Caddickisms

I’ve fallen really behind on posting lately. Given the upcoming holiday there probably won’t be much for the next few days either. But I wanted to quickly throw a few things out there in Sci-Fi and Entertainment news.

Hobbit films (report stolen from Slice of Sci-Fi):

Director Guillermo del Toro told reporters during a Hellboy press junket that his first “The Hobbit” movie will stick strictly to J.R.R. Tolkien’s original “The Hobbit” material, however, the second film will take in a wide range of materials from the Tolkien universe inlcluding many of Tolkien’s own notes.

It will be interesting to see what happens with that second movie. Do we have a screenwriter who can take those notes and other materials and make a script that feels Tolkien-ish?

Doctor Who: Parts 1 and 2 of the season finale were extremely good. Like everyone else, I’m waiting with very little patience for the final installment (I hope the Sci-Fi channel runs it in its entirety when it’s their turn - it’s a super-sized episode at 65 commercial-free minutes). Then I intend to be very annoyed next year when we only get a few specials. I’ll do another review of the season after it’s over.

Batman Begins: Heath Ledger continues to get rave reviews on his Joker portrayal. I hope the movie lives up to the buzz.

Starship Troopers 3: Three? Really? Do we need three of these things? Wasn’t one painful enough? If you really want to see the trailer, it’s out there.

Hancock: Apparently this has a pretty short running time. And it’s getting middling reviews. Apparently the first half is pretty good, but then it falls apart. This is really driving me nuts. The more I see of clips and trailers for this, the more I want to see it, but then I find out it’s short and may not live up to expectations? I don’t know if I can throw my money and time at that. I really want to see it, though… blah.

Star Wars: Clone Wars - The new trailer is out there! It’s a bit moodier than the others. I think I liked Trailer #1 better. Still on the must see list, though.

The Prisoner: AMC is remaking 60’s TV show “The Prisoner” in a 6-part miniseries with Jim Caviezel and Ian McKellan. Top notch actors, ground-breaking original… I hope it turns out well!

Dr. Horrible’s Sing-along Blog: Joss Whedon, the creator of Buffy, Angel, and Firefly, has got himself a nice little humorous project with some familiar faces. Looks intriguing.

And finally…

Bruce Campbell, who “starred” in all three Spider-man movies and my favorite western-sci-fi TV show (The Adventures of Brisco County Jr.) - and a few well known cult classics - is coming out with a new film in which he plays himself. Sort of. Looks really good to me…

In case I’m too lazy to blog again before the weekend, have a great Independence Day (unless you happen to live in a non-US location, in which case, have a nice normal weekend.)

Related posts

• Summer Movie List 2 - Revenge of the Trailer (3)
• Star Wars: Clone Wars videos (and an Obi-Wan debate settled) (0)
• Star Wars: Clone Wars Theatrical Trailer (0)
• Review: Firefly (0)
• TV updates: 24 and Smallville (w/spoilers) (0)

Back in April I wrote a list of the movies I want to see this year in the theater. So far I’ve seen all the ones I called as a must-see and missed all the others (which, so far, is just Speed Racer).

When I go to the theater, I love to see the previews. I consider them an art unto themselves. It can’t be easy to tease an unfinished movie by pulling out the enticing bits and telling you just enough to get you interested in the story without revealing the whole thing. Good editors can even make a bad movie look great. Conversely, great movies can be hidden behind a poor trailer. But a great movie with a great trailer makes you sit up and go, “wow!”

The problem with seeing all these previews is that they are essentially commercials. Commercials are made to make you want to purchase something you didn’t know you needed. They are there to separate you from your money. So for me, loving trailers is a two-edged sword.

Case in point: when we saw our double-feature, I saw trailers for movies I somehow hadn’t heard about before, and newer trailers for movies I was already somewhat interested in. Then I read Lee’s review of The Incredible Hulk. I thought I was set with my list for the summer, but now it seems I have some revision to do.

