Smug Doug's Things to Watch

2009-2010 Artie Awards Contests

2010-04-14T15:17:00.009-04:00

Rules & General Info for the Artvoice Theatre Awards

"Predict the Winners Contest"

The 2009-10 Artvoice Theatre Awards are being held on Monday, June 7th at the Town Ballroom. At this time of year, I like to run a "Predict the Winners Contest." In this contest, everything remains anonymous. Therefore, more people can participate and no one will know who you are...you won't have to worry about offending or "slighting" anyone. The actual nominations are visible at the Artie Awards Archive, here.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here Are the Rules:
Simply email me at dougweyand@hotmail.com with your picks for who you think is going to win in each Artie category, this year. DON'T email me with who you WANT to win as that is something completely different.

Whomever has the most correct choices will be the winner and will be notified by email. I will ask your permission to reveal your name to the public. If you wish to remain anonymous, I will simply state that "this year's winner is anonymous."

The webpolls on the right side of this page are for you to vote for whom you WANT to win. Feel free to vote an check back often. Spread the word to your friends and other theatre enthusiasts!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Welcome to My Revised Blog

2010-04-05T15:55:00.005-04:00

I haven't posted anything on here in a long time. I wasn't sure where I wanted to go with my blog. A majority of the posts used to be about film awards. I have since deleted almost all of those.

What this new version of Smug Doug will offer is some of my old, familiar stylings, but with some limitations and additions.

The blog's name has changed to Smug Doug's Things to Watch. Why? Because a majority of what I enjoy doing involves watching things: films, tv, theatre and, more importantly, the world around me.

So, while you're here, you find some film reviews, tv reviews, theatre reviews, etc...but you'll also find my view/slant on certain topics. Some will be Buffalo/WNY based, while others will be national in scope. In other words: I'll give my opinions about things that matter to the things I watch.

There WILL also be some awards show stuff and the return of the Artie Awards "Pick the Nominees" and "Pick the Winners" Contests. (I also run a website which is the Archive of the Artvoice Theatre Awards (Arties): http://artieawards.webs.com/index.htm
There you can find all past nominees and winners of the award.

I hope you check back on occassion to see what's here. I'll update a few times a week. Sometimes, I'll be prolific while other times I'll be sparse.

Regardless, I hope you enjoy your time here. Below you'll find some entries going back to as early as 2007, involving film, tv and theatre reviews...plus a few entries that are there for nothing but fun.

My 2008 Theatre Season Retrospective

2008-12-03T12:58:00.013-05:00

As I did last year at this time, I'm ruminating on this calendar year (2008) and my theatrical accomplishments, therein. Again, I'm amazed at how things work out. And I'm amazed at the level of talent of my fellow artists in WNY. It all seems to go by so quickly and yet so slowly at the same time. Certain shows feel like "forever ago" while others which were further back in time feel like they were only yesterday.

In January, I was performing in 12 Angry Men at the Kavinoky Theatre, which was an experience I'll treasure for a long time. It was a very good production full of talented actors and directed by Brian Cavanagh who did a splendid job. The show went through a bit of adversity after the opening weekend, but triumphed over it all. A wonderful cast (pictured, above - that's me fourth from the left) in a wonderful production - something I'll always be proud of. Photo by Chris Cavanagh.

After that, I did a small bit of choreography for the Kavinoky's production of Glorious! which was a hoot of a show. My stuff was merely a few teeny moments, but I'm glad I did it and am proud of the work.

The spring and summer were particularly busy times of the year for me...which is ironic in retrospect because that's when I wanted to take time off...but I digress. In March, I directed Beyond the Rainbow: The New Judy Garland Musical at MusicalFare. The show takes place during Judy Garland's famed Carnegie Hall Concert, where we see Judy singing basically the entire concert. As she sings, each song reminds our "Concert Judy" of moments and events within her life which are also presented to the audience, utilizing a "Younger Judy" and other actors playing the parts of those within Garland's life. This show was a unique challenge in that we needed two actresses to play Judy Garland. The "Concert Judy" was originally cast with an actress who developed vocal problems after the first week of rehearsal. She then (understandably) had to drop out of the show and we had to replace her. Loraine O'Donnell (pictured, above background) took over the role with grace, panache and a powerhouse voice and I'm sooooo incredibly grateful to her for joining us and doing such superlative work. Michele Marie Roberts (pictured, above foreground) portrayed "Younger Judy" as a dead-on characterization, right down to the tiniest mannerisms and vocal inflections. Michele was simply brilliant. The cast was rounded out with Todd Benzin, Marc Sacco and Kathy Weese, all of whom had major acting muscles to flex and the talent to back up those demands. It's one of those shows which I'm incredibly proud to have directed. Photo by Chris Cavanagh.

Almost immediately following that show's closing, I directed and choreographed Mid-Life: The Crisis Musical, the summer production at MusicalFare. The show itself is...how shall I say it...unevenly written. Some things are dead-on in their writing, while others are one giant cliche heaped on top of another. It made the comedy often times, predictable. But those other times...the times when the writing was sharper and less cliche...those moments made the show worth it for me. Oddly, it was another show where a performer had to leave the production in the first week of rehearsal as one of my male cast members became ill. His replacement, Guy Tomassi, stepped in and crammed a show into his head so fast you wouldn't believe it (again, for which I'm eternally grateful). He joined Tom Owen, Louis Colaiacovo, Maggie Zindle, Sheila McCarthy and Wendy Hall (all pictured, above) in a talented, zany cast who were willing to do anything for the sake of the ridiculousness the show called for.

Once that was open, I went into rehearsal for Artpark's production of Disney's Beauty & The Beast, in which I played D'Arque and dancing spoon #2. D'Arque is a weird character in that he's not introduced until Act 2 and he sings a trio with Gaston/LeFou, has one scene and then disappears into oblivion. He was relatively fun to play, but it would have been more fun if there was more "to him" in the script. Not that I was looking for a bigger role...it's just that there was so little reason for his existence other than as a plot device, he's kind of unfulfilling to perform. The dancing spoon part was fun, but the damn spoon was heavy. Oh, and I also was a fisherman in the town scene...and I had one fish to sell at market...and the fish was broken...and pathetic. :) The same fisherman character appeared in the "Gaston" number (pictured above - that's me standing to Gaston's right), which the dancers all refer to as "Bloody Knuckle Time" because of the metal beer steins used in the choreography. Trust me though, the knuckle injuries were completely unavoidable. The choreography was exactly as it was supposed to be. Overall, it was a fun experience because of the people. It was a very nice company of actors and Randy Kramer (Director) and Lynne Kurdziel-Formato (Choreographer) all did nice work with "Disney-fied" material. Don't get me started on the run crew, though... Photo courtesy of Artpark.

Then, I did some choreography for With You...Dusty Springfield at the New Phoenix in September. Fun show!

