Michael Jackson died today. Say what you want his eccentricities (perhaps best said by Roger Ebert here), Michael was a great performer. He was called the King of Pop for a reason - he was the greatest pop singer of a musical era. What frustrates me is that it sounds that this time Michael was gearing up for a real comeback, complete with FIFTY performances in the London area. It would have been great to see what the King of Pop still had at age fifty.
Farrah Fawcett died today. Known forever as "the angel" in Charlie's Angels she inspired beautiful blonde bombshells the world over to try their luck in Hollywood. Its too bad that her storybook romance with Ryan O'Neil will not get the end they intended (O'Neil had said they were finally going to marry).
Thursday, June 25, 2009
The big three
I've been thinking a lot about the NBA what with all the blogging about the upcoming NBA Draft and now this Shaq trade. To touch on the latter first the trade will be great for the NBA what with all of the Shaq v Dwight Howard and Shaq v Kobe talk not to mention the Shaq v Stan Van Gundy and the Shaq v Phil talk.
But what really interests me is Free Agent Summer of 2010 - the one that everyone else is talking about. Everyone keeps jabbering about how teams need to approach the Free Agent Summer of 2010 - acquiring shitty players with expiring contracts to free up cap space for the bidding bonanza that will ensue to capture the likes of LeBron James. But how should PLAYERS approach the Free Agent Summer of 2010?
So the top free agents of 2010 - just to keep things simple we'll talk about the really big guys - LeBron James, Dwayne Wade, and Chris Bosh. Wade has a ring but hasn't tapped the potential bling he could be reaping, and everyone knows King James is ring-less. So considering the millions upon millions these kids have already made, don't you think they'd want a championship a little bit more than the 5-10 million more a year they are going to hold out for? What if these "Big Three" could agree to play for ten million a year each - for the same team? They would clearly make the difference back in the ridiculous endorsement deals they would yield together. Not to mention the shear ridiculousness of forcing teams to play against an All-Star team every night. With the rest of the 30 million or so the team could field some good supporting players - maybe even another star like, I'll just throw Yao Ming out there...the possibilities - financial and athletic would be amazing.
Just something to think about.
But what really interests me is Free Agent Summer of 2010 - the one that everyone else is talking about. Everyone keeps jabbering about how teams need to approach the Free Agent Summer of 2010 - acquiring shitty players with expiring contracts to free up cap space for the bidding bonanza that will ensue to capture the likes of LeBron James. But how should PLAYERS approach the Free Agent Summer of 2010?
So the top free agents of 2010 - just to keep things simple we'll talk about the really big guys - LeBron James, Dwayne Wade, and Chris Bosh. Wade has a ring but hasn't tapped the potential bling he could be reaping, and everyone knows King James is ring-less. So considering the millions upon millions these kids have already made, don't you think they'd want a championship a little bit more than the 5-10 million more a year they are going to hold out for? What if these "Big Three" could agree to play for ten million a year each - for the same team? They would clearly make the difference back in the ridiculous endorsement deals they would yield together. Not to mention the shear ridiculousness of forcing teams to play against an All-Star team every night. With the rest of the 30 million or so the team could field some good supporting players - maybe even another star like, I'll just throw Yao Ming out there...the possibilities - financial and athletic would be amazing.
Just something to think about.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Music Quick Hits 1
Here are some quick thoughts on some of the new albums I listened to yesterday.
Dan Deacon's Spiderman of the Rings - this was a massive disappointment because I expected something akin to Girl Talk's Feed the Animals. What I got instead was some boring electonica-ish mash-ups that did not hold my attention.
Hello Saferide's More Modern Short Stories from Hello Saferide - I had been obsessed with this album's "Anna" for several weeks and I liked some of the other songs so I quickly began to lust after this album. Its good but not great, I like some of the other songs like "Overall."
The Kills' Midnight Boom - I got this because I was reading up on Jack White's new band, The Dead Weather which features The Kills' Allison Mossheart. Reading up on The Kills I read that they were "The British White Stripes." While this album was "ok" it was short and left a lot to be desired - far short of The White Stripes' major label release White Blood Cells.
Eminem's Relapse - It feels good to listen to Eminem. The last time I REALLY listened to Eminem was when The Eminem Show came out. While I'm not sure Relapse will be as good as The Eminem Show, it has Em's fire and spirit that makes it fun to listen to. But it's a hell of a comeback for sure - and the addictive chorus of "We Made You" will always be somewhat entertaining.
Dan Deacon's Spiderman of the Rings - this was a massive disappointment because I expected something akin to Girl Talk's Feed the Animals. What I got instead was some boring electonica-ish mash-ups that did not hold my attention.
Hello Saferide's More Modern Short Stories from Hello Saferide - I had been obsessed with this album's "Anna" for several weeks and I liked some of the other songs so I quickly began to lust after this album. Its good but not great, I like some of the other songs like "Overall."
The Kills' Midnight Boom - I got this because I was reading up on Jack White's new band, The Dead Weather which features The Kills' Allison Mossheart. Reading up on The Kills I read that they were "The British White Stripes." While this album was "ok" it was short and left a lot to be desired - far short of The White Stripes' major label release White Blood Cells.
Eminem's Relapse - It feels good to listen to Eminem. The last time I REALLY listened to Eminem was when The Eminem Show came out. While I'm not sure Relapse will be as good as The Eminem Show, it has Em's fire and spirit that makes it fun to listen to. But it's a hell of a comeback for sure - and the addictive chorus of "We Made You" will always be somewhat entertaining.
Monday, June 15, 2009
The Greatest
No, this article is not about the Cat Power album "The Greatest", although I did listen to that yesterday (and was disappointed at how boring it seemed from when I liked it a year or so ago). Rather, this article is about two of the greatest people to be involved in the NBA. I'll talk about the obvious one first, Phil Jackson.
Jackson just won his tenth championship, passing Celtic legend Red Auerbach's nine. I grew up watching Jackson lead the Bulls to championships and his move to the Lakers made me partially a Lakers fan. To me, he was the most dominant coach of my generation, someone who had no equal - who else had won more championships (in this generation)? I read an article where Red Auerbach's repeated mantra was that Phil Jackson never had to "coach" talent, he just had to coach stars. Before delving into the debate over coaching/teaching vs managing stars I think its important to point out how flawed that statement is.
Yes Phil inherited Michael Jordan, the best player to play the game, but the players around them were almost entirely drafted by that franchise and coached by Phil Jackson. Jackson was an assistant for two years with the Bulls working and teaching players that would win rings for him. In 1987 the Bulls drafted Horace Grant and traded for the other rookie, Scottie Pippen. In 1988 the Bulls drafted Will Perdue and in 1989 the Bulls drafted BJ Armstrong. All of these players were the major factors in the first three championships. And the second three were on the backs of Pippen and Jordan along with Ron Harper and Tony Kukoc (two other players drafted by the Bulls). Rather than inheriting those first six championships, it seems like Phil had to scrape them out amid the Bad Boy Pistons, Larry Bird Lakers, Pat Ewing Knicks, Pat Riley Heat and other powerful Eastern Conference competitors not to mention beating Magic's Lakers, Clyde's Blazers, Barkley's Suns, the Payton/Kemp Sonics and the Malone/Stockton Jazz.
Yes Phil inherited Kobe Bryant, probably the best player to follow MJ, as well as Shaquille O'Neal in his prime when he was dominant, but he acquired a team that hadn't changed much in two years that hadn't had serious playoff success without Phil. The major change to their roster was Ron Harper who was probably influenced by the Lakers' decision to hire his former coach. Then he had to defeat Reggie's Pacers, AI's Sixers and Kidd's Nets. Sure at the end (for one season) Phil got Malone and Payton to join the fold but 1) he was probably one of the reasons they came and 2) they didn't even win that year so his "star power" shouldn't take away from his championship credentials. I'm too lazy to go into the players Phil developed with the Lakers (Odom and Bynum and the entire Lakers' bench).
Now. Let's be real. How many coaches could convince MJ to come back after the way he left (the shock over the death of his father)? How many coaches could control Kobe's ego for three seasons? How many coaches could reconcile their relationship with Kobe after calling him "uncoachable"? Just one, just Phil Jackson. That's all I'm going to say on why coaching stars is no easy feat.
When it comes down to it, look at the math - Phil Jackson has the most rings (with the two he has as a player, he has TWELVE total).
The second person I want to talk about is Michael Jordan. I'm afraid that in this shuffle of Kobe vs LeBron and the never ending SportsCenter love-fest of LeBron highlights that people are starting to lose sight of the greatest player to play the game. That even in this era players pale in comparison is remarkable. Let me throw some numbers at you. 6 NBA Championships, 6 NBA Finals MVP Awards (one for every time he played), 5 NBA MVP Awards, 14 NBA All-Star Nominations, 3 NBA All-Star MVP Awards, 2 NBA Slam-Dunk Championships, 10 NBA First Team Nominations, 9 NBA All-Defensive Team Nominations, and of course, Rookie of the Year (1985). Oh yeah and he has an NCAA Championship too.
How do you judge the best? So many talk about legacies being tied to championships - how Kobe needed Shaq and all that BS. Fine, lets look at the championships. If you look at all the championships and the MVP's as a telling factor for who dominated those series, no one else comes close. MJ has one for EVERY Time he played in the game. Shaq, Duncan and Magic have 3 MVP awards and 4 championships. Their math is close but not clear. Shaq was a body, Duncan an athlete and Magic a phenom but MJ was the greatest. He didn't have the physical advantages of Shaq and Duncan in terms of being imposing physical forces. Nor did he have the shear opportunities Magic had (7 finals appearances, 2 loses, 2 times losing the MVP award). I didn't want to get into this but Magic played with two of the players whose names are up there in discussions for the top ten players of all time. While Scottie Pippen was great and vastly underrated, he was no Kareem. MJ also was far and away the leading scorer in the playoffs of anyone.
The reason I wanted to write this article - beyond proving Phil's teaching prowess was what I believed to be the greatest sports tragedy of our generation. Personally I will forget the steroids blip but I will never forget the championships and the games we lost that MJ could have given us. Three issues to consider, 1) the "retirement" where he played baseball for two seasons, 2) the lockout/Krause force-out, and 3) the Wizard years.
The retirement robbed the Bulls - and MJ of two more championships. MJ was nearing his peak and any losses in free agency" would have been easily absorbed by MJ. Despite returning at half-speed, MJ almost led the Bulls over the Magic in 1995 but the Bulls were too rusty and didn't gell yet. The lockout forced MJ to make a decision he might not of made - retirement. Sure in his book he says that he considered it way back in 1992. But come on, if you're going to come back and play for a team like the Washington Wizards you don't want to retire - you clearly love the game too much. So lets talk about the Wizards. As an aside, what were you thinking MJ? You could have probably played for anyone and you picked a terrible team with little shot of contention for what, to "help" the team you had been GM of? Weak. But at the age of forty MJ was averaging 5 rebounds, 5 assists, 1+ steals, and 20+ points. AVERAGING - he still dropped 40 a game from time to time. This is a forty year old man! If he could do that in 2003, just think what he would have been if played from 1985-2003? Or even just until 2000?
