Trailer for Paranormal Activity 2 released: Too scary?

The trailer for Paranormal Activity 2 was released with the new Twilight movie, and already there's buzz around it, because not only is it fairly horrifying, but many are arguing that it's too scary for the younger Twi-hards watching the movie. Some people in Texas have apparently complained about it, and it's been pulled from several theatres in that state. I've watched it online, and yeah it is startling, and maybe it's even worse when it's up on the big screen in a darkened theatre, but it's not graphic and it's pretty short, so no I don't think the trailer in and of itself is too scary, but it does show promise that the movie it promotes will have some chills, maybe as much as it's predecessor (see my previous post).

Ew.com had a great post about the PA2 trailer, and poses the question of what other trailers and TV spots have sent chills down the viewers spine. Clark Collis, the author of the post, lists the trailers for Phantasm, the remake for Dawn of the Dead and The Shining, and he includes youtube videos of each one and for the PA2 spot. I have to agree with the Shining trailer, which is simple (only focusing on one particularly jarring scene), elegant and terrifying, much like the film itself. And as freaky as that elevator scene is, you have to admit it's beautifully shot, and the music itself is enough to give you nightmares. Phantasm looked nonsensical and the 2004 DotD trailer was short and to the point but not overly scary. One trailer that freaked me out as a kid was, and this is embarrassing to admit, from one of the Tales of the Crypt movies. Give me a break, I was just a kid!

Any trailers that have scared the heck out of you? Post away.

Summer movie watch: Rough waters ahead

So my new EW has the provocatively titled article "What's Wrong With This Summer's Movies?" It appears that box office revenue's are down about $147 million so far, and 2010 had the worst Memorial Day box office since 2001. Eeep! The article argues that by this time last year two future Best Picture nominees had been released and several blockbusters had arrived. Definitely not so this year.

So what gives? Bad movies seems to be the main explanation. Sex and the City 2 fizzled both with critics and with ticket sales, and has since had the even more dubious distinction of being taken off my must-see summer movie list. The Killers, Prince of Persia and Shrek: Forever After all have taken big hits from their reviews and it shows in their weak opening weekends. Could it also be, as the article suggests, that we've been majorly spoiled with great TV shows that have just wrapped for the season, and we therefore don't have the patience for mediocre crap like we used to? Both valid arguments.

What irks me, however, is there have been a couple of good movies released the last few weeks that I think should have gotten higher box-office draws. Get Him to the Greek is one. The night I went to see it my roommate and I had narrowed our choices to either that or SATC. We went with Greek because, as I argued, it had better critical praise and it was an hour shorter. And it was good, damn it, as I pointed out in my earlier review. So why did it cough up only $18 million it's opening weekend.

Anther film is The A-Team, which, I've discovered, pulled in a low enough opening weekend that hopes for a sequel have been pretty much scrapped. What the hell? It was so fun! So what if it wasn't Oscar worthy, it was a great summer movie! I would've loved to see round two. Life so is not fair.

So what does all this mean? Not sure. Perhaps Hollywood's umpteenth wake-up call? The summer season is still early, so hopefully things can still pick up. Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World has been added to my summer list, which will hopefully salve my wounds over Sex and the City. I'd even bought a shirt with a stiletto to wear when I went and saw Carrie and the girls. That shirt will have to wait for something special (cue tear drop).

Looks like a bright, gorgeous summer...for movies!

My EW Summer Movie Preview arrived in the mail. So now not only do I have warm weather and good times to look forward to, I have a whole list of movies to check out in a darkened, air-conditioned theatre. How could I be so lucky?

You see, fall and winter is when studios trot out their Oscar fair. Spring and summer is when they cut loose and air the high-action, loads of fun flicks that get people abuzz. And it looks like this year is no exception. Here is a list of the summer movies I can't wait to see, in chronological order by release date.

Iron Man 2 (May 7): This is one of the big ones on my list. The first movie was so brilliant, everything a comic book movie should be. If the trailers are any indication, the sequel seems to follow the same formula. Plus, we get War Machine this time! He's like Iron Man, but with a whole lot of machine guns!

Shrek Forever After (May 14): As much as I love the first three movies, I do worry that this franchise may be getting tired. But you know I'll be in line to buy a ticket regardless. The sight of a chubby Puss in Boots is too good to pass up.