The above shows are only the shows which I directed, choreographed or appeared in. Add to that MusicalFare's productions of Sweeney Todd (props), Victory (props), Buddy: The Buddy Holly Story (props), Jamestown Gals: The Music of Lucille Ball & Peggy Lee (props, RSM/ASM) and Charles Dickens Presents: A Christmas Carol (SM) and I did 11 productions in 12 months. It sounds like a lot, but last year I did 14 in 12 months. Honestly, not doing as many shows was a good thing and helped my sanity a little. I'm just grateful. I love what I do and can't wait to do more!

Who SHOULD Win an Oscar(r) Someday?

2008-10-13T20:49:00.006-04:00

10 Actors and Actresses Whom I Believe are Oscar(r)-Worthy

I've been reading blogs, prognostication sites and industry pages and got to thinking about whom I'd like to see win an Oscar(r) at some point in their career. Some of my choices have been nominated before, but haven't won. Others have had buzz for roles, but haven't broken through yet. And others are those whom I simply respect and see that bright(er) future for. Here's my picks, in alphabetical order, along with brief explanantion:

Actors:
Jamie Bell - Amazing growth over time; risk taker; oozes talent. See Defiance or Chumscrubber.
Russell Crowe - Yes, he's won before, but he was especially good in earlier films like The Insider; needs to get away from Ridley Scott so his career revitalizes. And, come on...Gladiator was his best performance? He needs to win for a truly meaty role. (Don't get me wrong - he was great in Gladiator, but he can do and has done much better work)
Johnny Depp - an amazing character actor who needs to get away from Disney & Tim Burton...branch out, man.
Leonardo DiCaprio - fantastic actor who only needs to do a film where he's not overshadowed by another powerhouse like Nicholson, Day-Lewis or a sinking ship.
Robert Downey, Jr. - Long overdue. Ever see Chaplin or Zodiac?
Jake Gyllenhaal - Has amazing potential and is best when directed well...see Brokeback Mountain and Zodiac.
Ed Harris - What does he have to do to win one? Exceptional, solid and brilliant. See Pollack.
James McAvoy - Hitting his stride with Last King of Scotland (underrated) and Atonement. If he keeps choosing correctly, he'll score one eventually.
Peter O'Toole - Don't give him one out of pity. Give him one because he has deserved one for almost every screen appearance; his next one will be just as good as his many past films. See Lawrence of Arabia and My Favorite Year.
Will Smith - A commercial and critical favorite who can amuse us, entertain us and act his ass off. See Ali and Pursuit of Happyness.

Actresses:
Amy Adams - A brilliant spitfire. See Enchanted and Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day.
Patricia Clarkson - One of those actresses who is just good in everything. See Station Agent, for example.
Anne Hathaway - Taking a long, smart road to get there. See Brokeback Mountain and Rachel Getting Married.
Felicity Huffman - Another who's good in everything. See Transamerica for a tour-de-force performance. An actor's-actor.
Catherine Keener - Quirky, and utterly believable. See Being John Malkovich and Capote.
Keira Knightley - Some may disagree, but I think she's damn talented. See Atonement or Pride & Prejudice.
Laura Linney - The third who's good in everything. See The Savages and You Can Count on Me.
Julianne Moore - Someday she'll get it. After a run of smashing performances, she's chosen odd and inconsistent projects. For high quality Moore, see The Hours and Far From Heaven.
Samantha Morton - Always interesting and always solid. See In America and Sweet & Lowdown.
Kate Winslet - Literally, one of my all-time favorite actresses. See ANYTHING she's done. From drama (Little Children, Iris) to fantasy (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Heavenly Creatures) to spectacles (Titanic) to period pieces (Sense & Sensibility, Hamlet), she is always brilliant.

Agree? Disagree? Have your own ideas? Let me know!

Film Review

2008-06-14T11:21:00.005-04:00

The Happening

I wish M. Night Shyamalan would branch out into another genre. I assume he feels that horror/suspense is his niche, and it has served him well enough. He probably feels that this type of movie is what audiences expect of him. The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable and Signs were all great, or at least reasonably good films. The Village was ok (I'm one of those freaks that figured out the "twist" of that movie in the first few seconds) and Lady in the Water is best left unspoken about. The Happening falls into the "ok" category.

I had high hopes for the film, actually. Elements of the trailer were creepy and visually arresting. Yet, ultimately, it was disappointing on many levels.

The film starts out with a bang and immediately peaks your interest. Without giving away any plot details, it then degenerates into a preachy lesson. Another point: a reviewer recently wrote that Shyamalan has a way of getting poor performances out of good actors. While I don't agree with that wholeheartedly, it is true of this movie. Mark Wahlberg speaks in a higher register than we're used to hearing. He comes across as whiny and condescending (his acting when he talks to his students - he's a teacher - is abominable). Zooey Deschanel, as his wife, is completely out of her element here. She usually plays quirky roles, but this is supposed to be fairly straightforward...and she still tries to imbue it with some sort of quirkiness to no avail. They're supposedly having marital issues...and ya know what?...no one cares. Here's the ultimate proof: I have no idea what either of their characters' names were. No freakin idea.

John Leguizamo is wasted in a small role. Betty Buckley overacts in another small role. Shyamalan uses his usual tricks (like the character we've never seen/heard of before popping up to offer a different perspective/theory...and then whom we never see again), but I have to admit there are some truly horrifying moments (in a good way) along with a few truly humorous ones. However, there also seem to be major holes in the scenario/plot which I can't discuss here. Aggravating.

I don't know why this film was Rated "R," either. Must have been some sort of publicity stunt because there was nothing in this film which was any more gory than in The Sixth Sense and there was no major profanity and no nudity.

Did I like the film overall? No. I only liked moments of it. Shyamalan should put his ego aside and do something completely different.

Film Review

2008-06-09T22:41:00.011-04:00

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

George Lucas ruins everything.

When I say "everything," I mean "every sacred childhood/adolescent/young adult movie-going experience and memory."

When I think back to the original Star Wars trilogy, I have terribly fond memories. More so of The Empire Strikes Back (directed by Lawrence Kasdan, not Lucas) than the other two films, but still, there were many thrills and surprises and genuine moments of awe. When it came time to do the new trilogy, I was sooooo looking forward to seeing them. Sure, the special effects were cool in all three newer films and there were moments where I was thrilled or awed. But, overall I came away from that trilogy with the thought: "You can't go back again, and ya know what? Maybe you shouldn't."

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull left me with that same thought.

Don't get me wrong - the performances were all good. Harrison Ford was Indy. Cate Blanchett was mighty hysterical as the villainess. Shia LeBeouf's character was a great addition to the series, and it was super-extraordinary to see Karen Allen again.