So here’s the new list, in order of release, with release date (and my thoughts, if I’ve seen it). Boldface indicates movies I will not miss in the theaters. Italics are the ones I’m going to whine about incessantly if I miss in the theater - the ones that it hurts me to not put in bold. The others I will be disappointed if I have to miss for one reason or another, but once I see them on video I’ll be okay:

1. Iron Man - May 2 (review)
   
2. Speed Racer - May 9 (judging by general reaction, glad I missed it)
3. The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian - May 16 (review)
4. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - May 22 (review)
5. The Incredible Hulk - June 13 (This is so close to being in bold it’s not even funny)
6. Get Smart - June 20
7. Wall-E - June 27
8. Hancock - July 2
9. The Dark Knight - July 18
   
10. The X-Files: I want to believe - July 25
11. The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emporer - August 1
12. Star Wars: The Clone Wars - August 15
    
13. City of Ember - October 10
14. Quantum of Solace (James Bond) - November 7

The astute among you (i.e., the ones who have nothing better to do but follow the minutiae of these posts) will notice that City of Ember was added to the list. Bill Murray and Tim Robbins in a sci-fi adventure movie. I love Bill Murray and Tim Robbins, and I love sci-fi adventure, but I would not be sold by that pairing. It’s on my list. That’s the power of a trailer.

Hancock has also been upgraded to painfully close to a must-see (as has Hulk). When I saw the first trailer, it looked like a fun, but relatively light, superhero movie. This most recent trailer shows that it actually has a plot of redemption and seems well formed. (And they even surpassed the whale bit for funny. Jason Bateman is perfect for this movie.)

So many movies… so little time.

Related posts

• What I’m going to do with my summer (1)
• Quick Notes on Entertainment News (0)
• Star Wars: Clone Wars videos (and an Obi-Wan debate settled) (0)
• Star Wars: Clone Wars Theatrical Trailer (0)
• Movie news roundup - Sci-Fi and comics lovers, rejoice! (4)

The networks released their schedules for next year this week. No surprise: Smallville and 24 are both reappearing in the schedules. However, there has been surprising news/rumors about both shows…

24

Jack is back, and as an appeasement from the long wait since last season, we get a 2-hour movie on November 23rd:

24 is also scheduled to return full time in January of 2009. (A spoiler is below.) However, to reward fans who have not seen a new episode since May of 2007, there will be a 2-hour special on 11/23. According to Kiefer Sutherland, they are scheduled to start filming in the next few weeks in south Africa.

“Set and shot on location in Africa, Jack Bauer battles an international crisis, while here at home the nation prepares for a new president on inauguration day. Taking place just a few months before the new day dawns, this story will set the stage and raise the stakes for Season Seven.”

Day/Season 7 spoiler: Tony’s back. Wait a minute… is this a sci-fi show now?

Smallville

We already knew that Kristen Kreuk and Michael Rosenbaum were leaving the show as regulars. Apparently, that fact gave Allison Mack, who plays Chloe Sullivan, the guts to try renegotiating, since that would leave her as the only regular (other than Tom Welling) to have been on since the beginning. However, it looks like those negotiations may be going poorly, and Chloe may be on her way out.

So that would leave just Clark, Lois, and Jimmy as the only regulars. Hmm…. seems like we’re really leaving Smallville behind and just going straight to Superman. I don’t know - I really like the show, but I’m really worried that it’s going to suffer greatly without Lex. I’ve heard Lana will become recurring…. and I don’t care. She’s over, as far as I’m concerned. They ran out of good stuff to do with her character a few years ago. She only really had a couple good episodes in the last few seasons. Lex is the one that’s got to come back from time to time, if you ask me. Besides….

SPOILERS FOR SMALLVILLE SEASON 7 FINALE

… what are they going to do, leave him dead under the ice, buried in his attempt to kill Clark? Obviously Clark will be back somehow, and I really hope the season premiere resolves the whole Clark/Lex fight adequately. I kind of feel like the rug was pulled out from under me for this finale, and not in a good way. This show has had some great finales, but this one just seemed a bit anti-climactic to me. We saw almost the entire end of the show in the previews! Where was the big fight? Where was the surprise? Where was the “holy cow! Who’s gonna survive this?” moment? We know Clark’s going to survive so no drama there. Lex is going to survive somehow too (to do otherwise would really be a kick in the face to the fans). Lana healed (whoopie.) and left (Yeah!), though she’s open to come back (eh.). Jimmy and Lois were never in danger. Chloe was the candidate for cliffhanger-ness, but they gave her a totally happy ending. I guess Kara is still floating out there…

…but that leaves me with another question: what was the deal where Kara/Brainiac collapsed at the end of the previous episode after Kara’s “return”. It would have worked if Brainiac were controlling her, but if it’s really Brainiac, what’s with the weak collapse, and then all powerful for the opening of this episode?