Did I mention his Olympic gold medals?
Jackson just won his tenth championship, passing Celtic legend Red Auerbach's nine. I grew up watching Jackson lead the Bulls to championships and his move to the Lakers made me partially a Lakers fan. To me, he was the most dominant coach of my generation, someone who had no equal - who else had won more championships (in this generation)? I read an article where Red Auerbach's repeated mantra was that Phil Jackson never had to "coach" talent, he just had to coach stars. Before delving into the debate over coaching/teaching vs managing stars I think its important to point out how flawed that statement is.
Yes Phil inherited Michael Jordan, the best player to play the game, but the players around them were almost entirely drafted by that franchise and coached by Phil Jackson. Jackson was an assistant for two years with the Bulls working and teaching players that would win rings for him. In 1987 the Bulls drafted Horace Grant and traded for the other rookie, Scottie Pippen. In 1988 the Bulls drafted Will Perdue and in 1989 the Bulls drafted BJ Armstrong. All of these players were the major factors in the first three championships. And the second three were on the backs of Pippen and Jordan along with Ron Harper and Tony Kukoc (two other players drafted by the Bulls). Rather than inheriting those first six championships, it seems like Phil had to scrape them out amid the Bad Boy Pistons, Larry Bird Lakers, Pat Ewing Knicks, Pat Riley Heat and other powerful Eastern Conference competitors not to mention beating Magic's Lakers, Clyde's Blazers, Barkley's Suns, the Payton/Kemp Sonics and the Malone/Stockton Jazz.
Yes Phil inherited Kobe Bryant, probably the best player to follow MJ, as well as Shaquille O'Neal in his prime when he was dominant, but he acquired a team that hadn't changed much in two years that hadn't had serious playoff success without Phil. The major change to their roster was Ron Harper who was probably influenced by the Lakers' decision to hire his former coach. Then he had to defeat Reggie's Pacers, AI's Sixers and Kidd's Nets. Sure at the end (for one season) Phil got Malone and Payton to join the fold but 1) he was probably one of the reasons they came and 2) they didn't even win that year so his "star power" shouldn't take away from his championship credentials. I'm too lazy to go into the players Phil developed with the Lakers (Odom and Bynum and the entire Lakers' bench).
Now. Let's be real. How many coaches could convince MJ to come back after the way he left (the shock over the death of his father)? How many coaches could control Kobe's ego for three seasons? How many coaches could reconcile their relationship with Kobe after calling him "uncoachable"? Just one, just Phil Jackson. That's all I'm going to say on why coaching stars is no easy feat.
When it comes down to it, look at the math - Phil Jackson has the most rings (with the two he has as a player, he has TWELVE total).
The second person I want to talk about is Michael Jordan. I'm afraid that in this shuffle of Kobe vs LeBron and the never ending SportsCenter love-fest of LeBron highlights that people are starting to lose sight of the greatest player to play the game. That even in this era players pale in comparison is remarkable. Let me throw some numbers at you. 6 NBA Championships, 6 NBA Finals MVP Awards (one for every time he played), 5 NBA MVP Awards, 14 NBA All-Star Nominations, 3 NBA All-Star MVP Awards, 2 NBA Slam-Dunk Championships, 10 NBA First Team Nominations, 9 NBA All-Defensive Team Nominations, and of course, Rookie of the Year (1985). Oh yeah and he has an NCAA Championship too.
How do you judge the best? So many talk about legacies being tied to championships - how Kobe needed Shaq and all that BS. Fine, lets look at the championships. If you look at all the championships and the MVP's as a telling factor for who dominated those series, no one else comes close. MJ has one for EVERY Time he played in the game. Shaq, Duncan and Magic have 3 MVP awards and 4 championships. Their math is close but not clear. Shaq was a body, Duncan an athlete and Magic a phenom but MJ was the greatest. He didn't have the physical advantages of Shaq and Duncan in terms of being imposing physical forces. Nor did he have the shear opportunities Magic had (7 finals appearances, 2 loses, 2 times losing the MVP award). I didn't want to get into this but Magic played with two of the players whose names are up there in discussions for the top ten players of all time. While Scottie Pippen was great and vastly underrated, he was no Kareem. MJ also was far and away the leading scorer in the playoffs of anyone.
The reason I wanted to write this article - beyond proving Phil's teaching prowess was what I believed to be the greatest sports tragedy of our generation. Personally I will forget the steroids blip but I will never forget the championships and the games we lost that MJ could have given us. Three issues to consider, 1) the "retirement" where he played baseball for two seasons, 2) the lockout/Krause force-out, and 3) the Wizard years.
The retirement robbed the Bulls - and MJ of two more championships. MJ was nearing his peak and any losses in free agency" would have been easily absorbed by MJ. Despite returning at half-speed, MJ almost led the Bulls over the Magic in 1995 but the Bulls were too rusty and didn't gell yet. The lockout forced MJ to make a decision he might not of made - retirement. Sure in his book he says that he considered it way back in 1992. But come on, if you're going to come back and play for a team like the Washington Wizards you don't want to retire - you clearly love the game too much. So lets talk about the Wizards. As an aside, what were you thinking MJ? You could have probably played for anyone and you picked a terrible team with little shot of contention for what, to "help" the team you had been GM of? Weak. But at the age of forty MJ was averaging 5 rebounds, 5 assists, 1+ steals, and 20+ points. AVERAGING - he still dropped 40 a game from time to time. This is a forty year old man! If he could do that in 2003, just think what he would have been if played from 1985-2003? Or even just until 2000?
Did I mention his Olympic gold medals?
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Referees please!
I usually write off the refs as being pretty good or when they are bad as not being very bad - to the effect that I never thought refs would ALTER the course of a game/series. However, this year that opinion has changed drastically.
In the Bulls-Celtics series I was disgusted by all of what Rajon Rondo got away with. He went from an aggressive, physical player in the first game or two to being a violent player. Rondo split open Kirk Hinrich's eyebrow, knocked out some of Brad Miller's teeth and picked up where he left off with Hinrich by throwing him into the scorer's table. His foul on Miller came at a critical point of the game where Miller had to make free throws for the Bulls to stay in the game. Knocking Miller to the floor on a fast break that also knocked out his teeth did not even draw a flagrant foul (although replays showed Rondo hardly attempting to swat the ball). Furthermore Rondo's Hinrich/scorer's table incident further puzzled me. Replays showed Rondo blatantly dragging Hinrich backwards and then throwing him into the scorer's table - an incident that two years earlier resulted in a TWO GAME suspension for Robert Horry. Remember that this foul came after refs were supposedly going to watch Rondo with a closer eye after he bloodied two Bulls' starters. Why the different treatment? Why is the NBA inconsistent? Why are there different repercussions for different players? I'm not sure there is an answer. But Rondo should have a) fouled out of a game b) been suspended. So this series frustrated me by MISSING CALLS.
In the Lakers-Rockers series as well as the Lakers-Nuggets series the refs are nothing short of trigger happy - calling anything and everything a foul and being generous in heaping on technical fouls. Again, why the inconsistency? In particular it seems that in the Lakers-Nuggets series the refs have returned to being generous in what they allow as "defense" by the Nuggets (do not get me wrong, they play great defense but enough is enough) while being very harsh on the Lakers' stars when the Lakers try to play defense. It seems like if a Laker touches Chauncy Billups the ref is there to call a foul but if Kobe has a defender smacking him on the head and tripping him, he has to look up from the court as Denver moves the ball back down the court. And then Kobe asks a little to aggressively about the previous call and gets a technical. Hmmm. So this series frustrated me by MAKING CALLS.
In the Bulls-Celtics series I was disgusted by all of what Rajon Rondo got away with. He went from an aggressive, physical player in the first game or two to being a violent player. Rondo split open Kirk Hinrich's eyebrow, knocked out some of Brad Miller's teeth and picked up where he left off with Hinrich by throwing him into the scorer's table. His foul on Miller came at a critical point of the game where Miller had to make free throws for the Bulls to stay in the game. Knocking Miller to the floor on a fast break that also knocked out his teeth did not even draw a flagrant foul (although replays showed Rondo hardly attempting to swat the ball). Furthermore Rondo's Hinrich/scorer's table incident further puzzled me. Replays showed Rondo blatantly dragging Hinrich backwards and then throwing him into the scorer's table - an incident that two years earlier resulted in a TWO GAME suspension for Robert Horry. Remember that this foul came after refs were supposedly going to watch Rondo with a closer eye after he bloodied two Bulls' starters. Why the different treatment? Why is the NBA inconsistent? Why are there different repercussions for different players? I'm not sure there is an answer. But Rondo should have a) fouled out of a game b) been suspended. So this series frustrated me by MISSING CALLS.
In the Lakers-Rockers series as well as the Lakers-Nuggets series the refs are nothing short of trigger happy - calling anything and everything a foul and being generous in heaping on technical fouls. Again, why the inconsistency? In particular it seems that in the Lakers-Nuggets series the refs have returned to being generous in what they allow as "defense" by the Nuggets (do not get me wrong, they play great defense but enough is enough) while being very harsh on the Lakers' stars when the Lakers try to play defense. It seems like if a Laker touches Chauncy Billups the ref is there to call a foul but if Kobe has a defender smacking him on the head and tripping him, he has to look up from the court as Denver moves the ball back down the court. And then Kobe asks a little to aggressively about the previous call and gets a technical. Hmmm. So this series frustrated me by MAKING CALLS.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Historical "fiction"
I love reading historical fiction. Lately I've been obsessed with Sharan Newman's Catherine LeVendeur series and C.J. Sansom's Matthew Shardlake series. I love the books a hell of a lot - they're drastically different beyond both being historical mysteries but I strongly recommend both series. Anyways, I love reading historical fiction because I love history and also because, if I had the discipline and focus to write a book, I'd want to write historical fiction. In both of these series the main fictional characters interact heavily with real historical figures. This led me to the issue of, how important is it to rely heavily on historical characters? Or for that matter, historical accuracy? Like, it's one thing to build your book around popular (of that historical period) controversies swirling around a major historical figure, but how strictly do you stick to the facts? Will your readers be happy if you invent a character to be Abelard's protege or Cromwell's steward? I kept turning this question over when I was thinking about how to build a story around characters - are you hindered by history? Or can you embrace the time but not all the minute details (does it matter if Cromwell's steward is not the same character you create in your book?) I guess I don't really have an answer but I feel like I would lean heavily for "creative application of history" as I call it - being faithful to the times yet not constrained by fact. Cromwell's steward could be whomever you want as long as the steward is not a pregnant African lesbian who believes in Kaballah. Not that there is anything wrong with any of those things, there just weren't many of either of them in England five hundred or so years ago.
