First, a couple of thoughts about the Oscars. Why doesn't Tom Hanks just host? He's so naturally likable and funny and does an extended solo presentation every year.. so isn't hosting the natural first step? You're telling me the world wouldn't rather see Tom Hanks than cornball, botoxed, hair dyed Billy Crystal? He looked like Glen Close playing Billy Crystal. Second, the right flick one. The Artist certainly deserves its accolades, and while it's not going to go down as one of the all-time greats, in a down year? It absolutely deserved everything it got. Lastly, I'm surprised Gary Oldman didn't get more love for his performance in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy.. it was subdued, understated, nuanced, with a lot of pain, competence, duty and pride in there.. all while saying as little as possible. Very English.. very great. But let's talk about "Chronicle", shall we?
I actually saw "Chronicle" on Friday, but "weekend", so we aren't getting to it until today. Also, the theater was full of young people, who are officially the most annoying people on the planet... which was obnoxious. So I really had no desire to see this one, but it's been getting solid reviews (84% on RT..), and Wallace (!!) is involved, so what the hell, worth a look, right? I'm no fan of the "found footage" gimmick, but I fully recognize that it allows filmmakers to make a flick for very, very cheap that probably wouldn't have been made otherwise, and also allows for some interesting narrative techniques and a certain illusion of authenticity. And that being said, Chronicle isn't a TRUE "found-footage" anyway, they deviate when appropriate. So here we go.
Andrew (oh! That's my name! (played by Dane DeHaan - who looks a LOT like a young "Basketball Diaries"-era Leo)) is a loner, who lives with his alcoholic former firefighter father and a mother dying of some unnamed respiratory condition. He has no friends other than his cousin, Matt, and spends his days avoiding bullying at school and at home, and filming his life. After Matt (Alex Russell) drags him to a party, Matt, Andrew and the most popular kid at school, Steve (Michael B. "Wallace" Jordan) find a mysterious hole in a field that they OF COURSE explore. Strange happenings ensue, and the boys find themselves suddenly in possession of strange powers resembling telekinesis. Before long they are spending ALL of their time together and exploring what their powers have to offer. I don't have to tell you that eventually things go VERY wrong.
There is a lot that this movie does well. First, by using a gimmick allowed by the boys' powers, they successfully are able to remove themselves from the limitations of true "found footage" a la Cloverfield or the like. Second, the interactions of the main characters are VERY believable. This is how high school boys are and would be. They're wasting a LOT of time and trying VERY hard to get laid.. this flick recognizes that and treats its characters appropriately. The escalation of the boys' powers and the progression in their use is quite believable, compelling and becomes disturbing.. but it all feels very natural. Nothing is forced here.
Plus: But in all seriousness, this flick is very well done, and uses surveillance and other footage to supplement the handheld camera when needed. The characters are likable and believable, and this flick seemlessly transitions from fun to disturbing when needed. You really believe that these kids like each other, and their natural chemistry adds a much-needed heft to the goings-on. If the story has a weak spot, it's Andrew's home life.. which just doesn't carry its weight the way that the interactions of the boys does. These are kids first, extraordinary people second.. and this flick doesn't lose sight of that.
So for a smart screenplay, effective gimmick, believable and likable characters, effective acting and a story worth telling I'm giving this one a thumbs-up.
So despite the better part of a month of being encouraged/nagged/begged to see this one by friends and the media alike, I just flat out refused. Black and white? Silent? NO THANKS. Well, after reading Roger Ebert and basically every other critic on the planet jerk this thing off for weeks and hearing all the awards-season hype, I decided that there was no way I wasn't going to catch this one before the Oscars. So, early in the afternoon of Oscar day, I caught this one in a theater full of the elderly (I was, no joke, one of 3 people in the theater under the age of 55).. and boy was I surprised. This is just a good time at the movies, no doubt about it.
So I fancy myself a movie nerd.. but if there's one gap in my movie knowledge, it's the classics.. basically anything made before 1970 I probably haven't seen. I blame working and living.. I can barely keep up with everything that's come out in recent years, let alone go back and supplement my movie viewership with the classics. There are only so many hours in a day. So as a result, I am largely unacquainted with silent flicks. I have no problem with black and white, but silent? It's just so far from my area of expertise and familiarity that I didn't have much interest. I mean, I quote movies incessantly, what would a silent flick possibly have to offer? This is the mindset with which I went in to "The Artist"..
Well, it took watching this movie to realize that a movie is a movie is a movie.. whether it's in 2D, black and white, technicolor, full color, 3D, full sound, part sound, no sound, whatever, if there's a story worth telling with capable actors, it's worth telling, and absolutely worth watching.