Next season’s premiere better pull out all the stops, as I assumed this finale would.

Related posts

• Smallville, Dr. Who, and Torchwood facts and rumors (1)
• Quick Notes on Entertainment News (0)
• Wil Wheaton reviews the show that made everyone hate him (0)
• What I’ve been thinking (0)
• Smallville: Green is in this year (0)

Literary characters - some obscure, some well known - abound in these graphic novels. The main players (Allan Quartermain, Captain Nemo, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, the Invisible Man, and - to a much lesser extent - Mina Harker/Murray) are well established, and the gimmick of putting them together is the initial draw. It took me a little effort to get into the style of faux-1800s dialogue, especially in the narrative boxes, but I quite enjoyed the first volume’s story. It didn’t take itself too seriously, and yet there was a lot of mystery and discovery. Nothing ever really seems to be completely answered, but it gets close enough that you’re satisfied, and the opening for further mystery is part of it’s charm.

Volume two was much more straight-forward - not a lot in the way of mystery or intrigue. That would have gotten in the way, apparently, of the violence and the sex. And given that this story was, in many ways, centered on the simple, straight-forward, violent character of Hyde, I suppose that makes sense.

There was a lot of Hyde in this book. Hyde’s a bad dude. A bad, baaaad, dude. Don’t mess with Hyde. Seriously. Even if you’ve got a nasty heat ray. And hiding from Hyde’s not really an option either. Best to not get on his bad side. That’s pretty much the message I got from this book. Loud and clear.

Aside from the voyeurism of the book, though, I gotta say the story wasn’t as compelling as the first volume. Even some of the surprises at the end were not that impactful. I also think Mina, and to some extent Quartermain, were underused, despite having a large number of pages dedicated to them. Neither were really used for the talents that made them interesting as characters.

Did I mention Hyde’s a bad dude? I was forewarned that something was going to happen with him, and still had a “whoa” moment when I realized what was going on…

This one definitely ain’t for the kiddies.

Technorati Tags: jekyll and hyde, vampires, comics, literature

Related posts

• Review: V for Vendetta (0)
• What I’ve been thinking (0)
• Review: Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (0)
• Movie news roundup - Sci-Fi and comics lovers, rejoice! (4)
• Money for nothing, and discounts on online purchases - Zlio.com (0)

Bryce Zabel’s FOR WHAT IT’S WORTH: Santa’s 2007 Movie Smackdown!

Bryce has put together a fun poll on which Christmas/holiday movies make the cut for annual viewing. Which ones can you stand to watch year after year?

My pick that didn’t make his critics’ list: Ernest Saves Christmas. I never fail to laugh at that film, and quote it year-round. “Nobody moves; nobody dies…” heh… I’m cracking up just thinking about it. It has heart, too. Jim Varney really put his trademark character to good use in that flick.

Click through and take the poll (actually two polls).

That made me think about the TV Christmas specials I grew up on. “A Charlie Brown Christmas” is the first one that comes to mind (it’s a tradition to listen to the soundtrack in this house). “How the Grinch Stole Christmas,” (the original, not the stupid movie version) “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer,” and “Frosty the Snowman” are also on the tip of the tongue. If I can figure out the titles to all the others I’ll put up a poll on that so all three of you reading this can weigh in… so check back later!

(Oh… that one with the mice in the clock… I love that one… gotta find that title)

Technorati Tags: holiday movies, christmas, Jim Varney, Charlie Brown, Snoopy, Vince Guaraldi

Related posts

• Wil Wheaton reviews the show that made everyone hate him (0)
• What I’ve been thinking (0)
• TV updates: 24 and Smallville (w/spoilers) (0)
• Review: Justice League (3)
• Review: Highlander: The Source (0)

The Second Chance DVD

Steve Taylor is no stranger to controversy. His music in the ’80s was unabashedly pointed at issues of hypocrisy and general laziness within Christian communities and its leaders (and it’s important to realize that he recognized himself as part of that community). He was willing to hold up a mirror for those who would listen to see their behavior and how it frequently ran contrary to the faith they professed. In 2006 he released this movie, serving as writer, director, and one of the producers, that tackles the issues of racial and economic segregation as it plays out within a church.

