Weekend Trailer Review

Here's a recap of some of the trailers I saw this past weekend (and online when they weren't at the Quantum of Solace showing).

The Spirit
Well, since I was The Spirit for Halloween, I suppose I'll probably see it, just not on the day it'll be released, Christmas.
Rottentomatoes factor*: 60%

The Day the Earth Stood Still
Ugh. Sounds like an ecological "we'll destroy you if you don't start taking care of Mother Earth" film than the original film's premise - which seemed much more logical. I'll pass.
Rottentomatoes factor*: 85%

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
I haven't read the book, but based on the last three films and what I've seen from the trailers, this film certainly will be visually stunning. Not much to say here yet.
Rottentomatoes factor: N/A (Seeing it in theaters regardless)

Watchmen
Wow, just freaking wow. It only gets better and better. The newest trailer shows a bit from all the "Crimebusters" era Watchmen characters. I'm stoked. Man I'm stoked.
Rottentomatoes factor: N/A (Seeing it in theaters regardless)

Bedtime Stories
Looks like a fun children's movie staring Adam Sandler. Not much else.
Rottentomatoes factor: N/A (HBO)

Seven Pounds
Tired of seeing Will Smith.
Rottentomatoes factor: 98%

Valkyrie
Tom Cruise's face isn't plastered all over this trailer. Shocked at the caliber of the cast they've assembled.
Rottentomatoes factor: 70%

Star Trek
(See previous review).
Rottentomatoes factor: 85%

* My "Rottentomatoes factor" is the rating it will need to get among all reviews for me to actually have me considering getting my butt into the theater. Some films I'll see under any circumstances. Others will have to be so good that I just can't pass it up.

Ugh, posts like these make me look like I have no life

I hate getting into these rants, but hey, that's life.


I've finally seen the new Star Trek trailer. They claim it honors the "spirit" of the series. They've positioned themselves many times in interviews to be as ambiguous as possible when it comes to how much respect it'll actually have.

Now I know why.

That they're doing a film that spans over 30 years of Kirk and Spock's lives, throwing in references to the maiden voyage of the Enterprise, time at the Accademy, and how the TOS-crew came "together" means either they're cutting out established history or they're just going to ignore it.

What the film needs to appease me
There are a few things that, unless otherwise given a reasonable reason for being excluded, will establish whether or not it's a film that has "renovated the imagery" or if it's a reboot:

-The kid playing young Kirk (the one who jumps out of the 200 year old car), is 12. (Going off memory and the Memory Alpha wiki), that means if he's on Earth, he moves to the Tarsus IV colony where Gov. Kodos executes half the colonists about a year later. A life changing event for him.
-He served on the USS Republic as an Ensign.
-He served on the USS Farragut as an Lieutenant. (I don't care if they don't show his assignment on planet Neural)
-Pike commands the Enterprise for 13 years (probably ignoring the fanon "Robert April" captaincy since he only appears in the cartoon)
-Spock serves under Pike for 11 of those years (eleven years, four months, and five days). He apparently stays with Enterprise through the command changes.
-Kirk takes command of the ship after Pike is promoted to Fleet Captain where they meet, if not for the first time, only very briefly.

We really won't know until the film gets closer to being released what exactly they're going to cover, but frankly, the scope of what they're talking about showing would be either un-filmable (4+ hours), boring, or incoherent (see boring, illogical) for anyone but a die-hard fan.

Pike as Captain
Apparently the film appears to have also changed the established history that Pike and Kirk had met only in passing, mostly when Pike handed over the reigns to Kirk after being promoted to Fleet Captain. Later on, unbeknown to Kirk, Pike later had an accident that crippled him - months (if not a year) after stepping down from command of the Enterprise.

The trailer shows that the film most likely will be ignoring this. The scene where they come out of warp to the middle of a battle (or the aftermath of one) it's clear it's Sulu, Chekov, Pike, and Kirk in the shot. A shot a few seconds later confirms that Pike is in command with Kirk (in his Black uniform) standing behind him.

It's one thing to ignore a passing reference in "A Piece of the Action" where Kirk does not understand how to drive a combustion vehicle, it's completely different to discount a huge amount of established history from "The Menagerie." Unless the entire sequence is somehow just a simulation - with Pike testing Kirk's command abilities before his farewell - though the odds are doubtful since Pike has been referred as being the "doomed Captain" (as EW put it) in a few articles so far.

