The House of Brenner

2012 Movie Preview

2012-02-08T22:54:00.003-05:00

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 is pretty 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 Sheen 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.

Fuck Grantland.

2012-02-07T21:45:00.000-05:00

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.

2012: The Year in Film: "Haywire" Review

2012-01-30T20:00:00.000-05:00

Only a solid 6 days late on this one.. one of these days I'll get the movie reviews up to current status. Crazy things like booze and the internet tend to get in the way. Gina Carino was a minor cultural phenomenon back in... ohh.. 2007/2008? She was an attractive and skilled female MMA fighter who gathered a large following and parlayed that following into a featured spot as one of the "Gladiators" on the short-lived modern reboot of "American Gladiators". Then someone (Steven Soderbergh) decided that she should be in movies, and here we are. Soderbergh, of course, is the acclaimed director of films like "Traffic", the "Ocean's" films, "Contagion", "Erin Brokovich", and so on. Needless to say, he can attract A-list talent to his projects. It seems like he's been on an experimental bent lately, making a flick with porn star Sasha Grey a few years back and now introducing the world's first female MMA star to feature films.

The supporting cast in this one is impressive. Ewan McGregor, blog favorite Michael Fassbender, Antonio Banderas, Bill Paxton, Michael Douglas and Channing Tatum round out the cast. As far as Carino herself, she has a solid screen presence, a natural beauty and a certain physicality that brings believability to the action sequences. However, it's clear that she's a newcomer to the movie game.. as her dialogue seems stiff and forced, and she doesn't seem to know what to do with scenes that don't require her to kick someone's ass. She may become a good actress someday.. but she just isn't yet. Not that that's her fault - carrying a movie is no easy task - Nic Cage hasn't figured out how to do it despite 25 years and 30+ chances.

As far as the plot - it's pretty standard and throwaway. Mallory is an agent for a company that contracts out dirty work for an unnamed government agency. Basically, they do jobs so that the government doesn't have to. After a contracted rescue mission in Barcelona where all is not as it seems, Mallory's world comes down around her head through a web of double-crosses, lies and betrayals. The plot hops around the globe as Mallory seeks to stay one step ahead of her pursuers, whose intentions aren't entirely clear.

All in all, I was rather disappointed in this one. Not that I expected it to surpass the "Bourne" flicks and become an action/spy classic, but given the talent behind and in front of the camera, I hoped for a solid flick at least. Unfortunately, this flick is uneven, inconsistent and rather dull despite stretches that are quite good. The plot is rather paint-by-numbers and seems more befitting an 80's Segal or Van Dam actioneer rather than a flick involving all of this talent. Bad guys with dubious allegiances and even more uncertain motivations simply doesn't cut it in our post-Bourne, post-Daniel Craig Bond world. In addition, as mentioned above, Carino, despite her impressive physicality and fight sequences, is simply a stiff unable to hold a movie on her own. She would have been better suited to ease her way into a starring vehicle via supporting roles.. as it felt like she was doing a "Terminator" impression throughout. In addition, Soderbergh's trademark jazzy transition scenes (think the "Ocean" movies) simply felt out of place. Trying to turn a John Cena straight-to-DVD flick into an arthouse flick with A-list talent and smooth listening jazz interludes just results in a slightly better genre flick in the absence of a transcendent performance. Unfortunately, the talented actors (McGregor, Fassbender, Douglas, Banderas) simply aren't given any meat to chew on. The most nuanced and complicated non-Carino character was played by Channing Tatum.. who probably takes acting lessons from his acting-challenged co-star. That dude is a stiff.

I hate to sound so negative about a movie.. but this one just didn't do it for me. There are scenes that are tense and very good.. but these cut abruptly to something COMPLETELY different, giving the flick an extremely uneven, disjointed feel. Carino does great fight scenes, as she should, but you really believe that she could beat up a man.. which isn't typically the case with women action stars. So while she certainly has some potential, she's just not there yet. So while this one isn't bad, it isn't particularly good, either.

5.5/10

2012: The Year in Film: "War Horse" Review.

2012-01-25T23:13:00.000-05:00

What if Forrest Gump was a smart horse instead of a dumb man? So I hung out with Mom and Dad this past weekend, and Mom REALLY wanted to see this one, so see it we did. My dad and I came to the agreement that the only thing worse than the trench warfare on the Western front of WW1 in human history was the Holocaust. Being a Spielberg flick, there are a few things it's helpful to recall about Mr. Spielberg. First, when it comes to visuals, Spielberg may not have a peer in the movie business.. James Cameron, Terrence Malick or Michael Mann might have grounds to argue, but no one does sweeping vistas and epic destruction the way that he does. Also, his flicks are always imbued with a certain (often emotionally manipulative) sentimentality. The man simply cannot resist soaring music and close reaction shots that are all but guaranteed to make the room PRETTY dusty. Have you watched ET as a grown up? Holy cow, I openly wept. Not that these are bad things, the man is undoubtedly a master filmmaker, they are just certain things you notice about someone when they've been very prominently artistically expressing themselves for more than 35 years. Oh, and there's the fact that this is a guy who manages to put a happy ending on everything - whether it's a movie about dinosaurs eating people. interplanetary warfare, a murderous shark, the holocaust, WW2, a lost alien or one archaeologist vs. nazi germany, things seem to work out for Steve's heroes. Once again, not a criticism.. simply a recognition of a certain cinematic style, a style that has become as integral to what makes movies "movies" as popcorn.

So War Horse, the film, is based on a best-selling British children's novel and stage/Broadway adaption of the same. Set in Britain and Continental Europe before, during, and briefly after the First World War, the story follows the son of an English farmer as he raises and trains a remarkable horse. The boy and his horse find themselves separated by war an circumstance, and a number of nigh-miraculous happenings lead to their reunion on the French battlefield. Along the way Joey (the horse) finds himself forced into the service of the English, German and French armies, adopted by a French jam maker and his granddaughter, and gains friends and admirers at every step.

It should come as no surprise that this film looks incredible. Much like Saving Private Ryan, the wartime battle scenes are as breathtaking as they are horrible. The sweeping visuals are reminiscent of classic Hollywood, where epic scenes were created with epic settings and hundreds of extras. In many ways, that's what this film feels like.. like an old hollywood epic western or war movie. There's no political point being made, if anything, all sides are treated more or less as equally reprehensible.

At the same time, this may be the most emotionally manipulative movie I've ever seen. I don't even like horses, in fact, I'm scared of them (I like being the largest animal in any given situation), but this flick tried harder than just about any other flick I can think of to get the waterworks going, and succeeded more than once. People know that animals elicit truer and purer emotional responses than humans do, as counter-intuitive as that may seem, so by depicting the horror of war through the eyes of an innocent, endearing animal, you idealize your subject while emphasizing the suffering. And the ending? Forget about it. The theater was full of sniffles.

This is an extremely watchable, artfully done and well-executed film. Technically? It may well be perfect. The action scenes are great, the color, lighting, camera angles, scenes, settings and costumes are perfect. It is well acted, featuring many recognizable English actors, although the structure of the film, being a series of vignettes that happen to a horse over the course of the war, means that no one actor or actors is really the focus. The focus is the horse, and the war. The plot is a bit strained in having Joey manage to see so many differing parts to this war.. but by the time he finds himself in the moonscape of no man's land, you find yourself not caring all that much. I made the comparison to Forrest Gump above, because that's what I found myself reminded of. Forrest Gump found himself a part of a number of historically significant moments due to no intention of his own but rather as a victim/beneficiary of circumstance, simply riding the wave of what came his way. Joey the horse is much the same in that way. He's sold to the cavalry, so he heads to war, where he changes hands as various riders/owners/thieves are killed or captured or separated.

So, in conclusion, I liked this film, but didn't LOVE it. The plot strained the limits of credibility a bit too much for that, but that's the kind of film that it is.. it's not aiming for documentary status here. Uplifting in parts, horrifying in others, it presents an earnest look at one of the worst calamities to ever befall the human race while also supplying a happy ending. There are certainly many worse things you could say about a film.

Technically perfect, emotionally stirring, extremely well done but unfortunately falling short of greatness, War Horse gets a solid 7.5/10. The rare watchable film that really is accessible to all audiences.

The Top Media of 2011.

2012-01-23T23:03:00.000-05:00

So it's 2012. Wild, right? I'm pretty sure that 2012 is pretty universally supposed to have been the future. I mean, based on what people thought from basically 1950 until 1990, by 2012 we'd have flying cars and jetpacks at the VERY least.. insterstellar travel on the optimistic side.

So I was going to just post my top 10 movies of 2011, but then realized that I reviewed every single movie I saw in theaters in 2011, so basically a top 10 list would just be sorting movies I've already rated according to score plus plugging in whatever flicks I didn't catch in theaters.. and that's kind of boring. So I decided to rate my top 10 media of 2011 instead, whether movies, albums, books, TV shows, or so on. I think it should be a little more interesting than just movies, and I think it sounds kind of fun. So let's take a look at the year that was, shall we?

Honorable Mentions: Game of Thrones, Season 1, Community, Seasons 2 and 3 (an uneven start to season 3 hurt this one), Childish Gambino, Camp, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Moneyball, Archer, Season 2.

10. A Dance With Dragons (A Song of Ice and Fire, Book 5), George R. R. Martin - I didn't read any of the books prior to February 2011, but devoured the first 4 months before the release of the 5th installment in July. Everything the show (Game of Thrones) does well, the books do better, and George R. R. Martin must be an awesome kind of insane. That's the only explanation I can think of, for his interlocking webs of past, present, prophesy and multiple, often unreliable narrators create a dense, complex, engrossing and rewarding world that I and many, many others simply can't get enough of. Don't believe me? Check out the online fan communities, where you'll see fans as devoted and obsessive as any. Is the whole saga extremely nerdy? Sure. But at its root, it's not about magic or traditional fantasy.. it's about real, flawed characters struggling in a brutal world. In a bleak and brutal universe, the struggles that make us human become illuminated. It's not a merry ride, but it's certainly a fun one. At around 1000 pages of sprawling world building, interlocking narratives and ominous foreboding, the 5th installment is (hopefully) the darkest part of night, before the dawn. I would recommend the books to anyone with an adult mind and imagination. But consider yourself warned, at around 900 dense pages per book, these are not for the faint of heart.

9. Parks and Recreation, Seasons 3 and 4 -
So 2011 covered Season 3 and the first half of Season 4 of what just might be the best comedy on TV. Since Rob Lowe and Adam Scott became regulars on P&R the show has achieved what may be approaching hilarious perfection. Silly yet endearing, often outrageous and over the top yet still very human and very, very sweet, this show never fails to bring out the laughs and bring out genuine human emotion. You know, like the Office when it was good, only better. In 2011 Parks and Rec brought us the Harvest Festival (and 'Lil Sebastian), Flu Season, April and Andy's wedding, and more sweet zany craziness from the residents of Pawnee, Indiana. Any week with a new Parks and Rec is well on its way to being a good one (especially if immediately proceeded by a Community..). If you don't want to hang out with Leslie, Ron, Tom, April, Andy, Chris, Ben and maybe even Jerry.. well I don't trust you. Kudos, Parks and Rec.. you really brought the awesome sauce in '11.

8. Friday Night Lights, Season 5
Have there been better shows than Friday Night Lights? Absolutely. But I don't know that any show has been TRUER or more earnest, and there's certainly a lot of value in that. These characters that you grow to know and love over the life of the series are flawed human beings.. but they are undoubtedly human beings. I don't know that there's ever been a better and truer positive depiction of a marriage on television than Eric and Tammy Taylor. Is it about football? Sure.. but when it comes down to it it's about people, who have hopes and dreams and make mistakes but do the best that they can. FNL achieved something that many shows have tried and failed to do in Seasons 4 and 5, they turned over their cast and switched the setting, moving Coach to a new school and introducing new players, and pulled it off perfectly. Most FNL fans like the East Dillon crew more than the West Dillon crew.. who we love. So even though the show came to an end in 2011.. you can't help but be glad that the show lasted as long as it did, and gave us a pitch-perfect ending along the way. Also.. Billy Riggins is an American hero.

7. Louie, Season 2.

Season 2 is when Louis CK's one-man tour de force, "Louie" crossed over from "interesting" to "tremendous". Louie isn't just one of the best comedies on TV, but one of the best shows, period. Louis CK is responsible for every single element of this series, and his cynical yet hilarious mind often spawns greatness. Season 2 gave us some absolutely brilliant episodes.. including Louie's trip to Afghanistan and the long-overdue confrontation with the epic douche known as Dane Cook. (kudos to Mr. Cook for having the guts and the magnanimity to make the appearance) It cracked me up, it broke my heart, but no matter what, it always had something to say. Given Louis CK's brilliant comedic mind, consider me beyond excited for what Louie will bring in the future.

