are only a reflection of what's happening to the rest of television.
---






Read More
Posted in reality, TV | No comments

Friday, 5 April 2013

"Hannibal" Comes to Dinner

Posted on 20:43 by mohit
I'm not sure what I was expecting when NBC announced that they were doing a television show about the early days of Hannibal Lecter, but I didn't think that they'd go so far as to make "Hannibal" an actual horror program. We've seen some fairly intense and violent crime procedurals in recent years, like the early days of "Criminal Minds," but "Hannibal" pushes much farther, giving us shocking, yet tasteful blood and gore in amounts I don't believe I've ever seen on network television before. We're not in "American Horror Story" or "Dexter" territory, but it's pretty close.

This is only one of many interesting elements that "Hannibal" has going for it. However, this is one of those series that looks like it's going to need some time for the actors to settle into their roles, and for the writers to work out the dynamics of the characters' relationships. For instance, there's our main character, Will Graham (Hugh Dancy), a criminal profiler with the FBI, who has been reimagined as having unusually strong empathy that he can use to place himself in the mindset of killers and work out their motives and intentions. The price of this gift is severe social anxiety and other autism spectrum impediments. He has to be coaxed into participating in the FBI's latest serial killer manhunt by Agent Crawford (Laurence Fishburne). Dancy makes Graham nervous and awkward and a bit of a mumbler. He's not compelling yet, but he could be, depending on where his character arc takes him.

And then we have Mads Mikkelsen, the Danish actor who was recruited for a new take on Dr. Hannibal Lecter. His thick accent requires some sharp attention to penetrate, but he brings such a great presence to the screen. Lecter is not the subject of tonight's first manhunt, but rather a highly respected psychiatrist and forensic scientist who is brought in to consult on the case, eventually partnering up with Will Graham. The creators have a lot of fun hinting at his future depravities, showing multiple scenes of him eating servings of meat with carnivorous relish, and advising a nervous patient on the nature of fear. Lecter doesn't do much in the first episode, and doesn't even appear onscreen until the halfway mark. However, it is quickly established that his degree of moral turpitude is murky at best. He helps both sides in the case, exuding the appropriate amounts of charisma and menace as needed. No Anthony Hopkins impersonations here. None needed.

A few other characters are briefly introduced, including Dr. Alana Bloom (Caroline Dhavernas), another profiler who Agent Crawford goes to for help, and who the previews suggest will become Will Graham's major love interest. Hettienne Park, Aaron Abrams, and Scott Thompson (yes, from "Kids in the Hall") pop up as crime scene investigators, who provide rounds of helpful exposition with each new corpse. This is going to be a very dialogue-heavy show, as most crime procedurals are, and it's clear that our two leads haven't quite got the hang of delivering the usual verbal torrents of information yet. This is especially apparent when they're in a scene with Fishburne, a veteran of multiple seasons of "CSI."

This is where all the guts and gore really help. The snazzy technological tomfoolery of your average "CSI" episode has nothing on viscerality of the beautifully staged crime scenes and Will Graham's visions of bloody violence in "Hannibal." And this is where you really see the hand of the show's creator, Bryan Fuller, who was previously responsible for the whimsical worlds of "Pushing Daisies" and "Mockingbird Lane." "Hannibal" shows he's pretty handy with lurid Grand Guignol horrors too. I only wish that all the graphic content could have been put in service of a better script. For a first outing it's not bad, but there's plenty of room for improvement.

One thing to note is that "Hannibal" is being described as a limited series by NBC, which means only thirteen episodes to a season, faster payoff for major arcs, and hopefully a higher level of quality overall. It's a good sign that they're already pushing the envelope as far as the content, which means that we're more likely to see Dr. Lecter and friends get to the really dark and twisted places where they ultimately need to go. Bryan Fuller has mentioned in interviews that he wants to get to the events of "Red Dragon," the first of Thomas Harris' Lecter books, by season four.

