Nothing will ever be cooler than this image

Man, Empire always lucks out! In next month's issue, the Brit film magazine will carry a new and totally exclusive image from this May's Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Brace yourself:

Here it is.

Yeah, I know. I am so damn psyched.

Aiken in Spamalot? What a terrible idea!

CNN reports that American Idol runner-up Clay Aiken (who is, ironically, more popular than winner Ruben Studdard) will be portraying the cowardly Sir Robin in the Monty Python Broadway production of Spamalot. This news was, naturally, met with a lot of cocked heads and arched brows.

From many Python purists, it was met with a lot of "WHAT THE HELL?!"

And for good reason. The casting of Aiken is one of the more off-the-wall choices in recent memory. I'm not pretending to know much about Broadway or musical theatre in general, but Aiken as Sir Robin strikes me as a severely terrible concept. Aiken's attitude in the above AP interview only reaffirms my opinion on the matter.

"Until three months ago, I thought Monty Python was a person," Aiken admitted. He also confessed that, after seeing Spamalot for the first time, he thought it was "the stupidest thing ever produced."

So how the hell did he land the job? He's ignorant as to the sheer brilliance of Python. Plus, Aiken is a pop star (and not a very good one, while we're on the subject). What business could he possibly have on Broadway? Frankly, this critic is at a loss.

Grizzlies in the trenches: a tribute to Voytek the soldier-bear

I've been saying for years that bears should have more of a presence in the military. Recently, it has been brought to my attention by a good friend of mine (thank you, Jeff) that a bear fought in World War II alongside Polish troops.

His name was Voytek and he was an Iranian brown bear adopted by Polish soldiers after his mother was killed by hunters when he was just a cub. Voytek went on to hold rank in the 22nd Transport Division of the Polish 2nd Army Corps. The brave young bear was present during the Battle of Monte Cassino, where he carried ammo, food and other supplies to the Polish troops.

There's a comprehensive writeup about Voytek on History on Podium, if you're at all interested. Personally, I find the story fascinating. And it only validates what some would call my "radical" idea of bear-mounted cavalry. As a tribute to our furry veteran, I will list some of the many positions bears could hold in the military. Here's to Voytek, the Iranian soldier-bear of Monte Cassino!

Jet-Pack Bears
You think bears are awesome on the ground? How about screaming through the air at Mach 5, landing to drop some serious hurt on the enemy with their shoulder-mounted machine guns?

Bear Cavalry
You might think it's crazy. All I know is this: If the enemy came galloping out of the trees astride grizzly bears, I would crap my uniform, drop my gun and surrender right then and there. Because there's just no winning against that.

Gatling Bears
Gatling guns are cool. Bears are cool. Are you making the connection here? Strap a rip-roaring Gatling gun to the broad shoulders of a bear and you've got yourself a recipe for unadulterated, badass mayhem.

Armored Bear Berserkers
Bears are awesome animals in their own right. They're truly powerful creatures with claws and jaws to match. But what if you reinforced their already-thick hides with armor plating? Yeah, I'm thinking victory on all fronts, general.

Grenade-Launcher Bears
Let's face it: Everything's better with a grenade launcher attached to it. Especially bears.

Cyber-Bears
The ultimate in war bears. When a bear falls in combat, does it rest in peace? No. Using the advanced technology available to us in this new millennium, military scientists rebuild the bears. Bigger, stronger, faster. These undead robo-warriors wage war with cyber-optics, enhanced speed, strength and senses. They tote laser cannons atop their metallic frames. The cyber-bears are simply the greatest single innovation in military history. Ever. Forget the trebuchet, forget automatic weapons, forget the longbow. Forget sails and the wheel, for God's sake. Cyber-bears. They. Will. Mess. You. Up.

Critic displays lack of tact with Ledger's passing

Many in the entertainment industry had similar reactions to the tragic death of 28-year-old actor Heath Ledger last Tuesday. They displayed sadness, shock and expressed deepest condolences and sympathies to Ledger's family and particularly to his two-year-old daughter. With the sudden and inexplicable passing of such a young and promising Hollywood talent, we were reeling.

