ABC News: Could Nicolas Cage be a vampire?

According to a story from ABC News, Jack Mord, an antiques dealer posted the above photograph for sale on eBay of a man from Bristol, Tenn., around 1870, and he claims is Nicolas Cage.


"Mord believes Cage is a vampire who reinvents himself every 75 years or so," reads the story.

"Mord claims that the supposedly 47-year-old actor looks virtually unchanged since his first big hit 'Moonstruck' all the way back in 1987 — more 'proof,'" the story says (at least they put quotes around the "proof").

The photo was offered at a price of $1 million, but it has since been removed.

Are you kidding? Did no one at ABC News — not the writer nor the editors — say to themselves, "Maybe Cage has a grandfather or great, great grandfather?"

It is laughable that they would publish this story, legitimizing the disillusions of some old man.

The biggest oversight, besides the obvious ridiculousness of the claim, in this story is the lack of authentication or a reaction from Cage himself.

To quote Chelsea Handler, the late-night comedian, ABC News, "you need to get your shit together."

The writer ends the story with this: "Unfortunately, there’s one small problem with this bold claim. Vampire experts have been buzzing since the news about Mr. Vampire Cage broke — because a vampire cannot be photographed!"

Really? You've really got to bring out your "Twilight" vampire trivia to dissuade the public that Nicholas Cage is not part of the Cullens' coven?

While Cage's career has fallen into the realm of the supernatural recently — but has mostly just fallen out of the Hollywood A-list — I don't think it's his way of sending a message to the public that he is ready to come out of the coffin.

Hit me 'Baby' one more time! But gently!

Now before you get too excited...or — if you anything like me and do not share the world's fascination with Brittany Spear's musical talents nor her off-stage antics (although I applaud her for digging herself out of that dark, dank and hairless hole) — before you roll your eyes, this is not about that chart-topping mind-numbing song.

It's about another Baby, one that is so near and dear to my heart. I'm talking of Frances Houseman, better known as Baby, from the 1987 classic "Dirty Dancing."

It is probably my all-time favorite movie for more reasons than I can mention, so I'm going to cover the most important: 1. Patrick Swayze! Need I say more. 2. Patrick Swayze dancing! 3. The fact that Jennifer Grey is not your average gorgeous leading lady. 4. I learned to dance watching Baby learn to dance. 5. My mother insisted on staying in the theater through the entire movie, even though I was pounding away in her womb to let me out and dance with Patrick. Needless to say, I grew up watching this movie!

Now, Lions Gate has decided to remake the classic...again.

Let me first say I'm all for remakes...to an extent. I think getting a new interruption of a story or plot line in a new time period or setting leads to such diversity and brings to light new-found delights not seen before.

Remember, Lions Gate already tried the remake in a widely-unappreciated  2004 movie, "Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights," which I actually love. But it come no where close to the level of esteem that I place on the original.

So why go for a third-time at bat? It can't be that the old adage "third time's the charm" because if that first 1987 version didn't hit it out of the park, I'm not sure they can do much better.

And to make matters worse, the film company doesn't plan to change anything...not the time period it was set in, not the plot of a thrilling first-love and sexual awakening, not even the choreographer! That's right, Kenny Ortega is back! I actually am secretly thrilled about this because I love his work. He has choreographed and directed masterpieces such as "The Newies," with the multi-talented Christian Bale, who will forever be a New York cowboy to me, "Gilmore Girls," "Hocus Pocus," "High School Musical" (all of them), and Michael Jackson's farewell "This Is It."

The film is still in its early stages, slated to come out in 2013, so there are still a lot of factors to hash out. But there is obviously one important piece that made such movie magic that will change in this latest rendition: the cast. Patrick lost his battle with pancreatic cancer in 2009 and Jennifer Grey, while still capable of a little dirty dancing as evident from her championship season on "Dancing with the Stars," she would not be right cast as the doe-eye daddy's girl now.