My expectations weren't incredibly high going in. But my expectations were to experience something akin to the original films. There was something magical about the original Indiana Jones films. Seeing him run through a cave fleeing a giant rolling boulder in Raiders of the Lost Ark seemed somehow plausible. And it still does in re-viewing. Seeing him ride a mine car in Temple of Doom or take that "leap of faith" in The Last Crusade were the same way. Even though the series is somewhat modelled after 1950s serials and pulp adventure, there was a certain element of believability in the action sequences, through a tongue-in-cheek mentality. You knew it was implausible for Indy to get through some of these things the way he did. But you merely felt it was him heroicism and dumb luck that got him through.

In this latest film, that's all gone. Some of the situations are sooooooo (and now add 5,000 more o's to that) implausible that it ruined any feeling of "going home again" or revisiting my childhood. There were a few moments of humor, mostly due to Steven Spielberg's direction and there is definitely chemistry between all of the actors. This, despite some of the most truly awful, trite and beyond "pulp" dialogue I have ever heard in my life. You could actually see Ford wincing his way through some of those lines. (George Lucas had storyline credit, though many screenwriters waded through this morass).

There's also too many modern filmmaking techniques. There's way too much CGI and not enough good-old (style) special effects which helped make the original films feel so special and "period." My friend Michael also pointed out that the lighting was high-def. Way too modern a look for this film.

There were nice homages to Sean Connery and Denholm Elliott. There were occassional moments of magic due in large part to the actors. But overall, it was highly disappointing.

Look, I know you can't please everyone. And I know the die-hard fans are hardest to please. But when you take away the basic elements of the original films and replace them with technological advances that are supposedly "better" and throw such inane dialogue at actors and audience alike, you're bound to not please anyone.

Maybe it'll serve as a transition film - a passing of the torch from Harrison Ford to Shia LeBeouf. I wouldn't mind seeing Shia take the reins and give us more adventures with his character...minus Indy. It'd be much like the film Star Trek: Generations where both Patrick Stewart (as Picard) and William Shatner (as Kirk) fought side-by-side, until Kirk's demise...therefore handing over the reins of the Star Trek film franchise to The Next Generation cast. Generations was an inferior film...but set us up for some fantastic adventures with the "newer" crew of the Enterprise. If there's a God, that's what will happen with these films. Otherwise, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull will have been in vain.

Oh - and the Crystal Skull itself? It's supposed to be made of quartz, and it's very large. However, it looked like a hunk of plastic stuffed with aluminum foil...and was treated that way by the cast. It never seemed to have any weight to it. Much like the film itself.

Film Review

2008-06-06T10:04:00.006-04:00

Sex and the City

Now that the WNY Theatre scene has calmed down for a while, I can get back to other realms of entertainment. I went to a movie for the first time in months to see Sex and the City.

I always enjoyed the HBO series. I was never a rabid fan. I was more like a "Oh, that's on tonight. Guess I'll watch" kind of fan. I always found the show, at the very least, engaging. I was happy in the series finale when Carrie ended up with Big. But was I ecstatic enough to hope for a movie? No. I wasn't sure how many more stories could be told about these women.

That being said, I really liked the movie a lot. I loved the fact that they didn't try to hide the actresses' ages. We saw the lines on their faces. They were real. The acting by the original cast was superb. Cynthia Nixon and Sarah Jessica Parker rocked my world. Kim Cattrall and Kristin Davis were very good in "less meaty" roles. The men in their lives all performed well.

The worst thing about the movie was Jennifer Hudson. When she had to be "sassy" or "silly," she was fine. But when she had to be "real" - not so much. You could see the inexperience. While I thought she was very good in Dreamgirls, I never felt she deserved the Oscar. She won that award based on a being a performer, not a actor. There is a difference between the two. You can be a great performer in a multitude of places...theme parks, cruise ships, cabaret acts, concert tours to name a few. But doing those things well does not make you an actor or actress.

I've had friends of mine tell me they weren't crazy about the movie. Their reasons mostly centered on Chris Noth's character of Mr. Big. They say things like "Big would never act that way," or "Big's been through this before. It wouldn't be a big deal for him." Without giving away plot-points, all I can say is - I agree and disagree. I agree in that I don't know why Big got sooooo flustered at one point. It doesn't seem to fit his backstory, exactly. But, you also have to take into consideration: several years have gone by since we last saw/knew these characters. People's mind-sets change. People's insecurities bloom under pressure. I can "buy" the events of the film, because of those issues.

The other talking-point is (again, trying not to give away plot-points) whether Carrie's decision at the end of the film is the one I, personally, would have made. I don't personally think I would have done what she did. But, Carrie's Carrie...and I'm me.

Overall, the movie was like an entire season of the show, presented in two and a half-ish hours. And like any full season of the TV series, I liked a majority of it enough to want to come back for more.

Film Review

2008-03-15T21:17:00.009-04:00

4 On the Floor: Juno, Michael Clayton, Vantage Point and Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day

Well, it's been a few weeks since I've really posted. I just needed to take a breather after all the awards' season hoopla and "do nothing" for a while. I saw a few films, worked, slept, got the flu (which I'm still fighting) and slept some more. Monday, I start rehearsals for the next show I'm directing, so I'll update when possible, but it might be only once-a-week or once-every-10-days or so.

Here's some mini-reviews of several films I saw since Oscar(r) day:

Juno - I actually saw this on Oscar(r) day. I also rented Michael Clayton that day, as well. It was the "I have to see these two films - then I've seen all 5 Best Picture nominees syndrome." I loved Juno. Seriously loved it. I was so impressed with Jason Reitman's direction and every single actor's performance. Obvious kudos to Ellen Page, but literally everyone else was superb. Extra-special-smugness to Jennifer Garner, Jason Bateman and Olivia Thirlby. We didn't hear enough about their work in this film. All spectacular. I didn't dislike anything about it really, except one thing...Rainn Wilson. I guess I'm the only person on the planet who doesn't find him funny. I find him to be...off-putting and distracting.

Maybe I liked the film so much because it was one of the few films this year that had heart. Some critics and folks found it treacly and TV movie-ish, but I thought it was very...true. And, yes, I do know girls that age who talk like that. To those critics who disagree: get out of the movie theatre and visit the real-world sometime. You'll be amazed at how things have changed over the years.

Michael Clayton - I liked it, but didn't love it. People kept saying how it was a return to old-style Hollywood. I didn't see it. I thought the acting was very good: George Clooney was wonderful, Tom Wilkinson was stunning and Tilda Swinton was great...even though I thought the "look" they gave her for the film was a copycat of Jodie Foster's in Silence of the Lambs (just look at the picture and tell me I'm wrong). I was also a little thrown by Ken Howard's appearance in the film. He's most remembered as the coach on the 70's TV show The White Shadow. I don't like my 70s heroes playing bad guys. He just took me out of the moment, I guess.

Vantage Point - Interesting concept, but this coulda been a TV movie - albeit with a great cast. I can't really talk too much about it without spoiling something for someone, but suffice it to say, that although the wrap-up at the end was very good, it was all a little too melodramatic and forced for my taste. And why the hell did Sigourney Weaver even take that role? She's barely in it and has no bearing on the story. Guess her Alien residuals are running low. Highpoints: Forrest Whitaker and William Hurt. Lowpoints: occassionally cliched dialogue and William Hurt (no, that's not a mistake).

Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day - Damn, I LOVED this film. I loved everything about it: cast, direction, costumes, hair/makeup, art direction (superb!), cinematography, sound, score...name it. I haven't seen a movie this smooth yet not overly polished in years. For some reason it's not connecting with audiences (ie. no one's rushing to see it). I wish it would. It's just wonderful. Witty screenplay, pitch-perfect performances (love me some Frances McDormand and Amy Adams!), and...get this...it was romantic!!! I can't name the last movie I saw that was actually romantic. I can't say it enough: Go See It, Go See it, Go See It!

Film Review

2008-02-20T20:32:00.005-05:00

Ratatouille and No End in Sight

I saw two films on DVD the other night: Ratatouille and the documentary, No End in Sight.

I don't have a hell of a lot to say about either of them, actually.

First: Ratatouille. Good movie. But did it live up to all the hype? Not in my book. Yes, the animation was stunning. Yes, there were some incredible cinematic moments - the ride on the cookbook through the sewer, Remy's tour of the apartment building in Paris, or my friend Michael's high-point (which I agree with): the moment when the critic (Ego) tasted the Ratatouille and immediately flashed back to his childhood. Brilliant.

I had a couple of BIG problems with it, though. (Spoilers ahead!) The biggest peeve I had was: why is the screenplay getting such raves? The basic story is a rat who wants to cook gets separated from his colony, helps an inept human, learns something about himself, and we're done. The contrived storyline of Linguini maybe being the bastard son of Remy's inspiration was straight out of The Young & the Ratless. "Oh my goodness! Is he his son? What if he finds out? Will everyone live happily ever after?" It was so...contrived...I wanted to throw up a little.

But, I wanted to throw up even more watching a bunch of rats cook meals for humans. I know it's a cartoon and they're cartoon rats, but it gave me shivers every time I saw it. The director (Brad Bird) tried to soften that a bit by having human characters almost vomit when they saw it, too. But self-referential humor like this basically screams: "I know this is wrong, but what else can we do? We started the movie and we have to finish it." Just because Bird knew it might make some viewers uncomfortable, doesn't make it "all better" by showing us he's aware of it. He was basically telling us to "get over it." Blech.

The voice characterizations were super, as was the art direction, cinematography and score. I just wish I wasn't so turned-off by a lot of the movie.

No End in Sight is a documentary about the mistakes the US has made in the war in Iraq. I can only say this: watch it. You'll get angry. You'll get aggravated. You'll be so sorry you ever voted for George Bush (if you did). It's amazing that this ineptitude was right in front of our noses and never reported by the mass media in such a clear, concise way. This film is Sicko's chief competition for the Oscar(r) this year. I'm willing to bet it wins.

Theatre Review

2008-02-14T22:37:00.004-05:00

Tonight, for Valentine's Day, my friend Justin and I went to see Lucky Stiff at O'Connell & Company. My friend Bobby Cooke choreographed (well done!) and was in it (again, well done!) and offered me a couple of comps. Since Justin and I were already planning to go out for VD (lol) and considering we're the closest thing to "boyfriends" in each others' lives at the moment, I figured: "perfect Valentine's activity." And it was!

I hate to sound all "gushy," but I really liked it. Let me be frank - I don't often get to see much live theatre because I'm usually doing a show myself. And when I get time off, the last thing I want to do is go to theatre 'cause that's what I do all day. When I do go, it's hard to please me. I tend to be critical...sometimes overly so. I have to tell myself: "just enjoy yourself and stop analyzing every thing you see." Does it always work? No. But, I'm getting better at it.

Let me also say that this is my first Theatre Review on this blog. I refuse to review anything for the company I work for (MusicalFare) as that would be weird. And I obviously refuse to review anything I'm in...tacky and subjective. So that leaves shows I see at other theatres...which happens rarely. I've only seen one other thing this entire year (The Little Dog Laughed at BUA...and I saw it on closing night, so there wasn't much need for a review...though I did like it, for the record). The hardest part about reviewing local theatre is that I know just about everyone in town and I was afraid it would be awkward to write anything. I thought it might seem like I was "blowing smoke up my friends' asses" and praising them when I didn't mean it. Let me set the record straight: I won't write it if I don't mean it.

Lucky Stiff is an Ahrens/Flaherty musical. It's a cute story that I won't ruin by telling you the plot. Let's just say it's full of quirky characters, a lot of comedy, and some touching moments.

The cast was damn good. Let's start at the top: Andrew Kenneth Moss as Harry Witherspoon. I've known Andy for a few years now and I've seen him do some good work. But, I think, he's truly come into his own as an actor. It's a confident, quirky, funny performance. Utterly charming. And, lordy I could gaze at his handsome face forever.

Kelly Jakiel as Annabel Glick (I hope I'm spelling these right...) is wonderful. Kelly is fast becoming one of my favorite actresses in town. She does an amazing job in what could be a "typical" ingenue role. And the girl can sing. I truly adored her character and thought her chemistry with Andy Moss was spectacular. In my eyes, the two of them have graduated from "student actors" to "adult actors." They're both wonderful.

Pamela Rose Mangus, Jeffry Coyle (wait til you see him as a nun) and Michael Tosha do great work here, as does Josh Snyder in the role of "the dead guy" (a harder part than many people might think it is). My only criticism to Josh, and I don't know that it can be avoided, is that because of the seating in the theatre, audience members may often be looking at him from the side. We can see his eyes blinking and moving. Dead-on, he's behind sunglasses and we can't see that. But from the side, we see everything. Maybe close your eyes? Though, I'd fall asleep if I did that... Maybe there's no way around it.

Nicole Marrale Cimato, Eric Rawski and Wendy Hall all do some really fantastic character work. Nicole has found another scene-stealing role, complete with a song which she sounds great on. All of her characters are fun and funny (she had a majority of my laugh-out-loud moments in the show). Great job! Eric is a brilliant actor who always knows the "right" choice to make for the character. He can even make absurd moments seem completely normal - that's how good he is in this. Wendy really knocked me out because I've never seen her get to do a multiple-character role before. Every one of her characters is good and I swear to god, the woman changes costumes/characters around 7 times in the first 15 minutes of the show. I kept thinking, "there she is again!" yet every time she was unique.

Direction by Chris Kelly was appropriately absurd when necessary and genuinely real when necessary. It's a hard line to walk, but I think he did an awesome job. Chris usually directs plays, as opposed to musicals. He recently told me "directing musicals is hard." Yeah, it is. But ya'd never know it by what he's put up there. It looked effortless.