6. Bon Iver, Bon Iver
   Bon Iver's (still not 100% sure how to pronounce it..) 2009 debut, For Emma, Forever Ago was truly great. Melancholy, ethereal, gorgeous. Written and produced in a cabin in the woods, and you can certainly tell. Is this album an improvement? It's so completely different, I don't know that it's possible to make that determination.   What I do know is that this album is also truly great. It doesn't have the same unity of purpose and form, but what it lacks in a holistic approach it makes up for in ambition and variety. Oh, and if I die anywhere in the next ten years, I want "Holocene" to be played at my funeral.. it's beautiful. A friend of mine called listening to Bon Iver like "being in heaven's waiting room".. and while I'm not sure I agree, there certainly is something nigh-spiritual about it. My favorite album of the year, and the one I don't skip any tracks on.

5. Warrior
So this one came out last fall, and I couldn't convince any of my deadbeat friends to catch it with me during the 3 weeks it was actually in theaters. Shame on them, shame on me, shame on everyone else that didn't catch this one (and there were many..), because it is truly great. All dramas contain an emotional journey of sorts, and in my experience, catharsis just may be the most heart-wrenching of them all. No, I don't particularly like UFC/MMA, but that doesn't really matter.. like most great dramas, it's not about the superficial setting, but rather about the journey of its characters. I'm a sucker for father/son stories.. and throw in a brother/brother story? Forget about it. So an MMA tournament brings together two brothers and their alcoholic father, long-estranged. One brother is a war hero and gifted fighter, the other a family man, high school teacher and serious underdog. Let me put it this way.. at the last fight I had full on tears running down my cheeks. Powerful, powerful stuff. Well worth a watch.

4. Justified, Season 2
It may not be the BEST show on TV, there are far too many "off" episodes for that, but at its strongest, which usually come during the last few episodes of the season, there isn't a better show, plain and simple. Justified focuses on US Marshall Raylan Givens (Timothy Olyphant in a star-making turn), based on an Elmore Leonard character who is a little too cowboy-esque and trigger happy for our modern world, but who happens to be very good at his job. A native of rough and rural Harlan County, Kentucky, Givens finds himself continuously sucked into the criminal world of his hometown, much of which is run by family, friends and acquaintances. Despite his better judgment and the pleadings of basically everyone who cares about him, Harlan County continues to pull Raylan in. Season 2 brings back Season 1's primary villain, Raylan's boyhood friend Boyd Crowder (a particularly charismatic Walton Goggins), and introduces a menacing and outstanding Margo Martindale as criminal matriarch Mags Bennett. Just watch, season 3 just started and has certainly not disappointed thus far.

3. Midnight in Paris
First thing's first.. I don't usually like Woody Allen. I find him to be self-absorbed and more than a little egotistical. Not that that's especially uncharacteristic of artists, or that he isn't undeniably talented and prolific as a filmmaker, but something about the man and his works has always irked me a little bit. So in light of that comes my love and appreciation for this flick. It certainly doesn't hurt that Owen Wilson plays Woody Allen better than Woody Allen does. This flick is sweet, funny, smart and an all-around good time. Gil is struggling through his first novel and uncertain in his relationship with his fiancee, Inez, and finds just what he needed on the magical streets of Paris. Is the "message" a little simplistic and obvious? Sure. Does it play to the egos of its audience by making references that make them feel cultured and well read? Absolutely. But none of that takes away from what this flick does well, which is capture an artful playfulness in a smart and worthwhile way. Eminently watchable, quotable and pretty damn fun, I don't know that I'll ever get tired of this one. Hemingway is an absolute treat.

2. Tree of Life
This one certainly brings out strong reactions in viewers. Despite its utter lack of what most would call a "plot", its esthetic, undeniable beauty, ambition and an ethereal sort of spirituality make it an absolutely gorgeous film.   I look at it as an artful prayer, evaluation, or speculation on the nature of existence, on god and love and life and who we are and why we are. Unanswerable questions, to be sure, but at the same time, one of the most important functions of art is to ask these questions and search for the ever elusive answers.    The beauty and greatness of this flick is rather difficult to put into words, much like a great painting or sculpture in that way.. where it's an almost instinctual reaction. But let me say that I'd completely understand why someone wouldn't like this one. I just happen to think it's the best film of 2011.

1. Breaking Bad, Season 4
   Breaking Bad is, at this point of its run, the only series that even deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as "The Wire". Brian Cranston has been knocking the role of Walter White out of the park from day 1.. and Aaron Paul has more than held up his end of the bargain. By Season 4, what began as a deviation into criminality to make some side money has morphed into something lucrative, devious and horrible, with ripples that extend far beyond the intended consequences. At this point, it's impossible to deny that Walter White is a villain, but damn it if you can't stop rooting for the guy. Season 4 finds Walter and Jesse in a Mexican stand-off of sorts with chicken and methamphetamine kingpin Gus Fring, and the tension inherent in that employer-employee relationship is the dramatic drive for the entire season. Breaking Bad was, and remains, appointment television, and with 16 episodes remaining, I can't wait for what will undoubtedly be an amazing finish.

So that's 2011 in media, folks. Feel free to disagree, but know that I'm most likely right about pretty much all of this. Just something to consider.

Is Tim Tebow the Antichrist?

2012-01-11T19:49:00.006-05:00

Now if you haven't been living on planet earth for the past few months, you may be wondering what all the hoopla about Tim Tebow is all about. Well, Mr. Tebow is a young, handsome, charismatic quarterback for the Denver Broncos of the National Football League, and has become at once the most popular and most divisive athlete, nay, personality, in America over the past 6 months. Even as a third-teamer in the preseason his travails got more coverage than legitimate football news, and since he took the starting job? Holy shit.. Tebowmania has swept the nation. If he's good, he's the best ever. If he's bad, he's the worst ever.. you simply cannot exist on this earthly plane and be "meh" on Tim Tebow. While at Florida, Tebow won two National titles and a Heisman trophy, and was pretty much the most dominant player in the nation for three whole seasons. But that's all about football - plenty of people are good at football, what makes Tebow such a sensation is his very public, very evangelical brand of Christianity. Tebow simply will not let you forget that he is, in fact, a Christian, and a dedicated one at that. In fact, pseudo-religious "news" about Tebow is reported in INTERNATIONAL sources. Tim Tebow and his religiosity are simply inescapable. While at Florida, Tebow famously and publicly performed mission trips in the Philippines with his father's church, going so far as to help doctors perform circumcisions on impoverished Filipino children. Reporters, coaches, teammates, fans, announcers and public officials effuse on the quality of this young man as his confessed humility, hard work and quality of character win supporters across the country and beyond. It is not uncommon to see parallels drawn between Tebow and Jesus himself. While a large segment of the population seems to have concluded that Tebow lies somewhere between Hercules, David, Elijah and Christ himself on the scale between god and man, what most seem to agree on is that there's more to this particular quarterback than meets the eye. What I haven't seen anyone actually consider is the potentiality that rather than a minor prophet or potential incarnation of Christ himself, Tebow is rather something much more nefarious, a usurper, imposter, or even the antichrist himself. Let's discuss.

Most biblical scholars believe that the biblical books of Revelations and Daniel, from which the vast majority of our textual support for the antichrist derive, are shrouded in metaphor and symbolism, and refer to signs and "beasts" not as literal beasts, but rather as abstract representations of future events. In addition, it's important to remember that in the Christian tradition, the antichrist is not a demonic figure like traditional depictions of Satan or other devils. Rather, he's a charismatic figure who will convince mankind that he is the true Christ prior to Christ's return. Here's what we do know about the antichrist, and how it relates to Tim Tebow.

• First, the antichrist will be associated with the number 666. Whether this is a marking directly on his body or whether its his abstract "mark" is less certain. Consider this. Tim Tebow has worn the jersey number 15 in high school, college and now the pros. 1+5 = 6. 15 in HS, 15 in College, 15 in the Pros. Lay all three jerseys next to each other and what do you get? Three 6's. [Rev 13]

• The antichrist is "gifted with a mouth that can speak great and convincing things". Tebow is renowned for his impact on all he meets. Listen to Verne Lunquist pontificate on his quality of character sometime, or witness snake oil salesperson Urban Meyer break down like a schoolgirl when speaking on the impact Tebow has had on his family and himself to see that Tebow is certainly blessed (or cursed?) with this particular quality. In addition, let's not forget his mission trips to the Philippines. The Philippines are a CHRISTIAN (Catholic) nation.. so Tebow is preaching to and converting already baptized Christians. If that's not dangerously close to treading on God I don't know what is. [Rev 13]

• The antichrist performs "Great wonders" and "miracles" - as seen by Tebow's being a "miracle baby" as attested to by his mother, and his 5 come from behind victories this season, often in improbable and downright miraculous fashion. Indeed, the postgame fireworks following his improbable playoff victory vs. 12-4 Pittsburgh formed a halo in the sky above the stadium. [Rev 13]

• The antichrist will have a "powerful look - more stout than his fellows" and "fierce countenance". Check out that shirtless picture above or one of his runs to get an idea of his physicality, and this video should give you an idea of the fierceness of his countenance. [Dan 7]

• The antichrist will be "worshipped by many people" - Look no farther than this picture and this video to see Tebow's impact on people. See also: NFL.com posting pictures of what Tebow and X's (including: Oprah Winfrey, Michelle Bachmann, and other notables) baby would look like. Yes, NFL.com did this. Seriously. [Rev 13]

• The antichrist will "survive a deadly wound" - Tebow famously was a product of a difficult pregnancy as a so-called "miracle baby" (seriously) -
oh, and there's this hit:
[Rev 13]

• The antichrist will "show no regard for the desire of women" - Tebow is famously (or claims to be) a virgin, despite having been a star football player his entire life and despite the undoubtedly constant propositions of nubile young women from Florida to Denver. [Dan 11]

• Finally, the antichrist will arrive on a white, or more appropriately, pale horse. I've included the logo of the Denver Broncos for convenience's sake. [Rev 6]

Now, I'm not saying that Tim Tebow most definitely IS the antichrist, I'm just saying that: 1.) The History Channel has made entire specials using significantly less evidence than I just displayed, and 2.) Is it so crazy that a nearly maniacally religious home schooled kid from Florida may not be all that he seems? Is it? I think these are questions worth asking. Consider me now terrified that the antichrist is indeed among us, and Skip Bayless and Verne Lundquist lead us readily to our doom. Elway, always the stalwart defender of all that is right and good, tried to hold out as long as humanly possible, but was unable to resist the rising tide of the black covenant streaming from Bristol, CT. Guard yourselves against the coming doom.. and I never thought I'd say this, but Go Patriots.

2012: The Year in Film: "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy" Review

2012-01-08T21:58:00.001-05:00

Caught this one on Friday night, and truth be told, I've been excited for this flick since I found out about it last fall. It's been getting serious awards buzz, and having seen it, you can definitely see why. An absolutely stacked cast, great aesthetic, and tense, mature story combine to create one of the more watchable and enjoyable adult flicks I've seen in a long time. This one is based on a novel by John Le Carre, who was a former British intelligence agent and thus likely knows a thing or two about the spy game. If you're a British actor and you AREN'T in this movie, you should give your agent a call. John Hurt, Gary Oldman, Mark Strong, Colin Firth, Benedict Cumberbatch (Sherlock), Toby Jones, Ciarán Hinds and "boy of the year" candidate Tom Hardy star as the veteran intelligence officers of "The Circus" and younger trigger operations agents who do their bidding. Swedish director Tomas Alfredson (Let the Right One In) makes his mainstream Hollywood debut, so let's check this one out, shall we?

It's 1973 and "Control", the head of British foreign intelligence, is convinced that there's a Soviet mole in the highest levels of British intelligence. After a failed operation, Control and Smiley, his top Lieutenant, are forced out, but the hunt for the mole continues. Over the next year, Smiley and his team meticulously attempt to puzzle out the complicated chess match that is cold-war era espionage. These aren't your James Bond spies, these are bookish men whose jobs consist of study, analysis and obsession rather than bedding exotic women and destroying cities with fanciful gadgets.

This flick is about two things: atmosphere and performances.. and it doesn't disappoint in either department. The setting is London, 1973, and this one is all muted colors, whispered conversations and backroom deals. The brief moments of action and excitement are unexpected and serve as punctuations to the tense machinations and maneuverings. The performances? Knocked out of the park. John Hurt, Tom Hardy, Benedict Cumberbatch, Mark Strong and Oldman, especially. Through the use of flashbacks, the characters and their relationships with one another and their families are fleshed out, and we really see the human side of what was the front line of the Cold War. Oldman is given the most to do, and he doesn't disappoint, absolutely crushing this one out of the part and putting himself square in the middle of any awards conversation. His George Smiley is subdued, reserved and supremely competent, dedicated, loyal, determined and yet sad. In the hands of a lesser actor Smiley would come off as depressing or quiet rather than the complicated, confident and effective professional that Oldman presents.

This flick looks great, feels entirely authentic and presents Cold War intelligence as an unglamorous, thankless grind rather than the heroic romance so often presented by Hollywood. These are damaged men who sacrifice everything for country and in the name of world peace, and the flick pulls no punches in this depiction. The flick does very little hand-holding for the audience, foregoing expository dialogue for character-driven flashbacks. The performances are absolutely spectacular.. easily the best work by an ensemble I've seen all year. If I have complaints, simply that the plot at times is a little unclear.. but I feel that everything makes sense by film's end, in addition, the identity of the mole is tipped a LITTLE too heavily for my taste. The ending? Simply great. The always great Gary Oldman delivers, check this one out if you're in the mood for a complex flick made for people older than 16.

