red's world

Star Trek: now and then

Warning: Spoilers below...

I admit that when I first heard that Star Trek was coming out with a Prequel I was afraid that even with J.J. Abrams direction, they could not capture the spirit of the original show or the characters, without the original cast. (Which would be impossible now that many are no longer with us.) So I thought it would, well, suck. 

I admit, I was wrong.

As a matter of fact, I took my time to go and see this movie, but when did I saw it in style at the IMAX theatre. I was excited to see what they came up with, being limited by the magnitude of the impact of the original series on television and on pop culture. Plus, they had the fan base to contend with; those loyalist and Trek Freaks that hang on every potential inconsistency. But writers: Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman found their way around it while still having sensitivity to the truths of the Star Trek Universe. 

They not only created a movie that was consistent with the essence of the Star Trek's original series by paralleling current times, in a future setting. But they also successfully created a story line that is wide open to infinite unknown future adventures by creating a new time-line. So now, for these new Star Trek stars playing classic Star Trek characters anything is possible. Because they did what Star Trek is famous for, incorporating current issues into the plot line, they were able to spark a connection with a new generation of fans that may never have been exposed to the original series.

As far as the characters I felt all but one did justice to the originals. The only one that I felt failed at this was the role of Chekov. In the original series Walter Koenig was a hottie, I understand that all the girls wanted him. In the movie, Chekov was played by a boyish, Anton Yelchin, who just didn't cut it for me. I don't blame him, I blame casting. He simply wasn't right for the role. 

But those who really did a stellar job in recreating the characters were, of course: Zachary Quinto as Spock, Karl Urban as Bones, and Simon Pegg as Scotty.

Chris Pine as Kirk didn't suck either and following William Shatner is no easy task since Shatner is so associated with that role. I was, however, disappointed that they didn't do the quintessential Kirk thing of having his shirt ripped off during hand to hand combat. There were enough fights in the movie, they certainly could have fit that in! But never the less, all these new Star Trek Stars are certainly cuties!  

Zachary Quinto excelled in creating a young believable Spock. This is impressive not only because of the magnitude of the role and the specificity necessary to create such a character, but because Leonard Nimoy, (the original Spock) was also in the movie playing an older version of the same. They even had scenes together, upping the anty for all to draw comparisons.

But was my favorite was Karl Urban as the lovable Bones, because I believe he did  DeForest Kelley proud (if only De was still here to appreciate it). Deforest Kelley was the only actor in the original cast who was truly satisfied with Star Trek as his claim to fame. Enjoying and appreciating every moment of work and acknowledgment he gained from it. Knowing this, make the fact that the spirit of the character,  which De originally created with love, was honored so truly in this movie warms my heart.

The only think that could have made it better would be more tribbles!!

ROCK OF AGES...ROCKS!

OMFG! I love the 80s! If you do too, you'll love Rock Of Ages playing at the Brooks Atkinson Theatre on Broadway. 

It's more than a concert, less than a Musical. And boy oh boy, is it FUN!

Complete with free Rock of Ages "lighter" handed to each audience member as they enter the theatre, Rock of Ages makes your every cheesy 80s Rock dream come true. You can even drink beer during the show. Just like a real concert, only better!

Each character is engaging and over the top! And when they sing those great love ballads of the 80s, you almost feel like you're in a time-warp. And though the costumes are not authentically 80s, they capture the spirit with bright colors and the attention drawing patterns of that time period. But the hair was great! I do wonder how many wigs are employed to recreate big 80s hair and rockers long locks -- Wonderful!

A trip down memory lane, this show honors the legitimate genius of the bands of that time: Journey, Starship, Whitesnake, Pat Benatar, Styx, REO Speedwagon, just to name a few . With thirty-one 80s hits incorporated into this 2-hour jukebox musical, it brings all the magic of that era to life. The 80s was the last Great Rock Era.

As for the story...with music like that, who care? Constantine Maroulis as Drew and Amy Spanger as Sherrie, do a fine job with characters that have struggles, love and discovery. But it's their performance of that special music that makes you fall in love with this show. The Rock Bands of the 80s are the real stars of this musical. 