MacGruber (May 21): I'm on the fence about this. Movies based on SNL sketches are really hit and miss. I'll have to see how the reviews go. But I love the sketch, so as long as they don't royally screw it up it should be at least a little fun.

Sex and the City 2 (May 27th): I admit I was surprised when this project was announced, seeing as how I thought the first S&C movie tied things up so nicely. But how can you not be excited by another outing with Carrie and the gals? Fashion and girly things galore!

Get Him To The Greek (June 4): I admit I have a thing for Russel Brand. Weird I know, but it's true. This is a sequel of sorts to Forgetting Sarah Marshall, and made by the same people. It looks like a comedy of rock & roll proportions.

The A-Team (June 11): Funny enough, having never seen the original TV show, this offering wasn't on my radar at all...until I saw the trailer for it. Now it's near the top of my list. It's looks like high-octane action. Besides, Bradley Cooper is freakin' hot. His abs have a nice moment in the trailer.

Toy Story 3 (June 18): It's been eleven years since the first sequel, and that fact does absolutely nothing to diminish the excitement. It's Toy Story for God's sake! Buzz and Woody and the gang! You know it's going to be fantastic no matter how much time has passed.

The Sorcerer's Apprentice (July 16): Another movie I wasn't all that interested in until I came across the trailer. Such is the power of a good trailer. I'm thinking this could be a good little fantasy flick.

Dinner for Schmucks (July 23): 'Cause Carrel & Rudd, together again. I actually don't know that much more about it, but Carrel and Rudd, people!

So there's the short list. Films may be added or removed depending on buzz, reviews and my interest level. I can assure you, however, that I will be avoiding Twilight: Eclipse like the plague regardless of buzz or reviews.

Twilight Hater...And Proud of It!

Firstly, December is here! Now everyone can go nuts with the Christmas season and I won't say a word. Heck, I'll even join you!

But back to my main point; I hate this whole Twilight fad. Hate it! Hate just about everything about it. Now as you may have noticed if you're a regular reader I love vampire fiction...but I hate this. Hate that it's so popular. Hate that it's giving vampires a bad name. Just...oooohhhh.

Some of you may be screaming 'NOOOOOOO! How can someone hate Twilight? It's so awesome, it's the best thing ever!' Or at the very least you might be thinking 'Hey it's not Keats but it's not that bad either; why the strong negative feelings?' And look there are some things I'm so crazy about that I can't understand why someone wouldn't like it, so I get where you're coming from. But, in a rare moment of zen, we have to realize that nobody can like everything (and if they say they do they're lying scum). And if you'd be so kind to indulge me, I'd like to take this oportunity to vent my frustration at this obnoxious fad (I can call it that, it's my blog).

So be more specific? Well, I hate Bella Swan. She's a whiny little wuss who lets her life and identity be consumed by a man. Even if he is a gorgeous, mystical, sparkly, slightly thrilling man, that don't make it right. There were a few recent articles at EW that make a great argument for Edward's stalkerish and potentially abusive behavior (see here and here).

And speaking of Edward, as the wise and vampire-savy authors at the discussion panel I attended at Fan Expo pointed out, why on earth would Stephanie Meyer make Edward a vampire if there's no bite to him, or at least not enough to make him truly dangerous. Sure, he might try to kill Bella...but chances are he probably won't. Boooooring!

Plus, real vampires DON'T SPARKLE! I understand taking liberties with vampire mythology, and Dracula was able to walk around in the daylight, so that's not the issue. But Dracula didn't sparkle. Know why? Because he was a REAL VAMPIRE! (And no I don't mean 'real' in the literal sense, I mean real in the established fiction and mythology sense)

Now I'm sure there are those out there who are saying, 'Well Al, how can you spew such venom at something you've never read or seen?' Fair point, but what you may not realize, gentle arguing reader, is that I did try reading it. At the coaxing of the teens I serve at my library I picked up the first volume and thought I'd give it a try. I made it to page 100, decided life was too short, and closed the book. My adorable, incredibly smart 18 year old cousin had assured me before hand that I'd feel like I was falling in love with Edward along with Bella. Maybe I'm looking at it from an almost 30 year old filter, but I have to disagree; I thought Edward was a jerk. And the constant back and forth dance he'd been doing with Bella up to that point was just annoying. Maybe I don't have the patience for that kind of thing at my age, though I know of many people older than me who like the series. Go figure.