8.5/10.

2011: The Year in Film: "The Descendants" Review

2011-12-30T12:00:00.000-05:00

Only a solid week late with this review, too. Go me! So it's a miniature Brenner family tradition that we see a movie Christmas eve. Despite my pushing for "Hugo", the 3D scared away the elders, so we settled on the safe choice of an award-baiting George Clooney's collaboration with Alexander Payne. I had (rather) affectionately been referring to this one as "white people problems" due to the setting and subject matter (Hawaii, rich people, really?), but there's no denying the talent of Mr. Clooney, and who doesn't like "Sideways"?, so here we are. It's one of the appeals of film, I suppose, that the setting can psychologically have so much bearing on your viewing experience. During "Girl With The Dragon Tattoo", for instance, I found myself somewhat chilled by the frigid and harsh conditions. During this one, despite seeing it on a 30 degree NW Ohio day, I felt the need to thrown on linen pants and boat shoes, and the setting really is a character all its own.

Movies come in all shapes and sizes, and there's certainly something to be said for the family dramedy, an American institution in and of itself. This flick focuses on a man, Matt King, who happens to be heir (along with his numerous cousins) to the largest untouched part of Hawaii due to an inheritance from the royal family and his two daughters, Scottie and Alex as they deal with the aftermath of a horrible accident involving his wife and their mother. Due to the Rule Against Perpetuities (law school shout out) the trust that has governed the land grant for more than a century is due to expire, and Matt as sole trustee has the final say over what will be done with the pristine coastline worth hundreds of millions.

So let me say that going into this one I was very, very skeptical. Not that I doubted the talent of the people involved, quite the contrary actually, just that I wasn't sure how much dramatic heft a bunch of rich people could possibly pack. And for the first 30 minutes or so, I was convinced that my cynical snarkiness would win the day.. with all of this talk about "land sales" and "boating accidents" and traipsing about law offices and wealthy Honolulu neighborhoods I was prepared to write this one off as one of the root causes of the "Occupy Honolulu" movement. But as the entirety of what this particular family was facing began to set in and the utter humanity of the characters shone through the high-dollar veneer, my cynicism began to fade and that handsome bastard Clooney charmed the pants off of me the way he has countless cocktail waitresses and starlets for the better part of two decades now.

A flick like this simply can't work without a cast that's at once likable and believable. Movie stars can't simply waltz around acting movie-starry if you're going to pull off a small, human drama. Clooney, as the narrator/protagonist, deserves all the hype. He's likable, charming, flawed, funny and above all human as a dad, husband and trustee who's simply in over his head. I've ragged on Clooney for always playing Clooney in the past, and there's a lot of that here, but he brings a certain weariness and vulnerability to the role that really makes Matt a likable and utterly human "hero". The kids are the real stars of this flick though. Amara Miller, who plays 10 year old Scottie, is funny, quirky and most of all completely convincing as a kid reconnecting with dad. Shailene Woodley brings a worldliness (is that a word?) to the elder daughter, forced to grow up far too fast by circumstances, and acting out as a result. You really believe that these people are a family, and that's crucial. Alex's "friend", Sid, is a treat and provides much-needed comic relief in parts.

This is a sweet little flick, at times funny, sad, charming and moving, but it tells a completely human story that just happens to take place in paradise. Is it #richpeopleproblems? Sure, but sometimes people are people, man. These are people with flaws but also charms, and sometimes tough times are just what we need to bring us together.

7.8/10. A good indie family dramedy that ends strong after some early struggles.

2011: The Year in Film: "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" Review

2011-12-28T23:55:00.000-05:00

Wow. I suck guys. More than a month with no posts? Well, I saw this one a healthy week ago and intended on getting it up right away but damn things like "Holidays" and "responsibilities" got in the way and RUINED EVERYTHING. But here I am, and for all outward appearances, one could reasonably conclude that I'm a groupie for these stories, I've read all three books, seen the Swedish flicks, and now here I am seeing the American version. Steig Larsson's "millenium trilogy" has more or less swept the world, but I promise I don't like the story THAT much. With that being said, I don't know that there's been a better combination of director and material than David Fincher and Steig Larsson's novels. The books are bleak, twisted, violent and dark, and Fincher often flashes a nihilistic, gritty, violent streak in his work. While Fincher is undoubtedly a strong director with a striking visual style and unquestionable artistic skill, his flicks are often hit or miss for me, missing as often as not for a variety of reasons. We have Alien3 (miss, but not his fault), Se7en (hit), The Game (hit-ish), Fight Club (hit), Panic Room (miss), Zodiac (miss-ish), The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (miss) and The Social Network (hit) - so Fincher is 4-4 going into this one. This is no easy task, making this flick. The books are widely beloved, and the Swedish flicks are strong to quite strong, the first installment especially, and probably better cast, at least upon first glance. So let's review this thing, shall we?

These books are popular for a reason, especially this first installment, combining the brutal violence of a crime drama with computer hacking technobabble, political and family intrigue and a healthy dose of sex. In addition, the titular "girl" with said tattoo, Lisbeth Salander, is a unique and compelling protagonist. She's somewhere on the spectrum with a past of emotional, physical and sexual abuse and manipulation, but is also an uber badass, so it combines to create some sort of hacker antiheroine who you can't help but find yourself drawn to. The other protagonist, Mikael Blomkvist, is basically a fantasy version of the author of the series. He's a crusading journalist who brings down whole institutions through his quest for truth and justice, and who all the ladies can't help but bed. It's infantile when it comes down to it, but it's all in good fun.

So here's the set-up, Blomkvist has just been found guilty in a libel trial in Sweden for certain unprovable allegations made against a titan of Swedish industry. His magazine is floundering and he finds himself broke and facing the prospect of jail time. He is approached by a mysterious potential employer, an aging Swedish patriarch whose family owns one of the largest firms in the country, and who finds himself obsessed by a haunting and peculiar mystery that is now more than 40 years old. Meanwhile, Salander uses her hacking skills to be the star investigator at a security firm, while she faces difficulty (to say the least) with her state appointed guardian (she was declared insane as a youth after a horrible act of violence that will be elaborated on in later installments). Eventually Blomkvist seeks help investigating his murder mystery, and is led to Salander, who did a very thorough investigation on him for his new employers. The two join forces, and that, folks, is the basic skeletal outline of your story.

Fincher and the screenwriters made a very good decision in choosing to keep the story set in Sweden. It very easily could have been bastardized and transplanted to the US for American audiences, but this is one case where the setting and rather unique nuances of the Swedish climate and past enrich and assist with the action of the story. When it's boiled down, this story is basically your classic Agatha Christie-style murder mystery dressed up for our modern day and age, and the harsh, dark, cold climate and characters only add to the sense of tension and dread. This flick looks great.. and that's always been Fincher's strong suit, but he certainly does not disappoint here. Most of the flick was shot on location in Sweden, and the sense of pervading cold and isolation is really enhanced through Fincher's visuals and the often haunting and dark score (Fincher brought back NIN's Trent Reznor for another collaboration after last year's Social Network).

But when it comes down to it, this is a flick and a story drawn by characters. A disproportionate amount of time is spent watching characters obsess over books or diaries or pictures or computer screen, and the actors have to be compelling for that to work, or else it ends up looking preposterous. I must admit I had reservations on both main characters, for a number of reasons. First, Blomkvist is a journalist who never displays overly physical characteristics and as a matter of fact is overwhelmed a number of times throughout the books. In addition, he's a 40-something journalist. Daniel Craig is James Bond.. and he's absolutely jacked. I don't think bookish journalists have 10-packs. So I was concerned that Craig wouldn't be able to tone down his machismo for the role. Likewise, Mara, in her first major role, had to slip on some major shoes here, and do a lot of the heavy lifting without much dialogue. It didn't help that the actors who played the characters in the Swedish flicks were damn great. But, both were very, very good and completely demolished all of my concerns, especially Rooney Mara. She brings a smoldering rage and determination to the character, completely making you forget that she's actually an adorable little heiress. Craig dials down the confidence and masculinity enough to make the whole thing believable. I felt like he should have gained 20 lbs and put on a paunch just to add to the authenticity but oh well. Chris Plummer is great as Henrik Vanger and (Swedish!) Stellan Skarsgard is very good as the current President of Vanger industries.

All in all, this flick worked for me. It's often rather intense (one scene of violence in particular), dark and twisted, making it right up Fincher's alley. Fincher's visuals give the flick an often haunting quality, which fit the subject matter beautifully. The cast doesn't get overwhelmed by the intricacies of the plot or the showy visuals, and you never forget that these characters are people first and foremost, with fears and relationships. Even having read the book and seen the Swedish version, I thoroughly enjoyed this one.. I'd think that having NO familiarity with the story and the characters would probably make it even better.

8.5/10

Childish Gambino: Camp Review

2011-11-20T23:54:00.000-05:00

So music criticism is a new endeavor for this blog, but like Mr. Glover himself, I'm multi-talented, so let's give it a shot. If you've hung out with me at all in 2011, you've probably been annoyed by me raving about Childish Gambino to anyone who would listen, but the dude is insanely talented, and brings a certain brilliance to his music that, quite frankly, is too good to be missed. If you don't know, Childish Gambino is the rap name used by Donald Glover, who plays Troy on Community, wrote for '30 Rock' during the best years of that show, who was the star of the "Derrick" comedy group (they made the "Bro Rape" video of youtube fame), and who is a successful standup comedian. As he tells it, he typed his name into a "Wu-Tang Name Generator" site while in college, and has used the name Childish Gambino ever since. He's been putting out original music and remixes for several years now, up to this point for free on his site: www.iamdonald.com, while he flirted with various record labels and become more and more of a legitimate musician. Since September '09, he's put out several full-length mix-tapes/albums and an EP, and each one has steadily improved. In Summer 2011, Glover signed with Glassnote records, and "Camp" was released on 11/15/11.

Glover is an impressive and honest lyricist, blending pop-culture references with layered metaphors and personal reflections and the silly with the heartfelt. His verses run the gamut from clowning around to heartfelt questions on race, love and loneliness. It doesn't take very long to realize that this is one very smart, funny, sensitive dude. There are persistent themes: zero to hero, not being "black" enough, being picked on and called "gay" that pop up again and again, and are explored with a nuance, self-awareness and wit that frankly, isn't very common in hip hop. There are a lot of dick jokes and sophomoric humor that he winkingly acknowledges as just having fun. There's a sense of play throughout that offsets the more serious fare. As an artist, he manages to be serious enough to be taken seriously while keeping the whole thing fun. That's what successful comedians do, and that quality is successfully brought to his music as well.

The album has a definite arc to it, starting with the introspective "Outside", and building into more "party" tracks that are "Firefly" and "Bonfire" before offering the almost painful introspective lamentations on love and modern relationships that are "Letter Home" and "Heartbeat". The album closes with a long monologue that's part story about Summer Camp, part explanation for who he is today that has a poignancy and power far beyond a junior high camp story.

It's common to compare Gambino to either Drake or Kanye West, and superficially, that seems fair, although it's not quite apt. Drake is an actor turned rapper who sings his own hooks, and Kanye is a suburban raised kid who produces his own beats. Gambino is much less chained to hip-hop convention - which is a welcome relief. Does he talk about women and partying? Absolutely.. but the entire thing comes with a wink and a certain self-deprecating outsider's take. Where Kanye is blustering faux swagger and cockiness, Gambino is often a painfully self-aware glimpse into something deeper. Drake is the more polished performer, but is also much more grounded in hip-hop convention. It seems to me that Gambino might be delivering on what Kanye seemed to promise back with "College Dropout", that of taking hip-hop outside of the greater culture and bringing it to a more relatable level. I've read more than one review that compared this albumb to "College Dropout", but to me, the Kanye album that it's most similar to is "Graduation", and I think that's simply because of Gambino's experience and relative polish he's gotten while self-producing his music. He emerges not so much as a new artist but as a young artist. Still developing, but mature enough to have a voice. Where "College Dropout" didn't have a cohesive narrative as much as it had some very strong tracks, this one really rewards listening to the album in its entirety.

I can say right now that "Camp" is either my favorite or second favorite album of the year. It and Bon Iver will have to fight it out. I'm extremely excited to see where Childish Gambino goes as an artist - I think it's clear that if he chooses to put his mind to it, he can be a force in hip-hop. If you can't tell from this post in its entirety, I have a serious mancrush on Donald Glover and find his music to be extremely relatable and legitimately great in levels beyond "Hey, the dude from Community is rapping".