The most notable and the most lovable character is the narrator, played by Mitchell Jarvis, who breaks the forth wall with tongue-in-cheek humor that engages the audience from the top of the show to the last guitar lick. He is a delight to watch and he makes you feel like he's your best friend sharing an inside secrets as he introduces the story and it's stereotypical characters.

A side note: I must say that James Carpinello who plays the incredibly sexy Stacee Jaxx, is ripped! Thank you James (or can I call you "my gym") for showing us your amazing abs...I love that you can look that good and, wow, you look that good while you sing! Please call me! (Wink...wink!) And please tell me your straight...not that I don't love The Gays. (But what I have in mind for you won't work as well with a Gay...)

But ROCK OF AGES would be NOTHING without the band: Henry Aronson (Musical Direction and Keyboards), Joel Hoekstra (Guitar), David Gibbs (Guitar), Winston Roye (Bass), Jon Weber (Drums), and Tommy Kessler.

Go to the theatre for a night packed with sights and sounds destined to make you believe in the power of Rock and Roll!

A Romantic Night...Love Songs with James Barbour

Last night I spent a magical night at Sardi's listening to the stunning voice of James Barbour. (Most recently known for his portrayal of Sydney Carton in the Broadway Musical, A Tale of Two Cities.)

He sang me love songs!  Ok, not just me ---

Lucky for you, his Saturday Night's at Sardi's has been extended until March 28. So you too can enjoy the mesmerizing voice of this brilliant talent.

I'll bet he'll even sing you a love song.

James endears himself to the audience with his unassuming manner and enjoyable patter which seems unscripted and natural. Almost like he's just talking with friends, hanging out in his living room by the piano singing.

Using humor to encourage some audience participation he made sure the night had something for everyone. From the Musical Theatre classics (Irving Berlin, Rogers and Hammerstein), to dramatic contemporary ballads (Frank Wildhorn), to pop rock (Styx, and even Captain and Tennille), James showed his range. His engaging presences invited everyone to, not only enjoy the songs, but also to have fun. 

But when he sang...a hush fell. No one wanted to miss a single note!

Here's a little teaser for anyone who is still on the fence about going to see him.

Loving You Keeps Me Alive

James genuinely brings his joy of song to life in every performance.

But if you're not in New York City and you can't go see his show

live --- don't fret you can still listen...

He has a CD and a blog.

A SAD, SAD TALE...

Today is a very, very sad day.

A TALE OF TWO CITIES, the best musical on Broadway until yesterday, closed it's doors far, far too soon.

It truly is the worst of times. Maybe we should have fought harder!

They just don't make Broadway shows like this anymore and I feel so blessed that I was able to experience it's wonder before it left the Broadway stage. 

I hope will all my heart that this magnificent musical will find another home so audiences can enjoy it's magic once again.

There is discussions about a tour, but I think maybe London should be the next stop.

SEA OF DUST: horror at it's best

I've never been a fan of horror, but I've always loved a movie that makes me think, while it entertains, and that’s what SEA OF DUST does.

I went to Rhode Island International Horror Film Festival (RIIFF) this weekend in Providence to see the movie; RIIFF is one of the most prominent international horror film festivals in this country. SEA OF DUST was selected as the featured film for premiere screening. And after seeing it, I can see why it’s drawing so much attention.

Because the movie is an homage to Hammer Horror Films of the 1960's (including the likes of Ingrid Pitt as Anna – one of the best known actresses of this genre), this stylistic film has elements that are often lost in contemporary horror.

Yes, it has the expected gore necessary for its classification, but it also in brings the humor and sophistication of Hammer Horror.  The beautiful women (Darby Lynn Totten, Suzi Lorraine, Sarah Dauber,) and gory special effects (Josh Turi), bring to this film the sexual ingredient that makes those old British horror films so fun to watch.

Director and writer Scott Bunt, through his script and direction has created characters that are driven to face moral and social issues that are relevant to current events of our time Yet, he does so without losing the endearing humorous aspect of this genre of horror. Thus making the magnitude these struggles more accessible to the audience.