The year is 1927, and silent film star George Valentin is the biggest thing in Hollywood.. putting out hit after hit and charming the pants off of audiences and fans alike. A chance meeting with a lovely young fan and Hollywood hopeful sets Peppy Miller's star in motion, and the onset of the "talkie" leads to his star's fade. With only his trusty (and adorable) dog, Uggie, George gradually falls into poverty, forced to pawn and auction the remnants of his career. As the Great Depression takes its toll, new star Peppy Miller never forgets who gave her her start while George struggles to deal with his new station as booze and depression takes its toll on his life and career. No worries, there is a happy ending.
Jean Dujardin is remarkable.. completely magnetic. If Hollywood was still a silent town this man would be the biggest star on the planet. He's charming, he's funny, he's expressive and he absolutely owns the screen, and the man can dance. Berenice Bejo is adorable and completely believable as the new young "it" girl. John Goodman is strong as an over-the-top studio head. James Cromwell is great as George's loyal chauffeur. I would be remiss to not mention Uggie. That does is something. He's really remarkable, and I wonder if every shot involving him took 500 takes or if that dog is really THAT expressive and charming?
As both an homage to the Hollywood of years past and as its own work the Artist is truly a great film. This flick will suck you in and win you over.. trust me. I think I've been to 5 or 6 films where the audience applauds, and the audience burst into spontaneous applause at the end of this one. Keep in mind, this was a Golden Buckeye audience. So damn watchable.. and if it's not an all-time great, it's certainly a great little movie with a lot to offer.
So it's been a little while. A lot has happened, kind of. It's turned into 2012, it's been 60 degrees in February, people pretended that Tom Brady wasn't good and Eli Manning was, Jeremy Lin destroyed the internet, Whitney Houston died, "Bonny Bear" trended on twitter and the world inched closer to its inevitable demise. Did they start handing out driver's licenses to developmentally delayed people? Call me crazy, but I feel like drivers are actually getting worse. The other day a stoplight was out at a moderately busy intersection near my house, and you'd have thought the damn apocalypse happened. Everyone stared at each other for 40 seconds until they all suddenly went at the EXACT SAME TIME. How do you not know that in the absence of a functional stoplight the intersection becomes a 4 way stop? Go one at a time, follow the person to your left. Come on now.
All is not bleak on planet earth though... I'm here with more nonsense to waste my time and maybe yours on. How productive and grown up of me.
Why does Jeremy Piven look younger now (2012) than he did in PCU (1994)?
This is a good damn question, one that I've often pondered myself. Clearly hair plugs, Rogaine, Hair club for Men, or another hair recovery treatment is part of the solution, the dude on the left is about 2 years from looking like George Costanza while the dude on the right is a dude with a big forehead... and black hair all of a sudden. It really is pretty remarkable though... while I would say the dude on the right DOES look SLIGHTLY older, they absolutely went to high school together at the very least. Considering there are 18 chronological years separating the two pictures, it seems possible that Jeremy Piven may have sold his soul to the devil or other such shenanigans in order to escape the ravages of time. Jeremy Piven was born in 1965.. making him 29 in the picture on the left, and looking 32ish, and making him 47 in the picture on the right, and looking 34ish. So somehow Piven aged faster than normal through his 20s but then saw his aging process slow WAY down and he's spent the last two decades trying to look like Joe Rogen while not actually aging at all. Good for you, Droz.
Who are the best comedic characters currently on television? How do they compare to the best comedic characters ever to appear on television?
I think the 5 greatest comedic characters of all time, in some order, are George Costanza, Lucy Ricardo, Cliff Huxtable, Fred Sanford and Archie Bunker. Eric Cartman and Homer Simpson are right there as well, but in my honest opinion, I think you have to give some additional credit to live-action characters as opposed to animated characters. These characters are great both because they are all hilarious and because ever single one of them changed TV forever and created infinitely imitated types that are utterly impossible to recreate.
I think the five greatest comedic currently on TV are, from 5-1: 5. Frank Reynolds, It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia 4. Larry David Curb Your Enthusiasm 3. Abed Community 2. Ron Swanson Parks and Recreation 1. Eric Cartman South Park
I'd say the fundamental difference between comedies today and the great comedies of old is that just about every show has a vastly expanded scope from your traditional sitcom. The ensembles just continue to grow, meaning that an individual character has much less lifting to do than he or she might have in years past. (Yes, I recognize that I said Homer Simpson was one of the best of all time but didn't list him in my current top 5.. the Simpsons has been on for so long that it has outlived its own relevance, but he's undoubtedly an all time great character). So while comedies are much more willing to push the envelope and expand on what a comedy can actually DO or BE, individual characters are less important than they have been traditionally. The 5 characters I named as the greatest of all time all (except for arguably George) were at least 1/3rd of the focus of their respective shows.. outside of Larry David, none of the modern day 5 are. That, along with the fact that the introduction of cable television, the internet, Netflix and virtually limitless entertainment options has ushered in an era or compartmentalized society where nothing has the universal following that the Cosby Show or Cheers or I Love Lucy or popular shows of years gone by, means that characters in the past had a much larger impact on society as a whole and thus influence.
