Fringe’s distinction is that the show is hard science-fiction, a rare event for network television — HARD science-fiction, is based on real science, not fantasy, not urban mythology and not old Saturday matinée fare. Though there are plenty of whiz-bang moments in there, most of the spectacle on Fringe is derived from current available technology.

One of Fringe’s few shortcomings is its superficial resemblance to the X-Files. During the pilot, Special Agent Olivia Dunham (Australian actress Anna Torv) and Special Agent John Scott (Mark Valley) of the FBI are called out to investigate the mysterious circumstances where a plane full of passengers is all evacuated by a flesh-melting virus.

After investigating the plane, the Agents are led to a storage unit rented by one of the passengers thought responsible for the downed plane. Scott is infected by the biological agent and Agent Dunham is required to enlist the assistance of noted ‘Fringe’-scientist, Dr. Walter Bishop (John Noble), who’s been locked-up in an asylum for the past 17 years.

That’s where the X-Files similarities end, because Fringe is not a Mulder/Scully ’shipper show, but an ensemble show that rounds out with the son of Dr Noble, Peter Bishop (Joshua Jackson), Phillip Broyles (Lance Reddick), and actors Kirk Acevedo and Blair Brown in supporting roles.

While the X-Files was content to meander into the occult, urban legends and UFO lore, Fringe remains firmly planted in the realm of viable, cutting-edge, so-called fringe-science While I can’t vouch for the ‘Altered States‘-like sensory-deprivation tank, the flesh-eating virus, the gas attacks and the genetically-engineered parasite of subsequent episodes are all currently viable technologies.

That said, Torv, Jackson and Noble are compelling character-actors who fill out an hour’s wort of television in interesting ways — Jackson and Noble have and ongoing Father-Son shtick, while Torv’s character has ongoing encounters with the bits of Scott’s personality that were left behind in her head after the aforementioned isolation-tank experience.

Let’s hope the show maintains it’s strong ratings when the show returns in January ‘09.

Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

Not just another X-Files knock-off. Really.

Before that damnable show went off the air 6 years ago, all of the major broadcast networks — NBC, ABC and CBS each tried to catch some of Chris Carter’s alt.conspiracy.ufo fire.

Fringe’s distinction is that the show is hard science-fiction, a rare event for network television — HARD science-fiction, is based on real science, not fantasy, not urban mythology and not old Saturday matinée fare. Though there are plenty of whiz-bang moments in there, most of the spectacle on Fringe is derived from current available technology.

One of Fringe’s few shortcomings is its superficial resemblance to the X-Files. During the pilot, Special Agent Olivia Dunham (Australian actress Anna Torv) and Special Agent John Scott (Mark Valley) of the FBI are called out to investigate the mysterious circumstances where a plane full of passengers is all evacuated by a flesh-melting virus.

After investigating the plane, the Agents are led to a storage unit rented by one of the passengers thought responsible for the downed plane. Scott is infected by the biological agent and Agent Dunham is required to enlist the assistance of noted ‘Fringe’-scientist, Dr. Walter Bishop (John Noble), who’s been locked-up in an asylum for the past 17 years.

That’s where the X-Files similarities end, because Fringe is not a Mulder/Scully ’shipper show, but an ensemble show that rounds out with the son of Dr Noble, Peter Bishop (Joshua Jackson), Phillip Broyles (Lance Reddick), and actors Kirk Acevedo and Blair Brown in supporting roles.

While the X-Files was content to meander into the occult, urban legends and UFO lore, Fringe remains firmly planted in the realm of viable, cutting-edge, so-called fringe-science While I can’t vouch for the ‘Altered States‘-like sensory-deprivation tank, the flesh-eating virus, the gas attacks and the genetically-engineered parasite of subsequent episodes are all currently viable technologies.

That said, Torv, Jackson and Noble are compelling character-actors who fill out an hour’s wort of television in interesting ways — Jackson and Noble have and ongoing Father-Son shtick, while Torv’s character has ongoing encounters with the bits of Scott’s personality that were left behind in her head after the aforementioned isolation-tank experience.

Let’s hope the show maintains it’s strong ratings when the show returns in January ‘09.

Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

Yeah, I saw this one during it’s theatrical release, back in 1987, and above all, I recall leaving the theater in desperate need of some mental hygene given the movie’s uncomfortable explorations of incest, S&M and the consequences of selling your soul.

While the franchise’s demons, the Cenobytes, appear within the film’s first 5 minutes, we only get a glimpse — they are by no means central to the story. Rather, Pinhead and the Cenobytes are simply the vehicles of hubris:The cenobytes both identify and punish those who are willing to overreach. Though the SciFi Channel insists that all genre movies reveal their creatures within the first 15 minutes, that formula — dictated by commercial requirements — is really irrelevant because ‘Hellraiser’ is an epic drama that circulates around Kirsty Cotton (Ashley Laurence) and her evil stepmother, Julia (Clare Higgins).