Bobby Cooke's choreography was pretty much exactly what the show called for! Clever when necessary and over-the-top when necessary. Never a "cringe-worthy" moment. And there were some truly (intentionally) funny choreographic moments. His character work is also a hoot! Some very funny stuff (love the waiter and bellboy!!!).

My only other criticism: it's hard to hear the singing sometimes during the tap number. But, all in all, a great show! I think I'll go back again at some point. Who wants to go?

Well, it is called "Smug Doug"...

2008-01-29T14:33:00.000-05:00

Damn, I'm Good

One side note:

Below is a link to Tom O'Neil's "Gold Derby" column on the LA Times' "The Envelope."

Click it to read the article and then note the comments below it. The original article had an error which I pointed out, which changed the headline and text of the article...

I actually corrected the LA Times.

Smugness all around...

http://goldderby.latimes.com/awards_goldderby/2008/01/mpse-sounds-off.html#comments

Film Review

2008-01-24T14:43:00.000-05:00

No Country for Old Men

I saw the film last night. I liked it a great deal...maybe more-so than There Will Be Blood - and you know I really liked that film. I don't necessarily know what it is about No Country for Old Men that makes it so absorbing. Yeah, it's essentially a "chase" movie, but there's something more to it. Maybe it's the way the Texas setting becomes its own character. Maybe it's the way that, while there's a lot of violence and death in the film, it doesn't feel gratuitous because almost every death hurts you a little. Maybe it's because you care about even the smallest of characters (not including henchmen/thugs). And maybe it's because you love-to-hate Javier Bardem's character.

The basic plot is this: Random drug deal goes wrong. Moss (Josh Brolin) finds the money. Anton Chigurh is a hit man/clean-up artist sent to get it back. Sheriff Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) brings up the rear. Like I said...essentially a chase movie.

But, it's also a film with multiple themes. The most strident one of all is that it fleetingly shows us a "last stand" of honor, goodness and justice against all that is wrong with the world...evil, corruption, greed, violence, etc.

Each of the three characters above serves his purpose. Sheriff Bell is the good guy. Anton Chigurh is the (supremely) bad guy. Moss is the everyman with a dilemma created by his own actions/decisions. Josh Brolin actually said it best in an interview somewhere (paraphrasing): "it's like the three main characters are all one man split in 3." While I certainly agree with the notion, I must warn you that the Sheriff isn't exactly the type of Sheriff you might think he'd be. He's not your typical "movie cop." He's a good man, but disillusioned and disappointed by the lack of honor in modern (1980 is the time-frame of the film) crime. The Sheriff is the character least involved in the story, but is the character around whose emotions the film is based. He is the Old Man that this isn't a Country For.

Supporting characters played by Kelly MacDonald, Woody Harrelson, Tess Harper, and Stephen Root help round out the cast. Good performances by all.

One odd note: there's not much of a score to the film. I guess it re-enforces the bleakness of the setting. But, the odd thing is that when music does occur, it sounds like horror-movie-music. Weird.

I think it's a Best Picture lock, but I guess we'll see.

Film Review

2008-01-22T23:20:00.000-05:00

There Will Be Blood

I'm a big fan of Paul Thomas Anderson. I've seen all of his films. Granted, he's only made five, but I've seen 'em!

One thing you can count on in a PT Anderson film is an element of surprise. Not shock. Not startling. Just something surprising. It might sneak up on you or come out of nowhere, but it's there. And it's always a revelation into the insight of the character or the scenario. Most often, it occurs near the end of the film...sometimes with a sense of irony, or merely a sense of humor. The ending of There Will Be Blood is one of those moments. The last line of dialogue ("I'm finished.") is so rich in multiple meanings, that it brings the film to its incredible conclusion with a true sense of feeling that you've just been on an adventure. It's probably the most "complete" film adventure I've been on in a long while.

The performances are marvelous. Daniel Day-Lewis is stunning. He carries the film on his shoulders, appearing in literally 99% of the scenes. A truly remarkable performance.

Paul Dano is an unsung hero. Not his character(s)...the actor. I commented to my friend Michael as we were talking after the film that I was so impressed by Dano's performance not just because of his talent, but because he stood toe-to-toe with Daniel Day-Lewis and blew me away. Kudos to him and to Mr. Anderson for him. Dano shoulda been nominated for an Oscar(r)...though I don't know who he would have replaced in the category. It's just "one of those years" for great supporting roles, I guess.

The Direction is close to sublime. The Cinematography is beautiful and uses light in a multitude of ways to convey so much. Bright sunshine, campfire light, twilight, moonlight, gas-wall-sconce light...you name it, it's there and brilliantly utilized.

The score is also a wonder. Too bad it was deemed ineligible by the Motion Picture Academy (because it contains some music that wasn't originally composed for the film, but for another project). Art Direction and Costume Design are appropriately period.

Ultimately, I think it's a fantastic film. It is long. Our 7:40pm showing let out at 10:30pm. But the ride is worth it. So, if you enjoyed PT Anderson's past work (Hard Eight, Boogie Nights, Magnolia & Punch-Drunk Love), see it. Even if you didn't - see this one. It's mesmerizing.

Film Review

2008-01-20T22:19:00.000-05:00

Cloverfield

OK, I know it's awards season and I should be using my time to see potentially nominated (or actually nominated) films. But, I couldn't resist seeing Cloverfield. I loved the trailer and the hype surrounding the film was tangible. Plus, I wanted to see something "fun" and without awards hoopla.

Long story short: Something attacks Manhattan. People die. The end.

I liked it a lot.

The film is shot on hand-held cameras. More succinctly: A single hand-held camera. Think Blair Witch Project. The attacker (trying not to give too much away here, folks...) isn't seen in detail until the end of the movie. Its minions are super-scary, as well.

My friend Justin picked up the tickets for the group of us that went. When he purchased them, he was warned that the film "may cause motion sickness." Once the movie started, I understood why and actually had to look down or to the side of the screen for seconds at a time and kinda watch peripherally because the hand-held cam is almost always jostling/moving/focusing. It's damn effective! The movie is only around 90 minutes long, which is just as well. Any longer and it would have been overkill.

The deaths in the film aren't gory. And, most of the horror lies in what you're not seeing or in the confusion and chaos the characters go through.

I've read other blogs and several reviews. Some people said there was one big unanswered question: "Where did the attacker come from?" The question is answered! When you see the film, one of the last scenes is a moment at Coney Island. It shows a lovely panorama of the beach and the water, while people frolic. Watch the right side of the screen. Justin and I happened to see it while our friends, Michael and Lou, did not.

There's a LOT of tension, suspense and humor in the film. If you can stand the constantly-moving-camera, see it. It's worth the ride.

Another Note on a Film Review

2008-01-14T10:29:00.000-05:00

Robinowitz says...

For a more, how shall I say it...strident review of Atonement, go to my review several posts down and read Robinowitz's comment on the film.

One of her gripes is that it's being compared to The English Patient in many advertisements. This is maddening because, in my opinion, the only things Atonement and The English Patient have in common is that both film titles begin with a vowel and end in "-ent."