I hope the series survives long enough to get there. The Thursday night 10PM timeslot has not been kind to NBC, having killed off several promising crime shows in recent years, including "Prime Suspect" and "Awake." Will it finally meet its match in Dr. Hannibal Lecter? Guess we'll have to stay tuned to see.
---
Read More
Posted in crime drama, horror, TV | No comments

Thursday, 4 April 2013

Goodbye, Roger

Posted on 18:28 by mohit
Well, we all knew it was coming, didn't we? Roger Ebert, film critic of the Chicago Sun Times for nearly fifty years, passed away today at the age of 70 after a long battle with cancer. A few days ago he posted an announcement to his blog that he was taking a "leave of presence," reducing his workload significantly after discovering that his cancer had returned. I'm glad he got to say goodbye, even if it wasn't meant to be such a final one.

To say that Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel had a great influence on my development as a movie fan is a massive understatement. It was thanks to years of watching "Siskel & Ebert" every Sunday evening before "60 Minutes" that I understood that you could discuss films seriously, as pieces of art as opposed to entertainment. Of course, they clearly enjoyed the films they reviewed, and Ebert was always the one who was more inclined to stick up for the mainstream blockbusters, the genre pictures, and the oddball efforts. Ebert was, after all, the screenwriter of "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls," directed by the supreme 70s schlockmeister, Russ Meyer.

I followed the program up to the bitter end, through the years with Richard Roeper, through the idiot Bens, and through the brief return to form with Michael Phillips and A.O.Scott before it was finally cancelled for good. During grad school I'd even stay up every weekend to watch it in the post-midnight timeslot where the local ABC affiliate had banished it. Fortunately, episodes went online and it was easier to access. A new version of "At the Movies" came along on PBS a few years later with other hosts, but I lost track of it after a few months, and it didn't last much longer after that. I still see movie ads sometimes and find myself expecting to see the once ubiquitous "two thumbs up!" quote pop up somewhere. People used to parody that line to death, but I haven't heard it in years.

I didn't have regular access to Ebert's written reviews for the Sun Times until the internet came along, and soon I became a regular reader, not just of the reviews, but of his columns, the Q&As, the letters, the interviews, festival reports, awards commentary, and much more. His writing was so strong, so personable, so funny, and so inviting. Even after I stopped visiting the site regularly, I still kept up with this blog as best I could. And when I first started writing reviews myself, it was his work I modeled myself after. How long should a movie review be? I checked his stuff and noted that he got the job done in 600-700 words per review. I also noted that he would revisit and write new reviews for older, beloved films. And he would write opinion pieces, simply because he had an opinion that he felt should be shared. And once in a while, he would change his mind.

I so admire the relationship that he had with his readers, the dialogues and discussions that he would have, and his ability to share so much with his fans. When he championed a movie, he would do it passionately and wholeheartedly, no matter what anyone else thought. I remember him getting behind the little-seen science fiction film "Dark City" in 1998, eventually declaring it the best film of the year. My DVD of the film has the commentary track he recorded for it. I probably never would have seen the movie without his recommendation, and now it's one of my favorites.

And then there was his Overlooked Film Festivals, and his shot-by-shot analysis screenings at the University of Chicago, where he taught many classes over the years, and so many other fascinating film events that he was at the center of. I would read the recaps or hear about them from other fans, and wish I could have attended somehow, even though I was always hundreds and hundreds of miles away. It was never hard to find fans of Roger Ebert though. He's clearly the most influential film critic of our times, the most popular and among the most trusted. There's no one who writes about film that hasn't benefited from his success or his example.

We've had a very long time to get used to a world without Roger Ebert. After his illness he was still very active as a film critic, but you could see him slowing down bit by bit, and it was clear he would never recover from the disastrous surgery in 2006 that robbed us of his physical voice. On a recent visit to his site, I was alarmed to see that almost all the recent reviews had been contributed by other critics, notably Richard Roeper. I hurriedly checked his blog to make sure he was still there, that he was still writing.

