Count Chocula, Hellblazer, and that Creepy Cat

I wrote this post in my 1up.com blog shortly after Superbowl weekend, after seeing some of the most written about commercials on iFilm. This entry is dated February 7, 2005.

I've heard some people remark, half-jokingly, that they watch the Super Bowl for the ads. Because I was busy playing Rome: Total War, I didn't see the game yesterday. So when I checked my feed reader today, I noticed several sites had articles about the ads which aired and didn't air yesterday.

So I went over to iFilm.com and watched the ones which seemed interesting. I liked the "Mascot" variation on the Mastercard "Priceless" ad. I liked some of their choices, like Count Chocula and The Pillsbury Dough Boy, but one of them just looks like he doesn't belong(two guesses who it is), and another just doesn't look very much like herself at all.

I then checked out what seemed to be the most derided ad, Napster's To Go spot. While I thought the animated commercial was just okay, I can't say the same about the costumed "cat" TV spot. He's just plain creepy. Having said that, I think the subscription plan seems to be an interesting proposition. For 15 clams a month, you get to fill up your compatible music player to capacity, 15 songs or several thousand, doesn't matter. As long as you pay up, you get to listen to your selection.

Several things come to mind though. Let's say I have several artists who have a permanent position in my playlist. In order to enjoy their songs when I want to, I would have to pay a recurring fee-as opposed to me buying the songs or album digitally or on CDs outright. In effect what the subscriber is doing is leasing the Napster library, which is well and good if you have eclectic tastes and would appreciate the variety, but the cost may become less appealing if your tastes are limited to a few favorite bands or a particular genre.

Am I considering subscribing? No, not because I think it's an unsound idea, in fact, I do find it interesting-but because my primary system is my PowerBook and my music player of choice is my iPod, which are not supported by Napster.

I also checked out the Constantine trailer, having read several of the Hellblazer graphic novels before. When I first found out that they cast Keanu Reeves as John Constantine, my first reaction was "Why?" Keanu isn't blond, doesn't have the look of someone who has died and cheated the triumvirate of Hell to come back to life, plus, he's not english. But on second thought, he just might be the perfect choice. He was The One, who could argue with that? He also had a run-in with the Satan himself in "The Devils's Advocate" and encountered the paranormal in "The Gifted."

Anyway, I'm glad to see Rachel Weisz (The Mummy, About a Boy) is in the film, which I think is a smart move, because I will go see Constantine despite my reservations about Keanu if only to watch her play the damsel-in-distress and maybe kick some hell spawn behinds, something which isn't the trailer and isn't hinted at by the way, just something I'd like to see. (I am also reminded of the cover Rachel shot for Esquire which, incidentally, casts her as Eve)

The special effects shots shown in the trailer looked great, and one sequence in particular, when Constantine reached for something as he rose up in the air reminded me of Hieronymous Bosch's iconography.

Hopefully, this adaptation of Hellblazer does justice to the source material. We'll find out soon enough, and you might get to read what I think about the movie, provided I am able to get over my usual trepidation over blogging-as I seem to have been able to today.