Film Review

2008-01-09T13:03:00.001-05:00

Atonement

I really don't know what to say.

I was looking forward to seeing this movie more than any other this awards season. I'm a sucker for a period epic. And James McEvoy is one of my all-time favorite actors. I think he's woefully underrated and brilliantly talented. I actually like Keira Knightley, as well. Combine those things with period costumes, fabulous art direction, the great buzz it's gotten and the overall experience of seeing it on the big screen and you'd think I'd be swooning.

In fact, Atonement is simply...ok.

It's beautifully shot.
The acting is great.
The score is wonderful...the use of the typewriter as a musical instrument is very cool.
I didn't really dislike any specific aspect of the film. All the pieces were perfect (or close to it). I just felt an overwhelming sense of "bleh" during and since my viewing of it.

I'll not give away any important plot points, but I'm gonna give a general overview. The first third of the film is very intimate. It takes place in one location and has a set number of characters. Then, through plot circumstances, McEvoy and Knightley (our romatic leads) are separated. The film then becomes a broad-sweeping story ignoring all but two (McEvoy & Knightley, again) of the characters we previously met. This middle third of the movie is what bugged me most, I think. The viewer has to "sit through" this section because the director wants you to somehow empathize with our leads - he wants you to feel their separation and longing. But I didn't. I was simply aggravated.

Suddenly, the final third brings back some of the characters from the first third...some of whom are played by different actors as they have aged from children to adults in that time. And the end of the film jumps to present-day and then a "fantasy sequence" of sorts. All the while, we're also getting certain scenes shown to us repeatedly from different characters' points of view, so you often wondered where you were, chronologically.

Don't get me wrong - the screenplay is actually pretty clever. I just never felt emotionally vested in any character in this film. Why? Here's an example: Yes, the several-minute-long-tracking-shot on the beach is impressive. But, it too took me out of the emotional track of the film...I kept thinking about how cool the shot was. I was constantly asking questions about the filmmaking as opposed to the film. And that's a problem.

Didn't love it, didn't hate it. It's just "ok."

Yay for Tolkein Geeks Everywhere!

2007-12-18T13:43:00.000-05:00

"Precious" News

NEW YORK (AP) -- Peter Jackson and New Line Cinema have reached agreement to make J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit, a planned prequel to the blockbuster trilogy The Lord of the Rings.

Peter Jackson is set to oversee the film adaptation of The Hobbit.

Jackson, who directed the Rings trilogy, will serve as executive producer for The Hobbit. A director for the prequel films has yet to be named.

Relations between Jackson and New Line had soured after Rings, despite a collective worldwide box office gross of nearly $3 billion -- an enormous success. The two sides nevertheless were able to reconcile, with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios (MGM) splitting The Hobbit 50/50, spokemen for both studios said Tuesday.

"I'm very pleased that we've been able to put our differences behind us, so that we may begin a new chapter with our old friends at New Line," Jackson said in a statement. "We are delighted to continue our journey through Middle Earth."

Two Hobbit films are scheduled to be shot simultaneously, similar to how the three Lord of the Rings films were made. Production is set to begin in 2009 with a released planned for 2010, with the sequel scheduled for a 2011 release.

Doug's Comments:

I'm a total LOTR geek. I loved the films. Jackson and New Line have been fighting for years over DVD profits from the trilogy and it seemed that their irreconcilable differences were going to de-rail The Hobbit. Apparently not! I hope Jackson decides to direct it himself. And I hope they get Andy Serkis to reprise his role as Gollum. Though I doubt they'll use Ian Holm as Bilbo Baggins as they did in LOTR. He'd be more than a bit too old to play Bilbo in this film. Can't freakin wait!

TV Review

2007-12-12T10:49:00.000-05:00

Aliens in America

A few evenings ago, I was home. Nothing much was on TV and I was just flipping through channels. I stumbled on a show called Aliens in America on the CW (of all places) and decided to give it a shot. I'd heard of the show before, but just never had a chance to see it and was never interested enough to consider DVR-ing it. So I watched. And I laughed. A lot! I also had my heartstrings pulled a little bit.

Summary: A family in the midwest with a nerdy teenage son signs up for a foreign exchange student program so that the son would have an instant friend. They expected a handsome Norwegian. What they got was a Pakistani named Raja. Great concept, great cast, great writing. The cast features Dan Byrd as Justin, Amy Pietz as Franny (the mom), Scott patterson as Gary (the dad) and Adhir Kalyan as Raja. There's also a daughter, but I don't care about her.

It's easier if you just watch it and see what I mean. Here's a link to a youtube video trailer...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhODwtSimQ4

With there being seemingly no end to the writer's strike, try to catch the show on re-runs. I believe you can also watch full episodes online at the CW website.

My 2007 Theatre Season Retrospective

2007-12-07T11:06:00.000-05:00

This is traditionally the time of year when we reflect on things...our lives, our careers and our overall experiences. When I reflect on my year in theatre, I am usually amazed. I'm amazed by the talented people I've gotten to work with and by the fact that I'm even able to fit all the projects into my schedule. Here's a summary of my projects from 2007, and a little about what they meant to me:

In January, I performed in an original musical entitled Familiar Strangers at MusicalFare Theatre. This show was very special for me in many ways. First of all it was conceived, written, directed and choreographed by one man, my bestest friend, Michael Walline. The story concerned a woman whose husband committed suicide. She subsequently had a breakdown of sorts and became psychologically unable to leave her home (agoraphobia). She lived her life vicariously through those she observed through her window. I played the dead husband and was seen in flashbacks or fantasy sequences. The cool thing about the show is that there was one vocalist (the sublime Loraine O'Donnell) who sang the entire show...all music of Joni Mitchell's. The rest of us danced the entire story. No ensemble singing, no dialogue (except for three lines at the very end of the show).

As an almost 40 year old man, it was a challenge to dance again. This wasn't "musical theatre" choreography. This was modern, interperetive, contemporary dance like I used to do back in my college dance company. Granted, I wasn't in a lot of numbers as my character was dead. But those I was in really challenged me and moved me when I performed them. And, when you do certain shows and everything fits together, it's a blessing. This show was like that not just because of the material and concept, but because of the cast. This is one of the those shows where the cast was very close and very special to one another. Every one of them is a good friend of mine. Some of them have been my friend for almost 20 years: Michael (of course), Kelly Cammarata (whom I went to college with) and Terrie George (who has been a part of my theatrical life ever since I can remember). Some of them are long-time friends whom I've known and worked with for years: Loraine, Bobby Cooke, Nicole Marrale, Kristy Schupp and my other bestest friend (and housemate), Marc Sacco (pictured above with me). And a new friend, who I love like a little brother, Christopher M. Howard. Familiar Strangers is truly one of those experiences I'll hold close to my heart, forever.

