Netflix description:

Nineteen-year-old Johnny (Vincent Spano) is a charismatic but ruthless gangster, running the mob's drug trade in Alphabet City -- New York's toughest neighborhood, on the lower East Side of Manhattan.

(oh wait, there's more)

But when Johnny's bosses order him to torch the building where both his mother and sister live, Johnny refuses. Now a marked man, he must find a way to protect his family and get out of Alphabet City before the mob takes him out ... for good!

Brilliant.

I don't watch much TV, but when I do I tend to watch a lot of Discovery channel and that sort of thing. You know, How It's Made, Mythbusters, nature programming, etc. 1) Adam Savage is awesome. Every week I'm impressed by how good Mythbusters is and it's all because the Savage/Hyneman team. The fact that they can put out such a great show while managing the constraints imposed by the Discovery channel and television in general is really impressive. 2) Could Smash Lab be any worse? Smash Lab is a completely derivative television show that is basically the reverse of Mythbusters- rather than try to prove or disprove a myth they try to solve a problem. The first season was miserable, mostly thanks to a poorly chosen team and lots of bad editing. For the second season (I DVR it and watched my first episode last night) two of the original four people were replaced. One of the new guys is "Reverend Gadget"... I'm not kidding.  Anyway, they found a way to make the show even worse. I would say, that with a completely new team the show could be OK. They would need to work on the editing (don't ruin every crash and explosion with going to slow-mo cuts first) and picking better challenges. Plus they insist on trying these outlandish solutions (for example: an indestructible car that has an explosion under it so it can jump over other cars when they are going to hit it) which not only wastes time, but prevents them from trying more practical solutions. Overall though, its foolish to think that in an hour of televison- maybe a week of testing/shooting- four people (seemingly dilettantes) could make an indestructible car or a hurricane proof house.

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/... The Village Voice has a great post calling out Iron Chef America. We all knew the show was stupid and staged (though the original one was very good), but this is too much... I can't believe I'm writing this, but I have lost even more respect for the Food Network. I did not even think that was possible...

At one point, with only minutes in the real-time hour to go, one of Nicotra's sous chefs—an attractive and poised brunette named Lara—was seen kneeling next to the ingredient table, stacking and restacking the spice jars so that the one she had used would fit perfectly back in the shelf. Urgency, indeed!

In most cases, the recipes were being executed a second time for the judges, mostly by the sous chefs, but with help from the Oompa-Loompas. I was shocked. If the actual dishes produced during the contest weren't being tasted, the competitive validity of the whole show was further undermined: What was the point of the race if the dishes were casually recooked for judging an hour later?

The worst part is that the Food Network managed to drag Alton Brown, probably their best and only respectable host into this charade.

That's right- the Coen brothers are going to do a movie version of The Yiddish Policeman's Union. Pretty great news- in my opinion Michael Chabon is a great writer and the Coen brothers, well, they are some of the only people making movies that are worth watching.

I'm watching American Gladiator on Hulu and figured I'd post some thoughts. I was pretty excited about the re-release as I used to really like the show when I was like 6. I'm expeting this new version to be pretty bad, but in an entertaining way.

1. Two injuries in the first 20 minutes A female contestant was hurt in the first round ever and a gladiator hurt his arms on the first ring event) It is too rough? Are the people too big? The male gladiators are definitely more like bodybuilders than they are athletes.
2. Wolf? This is so stupid and contrived- it's a gladiator who has to howl like a wolf all the time. After he did it once it was tired, but he kept at it.
3. Pyramid This is brutal, there is no good way to score here unless the gladiators screw up. And you get thrown down a flight of padded steps if you are caught.
4. Hulk This guy is ageless. He hasn't changed at all in like 20 years and talks just like he did back then. I'm still waiting for him to call a female contestant "bro". It was weird how he kept pointing out how beautiful the female gladiators were.
5. Eliminator It's okay, nothing amazing, though the barrel roll is amazing. The hand bike seems too hard for the woman, as it requires an incredible amount of upper body strength, especially after climbing that cargo net. The reserve escalator (travelator) is a clearly a killer after all that.
6. Major Disappointments They killed two of the best parts of the show- the tennis ball machine gun and at the end of the Eliminator when they crash through the wall and possibly run into a gladiator. The tennis ball course (Assault) was the best part of the show, but I also like the one when they ran around in the spheres, which was also left out.
7. Announcers These guys are terrible. So cheesy and forced. They would be great it I was still 6.

Overall, after watching part one I am not impressed at all. I'll watch it, just for old time's sake but it's just as ridiculous and dumb as you remembered. It's really sad that it's on during primetime. So yeah, the only reason the original one was any good because we were in elementary scho at the time. Edit- apparently part 2 of night 1 DOES have Assault. How could you leave this out of the come-back episode?