F**K Madoff
So I was reading up on Elie Wiesel today because I was trying to remember which book he wrote that deals with the pre-Israel Zionist terrorist group that executes a British soldier (it was Dawn). Elie Wiesel is famous for Night, his autobiography about the Holocaust, of which he was an Auschwitz survivor. Wiesel is pretty much "the guy" when it comes to Holocaust awareness and he has done so much. He even has one of the most successful charity organizations for running Holocaust education events.
But you know what's coming based on the article title...the organization lost all of it's money in the Madoff scandal. Oh and Elie Wiesel lost all of his personal wealth too. Wow. Kind of ridiculous.
But you know what's coming based on the article title...the organization lost all of it's money in the Madoff scandal. Oh and Elie Wiesel lost all of his personal wealth too. Wow. Kind of ridiculous.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Random funness
Back in the day when writing my column, The Buzz, was my favorite thing to do for my old e-zine, SaltyStix, I stockpiled a lot of interesting articles about movies for my "around the internet" section, or whatever I called it. I might even have written about a few of these, but that was so long ago, so, cleaning out the bookmarks.
* 25 Most Influential Directors of all Time - This was interesting albeit pretty predictable. But it's great if your Netflix queue is empty and you've forgotten about the classics for awhile.
* Best and Worst Musicians in Movies - This is kind of amusing in a pretty way but once again, is pretty predictable.
* New York Times Romantic Comedy Analysis - Surprising that the New York Times found page space to talk about rom-coms but this was going to be the locus for an article about rom-coms, breaking down their formulaic structure, etc.
* Top 20 Rom-Coms - This is another page I found doing some research for that article - the other links turned out to suck.
* 25 Most Watched Movies - This list is pretty close to mine which is why I liked it so much. Obviously it's heavy on recent movies.
* Worst Movie Remakes of All Time - This is worth some good laughs and might also help you fill your Netflix queue if you want to compare some of the originals vs their remakes.
* Criticizing the AFI - I've never been a fan of the AFI (I think Citizen Kane is overrated) and anytime someone has a laugh at their expense I laugh with them.
* Linsey Lohan's Marilyn Phase- Before Lindsay was into Samantha she was into Marilyn and these pictures aren't half bad.
* Comics Old School/New School - This came out amid the summer comic onslaught and provides a great fanboys perspective that gets lost amid the Hollywood.
* 20 Tips for Starting Your Own Movie Blog - Maybe if I would have followed this SaltyStix would be alive and kicking, but instead, here I am.
* Forbes Writes about the best Movie Blogs - This is pretty unfulfilling but there are brief snippets on Forbes' take on other themed blogs (beyond just movies).
* Become Indy! - I was Indiana Jones for last Halloween, and a damn good one. But if you want to take your costume to the next level, this site is a must.
* Best Graphic Novels of all Time - There are some interesting choices on here - especially ones that stray to the non-superhero variety. I still want to get my hands on Ghost World.
* Read Twilight for Free - This craze left people without books or with empty pocketbooks. This website provided a solution to both.
* Top 20 Rappers of All Time - I started listening to a lot of rap and this page provided a brief overview that helped me get my bearings.
* 25 Movies about Foreign Affairs/Diplomacy - This is a fun article if you think you are educated on foreign affairs and diplomacy and also like movies (like me of course).
* 25 Most Influential Directors of all Time - This was interesting albeit pretty predictable. But it's great if your Netflix queue is empty and you've forgotten about the classics for awhile.
* Best and Worst Musicians in Movies - This is kind of amusing in a pretty way but once again, is pretty predictable.
* New York Times Romantic Comedy Analysis - Surprising that the New York Times found page space to talk about rom-coms but this was going to be the locus for an article about rom-coms, breaking down their formulaic structure, etc.
* Top 20 Rom-Coms - This is another page I found doing some research for that article - the other links turned out to suck.
* 25 Most Watched Movies - This list is pretty close to mine which is why I liked it so much. Obviously it's heavy on recent movies.
* Worst Movie Remakes of All Time - This is worth some good laughs and might also help you fill your Netflix queue if you want to compare some of the originals vs their remakes.
* Criticizing the AFI - I've never been a fan of the AFI (I think Citizen Kane is overrated) and anytime someone has a laugh at their expense I laugh with them.
* Linsey Lohan's Marilyn Phase- Before Lindsay was into Samantha she was into Marilyn and these pictures aren't half bad.
* Comics Old School/New School - This came out amid the summer comic onslaught and provides a great fanboys perspective that gets lost amid the Hollywood.
* 20 Tips for Starting Your Own Movie Blog - Maybe if I would have followed this SaltyStix would be alive and kicking, but instead, here I am.
* Forbes Writes about the best Movie Blogs - This is pretty unfulfilling but there are brief snippets on Forbes' take on other themed blogs (beyond just movies).
* Become Indy! - I was Indiana Jones for last Halloween, and a damn good one. But if you want to take your costume to the next level, this site is a must.
* Best Graphic Novels of all Time - There are some interesting choices on here - especially ones that stray to the non-superhero variety. I still want to get my hands on Ghost World.
* Read Twilight for Free - This craze left people without books or with empty pocketbooks. This website provided a solution to both.
* Top 20 Rappers of All Time - I started listening to a lot of rap and this page provided a brief overview that helped me get my bearings.
* 25 Movies about Foreign Affairs/Diplomacy - This is a fun article if you think you are educated on foreign affairs and diplomacy and also like movies (like me of course).
Monday, May 11, 2009
MTV Madness
I have never been a fan of MTV or award shows really, so it should be no surprise that the combination of the two – MTV award shows would not be something I was a fan of. For some reason in particular, this year’s MTV Movie Award nominees have particularly angered me. One thing that stands out is Twilight’s SEVEN awards, sure the movie made a shitload of money and has a fanatic teen following, but the movie was a disappointment across the board – acting, writing, action and here it sits, but lets look at all the categories.
Best Movie
The Dark Knight
High School Musical 3: Senior Year
Iron Man
Slumdog Millionaire
Twilight
Three of these movies are really good, one is a disappointment, but one is a travesty. You realize they put The Dark Knight and High School Musical 3 in the same category, as near equals? I’m not going to say anymore. MY PICK: Slumdog Millionaire. WHO WILL WIN: The Dark Knight.
Best Male Performance
Christian Bale (The Dark Knight)
Vin Diesel (Fast & Furious)
Robert Downey Jr. (Iron Man)
Zac Efron (High School Musical 3: Senior Year)
Shia LaBeouf (Eagle Eye)
Bale and Downey were amazing (of course) but the rest of these hacks are definitely outclassed. Vin Diesel is struggling to get back into character, Efron is struggling to get out of character, and Shia LaBeouf doesn’t even have a character. As a point of clarification I meant that Eagle Eye sucked – A LOT. MY PICK: Robert Downey Jr. WHO WILL WIN: Christian Bale.
Best Female Performance
Anne Hathaway (Bride Wars)
Taraji P. Henson (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button)
Angelina Jolie (Wanted)
Kristen Stewart (Twilight)
Kate Winslet (The Reader)
The selection of these nominees is even more confusing than their male counterparts. Hathaway’s nod here is more of a slap in the face considering her performance in Rachel Getting Married while Henson’s performance was okay but seems well short of the “Best Performance” level. Jolie’s nomination reminds me of LaBeouf’s nom in Eagle Eye – both Wanted and Eagle Eye sucked – and did not have any performances that were even “adequate.” Winselt’s performance doesn’t need much comment here – she was great. Kristen Stewart was the one bright spot in a disappointing movie – but was it the best performance of the year? Was she better than Winslet? MY PICK: Kate Winslet. WHO WILL WIN: Kristen Stewart.
Breakthrough Performance – Male
Ben Barnes (The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian)
Taylor Lautner (Twilight)
Dev Patel (Slumdog Millionaire)
Robert Pattinson (Twilight)
Bobb’e J. Thompson (Role Models)
This category is “better” only in the sense that there are two noms I like – Dev Patel, who did a great job and truly “broke out,” and Bobb’e J. Thompson, whose role in Role Models was not only hysterical but also probably opened a lot of doors for him. Two noms for Twilight is a little disappointing – I had to look up who Taylor Lautner’s character was (Jacob) and then scratch my head about his screen time. MY PICK: Dev Patel. WHO WILL WIN: Robert Pattinson.
Breakthrough Performance – Female
Miley Cyrus (Hannah Montana: The Movie)
Kat Dennings (Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playllist)
Vanessa Hudgens (High School Musical 3: Senior Year)
Freida Pinto (Slumdog Millionaire)
Amanda Seyfried (Mamma Mia!)
Ashley Tisdale (High School Musical 3: Senior Year)
I think this category has the most competition. The High School Musical 3 noms confuse me because it would seem like the third time around these Disney-made actors do not have much “breaking out to do.” If you’re in the public consciousness enough to have sex tapes and racy photos, you probably don’t need “breakout performances.” Same goes for Miley Cyrus considering she has a show that already helped her “breajout”. That aside, I love the other nominees – I’ve been a big fan of Kat Dennings since Charlie Bartlett (so much so that I forgave her for The House Bunny). Frieda Pinto is obviously gorgeous and did a great job and Amanda Seyfried really did break out – showing she had talent beyond her Mean Girls-glazed eyes looked. MY PICK: Kat Dennings. WHO WILL WIN: Miley Cyrus.
Best Comedic Performance
Steve Carrell (Get Smart)
Jim Carrey (Yes Man)
Anna Faris (The House Bunny)
James Franco (Pineapple Express)
Amy Poehler (Baby Mama)
I think all of these actors are generally funny and generally pretty good actors but their performances came in movies that ranged from laughless (The House Bunny) to downright painful (Baby Mama). While Pineapple Express was entertaining, it was not all that funny. There was one that stood above the rest – Steve Carrell in Get Smart – a movie that exceeded expectations across the board. MY PICK: Steve Carrell. WHO WILL WIN: James Franco.
Best Villain
Luke Goss (Hellboy II: The Golden Army)
Dwayne Johnson (Get Smart)
Heath Ledger (The Dark Knight)
Derek Mears (Friday the 13th)
Johnathon Schaech (Prom Night)
I don’t know a hell of a lot about most of these flicks because I never really had extra cash I wanted to burn by seeing Friday the 13th and Prom Night but I don’t think this matters because I would be shocked if Ledger lost. MY PICK: Heath Ledger. WHO WILL WIN: Heath Ledger.
Best Fight
Bride Wars
The Dark Knight
Hellboy II: The Golden Army
Pineapple Express
Twilight
This category gives me the most problem because I have very little idea what people are going for here. If you like cat fights it’s kind of tough to beat Bride Wars but if you want true action scenes The Dark Knight and Hellboy II are going to stand above the rest. Pineapple Express’ scene was pretty funny and pretty good in a general sense, but not a hell of a lot that really stays with you. Twilight on the other hand showed that if the scene sucked in the book, it will suck even more in the movie. MY PICK: The Dark Knight. WHO WILL WIN: Twilight, maybe?