Is Les Miles the dumbest Coach in college football history? If not, who is?
Les Miles is the dumbest coach in college football history. By a long shot. He's won one title despite a legendary run of talent and has lost far more games with his idiotic coaching moves than he's won. A 10 year old who has played more than 5 games of Madden could coach LSU to 10 wins. Saban did the heavy lifting of turning LSU into a powerhouse, Miles just needs to use the booster and recruiting connections to keep the talent coming in.
How far back in time would you have to go to be the world's top Scientific and Medical mind?
This is a great question.. one that I've often pondered myself. I'm tempted to say 1850, but I think I may have to go back a little further. I think I can comfortably say that if I went to 1750, I would be the world's greatest scientific mind. I could duplicate the famous experiments of Louis Pasteur, Ben Franklin, and others to prove the existence of microbes, electricity, and the like.. invent the hot air balloon (first flight wasn't until 1783), invent rifling for firearms (it was not commonly done until the 19th century), anticipate the theories of plate tectonics, Mendellian genetics and evolution, use my knowledge of astronomy to claim discoveries of galaxies, nebulas and the like, revolutionize animal taxonomy, invent vaccination, revolutionize public health and aid in the nascent development of steam power (I wouldn't claim being able to invent it directly because of my not being mechanical in the least). I could probably discover a number of elements as well. So at any point prior to 1800-ish I would have been the world's foremost mind by a long shot. After, as well, but I wouldn't be able to have the same revolutionary impact due to my scientific training being limited by being lazy in college and deciding I'd rather take classes where I could fart out A papers the night before than do labs and equations and what not.
What is really appropriate to carry in a wallet?
I'd say the key to knowing what should be carried in a wallet can be summed up as so: Portability, Necessity, Frequency. (PNF?) Let me explain. Portability: the item should be small and easily fit within the confines of a traditional wallet. If it doesn't fit the bill, take it out. Carrying the item around in a wallet shouldn't damage the item itself or its neighbors within the wallet. Best examples: money, laminated cards of all sorts. Necessity. Is this an item you absolutely NEED from time to time? I.e., driver's license, insurance card, atm card, gym membership card, subway club card, etc. Lots of people carry around random accumulated shit in their wallets. Coupons, receipts, expired cards, etc. If you don't need it, throw it out. Words to live by. Even if you do want to keep the receipt to whatever, why is it in your wallet? Throw it in a drawer, a folder, whatever... I doubt it needs to be on your person. Frequency. A cousin of necessity, but we all know that everything in a wallet isn't something that you absolutely NEED, so you'll inevitably have some stuff in there that you use, but you don't NEED. For those items, consider how often you use them. If it's less than every month or so, take it out and put it in a safe place. Your wallet should be thin enough that everything is easy to find and so that it isn't a brick you're lugging around in your back pocket. #ProTip
How many national titles will Urban Meyer win at OSU?
OSU fan-dom has been abuzz since the prodigal son and coaching star Urban Meyer was announced as head coach in early December... and with good reason. This guy turned around BGSU, led Utah to a BCS game (and made Alex Smith the #1 pick) and led Florida to 2 national titles while keeping the Gators and the NFL stocked with NFL talent. OSU emerged from a scandal that cost the 2nd most successful coach in school history his job with an UPGRADE at head coach.. pretty remarkable. To do this and snag one of the two or three biggest names in the profession is nothing short of game changing. Several other additional thoughts: 1.) He's coming into coach who may be the most talented spread QB he's ever coached in Braxton Miller, 2.) In 60 days he assembled a top 5 recruiting class, tops in the conference, despite a bowl ban and the team being coached by Adam Sandler prior to December, 3.) He's always been a tremendous recruiter, and should be able to bring the best raw talent OSU's ever had in year to year. Throw in the fact that Wisconsin is currently coached by a bridge troll, Michigan by a hungry hungry hippo and Penn State has rape-y showers and the B1G is Meyer's oyster. Meyer signed a 7 year contract, however it's hard to imagine him staying for the full 7 years.. in addition, the last 6 or so years have seen the SEC become a hotbed of straddling rules violations while assembling prodigious talent, so dynasties are difficult to put together, especially as long as Saban is in Alabama. However, Saban and Meyer have proved themselves over the past decade to be head and shoulders above every other coach in the country. So let's say Meyer stays at OSU for 6-7 years, including this coming season (bowl ban :(..), and one must assume that this will be the WORST class he signs at Ohio State. I will realistically say that it is difficult to imagine that Urban Meyer's run at Ohio State ends with less than 2 titles. OSU hasn't been THAT far away for the last 5 or 6 years.. Urban may be just what the Dr ordered.