Indeed, writer-director Clive Barker waits over an hour to give the audience a good look at the franchise’s signature demons, the Cenobytes, specifically Pinhead. The key antagonists in the first film are really Julia and the posthumous Uncle Frank. Julia wears little makeup, and Frank little skin.

What makes ‘Hellraiser’ an effective and entertaining movie is its emphasis on character and story, rather than makeup.

Uncle Frank rises from the dead at approximately the 20-minute mark, whereupon he marches around for the next 45 minutes fully flayed and in search of skin that can only be acquired vampirically, via the victims that Julia supplies him.

Looking back, ‘Hellraiser’ really was one of the precursors to the big genre franchises that the studios are wont to get ahold of these days — you know, the one-picture spec that turns into the 3 picture franchise-project after box-office receipts cross the $120M mark. Even Mr. Barker is probably surprised that his little million dollar picture spawned seven sequels and warranted a remake.

The remake — due in either 2009 or 2010, depending on where you look — one hopes that Seraphim Films and the Weinstein Company will work toward a 3 picture story-arc and take into into account the many continuity errors of the first two movies, like the Julia-spawning mattress that somehow survived the Dresden-like house fire at the conclusion of the first movie. Though substantial time is spent on a retcon-recap at the beginning of ‘Hellraiser:Hellbound’ (1988) that one would hope that the Weinsteins would choose a capable director and take the LoTR approach.

But the real value of ‘Hellraiser’ lays not so much in its latex prosthetics and stage-blood, but the slow burn of it’s domestic taboo themes: incest, infidelity and lust. It’s not selling her soul to the Devil that’s Julia’s error, it’s her transgressive relationship to brother-in-law Frank that drives her to participate in a Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka-like serial-killing spree, to restore skin to Uncle Frank’s undead sinews. Certainly, the soap operatic Bonnie and Clyde prepending of Hellraiser that makes the first movie so effective, especially when one considers similar movies — Bernard Rose’s ‘Candyman‘ (1992) and Paul W.S. Anderson’s ‘Event Horizon‘ (1997) — and their reasons for relative mediocrity.

Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

*Actually, the Cenobytes do make an appearance at the 3 minute mark, but it’s dark and ambiguous — the only real concluusions viewers can draw is that they wear leather and are comfortable around medical waste.

Yeah, I saw this one during it’s theatrical release, back in 1987, and above all, I recall leaving the theater in desperate need of some mental hygene given the movie’s uncomfortable explorations of incest, S&M and the consequences of selling your soul.

While the franchise’s demons, the Cenobytes, appear within the film’s first 5 minutes, we only get a glimpse — they are by no means central to the story. Rather, Pinhead and the Cenobytes are simply the vehicles of hubris:The cenobytes both identify and punish those who are willing to overreach. Though the SciFi Channel insists that all genre movies reveal their creatures within the first 15 minutes, that formula — dictated by commercial requirements — is really irrelevant because ‘Hellraiser’ is an epic drama that circulates around Kirsty Cotton (Ashley Laurence) and her evil stepmother, Julia (Clare Higgins).

Indeed, writer-director Clive Barker waits over an hour to give the audience a good look at the franchise’s signature demons, the Cenobytes, specifically Pinhead. The key antagonists in the first film are really Julia and the posthumous Uncle Frank. Julia wears little makeup, and Frank little skin.

What makes ‘Hellraiser’ an effective and entertaining movie is its emphasis on character and story, rather than makeup.

Uncle Frank rises from the dead at approximately the 20-minute mark, whereupon he marches around for the next 45 minutes fully flayed and in search of skin that can only be acquired vampirically, via the victims that Julia supplies him.

Looking back, ‘Hellraiser’ really was one of the precursors to the big genre franchises that the studios are wont to get ahold of these days — you know, the one-picture spec that turns into the 3 picture franchise-project after box-office receipts cross the $120M mark. Even Mr. Barker is probably surprised that his little million dollar picture spawned seven sequels and warranted a remake.

The remake — due in either 2009 or 2010, depending on where you look — one hopes that Seraphim Films and the Weinstein Company will work toward a 3 picture story-arc and take into into account the many continuity errors of the first two movies, like the Julia-spawning mattress that somehow survived the Dresden-like house fire at the conclusion of the first movie. Though substantial time is spent on a retcon-recap at the beginning of ‘Hellraiser:Hellbound’ (1988) that one would hope that the Weinsteins would choose a capable director and take the LoTR approach.

But the real value of ‘Hellraiser’ lays not so much in its latex prosthetics and stage-blood, but the slow burn of it’s domestic taboo themes: incest, infidelity and lust. It’s not selling her soul to the Devil that’s Julia’s error, it’s her transgressive relationship to brother-in-law Frank that drives her to participate in a Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka-like serial-killing spree, to restore skin to Uncle Frank’s undead sinews. Certainly, the soap operatic Bonnie and Clyde prepending of Hellraiser that makes the first movie so effective, especially when one considers similar movies — Bernard Rose’s ‘Candyman‘ (1992) and Paul W.S. Anderson’s ‘Event Horizon‘ (1997) — and their reasons for relative mediocrity.

Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

*Actually, the Cenobytes do make an appearance at the 3 minute mark, but it’s dark and ambiguous — the only real concluusions viewers can draw is that they wear leather and are comfortable around medical waste.

‘W.’ is unlike every other film Oliver Stone has made. Typically, Stone uses his biopics as a window onto American history — lived history and what those characters meant within their historical context — ‘Salvador’ was as much about the Reagan era as ‘The Doors’ was about the Johnson era and the mission creep of the Vietnam War. The thing about ‘W.’ is, is that there is neither frame, picture nor metaphor: The George W. Bush presidency is the present, there is no complete, objective view of what he has meant to the country other than $2 trillion dollars in aggregate debt and the fulfillment of Republican tropes about an ineffective and failing Federal Government and its too soon to know if the lessons of Bush II will reverberate in the rest of the culture.

What ‘W.’ does do, is lean upon other, older archetypes — W is the young Prince Hal, trying to get away from his father’s legacy only to reform from his wastrel ways and accept the destiny destiny intended — in George W. Bush’s case — for his younger, smarter brother.

Though .W.’ is meant to illustrate the presidency happening to one George W. Bush, it sadly avoided the 2 or 3 most important things that occurred while Bush was in office — the movie skips around between 1967, 1992 and 2003, there is no mention of 9-11 , Iraq or Afghanistan, no Enron and no bank failures which effectively puts a great, big donut-hole in the middle of this movie.

Instead, Stone’s ‘W.’ characterizes the Bush II Presidency meant as a family-drama where the protagonist tries to overcome the low expectations of his family. What’s not addressesed, in the movie is the damage that he does to the world on the way to besting his father.

When Stone announced that he was doing ‘W.’, it elicited doubts everywhere, given the unflattering accounts he’d created for Nixon, JFK and Reagan via the eponymous and period films –, ‘Platoon’ (1995), ‘The Doors (1991), ‘Born on the Fourth of July’ (1989), ‘Wall Street’ (1987) and ‘Salvador’ (1986).

Josh Brolin does an effective job as Mr. Bush, though I suspect Mr. Bush was far less assertive than he is depicted here. Richard Dreyfuss is a serviceable Cheney, Bruce McGill is a ringer for George Tenet while Geoffrey Wright and James Cromwell each turn in serviceable jobs as Colin Powell and Bush père.

Though Stone probably had no idea of the tailspin that the Middle East and the American economy would take by the time this film was released, it’s clear that this will not be the last Bush II biopic, only the first.

Rating: 2 out of 5 stars

‘W.’ is unlike every other film Oliver Stone has made. Typically, Stone uses his biopics as a window onto American history — lived history and what those characters meant within their historical context — ‘Salvador’ was as much about the Reagan era as ‘The Doors’ was about the Johnson era and the mission creep of the Vietnam War. The thing about ‘W.’ is, is that there is neither frame, picture nor metaphor: The George W. Bush presidency is the present, there is no complete, objective view of what he has meant to the country other than $2 trillion dollars in aggregate debt and the fulfillment of Republican tropes about an ineffective and failing Federal Government and its too soon to know if the lessons of Bush II will reverberate in the rest of the culture.

What ‘W.’ does do, is lean upon other, older archetypes — W is the young Prince Hal, trying to get away from his father’s legacy only to reform from his wastrel ways and accept the destiny destiny intended — in George W. Bush’s case — for his younger, smarter brother.

Though .W.’ is meant to illustrate the presidency happening to one George W. Bush, it sadly avoided the 2 or 3 most important things that occurred while Bush was in office — the movie skips around between 1967, 1992 and 2003, there is no mention of 9-11 , Iraq or Afghanistan, no Enron and no bank failures which effectively puts a great, big donut-hole in the middle of this movie.

Instead, Stone’s ‘W.’ characterizes the Bush II Presidency meant as a family-drama where the protagonist tries to overcome the low expectations of his family. What’s not addressesed, in the movie is the damage that he does to the world on the way to besting his father.

When Stone announced that he was doing ‘W.’, it elicited doubts everywhere, given the unflattering accounts he’d created for Nixon, JFK and Reagan via the eponymous and period films –, ‘Platoon’ (1995), ‘The Doors (1991), ‘Born on the Fourth of July’ (1989), ‘Wall Street’ (1987) and ‘Salvador’ (1986).

Josh Brolin does an effective job as Mr. Bush, though I suspect Mr. Bush was far less assertive than he is depicted here. Richard Dreyfuss is a serviceable Cheney, Bruce McGill is a ringer for George Tenet while Geoffrey Wright and James Cromwell each turn in serviceable jobs as Colin Powell and Bush père.

Though Stone probably had no idea of the tailspin that the Middle East and the American economy would take by the time this film was released, it’s clear that this will not be the last Bush II biopic, only the first.

Rating: 2 out of 5 stars