What it all means
Coupling those two (there are more than just the Pike reference, but I'm using that as the sole example at the moment) - leads me to believe that they all pretty much graduate from the Academy, and end up on the same ship together from the get-go. If that's the case, it can't be considered anything but a reboot as it would be about as similar as Batman (1989) and Batman Begins.

With time travel playing a part, it means that since the film exists in a "changed" universe, it technically would not be a prequel to subsequent Trek-universe stories, especially if the events portrayed in the film change the established back-story of the characters. They've created a "B" universe where Kirk is now under the command of Pike and takes control from the "doomed Captain." That alone may not seem like a huge change on it's own, but it's indicative that they're not going to follow any established Trek history, especially if the film is somehow popular enough to have sequels made. Unless any meddling of the timeline is eventually "fixed" by the end of the film - to restore everything back to "normal" - it can no longer exist in the same universe as TOS, let alone the last 40 years of Trek.

In other words they were too lazy to come up with their own universe to create a science fiction name so they're riding on the (supposed) popularity of Star Trek to do their own thing. Star Trek was on life support long before Enterprise aired. Voyager effectively killed the franchise but was able to carry on for another 6 or so years. If it was Star Trek's time to die, then so be it.

The problem is Star Trek has never been popular with the mainstream. Never. Creating a film that pisses off a substantial amount of the audience, to sacrifice it to people who have no stake in the matter is crazy. The idea that hiring JJ Abrams and rebooting the storyline will make it popular is a risky move, bordering on insanity.

The film will have to impress a huge amount of people for me to want to sit through it, not only in the theaters but at home.

Quantum of Solace: The Review

Well, I was able to see the film in an Advance Screening on the wet and dreary Thursday night in Washington DC. Not exactly an "event" as I've been to other films - but far better than the lackluster opening showing I saw the last installment of Indiana Jones - where it was just a bunch of people treating it like any old movie. Some people were dressed up in tuxes and others in dresses. It actually felt like I was headed into something important.

Then the lights finally dim after sitting in the theater for close to an hour, and the only freaking trailer we get is "Seven Pounds," a blatant 'Oscar grab' film starring Will Smith. No Star Trek trailer, no Watchmen trailer, no Harry Potter trailer. Ugh, oh well. The movie started quickly.

The film was slightly "dark" and "brutal" if you're comparing the film to one of the more jokey Bond films, like from the Moore era. The film was no darker than some eariler Bond excursions such as Licence to Kill, From Russia With Love, or Casino Royale.

Personally I think the criticism should be more on the critics then the film itself as the critics have decided what "makes" a Bond film - gadgets, cars, and "women." I assume by women that they mean multiple girls that Bond can bed easily with a few off hand double entendres thrown in there for good measure. But I digress.

It's quite interesting that those three things that always get brought up (gadgets, cars and women) - but what about Bond? I see the critics comparisons to Jason Borune, though I don't see the extreme shift that they're supposedly seeing. My only serious complaint was the positioning of the camera for many of the action sequences. Far too close to the action, which made it hard to completely process while viewing.

The only other criticism I have with the film is the thin plot.

But frankly, on first impressions alone, I'll take this skimpy Bond over the likes of "The World is Not Enough", "Die Another Day", "The Man With the Golden Gun", and "You Only Live Twice."

007 days of Bond: Casino Royale

As I'm about to head out to see Quantum of Solace, I figured I'd round off the last of my seven top Bond films with Casino Royale. Borrowing a bit from an earlier review, Casino Royale is another film in a line of recent productions that have "reset" a original series, and not surprisingly most of them have been able to breath new life into the series.

An interesting part of the film is the way the film is structured, with four acts instead of three. In many ways, this probably is what caused so many people I know who talk about the film dragging on, even though I don't really see it.

And word to the wise, please avoid the "spoof" with every inch of your life. The film was directed by no less than 5 people and it's utter sh*t.


Drink your very own "Vesper" martini:

* Six parts Gordon's Gin
* Two parts vodka
* One part Kina Lillet

Shake over ice until well chilled, then strain into a deep goblet and garnish with a thin slice of lemon peel.

Guaranteed heart stopper! Err... maybe not.

Where will you be tonight?