And then a few days ago we got the announcement of his effective retirement. And now the balcony is closed.
---
Read More
Posted in critics, movies | No comments

Wednesday, 3 April 2013

Into "Room 237"

Posted on 21:43 by mohit
You can't be a hardcore movie fan for long without running into someone who has come up with their own personal elaborate theory about a certain favorite film. All serious movie fans do this to some degree - I certainly do, looking for different interpretations and readings of films the same way that academics analyze certain works of literature. There are whole fields of film theory and film studies that examine what films say about the societies and cultures that produced them. However, there are always those fans who take things a little too far, who fixate on certain ideas or theories and then will go to extraordinary lengths to prove that they're right.

The documentary, "Room 237" features six of these people. We never see them, but we hear them speak at length, about the secrets that they believe that they have uncovered in Stanley Kubrick's beloved 1980 horror film, "The Shining." One believes that Kubrick inserted clues that point to his involvement in supposedly faking the moon landing. Another sees coded references to the massacre of Native Americans. Another finds Holocaust parallels. Another works out that the Overlook Hotel has impossible architecture, and thinks the story is a new take on Jason and the Minotaur. "Room 237" presents their arguments, with lots of visual aids taken from "The Shining," Kubrick's other films, and archival footage. Some of the theories are very entertaining, but few are very convincing. Almost all the big "Ah-HA!" moments can be chalked up to coincidence or artistic license taken for completely unrelated reasons.

Does this mean that "Room 237" is a failure? I don't think so. While I don't believe it offers many new insights on "The Shining," what it does do successfully is give you an interesting picture of these obsessive “Shining” fans. Several of them are clearly quite intelligent and well-educated, having done massive amounts of outside research to support their fantastic claims. They all appear to have expended considerable amounts of time and energy watching “The Shining” over and over again, looking for more clues. One segment of “Room 237” is devoted to someone who decided to watch the film run backwards and forwards simultaneously, with the images superimposed on top of each other, to look for any interesting results. He finds some neat moments where the pictures line up in curious ways, and of course he would – people who go looking for hidden conspiracies and secret messages always manage to find them.

It’s fascinating to see how these people have developed their own odd relationships and histories with the movie, treating it quite differently from the way that academics and film critics analyze films when they take them apart. The fans believe that Kubrick, the great stickler for detail that he was, intentionally included these secret signs and messages, and wanted them to be found. Academics often consider the intent of the directors and writers of a film to be irrelevant, looking instead for themes and conventions that reflect unspoken social mores and assumptions. Critics, including yours truly, tend to see unusual elements as stylistic or storytelling choices. Is architecture of the Overlook Hotel impossible? If it was done deliberately, it was probably to increase the viewer’s disorientation. Or maybe it was just a case of continuity errors. Even Stanley Kubrick wasn’t perfect.

The question becomes, not whether any of the theories presented in "Room 237" hold any water, but why "The Shining" has managed to inspire such wild mysteries and mythologies around it. My guess is that it has to do with the notoriety of "The Shining" itself, not just for being an especially effective and multilayered horror film, but for the stories about the intense behind-the-scenes drama during the film's prolonged production, and especially for the involvement of Stanley Kubrick. This was a director who was a perfectionist, who did demand 127 takes of the baseball bat scene, and who not only had the "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" pages typed out by his secretary, but also additional ones in different languages for international versions of the movie. If there was any director likely to put obscure secret messages in his work, surely it was Kubrick.

"Room 237" adds to his myth. Those gullible souls predisposed to believe in conspiracy theories will eat the stuff up, and I expect that "Shining" fans will appreciate seeing the little things they never noticed pointed out - the recurring Native American motifs, the television missing a cable, and who was that other man in the office during the interview? But it's plain to see when a skiing poster is just a skiing poster, and a movie is just a movie. "Room 237" is a lot of fun, but it may also make you wince at some of the convoluted reasoning that the six “experts” employ. Contrary to what the marketing may tell you, this is not a documentary about “The Shining.” It’s a documentary about the most extreme fans of “The Shining,” and that in its own way, is a far more frightening thing.
---
Read More
Posted in documentary, movies | No comments

Tuesday, 2 April 2013

"Hitchcock" is Pretty Humdrum

Posted on 22:35 by mohit
One of the most intriguing, but often frustrating subgenres of film are biopics about notable directors or behind-the-scenes exposes of how famous films were made. There haven't been many, but once in a while someone will try to pay homage to one of the old greats, and Hollywood does love movies about Hollywood. We get an "Ed Wood" or a "Shadow of the Vampire" if we're lucky, or a "My Life With Marilyn" if we're not. The trouble is that the filmmakers responsible for these movies are rarely in the same league with the directors or stars that they're trying to honor, and their reverence for their subjects can get in the way of presenting a compelling picture of the artists. These complaints are definitely applicable to "Hitchcock," the recent movie about the tumultuous production of Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho."