In April/May, I performed in another new work at MusicalFare entitled A Rainbow Journey: The Harold Arlen Story. It told the story of Buffalo-born composer Harold Arlen. New works are always fun because no one else has been able to put a stamp on a character you're playing. And the text can change day-to-day. The best part of this show for me was the fact that it was the first time I was able to perform with both John Fredo and Kathy Weese (the three of us pictured, above) at the same time in over ten years. That' s kinda bizarre as the three of us used to do shows together constantly. Throw Norm Sham and Todd Benzin in the mix, and that made the experience even better.

My summer was spent working in Amherst and Lewiston. First, I started rehearsals for Sisters of Swing: The Andrews Sisters Musical at MusicalFare, which was being re-mounted for a few weeks in the summer after having been a big success the previous fall. I directed and choreographed. My original dream cast (Kathy Weese, Debbie Pappas, Kelly Meg Brennan, Phil Farugia and Todd Benzin - all but Phil pictured above) were back. In certain ways, I was happier with the re-mount than the original production. Don't get me wrong: I was damn proud of the original. But I was able to tweak some things (like my sometimes awakward blocking) for the re-mount that made the show, I believe, better. The day Sisters... started prevues, I began rehearsal stage managing Aida up at Artpark in Lewiston, NY. It was a hoot-and-a-half! The cast was lovely and talented, and included Nikki Renee Daniels (from Broadway's Les Miserables) and the ridiculously talented Michael Hunsaker. It was directed by my MusicalFare boss, Randall Kramer (nicely done, btw) and choreographed by my longtime mentor and friend, the brilliant Lynne Kurdziel-Formato. I also met some new, fantastic people (Steven Baker, Ashlea Potts) and got closer to some I previously knew (Kevin Kennedy, Allan Paglia).

This fall, I performed in a play. I love doing plays. This one was a coup, in itself. It was the World Premiere since the New York production of Terrance McNally's Some Men, directed by Javier Bustillos. It was a really great experience and I got to work opposite some fantastic actors and wonderful friends. Jimmy Janowski and Bill Schmidt blew me away. And working opposite Chris Kelly, Matthew Hurley and Matthew Crehan Higgins was beyond fantastic. The biggest challenge to this show was that I had to appear fully nude...several times...for long stretches. I'd never had to do it before, but I'm glad I did it. None of my nudity was gratuitous; it was all necessary. I miss this show, as well. I thank Javier for the opportunity.

The rest of my autumn was spent choreographing Dear Edwina for Orchard Park Middle School. I've done ten shows there over a 14 year span. Next year will be the last for our production team. The kids are great and Syndi and Cindy make me smile every day I'm there. (If you do scholastic theatre, I highly recommend this show.)

Currently, I'm in rehearsal for 12 Angry Men (another play!) at the Kavinoky Theatre. It opens in January, so we're rehearsing through the holidays. Everyone's very talented and I'm looking forward to being directed by my old friend (and a superb lighting designer!), Brian Cavanagh.

As if that wasn't enough, those are only the shows in which I performed or which I directed, choreographed or stage managed. I also worked on Tick, Tick...Boom! (props), Altar Boyz (props, lighting board-op), A Brief History of White Music (co-rehearsal stage mgr, props) - all at MusicalFare; MusicalFare's Bat Boy at Studio Arena for which I did preliminary production coordination, and MusicalFare's Sophie Tucker: Last of the Red Hot Mamas at ICTC for which I ran sound. I'm also working on props for MusicalFare's upcoming Sweeney Todd and doing some basic production work for Charles Dickens Presents: A Christmas Carol.

That's 14 shows in 12 months. I'm not bragging. I'm just grateful. I love what I do and can't wait to do more! (Maybe not 14 shows this year, though. Some sleep would be good, too...)

Film Review

2007-12-02T13:27:00.000-05:00

Zodiac

Back when I was approximately 12 years old, I saw a "special" on some cable TV show. Maybe it was WPIX out of NYC (remember when people played video games in a daily contest yelling "Pix!" to make someone at the station press the button?) or A&E in its early days. Anyway, the "special" was about the Zodiac Killer who terrorized California in the late 60s through mid 70s. He murdered people randomly and in different ways and sent cypher-codes (see pic to see an actual example of one of his cyphers) to the police and media to give them clues to his identity. It absolutely haunted me for years because they had the creepiest sounding guy reading the letters that the killer sent to area newspapers or the police. His voice-over stuck in my head. That, and the fact that they never caught Zodiac struck a chord on my impressionable young mind.

They say the best way to overcome your fear is to face it, so I read books about the case, magazine articles, and anything I could get my hands on. The entire time I did so, it was to reassure myself that they guy was in California and nowhere near Buffalo, NY. Eventually, I got over it.

Then, the internet came along and one day I stumbled on a site about the case...and spent weeks following links to others. Reading "new" theories about the case re-sparked my interest. At the same time, there had been rumors for well over a decade about a film being made, which never seemed to come to fruition.

Then came 2007 and David Fincher's marvelous film, Zodiac. When it was released, I wanted to go see it, but was too busy and figured I'd catch it on DVD. I bought the DVD a month or so ago, but never got around to watching it...partially because I also bought a PS3 and have been addicted to Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction for a while now...but I digress.

I watched the film and thoroughly enjoyed it. It's an amazing "history" of the case. It is meticulously filmed, edited and designed. And the interesting thing is that while ther performances are all very well done, no one is a stand-out among the others. It's a real ensemble piece.

It is long. A little more than 2 and a half hours. And you wonder where it's going at times. But it's all worth it in the end. You can't feel the frustration the investigators felt or the obsession that the reporters felt without almost literally re-living the entire investigation.

Jake Gyllenhaal, Mark Ruffalo, Robert Downey, Jr., and Anthony Edwards all do finely tuned, nuanced work, as do all (and I mean all) of the supporting actors and extras. The director's cut with a ton of extras comes out in 2008, and I'll be the first to buy it. It will give me one more moment of obsession about a 40 yr old serial killer case.

Chances are the Zodiac Killer is dead or in old-age obscurity at this point, because of the amount of time that has gone by, but the case still creeps me out. It's the "what if" factor. And this remarkable film only reinforces that. Zodiac is "unease" at its best.

In Memoriam

2007-11-29T11:39:00.000-05:00

J. Bryan Hayes

I haven't yet blogged about anything for Buffalo/WNY Theatre and it's unfortunate that this tragedy has to be the first for that subject. Actor J. Bryan Hayes, who worked extensively in the WNY area before re-locating, passed away recently. He worked for most of the area's theatres/companies at some point or other. Personally, I only worked with him once - in a production of A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum at Upstage NY back in the very early 90s.

A memorial service will be held at 10am on Sunday, December 9th at the Kavinoky Theatre for any wishing to attend.