007 days of Bond: From Russia With Love

After Bond became a smash hit with his first film, Dr. No, the ball was in the court of the producers to select the next film to be made. The novel, From Russia With Love, was one of President Kennedy's favorite books, so it was only logical to have this film be the second installment. The rest is history.

John Barry makes his first appearance as the composer of the film, which would prove to be the first of many - even David Arnold take a cue from him and keeps the same style of music for his films.

The plot is extremely simple. Bond is tasked with a mission to obtain a top secret code-breaking machine from the Russians. The spy organization introduced in Dr. No, SPECTRE, wants revenge for his meddling so they devise a plan for a Russian operative to seduce him to get incriminating evidence on him.

Extremely simple and straightforward. No silly "I'll destroy the world" scenarios, no over the top villians that do silly things. Sure Grant is strong, but he's not some superhuman.

Connery shows why he's the best Bond, he's more comfortable in the role the second time around, which allows him to stretch a little and grow, allowing us to really believe that he's who he says he is.

The supporting characters include Kronsteen (Vladek Sheybal), a brilliant tactician involved in SPECTRE; Rosa Klebb (Lotte Lenya), Number 3 in the organization; Red Grant (Robert Shaw), the hitman sent to dispose of Bond; Kerim Bey (Pedro Armendariz), Bond's friend and confidant in Istanbul; and last but not least, Tatiana Romanova (Daniela Bianchi), who plays the georgous Russian unknowingly chosen by SPECTRE to seduce Bond. This film marks the introduction of Desmond Llewelyn as Major Boothroyd, otherwise known as 'Q,' who replaced Peter Burton who appeared in Dr. No.

At times I feel that this is perhaps the best Bond film that they've made, hitting all the elements necessary for the subsequent 19 Bond films to be made, a credit normally given to Goldfinger.

James Bond, "What if" themes

Johnny Cash, Thunderball

As the first comment says on the page, "The best part of the movie was when Bond came riding into town pursued by Mohicans."

"For Your Eyes Only" performed by Blondie

This theme was orignally made for For Your Eyes Only, but was changed to a theme written by Bill Conti, the composer of the film.

The original opening theme, "Surrender" by K.D. Lang

The film actually had it's score written around this piece of music, which is why it fits David Arnold's score better than Sheryl Crow's theme.

Theme for Thunderball performed by Dionne Warwick

Again, here's an original theme to Thunderball, with the song title being, "Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang" .

"The Man With the Golden Gun", performed by Alice Cooper

An unused theme song, submitted and not used.

Ace of Base, "The Goldeneye"

Arista Records apparently pulled the band out of the film.

007 days of Bond: On Her Majesty's Secret Service

On Her Majesty's Secret Service is George Lazenby's sole Bond adventure. What could have been has been speculated for the last 39 years. What his legacy has left is the best Bond adaptation ever.

The story follows Bond, determined to track down Ernst Stavro Blofeld, the leader of SPECTRE, once and for all. Frustrated in what he believes is M keeping him from the task he's set on partaking in, attempts to resign. Moneypenny convinces M to instead give him a leave of absence. Bond, on his own, tracks down Draco, the head of one of the most powerful crime syndicates in the world to inlist his help in tracking down Blofeld. To gain his support, he is force to court Draco's daughter, Contessa Teresa di Vicenzo, Tracy. It quickly becomes clear that Blofeld's intentions are extremely dangerous, and Bond must fight to stop him with any and all means necesary. Just like any other Bond film.

In a wonderful change from the norm, the opening titles are entirely instrumental theme.

Lazenby plays Bond's character in this film perfectly and is exactly how I imagined him when I read the book. Diana Rigg does a wonderful job as Tracy, and surprisingly, Telly Savalas does a pretty darn good job as Blofeld - sadly better than Donald Pleasence did in You Only Live Twice, aka "keeeell Bond nooooowww"

Sadly, the belief still exists that the film did poorly in the box office, and that the film was unpopular. The film was the second highest grossing film in 1969. Personally I believe that due to the romance in the film and the downer ending (compared to other Bond films), it's unpopular.

Oh well.

007 days of Bond: GoldenEye

After a 6 year hiatus due to financial difficulties at the studio, James Bond was back - this time starring Pierce Brosnan. Excluding the Bonds who had fewer than three films during their run, it's quite interesting that the best film that Brosnan made was his first as Connery and Moore improved later on in their respective runs.