Apparently, Zac Efron's name has been batted around to play Patrick Swayze's Johnny Castle, which I think is a bit predictable. Although the boy can dance...and sing (dear God, please don't let them turn this into a musical), he doesn't quite have the bad boy air about him that is needed for the role.

Also in the running is Derek Hough, Grey's former dancing partner (after Patrick, of course). This is laughable. I like Derek, but really? I think he's just exercising some sibling rivalry. His sister, Julianne Hough, landed the role of Ariel Moore, in the new "Footloose" remake...more on that later. Again, Derek, like Zac, doesn't have a bad boy bone in his limber body. Both are baby-faced and boyish, while Johnny Castle is a man, tough and rugged, with substantial life experience, which has embittered him.

But after all this talk, I'm kind of excited to see what, and who, they come up with and at the same time, dread it. I hope that it lives up the first one, but am not holding my hopes too high because, to use what I think is the cheesiest line in the movie (forgive me), "no one puts Baby in the corner."

I fear that is essentially what the film will do. It will either surpass the former glory of the Swayze-Grey dynamic, which as I said, is unlikely, or it will make a mockery of the entire trilogy and the beloved classic will be stuffed into the back corner of entertainment centers hiding in shame.

So Lions Gate, I warn you. Think carefully before proceeding with this misadventure.

And while we're at it...MTV, the same goes to you too. Although my advice is much too late to save you from the October premiere of "Footloose," which looks exactly the same as the 1984 version but with Bostonian Kenny Wormald (from the "Center Stage" follow-up "Turn It Up") as Chicago-rebel Ren MacCormack instead of Kevin Bacon. From the looks of the trailers, it is exactly the same movie with a even more forbidden dancing and an updated wardrobe except it appears that they got Ren's from a 1984 Kevin Bacon yard sale..down to the grimy gray sweat shirt he rips off revealing the fitted white tank in that legendary dance number in the barn. Oh wait, they have graffitied school buses instead of tractors for the chicken race! Come on!

I most likely will not dare to fork out the $10 to see either film in theaters, so my reviews will have to wait until the remakes come out on DVD. All I can say is good luck movie goers.

How Facebook is ruining humanity...or so some believe

   Note to all Facebook users: we are "either totally conceited or serious self-haters."

   Or so says a Sept. 2010 article titled "Facebook users are jerks, another study confirms" from MSNBC's technology blog, Technolog. 

   "Just this week we learned that Facebook use can lower grades by 20 percent," the article read. "That's the latest on a list of studies that includes how Facebook can cause health problems, destroy future job opportunities, whip up jealousy and blah blah blah. And now, here's another one that tells us Facebook users are either totally conceited or serious self-haters."  
   I think you can tell that Helen Popkin, the author, is somewhat sarcastic in her tone. But those are some pretty serious accusations to levy against the world's most popular social networking site, and maybe the most influential communication tool of our generation — except for the cell phone...but you can even get Facebook on a cell phone now.
   I have no idea what health problems are alluded to in the article or studies, but I can definitely see the negative effects the site could have for future employment. 
   People forget when they are uploading pictures of themselves and their friends during last weekend's drunken debauchery, that regardless of how funny — or gross — it is to stick your tongue down someone's throat while a friend snaps a pic of the sweaty mess, those pictures can be seen by pretty much everyone and are out there forever. No employer wants a trashy employee...unless you own a strip club.
   Another article, from the Los Angeles Times, said that girls who use Facebook as a public photo album detailing every moment — significant or not — in the their lives, "assert their self worth via their physical appearance."
   That should come as no surprise to anyone.
   But the thing that really grabbed my attention was a line near the end of the article quoting the lead author of the study, Michael A. Stefanone.
   He said that girls who do this, post thousands of pictures of themselves, do it "as a form of advertisement." 
   Stefanone implies that they are advertising their bodies, rather than themselves, to anyone and everyone who will look, push the "like" button or even post a comment to perpetuate their heightened self-opinion.
   To sum up, I think I've thoroughly proved the narcissism angle, but what about the other half of heavy Facebookers, those self-deprecating users.