Check out this album, you won't regret it. 9/10

2011: The Year in Film: "J. Edgar" Review

2011-11-19T13:43:00.001-05:00

It's fascinating to me how much of what makes up our world is due to historical happenstance, the influence of a particular man (or woman) or set of circumstances that happened to be in a certain place at a certain time. So much of our society and its rules and institutions seems to have been fated or inevitable, when in fact it's the result of a determined person or lucky coincidence that happened to have the foresight or good fortune to rise to an occasion or exploit an opening. One of the individuals who had an outsized impact on American society, our worldview and our institutions over the past century was longtime (we're talking 40+ years) FBI director J. Edgar Hoover. In fact, I'd be prepared to make an argument that he's one of the 10 or so people MOST responsible for shaping what we, as a nation and society are today. So, needless to say, a flick about his life starring one of the best actors working today, in Leonardo DiCaprio by one of the most important directors working, in Clint Eastwood, becomes a must-see.

This film has gotten mixed reviews.. most recognize its achievement while finding the narrative lacking. Most of all, I respect its ambition. I question whether another director could get a project like this green-lit. It's not quite a biopic, not quite a history of the FBI and not quite a historical drama a la say "The King's Speech". What it is, most of all, it seems to me, is a study of who Hoover WAS, why he was important, and what that means to us today. Through the lens of important events in his life and important events in the history of the FBI, we evaluate the rise and fall of an American icon and institution, a strange little man who built a monolith from scratch and whose legacy continues to resonate today. The film is framed as Hoover dictates a book to various FBI agents and outlines the start of his career, focusing on crucial points, like the Lindbergh baby case, the war on crime and the red scares of the early 1920s and the 1950s. The narrative skips from the past to the 1960's, where Hoover as an old man, has private files on every important person in the country and is, some say, the most powerful man in the nation. The narrative is extremely effective at points - doing a great job attempting to explain what made Hoover tick, for example, and fails at others - for instance, the story surrounding Hoover's illegal surveillance in the 1960's is less clear.

A flick like this is dependent entirely on the cast. It takes place in backrooms and offices and without actors capable of carrying the load, would completely collapse under its own weight. DiCaprio is great as J. Edgar. Simply great. He brings the perfect mix of eccentricity, paranoia, confidence and unease to a complicated, strange and yet powerful man. Judi Dench is great as well as Hoover's domineering mother, who had an undue influence on her son for the entirety of her life. Armie Hammer (who played the Winklevii in the Social Network..) is great as Hoover's #2 man, confidant, lifelong companion, probable lover and conscience, Clyde Tolson. Naomi Watts is more than adequate as Hoover's other lifelong companion, his personal secretary and keeper of his files, Helen Gandy. This flick is completely full of "those guys".. as basically every character is a man, and an Eastwood film attracts known actors. (For example - Jeffrey Donovan, the star of "Burn Notice", plays Robert Kennedy)

In showing, rather than telling and preaching, this film puts the right twist on Hoover's outsized legend. Everyone knows he was rumored to wear women's clothing, but this film doesn't focus on his strange personal habits, his modernization of law enforcement or his mistakes, focusing instead on what made the man tick, in an effort to understand what made the FBI what it is today. I appreciate that ambition.. and while that effort wasn't perfectly executed, the effort to document the meteoric rise and degeneration into paranoia of an icon is the sort of effort that just isn't made too often in Hollywood. For that, I applaud everyone involved, as Hoover's is a story that needs telling, particularly in our modern age of an omnipotent Federal government. This man is responsible for Federal Law Enforcement (FBI, DEA, ATF, you name it) as we know it, and his sweeping vision and ambition is responsible in large part for so many things.

Is the film perfect? No. But it is well-acted, often tragic and surprisingly touching in parts, and there's a lot more that works than there is that doesn't. So come for the acting, stay for the commentary on who we are and how we got here. If there's one outsized criticism from me, it's that the lighting in the film is HORRIBLE - it's not black and white, but every scene seems to take place at dusk/twilight, even when the scenes are in the middle of the day. It's rather distracting.

With that being said, this film does a lot more right than it does wrong - and the ambition alone is enough to add a point. 8/10.

Mailbag, Part II: Son of Mailbag.

2011-11-17T15:00:00.001-05:00

Ok, so it looks like we're quarterly on the mailbag.. that's not necessarily a bad thing. Need to build the readership up, yo.

The Brenner Bag II

J.D.: The political junkie in me wants you to do something on the senate bill 5 referendum...
Well - I have mixed feelings on it. Obviously the referendum failed, which is undoubtedly a good thing, and I don't know that it was ever really in doubt. Here's the mistake the Republicans are making right now, and they're the same mistakes the Dems are going to make the next time they cruise to huge victories: they mistake victory with a mandate. In a two-party system it's not like there are a lot of choices. 99% of the time when one side wins it's because the other side has spent the last __ years screwing up. The vast majority of the country doesn't care about the rhetoric and mostly nonsensical concepts being thrown around in party conventions, they just want to live their lives in as much comfort as possible. The party that realizes this first will have the most long-term success. Kasich mistook his victory for an approval of his policies.. which was a huge mistake. Ohio is a blue collar state, built on the auto and steel industries. Whatever the problems with public unions (of which there are many), Ohio isn't going to strike a blow against middle class workers, not in a time of relative hardship. You may be asking what the problems are with public unions - well, first, the fundamental reason for unions existing is to force a higher % of business revenue to flow to employees at the expense of management. In the case of public employees, "management" is the state, so you're costing taxpayers money. Also, when you strike you aren't hurting a businessowner, you're hurting the taxpayers and society. Add to this two other things. One, that Government employees already have additional administrative and Constitutional protections not afforded to private employees in the absence of unions. Two is the fundamental flaw of all Unions, that in the absence of a perfect way of assessing employee performance they protect seniority above all, ensuring that older employees are the highest paid, which then provides incentive for older employees to stay on in order to earn as much money as possible. Older employees making the most money does two things: 1.) makes your organization less productive, 2.) cuts manpower, because a glut of older, high paid employees represent a greater cost than a greater number of younger, low paid employees would. In jobs like Police and Fire Fighter that are tailored to young people in many respects, this becomes a problem. BUT THAT ALL GOT TOO SERIOUS. I have cops and teachers in my family so I'm glad it passed, especially because Kasich is a twit, but there are problems with the Public Union system that will need to be addressed sooner rather than later.

R.L. Discuss the pros and cons of compelling professional referees and officials to conduct press conferences after games.
Well, I'm torn on this one, because officials do sometimes have an outsized impact on the events they're officiating and are not held responsible in the way other participants are, but at the same time, they're human beings. Human beings who happen to do their jobs exceptionally well, to the extent that they aren't noticeable 99% of the time. Now, if you happened to catch my State of Sports post, you know that I'm bitter about ESPN's turd in punch bowl effect on the whole sporting endeavor. Well, given that, and the resulting seriousness with which everyone takes sports nowadays, subjecting officials to press conferences would only fan the fires. Officials are humans, humans make mistakes. We need to stop pretending that games designed for children are science. I blame betting and 24/7 coverage. That being said, a shit ref will make me want to punch the earth.. but your average mouth-breather running around 12 beers deep on gameday can't handle the responsibility of understanding that people aren't perfect, and that just might impact the outcome of a game every now and again.

N.D. If Brady Hoke was a hot dog, would he eat himself?
Does anyone else smell frosting? Brady Hoke is the worst, seriously the worst. He would absolutely eat himself, probably when his stomach started growling at 10:02 AM on the first day after his hotdog transformation took place, the glutton. There has been a precipitous drop in the number of Chinese buffets in the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti area since he rolled into town. They operate on a business model that simply doesn't account for one man consuming 3 entire trays of sweet and sour chicken. Mmm.. breading. But here's all you need to know about Brady Hoke that makes him the worst: like everything better than mediocre to have ever come from M*chigan, he's from Ohio (Charles Woodson, Desmond Howard, Bo Schembechler.. I could go on, believe me). He's from the Dayton area and attended Ball St. University. M*chigan was his 5th assistant coaching job, starting in 1995 (in his 13th year of coaching..)... and yet somehow he's a M*chigan man. He also claims that he grew up rooting for M*chigan in the Woody Hayes era in Dayton, Ohio. Approximately 80 miles from Columbus and more than 200 from Ann Arbor. If that's true.. he's a piece of shit. People that grew up in Ohio and root for M*chigan come in 3 colors.. only one of these colors doesn't result in you being a scumbag. If you have a legitimate connection to scUM, fine. The other two are contrarian douches and people who were front running in the 90's when M*chigan owned the rivalry. Both unacceptable breeds of humanity. Root for old money douches, but recognize that you're the worst. If you're just a regular Ohioan who never attended scUM, what the shit are you doing rooting for M*chigan? That's a lot like rooting for China in the Olympics. Here's why you shouldn't root for M*chigan: 1.) the school is made up of old money establishment pricks who drive luxury cars, are subtly racist and are absolutely elitist. 2.) You aren't from the state of Michigan. If you're going to be contrarian just b/c you're the kind of kid who HAS to be different, like a school that's not full of assholes in boat shoes. Michigan State, Cincinnati, Penn State are (well, were) all options. 3.) You're FROM OHIO. Ohioans have things like pride and loyalty which is what separates us from bullshit locales like everywhere on the East Coast and M*chigan. There are many levels of contrarianism that stop well short of outright treachery. To make a long story short, if your name is Brady Hoke and your BMI and blood pressure cause the team of medical professionals somehow keeping your blood from instantly turning to the consistency of refridgerated maple syrup to recommend immediate hospitalization at every checkup, you grew up in the Dayton area and your dad PLAYED FOR WOODY HAYES and you rooted for Michigan? That tells me everything I need to know about you. Other than you probably snore very loudly and have to wear a back brace around the house, you're a disloyal piece of shit. Modern-day torrie. He should be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.

R.L. Could one modern American Marine Expeditionary Unit (2200 men) defeat the Roman Empire during the reign of Augustus? They're all geared up. But think of them as time travelers. So no satellites (i.e. no GPS) and some reasonable limit on the amount of ammunition and fuel.
This one required some research (), but my answer is an unequivocal and resounding "YES", and here's why. A Marine EU includes an amphibious assault ship, a helicopter squadron, and multiple armored vehicles, including tanks. The only challenge woulde be: could the American force reach Rome before they ran out of resources? Obviously, military equipment requires a LOT of fuel, so your tanks and armored vehicles are only going to be good for a limited period of time. Honestly, they'd probably be more valuable as stationary firing platforms and the limited fuel could be used for more fuel efficient vehicles like humvees. It honestly wouldn't matter if you were in a tank or a jeep, the Romans would have no counter for a metal vehicle. Here are my top 3 reasons that the American Marine Corps force wins and winds up installing their Colonel as Augustus: 1.) firearms and high explosives. At the first battle, the Romans would be unaware of the American technological superiority and line up in their traditional battle formations only to be utterly wiped out. So the question would be: how devastating would this defeat be? Would the Romans be so shaken by the utter destruction of their front line forces that they'd be unable to recover? The size of the Roman empire at the time of Augustus (27 BC-14 AD) is known to have been between 25-30 legions at any given time. A legion consisted of 5,000 Roman citizen soldiers, with a comparable number of auxiliaries (light troops and supporting personnel). So total, we're talking about an empire-wide fighting force of effectively 125-150,000 men. However, one must remember that we're talking about an empire that stretches from Germany to Spain to Egypt to Syria, and the Legions were stationed at garrisons along the borders, so the Romans were never sending the entirety of their military into battle at any given time. Forces of 5-10 legions would join for extended campaigns, either to subdue border threats or aggressively conquer more territory. So we can realistically say that the Romans mustering a force of 20-30,000 men for the initial confrontation is well within reason. At this early stage, the Marine EU would still have fuel, aircraft and missiles at their disposal, and would completely slaughter the initial Roman force. One must note several things about ancient combat: 1.) they almost never fought to the last man. What happened typically is one side would gain the upper hand and the other would rout and flee the field, resulting in far more troops taken prisoner than actually killed - it's hard to kill tens of thousands of men with swords and spears after all. 2.) The armies tended to be entirely dependent on their commander - kill or capture the General/Counsul/Emperor, and the army falls into disarray. 3.) Everyone hates everyone. The Romans were respected because of their strength. With defeat would have come uprising and the Americans would have found thousands of new allies as groups opposed to Rome sought to regain their sovereignty. With that being said, the most likely scenario is this: 1.) Marines crush initial Roman army, driving the Romans into disarray. 2.) While the Romans regroup, adjusting their tactics (abandoning battle lines, etc), the Marines make a mad dash for Rome while they still have ammunition and fuel remaining. 3.) Marines reach and take Rome, capturing the Emperor and command structure and effectively decapitating the Roman state. 4.) Marines use their armaments to turn the fields outside of Rome into a killing ground for any army bold enough to approach, and instill their Colonel as Emperor. 5.) Romans, respecting strength and prowess, accept the new status quo.
- So long story short, yes, a Marine EU could defeat Rome. History has shown us that small numbers of technologically superior troops (Conquistators are the best example) can crush vastly numerically superior troops by means of their improved tactics and technology. This situation would be no different.

L.H. I want an Adam Benner "c'mon man" circa R Bar christmas 2008
This is a Fotown inside joke - biggest "C'mon man" on the planet right now has to go out to Joe Paterno. Joe, we all know you're 900 years old and you're defending a grail somewhere as your eternal duty, but c'mon man.. you're embarrassing. You've been "coaching" by sitting in a press box WITH NO HEADSET ON for the past 3 years and letting a known diddler hang out in your facilities? The only way you can save face, Joe, is by letting the world know that you're old as shit and have no idea what's going on. C'mon, Joe. And Gaert Hansen.