In this outing, James Bond's mission is to explore the destruction of a Russian military base - believing that a device they previously believed to be fictional, "Goldeneye" to be the culprit. Goldeneye is a weapon that emits a strong EMP that destroys all electronics in it's path. He teams up along the way with Natalya Siminova, a survivor from the Russian military base before it was destroyed by Russian General Ourumov and his accomplice, Xenia Onatopp. While investigating a ghost from his past comes back to haunt him.

Compared to his later outings, Brosnan actually seems to be enjoying his role, and plays character like he isn't going through the motions.

The highlight of the film is Sean Bean. His casting was perfect for the role of Alec Trevelyan. Returning is also Joe Don Baker, this time as Jack Wade, a quasi-replacement for Felix Leiter. Robbie Coltrane appears as Valentin Dmitrovich Zukovsky, who reprises his role in the uninspired The World is Not Enough. Alan Cumming plays an incredibly annoying Boris Grishenko, who just happens to have some of the more memorable lines in the film.

Izabella Scorupco plays an iffy Bond girl. She's decent, but it feels like they tried to empower her too much with that mid-90s "girl power", which unfortunately left her with little to work with. Famke Jansen's character is so over-the-top that it passes that threshold of "so absurd it's good."

Certainly the only Brosnan film worthy of this list.

007 days of Bond: For Your Eyes Only

After some utterly ridiculous "world domination" Bond films, it was back to reality in this Bond excursion and it pays off.

This is Moore's only real attempt at a serious Bond film. Octopussy comes close, ignoring the silly Cuba opening and the slap-stick comedy that is played throughout. The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker may have been smash successes, but they stretched Bond to it's breaking point with two back-to-back stories about meglomaniacs who want to kill off just about everyone outside a select few - to begin again.

Karl Stromberg, the main villian in The Spy Who Loved Me is underwhemling and his goal is silly - complete destruction of The United States and Europe. His goal is to being anew in a underwater kingdom - completely blissfully unaware that the radiation that would decimate the world would kill of oceanic life. In the same vein, Hugo Drax is the main villian of Moonraker, and like Stromberg, he wishes to create a new world for a select few. In Moonraker, the goal is to kill off the planet with a nerve agent from a highly toxic Amazonian plant - from Space. The series was at a breaking point - gone were the days of down-to-Earth Bond pictures - Bond was now in Space.

For Your Eyes Only rectified this as they brought the 007 series back to its roots by stripping away the more silly, over-the-top elements, leaving a bond film that almost resembled the literary Bond. The film opens with a relatively somber moment in the series, placing flowers on his dear departed Tracy's grave.

The supporting cast of Carole Bouquet, Topol and Julian Glover are wonderful. Glover, who I've always liked as an actor, plays the role perfectly.

The film revolves around a plausable plot where Bond must recover a British-intelligence communications device (ATAC) from a ship that has sunk in the Ionian Sea. Both Aristotle Kristatos (Julian Glover) and Milos Colombo (Topol) are fingered as the Russian spy. Bond must recover the ATAC before the Russians do.

There are probably only two aspects of this film that I don't particuarly like. The film's score doesn't hold up as well today as it may have in the past. While watching the film many moments scream "Rocky" more than anything else. That's probably because Bill Conti wrote the score to Rocky. Then, we come to Lynn Holly Johnson, the first "bond girl", but not final in the film.

The thing that many people I've talked to about is how the ending seems anti-climatic. It's not - it's perfect. A sublte ending to a (much more) subtle film.

007 days of Bond: The Living Daylights

After over a decade of over-the-top Roger Moore antics, not to blame him, but his era was chock full of writers who just didn't "get" it, it was nice to get back to the basics with Timothy Dalton's Bond.

Dalton's Bond was the first attempt at bringing Bond back to the literary Bond in over 20 years. The film does suffer a bit from the previous era, as the script was written with Moore in mind. There are sequences in the film that are silly, almost mind-boggling odd, mainly a sequence where Bond and Kara are going down a mountain in a Cello.

Maryam D'Abo, while not the typical "striking" Bond girl that many like to attribute to the series, is none-the-less a solid pick in this movie, not bumbling and "damsel in distress" like Tanya Roberts was in the previous outing, which at the very least is a nice change.