The movie immediately brings you it to a confusing, intriguing, and powerful world (or should I say worlds). From the fear filled fleeing of a beautiful innocent woman; to the struggle of “the good guys” Doctor Maitland (Edward X. Young), Professor Sorel (Bill Timoney); to the unexpected temporal traversing of the young hero Stefan Christoph (Troy Holland) through different worlds, the audience is drawn in.

With unexpected turns of events and circumstances, the viewer fights, along with the characters, to understand what the next best step would be to tackle the pull to the evil-side, lead by Prester John (played by none other than the "King of Splatter" -- Tom Savini).

SEA OF DUST is an experience worth having, bringing you to places that are both visually astonishing and frighteningly seductive.

The eerie musical score (Jasper Drew), beautiful costumes (Joanne Haas), and stunning cinematography (Brian Fass), make for an integrated visual and visceral experience. SEA OF DUST is not at all the typical horror experience, which is what makes it so exceptional.

If you are a Horror Movie Fan, especially a Hammer Horror Fan...that likes a good think with your scare…this is the movie for you. 

A TALE OF TWO CITIES: A Magical Musical

Thank God, Charles Dickens and Jill Santoriello for finally getting a magical, dramatic, tender yet powerful, life-changing musical back on the Broadway stage. It’s been far, far too long that we (the musical theatre loving audience) have been waiting for a story to move us as A TALE OF TWO CITIES does.

From the first stirring swells of the orchestra, to the sweet sound of stunning voices, coupled with the creative set (Tony Walton), lighting (Richard Pilbrow) and costumes (David Zinn), this musical is what Broadway is supposed to be.

We go to Broadway to be swept away to a place that we cannot go without the magic of  theatre. And this show does exactly that. It's a story about love; true, unselfish, love. Yes, there is romance and passion in every word, look and movement. But beyond that, there is a remarkable blend of suffering and salvation reflected in the familiarity of these characters, superbly expressed through music.  

Out of Sight, Out of Mind

Yes, just like everyone else, I’d heard the scathing reviews. And upon hearing this I immediately decided that A TALE OF TWO CITIES was a must see. I never trust the critics. I trust the audience (and my gut).

 Even Richard Ouzounian in his bitter review of the show stated, "The audience stood and cheered at the preview I attended. Some even wept." See, the audience loves the show – it’s only a few, people – unfortunately those with the pen – that didn’t get it. (I often wonder why – but “the psychology of the critic" is a topic for another blog post.)

 All too often, because too many listen to those that are paid to comment on art (rather than those that pay to see a performance), shows suffer and close before their time. And I’m afraid that because of a few cruel and inaccurate assessment of this beautiful story in song, this masterpiece could be driven out of the theatre. So I felt compelled to bring it your attention and ask you to make the choice yourself. Go ahead and see good theatre against the critics advice. With our purchasing power we can buy the ticket that will keep shows like this open and keep Broadway alive.

The irony I found in many of the initial reviews, was that they complained that one of the show's major flaws was a similarity to Les Miz. But Les Miz – unarguably the best musical in its genre – changed the nature of Musical Theatre. So to be a musical worthy of such a comparison, speaks volumes to the brilliance of A TALE OF TWO CITIES. In my opinion this is one of the highest complements one can be given when creating an Epic dramatic musical. The fact that Broadway finally has another musical of this nature is reason enough to go running to the theatre to see it.

{Footnote: Les Miz initially received scathing reviews in most of the London papers, but within days of the opening, audiences spread the word and ticket sales sky-rocketed, and it played to sold-out houses from then on. – In my estimation, A TALE OF TWO CITiES audiences will do the same for this show.}

Before I went, I was warned that it was "long" although, surprisingly it didn't feel long at all; I could have sat through hours more of this magnificent production. Before I went, I knew that costumes would be beautiful and the show would be a spectacle (it is an Epic musical, after all, it is based on the Charles Dickens book). And if those were reasons enough to see it – the critics’ attempts to shut it down is the clincher.