Has the supposed golden age of television diluted the quality of films making it to the big screen? Some may scoff at the question, but look at the strength of dramatic television over the past ten years...The Wire, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, BSG, Boardwalk Empire, Deadwood, Lost, FNL...then look at the nominees for the "Best Motion Picture - Drama" category at this year's Golden Globes (The Descendants, The Help, Hugo, The Ides of March, Moneyball, War Horse). I have only seen one of these films (The Descendants) and I actually loved Midnight in Paris...but I watch the trailers for the rest of those films and have no desire to see them. The Descendants was decent, but I know I would pick a new episode of Mad Men or Breaking Bad any day of the week. Are great writers passing on the glam of the silver screen for a format that gives them more flexibility in storytelling? I figured you may like to weigh in on the topic.
While we're undoubtedly in the golden age of television, I don't really think it's a fair comparison.. apples and oranges, or at least oranges and tangerines. Dramatic television gains from long form storytelling, and shows like "The Wire", "Deadwood", "Breaking Bad", and others, are undeniably great, but I truly believe that a good standalone film has more to offer than a similarly sized sample of a good TV show. This was a down year for movies, to be certain.. I think the studios were scared off by the twin towers of Transformers 3 and Harry Potter 8 and decided to postpone a lot until 2012. You really should check out Moneyball.. it's quite good. The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo is well worth a watch as well. I haven't seen Hugo yet but will (it's on the IMDB 250 after all), and that's in a down year. I don't think there's been any sort of migration to the small screen, I just think the parameters of what a television show can BE have changed so much to allow the gulf in both prestige and art to be narrowed and given more people an opportunity to fully express themselves. Cable surely helps as well. Even shows cancelled after a single season have 10+ hours of story to work with. The longest movie has no more than 3.5. Over that much time, you have more opportunity to tell stories, and more leeway with what you're going to do and the quality of what you're doing. A great film sizzles front to back.. there hasn't been a season of any TV show yet that sizzles throughout, in my honest opinion. The run of something like "The Wire" is more than 60 hours of storytelling. That's more runtime than the total non-documentary works of Martin Scorsese, who's been working for nearly 50 years. Would you choose the Wire over the cumulative works of Scorsese? I wouldn't. So while the last 10 years in TV have seen greatness, the last 10 years of film has given us the Lord of the Rings trilogy, City of God, Children of Men, The Departed, There Will Be Blood, The Dark Knight, No Country for Old Men, Pan's Labyrinth and so on.. greatness. So I don't think there's been an impact.. if anything, by becoming a serious storytelling medium, the small screen has enhanced the big screen by pushing and providing a proving ground for talent.
So I've been privately freaking out about the seeming quality of films slated to be released in 2012, and I decided to sort of give a run down of what you should be looking forward to in 2012, at least what I'm looking forward to, to give you an idea of what's coming so you hopefully can share in a little of my excitement. Trust me when I say that on paper, 2012 is completely loaded. So without too much further ado, I've made a list of the 20 flicks I'm most excited for in 2012. To give an idea of how stacked this year is, know that this isn't an exhaustive list, but 20 seemed like a nice round number. Feel free to disagree, but I'm guessing that my 2012 "best of" list includes a solid chunk of these flicks.
The Hunger Games (3/23)
I know, I know, Young Adult literature, doesn't seem like something that would get the endorsement of this blog. Well, I'm moderately ashamed to say that I read the Hunger Games trilogy in a moment of weakness last year (and they take about an hour and a half to read if you're an actual grown up), and the first book at least, is pretty damn good. The sequels decrease in quality, but the first one stands proudly among youth dystopian literature.. it most reminded me of a childhood favorite of mine: "The Giver". The tone of the trailers thus far has seemed pitch-perfect, Jennifer Lawrence has serious acting chops (check Winter's Bone if you don't believe me) and I am very intrigued by the cast, particularly Woody Harrelson as ornery, broken alcoholic mentor Haymitch Abernathy. I was skeptical that this would be another Twilight-style amateur hour kidfest, but the trailers give the impression that they're going full-out, and good for them.. the story seems made for the screen.
The Avengers (5/4)
If I was ranking the flicks 1-20 this one would absolutely be top 3 and quite possibly #1. Let it be known that I'm an unabashed Marvel nerd.. I grew up reading the comics and have been experiencing excitement bordering on low-level arousal since I found out what Marvel was planning on doing with their Avengers properties. So Marvel made successful and high quality Iron Man, Thor, Hulk and Captain America movies that all tie together into this.. Avengers. That in and of itself is amazing.. but you throw in written and directed by Joss Whedon? Forget about it. I'm so incredibly stoked I can't even handle it. Robert Downey Jr returns as Tony Stark/Iron Man, Chris Hemsworth as Thor, Chris Evans as Captain America, Mark Ruffalo takes over as the Hulk, and throw in Jeremy Renner, Samuel L. Jackson and Scarlett Johannson for shits and giggles. Watch the pilot to Firefly or Serenity and you'll understand why I'm so pumped. No one, and I mean no one can handle an ensemble the way that Whedon can. In someone else's hands, I'd be skeptical to say the least, especially considering the problems with Iron Man 2 getting bloated with too much going on.. but there is little doubt in my mind that Whedon's going to crush this one out of the park. Enjoy the ride.