When I first heard of this movie I was intrigued because Steve Taylor was deeply involved, so I had a pretty good idea it would have some real substance. When I found out that Michael W. Smith was playing one of the leads, I was nervous that it would turn out to be just another “Christian” movie with good intentions, but poor production. It felt like stunt casting to me.

Now that I’ve seen it, I have to say I was pleasantly surprised. Smith did a good job. He’s not going to win any awards as an actor (yet, anyway… it’s his first role), but there are only one or two spots that I thought he wasn’t quite up to the challenge. The rest of the movie he was fine, and he was surrounded, generally, by some pretty good talent.

Here is how the site describes the story:

Same faith. Same city. Different worlds.

The Second Chance is a film about two men - one from a white church in the well-to-do suburbs and one from a black church in the inner-city projects. Although founded by the same man, each church manifests its mission in a very different way. This film authentically tells the story of how a rebellious son and a street-smart pastor struggle to bridge the gap between their respective churches and cultures. More importantly, at its core, The Second Chance is about being willing to step outside your comfort zone and serve where you are called.

That’s a good synopsis of the plot, but what it doesn’t get across strongly enough is the word “authentically”. It’s really a film about bridging cultural gaps and reconciliation; it just so happens that the church is the background in which that is played out. To me, the best part about this movie was that it did approach its characters as real people. These are people who are also Christians, not some stereotyped preachers whose every scene depicts pious devotion to God with pithy little disconnected life lessons. (The inner city preacher, for example, struggles to keep himself from cursing.) This is not a preachy movie. Everyone is motivated by doing what they believe is right, even though they don’t see eye to eye with others.

In the end, while I recognize that there are flaws in the production (even the director says the first 20 minutes are slow), the movie worked for me. It made me consider my life and actions right along with the main characters - am I too comfortable? Should I be challenging myself more in supporting others in need? How might I be more open to that?

With two musicians prominently involved in the film, I expected some good music. There wasn’t as much of it as I would have liked, honestly, but there was some good stuff:

Movin’ on Up - Third Day

All in the Serve - Michael W. Smith (Steve Taylor was co-writer)

Hang On - Michael W. Smith

There is no doubt that The Second Chance is meant to make you think. They even created a study guide to help facilitate discussions on the issues of motives, compassion, and obedience brought up in the film. More “message” films should do that… I certainly could have used one for Crash.

3.5 stars.

Technorati Tags: Steve Taylor, Christianity in Movies, Michael W. Smith, cultural divides, racial issues

Related posts

• Review: Walk the Line (0)
• Review: The Prince of Egypt (0)
• Review: Ray (another perspective) (0)
• Review: Ray (1)
• Review: Down with Love (0)

(Yeah, I know I’m months behind 90% of the free world in seeing this one…)

Okay, obviously from the trailers the special effects on this movie were going to be top-notch. But was there really, as the characters are so fond of saying, “more than meets the eye” to this film? Did it have characters you care about? A plot?

Happily, yes, to an extent. It had a decent plot, nicely combining elements of the original cartoon series/movie with some new elements. It was laid out well enough for general movie-goers, who may not have been familiar with what came before, to follow all the necessary elements. It was engaging, if predictable. I cared a bit about the characters, though I didn’t for a second think any major player would really get hurt. I was surprised by the loss of an Autobot (who I’ll leave nameless for those who haven’t seen it). I always liked that character in the cartoons.

But let’s be honest here - the star in this movie was the action and effects. And they did a heck of a job.

The action was choreographed very well, in my opinion. There was more than one scene where I just sat back and said “whoa, that was cool,” and I was referring at least as much to the motion of the characters in the scene as I was to the rendering of those characters. I’m a sucker for acrobatic acts of aggression, and this movie delivered. Plus those actions were being carried out by huge, hulking robots with major firepower - it’s like a dream come true….

Okay, not quite that great, but still pretty freaking cool. Actually, despite all their coolness and realism (within the context, of course), I didn’t like the renditions of the robotic forms as much as I hoped. The visual separation between many of them, with the definite exceptions of Megatron, Optimus Prime, and Bumblebee, was not as distinct as it should have been. I had a hard time keeping the characters straight after transformation.