Well, everyone except New York Post film critic Lou Lumenick.

On the day of Ledger's death, Lumenick wrote of the actor, "It's always a tragedy when a 28-year-old dies, but I wasn't totally surprised. He spent the last decade throwing away opportunities any young actor would die for."

Here's the full entry, courtesy of Lumenick's New York Post blog:

I was in the security line at Salt Lake City International Airport when I got the news that Heath Ledger was found dead today in his Lower Manhattan apartment of an apparent drug overdose. Our paths crossed only once, when I interviewed Heath for The Four Feathers. All I remember is that he seemed hung over on a Sunday morning, blew smoke in my face and make it very clear he wasn't there voluntarily to promote his film.

Ledger was Oscar nominated for Best Actor for his fine and sensitive performance in Brokeback Mountain, but he did the film and his candidacy no favors by joking about his discomfort with homosexuality in many interviews. When Ledger, whose career had pretty much flatlined at that point, won his first award for Brokeback, he didn't bother showing up to collect it at the New York Film Critics Circle gala.

It's always a tragedy when a 28-year-old dies, but I wasn't totally surprised. He spent the last decade throwing away opportunies any young actor would die for. Ledger's death leaves a big marketing problem for Warner Bros., since Ledger plays the Joker in one of their biggest summer releases, The Dark Knight.

I understand that Lumenick was possibly attempting, as many critics do, to play the devil's advocate in the wake of tributes and solemn broadcasts. But the man went too far. He crossed a line that should never have even been approached. Lumenick criticizes Ledger on the basis of his single meeting with the actor -- that of an interview. And while I might see how Lumenick could feel bitter towards Ledger, does his petty resentment warrant criticism on the day of Ledger's death? More importantly, does it warrant criticism devoid of sympathies for Ledger's family and loved ones? For his daughter?

Who in the right mind discusses the marketing trouble of The Dark Knight mere hours after its leading actor is pronounced dead? Who disparages someone's reputation with the support of a single meeting years prior? And just who the hell has the right to slander an actor's short-lived career just as it begins to blossom?

Apparently, Lou Lumenick.

Lumenick is a perpetrator of the notion that critics are heartless snobs. He views Ledger's death as marketing trouble, a speed-bump in the production of a film. At the very most, it's a shame.

I'll admit, Lumenick is a very talented writer and a top-notch reviewer, one who, until very recently, I respected and ranked among the best. But I find it hard now to read or take to heart anything he writes. I've left my thoughts in the form of a comment on Lumenick's blog, and I urge those reading to do the same. It's been nearly a week, and Lumenick hasn't so much as addressed his severe blunder.

Lumenick, you've lost yourself a reader. What a shame.

Speak out. Respond to Lou Lumenick. Here's the original post.

Cloverfield lives up to hype, expectations

**** out of *****

If Godzilla finally mustered the courage to ask The Blair Witch Project out for a few drinks and the two shared one glorious night of passion, the resulting cinematic child would be something called Cloverfield.

Cloverfield, which is produced by television bigshot J.J. Abrams and directed by relative newcomer Matt Reeves, is a monster flick filmed entirely on handheld camcorder. It's a film that, quite literally, drops the audience into chaos as a gargantuan monster attacks New York. We are the embedded witnesses as Rob (Michael Stahl-David) and friends trek through the ruins in search of his damsel in distress, Beth (Odette Yustman).

But the plot really isn't what's important in Cloverfield. The imperative thing to remember is that there is a giant freaking creature with four arms, tentacles and a mean case of fleas reaking absolute havoc on the city and knocking tank shells aside like they were gnats. After waiting months to catch a glimpse of the thing, the monster both completely surprised and satisfied me. It's a completely original creation, strange, frightening and colossal.

