After spending years in bootleg limbo, horror fans finally can own all seventy two episodes of the 1980’s anthology series “Monsters.” We’ve made no secret of our love for the series in the past, and it’s great to finally see the series get its due on DVD. I’m sure a lot of Blu-Ray geeks are pining for their own editions, but for now, this set is a great step forward. Perhaps we’ll eventually see a Blu-Ray edition for fans down the line.
“Heroes” definitely wasn’t worth the hype, and I say that as someone who invested a lot of time in the show. I loved it from minute one, and eventually dropped it like a bad habit mid-season two. I do that to most shows I watch on TV, but rarely with a show centered on people with super powers and mired in comic book mythos.
I sat through four seasons of “Smallville,” three seasons of “Lois & Clark,” I watched the whole of “Mantis,” “Night Man,” “Mutant X,” “My Secret Identity,” “Swamp Thing,” and most of “The Cape.” As for “Alphas”? It had a great concept and that’s about it. I’ve been very forgiving when it comes to series about super powered people and superheroes. So don’t lecture me on being loyal.
<!–more–>But even with its convoluted writing, badly serialized story arcs, and lack of ideas after season one, it’s STILL waves better than “Smallville” ever hoped to be. It had a better pedigree of actors, a much better cast, excellent production qualities, was much more ambitious, and garnered infinitely more epic potential.
“Oh Felix, you’re just hating on “Smallville” because it lasted ten seasons and Heroes was just a fad.”
The WB flat out admitted in their CW re-launch that they only left Smallville on the line up because they had nothing else to air. The first month of the new CW they barely had enough programs to fill up four days of programming! And it was on for a decade because by CW standards, it did well in the ratings!
Sorry, I’m going off topic, here. Where was I?
In either case, “Heroes” was the better of the pair, despite being just a lot of nothing. “Heroes” presented this idea that there was so much substance and dimensions, and it offered nothing in the end. “Save the Cheerleader, Save the World”? It meant nothing. The season finale? Nothing. Just fucking disappointing. I collected magazines, and read theories online for the series, I avoided spoilers like the flu, and I centered every Monday Night around it. And then on the season two premiere, I felt a deflated sense of enthusiasm, and I was so crushed at how they greeted fans who’d returned.
Granted, the show introduced me to gorgeous women like Brea Grant and Hayden Panetierre, so I can’t really fault it for that. And Sylar is still an amazing villain with great potential. He was just in the wrong series. These days with NBC seemingly having absolutely nothing on their plate, it’s not a surprise “Heroes” is coming back.
Marvel and DC are at war to churn out movies and TV shows from their properties, and NBC couldn’t even sell audiences on seeing shows from past sitcom icons like Michael J. Fox, so it only stands to reason they’d go back to “Heroes,” and try to give Marvel and DC a run for their money. The truth is “Heroes” still has potential, it just has to demonstrate a lot of back pedaling to be taken seriously once again.
You can pay tribute without being completely derivative, don’t crowd the screen with characters, don’t build up to something huge only to offer absolutely nothing, and every single season should have a new cast. Period. I don’t care how popular they are, completely wipe the slate clean and focus on new character affected by the eclipse that turned people in to beings of immense power. Hey, it works for “American Horror Story”! And the cast of “The Walking Dead” season one is almost completely different from the cast of season four.
Don’t be afraid to kill people off, don’t be afraid to really deliver on the ideas after a lot of build up, don’t build up to nothing. Catchphrases are neato, but how about offering a conclusion to said gimmick like “Save the Cheerleader, Save the World”? And don’t promise an epic battle only to show two guys punching one another and end it abruptly with our hero exploding in the sky. That was so fucking disappointing. Introduce one villain, one fluid story, dodge the stupid time travel nonsense, and run with it. NBC is insistent the new “Heroes” will be a mini-series, but I’m sure there’s an option in there somewhere to bring it back as a series once again.
You can make the argument the writer’s strike gave the show a disadvantage somewhat, but the series was doomed before the strike. That said, based on NBC’s latest fantasy series “Revolution” and their complete mishandling of that epic series, I’ll likely skip “Heroes: Reborn.” Unless there’s a really good argument for trying it out, or if the trailer for it is really good. Or if Brea Grant comes over and asks me to the premiere. Either way, I’ll consider it. Probably.
While Alfonso Cuarón’s “Gravity” is assuredly a film that will split audiences down the middle as to what its intent is, I’d dare say it’s a film for both fractions of audiences. While it is a movie somewhat based on spiritual themes, it’s also a perfectly fine film that the secular audience that is more fascinated in character themes and the inherent conflict faced by Sandra Bullock’s character Dr. Stone.
Once again David DeCouteau and Charles Band re-invent “Laserblast” for a new audience. The wretched original is once again re-conditioned in to a teen friendly adventure in the vein of “Power Rangers,” and it’s an apparent attempt to market on the audience. The movie is silly and often makes no sense, but I do tend to miss the old days when Full Moon and Charles Band attempted to appeal to children and teenagers. Ralph and cute Tomboy Baxter are nerds in their school, both of whom spend their time riffing on science fiction and being picked on for reasons I have tough time fathoming. Truth be told, they don’t stand out really.
For me, “Sparks” was an easy sell. I’m someone who loves serials, and classic pulp heroes that used their fists and fell for dames while fighting crime. Though “Sparks” is obviously an indie production, it garners the spirit of classic pulp heroes through and through. From a murder mystery, hard boiled cops, masked heroes, and the like, “Sparks” is an entertaining throwback to pulp heroes that, while flawed, is still worth a watch. If only for the great cast. Directors Todd Burrows and Christopher Folino leave no stone unturned in their ode to classic forties comic books, even featuring characters that smoke like it’s going out of style.
Today the full length trailer for “Guardians of the Galaxy” movie premiered to much fan fare.
My initial reaction was: “Holy shit. That’s the Guardians of the Galaxy?!” Let me emphasize the “Holy Shit,” because when I was a kid growing up in the 90’s, this was the “Guardians of the Galaxy.” Don’t get me wrong, the comic was okay, but I rarely ever bought it or read it. But holy shit, when did this new cinematic adaptation become the Guardians?
When did Chris Pratt become such a bad ass? Why are raccoons suddenly so amazing?! That said, I loves me some movies about a motley crew of rough necks that learn to trust one another and to get ready for “Guardians of the Galaxy,” here are five great “team” movies you should watch as an appetizer. Or if you want to see “Guardians” now and need something to tide you over. Either way the movies on this list are great..
United they stand, Divided they fall.
Truthfully, how much further can Hollywood damage Robocop? I think the hoopla surrounding the Robocop remake was very over the top, if only because Hollywood neutered Robocop years ago. “Robocop” was about a man brutally shot to death whose corpse was resurrected in a metallic casing that allowed him to shoot rapists in the nuts. By the time “Robocop 3” ended, he was a mascot with a cartoon, appearing on lunch boxes, and a PG-13 television series. So truth be told, José Padilha‘s remake doesn’t damage the character any further. The best thing I can say about it is that it’s better than “Robocop 3.”