Best Kiss
High School Musical 3: Senior Year (Zac Efron/Vanessa Hudgens)
I Love You, Man (Paul Rudd/Thomas Lennon)
Milk (Sean Penn/James Franco)
Slumdog Millionaire (Dev Patel/Freida Pinto)
Twilight (Kristen Stewart/Robert Pattinson)
Milk stands out for it’s political statement, which gives it a slight edge over some teenie favorites like HSM3 and Twilight. Frankly the Twilight kiss wasn’t much to write home about – much like the rest. Slumdog Millionaire’s kiss was something special – it sent shivers down my spine and was the perfect climax to a great movie. MY PICK: Slumdog Millionaire (Dev Patel/Freida Pinto). WHO WILL WIN: Milk (Sean Penn/James Franco).
Best WTF Moment
Baby Mama (Peeing in the Sink)
Forgetting Sarah Marshall (Naked Break-up)
Slumdog Millionaire (Jumping in the Poop Shed)
Tropic Thunder (Tasting the Decapitated Head)
Wanted (Curved Bullet Kill)
While this category seems the least “legit” to me it also seems the closest category. Peeing in the sink might be the best part of Baby Mama, the naked break-up defines FSM just as the curved bullet defines Wanted, the poop shed sets the course for Slumdog and the decapitated head makes you realize just how far over the line Tropic Thunder has gone. MY PICK: Forgetting Sarah Marshall (Naked Break-up). WHO WILL WIN: Baby Mama (Peeing in the Sink).
Best Song From a Movie
Hannah Montana: The Movie (Miley Cyrus’ The Climb)
Slumdog Millionaire (A.R. Rahman’s Jai Ho)
Twilight (Paramore’s Decode)
The Wrestler (Bruce Springsteen’s The Wrestler)
These choices cross lots of genres and lots of generations. I loved all of Slumdog’s music but Jai Ho was not the song that spoke to me, kind of like how I like Paramore a lot of times but not Decode. I don’t really want to talk about Miley but Springsteen’s The Wrestler blew me away. I don’t usually like the Boss, but this song was so perfect for the film. MY PICK: The Wrestler. WHO WILL WIN: The Climb.
To sum up: Twilight is overrated, each of the categories have one legit nominee, and the lesser qualified person will probably win.
Best Movie
The Dark Knight
High School Musical 3: Senior Year
Iron Man
Slumdog Millionaire
Twilight
Three of these movies are really good, one is a disappointment, but one is a travesty. You realize they put The Dark Knight and High School Musical 3 in the same category, as near equals? I’m not going to say anymore. MY PICK: Slumdog Millionaire. WHO WILL WIN: The Dark Knight.
Best Male Performance
Christian Bale (The Dark Knight)
Vin Diesel (Fast & Furious)
Robert Downey Jr. (Iron Man)
Zac Efron (High School Musical 3: Senior Year)
Shia LaBeouf (Eagle Eye)
Bale and Downey were amazing (of course) but the rest of these hacks are definitely outclassed. Vin Diesel is struggling to get back into character, Efron is struggling to get out of character, and Shia LaBeouf doesn’t even have a character. As a point of clarification I meant that Eagle Eye sucked – A LOT. MY PICK: Robert Downey Jr. WHO WILL WIN: Christian Bale.
Best Female Performance
Anne Hathaway (Bride Wars)
Taraji P. Henson (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button)
Angelina Jolie (Wanted)
Kristen Stewart (Twilight)
Kate Winslet (The Reader)
The selection of these nominees is even more confusing than their male counterparts. Hathaway’s nod here is more of a slap in the face considering her performance in Rachel Getting Married while Henson’s performance was okay but seems well short of the “Best Performance” level. Jolie’s nomination reminds me of LaBeouf’s nom in Eagle Eye – both Wanted and Eagle Eye sucked – and did not have any performances that were even “adequate.” Winselt’s performance doesn’t need much comment here – she was great. Kristen Stewart was the one bright spot in a disappointing movie – but was it the best performance of the year? Was she better than Winslet? MY PICK: Kate Winslet. WHO WILL WIN: Kristen Stewart.
Breakthrough Performance – Male
Ben Barnes (The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian)
Taylor Lautner (Twilight)
Dev Patel (Slumdog Millionaire)
Robert Pattinson (Twilight)
Bobb’e J. Thompson (Role Models)
This category is “better” only in the sense that there are two noms I like – Dev Patel, who did a great job and truly “broke out,” and Bobb’e J. Thompson, whose role in Role Models was not only hysterical but also probably opened a lot of doors for him. Two noms for Twilight is a little disappointing – I had to look up who Taylor Lautner’s character was (Jacob) and then scratch my head about his screen time. MY PICK: Dev Patel. WHO WILL WIN: Robert Pattinson.
Breakthrough Performance – Female
Miley Cyrus (Hannah Montana: The Movie)
Kat Dennings (Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playllist)
Vanessa Hudgens (High School Musical 3: Senior Year)
Freida Pinto (Slumdog Millionaire)
Amanda Seyfried (Mamma Mia!)
Ashley Tisdale (High School Musical 3: Senior Year)
I think this category has the most competition. The High School Musical 3 noms confuse me because it would seem like the third time around these Disney-made actors do not have much “breaking out to do.” If you’re in the public consciousness enough to have sex tapes and racy photos, you probably don’t need “breakout performances.” Same goes for Miley Cyrus considering she has a show that already helped her “breajout”. That aside, I love the other nominees – I’ve been a big fan of Kat Dennings since Charlie Bartlett (so much so that I forgave her for The House Bunny). Frieda Pinto is obviously gorgeous and did a great job and Amanda Seyfried really did break out – showing she had talent beyond her Mean Girls-glazed eyes looked. MY PICK: Kat Dennings. WHO WILL WIN: Miley Cyrus.
Best Comedic Performance
Steve Carrell (Get Smart)
Jim Carrey (Yes Man)
Anna Faris (The House Bunny)
James Franco (Pineapple Express)
Amy Poehler (Baby Mama)
I think all of these actors are generally funny and generally pretty good actors but their performances came in movies that ranged from laughless (The House Bunny) to downright painful (Baby Mama). While Pineapple Express was entertaining, it was not all that funny. There was one that stood above the rest – Steve Carrell in Get Smart – a movie that exceeded expectations across the board. MY PICK: Steve Carrell. WHO WILL WIN: James Franco.
Best Villain
Luke Goss (Hellboy II: The Golden Army)
Dwayne Johnson (Get Smart)
Heath Ledger (The Dark Knight)
Derek Mears (Friday the 13th)
Johnathon Schaech (Prom Night)
I don’t know a hell of a lot about most of these flicks because I never really had extra cash I wanted to burn by seeing Friday the 13th and Prom Night but I don’t think this matters because I would be shocked if Ledger lost. MY PICK: Heath Ledger. WHO WILL WIN: Heath Ledger.
Best Fight
Bride Wars
The Dark Knight
Hellboy II: The Golden Army
Pineapple Express
Twilight
This category gives me the most problem because I have very little idea what people are going for here. If you like cat fights it’s kind of tough to beat Bride Wars but if you want true action scenes The Dark Knight and Hellboy II are going to stand above the rest. Pineapple Express’ scene was pretty funny and pretty good in a general sense, but not a hell of a lot that really stays with you. Twilight on the other hand showed that if the scene sucked in the book, it will suck even more in the movie. MY PICK: The Dark Knight. WHO WILL WIN: Twilight, maybe?
Best Kiss
High School Musical 3: Senior Year (Zac Efron/Vanessa Hudgens)
I Love You, Man (Paul Rudd/Thomas Lennon)
Milk (Sean Penn/James Franco)
Slumdog Millionaire (Dev Patel/Freida Pinto)
Twilight (Kristen Stewart/Robert Pattinson)
Milk stands out for it’s political statement, which gives it a slight edge over some teenie favorites like HSM3 and Twilight. Frankly the Twilight kiss wasn’t much to write home about – much like the rest. Slumdog Millionaire’s kiss was something special – it sent shivers down my spine and was the perfect climax to a great movie. MY PICK: Slumdog Millionaire (Dev Patel/Freida Pinto). WHO WILL WIN: Milk (Sean Penn/James Franco).
Best WTF Moment
Baby Mama (Peeing in the Sink)
Forgetting Sarah Marshall (Naked Break-up)
Slumdog Millionaire (Jumping in the Poop Shed)
Tropic Thunder (Tasting the Decapitated Head)
Wanted (Curved Bullet Kill)
While this category seems the least “legit” to me it also seems the closest category. Peeing in the sink might be the best part of Baby Mama, the naked break-up defines FSM just as the curved bullet defines Wanted, the poop shed sets the course for Slumdog and the decapitated head makes you realize just how far over the line Tropic Thunder has gone. MY PICK: Forgetting Sarah Marshall (Naked Break-up). WHO WILL WIN: Baby Mama (Peeing in the Sink).
Best Song From a Movie
Hannah Montana: The Movie (Miley Cyrus’ The Climb)
Slumdog Millionaire (A.R. Rahman’s Jai Ho)
Twilight (Paramore’s Decode)
The Wrestler (Bruce Springsteen’s The Wrestler)
These choices cross lots of genres and lots of generations. I loved all of Slumdog’s music but Jai Ho was not the song that spoke to me, kind of like how I like Paramore a lot of times but not Decode. I don’t really want to talk about Miley but Springsteen’s The Wrestler blew me away. I don’t usually like the Boss, but this song was so perfect for the film. MY PICK: The Wrestler. WHO WILL WIN: The Climb.
To sum up: Twilight is overrated, each of the categories have one legit nominee, and the lesser qualified person will probably win.
I'm so over blogging
...but here I am.
For so long I thought that maybe my blogging would become something - whether it was here or at Salty Stix but then when the cold hard truth set in I got extremely disenfranchised. I didn't think there was a point anymore. But then I realized that I had to write something, somewhere. To me writing is like cooking (well, everyone has one, cooking is mine) in that writing also relaxes me, it helps me focus my mind, and so, here I am.
For so long I thought that maybe my blogging would become something - whether it was here or at Salty Stix but then when the cold hard truth set in I got extremely disenfranchised. I didn't think there was a point anymore. But then I realized that I had to write something, somewhere. To me writing is like cooking (well, everyone has one, cooking is mine) in that writing also relaxes me, it helps me focus my mind, and so, here I am.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Disney Devils?
After watching the movie Mickey Mouse Monopoly and reading THIS, I got very interested in reading about Disney's not so subtle racism/sexism.
If you want to watch Mickey Mouse Monopoly, I attached the youtube links below.
MICKEY MOUSE MONOPOLY, PART 1
MICKEY MOUSE MONOPOLY, PART 2
MICKEY MOUSE MONOPOLY, PART 3
MICKEY MOUSE MONOPOLY, PART 4
MICKEY MOUSE MONOPOLY, PART 5
Saturday, January 3, 2009
2008 Favorites: Books
I returned to reading again in 2008 for various reasons beginning with a need for books for my travels through Europe when I read Next, unfortunately the last Creichton book I will ever read as the author who blurred nonfiction and fiction to create an altogether unique experience passed away.