The effects, though, were unbelievable. I went through the DVD a second time and rewatched about 5 fight scenes in slow motion just to savor the cool. Niiiiiiicce.

I should mention as well, that the very first thing that struck me about this movie, and it was clear from the DVD’s main menu, was that the music was really good. Both my wife and I mentioned it immediately as something reminiscent of Gladitor (one of my all time favorite films). I still have the theme running through my head. The biggest disappointment there was that they chose to go with a hard rock set over the end credits. Bleh. Seems like a wasted opportunity to me. I don’t know… maybe there was only that one good theme, but I liked it.

Anyway… top of the line effects with cool ideas, a decently serviceable story, great cameos, and characters I didn’t hate. The effects alone pull the movie up to a 4 star rating. The rest do nothing to pull it down, but don’t give it the extra push to get any further. So… four stars it is.

Technorati Tags: transformers, optimus prime, megatron, starscream, michael bay, film music

Related posts

• Summer Movie List 2 - Revenge of the Trailer (3)
• Review: X-Men 3: The Last Stand (0)
• Review: Walk the Line (0)
• Review: V for Vendetta (0)
• Review: Underworld: Evolution (0)

At first glance, Laws of Attraction is a typical romantic comedy. Guy and girl meet, they don’t get along, then they’re stuck together, then they fall in love. The difference here is in how the relationship is handled. This is not the standard RomCom. It’s got all the elements, including over-the-top secondary characters, but the way the lead characters (Pierce Brosnan and Julianne Moore) interact is much more real than in most movies of this type. You get the impression that these could be real people, not the cardboard cutouts we’re used to seeing on screen, despite the way it probably appeared on the page.

I give most of that credit to the director and actors. The script was okay, but not stupendous. I give it credit in that it uses a divorce lawyer who believes in marriage, and his point of view becomes a strong message in the film. The point is that you have to fight, and remain committed, through the rough times in a marriage. That’s a sensibility that is all too often forgotten in today’s world of instant gratification and “what have you done for me lately” attitudes.

I found it interesting that they cut two scenes that would have pulled the film back toward the typical RomCom category. Though both deleted scenes were good, if the director’s intent was, as I suspect, to keep it closer to reality and avoid the easy tricks, I think he made good choices in dropping them. One was the competitive race across the field to the castle that I could feel coming in the film, and was surprised when it didn’t arrive, and the other was the storybook Irish countryside ending. Both are included in the DVD as extras, and they were fun to watch and well done, but I really think the right choice was made in not choosing the easy path. I think the movie was better for it.

Unfortunately, despite how much I liked the overall tone and many individual scenes, something was off. I’m pretty sure it was the writing, or maybe the editing, but it just didn’t flow as well as I’d hoped. A few scenes seemed out of place, or forced in there, or just not stitched together cleanly enough. I can’t come up with any specific examples, but it just didn’t flow evenly.

I’d like to give it more, because I really liked the message and the lack of saccharine, but I have to stop at three stars.

Technorati Tags: Pierce Brosnan, Julianne Moore, romantic comedy, movie review, marriage, love, New York City, Ireland

Related posts

• Summer Movie List 2 - Revenge of the Trailer (3)
• Review: X-Men 3: The Last Stand (0)
• Review: Walk the Line (0)
• Review: V for Vendetta (0)
• Review: Underworld: Evolution (0)

‘Highlander: The Source’ Final Nail in Franchise Coffin - OhmyNews International

I just had to pick a few of the favorite quotes from this review. Most of the reviews I’ve read recently have been profanity-laced, but all share the same emotion.

They’ve taken something that was once rousing and inventive and now have officially driven it right into the ground. … effects that are anything but special, and a bulky villain character that literally zips around the movie like a dime store version of the Flash and spits out Jim Carrey-like dialogue more suited for “Ace Ventura 3″ (I know the Kurgan, and the Guardian is no Kurgan), it’s a miracle that Paul can even stand in the same frame with this malarkey without getting nauseous. … Stripped of all sense of sword-wielding regality and epic posturing of emotions, “The Source” is nothing less than a parody of what has come before. If you’ve seen the previous sequels, you already know that’s saying something. There is some relief that this franchise will finally be put out of its misery, because nobody in their right mind would try to keep this series going after watching just how boneheaded “Highlander: The Source” is.