The Dictator (5/11)
I'm also a rather unabashed Sasha Baron Cohen fanboy.. Da Ali G Show and I go way back to drunken nights in college, and I'm actually looking forward to this one more than I was Bruno or Borat because he's not a pre-existing character. Supposedly SBC decided to create this character after reading Saddam Hussein's book, and that in and of itself is rife with rich possibilities. This flick has all of a sudden become shockingly topical, with the "Arab Spring" of the last year, and knowing SBC, he certainly won't shy away from a controversy.
Moonrise Kingdom (5/25)
The list of things of which I'm an unabashed fanboy just continues. I love Wes Anderson. Love love love. Own all of his flicks, quote several of them with regularity, wish I lived in them, so on, so forth. So Wes Anderson returns to live action with an absolutely stacked cast (Ed Norton (!), Bruce Willis, Frances McDormand, Bill Murray, Tilda Swinton..) in a film that appears on first glance to be absolutely quintessential Wes Anderson. Where do I sign up?
Prometheus (6/8)
So we aren't quite sure whether this one is a straight-up Alien "prequel" or just set in the same universe... but it looks pretty prequel-y to me, and that's in no way a bad thing. If there's one thing that the universe absolutely needs, it's a Ridley Scott helmed prequel to one of the legend's absolutely great works, and one of the great sci-fi/horror films of all time. Look at that cast.. Fassbender, Guy Pearce, Charlize Theron, Idris Elba.. the trailer looks incredible. I'll be there opening night, no matter what.
The Amazing Spider Man (7/3) As mentioned previously, I was a bigtime Marvel comics fan growing up. My two favorite super heroes were Iron Man and Spider Man.. and let me say that I was no fan of the Sam Raimi Spider Man flicks. I know that they were hugely popular and relatively well done.. but they were cheesy. No one's even pretending that they take place in the actual New York City.. and that does Spider Man a disservice. What makes him great is that he takes place in a realistic world (within reason of course).. and from the look of the trailers I've seen thus far, it looks like this iteration has it down rather nicely. Spider Man doesn't deserve a cheesy cornball movie.. this is an orphan whose origin as a super hero comes when his beloved uncle is murdered because of his inaction.. which part of that is corny? His origin ispretty damn dark. Garfield was great in The Social Network and in the Red Riding part I that I've seen him in, Emma Stone is always strong, and someone made the genius move of casting Martin Sheen as Uncle Ben.. perfect. Hot name Marc Webb (500 Days of Summer) is directing.. and this one is rapidly moving up my list.. as everything I've seen is completely encouraging.
The Dark Knight Rises (7/20)
So if you aren't a fan of "Batman Begins" or "The Dark Knight" I'm really wondering why you're continuing to read this blog. Chris Nolan is one of the top 3 or 4 directors working today, Christian Bale is a master, and what they've done with the Batman franchise is truly remarkable and we should count ourselves lucky that such talented and accomplished artists choose to dedicate their art to popular pursuits. I truly mean that. So after the triumph that was "The Dark Knight", Nolan is making the end to his trilogy. From everything I've heard, this is it for Chris Nolan Batman flicks. We add Tom Hardy (who I'm obsessed with..) as Bane, Anne Hathaway as Catwoman, and several other new characters as it appears Batman is going to really have his hands full in this one. It's going to be dark.. but mostly, it's going to be amazing. This one, "the Hobbit", and "Avengers" are fighting for the #1 most anticipated movie of 2012 spot.
The Bourne Legacy (8/3)
Ordinarily, a quasi-sequel/reboot introducing a new star and new primary players would have me about as excited as I am for an 8 AM court date. But this is no ordinary quasi sequel/reboot. Written by the same guy (Tony Gilroy) responsible for the other Bourne flicks, Gilroy is also directing (he also directed Michael Clayton), so he's no stranger to the Bourne films, which are some of the best spy/action flicks in recent memory. Plus, while Matt Damon will be missed, there's certainly no drop off in talent, with Jeremy Renner starring s a new CIA operative in the Bourne universe. Edward Norton (Big summer for Ed) is the villain and Rachel Weisz the love interest as many of the players from the Bourne series (Joan Allen, David Strathairn) reprise their roles. Count me as cautiously optimistic on this one.. it could be great.
Argo (9/14) So of the more surprising happenings in movies in recent years, Ben Affleck's emergence as quite the talented director is close to the top. "Gone Baby Gone" and "The Town" are both great.. and Affleck clearly has established himself as a director to watch. Where his first two films dealth with something near and dear to his heart, Boston, this film promises to expand the scene, dealing with a CIA rescue operation during the 1979 Iranian revolution. So in both scope and period, Affleck is seriously broadening his horizons, and I for one am excited to see how he does. Oh, and this flick happens to star Bryan Cranston, Affleck and John Goodman.. NO BIGGIE.