I also started reading comic books, or graphic novels, for the first time in my life. My closest friends joined me, as we shared novels we had bought and I soon started gobbling up all the library could offer in this regard as well. I quickly graduated from "comic" graphic novels featuring superheroes to graphic novels that depicted stories without heroes.
Then again the last couple of months of 2008 my voracious appetite for reading returned in force. Perhaps it was because I felt isolated living at home away from my friends, but either way, I started reading a lot. So much so that I even started reading the books my students were reading - from Brave New World to Twilight. The Twilight books were so interesting on so many levels - on one I found the books online, for free, and also because I too became quickly addicted to Stephanie Meyer's stories. Looking back I realized the deep flaws in Meyer's characters and concepts but still had to respect her ability to rope in teenage girls with ease.
That being said this list will seem quite eclectic as it jumps all over the place, featuring graphic novels, historical fiction, and "classic literature".
5. Persepolis: The Story of a Childhood by Marjane Satrapi
I had a lot of fun reading Marjane Satrapi's books. I read this book in a day and devoured Persepolis II (Persepolis: The Story of a Return) the next. The story is so much fun, full of a resounding humor that pierces the seriousness of Satrapi's look at history, religion, and family. The drawings complement the story just as well, sticking with you for quite some time. For me, it took me a while to get the story - and the images - out of my head. And to me, that is the mark of a great book.
4. World Without End by Ken Follett
Pillars of the Earth is my favorite book of all time. The story roped me in being as I was, susceptible to historical fiction, an intriguing story, and relishing the concept of becoming lost in a world that spanned over 1000 pages. So it is no surprise that Follett's sequel to my favorite book would be something that interested me. I loved the book - and really do need to give it another read - but it was a tad disappointing - following Follett's Pillars of the Earth formula way way too closely. Characters were slight variations of Pillars characters, plotlines developed along identical lines...you get the point. But still very good.
3. Watchmen by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons
The hype surrounding this book from my friends, as well as the movie promotion, made me skeptical of the quality and power my friends would not stop talking about. But then I read Moore's book and it knocked my socks off - I read the book in a handful of days, unable to put it down. This examination of superheroes and of people in general is particularly striking, making Watchmen so much more than a comic book or even a graphic novel. Each character seemed to be so vivid, so different, so much more than the average novel character. I considered putting Loeb and Sale's The Long Halloween in this superhero/graphic novel slot but the Watchmen were too much for Batman to handle.
2. The Road by Cormac McCarthy
I needed a book to read for my month in Europe so I went to the used book store and bought a couple and I took some of my favorites that I wanted to read again. It wasn't until I got to Italy (three weeks later) that I finally cracked The Road and read it in a day or two. It was another book that simply mesmerized me, as All the Pretty Horses had the year before. I could not put it down as I frantically turned page after page, dieing to know what happened to our two protagonists walking the desolated world that remained. The book, like many of McCarthy's other novels seemed to be a perfect blueprint for a movie and I soon found out that a movie was already in the works, with Viggo Mortensen to star. Viggo is the perfect choice and I look forward to seeing the movie of the book that blew me away.
1. Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
I set out to read the classics I never read in school, and so I read a good deal of Steinbeck novels. This one rose above the rest to become my favorite book of the year. There is something about simplicity that is so appealing, so difficult to vanquish. Here the story of two men, their friendship and their struggles seemed so powerful. I don't really know what else to say besides to urge you to read this book if you have not already, for it will stay with you forever.
I also started reading comic books, or graphic novels, for the first time in my life. My closest friends joined me, as we shared novels we had bought and I soon started gobbling up all the library could offer in this regard as well. I quickly graduated from "comic" graphic novels featuring superheroes to graphic novels that depicted stories without heroes.
Then again the last couple of months of 2008 my voracious appetite for reading returned in force. Perhaps it was because I felt isolated living at home away from my friends, but either way, I started reading a lot. So much so that I even started reading the books my students were reading - from Brave New World to Twilight. The Twilight books were so interesting on so many levels - on one I found the books online, for free, and also because I too became quickly addicted to Stephanie Meyer's stories. Looking back I realized the deep flaws in Meyer's characters and concepts but still had to respect her ability to rope in teenage girls with ease.
That being said this list will seem quite eclectic as it jumps all over the place, featuring graphic novels, historical fiction, and "classic literature".
5. Persepolis: The Story of a Childhood by Marjane Satrapi
I had a lot of fun reading Marjane Satrapi's books. I read this book in a day and devoured Persepolis II (Persepolis: The Story of a Return) the next. The story is so much fun, full of a resounding humor that pierces the seriousness of Satrapi's look at history, religion, and family. The drawings complement the story just as well, sticking with you for quite some time. For me, it took me a while to get the story - and the images - out of my head. And to me, that is the mark of a great book.
4. World Without End by Ken Follett
Pillars of the Earth is my favorite book of all time. The story roped me in being as I was, susceptible to historical fiction, an intriguing story, and relishing the concept of becoming lost in a world that spanned over 1000 pages. So it is no surprise that Follett's sequel to my favorite book would be something that interested me. I loved the book - and really do need to give it another read - but it was a tad disappointing - following Follett's Pillars of the Earth formula way way too closely. Characters were slight variations of Pillars characters, plotlines developed along identical lines...you get the point. But still very good.
3. Watchmen by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons
The hype surrounding this book from my friends, as well as the movie promotion, made me skeptical of the quality and power my friends would not stop talking about. But then I read Moore's book and it knocked my socks off - I read the book in a handful of days, unable to put it down. This examination of superheroes and of people in general is particularly striking, making Watchmen so much more than a comic book or even a graphic novel. Each character seemed to be so vivid, so different, so much more than the average novel character. I considered putting Loeb and Sale's The Long Halloween in this superhero/graphic novel slot but the Watchmen were too much for Batman to handle. 2. The Road by Cormac McCarthy
I needed a book to read for my month in Europe so I went to the used book store and bought a couple and I took some of my favorites that I wanted to read again. It wasn't until I got to Italy (three weeks later) that I finally cracked The Road and read it in a day or two. It was another book that simply mesmerized me, as All the Pretty Horses had the year before. I could not put it down as I frantically turned page after page, dieing to know what happened to our two protagonists walking the desolated world that remained. The book, like many of McCarthy's other novels seemed to be a perfect blueprint for a movie and I soon found out that a movie was already in the works, with Viggo Mortensen to star. Viggo is the perfect choice and I look forward to seeing the movie of the book that blew me away.
1. Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
I set out to read the classics I never read in school, and so I read a good deal of Steinbeck novels. This one rose above the rest to become my favorite book of the year. There is something about simplicity that is so appealing, so difficult to vanquish. Here the story of two men, their friendship and their struggles seemed so powerful. I don't really know what else to say besides to urge you to read this book if you have not already, for it will stay with you forever.
2008 Favorites Introduction
Last year I thought I was so clever with my rant on why these lists should be called favorites instead of best ofs. This year, everywhere I look it seems like every blog and their brother are spouting similar thoughts on “favorites” over “best ofs.” Basically I’m saying I’m a genius who was way ahead of the curve.
2008 was a weird year for me. It began weird and ended in a way I never would have believed. Here on pulpeverything there were just 16 posts in all of 2008 – less than the entire month of July 2007. Hell, I couldn’t even get it together to post ANY of these lists until early January, but it is what it is.
I got caught up in the burst of my other blog, SaltyStix, which became more and more of the webzine I wanted it to be – only to die abruptly towards the end of 2008. I left my apartment and my independence to return home while I was a student teacher. Beyond consuming loads of my time this also reduced my daily music consumption from four albums or so a day to less than half and my daily movie consumption from about one a day to about one a week. While media consumption decreased I found my appetite for reading return, allowing me to post my favorite reads of 2008!
Again, for all of the lists I will post – books, songs, albums, movies, and dvds – I use a sliding scale where each is relatively better than the one before – to me of course, since this is all about opinion.
2008 was a weird year for me. It began weird and ended in a way I never would have believed. Here on pulpeverything there were just 16 posts in all of 2008 – less than the entire month of July 2007. Hell, I couldn’t even get it together to post ANY of these lists until early January, but it is what it is.
I got caught up in the burst of my other blog, SaltyStix, which became more and more of the webzine I wanted it to be – only to die abruptly towards the end of 2008. I left my apartment and my independence to return home while I was a student teacher. Beyond consuming loads of my time this also reduced my daily music consumption from four albums or so a day to less than half and my daily movie consumption from about one a day to about one a week. While media consumption decreased I found my appetite for reading return, allowing me to post my favorite reads of 2008!
Again, for all of the lists I will post – books, songs, albums, movies, and dvds – I use a sliding scale where each is relatively better than the one before – to me of course, since this is all about opinion.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Pigging out
Penelope - Mark Palansky - 2006 - 5/10
This was a pretty entertaining flick that had a great concept with only an "okay" follow through. Most of the film left me pondering what it could have done, what it could have been, and also, how similar the concept was to Shrek.
Summary:
Christina Ricci plays Penelope, a kind girl who's great great grandfather's actions brought a curse on the family that in turn left Penelope with a pig's snout and a pig's ears. However, there is a way Penelope can break the curse - if she can get "one of her own kind" (presumed to be a blue blooded richman) to fall in love with her. Her overbearing mother (Cahterine O'Hara) has tried everything, finally bringing in a high profile matchmaker and installing one-way glass for Penelope to stay behind as her mother carefully guards the family's embarrassing secret. Then one man doesn't run away (James McAvoy), and in fact keeps coming back. Will he be the one?
Critique:
The acting is one of the best parts of this movie which would have been little more than passing amusement without great performances by Christina Ricci, Catherine O'Hara, James McAvoy, Richard E. Grant (her father). I'm a big McAvoy fan and he carefully steers his character away from the cliched reactions most actors would have succumbed to - especially his facial reactions which are especially scrutinized because of Ricci's face.
Peter Dinklage's amusing yet mysterious investigative reporter is also played well but the movie misses every opportunity to flesh out his character. Most of his actions have no depth behind them - why he does things has almost no answer. This is especially puzzling because his actions are the turning points of each act and his story provides most of the conflict for the film. At the end, you aren't sure whether you should pity him, empathize with him, or just shake your head at him.
Speaking of the film's "acts" the movie hurt itself with a surprisingly short act that failed to develop Penelope's first true romance which was really necessary to set up the whole drama of the rest of the movie. This in turn makes me question the revelations and growth of each of the important characters because they are supposedly because of their connection and inspiration by Penelope. The other implication is a way too long second act that makes the film sort to drag and is further plagued by unnecessary characters like Reese Witherspoon playing the rom-com friend without any of the good parts of the rom-com friend (like emotional explanation and establishing character goals).