I'm calling it right now- Bourne Ultimatum is going to be the best movie of the summer. I won't go so far as saying the best movie of 2007, but it's going to be close, probably the best action movie of the year. Check out the trailer- http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/thebourneultimatum/th_medium.html

I have to admit, I have a major weakness for these movie trailer mashups. This one features Pokemon and 300, but some other good ones have done Mary Poppins and the Shining, as well as a great horror version of the West Side Story. Thanks for the heads up Kotaku.

Finally a television show worth watching! At least I am hoping... HBO's Rome has just one episode left, which means the only television show that I really follow is going to be off the air. I would have some ones I enjoy (Mythbusters, Dirty Jobs, Heroes) but nothing I am really into. But the Discovery Channel has a new show that looks like it could be very good, Planet Earth. From what I can tell the show is either Wild Discovery on steriods or basically the same thing (but the people at the Disocvery Channel finally figured out how to make a great trailer). Either way I'll be watching at 8pm Sunday night. I am a big fan of Wild Discovery though I can't ever figure out when they are aired so I very rarely get to see them. I think a big-budget, well directed nature show could be awesome, pretty much my dream-come-true for television. This is an 11 part mini-series so I am thinking they pulled out some of the stops- from what I have they have a great trailer and a pretty extensive web site, so my hopes are high. Plus, I think they are going to be focusing on more unusual species and habitats, as opposed to the commonplace, so that should really help keep it interesting.

For months now I have been eagerly awaiting the arrival of 300. This is the movie adaptation of a graphic novel from Frank Miller and Lynn Varley. I finally got to go see it on Saturday (disappointingly, not at the Imax). Let me preface this informal review by saying I have read the graphic novel a few times (albeit a few months ago) and have watched the trailer many times since it was first posted on Apple's site. All told, I would give the movie a rating of "very good" or, to put it numerically, 4 out of 5 stars. The movie was not short, but it was entertaining, a lot of very cool things happened, the characters were great, and it was mega-violent. Visually the movie was amazing, a bit cartoonish in its representation of the characters, but only because many of the people and situations were so extreme- for instance an armored rhinoceros charging at the Spartan line. As with the book the plot was simplistic: a small group of Greeks fighting off the enormous Persian army at a place known as the Hot Gates. While the movie largely remained true to the book and did not leave out any material, it did add a few scenes and plot twists, as well as expand on others. These were, not surprisingly, where things went wrong. The movie added a great deal of politics to the dealings in Sparta while the 300 were fighting as well as one crazy scene where Xerxes makes a deal with Ephialtes (a Spartan outcast). The backstabbing that goes on in Sparta at the time that Leonidas and his men were defending Greece was extremely (almost ridiculously) un-Spartan and seemed very out of place in the movie- the blame originally fell to the corrupt Ephors not a Spartan. Also the movie took an exremely odd detour when Ephialtes met Xerxes. Here there was a tent full of oddities including- if I remember correctly- an executioner with some sort of crab claws for arms, a all sorts of woman of questionable repute, and a donkey playing a lute. Anyway, it was really strange and completely unnecessary. The movie did have some awesome moments though. Interestingly these were not the ones I had loved so much in the trailer (those lacked the power and passion I expected, though still sounded cool and would have been the highlight of any other movie). One of the scenes I was very impressed with was when Xerxes met Leonidas. Xerxes, the Persian king, was about 8 feet tall and seemed very much like the god-king he claims to be. Both David Wenham and Vincent Regan also did excellent jobs (as did Gerard Butler, but that was no surprise after seeing the trailer). If you are looking for some ultra-violence mixed with a brief history lesson, then I think you can't go wrong with 300. The movie took some unfortunate liberties and it lacked the heart-pounding excitement of the trailer, but it was worth the price of admission. Of the two people I saw the movie with one liked it a lot and the other was a bit taken aback, but enjoyed most of it. The movie could have been about 20 minutes shorter and some aspects of it could have been thought out better, but still there are a lot "wow" moment. Fans of the graphic novel will not be disappointed and cinema fans will definitely enjoy the visual and technical aspects of the movie. The trailer is, in my opinion, as close as anyone can get to perfect so definitely check that out before seeing the movie. It has all the best moments of the movie and edits out the discussions, voice overs, and deceit that gave the movie its 2 hour (or so) run time. To generalize about the reviews I have read- particularly A.O. Scott's in the New York Times-most were overly harsh and seemed to have, at times, missed the point. I would not rely too heavily on them and would be sure to check out the trailer and read book before passing judgement.

You probably saw this already, it made a pretty big internet splash, but it's great reading. I honestly can't stand Anthony Bourdain's writing, but these posts are becoming legendary.