Now this should be fascinating subject matter, about how Hitchcock (Anthony Hopkins), a successful director starting to feel his age, took a bold gamble and financed the production of a movie that nobody wanted to make, resulting in a smash hit that became one of the most influential horror movies of all time. "Hitchcock" dutifully hits all the required historical marks, including scenes of Hitchcock arguing with the censors, reassuring Janet Leigh (Scarlett Johanssen) about the shower scene, briefly touching on his affair with actress Vera Miles (Jessica Biel), and finally showing off Hitchcock's skill as an impresario as he cooked up the famous publicity campaign for "Psycho." This is all handled in a very straightforward, businesslike manner, and though it's hard to find fault with any of the performances or the casting, nobody is particularly convincing either. I suspect only movie nerds who already know Hitchcock's work will be particularly interested in watching these events play out.

On the other hand, it often feels like the making of "Psycho" is just the backdrop for the drama playing out between Hitchcock and Alma Reville (Helen Mirren), his wife and vital collaborator. A huge portion of "Hitchcock" is concerned with their marriage troubles. Reville, feeling lonely and unappreciated, takes up an offer to collaborate on a screenplay with writer friend Whitfield Cook (Danny Huston). This leads Hitchcock to suspect that she's having an affair. He starts having recurring revenge and murder fantasies, some involving Ed Gein (Michael Wincott), the murderer who was the inspiration for "Psycho." Helen Mirren's Reville is absolutely wonderful, and the best thing about the movie, so it's no mystery why the filmmakers would want to keep her at the center of the story. Many of the best scenes involve her and Hopkins' Hitchcock just having conversations, fussing over work, and Hitchcock's diet, and day to day frustrations. Everything outside this immediate sphere just feels like a distraction.

"Hitchcock" tries to do too many things at once. At its core, it wants to be an easy, lighthearted look at the working partnership of Hitchcock and Reville, and the making of "Psycho." But then there are the subplots with Janet Leigh and Vera Miles, which touch on more serious issues. And the darker elements with the Ed Gein fantasies. And the whole business with the affair that keeps trying to push parallels between Hitchcock's work and his home life, which are not very convincing. And then there are the bookends that frame the story like an episode of Hitchcock's old television show. And the nudge-nudge wink-wink references and in-jokes. There are a lot of clever ideas, but only a few of them that work as intended. And to my chagrin, there were only a few scenes, including one involving Hitchcock taking in the first audience responses to "Psycho," that really said much of anything about Alfred Hitchcock as a filmmaker.

The common complaint I've heard about "Hitchcock" is that it's too complimentary, and that it sanitizes many of Hitchcock's personal faults. HBO's "The Girl," based on the memoirs of Tippi Hedron, portrays Hitchcock as a tyrant and borderline sadist. However, I don't see any problem with this more sympathetic version existing too, especially for the purposes of a film with such small and pleasant ambitions. I guess my biggest criticism of the film is that the ambitions are so small. "Hitchcock" feels like the modest cable television movie you would make about Janet Leigh or Alma Reville, not something that should bear a title with as much weight to it as "Hitchcock," or sold as a film that chronicles the birth of a movie as psychologically rich as "Psycho."

If you're in the mood for a nostalgic, occasionally romantic period piece that uses Hollywood as a backdrop, and you are a little familiar with Alfred Hitchcock, then "Hitchcock" is a perfectly enjoyable piece of light entertainment. If you're looking for something that really gives you an idea of what making "Psycho" entailed, or what Hitchcock was like as a filmmaker, I suggest sticking with the existing books and documentaries.
---
Read More
Posted in movies, reviews | No comments

Monday, 1 April 2013

Doom Doom Doom

Posted on 20:07 by mohit
And now ladies and gentlemen, The Doom Song.