I did like the few twists the movie through in - which surprised me because of the movie's generally weak script. I thought through most of the movie that the ending would leave me unsatisfied, but instead I loved the ending and it brought a smile to my face. It also made me think that the rest of the movie could have been better...
This was a pretty entertaining flick that had a great concept with only an "okay" follow through. Most of the film left me pondering what it could have done, what it could have been, and also, how similar the concept was to Shrek.
Summary:
Christina Ricci plays Penelope, a kind girl who's great great grandfather's actions brought a curse on the family that in turn left Penelope with a pig's snout and a pig's ears. However, there is a way Penelope can break the curse - if she can get "one of her own kind" (presumed to be a blue blooded richman) to fall in love with her. Her overbearing mother (Cahterine O'Hara) has tried everything, finally bringing in a high profile matchmaker and installing one-way glass for Penelope to stay behind as her mother carefully guards the family's embarrassing secret. Then one man doesn't run away (James McAvoy), and in fact keeps coming back. Will he be the one?Critique:
The acting is one of the best parts of this movie which would have been little more than passing amusement without great performances by Christina Ricci, Catherine O'Hara, James McAvoy, Richard E. Grant (her father). I'm a big McAvoy fan and he carefully steers his character away from the cliched reactions most actors would have succumbed to - especially his facial reactions which are especially scrutinized because of Ricci's face.
Peter Dinklage's amusing yet mysterious investigative reporter is also played well but the movie misses every opportunity to flesh out his character. Most of his actions have no depth behind them - why he does things has almost no answer. This is especially puzzling because his actions are the turning points of each act and his story provides most of the conflict for the film. At the end, you aren't sure whether you should pity him, empathize with him, or just shake your head at him.
Speaking of the film's "acts" the movie hurt itself with a surprisingly short act that failed to develop Penelope's first true romance which was really necessary to set up the whole drama of the rest of the movie. This in turn makes me question the revelations and growth of each of the important characters because they are supposedly because of their connection and inspiration by Penelope. The other implication is a way too long second act that makes the film sort to drag and is further plagued by unnecessary characters like Reese Witherspoon playing the rom-com friend without any of the good parts of the rom-com friend (like emotional explanation and establishing character goals).
I did like the few twists the movie through in - which surprised me because of the movie's generally weak script. I thought through most of the movie that the ending would leave me unsatisfied, but instead I loved the ending and it brought a smile to my face. It also made me think that the rest of the movie could have been better...
Sexually Charged
Sex and the City: The Movie - Michael Patrick King - 2008 - 8/10
There's nudity, graphic sex scenes, flatulence jokes and pubic jokes, and this isn't Beerfest or the next movie from the directors of Beerfest, but Sex and the City: The Movie. The movie struggles from a bout of identity confusion as it waffles between Vogue fashion show and humor even Adam Sandler wouldn't touch. But for the most part, it works, despite the movie's loss of the show's perfect balance between witty humor and dramatic sexcapades.
Summary:
The movie picks up four years later after the dramatic conclusion of season six with Carrie and Big about to live happily ever after in a new apartment, Samantha in LA managing the career of her boy-toy, and Charlotte living with her beautiful adopted little girl Lily. And then there's Miranda. I always hated her character and her character's plotline but Miranda's career is destroying her marriage and blah blah blah it just gets annoying from there. But happiness starts to unravel when Carrie's wedding plans begin to wear down the happiness she and Big share and Samantha grows tired of monogamy and that evil "R" word, relationship. Charlotte meanwhile enjoys total happiness while Miranda quickly descends into yes-I-can-be-more-annoying-than-you-even-thought-possible mode.
Critique:
The first half IS little more than a Vogue fashion show and it does it in a way that gratuitously genders the movie. Sure the show is for girls, I get it (cue comparisons to why Entourage is for guys) but the show was still funny and a bunch of guys watched it for the sex (for a kid who never had cable before to discover Sex and the City...). But the movie's fashion is thrust down your throats in pointless inefficient scenes that have the nerve to inform you of the exact designer names, sizes, and prices. Do you want your receipt?
The second act of the movie moves in a much better direction - a much more entertaining one - albeit at the cost of some respect for the show. While the humor on the show was usually based on the hilarity of awkward situations or the fact that one character could be so blunt, "Bye. Good Sex." But the movie struggles to reach that witty humor nexus and instead relies on cheap gags that would seem politically incorrect in most frat comedies. Apparently women find crapping your pants and disgusting pubic hair hilarious. And guys are the "pigs" who go crazy when they see boobs in National Lampoon direct-to-DVDs but Sex and the City can't wait to up the ante and throw in a little male frontal nudity.
By the end of the movie its become painfully obvious that all of the other characters and plotlines have received painfully short shrift due to Carrie's storyline hogging all the attention, aided by an unnecessary new character to the show's dynamic (played very well by Jennifer Hudson). Charlotte's absolute happiness is pretty much assumed from the get go and her character pretty much has ZERO conflict. Samantha's "conflict" seems a little petty and the resolution seems like a foregone conclusion. Miranda's conflict is probably the most realistic and I would have liked it if I would have sympathized (or empathized) with Miranda at all, but I just learned to hate her more.
But then in the car ride home with a die-hard Sex and the City fan awaiting my opinion of a movie she'd already seen several times I realized that the movie was actually pretty good. Sure there were things I would change to be more true to the show. But what they did change appealed to their core viewers - who rewarded them by buying tickets several times. Just accepting the movie for what it was did a hell of a lot for me to realize that for what it was, the movie was pretty good. In terms of the story that fans wanted to see, the story delivered. In terms of following the characters and trying hard to reach the same tempo of the show, the movie succeeded.
The acting was good, which was hard for me to admit because besides these two characters, I pretty much hate Sarah Jessica Parker and Chris Noth, but they did wonders. The rest of the characters had little screentime to really do more than they did in a 25-minute episode but the addition of Jennifer Hudson added a solid performance from a character who seemed genuine, and someone that most fans could relate to.
What really surprised me was (despite how predictable the ending became after a few scenes) was that the movie did not leave itself open to an obvious sequel. This surprised me because I thought the show would reach a midway point - resolution of the storylines so half of the girls were still out in the cold. But there wasn't and now there is a push for a sequel and even I don't have an easy answer for what direction it could/should go in.
There's nudity, graphic sex scenes, flatulence jokes and pubic jokes, and this isn't Beerfest or the next movie from the directors of Beerfest, but Sex and the City: The Movie. The movie struggles from a bout of identity confusion as it waffles between Vogue fashion show and humor even Adam Sandler wouldn't touch. But for the most part, it works, despite the movie's loss of the show's perfect balance between witty humor and dramatic sexcapades.
Summary:
The movie picks up four years later after the dramatic conclusion of season six with Carrie and Big about to live happily ever after in a new apartment, Samantha in LA managing the career of her boy-toy, and Charlotte living with her beautiful adopted little girl Lily. And then there's Miranda. I always hated her character and her character's plotline but Miranda's career is destroying her marriage and blah blah blah it just gets annoying from there. But happiness starts to unravel when Carrie's wedding plans begin to wear down the happiness she and Big share and Samantha grows tired of monogamy and that evil "R" word, relationship. Charlotte meanwhile enjoys total happiness while Miranda quickly descends into yes-I-can-be-more-annoying-than-you-even-thought-possible mode.Critique:
The first half IS little more than a Vogue fashion show and it does it in a way that gratuitously genders the movie. Sure the show is for girls, I get it (cue comparisons to why Entourage is for guys) but the show was still funny and a bunch of guys watched it for the sex (for a kid who never had cable before to discover Sex and the City...). But the movie's fashion is thrust down your throats in pointless inefficient scenes that have the nerve to inform you of the exact designer names, sizes, and prices. Do you want your receipt?
The second act of the movie moves in a much better direction - a much more entertaining one - albeit at the cost of some respect for the show. While the humor on the show was usually based on the hilarity of awkward situations or the fact that one character could be so blunt, "Bye. Good Sex." But the movie struggles to reach that witty humor nexus and instead relies on cheap gags that would seem politically incorrect in most frat comedies. Apparently women find crapping your pants and disgusting pubic hair hilarious. And guys are the "pigs" who go crazy when they see boobs in National Lampoon direct-to-DVDs but Sex and the City can't wait to up the ante and throw in a little male frontal nudity.
By the end of the movie its become painfully obvious that all of the other characters and plotlines have received painfully short shrift due to Carrie's storyline hogging all the attention, aided by an unnecessary new character to the show's dynamic (played very well by Jennifer Hudson). Charlotte's absolute happiness is pretty much assumed from the get go and her character pretty much has ZERO conflict. Samantha's "conflict" seems a little petty and the resolution seems like a foregone conclusion. Miranda's conflict is probably the most realistic and I would have liked it if I would have sympathized (or empathized) with Miranda at all, but I just learned to hate her more.
But then in the car ride home with a die-hard Sex and the City fan awaiting my opinion of a movie she'd already seen several times I realized that the movie was actually pretty good. Sure there were things I would change to be more true to the show. But what they did change appealed to their core viewers - who rewarded them by buying tickets several times. Just accepting the movie for what it was did a hell of a lot for me to realize that for what it was, the movie was pretty good. In terms of the story that fans wanted to see, the story delivered. In terms of following the characters and trying hard to reach the same tempo of the show, the movie succeeded.
The acting was good, which was hard for me to admit because besides these two characters, I pretty much hate Sarah Jessica Parker and Chris Noth, but they did wonders. The rest of the characters had little screentime to really do more than they did in a 25-minute episode but the addition of Jennifer Hudson added a solid performance from a character who seemed genuine, and someone that most fans could relate to.
What really surprised me was (despite how predictable the ending became after a few scenes) was that the movie did not leave itself open to an obvious sequel. This surprised me because I thought the show would reach a midway point - resolution of the storylines so half of the girls were still out in the cold. But there wasn't and now there is a push for a sequel and even I don't have an easy answer for what direction it could/should go in.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Wheezing
I've liked Weezer for a long time and I've enjoyed their transitions from the Blue Album, to the Green Album, and now to the Red Album, their latest. They seem to be able to seemless integrate new sounds and influences into a distinctly unique sound that is still Weezer. This album is more different than most of their other album maturations but it is still a decided Weezer album. When I get back to my apartment and buy a bunch of CD's this has got to go to the top. Almost as much for curiosity's sake as much as it is that I want to listen to the album. If that makes much sense.
The first single, Pork and Beans is pretty good - containing an even greater than usual amount of pop culture references among Rivers' lyrics and unexpected Weezer rifts (that are now paradoxically expected). It has a great sound but more importantly it has a really cool music video that seems to touch on a lot of the major viral experiences of the last few years. The video is fun and seems to lend even more heart to a song that already has the normal endearing feel of Weezer's usual songs.
Another song I really liked is "Heart Songs" which is already receiving a bunch of fan buzz. For a Weezer ballad it seems to stand out to me for a reason that I can't quite put my finger on yet. But it is worth checking out for sure. Clicking that link will take you to a youtube link with just the audio really which is also a place where you can listen to the whole album essentially. Before you buy the album of course.