Whether you agree with me or not, that is my point of view. Bring me True Blood or Buffy. That's what I'm looking for in my vampire fiction. Hell, I'll even take Van Helsing. At least their suped-up version of Dracula didn't sparkle. Feel free to cheer me on or condemn me in the comments section, your choice.

My Own 9 Years of Beatlemania (and Counting)

EW came out with a great issue last week. As the front cover proclaimed: The Beatles Invade Again! (Just as a side note, I've always loved that picture of John and Paul, from back when they were still getting along). Now that Beatles: Rock Band has been released (I so want it!), along with digitally remastered versions of their albums, rock's greatest band is poised to make yet another splash on the pop culture scene. And while nothing will ever come close to the original Beatles craze back in the 60s, the fact that they still generate such excitement is a testament to their quality as a band and their impact on culture and history.

I didn't officially hop on the Beatlemania bandwagon until the holiday season of 2000. Ah, what a magical time; I had finished high school the previous summer, and had just started at the University of Waterloo, taking my first tentative steps into adulthood. Through December of that year I was working a part-time stint at the Hickory Farms kiosk at our local shopping mall to earn a little extra dough for Christmas. But you see, that kiosk happened to be located right outside the HMV store...and just a few weeks before, the album 1 had been released.

Some of you may recall 1. It was a collection of twenty-seven of the number one singles the Beatles released from their heydays of the early sixties until they broke up in 1970, and the first compilation album on one disc for the band. It also happened to become the best selling album of 2000 world wide, surpassing everyone's expectations and once again putting the Beatles back in the spotlight.

Now me standing at the counter of that Hickory Farms kiosk for a few hours a day, I couldn't help but listen to 1 as it was played over the HMV speakers...and I fell in love. Head over heels in love! From the youthful exuberance of "She Loves You" to the sorrow of "Eleanor Rigby" and the mature bluesy sound of "Come Together", the richness and variety of their music struck a chord with me big time (pun intended). 1 made it's way onto my Christmas list, and it was in my stocking that year. I still have it to this day.

I don't want to make my onset of Beatlemania sound like a religious experience, but in some ways it kind of was. Before that Christmas I was still lingering in my boy band phase of adolescent musical tastes. Once I got into the Beatles a whole world of music opened up for me. As I tried to experience everything I could having to do with the Fab Four I also got into the Stones, the Who and other 60's bands, then I moved on to the eclectic mix that was the 70s. For the last few years I've been way into New Wave and 80s music (still haven't really revisited the 90s yet; go figure). Suddenly the pop music landscape was much bigger and far more exciting than I ever could have imagined.

But the Beatles remain my greatest love, always at the top of my list of favorite bands. A Hard Days Night is also on my list of favorite movies (if you haven't seen it yet, it was re released on DVD back in like 2002, so hop to it!) When George Harrison passed away in November of 2001 I mourned with the rest of the world, partly because I feel like I didn't get the chance to have him in my life for as long as so many others had. With John Lennon assassinated in 1980 (about eleven months before I was born) Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr are the only two surviving members now. I visited NYC for the first time in August of last year, and got the chance to see the Dakota and Strawberry Fields in Central Park, and I'm so glad I did.

While I doubt that everyone will have the same experiences with these mopped topped kids from Liverpool that I have, I am grateful to the Beatles not just for their music and not just for their impact on history, but for opening my eyes to a greater selection of music. Don't get me wrong, I still love the Backstreet Boys, but now I can add "Magic Bus" and "Paint it Black" to my iPod along with "I Want It That Way". And as the Beatles continue to make an impact in the world, I will cheer; I will experience it along with everyone else; I will join in the debates over which songs and albums are better than others; and I will keep listening to the music, no matter what format it comes in.

And you know Beatles: Rock Band will be on my Christmas list this year.

Marvel and Disney: Strange Bedfellows

A big announcement was made today; Marvel Entertainment is set to be purchased by the Walt Disney Company for a reported 4 billion dollars, stock and the rights to about 5 000 characters (insert low impressed whistle here). The full details have yet to be revealed but the entertainment world is abuzz. Many of Marvel's characters are currently owned by other movie companies, like Spider-Man at Sony, Iron Man at Paramount or the X-Men at Fox. How will that be addressed? Hopefully all will be revealed when and if the deal goes through.