Doom doom doom doomy doom doom doom DOOM DOOM DOOM dooooom doom doom da doom da doom doom doom doo doom doo doom DA DOOM! DA DOOM! Doom doom doom. Doom doom doom! Doomy doomie doomey doo-wah doom! Doom doom doom, doom dee doom dee doom doom doom. Dum dum dum DOOM! Doom doom doom, doo doo doom doom doom. Da doom, da doom DOOM DOOM DOOM DA DA DOOM! DOOOOOOM!

Dee dah DOOM! Da Da DOOM! DOOM doom doom doom, DOOM doom doom doom, DOOM doom doom doom, DOOM doom doom doom, Da da DOOM da DOOM! Dooom doooooom doooooom dooooom, DOOM DOOM (da-doom doom doom). DOOM DOOM DOOM dooooom doom doom da doom da doom doom doom doo doom doo doom DA DOOM! DA DOOM! DOOM DOOM DOOM dooooom doom doom da doom da doom doom doom doo doom doo doom DA DOOM! DA DOOM! DOOM DOOM DOOM dooooom doom doom da doom da doom doom doom doo doom doo doom DA DOOM! DA DOOM! DOOM DOOM DOOM dooooom doom doom da doom da doom doom doom doo doom doo doom DA DOOM! DA DOOM! Doomerino, Doomeransky, Doomie-oomie-oomie-oooooom! DOOM dah doom dah doom doom doom doom DOOOOOOM! Doom!

Doom doom doomdoom DOOMDOOM doom doom doomdoomdoom doom doom DOOMDOOMDOOM doom doom doom doomdoom doom doom dee deed da DOOOM DOOOM DOOOM! DOOM DOOM DOOM dooooom doom doom da doom da doom doom doom doo doom doo doom DA DOOM! DA DOOM! Doom doom doom, doom dee doom dee doom doom doom. Dum dum dum DOOM! Doom doom doom, doom dee doom dee doom doom doom. Dum dum dum DOOM! Doom doom doom, doom dee doom dee doom doom doom. Dum dum dum DOOM! DOO-WAH-DOOOMIE DOOMIE DUM DIDDIE DOOM!

Doom doom doo-da-doom, doom doom doo-da-doom, doom doom doo-da-doom, DOOM! Doom doom da doom dooooom, doom doom da doom dooooom, doom doom doom doomy doomy doom DOOM doom DOOOOM! Doom doom doom DOOM da-doom doom DOOM do-doom doom DOOM! Doom doom doom DOOM da-da-doom DOOM, da-da DOOM. DOOM da-da-doom DOOM, da-da DOOM da-da-DOOM! DOOM DOOMIE DOOM DOOM. Doom doomie-doom-doom. Doom doom doom DOOM doom, DOO-DOOM DOO-DOOOM! Doom doom doom DOOM! DOOM! DOOM! DOOM! DOOM! DOOMDOOMDOOMDOOM!

Dooom! Dooom! Doomy doomy doomydoomy, DOOM doom doom doomy! Doom dum doom dum doomy doom doom. Da-doomie doomie doom doom doom. Doomie! Doomie! Doom doom doom dee doomie. Doomdoom doomdoom, doom doom doo doom doom doom. Dooooom doom doom da doom da doom doom doom doo doom doo doom. Dooooooooom doom doom da doom da doom doom doom doo doom doo doom. Doom doom doom, doom dee doom dee doom doom doom. Doom doom doom, doom dee dee dee doom doom doom. La la la doom. FA LA LA LA LA LA DOOOM, DOOOM DOOOOOOM!

Doom doom doom doom doom, doom doom do DOOM, DOOOM doom do-doom, DOOM do-doom doom doooom, doom doom dooom, do-do-DOOOM! Doom doom doo doom doom. DOOMY-DOOMY-DOOM, doom do do DOOM. Do do DOOM, doomy-doomy-doomy, Doom doom doom.