The first single, Pork and Beans is pretty good - containing an even greater than usual amount of pop culture references among Rivers' lyrics and unexpected Weezer rifts (that are now paradoxically expected). It has a great sound but more importantly it has a really cool music video that seems to touch on a lot of the major viral experiences of the last few years. The video is fun and seems to lend even more heart to a song that already has the normal endearing feel of Weezer's usual songs.
Another song I really liked is "Heart Songs" which is already receiving a bunch of fan buzz. For a Weezer ballad it seems to stand out to me for a reason that I can't quite put my finger on yet. But it is worth checking out for sure. Clicking that link will take you to a youtube link with just the audio really which is also a place where you can listen to the whole album essentially. Before you buy the album of course.
Too Many Dresses
27 Dresses - Anne Fletcher - 2006 - 4/10
It’s never good to start anything on the defensive, but I have to say I saw this movie on an airplane, so give me some slack.
Summary:
The summary goes like this: that old HILLARIOUS phrase “always a bridesmaid never a bride” applies to our main character Jane (Katherine Heigl)! No way. But she does have this guy she’s crazy about, her boss, George (Ed Burns). But he’s just fallen for her super hot, super slutty sister Tess (Talin Akerman). No way. But since Jane is such an expert wedding planner she agrees to plan her sister’s wedding to her dream guy. Oh my God. Along the way she meets this guy who is falling all over himself to ask her out (James Marsden) but she keeps refusing, only relenting when she needs to vent about her sad marriage woes. But then as he starts to make her laugh and integrate himself into her life it turns out that he’s really this super sexy wedding-beat reporter whose writing Jane loves! No way! (Stiffles yawn). Make your own conclusions, most of which probably do not require seeing the movie, or after this summary, any of the preview.
Critique:
I don’t even know where to begin. I feel like I’m being pulled in all directions. On one hand my mom really liked it so I know it’s a chic flick that I’m obviously biased against. On another hand I think, as a chic flick, the movie was good at what it was. BUT the chic flicks Achilles heal – unoriginality and cliché cluttering comes out in strong force here. We’ve got the “best friend,” “the perfect guy,” “the perfect sister” (I love how a woman like Heigl is supposed to be jealous of Akerman, I mean really, they’re both freaking knock outs) and everything else. Nromally I wouldn’t dwell on the clichés so much but it really sucks a lot out of the movie, especially when Marsden looks like he’s actually acting without his Cyclops goggles for a change and Heigl is ALMOST likeable. One other glaring thing that popped into my head is that bosses like George don’t have assistants like Katherine Heigl for years on end and not sleep with them. I mean, that’s why they hire them! And he hasn’t noticed her? Or realized she worships him? Come on. I hate movies that can’t respect the viewer because we’re “stupid” or “fickle” and need to be force fed this crap.
Oh well. This review has left me feeling widely unfulfilled and like I poored out a nonsensical rant but hey, its just another rom-com chic flick.
It’s never good to start anything on the defensive, but I have to say I saw this movie on an airplane, so give me some slack.
Summary:
The summary goes like this: that old HILLARIOUS phrase “always a bridesmaid never a bride” applies to our main character Jane (Katherine Heigl)! No way. But she does have this guy she’s crazy about, her boss, George (Ed Burns). But he’s just fallen for her super hot, super slutty sister Tess (Talin Akerman). No way. But since Jane is such an expert wedding planner she agrees to plan her sister’s wedding to her dream guy. Oh my God. Along the way she meets this guy who is falling all over himself to ask her out (James Marsden) but she keeps refusing, only relenting when she needs to vent about her sad marriage woes. But then as he starts to make her laugh and integrate himself into her life it turns out that he’s really this super sexy wedding-beat reporter whose writing Jane loves! No way! (Stiffles yawn). Make your own conclusions, most of which probably do not require seeing the movie, or after this summary, any of the preview.
Critique:
I don’t even know where to begin. I feel like I’m being pulled in all directions. On one hand my mom really liked it so I know it’s a chic flick that I’m obviously biased against. On another hand I think, as a chic flick, the movie was good at what it was. BUT the chic flicks Achilles heal – unoriginality and cliché cluttering comes out in strong force here. We’ve got the “best friend,” “the perfect guy,” “the perfect sister” (I love how a woman like Heigl is supposed to be jealous of Akerman, I mean really, they’re both freaking knock outs) and everything else. Nromally I wouldn’t dwell on the clichés so much but it really sucks a lot out of the movie, especially when Marsden looks like he’s actually acting without his Cyclops goggles for a change and Heigl is ALMOST likeable. One other glaring thing that popped into my head is that bosses like George don’t have assistants like Katherine Heigl for years on end and not sleep with them. I mean, that’s why they hire them! And he hasn’t noticed her? Or realized she worships him? Come on. I hate movies that can’t respect the viewer because we’re “stupid” or “fickle” and need to be force fed this crap.
Oh well. This review has left me feeling widely unfulfilled and like I poored out a nonsensical rant but hey, its just another rom-com chic flick.
Indiana Jones and the Disappointing Cracked Skull
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - Steven Spielberg - 2008 - 4/10
I cant quite figure out if writing this review is really even close to worth it. I had enough Indiana Jones type hurdles of my own that stood in the way of me finally posting this: writing SaltyStix articles, studying for a test, general laziness…lots of things. But I decided that per Spielberg and Lucas’ dues ex machina of Indy, I had to find some unnatural power to finish the review.
The first thing that comes to mind is that the film was soo disappointing it was almost sad. I felt like crying. Sure I knew what Lucas does to sacred trilogies (defiles them) but I thought Spielberg’s directing and another writer would balance old George out. FALSE. Instead the movie is full of Lucas’ overindulgence – unnecessary special effects. While this movie just has monkeys to compare to Jar Jar, it still makes me wince – especially because the first movies did not seem to be cluttered with Lucas’ ILM crap. Jar Jar was annoying but by the end of the trilogy you saw the point of him – what was the need to swing from the vines? Or survive a nuclear blast?
Perhaps the movie was doomed from the start with the absence of Denholm Elliot (who unfortunately passed away in 1992) and Sean Connery (who stubbornly maintained he was ‘retired’). To fill the gaping hole of Elliot’s Dr. Marcus Brody the film inserts another character designed for comic relief: Ray Winstone. Winstone’s character is supposed to have this deep relationship with Indy which is supposed to yield deep humor as well as clever plot twists but fails in both because he is just too brand spanking new to the franchise. To make up for the comedy of Connery-Ford they try for Ford-LeBeuf and almost succeed but LeBeuf’s character is just so ridiculous.
The largest problem for me is more conceptual in that the movie moved away from the religious occult (the arch, pagan religions, and the grail) and into well, something else. Maybe they needed a new frontier and I understand that what they chose was based on 50’s era pulp-themed movies that they loved. I get that. It still sucked. The religious occult had a different feel to it as well as more history and more lore that gives an ephemeral feel. What we’re left with here seems forced and feels like you’re watching bad Sci-Fi reruns again. Chalk up that the “puzzles” and “clues” as well as the “answers” are dangerously close to modern pretenders like National Treasure and the like, and Indy quickly loses his mystique.
What helped saved the movie was Karen Allen’s character. I hope that isn’t really a spoiler because she IS in the movie. Once she hit the screen the Indy charm and humor seemed to replace the old-tired-act Harrison was sleepwalking through. Combined with the action in the last hour, the last half really shapes up to be pretty good. I will say that the story timeline liberties Spielberg and Lucas pulled a long time ago damaged the franchise here. Not many know that Temple of Doom was made as a prequel to Raiders which was then followed by Last Crusade. So events that happened in Raiders, say, socially, are not that far removed from Crystal Skull.
The best thing Spielberg and Lucas did was pay homage to the first part of the series with references to Raiders in the opening scene and good throwbacks to the value of Indy’s hat from nuclear explosions to chapels including some scenes that might have people thinking if “Mutt Williams” is going to take over the franchise.
I’ll close with the three things this movie needed to be really good – to give Last Crusade a run for it’s money. First, a younger Harrison Ford – which was quite possible if it hadn’t been for Lucas’ constant screen revisions and stubborn refusal to accept earlier story send ups – we’re talking a good seven to ten years here – Air Force One Harrison Ford instead of, well, Crystal Skull Harrison Ford. Second, the appearance of Sean Connery – which again, was possible if the film had been made earlier. It is curious that Connery’s part – supposedly a small cameo is SO small that Connery must have really thought the script was crap. Third, no CGI bullshit – this would probably have changed the whole opening scene and made the film a hell of a lot better. Maybe given us a classic intro where Indy is in the field looking for some treasure and bam! Cate Blanchett swoops in. But alas, no such luck.
I cant quite figure out if writing this review is really even close to worth it. I had enough Indiana Jones type hurdles of my own that stood in the way of me finally posting this: writing SaltyStix articles, studying for a test, general laziness…lots of things. But I decided that per Spielberg and Lucas’ dues ex machina of Indy, I had to find some unnatural power to finish the review.
The first thing that comes to mind is that the film was soo disappointing it was almost sad. I felt like crying. Sure I knew what Lucas does to sacred trilogies (defiles them) but I thought Spielberg’s directing and another writer would balance old George out. FALSE. Instead the movie is full of Lucas’ overindulgence – unnecessary special effects. While this movie just has monkeys to compare to Jar Jar, it still makes me wince – especially because the first movies did not seem to be cluttered with Lucas’ ILM crap. Jar Jar was annoying but by the end of the trilogy you saw the point of him – what was the need to swing from the vines? Or survive a nuclear blast?
Perhaps the movie was doomed from the start with the absence of Denholm Elliot (who unfortunately passed away in 1992) and Sean Connery (who stubbornly maintained he was ‘retired’). To fill the gaping hole of Elliot’s Dr. Marcus Brody the film inserts another character designed for comic relief: Ray Winstone. Winstone’s character is supposed to have this deep relationship with Indy which is supposed to yield deep humor as well as clever plot twists but fails in both because he is just too brand spanking new to the franchise. To make up for the comedy of Connery-Ford they try for Ford-LeBeuf and almost succeed but LeBeuf’s character is just so ridiculous.
The largest problem for me is more conceptual in that the movie moved away from the religious occult (the arch, pagan religions, and the grail) and into well, something else. Maybe they needed a new frontier and I understand that what they chose was based on 50’s era pulp-themed movies that they loved. I get that. It still sucked. The religious occult had a different feel to it as well as more history and more lore that gives an ephemeral feel. What we’re left with here seems forced and feels like you’re watching bad Sci-Fi reruns again. Chalk up that the “puzzles” and “clues” as well as the “answers” are dangerously close to modern pretenders like National Treasure and the like, and Indy quickly loses his mystique.
