The Wonders of On Demand March 19, 2006
Posted by theexpress in movies, tv.3 comments
We’re living in a busy, on demand world, right? So why cant our TV be stocked on demand for us. It can, and some just dont realize how convenient it is. OnDemand has been available on Comcast (I have Comcast, I’m not sure how long it has been out for others) for over a year, and even though I’ve used it quite frequently in the past, I never realized how convenient it really is. On Friday, I thought to myself, since I had the school day off, that I should make this weekend a Hitchcock one. The only thing holding me back from actually doing it was that I would have to run to the rental store pick up a few films. That is not a very attractive offer, seeing that I dont yet have my drivers license. 
My last-ditch effort to keep the weekend plan was to check Comcast OnDemand for any of Hitchcocks films. I scanned through a few sections and the search was fruitless, but then in the last section of OnDemand I checked, there were three Hitchcocks available, free of charge. On Friday night, I enjoyed Rear Window, around noon on Saturday, I watched The Birds, and today, I watched Vertigo. Thanks to the free service my plan was a sucess.
I find that its the little things like this that make On Demand so valuable. I used to watch Monty Python’s Flying Circus on OnDemand a lot last year, but that was before the service matured to what it is today. There is so much more than there was before, and it is nice to know that movie night – or weekend – is even easier.
—————————————————————————————————————- A little side note: My trip is over and it was fun. My life is back in order, even though I promised a post much earlier. You can start expecting regualr posting again.
What’s the Problem March 5, 2006
Posted by theexpress in movies.1 comment so far
I was browsing through the more recent Wired articles and came across this one by Tony Long on his tirade against Bond. Now as a long-time Bond fan, I could not just sit on the sidelines and let him tell everyone how much better George Smiley is than my man James. My main problem was not Long’s opinion of who is the better spy, but his overgeneralization about the Bond films. 
He begins to assume that in each and every Bond movie, James can only get by with his gadgets. Lets take Dr. No as the first example. Bond barely even got anything and there was still no Q to be seen. He relied on his wits as he did through the earlier films. When he needs to make sure his room is not broken into at the hotel, Bond reaches for no gadget, but he uses talcum powder and some of his own hair to get the job done. In From Russia with Love, his best gadget was a briefcase that could do a few select tricks and produce a knife from the side of it. The early films show many examples of Bond using very little to get the job done. As for the future in Casino Royale, we can only hope Bond goes back to the basics and ditches the gadgets that sometimes trademark him.
Though not to take this to seriously, I wanted to repeal Long’s direct insults to the Bond movies. In recent days, the films have taken a turn for the worse in how he is always depending on his gadgets and looking silly (case in point Die Another Day), but we must not forget the glory days when he acted like a far superior spy.