Perhaps the weakest part of the entire film is the climax, as Joe Don Baker does not prove to be much of a super-villain. This happens to be the thing that separates this film from many of the other ones, as the main villains are "non-existent" when it comes to screen presence - but in many ways this works to it's advantage since the characters had become so exaggerated that something would have to give at some point. Either the characters would become such a joke that the film would implode, or the writers would realize that the "world domination" plot just wouldn't work.

I can only imagine how this film would have been if Pierce Brosnan had got the job. Scarier things have happened.

007 days of Bond: Goldfinger

With myself looking hopeful for a good second outing for Daniel Craig in Quantum of Solace this coming Friday, I figured I would review my 7 favorite Bond films.

Often the Bond film that everyone appears to remember, for good or ill, Goldfinger is probably one of the most quintesential Bond films ever made.

Bond hits just about every mark that you'd expect him to in this outting, for both Bond fans and non-fans alike - along with those who assume that every Bond film should have an outrageous plot, sometimes silly gagets, an over-the-top henchman, a scene where the badguy tortures - or trys to torture - Bond, and a scene where Bond has everything explained to him in full - so he'll be able to stop it when the time is right.

A couple points that I always found hilarous, even though logically they should detract from the story such as the entire turing point for one of the characters that has an integral part of the operation to attack Fort Knox is swayed from going through with it because Bond has sex with her.

Suprisingly, even though the above elements I've said make it sound like I hate the film, everything above is done so well that, while other Bond films attempt to copy the same formula (A View to A Kill), they're unable to do so successfully.

Probably the only thing that upsets me is that over the last few years I read columns by people who, I'd assume, are only relatively familiar with the franchise, and unfortunately, believe that all the films are Goldfinger and The Spy Who Loved Me.

Dinosaurus

This is a followup to a previous review, posted here. This 1960 B-flick actually is a slightly rough gem in disguise of a terribly bad film.

There are some great concepts, and a handful of actually genuinely good scenes in this film.

The plot begins with underwater bomb-testing at an island which unearths two dinosaurs and a caveman. Thankfully for the lightning storm, they're revived (after sitting "frozen" on a tropical beach all afternoon and evening). Woops, now there's a Tyrannosaurus on the loose.

You should have contacted the Smithsonian or something. The government maybe? Nah. Just leave the find of their lifetimes on the beach while they go to the local thug's cantina where he openly abuses his step-son and wife in open sight of all the town's residents. What a wonderful guy.

The shots of the dinosaurs are a mix-bag. Some are actually pretty good for the time (Ray Harryhausen may have even liked some of it - and would have been appalled by other parts).

Directed by: Irvin S. Yeaworth Jr.

Mad Men Season 1

Since I've been killing my liver for the last few hours, I came to realization that I should probably write about one of the shows that makes me feel drunk just by watching the amount of alcohol consumed in just one episode, yes - I'm talking about Mad Men.

Mad Men is one of those shows that I didn't start watching from the beginning, but boy, once I got into it, I couldn't put it down.

The depiction of the era the series covered, appears to be spot on - that is, as far as I can tell, since I did not grow up in that era. This is not the type of show that Hollywood has hyped up, but doesn't deliver. It is an amazing, well plotted, series with wonderful characterizations. Season one is slightly heavy handed in it's depection of the era. As I watched the season progress it became more and more evident when the series was saying "see, look how it was back then!" Be it the massive amounts of smoking and drinking in the workplace, punishing other people's kids, or leaving your trash on the ground in after a nice picnic in the park sometimes I think they were just tying a little too hard to show hos different it was.

The happy-go-lucky facade that people present is just that, a facade. Most of the characters are more than their initial one-dimensional characterization would lend itself to be. The show is very subtle. It takes it time over multiple episodes to build up events before they eventually boil over.

The Set design and photography brings the 60s to life. Each shot, at least seems, meticiulously set up to really bring the era to life. They know what they're designing and they've designed it well.

One of the few times in the last decade where the Emmy win actually means something, at least to me.

**** 1/2 out of *****

The (fictional) Manchurian Candidate

The Manchurian Candidate is a fantastic 1962 John Frankenheimer film staring Frank Sinatra, Laurence Harvey, Angela Lansbury, Henry Silva, and James Gregory. The film was nominated for Best Film Editing and Angela Lansbury for Best Actress in a Supporting Role. However, she did win a Golden Globe for her role in this film.