Cloud Atlas (10/19)
From the Wachowski brothe.. er, siblings, just the guys who, you know, brought us "The Matrix" and "V for Vendetta", no bigs, this one is intriguing if a pretty complete unknown. This one is noteworthy for the talent involved, the ambition and its scope. I have no idea whether it's going to be good or not, it could completely fall flat on its face.. but as of this moment, I'm rather excited to see how this one turns out. With a cast including Tom Hanks, Hugo Weaving, Halle Berry, Keith David, Hugh Grant and Susan Sarandan, this film is said to follow 6 separate but interweaving storylines that interweave and reverberate through time and distance. Sounds pretty philosophy-y and ambitious, RIGHT? So consider my anticipation guarded, but sincere. I mean, that's a picture of a 17th century clipper sailing on clouds towards some kind of futuristic cityscape.. that right there is intriguing enough to at least check out the early reviews.
Skyfall (11/9) So to say that Daniel Craig has been pretty damn amazing as James Bond is just a BIT of an understatement. After a long delay that basically consisted of MGM going bankrupt and the future of the franchise being thrown into doubt, we're finally all systems go on the third installment of what may in fact be the best Bond of all. After the almost sci-fi nonsense that characterized the later Brosnan Bond films, Craig has been gritty, damaged, grounded and real as the world's greatest spy. He's charming, he's glamorous, but above all he's a murderous prick. Just as I'd imagine most government assassins are. I know just about nothing about the plot, but I do know that blog favorite Sam Mendes is behind the camera, which means we'll get some stunning visuals, and that Ralph Fiennes and Javier Bardem are set to co-star, meaning that the talent both behind and in front of the camera will be pretty damn top notch. After the moderate disappointment that was "Quantum of Solace", here's hoping that Bond bounces back with aplomb.
Gravity (11/21) So there's no official art, trailer or poster for this one, so I just used a picture of the hubble space telescope, because why not? Another relative unknown that is exciting simply because of the talent involved.. this one stars Sandra Bullock and George Clooney and focuses on a mission to repair the Hubble Space Telescope that goes wrong and forces the survivor(s) to try to get home however they can. That in and of itself is admittedly "meh", but throw in the fact that it's written and directed by Alfonso "Children of Men" Cuaron and will be in 3D? That's must-see cinema. Children of Men is one of the truly great Sci-films of the last 25 years and one of my alltime favorite movies, and Cuaron's visuals are truly stunning. I'll be keeping a careful eye out for this Thanksgiving time movie.
Lincoln (December) Yes.. that's Daniel Day Lewis with an Abe Lincoln beard. Yes, that's maybe the most awesome thing to ever happen. This flick has been a passion project for Spielberg for a long time, and has been a long time coming. Based on the book "Team of Rivals", this flick focuses on Lincoln and his management of the Civil War. Spielberg does period better than just about anyone, and this cast? Outrageous. Accompanying our greatest living actor are Tommy Lee Jones, Joseph Gordon Levitt, John Hawkes, Walton Goggins, Sally Field, Jackie Earle Haley, James Harris and James Spader. Yes, that's a stacked cast. So here's what we know about this flick: 1.) the attention to detail and production value will be through the roof, 2.) Daniel Day Lewis is a virtual shoe-in for best actor. Combining a director like Spielberg and an actor like DDL makes this one automatically a must-see. Lincoln was famously a conflicted and complicated person who faced personal demons, hardship and pain while steering the nation through its darkest hour.. dramatic source material doesn't get too much richer than this. DDL doesn't work too often, folks. Catch him while you can.
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (12/14)
So if you like movies, I certainly hope you liked the "Lord of the Rings" films of 2001, 2002 and 2003.. combined they are one of the more impressive achievements ever put on film. J.R.R. Tolkien's literary masterpieces were given an amazing treatment, one that may just surpass the books themselves. Well, 10 years later, Peter Jackson returns to make a 2-part prequel of sorts, based on Tolkien's other masterpiece, "the Hobbit". Martin Freeman plays a much younger (40 years-ish) Bilbo Baggins, Ian McKellan reprises his role as Gandalf.. and there's no possible way that this flick isn't absolutely great. This one is released Christmas-ish 2012, Part II a year later, and we'll undoubtedly have two new entrants to the "great films" list. If that trailer isn't pitch-perfect, I don't know what is.
Kill Bin Laden (12/19) Technically, it's my understanding that "Kill Bin Laden" is just a working title and is not yet the formal title of this flick. But oh well, whatever it's called, I'm excited for it. Kathryn Bigelow's last flick was a little movie called "The Hurt Locker".. that just happened to be one of the great war flicks of our time. So when I found out that her follow-up would be a major studio picture with the full backing of the studio, a huge budget, that just happens to be about the hunt for and mission to kill Bin Laden. Mark Strong, Joel Edgerton, Jessica Chastain, Chris Pratt and Jason Clarke star in a flick that's sure to be gritty, authentic, and awesome. Can't wait.