If this movie were the inevitable conclusion to the series, it would have been better for the series not to have existed. It sucked every last remaining bit of fun out of the Highlander series. I’m not even sure I can enjoy reading the comic anymore.

Technorati Tags: Highlander, Adrian Paul, bad movies, reviews

Related posts

• Review: Highlander: The Source (0)
• Wil Wheaton reviews the show that made everyone hate him (0)
• What I’ve been thinking (0)
• TV updates: 24 and Smallville (w/spoilers) (0)
• The Santa Smackdown! (0)

In any Highlander movie, it’s expected: heads will roll. In this case, though, it should have been heads of the film’s creators.

Why would you go and make a movie, probably the last one the Highlander series will ever see, that sucks this badly?

The script was all but incoherent, none of the characters were sympathetic or even well-realized, and the fight scenes, with possibly one exception, were more special effect than skill.

This movie was right up (down?) there with Highlander 2, the almost universally shunned entry in the series.

The basic outline of the script, from what I could understand, was this: in the undetermined, but not too distant (because Joe isn’t much older than in the TV show), future, there are five immortals left, and they are seeking “the Source”. The Source is not really that well defined, but it’s got something to do with planets aligning and is involved with immortals and “the Prize” — and apparently it makes you move like someone pressed the fast-forward button on you. The Prize is what you get when you’re the last immortal standing.

Though you’re an idiot if you sit through this movie after it’s initial run, when there was some small hope it might be decent, I still feel I now need to issue a…

SPOILER ALERT ::SPOILER ALERT ::SPOILER ALERT ::SPOILER ALERT ::SPOILER ALERT ::SPOILER ALERT

SPOILER ALERT ::SPOILER ALERT ::SPOILER ALERT ::SPOILER ALERT ::SPOILER ALERT ::SPOILER ALERT

SPOILER ALERT ::SPOILER ALERT ::SPOILER ALERT ::SPOILER ALERT ::SPOILER ALERT ::SPOILER ALERT

In previous movies, the Prize has been that you “know everything” and that you get to become mortal. This time, with no sword fight worth mentioning, you just get to be the only immortal who can have a child. Not a bad prize, honestly, if the setup is done correctly, but it wasn’t. We don’t have any sense from this film that Duncan even wants to have a child, for one thing. We just know he’s “gone bad” because his wife left him over his inability to do so. And we really don’t care about any of the characters in this film enough to worry about it, anyway.

The effects of the planets lining up was cool looking but seriously… what planet are we supposed to be on? Certainly not Earth. I’ve never even seen the moon that big in the sky, let alone other planets and some sort of comet-looking things going in circles. And they’re all moving fast enough to be observably moving to the naked eye?! What the heck are you thinking, effects guys?

So far, I haven’t tried to put this movie in context with other established canon. It just stunk on its own merits. But when you compare this to what’s already known and available in terms of plot…. okay, there’s nothing actually contradicting anything established (except the planets in the sky, which immediately removes this from known reality). And if you insert a LOT of knowledge about the characters derived from the TV show (Duncan, Joe, and Methos), you could care about those people a bit. But this film was so far out of line with what has come before, tonally, that it is almost disconnected completely. No flashbacks, no fun (did anybody even crack a smile in this movie?), no moral dilemmas, and no well-executed (pardon the pun) sword fights. And no grounding in the familiar. That’s an important point. Since this takes place in an apocalyptic, cannibalistic future, there is nothing familiar for the audience to relate to. Part of the fun of the Highlander series is imagining that this is all going on in the present day; some unknown excitement in the mundane world in which we live. Sadly, the only films to ever get that right were the original and Endgame. The TV show took the concept and ran with it, enhancing and elevating the series in the process. This film takes what the TV show built and cuts its head off.

That’s what I really don’t understand… how can the TV show have done such a good job at putting stories together, and yet they can’t put a decent movie together to save their lives?

One star. And it’s charity.

Technorati Tags: Adrian Paul, Highlander, sword fighting, immortality, apocalypse, bad movies

Related posts

• More on ‘Highlander: The Source’ (0)
• Wil Wheaton reviews the show that made everyone hate him (0)
• What I’ve been thinking (0)
• TV updates: 24 and Smallville (w/spoilers) (0)
• The Santa Smackdown! (0)