You are given access to a very limited time machine. It can take you to any place in the world of your choosing but you will arrive at 12am on Sept 11 2001.

What do you do to stop 9/11? Do you even do anything? Assume that your life is in jeopardy, that is to say risks taken in 2001 will have consequences when you jump back to the present (which will occur at 12am on 9/12/2001). In fact all of your actions will have consequences in 2011, you will return to a world that is different depending on what actions you've taken (except no one will know if you choose to do nothing or know if you privately attempt to head off some hijackers, etc.) Can you convince the then-lazy Feds to listen to you? How? Please also take care to evaluate the in-the-moment consequences of your actions i.e. if you somehow stop the planes in NY there is a greater likelihood the PA plane makes it to DC, etc. The only caveat is you may not interact with your 2001 self. No words of advice, bet large the Sox to win the WS after game 5 of the ALCS in 2004. Lay 10k on Barack Obama becoming president in early 06, don't put your junk in many of the places you did, etc. No Back to the Future 2 action. Your options are limited to choosing to try and stop 9/11, choosing to not interfere with fate, or choosing to head back for a 12 hour vacation on the worst day in most of our lifetimes. Note, Scarjo was already famous for Ghost World, you still wouldn't have a chance. She was also 17. All kinds of reasons for not bothering to use the time machine for Scarjo-related pursuits.

Let's assume a budget of 2k and a 2001-technology working cell phone for your endeavors.

The world is counting on you.

Sincerely,
JJ Baybrams (the lovechild who would make this story into a film)

Here's my plan: now, keep in mind, I don't know that this would conclusively stop 9/11 for all time, but it would stop 9/11 for the time being. Without researching anything, here's what I know about 9/11 - 22 hijackers hijacked 4 planes that left from Logan Airport in Boston, Dulles Airport in D.C. and Newark airport at around 8 a.m. on the morning of Tuesday, September 11 and crashed around an hour later into a field in Pennsylvania, the Pentagon and the two towers of the World Trade Center. So what I do is use my 2001 Motorola flip phone to call those airports and make bomb threats in a vaguely middle eastern accent, explaining that I am a member of a terrorist organization and that 22 of my compatriots will be hijacking planes and planting bombs today. I make sure to include enough details to make my threat credible while also not being so specific to sound crazy - let's be honest, on Sept 10, 2001, what happened on 9/11 would have sounded crazy. I make these phone calls at around 630 AM, ensuring that the hijackers will be in the airport or very close to the airport and likely will be rounded up in the hysteria following my threat. I say that I am a disgruntled member of the group who decided to not go through with it. Now the FBI and NSA and Jack Bauer will be trying to trace my cell phone, but it's 2001 and they haven't invented crazy surveillence techniques yet.. so I'm probably good for at least a day or two. Given the fact that according to the hypothetical, I only have 12 hours, I should be able to escape FBI notice for the remainder of my stay in 2001. Besides, something tells me they'd have bigger fish to fry once they found 22 foreign nationals who have taken flight lessons and are trying to board planes with no luggage and box cutters on the same day someone has called to tell them four planes are going to be blown up. I'd probably name-drop Mohammed Atta just to make sure it sinks in. In 2001, real-life me was a Senior at Fostoria High School, doing the football thing. At this point it should be about 8 am, so I've got 4 hours and $2000 to play with. What I would try to do at this point is murder Kim Kardashian. She was 21 in 2001, and as yet to unleash her brand of inane whoredom on humanity. The murder of OJ's defense attorney's daughter wouldn't even make the news outside of LA, but it would save us from a toxic presence in the future. With any luck, I would prevent two tragedies in one morning. I think my plan would really stop 9/11 outright, and here's why: in 2001 Al Qaeda was at least marginally on the front burner. '98 Embassy bombings, 2000 USS Cole, etc. By name dropping Al Qaeda and giving a plot that would be recognized as legit once Atta and his compatriots were caught doing what I said they'd be doing (more or less), they'd be investigated and a link to Al Qaeda would be discovered. Given all the planning that went into 9/11 (flight lessons, english lessons, securing visas, buying all of the seats on these planes), at the very least my interference would set them back quite some time. They'd have to find new operatives at the very least. Hopefully the investigation would result in renewed diligence without all of the ridiculous overreaction that was a direct result of 9/11. I was prepared to argue that the emergence of Kim Kardashian has actually been more harmful for American society than 9/11 was, but I am going to back off from that position.

J.C. (Not Jesus) Who were the top five most valuable players in Tecmo Super Bowl (1991) for Nintendo? Please consider the player's overall talent, the player's ability to work within their team's system, and the potential impact on the respective team if the player were to have a season-ending injury. If narrowing it to five is too limiting, please feel free to expand the list as you deem necessary.
If you don't know (and if you don't, I feel sorry for you) Tecmo Super Bowl for the original Nintendo is one of the 3 or 4 pinnacles of all mankind. It remains a high point of video games some two decades after its original release and is beloved by 90% of men aged between 34-25. The game resembles football only tangently, but is still amazing and can still entertain large groups of grown men. So without further ado, the five most valuable players in Tecmo Super Bowl:
5. Lawrence Taylor - LT, long before he was committing statutory rape and being a ridiculous caricature, was being a ridiculous caricature by being a coked up QB killing machine on Sundays and an unstoppable force on Tecmo Super Bowl. Along with Derrick Thomas, he can block Field Goals, TACKLE punters before they punt, and dive for sacks while still able to get up and tackle a receiver 40 yards downfield. Basically, he's a knight from my college football mascot post. Ridiculousness.
4. Christian Okoye - The Nigerian Nightmare was some sort of insane video game creation where he was basically Jim Brown at his peak playing against high school kids. Players would literally bounce off of him and roll out of bounds on the OTHER sideline. So according to the physics of the game, trying and failing to tackle Okoye would result in people flying 30 yards. Is that even possible? The only sure way to tackle him is to run behind him and dive. The back of his knees are his achilles' heel.
3. Derrick Thomas - Basically LT, only (I think) slightly faster, DT could make extra points impossible to make.. which is very awesome. Faster than any offensive player or any other player on the field, it's not uncommon for DT to dive, miss and STILL make a tackle for loss. Oh, and tackling punters before they've kicked goes without saying. It's lucky that the Chiefs suck other than DT and Okoye, because they have some serious man amongst boy status going on with those two.
2. QB Eagles - So since Randall Cunningham played in the short-lived NFL rival USFL, he was not in the NFLPA at the time Tecmo Super Bowl was made, and so his likeness couldn't be licensed out by the league. Therefore, he became known as QB Eagles, a cybernetic killing machine who would result in everyone overrating Michael Vick 15 years down the road. Faster than everyone, with the ability to throw the ball 80 yards in the air, I know people who have won games 28-0 by running one offensive play for an entire quarter by just running around with QB Eagles until the quarter was basically over, and then scoring. It's too bad his team wasn't any good, bc QB Eagles was basically Robocop.
1. Bo Jackson. Sadly for Bo he split the rushing portion of the Raiders playbook with Marcus Allen, so he really only has two running plays. Even with the defense having the ability to coin clip w/in picking Bo's play every time, he's good enough that he can SCORE ON A PICKED PLAY. If you don't understand the significance of this.. get off here and go play some Tecmo Super Bowl. He's got Okoye's power with Sanders' speed and an outrageous ability to pull away from anyone on the game. He might be the best player on any sports video game ever. We had a no Raiders rule.. with good reason.

Honorable mentions: Thurman Thomas, Howie Long, Bruce Smith, Ronnie Lott, Barry Sanders

R.B. Which state likes white "athletes" more, Wisconsin or Massachusetts, discuss.
Ugh. It's not even that loving white athletes is ALL that bad (I mean, it's bad), it's just that underlying the whole thing is a vague racism and sense of exclusion that bothers me. Like, if you don't like an athlete, just don't like them, regardless of their race. But these two spots seem to be especially bad about it. Know who the most popular Packer is? The guy who gets the loudest cheer? Greg Jennings? BJ Raji? Jermichael Finley? James Starks? Nope. John freaking Kuhn. White fullback.. complete interchangable part. HE'S ONE OF US!!! CLAY MATTHEWS LOOKS LIKE THOR!!! Settle down, Wisconsinites. Don't stand up too fast or it could throw your blood pressure into a frenzy. Have you taken a look at UW sports lately? It's 2011.. they are making an active effort to be as ridiculously white as humanly possible. It's like Adolf Rupp is coaching UW Basketball.. every game vs. Michigan State or Ohio State looks like "Glory Road". It's 2011, cut it out, Badger-dom. But there is one fan base that matches the land of rubbing thighs and whole milk for enthusiasm for the caucasian athlete - Bawstun. Welker and Brady and Pedroia and Ellsbury and Papelbon and all the Bruins (who miraculously have American players?) have turned Beantown into a refuge for racist sports fans. Everyone's favorite Celtic? Brian Scalabrine - the 12th man. Big. Red. Asshole. Sounds about right. FAWKIN BEANTOWN HAS FAWKIN WELKAH AND PEDROIAH AND THEY ARE US!!!! I FAWKIN COULDA GROWN UP WITH THOSE GUYS!!!! FAWK NEW YAHHHK!! Larry Bird + Welker/Brady + Pedroia. Ugh. And the diptard known as Bill Simmons only makes it worse. I would rather stab myself in the eye than subject myself to blue collar Bahstun fandom. Here's how ridiculous Boston is: Red Sox players were revealed to have been drinking beer and eating chicken and people acted like it was the story of the century. IT'S BASEBALL!!!! Every baseball player ever is a large 17 year old Peter Pan manchild. It is the single most infantile profession of all time. We're talking about grown men who play videogames and play elementary school pranks on each other. So I'm going to make a ruling on this one. Massachusetts is worse, because they know or should know better. Wisconsin is the kind of racist where they don't know any non-white people so they are just kind of distrustful of anyone they don't know. Massachusetts is the kind of racist where they know people who aren't white... and don't want them coming near their sister. One's worse. You know which one.

*****SPOILER ALERT************
IF YOU HAVEN'T WATCHEED BREAKING BAD STOP READING!!! CONSIDER YOURSELF WARNED

J.C. Seeing as we now know that there are only 16 episodes left of Breaking Bad, how do think the series will end? Will Walt end up in jail, six feet under, or unscathed? Will Walt's family and Jesse Pinkman survive? Seeing as Walt's hang-ups with killing/harming others seem to be less of an issue, will any of these people die at his hands? What of the baggage with Pinkman will come back into the picture (i.e. watching his girlfriend choke to death, poisoning Brock)? Fallout from murdering Gus? Please do not feel limited to my inquiries, and take this wherever you see fit.
AMC and Gilligan have said that there are 16 episodes of Breaking Bad remaining.. rumor has it that they will be split into two short seasons (ugh) so we'll get a conclusion in 2013 most likely. With that being said, Breaking Bad has shown a willingness to take the show in unforeseen an interesting directions time and time again and I'm really looking forward to the ride.. but here's my prediction. With Walt unencumbered from Gus but also relatively broke (Skyler gave all of his stash to Beneke), his ego is going to lead him to ramp up cooking again, with Hisenberg popping up bigtime. We know that Hank is obsessed with Hisenberg, and was extremely close to cracking Gus' operation at the close of last season. At the same time, Walt is going to draw the ire of the Cartel (and already has..) especially if he ramps production back up. He's also betrayed Jesse, who has shown a serious temper and willingness to follow through as well as a growing proficiency. Let's not forget that Mike is out there in the wilderness recovering from injuries sustained in Mexico. So here's how I see the series closing: Walt, using the expertise gleaned from working with Gus for so long, becomes a major player in the regional heroin scene. Hank closes in on Hisenberg and so does the cartel. Meanwhile, Mike is making plans for revenge, and reveals to Jesse some of the shady shit that Walt's been up to. The series finale involves a shoot-out between the DEA and Cartel near the warehouse or whatever Hisenberg is using, while Mike and Jesse seek out Walt for revenge. Meanwhile, Walt's cancer is back in a serious way. I think Walt's family lives, but the series closes with Walt and Walt's organization being destroyed by all these outside forces, and basically everyone other than Walt's family being killed in the resulting bloodbath. Very Scarface-esque.

Well folks, there's the mailbag II. Send questions. I'm going to start keeping a file of them and doing mailbags more often.. but shorter. I gave myself carpel-tunnel typing this beheamoth.

The 2011 NCAA Football Mascot Challenge

2011-11-11T13:00:00.001-05:00

So while in Nashville for a bachelor party this past weekend and attending a football game where some sort of bird of prey appeared to attempt to intercept a long field goal in mid-flight, my hungover compatriots and myself launched into a conversation concerning the effectiveness of actual mascots in an NCAA football game. This is an important topic that needs to be expanded upon, and what better place than here, on these esteemed virtual pages?

