Ahira's Hangar

That's "Sir" Patrick Stewart to you!

Just a reply to Ali to a post from above: True Blood seemed like a rather extreme R to me - nearly to the next rating level (what would that be? X? NC17?). So yeah, even though I watched part of The Tudors third season with my older son, and it has a lot of nudity and truly disturbing violence (such as the execution of innocent elderly people and children), I would probably feel weird watching True Blood with him. Though that might be because one is historical fiction with the violence grounded in the reality of the monster Henry VIII really was and the other is more for titillation/entertainment (most of the sex and violence is implied in the books rather than shown like in the TV series).

I love the George C. Scott Christmas Carol, and should check out the Sir Patrick Stewart version.

Years later, you still overhear people talking in public places such as restaurants about his portrayal of Prospero in Shakespeare's Tempest when he was here in town with the Royal Shakespeare Co. A simply amazing actor!

And if my typing is even worse than usual this morning, one of the cats (Matty) keeps climbing up my arm to sit on my shoulder and hide his face in my hair. Silly cat!

Hmm, I probably could have lived without that info about True Blood, Duchess...

I have a shoulder cat, too. I keep trying to turn her into a lap cat, which would at least leave both my hands free. *Sometimes* it works... (sigh)

True dat.

I'm not sure how qualified I am to comment on True Blood since I'm disinclined to the series. It's not much explicit than Dexter, my opinion and YMMV. Of course I think explicit on HBO means at most medium R. The Tudors, please. Even the trailer they showed frequently for the series second airing on Showtime, should be rated a 'hard' R for its explicit nature!

This is all very subjective. A few years back some people I know were telling me how explicit Sex in the City, was (is), which was still being aired on HBO. Since I had watched it, I said 'it must have gotten raunchier than before' and they said 'no, it's about the same as it always is'. IMO, SitC as shown on HBO, not so raunchy (except for their continuous dropping of F bombs); however, at the time I was watching Queer As Folk, and you don't have to be a gay man to appreciate either series, and QaF definitely upped the raunch factor.

Never seen or even heard of Dexter so cannot comment. But I can honestly say that True Blood to me seems to have a lot more nudity and sexual content than The Tudors, though Henry VIII and some of his courtiers are true man whores. Like I said, though, that might be in part from context. I went into it expecting man whorishness and nudity just from knowing Henry's history - whereas I was not expecting as much sex in True Blood, because the show is a lot more explicit than the books it is based on. The violence in the Tudors is a lot more disturbing than that in True Blood, however, as it is more reality based. Some of the execution scenes are puke worthy.

Bought Watchmen, exactly a year after its theatrical release. Enjoyed it much better this time around, minus all the initial hype and hoopla. I could appreciate it as a good film on its own, without picking over what was changed from the graphic novel. The DVD/blu-ray is the "Director's Cut" featuring 24 extra minutes - and those extra minutes are precious. They really do make the DVD version superior to the theatrical one. I won't go into any spoilers in case no one here has seen the movie yet - or maybe I'm the only Watchmen geek around here.

What I will say is that perhaps director Zack Snyder erred on the side of caution when it came to the theatrical version's running time. Avatar and Titanic (the #1 and #2 all-time box office champs) have shown emphatically that audiences aren't afraid to sit through lengthy epics if they're given their money's worth. Watchmen certainly gave me mine. The additional scenes push Watchmen past the 3-hour mark at 186 minutes. The movie is such a fantastic ride for me that, really, the time just flies by.

Never read the gaphic novel, thinking of watching the movie. Know nothing about the story. Worth it?

(Watched Up this weekend...incredible graphics...story wasn't as good as I'd heard/hoped.)

--A

I have not seen Up, but have seen glowing praise for it, too. I dunno...just don't seem to be in the mood for animated films these days. (I did like Ice Age.)
But I am quite looking forward to Toy Story 3 in the summer.

The short answer to your question: yes, it's worth it!

The long answer: it may depend on what attitude you bring to a movie adapted from a comic book. Watchmen, written by Alan Moore and illustrated by Dave Gibbons, was an influential and revolutionary piece of work in its field when it came out in the '80s. It shook up the "superhero" conventions of the day. It's a dark, literate, intricate, thoroughly "adult" story. In standard comic book stories, the superhero exists in a kind of vacuum: the world goes on as if nothing special had happened. But Watchmen is like a thought experiment: what would happen if there were costumed heroes and "super" powers in the real world? What would be the real consequences? Another way to understand Watchmen is to keep in mind that it was written not so much as a fantasy comic book story but as an alternate history of the world (or at least of America). Also, it was written when the world was still deep in the Cold War. The oppressive threat of nuclear holocaust permeates Watchmen. (I had my own share of nuclear nightmares in the Eighties.) I don't want to describe too much of it for you (unless you really want me to). Not knowing the story might be the best way to see Watchmen. That way, the movie stands or falls on its own. But since you're much more of a lover of literature than of cinema, I might as well suggest you simply read the book. Why you haven't yet read it may be because a) you don't care for "comic books" or b) it's too expensive over there.

I had posted my thoughts about the movie at KW and read the replies. (Sigh.) Not gonna bother trying to defend Watchmen anymore (the novel, I mean). Either you like it or you don't.

Yeah, I think I'll watch it. Actually a remarkable number of movies I'm planning on watching by my standards this year. That one was already tentatively on my list.

As for the graphic novel, I've never seen it here. That said, I've never looked either, I must be honest.

--A

Bought and watched an old sci-fi favorite on blu-ray: Logan's Run. Picture quality is better than the old DVD release, but I wouldn't say it's a night and day difference. Still, I'm happy to have this movie in high def at last. There is audio commentary by director Michael Anderson, costume designer Bill Thomas, and actor Michael York. All three provide good insights and reminiscences, all the more valuable as there exists very little documentation on the making of this film. It's just too bad Jenny Agutter isn't present as well. The only "bonus" material on the blu-ray is the same vintage featurette that came on the DVD, made at the time of the movie. That's a bit of a disappointment. Logan's Run deserves a greater welcome on blu-ray. But I'll take what I can get.