  Well, apparently they are one and the same. 

  Popkin's article states other findings from the study: 

• The more extreme the narcissism, the more time spent checking Facebook.
• The more extreme the self-loathing, the more time spent checking Facebook.

   So, Facebook is responsible for not only perpetuating narcissism but also self-loathing. And thus ruining humanity...but we can't help ourselves can we, regardless of how it makes us feel.
  Friend me! 

Articles used in this post:
-http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/09/09/5077830-facebook-users-are-jerks-another-study-confirms
-http://www.latimes.com/health/boostershots/la-heb-facebook-vanity-20110310,0,464632.story

Movie Review: Damon's new flick is more romance than sci-fi thriller

   If you are expecting heart-thumping action — along the lines of "Green Zone" or the Bourne trilogy — from Matt Damon's newest flick, "The Adjustment Bureau," then you might want to take your significant other. All you'll find is heart-thumping romance.

   Not one shot is fired.

   In fact, there are no guns at all.

   Actually, there is no violence to speak of...well, Damon does throw two punches. A well-timed right hook levels one guy, while the other jab barely fazes 75-year-old Terence Stamp...but he did have it coming.

   Ill-fated Senate-hopeful David Norris (Damon) finds the love of his life in Elise Sellas (Emily Blunt), a sassy contemporary ballet dancer. But their romance is not part of the "plan," which is micromanaged by a team of omnipresent, fedora-clad adjusters.

   The characters' fateful meeting in the men's room of the Waldorf-Astoria — where they share their first completely random and ill-timed kiss — conflicts with their ability to follow their dreams.

   The adjusters tell Norris that he cannot see her again, although they can’t tell him why — only the “chairman” knows.

   Norris, destined to become President of the United States, and Sellas, one of the world's foremost dancers, are drawn to each other by instances of chance and coincidence, which cannot be foreseen nor adjusted. So they fall deeper into love as the movie continues and try to change their diverging paths.

   The archaic duel between fate and freewill determines the entire angst of the one hour, 39 minute drama.

  The empathizing and compassionate adjuster Harry Mitchell, played by Anthony Mackie, sums up the movie’s message when he tells Damon that only when one challenges fate can he truly have freewill.

  But alas, we know how it ends.

  Love conquers all and freewill trumps the "plan."

  But that can't be it right...Maybe it's the pessimist in me, but they should, at the very least, fall short of their lofty goals. However, the movie doesn't even venture to answer those questions. The characters simply end up happily together.

  Although the movie lacks Damon’s usual he-man vigor, it is suspenseful and surprisingly a sweet love story. Blunt embodies the ballsy ballerina beautifully, and eloquently, and Damon’s hopeless romance is every girls dream. While their on-screen chemistry gels into delightful, witty banter (Damon has always excelled at banter), the couples final kiss is even more awkward than their first.

  Screenwriter and director, George Nolfi, underplays the complexity of the sci-fi thriller advertised and many questions go unexplained.

I give it a C+. I wouldn't buy it, but I wouldn't turn away if it came on cable.

A love story in six words or less

SMITH Magazine challenges people to post six-word memoirs summing up their life in six words or less. This particular topic involves people's love stories.

Here are some of my favorites:

-Love hurts. Choose vodka or Valium.
-You lost me at hello “ma’am.”
-Life’s like chocolates. Picked, processed, pooped.
-Hearts clubbed by diamonds in spades.
-My mom never liked you anyway.
-Make love in garden. Encourage fertility.
-Went for cherries, found my wife.
-In lieu of you, chocolates do.
-Another chapter in her pulp fiction.
-Passion, fireworks, good loving. He's gay.
-The cure: wear red lipstick tomorrow.
-He's a trapdoor I'm falling through.
-He's finally gone. Must update Facebook.
To see more, visit: http://www.smithmag.net/sixword-love/memoirs.php

Some are happily-ever-after kind of loves....some are not...some are funny...and some, like mine I suppose are still in progress....
What is yours?