First, let's set up the rules. Here's the scenario: a college team gets to use their literal mascot for one play per quarter. By literal mascot, I mean not whatever wears a suit on the sideline, but what their mascot literally is. I.e., the Ohio State Buckeyes would get to use a buckeye, the nut, rather than Brutus, the hulking quasi-creepy buckeye-headed weirdo. The Miami Hurricanes get to play one play per quarter 10 on 11 in a Hurricane, but they get the wind. The Alabama Crimson Tide play one play per quarter 10 on 11 in a flood, and so forth. The team gets to use what the mascot actually is, not what they choose to throw in a creepy suit and/or embroider on "official" gear. While most mascots are just pluralized forms of singular objects clearly inferring that they are a group of said items, some mascots actually ARE plural, inferring that each member of the team is actually a group of something. So for the Nevada and NC State Wolfpack, they actually get to have a pack of wolves as their mascot.. up to 11. Theoretically, those two teams could line up with 11 wolves in place of their defense. Or 9 wolves and 2 humans, etc. Additionally, the mascots get to use any abilities or weaponry that naturally come with WHAT they are. I.e., a tiger is able to maul or pounce on someone, warriors get their traditional weapons.. a pirate comes with traditional pirate gear, etc. This being said, the mascots are still bound by the rules of the game. So while a bear or lion may be able to maul and kill a quarterback during the sack, if they hit the quarterback late or eat the quarterback after he's down, those would be penalized. Finally, all mascots, regardless of their beast status, must lineup onsides and wait for the ball to be snapped. With that being said, let's rank the top 10 (.. and bottom 5) FBS football mascots. This ranking is determining which teams would be most helped by the addition of their mascot, and which mascots would be most effective at the game of football. Here goes the dumbest thing ever to be attempted on this blog.

TOP 10

10. Cavaliers (University of Virginia)
Most people believe that Cavaliers are simply pirates by a fancier name. This is not the case. A cavalier in fact was a 17th Century cavalryman and Royalist in the English civil war. Being on horseback and armed with a sword and muzzle loading single shot weapon, they basically hold a man's life in their hands. Cavaliers were reputed for all manner of violence, and could potentially be quite effective on the defensive side of the ball. I'd say the ideal position for a Cavalier would be middle linebacker. Their mobility on horseback would allow for sideline to sideline coverage and their complement of weaponry would allow for effective stopping power. Pros: Armed, mounted, angry, military training. Cons: English (ever seen an English football player? (I mean actual football, smartass)), small (it was the 17th Century, after all), concerned with feats of bravado and chivalry over team play, 450 year old firearms weren't exactly "accurate".

9b. Trojans (USC, Troy)
A trojan warrior would have been a hoplite.. an armored infantryman armed with a short sword, long spear, heavy wooden shield and wearing a helmet, breastplate and shinguards. Hoplite battle was conducted by massing into lines and attempting to break opposing lines by pushing opposing lines until their morale broke and slaughter could commence. This description is not unlike B1G 10 football. Ideally, a Trojan would line up on the defensive line, where his armor, shield and weaponry would allow him to wreck maximum havoc on the offense. Pros: Armed, armored, military training, some acclimation towards using leverage and "field position". Cons: Being from thousands of years ago, they probably weigh 130 lbs and would get absolutely steamrolled, having weapons made of iron, it's uncertain whether said weaponry would be effective against a modern football player.

9b. Spartans (Michigan State, San Jose State)
Insert description of hoplites above, only consider another 500 years of military and technological advances and insert elite navy seal-esque training. Basically, a Spartan was trained for war for the entirety of his life.. bred for it even. Spartan armies numbering in the hundreds regularly routed armies that outnumbered them 5 or 6 to one. So basically everything that's good about a Trojan is good about a Spartan, only more so. Death in battle is the highest honor a Spartan warrior could achieve. Pros: armed, armored, determined, vast amounts of military training, familiarity with pushing and shoving, skilled at armed combat. Cons: probably completely psychotic from a life of brutal "lessons" and institutionalized torture and abuse, at least 2400 year old technology, 2400 year old genetics and nutrition = probably tiny.

8. Seminoles/Fighting Illini/Utes/Chippewas (Florida State, Illinois, Utah, Central Michigan)
I'm just going to group all native American based mascots into one group here. It took basically 400 years for a vastly technologically and numerically superior group (Europeans) to defeat native Americans to the point that they no longer posed a "threat" despite having advances in weapons, tactics, science and having a massive disease outbreak on their side. (hold discussions over what "threat" they may have posed on your own time) That should tell you all you need to know of their military prowess. Effective warriors, survivors and hunters, when armed with firearms and mounted on horseback Native American warriors were a deadly fighting force. Due to the mobility horseback allows, ideally suited for safety or linebacker in a zone coverage scheme, to allow for their advantages in weaponry over regular football players to hold true. Pros: skilled horsemen, trained in warfare and hunting techniques. Cons: undersized, unfamiliar with the game and concepts involved, may play for blood and cost your team penalty yards.

7. Large Herd animals (Texas - Longhorns, South Florida & Buffalo - Bulls, Colorado - Buffalos, Broncos - Boise St, Western Michigan) I took the slightly cop-out approach on this list of grouping together similar mascots in order to generally describe the class or type. So sue me. Large, aggressive herd animals would be virtually unstoppable in the trenches, but their complete lack of any kind of "reason" or ability to distinguish between friend and foe pretty much relegates them to the offensive line. A Buffalo/Bull/Longhorn/Bronco would basically be the best run blocking guard in the history of run blocking guards. A simple run behind a 2000 lb creature would basically guarantee a touchdown, and 4 automatic TDs a game will go a long way towards winning your game. Unfortunately, there's no way to guarantee they'll run in the right direction or lead you all the way to the end zone, so there's that to consider. Pros: massive, powerful, angry. Cons: inability to comprehend rules of the sport or distinguish between friend and foe.

6. Knights (UCF, Army - Black Knights, Rutgers - Scarlet Knights)
Knights combine the advantages of being on horseback with being covered from head to toe in steel plate while wielding weapons that were designed to cleave through metal plate, let alone football pads. A fully armorered knight and mount could weigh well over 2000 pounds, and would prove to be completely unstoppable on the football field. There are a number of positions where a knight would excell.. offensive line would be obvious, as well as a linebacker, defensive back or ballcarrier. The advantage of combining an armored beast with an armored warrior means they'd pretty much have their run of the field. I'd say an ideal spot for a knight would be outside linebacker rushing off the edge or offensive guard runblocking straight ahead. Also probably underrated as a safety, the horse's closing speed would be great for covering for teammate's mistakes, and the broadsword would help ensure they don't happen again. Pros: armed, armored, trained, used to charging lines of men. Cons: chivalrous, undersized, all that armor can be unwieldy.

5. Wolfpack (Nevada, NC State)
A wolf in and of itself is pretty badass, but not as badass individually as the mascots above. Wolves are basically big, mean dogs.. they average about 80 lbs, hunt in packs, and are extremely fast, especially over distance. Their size makes them relatively ineffective individually (a wolf, even a large wolf, isn't particularly scary to a 200+ lb man wearing football pads), but in a group of 3-4? Say a defensive backfield? A wolfpack would have unparalleled full field coverage and the ability to blanket an offense. This is the one mascot that is, by very definition, plural, and so these teams get the advantage of having more than one of their featured mascot on their team. So a couple of wolves would really help a squad on the defensive side of the ball. A wolf hunting is not completely unlike a defender tackling.. so serious skill overlap here. Pros: fast, hunt in packs, alpha predators used to taking down larger prey. Cons: undersized, susceptible to play fakes, unable to grasp rules and concepts of the game, overly aggressive.

4. Bears (UCLA - Bruins, Baylor - Bears, Cal - Golden Bears)
So bears are bears, right? They are giant raccoons basically. Powerful, fast (even the largest bears can outsprint humans in short distances), more or less unstoppable and massive, bears are basically your prototypical defensive linemen. Fun little known fact: over short distances, bears are nearly as fast as Tigers and Lions. Yeah, think about that for a second. Would you rather have a giant human being who tops out at 350 lbs and benches 500 or so pounds or a bear who tops out at 1,000 lbs, can run a 3.5 40 and if he could be trained to bench could probably bench 900+ lbs? Yeah, I thought so. So for one play per quarter, those teams lucky enough to have a bear as a mascot would have an amazing version of Ndamukong Suh, utterly unblockable and the ultimate disruptive force on the defensive line. Bears are rather trainable as far as wild beasts go, and could surely be trained to attack a certain color or design, particularly if honey or peanut butter was offered as a reward. So basically, teams lucky enough to have a bear would have the benefit of the Tecmo Super Bowl "Jerry Ball trick" and be unable to run a play. Pros: massive, powerful, aggressive, unblockable. Cons: wild beast, not familiar or able to become familiar with the rules, might rampage and kill 10+, easily bribed with high calorie or sweet foods.

3. Birds of Prey (Falcons - BGSU, Air Force, Eagles/Golden Eagles - Eastern Michigan, Southern Miss, Redhawks - Miami University)
Note: Despite popular conception and depiction, "Jayhawks" are not birds, rather, "Jayhawker" was a term for pro-free state militias in the 1850's during "Bleeding Kansas" and generally became applied to Kansas residents in general. Birds may not be the most imposing creatures on the planet (although an Eagle with an 8 foot wingspan diving at your face would be really scary), but closer examination reveals a skill-set ideally suited for the game of football, and here's why: birds that are agile enough in flight to catch other birds could certainly be trained to catch a football. Hence, we're talking about utterly unstoppable wide receivers, kick/punt returners and the secret weapon: blocking field goals. Line up a falcon at wide receiver and give your team 4 free touchdowns. The difficult part of course would be training the bird to fly over the end zone line before going out of bounds, but falcons at least are capable of being trained. The opposing team would have no recourse to this aerial assault unless they possessed their own birds or a mascot with firearms. Yes, only another mascot can possibly counter this mascot. That's the kind of thing that gets you in the top 3. Pros: can fly to impressive heights at blinding speed, can intercept objects (read: a football) mid-flight. Cons: unable to comprehend rules, the vastness of their natural range means they'd be susceptible to going out of bounds and wasting their play.

2. Tigers (Auburn, LSU, Clemson, Missouri, Memphis)
A male tiger can weigh in excess of 600 lbs, run at nearly 40 miles an hour, and kill a fully grown human with one strike. You may look at a Tiger and see a fearsome creature, indeed, one of the only that hunts man for sport. I look at a Tiger and see the most fearsome pass rusher imaginable. DeMarcus Ware on wild animal rage and every steroid you've ever heard of. Stronger, faster, quicker and deadlier than any human, a Tiger rushing off the edge would decimate an opposing passing attack.. likely resulting in serious injury from a single play. Film of a tiger hunting is virtually indistinguishable from defensive football play, a tiger would be an absolute natural at OLB or DE. Quick enough to get around the edge, fast enough to close, powerful enough to overwhelm any blocker. I think Bill Parcells just creamed the shorts he has pulled up over his FUPA. Pros: strong, big, fast, aggressive, skill set that fits well with defensive play. Cons: deadly, aggressive, inability to comprehend rules, may hurt own teammates.

1. Dragons (UAB)
Note: follow up research has revealed that UAB are actually the "Blazers", but since no one knows what that means and I thought they were dragons and I want to write about dragons, I'm going to proceed anyway. So a dragon is, of course, a mythological beast that never actually existed. However, as commonly depicted, a dragon is a gigantic beast (often depicted as able to consume horses more or less whole) capable of flight, with armored scales and capable of breathing fire. So let's get this straight: a giant reptile that breathes fire, is very aggressive and is capable of stomping out groupe of humans with little to no effort? Um.. sounds like the most badass mascot ever. A dragon could play defense 1 on 11 and prevail. Also, this is the single mascot that can pretty much own every other mascot with very little effort. Have you seen that shitty McConaughey/Bale movie? Yeah.. dragons are basically unstoppable. That's how you earn the top spot. Pros: huge, aggressive, fire breathing, capable of flight. Cons: incapable of learning rules and team play, may eat everyone in the stadium or start a firestorm that destroys the stadium. Caution required.

The Bottom 5
This inglorious list is a group of schools that for a littany of reasons likely lost to history chose to name their sports teams after a bunch of nonsensical, unintimidating items. Sadly for them, when the contest of the mascots opens up, they will find themselves at a severe disadvantage. To keep it fair, I'm going to stick to the mascots that are actually quantifiable things. I.e., sorry North Texas, but no one knows what the "mean green" is/means. This goes for you too, Stanford. Your mascot is nonsense.. so you don't count.

5. Ducks (Oregon)
A duck? Really? The meanest duck in the world gives no quantifiable advantage to a football team. They quack and waddle around. They fly, but not particularly gracefully. Their purpose seems to be obnoxious and inspire clown ass cartoon characters. Needless to say, lining up a duck in lieu of a football player puts your team at a serious disadvantage.

4. Cardinals (Louisville, Ball State)
Have you ever seen a cardinal? What do they weigh? 3 ounces? Unlike Ducks, they are at least small flyers, but a songbird tweeting around and looking handsome isn't intimidating anyone or helping anyone in any way. I can think of one thing they could do to help the team: sacrifice their life by flying directly into the path of a hail-mary pass or field goal. So kudos, Cards, in death you could potentially positively impact the outcome of a football game.