The handheld camerawork (which has, apparently, caused extreme cases of nausea) is nothing new, of course -- but it's innovative here in that something as epic and grand as a skyscraper-toppling creature can be brought down to the human level and truly involve the audience.

In the special effects department, Cloverfield doesn't disappoint. There are some truly breathtaking shots in this film involving both the monster and the ensuing destruction.

If I were to criticize anything about the film, it would be the absence of anything fresh in the story or dialogue department. In this respect, Cloverfield falls just short of what 2007's The Host managed. As unique a film as Cloverfield is, it's still lacking in truly gripping characters and plot. But, as stated earlier, those things really take a backseat to the fact that there's a huge monster having its way with the military.

After months of hype and speculation, Cloverfield manages to live up to its end of the bargain and fulfills the promise it made last July -- to be a truly kickass American monster flick. This is a volatile, intense film experience that I highly recommend. Make sure you catch it on the biggest screen you can manage.

FOX News gets it really, really wrong with Mass Effect

Earlier this week on the FOX "news" show The Live Desk, host Martha McCallum and psychologist Cooper Lawrence discussed the "full nudity and explicit sexual content" present in BioWare's landmark role playing game, Mass Effect. McCallum and Lawrence criticized the game for allowing players to engage in virtual sex, blatantly ignoring the opposing argument of an IGN representative.

Here's the thing, though: I've played Mass Effect (and thoroughly enjoyed it, for the record), and I've seen this so-called "explicit" sex scene for myself. For starters, the player doesn't control anything. It's a two-minute long cinematic, and it features less nudity than any given episode of The OC. So how can FOX, which broadcasts shows like Family Guy and a vast array of deplorable reality shows, criticize a game for a PG-13 sex scene?

You can and should check out the video on YouTube.

What really, really irks me about this most recent FOX News blunder is the complete and utter ignorance under which both McCallum, Lawrence and the other panelists craft their arguments. They have clearly never played nor even seen the gameplay of Mass Effect and are attacking the video game with hearsay and rumors as support. How are they getting away with this? How does McCallum still have a job for this blatant disregard for journalist ethics and research? How could FOX get it so very, very wrong time and time again and still be our nation's top news network?

Did they even address the merits of the game? The graphics, the gameplay, the groundbreaking story and cinematics?

EA (the father company of BioWare) has released a statement to FOX news producer Teri VanHorn, imploring the network to apologize and recognize their grievous errors. Here's the letter in full:

Teri VanHorn
The Live Desk with Martha MacCallum
Fox News Channel

Ms VanHorn,

I’m writing to request a clarification of serious errors FNC made in a story which aired about the video game Mass Effect. (See attachment) As the parent company of BioWare, the studio which created the game, EA would like you to set the record straight on a number of errors and misstatements which incorrectly characterize the story and character interactions in Mass Effect.

Errors include the following:

Your headline above the televised story read: “New videogame shows full digital nudity and sex.”
Fact: Mass Effect does not include explicit or frontal nudity. Love scenes in non-interactive sequences include side and profile shots – a vantage frequently used in many prime-time television shows. It’s also worth noting that the game requires players to develop complex relationships before characters can become intimate and players can chose to avoid the love scenes altogether.

FNC voice-over reporter says: “You’ll see full digital nudity and the ability for players to engage in graphic sex.”
Fact: Sex scenes in Mass Effect are not graphic. These scenes are very similar to sex sequences frequently seen on network television in prime time.

FNC reporter says: “Critics say Mass Effect is being marketed to kids and teenagers.”
Fact: That is flat out false. Mass Effect and all related marketing has been reviewed by the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) and rated Mature – appropriate for players 17-years and older. ESRB routinely counsels retailers on requesting proof of age in selling M-rated titles and the system has been lauded by members of Congress and the Federal Trade Commission. In practical terms, the ratings work as well or better than those used for warning viewers about television content.

Other sources used in the segment made similar incorrect statements about the game. Judging by the inaccuracy of their comments, they have had zero experience with Mass Effect and are largely ignorant about videogames, the people who play them, and the ESRB system that governs their ratings and sales.