This is an event that should not be passed over or slip away.

It celebrates the best and the worst of the human condition. It not only portrays inner struggles of one man but it inspires. Because it expresses the power of making life-changing choices as a result of our connections to those we love, A TALE OF TWO CITES is more than just a Broadway show, it’s an poignant and thrilling experience.

Until Tomorrow

 Go see the greatest musical on Broadway today. A TALE OF TWO CITIES, it's amazing!

Nights in Rotten-day

• ^{_{Warning Spoilers Ahead –read at your own risk.}} 

Everyone loves a comedy. And if you are looking for one of the funniest films in Theaters today, go see Nights in Rodanthe. Cleverly disguised as a romance in the trailer, the movie would be a tragedy if it actually fell into that category. But it’s precisely this irony, that makes the comedic nature of the film so strong. 

The best part is that this movie pays homage to all the great romances.
Shades of Rocky, as Paul is calling out “Adrienne...Adrienne” over and over again like a lost puppy dog.
Like La Rivière du hibou, there’s the old-fashion slow-motion running of two young lovers into each others arms (only in this case they were neither young, nor running through a field – but across a very short 20 foot driveway).
He cannot bring himself to leave her without one last kiss (unconcealed foreshadowing here).
The montage of love letters (portrayed through tasteless voice-overs and lovesick annotations)
The lonely endless night spent waiting for him to return to her, as the romantic dinner gets cold.
But it doesn’t end there. 
Yes, this never-ending movie continues…but I don’t want to ruin the surprise ending.

Because the characters Adrienne (Diane Lane) and Paul (Richard Gere) did not have one ounce of chemistry between them, and every moment was over-acted, the audience could care less what happens to them. This made the fact that the movie took itself so seriously, even funnier.

Adrienne is a pathetic woman who uses her family as an excuse to not live her own life and then wonders why her husband left her. She gave up her dream of being an artist and never recaptures that ☹.

An inspiring outcome of their encounter might have been that meeting Paul motivated Adrienne to live her dreams, but that would be a different movie. Alas, in this movie, she never changes. She never gains a sense of self nor stops defining herself by her relationships – no matter how shallow. And his character is just as bad (a boring, one-dimensional, cardboard cutout of a man).  Thus their “attraction” to each other is poetic.

In defense of Richard and Diane, there’s not much anyone could do to make such superficial characters attractive to the audience. They both dutifully cried on cue during the “sad” parts of the film – but there was no realty behind their tears. Since the characters were played with such simplicity, the on-the-nose expression of the sentiment felt like an attempt to spoon-feed the audience an emotional experience. As an audience member I would have been insulted, if I wasn’t so amused by the ridiculousness of it all. 

Honestly, I have never laughed so hard as I did during this movie. It makes a mockery of love and loss without knowing it.

Nights in Rodanthe is the best spoof on a romance novel that I’ve ever seen!

If you love cheese, ☺ you’ll love this Film.

No Excuses for Old Men

So I've looked long and hard and I can't seem to find one review for NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN that isn't raving about how amazing it is.

I mean we all know that it won the Oscar for Best Picture, and we know that Javier is an excellent dancer...but did anyone see the movie I saw?

It was long, slow, uninteresting and meaningless. I suppose if you like that sort of thing, then watching this movie is a great way to spend your time.

I really tried to love it and I even watched it again after it won the Oscar, but I still couldn't love it or even care enough to hate it - I was indifferent to it. It didn't enhance my life, challenge me to think in a new way, entertain me or impact me at all. But with it winning the Oscar, I've started to wonder if I'm missing something that is so obvious to others.

Or is it the "bandwagon mentality" that occurs when a movie wins an award which make everyone speak highly of it? - No, that can't be it because critics were raving about it long before the Oscars. So what am I missing? I don't get it?

True, men with guns are sexy and tossing coins is a good way to make decisions, I don't deny these facts. But there was no seeming point to it and no character that I cared about in the story. So how does that make for a great movie? (I will admit that it was fun, after the movie to talk with my friend about some invisible meaning of the characters names and the dream, but that's not worth an Oscar in my opinion.)