World War Z (12/21) So World War Z is a pretty damn awesome book, one that seems ripe for the cinematic treatment. It's basically an oral history of a fictional worldwide zombie apocalypse and the human response. It features a number of narrators who dictate their experiences with the zombie rising in their particular part of the worlds and in the process paints a pretty complete picture of how a hypothetical zombie apocalypse might just look. I'm not 100% sure how the movie is going to treat this.. flashbacks maybe? But I do know that zombies can be pretty damn awesome and that as far as zombie media goes, World War Z is pretty much the gold standard, along with "The Walking Dead" comics. No, not the show. Brad Pitt, James Badge Dale, Matthew Fox and David Morse star. Marc Forster (Finding Neverland, Quantum of Solace) directs, and this one has been a long time coming.
This Is Forty (12/21) As a Director and Producer, Judd Apatow has pretty much reshaped the modern R rated comedy. For his 4th movie, he's making a semi-sequel to his most popular flick, "Knocked Up". "This is 40" focuses on Pete and Debbie (Leslie Mann and Paul Rudd) and their family a few years after Knocked Up. Evidently Seth Rogen and Katherine Heigl are nowhere to be found, and this flick will instead focus on raising older kids and settling into middle age. I'm sure Mr. Apatow will find ample comedic gold to mine with this material. Jason Segel, Megan Fox (?) and Melissa McCarthy also star.
Django Unchained (12/25) So to follow-up "Inglorious Basterds", Quentin Tarantino is bringing us "Django Unchained", an ode to spaghetti westerns that features an escaped slave, who along with a German bounty hunter, seeks revenge on his former master and seeks to free his wife. It's QT, so it's going to be awesome.. and on the tail of Inglorious Basterds, it's clear that QT's sense of aesthetics, humor and feel for dialogue can surely be used to craft tales in different times.. and quite frankly, this one sounds awesome. Jamie Foxx stars as Django, Leo DiCaprio plays the Plantation owner, Christoph Waltz stars as the bounty hunter, and Samuel L Jackson, Joseph Gordon Levitt, Kurt Russell, Sasha Baron Cohen and Walton Goggins round out the cast. Stacked cast, a supposedly amazing screenplay (Tarantino's best since "Pulp Fiction" according to those who have read it..), one of the best director's working and an awesome premise combine to make one of 2012's must-see flicks. Awe-some. Count me in.
The Great Gatsby (12/25) So "The Great Gatsby" is truly one of the great American literary works and has already received one great cinematic treatment, but it's certainly ripe for a remake. Leo DiCaprio as Jay Gatsby? Awesome. Carey Mulligan and Joel Edgerton (who's lined up for a big 2012..) play Tom and Daisy Buchanan, and Tobey Maguire plays Nick Carraway. It's directed by Baz Luhrmann, which is either a good thing or a horrible thing, I can't tell yet. Lurhmann has directed the Romeo + Juliet Leo update treatment, Moulin Rouge and Australia. Not exactly my cup of tea.. but the talent involved has me optimistic, and Luhrmann's visuals are undeniably great. Plus.. I'm not a huge Tobey Maguire fan. This one could either be great or a giant miss. Completely up in the air. The fact that they're hyping this one as 3D gives me pause as well. Cocktails, Long Island and yachts ain't exactly Pandora, know what I mean? But Leo's in... so I'm in.
Untitled Terrence Malick Project (TBD) So Terrence Malick is a madman/amazing auteur. Tree of Life was my #1 movie of 2011, and the fact that he's making another flick so soon is pretty remarkable. We know that we're going to get amazing visuals, a non-linear narrative, and powerful emotions. This one reads like a love story, but we know that with Malick it will be more than meets the eye. The summary reads "A man reconnects with a woman from his hometown after his marriage to a European woman falls apart". Starring Ben Affleck, Michael Sheen, Rachel McAdams, Jessica Chastain, Rachel Weisz and Javier Bardem, the talent in front of and behind the camera makes this one a virtual must see and early awards favorite, even knowing not a damn thing about this one.
See what I mean? 2012 is STACKED. The summer blockbuster season is full of high-quality flicks, and the holiday awards season is absolutely ridiculous. I, for one, can't wait.