(photo by Beverly Broucous)

The Men of Wisteria Lane

2007-11-18T14:12:00.001-05:00

OK, we all know the show is called Desperate Housewives. And we all know the women are fierce in their own ways. But I want to write about the men who are currently on the show. Some of them I like, some of them I love, some of them I couldn't give a rat's ass about one way or another. So, in no particular order...

Doug Savant (Tom Scavo) I must admit, I love him the most. Not because he played gay on Melrose Place. Not because his name is "Doug," like me. (FYI - "Douglas" is a Scottish name that translates to "dweller of the dark brook." Mysterious, huh?) As far as I'm concerned, he's the unsung strongest male actor on the show. He's not only completely and utterly believable, but he's strong enough to go head-to-head with Felicity Huffman in a majority of his scenes. I think he plays his character exactly right - flawed and real...exactly what every man really is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ricardo Chavira (Carlos Solis) I love him second most. I love Latin men. He's tall, dark and swarthy. He's also a man's man. Oh, and a good actor. My only complaint? Wait, I have none.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shawn Pyfrom (Andrew Van De Camp) Don't argue with me. He's not one of the kids anymore. He's a young man. And a fine actor. I wished the writers hadn't watered him down so much since his bad-boy days. And give the character a boyfriend, please! He's been single and celibate for too long. Someone that good-looking and in the prime of his life should be gettin' some on a regular basis. Shawn has come a long way since his guest starring days on Still Standing and Reba. Hell, sometimes you can catch him on both shows, back-to-back on Lifetime.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kyle MacLachlan (Orson Hodge) Kyle's been around for years. And I still don't buy a majority of what he says/does on screen. It's not that I think he's a bad actor. He's OK. But, there's something so "plastic" and "facade-like" about him, that I've always wondered if the real Kyle MacLachlan was buried somewhere in the sands of Dune, while what we see is some sort of robot David Lynch created to take his place. He's so wax-like, I half-expect him to melt in daylight scenes.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

James Denton (Mike Delfino) Sleepwalking. That's what he's doing. Sleepwalking.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin Rahm (Lee McDermott) One half of the gay couple on Wisteria Lane. I like him. He's appropriately snarky (and you know I love snarky!). His face has character and there's something very appealing about him. I'm intrigued enough that I'll bet they kill off his partner at some point and give him more to do...

like maybe become Andrew's bf.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tuc Watkins (Bob Hunter) The other half of the gay couple on Wisteria Lane. The cardboard half.

Film Review

2007-11-11T19:35:00.000-05:00

30 Days of Night

You're not gonna believe this...I freakin' loved this movie! It's not gonna win any awards or anything, but it's so damn stylized and crafted that ya can't help but be impressed.

The story is this...

The town of Barrow is far enough north that it's one of the locations in Alaska that ends up with 30 straight days without sunlight. A majority of the town leaves for elsewhere during this time because most of the locals can't deal with darkness for that long. Maybe 75-100 folks stay for the duration. And only a handful survive...because freaky-deaky vampires some to play! What better place for vampires to visit? No pesky sunlight to drive them into slumber. Just constant darkness. They don't feel cold - only hunger. So it's terror for the residents because they've got, basically, no chance.

The cinematography is very cool. Very unique. There's one overhead crane shot of the overall massacre of the town that is striking. Blood on snow. Makes a fantastic impression.

The tension builds throughout the film - basically along the lines of "who's gonna get bitten/savaged/axed/beheaded next?" I had a number of "jump out of my seat" moments.

It stars Josh Hartnett and Melissa George. Now, I usually hate Josh Hartnett. I think he's pretty much the blandest "actor" ever to appear on screen. Thank the heavens he doesn't have much to do here but look stressed, run around, and yell a lot, so he's tolerable. Oh, and he grows a beard over the course of the film. And the beard looks, appropriately for baby-faced Joshy, like that of a 12 year old boy.

Melissa George - dunno who the hell she is. Very Olivia D'Abo..though I don't know if that's necessarily a good thing.

I would say the best part of the movie is the fact that, while there are "special effects," it's mostly of the good, old fashioned splatter-fest makeup effects kind. There's barely any green-screening. Just lots of fake blood, fake snow, and real terror.

Go see it - you'll be pleasantly surprised.

10 of My Favorite Actresses Currently Appearing on TV

2007-11-10T22:09:00.000-05:00

Obviously, this list is subjective. But, I love every one of these women. I think they're talented, beautiful and some of the best actresses working today. They're in my order of preference...

(1) Felicity Huffman - The true anchor of Desperate Housewives. The other women are all very good, but Huffman is a true goddess. She's brilliant and needs to make more feature films, like Transamerica... not like Georgia Rule. I have nothing snarky to say about her.

(2) Jean Smart - Currently appearing on Samantha Who? The former Designing Women star is a formidable actress. She's appeared on almost every quality sitcom (both she and Felicity Huffman were Frasier Crane's girlfriends at one time or another on Frasier), and her Emmy nominated work on 24 was amazing. Someone get this woman into more films. A hidden gem of hers: playing the Bradys' next door-neighbor, Mrs. Ditmeyer in The Brady Bunch Movie. (Feeling drunk, horny and standing between Greg and Peter: "I'm in a Brady sandwich.")

(3) Sally Field - OK, she's amazing. Nobody can work a camera or an audience better than she on Brothers & Sisters. She's consistently ballsy. And consistently good. And the Boniva spokeswoman.

(4) Chandra Wilson - I LOVE Wilson as Dr. Miranda Bailey on Grey's Anatomy. She makes the "Nazi" (their term, not mine) on the show a strong leader, yet a sensitive woman. Can't wait to see what the future holds for her. And, Chandra, I don't care what you say - I love your nose.

(5) Becki Newton - As Amanda on Ugly Betty, she manages to do the unthinkable...steal almost every scene she's in. Brilliant at both comedy and dramatic work, great at slapstick comedy and fantastic at portraying multiple roles, she's someone to watch. And she's hot! Don't forget hot. Every homo's dream hag.

(6) Rachel Griffiths - Was brilliant on Six Feet Under, is brilliant on Brothers & Sisters. I'm a sucker for an Aussie.

(7) America Ferrera - The only actress on my list named after a country/continent. Ugly Betty herself conveys every emotion flawlessly, while holding the center of the show. I wonder if her boyfriend sings "I like to be in America..." when they have sex?

(8) Kristin Chenoweth - The Pushing Daisies star is adorable, yet formidable. She's been popping up everywhere (Ugly Betty, The West Wing) since she left Broadway's Wicked. And, don't forget she was the basis for Sarah Paulson's born-again character on Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. Kristin's got Jesus on her side.

(9) Kate Walsh - She's the perfect actress to spin off from Grey's Anatomy, to Private Practice. I idolize her. I wish I was her. Then, I'd get to meet TR Knight.

(10) Sandra Oh - I feel bad putting her at #10. She is a genius. Fantastic on Grey's Anatomy. Was great in Sideways. But she was stupid for ever agreeing to do Under the Tuscan Sun.