I actually WATCH Food Network now and again, more often than not drawn in by the progressive horrors on screen. I find myself riveted by its awfulness, like watching a multi-car accident in slow motion. Mesmerized at the ascent of the Ready-Made bobblehead personalities, and the not-so-subtle shunting aside of the Old School chefs, I find myself de-constructing the not-terrible shows, imagining behind the scenes struggles and frustrations, and obsessing unhealthily on the Truly Awful ones.

I've been watching Rome since the first episode and while I don't think it is great, it is definitely a good series, one of the best on television right now (that's not saying very much, but there it is). One of Rome's strengths, as with most HBO series, has been the character development. They have done an excellent job of letting us get to know the principle characters so they we can know what motivates them and have an expectation of what they will do, something which adds very much to the viewing experience. Anyway, I feel like Rome's producers made a major mistake by changing Octavians on us. To show the character's maturation and let us better understand the progression of time the original Octavian, Max Pirkis, was swapped out in favor of Simon Woods. There is not doubt that when he returned Octavian was no longer a boy, but losing Pirkis for Woods, who is completely emotionless and can best be compared to a mannequin, was a mistake. Pirkis' portrayal of the young Octavian was one of the best performances on the show, despite the difficult, often unsavory situations he got himself in, and an extended absence when away at school. The strangest thing about the move was that no one else was changed. Yes the difference in age would be more apparent on someone younger, but none of Vorenus' children were swapped, despite the hell they went through, and the only other sign of aging was Antony's beard. In summary, I don't have a problem with time marching on and aspects of the show changing to reflect that, but this change was completely half-assed and meant that the show had to lose an actor who was perfectly suited to his role and doing an astounding.

I have been hearing rumors lately, but it look's like Alan Moore's Watchmen is going to be made into a motion picture relatively soon. Lately a lot of information has been coming out about the movie and just what fans should expect. First Showing has a great post about comments from the prospective director, Zach Snyder, about how much CGI will be used and than the movie will be set in 1985. The CGI is a very tough call because the Watchmen is not something that should have a lot of CGI- it is essentially about real people doing real things not fantastic mutants or magic. The issue is that certain fantastic things happen at points in the book that take it away from the "citizen superhero" style have to be done with CGI, like everything with Doc Manhattan and trips to Mars and Antarctica. Supposedly the movie is in pre-production, but I have not been keeping up on it as well as I could be. There also seem to be a lot of people speaking out against this comic classic being made into a movie. Personally I am a fan of the novel but have trouble seeing how well it actually lends itself to movie format. It will be interesting to see what happens...

Not too much to report lately but I checked out FirstShowing.net and saw that Alex is over at Sundance! Good stuff.  He has a whole bunch of cool content about the event and the movies, but I have to admit I am way more excited by the fact that he got to meet Nathan Fillion! If that is not cool enough then get this- 300 is coming to IMAX! I have been really exciting for this movie for some time, so being able to possibly see it in IMAX is big news. Here is the 300 trailer set. I am a bit embarassed to report that I have seen them all like 30 times...

Not too much to report lately but I checked out FirstShowing.net and saw that Alex is over at Sundance! Good stuff.  He has a whole bunch of cool content about the event and the movies, but I have to admit I am way more excited by the fact that he got to meet Nathan Fillion! If that is not cool enough then get this- 300 is coming to IMAX! I have been really exciting for this movie for some time, so being able to possibly see it in IMAX is big news. Here is the 300 trailer set. I am a bit embarassed to report that I have seen them all like 30 times...

Anthony Bourdain has a guest post on Michael Ruhlman's blog in which discusses the season 2 Top Chef contestants. Even if you are not a Bourdain fan (I don't blame you) it is an interesting post with some interesting insights from a professional chef on how the contestans did and how they will do in the future. From the article, about Marcel:

Any cook who spends that much time on their hair is going to have a hard row to hoe. And any chef will sporting a Wolverine-Do will be the object of behind their back derision and mockery. Marcel has a LOT of growing up to do. A chef needs respect. A chef must be able to delegate. A chef needs to run a kitchen that actually turns a profit. I can't see Marcel doing any of those things.

There are a lot of comments on the posts which shows us just how popular the show is despite the ridiculous situations it creates and the rag-tag bunch of misfits they brought together.  I would have liked him to comment more about Top Chef itself- how the challenges are setup and how to improve it- but he restricted his comments to the contestants. If you can get through the classical Bourdain style of the post, it is a good read.