The plot follows Maj. Bennett Marco (Sinatra), a former Korean War solider who has returned home, gotten on with his life, and is having a reoccurring nightmare, where he, along with his unit are in a surreal dream in which some of his men are killed. He begins to believe that certain events that occurred when they were in the combat zone may have never occurred and that the medal of honor for his commanding officer, Raymond Shaw (Harvey) may not actually be deserved. This film revolves around the Presidential election, and the nomination of Raymond's step-father, John Iselin, to the position of Vice President.

The film, stylized in Black and White, in a time of Color pictures for most mainstream films, gives it a certain charm and feel for the times.

The climax is one of the most chilling and suspenseful moments in cinema that I have witnessed in my entire life. That is not to say that the rest of the film is not brilliantly done, it is. Almost every shot is perfectly framed, every angle chosen carefully, the cinematography is fantastic.

The film, pulled from the theaters after the assassination of President Kennedy, was quite controversial. I'm not surprised in the least, even by today's standards, the ending is a gut wrenching shock to the system.

*****/*****

How to flush 150 million dollars down the drain

People have been hearing about this film for over a year. The pictures are out, and a huge number of people are extremely disappointed with the results so far. It doesn't matter if they put a lot of effort into this film or not, it just doesn't impress. The most unfortunate thing is that the production crew appears to be trying to pull in a demographic that will avoid anything that's called "STAR TREK" like the plague, while alienating a pretty sizable portion of the established fan base. That's a recipe for disaster.

Unless they went back and re-shot scenes or changed them before the film started shooting, most of it was "locked" since they were filming through the Writers strike - which kept them from making *any* changes to the script as they shot. That's just not the way a film should be made.

I hate to put my geek-hat on here, but I just don't see how they are going to be fitting this into the established history of even just the TOS series. It's clear they're ignoring these sort of things.

Apparently they find that the non-fans will be confused if they include characters that existed before they never watched the series.

If most of this film takes place after Where No Man Has Gone Before (meaning that McCoy is on the ship) this film should include Yeoman Janice Rand, Nurse Christine Chapel, and Lt. Kevin Riley. If it's before, Gary Mitchell should be on the ship, as well as Mark Piper as the doctor with Sulu in the astrosciences department. They could have kept Chekov in either case (even if that makes him 20 I suppose if it was before WNMHGB), but have him in a different position for this film, security, since it appears that is what he took up primarily in the films down the road.


The established Star Trek Universe (as opposed to the JJ Abrams-universe) has these established (or distilled from episodes and sources):

Kirk was born in 2233.
Spock was born in 2232.
McCoy was born in 2227.
Scotty was born in 2222.
Sulu was born in 2237.
Chekov was born in 2245.
Uhura was born in 2239.

If they somehow all entered at the same time (ignoring the 11 years that Spock served with Pike), it means that Kirk is either a certified genus or the rest of them are extremely mediocre officers -ignoring Sulu, who seems to be the only one to make it to actual command outside of Kirk and to a lesser extent Spock, who appears to have been "Captain" of the Enterprise when at Starfleet Academy.

The excuse being used is that the continuity has never been good. Generally discrepancies are/were due to bad fact-checking - simply mistakes in the script not blatant re-imagining of the entire universe's history.

This is nothing more than an attempt at "updating" this for a modern auidence that, frankly, doesn't exist. Some will point to Doctor Who's new incarnation as an example at "updating" the heart-and-soul of the series for a modern auidence. However, the soon to be former producer, Russell T. Davies turned an intelligent series with - for the most part - decent storytelling which at times had spats of genius, into a garbage fest which made even the most horrid stories from the late 80s look good. I've read fan fiction that was better than the fanwank stories that guy wrote for his characters. But the more serious problem is that Doctor Who takes place further down the history of the same character, which is completely different than this new "Star Trek" which seems to be replacing the established storyline.

I just think they dropped the ball with this film, and instead of just setting it entirely sometime within the series, they've gone down a path of re-imagining - starting with scraping established history.

Okay, geek rant over.

Let's see how the trailer in front of Quantum of Solace plays out.

There is a God

It has come to my attention that King of the Hill has just been canceled by Fox. How this show has lasted nearly 4 times as long as Bevis and Butthead, I'll never know.

Halloween Recap

In The Know: Has Halloween Become Overcommercialized?

This was hilarious.