As someone who grew up with both Disney and Marvel comics I find myself scratching my head at this turn of events. Disney and Marvel...business partners? The company that gave us so many princess movies and the family friendly faces of Hannah Montana and Suite Life is going to own a comic book legacy that for the past seventy odd years has given us scantily clad superheroes, sometimes in very adult situations? This doesn't add up for me.

Some reporters watching this, like Marc Bernardin at EW.com, are hopeful that this deal will help Marvel branch out a bit from superheroes and try other forms of comics and graphic novels. Perhaps I'm being pessimistic but I worry that the opposite could happen; that Disney may end up being more restrictive of what Marvel can do. The Mouse House, in all it's power and glory, sometimes has a tendency to make everything family friendly. But occasionally I like my comics gritty; DC's Vertigo line is one of my favorites (and it's definitely not for kids).

It's still really early, so we'll have to see how this progresses. Just yesterday though I was at the Marvel booth at Fan Expo. Now Marvel might go through a pretty drastic change. For good or ill? Time will tell.

Quick Update: EW corrects it's Vampire list (sort of)

A few days ago I posted a complaint about Entertainment Weekly's list of the 20 Greatest Vampires and the unforgivable absence of my favorite, Spike. Well, apparently other EW readers agreed with me and wrote in (which is what I should really do if I'm going to complain like this). The August 21/28 issue just came out and includes a short list of the vampires that didn't make the cut but readers thought should have, and Spike is on there. Yay! Other vamps that readers felt got the short end of the stick included Blacula, Frank Langella's Dracula, Barnabas Collins, Count Vladimir Dracula from Love at First Bite, and Mick St. John. It's a small gesture of contrition on EW's part, but I'll take it.

By the way, still haven't seen True Blood, but I now have a poster of Eric set as my laptop's wallpaper. He's doing the finger pyramid of evil contemplation. I really need help.

Plenty of love for the Undead, but what about Spike?

Imagine my excitement when my August 7th issue of Entertainment Weekly was waiting for me in my mailbox after a tough day at the library. Right on the cover, up top, in big bold white type was the word "Vampires". Eeeeh! (I shrieked excitedly, hoping the neighbours didn't hear) Not only did this issue discuss the most current vampire craze with interviews from popular vampire writers, there was also a list of their choices of the the 20 Greatest Vampires of All Time! Happiness...overload...

I've been a fan of bloodsuckers for...well, forever. They've always been my favorite movie/book/TV show monster with their effortless sexuality, rich mythology and bad-boy-hiding-tortured-soul archetype. And boy howdy are they hot at the moment. With the Twilight series still discussed ad nauseum (I still take requests for it at the reference desk), the show True Blood heating up HBO and more vampire projects coming out of the woodwork the undead have staked a firm claim in pop culture right now.

So as happy as I was to see this issue, there was one colossal error that I must address. Their list of the 20 greatest vamps was really good, with mentions going out to some obvious picks like Edward Cullen and Dracula (four different film versions of him actually), newer selections like Bill and Eric from True Blood (which I haven't seen yet, but there's much debate over which of the two is hotter, and I gotta go with Eric right now) and others both famous and more obscure. Their pick of Lestat from The Vampire Chronicles as number one surprised me, but I decided their reasoning was sound.

But there was, to me, one gaping absence from the list. No Spike. No Spike? Spike, one of my favorite reasons to watch Buffy the Vampire Slayer and then the last season of Angel did not make the list at all? Angel was number 7, but no Spike? Come on! Not only was he gorgeous with his bleach blond hair, cocky sneer, British accent and trademark black duster he was one of the most complex and fully rounded characters on the show. Who else can you name, vampire or otherwise, who could go from timid poet to punk bad ass, from big bad to comic relief, from villain to hero, soulless killer to soulful lover, all within the run of the series and still stay believable and remain a fan favorite? Not many, that's for sure.

Ah well, you can't win them all. Maybe he was number 21. But I've said my peace, and we can all move on. That's one big reason to have a blog in the first place. Any favorite vampires you hoped made the list? And does anyone agree with me that Spike deserved more love?