The resulting coverage was insulting to the men and women who spent years creating a game which is acclaimed by critics for its high creative standards. As video games continue to take audiences away from television, we expect to see more TV news stories warning parents about the corrupting influence of interactive entertainment. But this represents a new level of recklessness.

Do you watch the Fox Network? Do you watch Family Guy? Have you ever seen The OC? Do you think the sexual situations in Mass Effect are any more graphic than scenes routinely aired on those shows? Do you honestly believe that young people have more exposure to Mass Effect than to those prime time shows?

This isn’t a legal threat; it’s an appeal to your sense of fairness. We’re asking FNC to correct the record on Mass Effect.

Sincerely,

Jeff Brown
Vice President of Communications
Electronic Arts, Inc.

Of course, FOX has no intention of retracting their statements. They apparently contacted EA to appear on Live Desk but have "received no reply." If FOX wants to utilize the ol' "empty chair" excuse, they can go ahead.

Lawrence issued an apology, saying that she actually watched somebody play the game (hey, there's a novel idea!) and has since decided that the sexual content is not worthy of televised slander. As for McCallum ... well, I don't expect to hear anything even remotely resembling an apology leave her lips. And the FOX Network monster lumbers on.

Thoughts on a true talent lost

As a self-confessed entertainment commentator, I suppose I should allow myself a few paragraphs devoted to the passing of actor Heath Ledger, who was, as you all know, found dead this past Tuesday in his Manhattan apartment. The 28-year-old actor's untimely and unexpected death was a hefty shock to the entertainment world.

Many lament at his passing and recall the films he's done. They remember the good looks and barely-there smirk that won him fame in 10 Things I Hate About You, his intensity and screen presence in The Patriot and The Four Feathers or the pure, classic talent with which he commanded his roles in Monster's Ball, Brokeback Mountain and I'm Not There. But me? Well, I lament and pine for the films that never will be.

I wonder what he could have been at 30, 40 and 50. Wonder how many times he would find himself a contender for acting Oscars. Wonder what he could manage in the director's chair or at the typewriter. Like James Dean or River Phoenix before him, Ledger was a bright candle snuffed too early. He worked in film only a decade, with a scant 19 films to his credit.

The truest and most grievous loss of all is to have this young talent, who certainly proved himself more than capable in 2005's Brokeback Mountain, taken during his prime. Ledger was a wonderful actor, always reaching for the different and the odd, never allowing himself to be typecast. He avoided a teen-idol phase, hitting the scene at 19, and chose projects carefully. And though he was involved in some questionable films (The Brothers Grimm, for one), Ledger defied his leading man looks and took to brooding, dark characters.

I don't think any of us will ever know what Ledger, as an actor, was truly capable of. We might see hints of it in The Dark Knight. But for now, we must deal with the loss of potential. And come July, I will line up eagerly with the rest of you to see Ledger in the last, and possibly greatest, role of his young life.

Back in action

After nearly four months of dormancy, Rocket Number 09 has returned with a brand new layout and a solemn promise from yours truly. While I was working over at Here's Looking at Film, I kept checking back here at Rocket Number 09. I would keep things tidy, dust off my posts, toss the occasional spam comment in the trash, etcetera. But eventually, I came to realize something: Rocket Number 09, even after three and-a-half months without a single new post, takes in, on average, 300 views per day.

I realized that people were still reading. And they were checking everyday.

So here I am, back in the saddle with my most successful blog to date. Does this mean Here's Looking at Film is over? Absolutely not. I've really enjoyed writing film reviews over there with Kolby, and you can count on my continued updates there as well. But Rocket Number 09 is and will always be my online home, and it's awesome to be back.

So look for semi-frequent updates. I can't promise daily updates like I did last year (boy, those were the days, eh?), but I can assure you that I will put forth my best effort to keep the posts coming. Thanks to everybody who kept checking in on my humble blog, and I hope to see your continued interest.

I'm back. And this time it's personal.