3. Horned Frogs (TCU)
A horned frog is a little toad with some horns/thorny protusions sticking out of it. That's it. It's not big, it's not mean, it's not even poisonous. Its defense is: get this: standing still to avoid detection. Certain species can also secrete blood from its tear ducts. Man, the Tigers might want to be careful, there's a 3 ounce toad hopping around. If your mascot can be inadvertantly crushed by an opponent, you know your mascot just isn't cutting it. Your only hope, TCU, is that you run into an opponent with an amphibian phobia.

2. Buckeyes
A buckeye is a tree (in the Chestnut family) that has a nut that's round and poisonous. And also about the size of a quarter. But it's not poisonous in the "drop dead" way. It's poisonous in the "go to the hospital and get your stomach pumped 15 hours later" way. Basically, the only way a buckeye could be helpful is with a well-aimed throw to the eye or by forcing an opponent to eat one, which would maybe make his stomach hurt by the second half. Great mascot, OSU.

1. Orange
Syracuse was once the Orangemen, who historically were supporters of William of Orange, who took the English throne in 1688 and became William III. Well, some dumbass somewhere decided that was offensive, and they have since become simply the orange. Yes, an orange. A fruit, approximately baseball sized, and rather tasty. Regardless of its agricultural worth, its football worth is approximately 1 X 0. Maybe an opponent could step on an orange and slip. That could help. If your mascot is as likely to nourish your opponent as destroy it, you have the worst mascot.

Honorable mention: Hoosiers/Sooners/Tar Heels/Jayhawks/Aggies and every other mascot that simply represents a regular person.

Well, there's your mascot challenge folks. Feel free to disagree, but I don't know how you could.

2011: The Year in Film: "In Time" Review

2011-11-01T22:57:00.006-04:00

In Time When done properly, Science Fiction can be a powerful tool with which to comment on the real world. When done through allegory and the symbolism of a simplified and more extreme world, fantastical fiction can paint injustice and happenstance in our own world in a clarified and glaring light. The sci fi subgenre of the dystopian world does this as well as any. In the tradition of Orwell's 1984, a glimpse of a nightmarish future can comment on current affairs better than the vast majority of more "realistic" fiction. Writer/director Andrew Niccol is no stranger to this tradition, having made the very underrated "Gattaca" (check it out if you haven't seen it) and also written "The Truman Show". Into this tradition steps "In Time", a film that seeks to comment on discrepancies in wealth, society's obsession with youth and humanity's obsession with immortality through the lens of a dystopian future.

So how is it, right? Well, first, the concept is a great one. In the near future (they never say exactly when, but clearly this has been going on for a while), through genetic engineering, everyone lives to 25, and from that point gets 1 year to live. "Time" has replaced money as the currency of choice, and while rich people live more or less forever, the poor scrap for minutes and hours, often dying extremely young. The population is separated into "zones" that are distinguished by their relative wealth or poverty, only of course, "wealth" is actually time. Good guy Will (Timberlake) who slaves away in a dead end job just to make it from day-to-day has a chance encounter with a drunken rich man who's decided he wants out, and chances onto a whole lot of extra "time". This catches the attention of the "time police" who are out to make sure that the system stays stable and time stays in the right hands. Will decides to take matters into his own hands and challenge the system, butting up against some very powerful people.

The concept allows for the cast to all be young and beautiful. Since no one ages past 25, all adults look exactly the same age, whether they're 28 or 105. As a result, the cast is all more or less the same age, and this results in some interesting interactions. The cast is solid, featuring lots of young, pretty people, and the film is very sleek and stylized, with everything shaped in some sort of neo classical high tech retro vibe. (If that makes sense) The settings and concepts and designs are reminiscent of other dystopian works, from Equilibrium and The Hunger Games series to 1984.

Timberlake can actually carry a flick, which I wasn't sure about, so good for him. He's strong but not great in the lead role, which is more or less your typical action hero role, strong guy of few words but heart of gold kind of thing. Olivia Wilde plays Timberlake's mother and is strong in her limited role. Cillian Murphy plays the "time keeper" who becomes obsessed with bringing fugitive Will to justice. Amanda Seyfried plays a wealthy heiress/hostage turned comrade in arms and Vincent (Pete from Mad Men) Kartheiser plays a wealthy magnate and Seyfried's father. Murphy is a highlight, for sure, and really jumps into his role with a lot of enthusiasm.

This film is good, but only good. The acting is solid, and I love the premise, but after a strong start it sort of devolves into your standard action flick. Maybe I'm doing the flick a disservice by expecting more than an action chase flick, but coming from the strong tradition of science fiction social commentary, I was hoping for less screeching tires and more thoughtful observation. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it would have been fun to see them do more with the premise. In addition, some of the characters could have used some more characterization and at a certain point the allegory simply became too heavy handed. I enjoyed it, had a good time, and it certainly looks great, including all the pretty people, but it could have been much more.

Good (and certainly a lot of fun), but not great. 6.8/10.

The State of Sports (SoS) 2011.

2011-10-26T21:56:00.003-04:00

So, sports. People love 'em.. literally can't get enough. Where religion once was the opiate of the masses, the twin harbingers of mouth breathing: big advertising and mass media have turned sports into black tar heroin. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy sports, a lot, but the whole thing lacks perspective.. and it's sort of ruining the whole enterprise for me. Let's examine what's going on here.

First, ESPN brought 24/7 sports coverage to the world.. which is about 21 more hours than any sport or sports deserve. Second, coming along with this 24/7 coverage was a need to fill ALL of those hours.. and it's much easier to fill hours upon hours of down time if you're taking everything DEATHLY SERIOUS. The quest for a championship, something that once held some regional significance, but mostly as a source of pride and bragging rights, now is on a level with religion or politics or national identity as an identifying source of meaning for far too many people. Sports are games. They're played by little kids and grown men alike, and meant to be fun first and foremost. By becoming (like everything else), massively financed and marketed so that big time college and professional sports are multi-billion dollar industries, sports managed to achieve some gravitas that isn't inherent or even appropriate to what they actually are. By pulling an identity from a group of people that literally consider you a consumer or a dollar sign or signs, you're dealing with a totally one-ended relationship. You (as a fan) will never get anything other than manufactured fulfillment out of all of your time, effort and energy. I'm wholly comfortable with that and have come to terms with the implications, but the reality is that in a one-sided relationship, in order to feel that you're getting some sort of payoff for your passion, you've got to become more intense yourself in order to mask the complete lack of any reciprocity. So that's why we are where we are: where athletes/coaches who leave or screw up or are perceived to cost a team _________, are treated like actual bad people. See: Bartman, Steve. Buckner, Bill. Norwood, Scott. (that one hurt to type) Hamby, Ryan. (a college kid) And that's fine, to a certain extent.. but the key word is perspective. No one should ever get a death threat or have to move or fear for their safety from a game. Ever.

On another level, everything has taken on a preposterous sense of importance. There's no humor to anything.. everything is treated as if it's life or death. Are we playing football or in Iraq? Let's be real. When Jim Schwartz and Jim Harbough nearly came to blows at the conclusion of the Lions/49ers game last weekend you'd have thought President Obama swung at David Cameron. They're football coaches guys, come on. Football is basically one long legal fight where people try to run from other people who openly want to hurt them. Two coaches almost fought after the game? How is that an indictment of anything, anywhere? They're men, not stoic heroes. Boston Red Sox pitchers may or may not have drank beer, eaten fried chicken (?) and played video games during games that they weren't playing in. From the media reaction, you'd have thought they were in the back room shooting heroin and running a dogfighting ring. They're professional baseball players in their 20's and early 30's. They aren't CEOs. This is baseball.. players used to smoke in the dugout. Babe Ruth ate 6 hot dogs a game, Doc Ellis threw a no-hitter on LSD, David Wells threw a perfect game with a "raging hangover" (his words). Unless they're pitching that game, who cares what they're doing? What are they supposed to be doing? Icing their arms and charting pitches on their day off? It's a game.. and most of all, it's their job. A game that too many people have taken far too seriously for far too long. YOU taking it seriously doesn't make it serious. No matter how many blogs you read, talking heads you listen to or games you attend, no one on that field will ever care what you think or feel. Ever. And the sooner you realize that, the more enjoyment you'll get from the whole thing. I like sports, I like movies, I like TV, I like music.. none of those things define me and I know damn well that no one involved in any of those things cares one bit about me. Am I going about it the right way? I don't know.. but I'd rather be me than screaming "Who Dey" and blind drunk after the Bengals give false hope every few years.

Stop taking it so seriously, world... you're coming pretty damn close to ruining the whole thing. ESPN is a giant turd in the punch bowl of life. Sports are fun.. please remember that.

2011: The Year in Film: "Ides of March" Review

2011-10-17T10:46:00.002-04:00

The Ides of March So, since the last time we spoke, I went ahead and turned 28.. and I'm strangely comfortable with that. Here's why: when you're 28 you're unquestionably an adult.. hopefully with your shit together. But on the other hand, you're still young enough that you can do things like... sleep on a friend's couch all weekend and get black-out drunk without bringing too much of society's ire down on you. You're still a young person... but you have money. Unless you did dumb things like "buy a house", "make babies" or the like, that is.

Based on a play, this movie was all over the local Cincinnati news in early 2011.. any conversation with a female resulted in a story of seeing Gosling or Clooney at some bar or hotel. From what I could tell, they shot approx. 80% of it in the greater Cincinnati area.. so, go Cinci. Oh, and Miami U gets to be featured in the first 5 minutes.. so that's legit. As I mentioned earlier, this one is based on a play, and you can definitely tell.. there are plenty of monologues and intimate settings with two or three people in a small room. Clooney wrote, directed, and stars in this one, and brought together an absolutely stacked cast... one could say it absolutely pays to be as well-liked and connected as Clooney is. Ryan Gosling, Paul Giamatti, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Jeffrey Wright and Marisa Tomei join Clooney in this drama about an ambitious and idealistic governor who seeks to gain the Democratic Presidential nomination.

The American political process is often referred to as a "sausage factory".. i.e., something that you don't really want to know how it's made because it's complicated, disgusting, and it's generally better to just enjoy and marvel at the final product rather than delve into the backroom promises, handshakes, compromises and devil's bargains that go into the finished product. Let's just say that there's a reason all of these bills are thousands of pages long: you do not want to know what's in there.. because it's mostly ridiculous items thrown into unrelated bills in order to pander to some congressman from Wyoming or Montana or god knows where. Most of you know this, or I hope you do. Well, actually getting elected to national office is no different. By the time a candidate makes it through a year of Primary battles and a general election, there have been so many compromises, backroom deals and promises that what once was the candidate's message has been utterly gutted by the realities of what it actually takes to get elected. The Primary cycle is especially messy.. with each state having differing rules and delegates and what not.

So in the week or so leading up to the Ohio Democratic Primary (which is on March 15, hence the title) in a world where Barack Obama evidently doesn't exist, Pennsylvania Governor Mike Morris, a charming, idealistic politician with some radical ideas on how to move the nation forward finds himself locked in a tough and increasingly dirty Primary battle. Idealistic young media man Stephen Meyers (Gosling), a rising star in the political scene, works on Morris' campaign, where duplicitous tactics and a campaign that's becoming more and more complex really reveal how on the campaign trail idealism takes a back seat to realism as the realities of what it takes to get elected sets in. Scandal, backstabbing and compromise take place behind closed doors as Political staffers and opportunistic politicians seek to gain a seat at the table. Power corrupts is a cliche.. but there's a lot of truth to it.. and around a Presidential hopeful, there's a lot of power to go around. People are lobbying for Cabinet spots, campaign workers are lobbying for what they hope will be high-profile and lucrative jobs in the future administration, and the Candidate himself is hearing a lot of different things from a lot of different people. In short, it's virtually impossible for someone to emerge from the long, messy process without some bruising and scuffing. This is a cynical, bleak film that says a lot about what the American Political Process is actually about. The business of winning has very little to do with the business of governing, and those best equipped to win are almost never those most equipped to rule.

All of that being said, this is a wonderfully done film. It looks great, and all of the actors involved bring their "A" game. Clooney is magnetic on screen, as he almost always is, and the film's weakest stretch comes during the 30 minutes or so that he's largely absent from the scene. Giamatti and Hoffman, are, as always, great. These are two of the top 5 character actors in all of Hollywood and they are both utterly believable and wonderfully bleak as opposing campaign managers, trying to stay ahead of their competition. Gosling, as the young, wide-eyed up and comer, makes a transformation throughout the film from idealist to cynic when the sausage maker is revealed to him in all its glory.. and he does a great job with a role that's written for the stage.. so there are lots of solitary moments and the role requires an emotional complexity that most young actors are incapable of. Marissa Tomei and Evan Rachel Wood are strong as an NYT reporter and young intern, respectfully. Across the board, the acting is the strength of this film.. and you'd expect nothing less from an accomplished actor behind the camera.