So if you don't know what "Grantland" is - LUCKY YOU - and you should probably stop reading, now, before I ruin your day. But first, let's back up with a little history lesson. Seriously, stop reading if you don't want your brain to melt. So there was once a little boy named "Bill", "Bill Simmons" to be exact, who ran a little sports-based website and referred to himself as "The Sports Guy". Well, being moderately clever, a devoted sports fan, moderately knowledgeable about sports, and dedicated/innovative enough to sports writing, his little website wound up getting him hired by the "Worldwide Leader" in sports, ESPN.com. This is where the story changes. Bill Simmons is the "2 and a Half Men" of sportswriters who has confused his popularity with quality and mistaken pageviews for a demand for MORE OF THE SAME. Much in the same way that CBS shows get high ratings because people are lazy and just come home from work and turn on shows with laugh tracks because they don't require "interpretation", "participation" or "analysis" (it's much easier to just go along with "dialogue, dialogue, joke, laugh, dialogue, joke, joke, LAUGH" than it is to have to understand nuance or reference), people read whatever is talking about boobs and cracking wise on ESPN.com because it's an innocuous and universally accepted website. It's safe, it's inoffensive, it's easy. OF COURSE Bill Simmons blew up.. he was on ESPN.com, prolific, moderately clever, knowledgeable and clearly passionate. That's Simmons' one undoubtedly valuable contribution to sportswriting and the internet, he brought a fan's passion and perspective to a genre (sportswriting) that was becoming dominated by sappy twits more concerned with playing up their insider status than entertaining or even informing their audiences. That's the true hallmark of the internet/social media age, the narcissistic individual being elevated to the role of arbiter. Judge, jury and executioner all in one dose. While a personalized narrative/commentary is much less informative than what we would call traditional journalism, it's a take. It's a point of view that can be actively agreed with or violently disagreed with, and either way it's more involved and fun to read than a simple passive reporting of events.
So Simmons blew up due to largely anticipating the entire blog movement. His easy to read word vomit made nonsensical pop-culture references, seems risque if you only read mainstream websites, seems intelligent if you only read mainstream sports reporting and substituted personal experience and opinion for anything quantifiable. His high point at ESPN was his involvement in the "30 for 30" series of documentaries, which brought in talented filmmakers to tell sports-related stories from the last 30 years in celebration of ESPN's 30 years of existence. Simmons served as Executive Producer of the 30 for 30 series and according to those in the know, was one of the main forces behind their production. In light of this and Simmons' clearly wanting more than simply his column on ESPN.com, ESPN agreed to bankroll a new site, "Grantland", of which Simmons would serve as Editor-in-Chief and which promised to be a "Sports and Culture" website, promising to bring in talented and original writers to write on pop culture, sports, and the intersection thereof.
I was cautiously excited for "Grantland", in light of "30 for 30", I (mistakenly) believed that Simmons wanted to build something high-brow, that would use the considerable resources at his disposal to raise the bar for sportswriting on the internet. Instead, Simmons, like the lazy, self-absorbed asshole he is, turned the entire website into one big Simmons column, only one where they can throw in "fuck" to come off as "edgy". For every well-written, thoughtful analysis (see: Barnwell, Bill), there is a post about "The Bachelor" or one where Simmons attempts to name who "movie stars" are based on... ? The whole thing is disappointing and a little embarrassing, frankly. The world doesn't need another blog for people who are too lazy to seek out KissingSuzyKolber, Deadspin or bloggers who actually take risks. With Simmons' clout and ESPN's resources, Grantland could have been (and IS, all too rarely) a place where thoughtful sports and pop-culture discourse took place. Much like 30 for 30, it could have been the best parts of new-style sportswriting, with some pop culture thrown in. Instead, it's a mess.. like Simmons' worst, egocentric instincts, it's completely scatterbrained. Does it want to be the AV Club, Videogum, ESPN.com, TMZ, or the Classical? Mixed in with say, Bill Barnwell's thoughtful and informative NFL columns are "Souper Bowl" brackets, idiotic and contrived "Reality TV Fantasy" Leagues, youtube "commentary" and the kind of lazy, less amusing nonsense that is literally EVERYWHERE on the internet today. It's simply not able to be all of those things. So shame on you, Simmons, for squandering what was an opportunity to build something truly unique and important to build something derivative, lazy, half-assed and often downright sloppy. This isn't a college kid's blog. It's something with the financial backing of ESPN led by someone who should know better.
So, in short, fuck Grantland. Not because of what it is, even though that's bad enough, but because of what it could have, and maybe should have been. You could have been the best of us, Bill, instead, you took your worst star fucking instincts and built a temple of slop. Kudos.
First, a couple of thoughts about the Oscars. Why doesn't Tom Hanks just host? He's so naturally likable and funny and does an extended solo presentation every year.. so isn't hosting the natural first step? You're telling me the world wouldn't rather see Tom Hanks than cornball, botoxed, hair dyed Billy Crystal? He looked like Glen Close playing Billy Crystal. Second, the right flick one. The Artist certainly deserves its accolades, and while it's not going to go down as one of the all-time greats, in a down year? It absolutely deserved everything it got. Lastly, I'm surprised Gary Oldman didn't get more love for his performance in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy.. it was subdued, understated, nuanced, with a lot of pain, competence, duty and pride in there.. all while saying as little as possible. Very English.. very great. But let's talk about "Chronicle", shall we?