I set aside some time tonight to go out to see Children of Men, a newly released movie starring Clive Owen, Julianne Moore, and Michael Caine. The movie is a sci-fi thriller based in the UK, about twenty years in the future. The premise of the story is that the world has basically fallen apart and they only nation left with any sort of order is England but that order is actually put forth by a cruel police state (sort of like in V for Vendetta). The women in this world are all infertile and no one has had a child in about 18 years- there is no official word on whether the violence and disorder happened because of the infertility or the other way around, but it is a moot point. Once the basics are established the movie moves along relatively quickly and we are soon introduced to the rebel "Fishes" and the pregnant girl. Towards the climax and end of the movie it struck me as borrowing heavily from 28 Days Later, but it could just be the post-apocalyptic Britain thing (though I was not reminded of Reign of Fire at all). Overall I had pretty high expectations for the movie, and I have to say that it wasn't bad. I don't think it can stand up to the hype, but it was interesting, enjoyable, and was able to entertain me throughout the runtime. Points of the movie were hard to take seriously if were not able to suspend your disbelief and get involved in how truly awed someone would be if, for instance, they saw a baby (the first one in 18 years) after having completely given up on ever having a child or seeing one. As for the cinematography and soundtrack- there were some very good moments, but neither was amazing. I think the most interesting point here was that almost every scene of the movie has a dog in it. Whether it is running around or being carried there was always a dog- this got to the point where I thought that the dogs were part of the plot. As for the soundtrack, it is mostly recycled songs from the 60s, for some reason, but at one point Michael Caine starts to rock out to some sort of hardcore deathjam, which still makes no sense to me. All told, it was not as great as everyone said, but I liked it. The movie kept me interested and I enjoyed it through the entire runtime. I can't say the ending was very satisfying and if you are in search of answers you won't be happy either, but just like with so many other sci-fi stories the author was either too lazy or not clever enough to reach any sort of real resolution. So- not amazing, but worth watching, one of the better movies I have seen in awhile. Note: this review was going to be much better, but I hit ctrl-z (undo) and for some reason Wordpress freaked out. It deleted my last few paragraphs and it refused to ctrl-y (redo) them. I guess I need to save more often.... edit: Here is another, slightly more positive, review.

I set aside some time tonight to go out to see Children of Men, a newly released movie starring Clive Owen, Julianne Moore, and Michael Caine. The movie is a sci-fi thriller based in the UK, about twenty years in the future. The premise of the story is that the world has basically fallen apart and they only nation left with any sort of order is England but that order is actually put forth by a cruel police state (sort of like in V for Vendetta). The women in this world are all infertile and no one has had a child in about 18 years- there is no official word on whether the violence and disorder happened because of the infertility or the other way around, but it is a moot point. Once the basics are established the movie moves along relatively quickly and we are soon introduced to the rebel "Fishes" and the pregnant girl. Towards the climax and end of the movie it struck me as borrowing heavily from 28 Days Later, but it could just be the post-apocalyptic Britain thing (though I was not reminded of Reign of Fire at all). Overall I had pretty high expectations for the movie, and I have to say that it wasn't bad. I don't think it can stand up to the hype, but it was interesting, enjoyable, and was able to entertain me throughout the runtime. Points of the movie were hard to take seriously if were not able to suspend your disbelief and get involved in how truly awed someone would be if, for instance, they saw a baby (the first one in 18 years) after having completely given up on ever having a child or seeing one. As for the cinematography and soundtrack- there were some very good moments, but neither was amazing. I think the most interesting point here was that almost every scene of the movie has a dog in it. Whether it is running around or being carried there was always a dog- this got to the point where I thought that the dogs were part of the plot. As for the soundtrack, it is mostly recycled songs from the 60s, for some reason, but at one point Michael Caine starts to rock out to some sort of hardcore deathjam, which still makes no sense to me. All told, it was not as great as everyone said, but I liked it. The movie kept me interested and I enjoyed it through the entire runtime. I can't say the ending was very satisfying and if you are in search of answers you won't be happy either, but just like with so many other sci-fi stories the author was either too lazy or not clever enough to reach any sort of real resolution. So- not amazing, but worth watching, one of the better movies I have seen in awhile. Note: this review was going to be much better, but I hit ctrl-z (undo) and for some reason Wordpress freaked out. It deleted my last few paragraphs and it refused to ctrl-y (redo) them. I guess I need to save more often.... edit: Here is another, slightly more positive, review.

HBO's Rome started it's second season tonight. I am not much of a television fan these days, but I definitely found the time to sit down and watch it. I was definitely a fan of the first season (despite a number of low points) and have been eagerly awaiting season two. All told, I was happy with how the episode turned out and also with the outlook for the second and last season of the series. Pullo and Verenus are up to their old antics, but it appears that the roles have been reversed while Marc Antony, Brutus, and Octavian are poised to fight for control of the city. Each has a rightful claim but no one has a clear advantage just yet. It will definitely be interesting to see how Octavian matures from a boy to the ruler we know he will become. This is one of the best shows on TV right now, and probably one of the only few worth watching. I do like 24, which also started tonight, but I have only seen seasons 1 and 2 so am going to watch 3 and 4 before starting with this season. NBC's Heroes is also watchable, but they seem to be in the middle of a month long break in the show, which is ridiculous and just goes to show how the networks will take advantage of watchers when they stumble on the occasional show worth watching.