Doom da-doom.


THE END
Read More
Posted in aaargh, animation, TV | No comments
Newer Posts Older Posts Home
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • How Will "Mad Men" End?
    Three weeks into the penultimate season of AMC's "Mad Men," and I've got a serious case of the "what ifs." Thou...
  • The Top Ten Futurama Episodes
    I had to double check and make sure that I hadn't written this list before, because I've been such a cheerleader for "Futurama,...
  • So Mindy Kaling Got Her Own Sitcom
    The pilot of Mindy Kaling's new sitcom "The Mindy Project" popped up in various places last week, so I gave it a look. I'...
  • A Trip to the Past With "Hugo"
    I didn't see "Hugo" in 3D, though many of its proponents have been raving about how well the new Martin Scorsese family film i...
  • Well, There Goes the "Community"
    Oh, the studios can be so unkind. Yesterday, about an hour after I posted my final thoughts on the third season of "Community," i...
  • Malick's Latest is a "Wonder"
    Since reviewing "The Tree of Life" last year, I went and hunted down all of the remaining Terrence Malick films that I hadn't ...
  • TJE 7/22 - The Turin Horse (2011)
    We begin with the famous anecdote about Friedrich Nietzche, who one day encountered a horse being beaten by his driver in the street, and in...
  • The Foreign Film Name Game
    It's rough being a fan of foreign films. It's a very niche product, which often means that you have to pay a premium for access, ha...
  • My Favorite Zhang Yimou Film
    Imagine if there was pressure from the American government to avoid negative portrayals of the Vietnam War on film. Imagine if because of t...
  • The Rental Delay Gamble
    Warner Brothers made waves last week when it came out that it had decided to impose a 56-day delay on its DVDs being available for rental, f...

Categories

  • aaargh (9)
  • aaargh. (1)
  • action (122)
  • animation (52)
  • awardshow (22)
  • batman (3)
  • chuck (1)
  • comedies (100)
  • crime drama (35)
  • crime dramas (20)
  • critics (9)
  • disney (19)
  • documentary (7)
  • dramas (133)
  • fandom (16)
  • fantasy (79)
  • horror (30)
  • kevin smith (1)
  • liveblog (2)
  • marketing (40)
  • movie (5)
  • movies (346)
  • musicals (10)
  • oz (2)
  • reality (9)
  • reviews (118)
  • reviews. (4)
  • romance (32)
  • scifi (68)
  • spider-man (1)
  • starwars (6)
  • superhero (25)
  • trailers (5)
  • TV (175)
  • web (43)

Blog Archive

  • ▼  2013 (148)
    • ▼  June (21)
      • The Revolution of "Reds"
      • The Future of the "Iron Man" Movies?
      • "Hannibal," Year One
      • "Carnivàle," Year One
      • Way, Way, Way Too Much to Watch
      • Tracking More Delayed Movies
      • "The Hobbit" and Fan Edits
      • "Aeon Flux" and "The Maxx"
      • Hello Hollywood Meltdown
      • "Oz," the Shiny and Colorful
      • The Challenge of "Exotica"
      • The June 2013 Follow-Up Post
      • My Favorite Yasujiro Ozu Movie
      • My Top Ten Episodes of "Angel"
      • Hitting the Wall With "Homeland"
      • Don't Worry About Will Smith
      • Life and Times of a "War Witch"
      • "Side Effects" and "Behind the Candelabra"
      • NBC and the State of Network TV
      • "Veronica Mars," Year Two
      • Are the Disney Princesses a Problem?
    • ►  May (26)
    • ►  April (25)
    • ►  March (25)
    • ►  February (25)
    • ►  January (26)
  • ►  2012 (309)
    • ►  December (25)
    • ►  November (25)
    • ►  October (25)
    • ►  September (25)
    • ►  August (26)
    • ►  July (32)
    • ►  June (25)
    • ►  May (26)
    • ►  April (25)
    • ►  March (25)
    • ►  February (25)
    • ►  January (25)
  • ►  2011 (43)
    • ►  December (25)
    • ►  November (18)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

mohit
View my complete profile