What helped saved the movie was Karen Allen’s character. I hope that isn’t really a spoiler because she IS in the movie. Once she hit the screen the Indy charm and humor seemed to replace the old-tired-act Harrison was sleepwalking through. Combined with the action in the last hour, the last half really shapes up to be pretty good. I will say that the story timeline liberties Spielberg and Lucas pulled a long time ago damaged the franchise here. Not many know that Temple of Doom was made as a prequel to Raiders which was then followed by Last Crusade. So events that happened in Raiders, say, socially, are not that far removed from Crystal Skull.
The best thing Spielberg and Lucas did was pay homage to the first part of the series with references to Raiders in the opening scene and good throwbacks to the value of Indy’s hat from nuclear explosions to chapels including some scenes that might have people thinking if “Mutt Williams” is going to take over the franchise.
I’ll close with the three things this movie needed to be really good – to give Last Crusade a run for it’s money. First, a younger Harrison Ford – which was quite possible if it hadn’t been for Lucas’ constant screen revisions and stubborn refusal to accept earlier story send ups – we’re talking a good seven to ten years here – Air Force One Harrison Ford instead of, well, Crystal Skull Harrison Ford. Second, the appearance of Sean Connery – which again, was possible if the film had been made earlier. It is curious that Connery’s part – supposedly a small cameo is SO small that Connery must have really thought the script was crap. Third, no CGI bullshit – this would probably have changed the whole opening scene and made the film a hell of a lot better. Maybe given us a classic intro where Indy is in the field looking for some treasure and bam! Cate Blanchett swoops in. But alas, no such luck.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Another month
I just got back from Europe and my head is chalk full of things I'll never get to blog about - basically detailing all of my adventurous exploits, commentary on the obama/clinton/2008 mess, and lots of other things that suddenly are not coming to me.
About books - all the ones I read toward the end of second semester that I thought would help me start posting book reviews here (mostly classics I never read in high school) or the ones I read on my trip (mostly Cormac McCarthy's The Road).
About all the gelatto I ate in Europe - my rankings of the cities (1. Rome, 2. Florence, 3. Trier, 4. Meersburg, 5. Lindau, 6. Venice, 7. Bregenz, 8. Munich, 9. Gindelwald, 10. Lux City, 11. Paris, 12. Kaysberg (Alsace), 13. Sion, 14. Zurmat
But I will start blogging again since its summer for whatever its worth.
About books - all the ones I read toward the end of second semester that I thought would help me start posting book reviews here (mostly classics I never read in high school) or the ones I read on my trip (mostly Cormac McCarthy's The Road).
About all the gelatto I ate in Europe - my rankings of the cities (1. Rome, 2. Florence, 3. Trier, 4. Meersburg, 5. Lindau, 6. Venice, 7. Bregenz, 8. Munich, 9. Gindelwald, 10. Lux City, 11. Paris, 12. Kaysberg (Alsace), 13. Sion, 14. Zurmat
But I will start blogging again since its summer for whatever its worth.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
The Kingdom...a crowning achievement
The Kingdom - Peter Berg - 2007 - 9/10
Summary:
A terrorist attack on U.S. citizens on Saudi Soil draws the personal attention of FBI Agent Ronald Fleury (Jamie Foxx) who cuts every corner to make sure his team (Chris Cooper, Jennifer Garner, Jason Bateman) gets on the ground despite the massive physical and political obstacles. Their liaison who has been tasked as more of a baby sitter, Colonel Faris Al Ghazi (Ashraf Barhom) tries to everything he can to help Fleury's team because he wants the men who killed his guards. The movie shows the different cultures that are strikingly similar as the team seeks to uncover the group responsible for the largest murder in modern Saudi history.
Critique:
I'll be honest - I had low expectations for the movie. It started off with an efficient, audio and visual history of western involvement with Saudi Arabia using real footage and real audio from the different times as well as powerful quotes to convey a complex story in a few words. I thought the movie would be downhill from there, but I was wrong. The name "Peter Berg" flashed, reminding me that the creator of Friday Night Lights was at the helm. Actually that was just a shameless plug for my favorite TV show, and while Berg IS the director of the movie, the movie itself showed how great it was. I will take the time to praise Berg now though. His style from FNL shines through loud and clear - his attention to small story detail as well as close camerawork is evident - he even shows similar musical choices. The small story detail is a pleasant bonus because it brings life and personality to every part of the movie - the family scenes on both sides of search show the similarities - and differences between our two cultures. The political scenes are unbiased, yet show the political tiptoeing that is necessary in these issues.
The acting - all around - was very good. Which says a lot coming from me because I went into the movie thinking most of these actors (minus Chris Cooper) weren't very good. Jamie Foxx always annoyed me as his general personality does. Here he chose to act for once and played a good part. There were definitely scenes were the Jamie I hate was trying to rise to the surface, but this acting Jamie kept him down and played a good role. Jennifer Garner was good in her limited scenes causing me to consider that I might have given her a harder rap than she deserved considering I've started to notice how good she is in a couple movies. Chris Cooper was great as always in his few scenes - not much more to say on him that I haven't already said elsewhere. Jason Bateman was pretty good - clearly the weakest link of those four because he overacted in some parts. But it is what it is. The real scene stealer was Ashraf Barhom who was GREAT as Colonel Ghazi. I have a feeling that in longer cuts his family scenes were longer and more numerous but beggars can't be choosers. I'd like to say I look forward to seeing him in more movies, but that seems unlikely.
Generally I really enjoyed the movie. It was tense, fast paced, and different in the sense that it wasnt the guns-blazing movie I thought it would be. Berg's "blockbuster" was much more of just a solid movie that really took pains to show the culture clash as well as the American influence in Saudi politics and Saudi oil as well as the repercussions of those actions. When I thought about the intro while the movie was just starting I smiled at the fact that they had used their title sequence and a handful of minutes to do what Syriana did - except better and in a more entertaining way. That held true for the whole movie because the style was very similar to Gaghan fast-camera, multi point storytelling with the pleasing difference that there was a clear central story (and set of characters). That Gaghan chose a macro-issue (oil) in our relationship with the Middle East was brave but fatal. It accomplished less that what a microcosm could do. The Kingdom's smaller story that accessed the big issue in everyone's mind - terrorism killing westerners (yes, cliche, but unfortunately true) seemed to be a better route. And to think that The Kingdom did it in about twenty minutes less and in a much easier way only made me enjoy the movie more.
When my brain was churning about what I would rate The Kingdom I had almost decided on an "8" because I thought the movie was pretty much as good as it could be yet it didnt have the 9 and 10 level power that the classics do. Then two amazing scenes at the end made me realize that giving the movie less than a 9 would be ridiculous. Two scenes at the end - between Jamie Foxx and a Saudi boy and a parallel scene that involved Foxx and his team really brought the movie together. The positive similarities of our culture and the importance of US-Saudi cooperation as well as the negative similarities of how our cultures are so similar. That the movie made such a pointed argument about how violent both of our cultures are - and how true it was - really pushed the movie over the top.
Verdict:
Buy it now!
If you liked this movie, see...
...Syriana
...Three Kings
Summary:
A terrorist attack on U.S. citizens on Saudi Soil draws the personal attention of FBI Agent Ronald Fleury (Jamie Foxx) who cuts every corner to make sure his team (Chris Cooper, Jennifer Garner, Jason Bateman) gets on the ground despite the massive physical and political obstacles. Their liaison who has been tasked as more of a baby sitter, Colonel Faris Al Ghazi (Ashraf Barhom) tries to everything he can to help Fleury's team because he wants the men who killed his guards. The movie shows the different cultures that are strikingly similar as the team seeks to uncover the group responsible for the largest murder in modern Saudi history.Critique:
I'll be honest - I had low expectations for the movie. It started off with an efficient, audio and visual history of western involvement with Saudi Arabia using real footage and real audio from the different times as well as powerful quotes to convey a complex story in a few words. I thought the movie would be downhill from there, but I was wrong. The name "Peter Berg" flashed, reminding me that the creator of Friday Night Lights was at the helm. Actually that was just a shameless plug for my favorite TV show, and while Berg IS the director of the movie, the movie itself showed how great it was. I will take the time to praise Berg now though. His style from FNL shines through loud and clear - his attention to small story detail as well as close camerawork is evident - he even shows similar musical choices. The small story detail is a pleasant bonus because it brings life and personality to every part of the movie - the family scenes on both sides of search show the similarities - and differences between our two cultures. The political scenes are unbiased, yet show the political tiptoeing that is necessary in these issues.
The acting - all around - was very good. Which says a lot coming from me because I went into the movie thinking most of these actors (minus Chris Cooper) weren't very good. Jamie Foxx always annoyed me as his general personality does. Here he chose to act for once and played a good part. There were definitely scenes were the Jamie I hate was trying to rise to the surface, but this acting Jamie kept him down and played a good role. Jennifer Garner was good in her limited scenes causing me to consider that I might have given her a harder rap than she deserved considering I've started to notice how good she is in a couple movies. Chris Cooper was great as always in his few scenes - not much more to say on him that I haven't already said elsewhere. Jason Bateman was pretty good - clearly the weakest link of those four because he overacted in some parts. But it is what it is. The real scene stealer was Ashraf Barhom who was GREAT as Colonel Ghazi. I have a feeling that in longer cuts his family scenes were longer and more numerous but beggars can't be choosers. I'd like to say I look forward to seeing him in more movies, but that seems unlikely.
Generally I really enjoyed the movie. It was tense, fast paced, and different in the sense that it wasnt the guns-blazing movie I thought it would be. Berg's "blockbuster" was much more of just a solid movie that really took pains to show the culture clash as well as the American influence in Saudi politics and Saudi oil as well as the repercussions of those actions. When I thought about the intro while the movie was just starting I smiled at the fact that they had used their title sequence and a handful of minutes to do what Syriana did - except better and in a more entertaining way. That held true for the whole movie because the style was very similar to Gaghan fast-camera, multi point storytelling with the pleasing difference that there was a clear central story (and set of characters). That Gaghan chose a macro-issue (oil) in our relationship with the Middle East was brave but fatal. It accomplished less that what a microcosm could do. The Kingdom's smaller story that accessed the big issue in everyone's mind - terrorism killing westerners (yes, cliche, but unfortunately true) seemed to be a better route. And to think that The Kingdom did it in about twenty minutes less and in a much easier way only made me enjoy the movie more.
When my brain was churning about what I would rate The Kingdom I had almost decided on an "8" because I thought the movie was pretty much as good as it could be yet it didnt have the 9 and 10 level power that the classics do. Then two amazing scenes at the end made me realize that giving the movie less than a 9 would be ridiculous. Two scenes at the end - between Jamie Foxx and a Saudi boy and a parallel scene that involved Foxx and his team really brought the movie together. The positive similarities of our culture and the importance of US-Saudi cooperation as well as the negative similarities of how our cultures are so similar. That the movie made such a pointed argument about how violent both of our cultures are - and how true it was - really pushed the movie over the top.
Verdict:
Buy it now!
If you liked this movie, see...
...Syriana
...Three Kings
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