So, please tell me, what is there to love about this movie? Or is it so "artistic" that it's not supposed to be understandable by the average viewer. Look, it was filled with great actors and, of course, "the enigmatic Coen brothers" so there's no excuse for it not to be a moving experience?  But it wasn't.

See, the thing is, I didn't hate the movie, I was just bored by it. And worst of all it didn't even put me to sleep.

I go to the movies to be entertained, to be moved but this movie did neither for me.

P.S. And another thing, how is Javier Bardem a Supporting Actor...such as the movie was, he carried it, yes? Doesn't he deserve a Leading Actor credit?

My FATAL ATTRACTION Reaction

I watched FATAL ATTRACTION last night and it made me wonder… Have things really changed that much from the late 80’s?

Granted, the character Glenn Close plays is an obsessive woman with Borderline Personality Disorder  (which incidentally is a disorder know for severe boundary issues – or more to the point – an acute lack of boundaries). But that's not what I'm talking about here.

Seriously, do women really want a man that is unavailable?

I do! But not in the way Glenn Close’s character does.  For me wanting to be with a married man doesn’t mean you want to get married - it means you don't. Believe me, I know, I’ve slept with my share. And, yes, like her, I do feel love for them. But, unlike her, I don’t believe that love means ownership – nor does it mean that they have to acknowledge feelings of love back to me; or change their lives; or leave their wives.

The truth is, I feel fortunate to have "connections" with experienced, unavailable men who want me. And I never expect that they will stay or that they will take care of me just because they sleep with me. What I do expect is...that they will sleep with me. That’s the beauty of it for me. They service me, but they don't bother me with a commitment that will take away from my other commitments, or other interests. Everybody's happy.

But there are women who, like “Alex Forrest” (Glenn Close’s character), feel insulted when their married boyfriend doesn’t change for her. That’s why the famous line Alex says in response to Dan not calling her back, “I'm not going to be ignored!” is so powerful.

For many women, she says out loud what they want to say. Don’t get me wrong; I’m not saying that most women would go to her extreme to keep his attention. My point is, "the other woman" doesn't generally like being ignored. Ironically, I find I’m usually the one ignoring his calls. Not all the time and not because I’m afraid (or guilt-ridden), but because I’m busy. I only have time for him when I have time. 

The Movie does bring up some interesting questions for me. Like, when Michael Douglas' character tells his wife about the affair (which is a silly thing to do in the first place). Why does his having sex with another woman lead her to wonder about his love for her? Why does she then question the status of her relationship with him? Why do women (stereotypically) think that if he’s sleeping with someone else it’s a reflection on their relationship? Doesn't that seem a bit narcissistic or arrogant?

And the crying child in the background of the confession scene – what’s up with that? Is the movie trying to tell us that affairs ruin everything? That’s ridiculous! But telling your wife might if she's insecure enough to be threatened by your affair. 

FATAL ATTRACTION is a “learn your lesson” movie. The moral of the story is: "Straying is bad for the marriage." But that's Hollywood, not reality. In the real life, straying = staying (married). As a matter of fact, it can be just what’s needed to keep a marriage strong.

Unlike Glenn Close, I don't save marriages by playing a role in a movie that scares men into faithfulness. I save marriages through my uncanny ability to share myself freely with no strings attached. See, my sleeping with him actually keeps their marriages together by my doing for him what she doesn’t; or by providing a “bad" or “risky” thing that makes him feel more like a man and discourages him from leaving her. My affair with him is a favor to her. She gets a husband who won't leave and I get a lover who won't stay. It's a good arrangement all 'round. Everybody's happy.

So, why doesn't his wife thank me - or at least buy me dinner?

Oh yeah...because she doesn't know what I've done for her.

In conclusion, I think women do want unavailable men - or maybe it's just me.

As a side note: I must say, that Glenn Close was quite a beauty in that film (kudos to the hair and makeup). I’ve never seen her look so good. Maybe it was the '80s hair...