All in all, while the performances are strong and the film really strives to reveal what happens behind the scenes at a major campaign (and Clooney would know), the plot at a point takes a leap for the somewhat ridiculous. I understand that scandals absolutely happen and the truth is likely shocking... but the places that this film goes seem needlessly over the top. That being said, as a parable of sorts and commentary on the realities of the American Political process.. absolutely worthwhile. Great, great performances by some of the strongest actors working today.

7.5/10.

2011: The Year in Film: "50/50" Review

2011-10-10T22:11:00.003-04:00

So I don't know if there's any legitimacy to this theory of mine or not, but I just came up with it tonight, so hear me out. My theory, simply, is that there are two kinds of narratives. There are "stories", i.e., things that actually happened or feel like they did, and there are "tales", i.e., something more based in allegory, metaphor, legend, archetype or the like. And one's not necessarily better than the other.. each narrative technique has a time and a place, and each can be damn effective when done well. This flick is a "story", plain and simple. TV producer and friend to Seth Rogen Will Reiser wrote the screenplay based on his own experience with rare spinal cancer and this flick has the feel of authenticity to it. Not the sort of authenticity where it's like "this is what cancer is like"... rather, the sort of authenticity where you know this is what HIS cancer WAS like. And there's something powerful about that. Is it THE definitive film on grief and illness and coping? Absolutely not.. but what it is is a very human and intimate look into the mind, experience, reactions and emotions of one very small group of people. So based on that, on with the review.

So Adam is a young man in Seattle Washington, all is seemingly well with his world. He's got a beautiful girlfriend who's keeping stuff at his place.. he has an entertaining friend, an interesting job, etc., etc. Lingering back pain drives him to the Dr., where an MRI reveals a large mass that turns out to be a malignant tumor. World. Rocked. Needless to say, the diagnosis of a rare and serious form of cancer turns his world upside down. He undergoes chemotherapy, sees a therapist at the hospital, and struggles to deal with the seriousness of what the diagnosis actually means.

This is an odd little film. It feels like an indie movie + Seth Rogen and Bryce Dallas Howard, but it's not. It's sad and melancholy and sweet and funny and depressing and uplifting in turns. I laughed out loud more than once and teared up more than once.. not your everyday combination. This is an intimate film.. 90% of which takes place either in a hospital or either Adam or Kyle (Rogen's) places and has about 8 characters that actually matter.

As a quick aside, I don't quite know what to make of Joseph Gordon-Levitt as an actor. He clearly displays fine range and can be very, very good in spots. He has a great screen presence and more than adequate emotional range. At the same time, however, and I don't know if this is due to his choice of roles or what, but he's always playing these melancholy, excessively quirky straight laced indie dudes. Is that him in real life? Even in Inception he played a sort of frumpy straight-laced grump. There's no real difference so to speak of between his character here and his character in "500 Days of Summer".

With that being said, this is a film that will succeed or fail based entirely on the strength of its cast. Joseph Gordon Levitt is very good approaching perfect in this role. He basically effortless displays the emotional and physical roller coaster that is dealing with a life-threatening illness. There are two scenes in particular, the night before and day of a major operation, that are poignant, touching, raw and powerful. I can take or leave Seth Rogen most of the time.. but his schtick works in this one. He's the jokester, gross pig of a best friend who also has an underlying sensitivity and humanity to him.. and it works, very well. Bryce Dallas Howard plays Rachael, Adam's girlfriend who turns out to be unable to handle the intensity of the whole cancer thing. She's an awful person and reminds me of certain characters from my past. You know, selfish and emotionally stunted and needy. That being said, she's extremely beautiful. Stunning even. Anna Kendrick plays Katherine, Adam's young therapist at the hospital, who is sweet and awkward and utterly believable. Phillip Baker Hall plays a patient at Adam's chemotherapy sessions who develops a bond and is very warm and believable as an elderly cancer patient. Angelica Houston plays Adam's mother.. and does a lot more with her role than she by rights should. She comes off as convincing and loving and completely authentic.

This is a very good film. It's genuinely touching while also quite funny. The direction is understated and the actors are given plenty of room with which to work. You really get the impression that these are people with a wide range of emotions and motivations rather than a stock set of characteristics that are generally written into comedies of all stripes. As I mentioned above.. I laughed, I teared up, I cared. I'm about 99% sure that's exactly what this flick set out to do.

8/10.

2011: The Year in Film: "Moneyball" Review

2011-09-27T15:55:00.002-04:00

Moneyball Before we review this badboy, let's have a brief discussion about theater etiquette. Where did people learn that it's ok to carry on a full-volume conversation in a theater? It seems that theater behavior is pretty fundamental.. they remind you on the screen prior to the start of the movie for christ's sake. Like, how self-absorbed are you that you really aren't even whispering? What the hell? The most annoying thing people do (listen up, ladies) is ask questions mid-movie. Let me let you in on a little secret: ALL WILL BE REVEALED. Seriously, something fun about books, and movies, and TV shows is that they tend to explain things in time. I can guarantee one of two things: either the very thing you are asking will be explained, probably in short order, or the movie you're watching is full of holes and a piece of shit. Questions like "who's that?", "what's he doing", etc. are so incredibly stupid. If it isn't already painfully clear, either explicitly or through context, it's about to be made explicitly clear. If you're unable to interpret the clear signals given to you by people who tell stories for a living, either you're stupid or the movie you're watching is. Either way: DON'T ASK QUESTIONS DURING THE FUCKING MOVIE. It is getting to the point where I am considering bringing some sort of shank to the theater. A woman probably aged between 55 and 70 was seated directly behind me and asking pretty basic questions at full volume. Literally no effort to whisper whatsoever. If you don't know what baseball free-agency is.. 45 minutes into a movie that you paid and everyone else paid $10 to get into is probably not the time to familiarize yourself with an extremely elementary concept that would probably be best solved BEFORE SEEING A BASEBALL MOVIE. The whole concept of whatever that woman was up to is so damn stupid to me that it hurts my brain. But anyway, ON WITH THE REVIEW.

So "Moneyball" is based on a book of the same name by Michael Lewis that chronicled Billy Beane, the GM of the Oakland A's then and now, and his push of a computerized, sabermetric approach to building a major league baseball team. I love baseball, I love science, and I love statistics and the new sabermetric approach to baseball and sports in general, so I'm embarrassed to say that I haven't read the book, despite it being recommended to me literally 10+ times. However, I am familiar with the story and people involved, so I was excited to see this one. Bennett Miller, best known for directing "Capote" is at the helm, and Aaron Sorkin co-wrote the screenplay, adapting Lewis' book.

It is 2001, and the Oakland A's, fresh off a 100+ win season and disappointing playoff loss, find that they've lost their three best players (Jason Giambi, Johnny Damon and Jason Isringhausen) to free-agency and are facing the difficult prospect of rebuilding on a serious budget. At the time, the Oakland A's had a payroll of less than $40 million while the New York Yankees (among others) had a payroll of around $140 million. (In case you're curious, this situation has only become worse over time) Beane, frustrated at the situation he's facing, decides that a new approach is required to help his team compete. After meeting a young staffer for the Cleveland Indians (sad face) who is using an innovative computer program to evaluate talent and maximize value, Beane brings the staffer to Oakland as Assistant GM, and the two overhaul the team based on statistical analysis rather than "look" and "tools" and the traditional things valued by old-school baseball scouts.

I know, it sounds boring. But Aaron Sorkin wrote it... and he's an amazing, amazing screenwriter. Did you like "the Social Network"? Yeah, he did that. Among many, many other things. Sure, on the surface it's about baseball, but really this film is about science and rationality and change challenging tradition and the old guard. There was, and continues to be in some circles (cough, Joe Morgan, cough) substantial resistance and even hostility to the "moneyball" approach... but make no mistake, sabermetrics are now used to at least some extent by just about every baseball franchise and are spreading to other sports. Billy Beane and co. were first. By mixing in baseball action with drama and scenes fleshing out Billy Beane, the film manages to rise above its somewhat limited synopsis to become part biopic, part social commentary, part sports movie and part documentary.

Brad Pitt stars as Billy Beane.. and this flick would have succeeded or failed based just about entirely on his performance. He does not disappoint. His version of Beane is intense, standoffish and a whole lot of a prick, but also very likable. Considering that probably 1/3rd of the movie is Beane by himself or with one other person being intense, a strong Beane is an absolute requirement. Jonah Hill makes a foray into the serious as the fictional (his character is in fact a combination of a couple of different assistants to Beane) Peter Brand, a Yale-educated computer whiz who never played baseball at any level. Phillip Seymour Hoffman is virtually unrecognizable as the pudgy, priggish Manager of the A's who is skeptical of Beane's new approach. Chris "Andy from Parks and Rec" Pratt makes a foray into the serious as Moneyball wet dream exemplar Scott Hatteberg. Once I got over "holy shit, that's Andy!" mode, he was very good and brought an "aw schucks" charm to the role. The supporting players are all very good and believable, but make no mistake, this is Pitt's film.. and he more than rises to the challenge.

The screenplay is tight and brings, through the use of flashbacks, some context and depth to the proceedings so it's not just simply a straightforward telling of the A's 2002 season. The dialogue is crisp and often funny, the characters feel very human, and by framing the film as a contest between underdog outsiders vs. good old boy traditionalism, the film transcends sports and has a lot to say about society in general. I really liked this movie.. it's top 3 for the year.

8.5/10. See "Moneyball" if you like baseball, if you liked "The Social Network", or if you're in the mood to see something made for grownups and demonstrates the growing potential of film. If they can turn "Moneyball" and Bill James' sabermetrics into a movie, I'm excited to see what's coming.

2011: The Year in Film: "The Debt" Review

2011-09-20T18:13:00.001-04:00

So I have been blogging... I just haven't been publishing. I have 3-4 half-written posts awaiting some TLC and a little effort.. but never fear, I actually saw a movie. The parentals were in town this past weekend, and so we thought it would be a good idea to see a movie. I couldn't talk them into "Drive" and my mom wouldn't see "Contagion" post-dinner, so we ended up with "The Debt", a remake of a 2007 Israeli film of the same name by Director John Madden.. probably best known for "Shakespeare in Love", which I would like to officially nominate as "Worst Best Picture Winner of All Time". Not that it isn't decent in and of itself, just that Best Picture flicks should be great... and Shakespeare in Love is not great. But enough about Shakespeare in Love (it can't help it that the powers that be in the Academy forgot what "award worthy" meant for a year and chose a comedy over 'Saving Private Ryan').. let's talk about The Debt. When talking about Israel and the background of what has become one of the truly hot-button issues in today's world, it's easy to forget that in our world of cause-and-effect, none of it would have ever happened if it wasn't for the Holocaust. The Nazi regime effectively eradicated the vast majority of the world's Jewish population, leaving the survivors to deal with the consequences. Whatever you think of the result, that's what's driven much of Israeli policy over the ensuing 60+ years. The myriad of reactions and consequences has been a popular subject for film for decades, and here we have a thriller that seeks to examine guilt and duty, memory, history and "truth" against the tableau that was the Mossad hunt for Nazi's in the 60's and 70's.

This film is set against the backdrop of a book publishing that highlights a mission in 1966 to capture a fictionalized version of Dr. Mengele in East Germany. A three person Mossad team operating in East Berlin sought to capture a Nazi war criminal and take him to Israel to stand trial.. and have been celebrated as heroes ever since. The film takes place roughly half in 1966 and half in 1997, as the book is published and the surviving team members are enjoying (to varying degree) retirement in Israel. All is not how it seems regarding the original mission, however, and the film does a very interesting job presenting, tangling and then untangling the threads of may in fact have been the truth. It sort of feels like "Spy Game" (Robert Redford and Brad Pitt) meets "Munich".. and that's not a bad thing.

First, let's talk the good. Hellen Mirren, Tom Wilkinson and Jessica Chastain are all outstanding. My boy Sam "Jake Sully" Worthington is given perhaps the most challenging role and does not shirk from the challenge. Chastain and Mirren play the same character, 30 years apart.. which is interesting in and of itself. There are some extremely tense scenes that are shot and played beautifully. The film does a great job in presenting something only to deconstruct it later.. what it shows may or may not be the truth. The subject matter is treated seriously, and the toll of deceit and grief feels very, very real. The intimate setting (the Berlin safehouse) and small cast gives a claustrophobic feel to the whole endeavor and helps to rachet up the suspense and sense of dread.

On the other hand, the jumping from time period to time period is done with varying degrees of success. It can be confusing as to what exactly is going on. Some of that has to do with the plot itself, and all is revealed in time, but I feel that if the script was a little tighter, it would be self-evident in real time.

All in all, this is no paint-by-numbers thriller. This is an adult flick that treats international espionage and black ops like something real with consequences rather than a cartoon. There are scenes that are tense and suspenseful that will leave you on the edge of your seat. Come for a spy/Nazi/Cold War thriller... stay for some great performances and sequences. So, despite the fact that the flick falls apart towards the end as its plot approaches nonsense, there is more than enough good here to redeem everything.

7/10

The Top Comedies on TV

2011-08-28T20:24:00.001-04:00

So I'm planning a whole mini-series if you will of TV-related posts in the coming weeks. Because let's be honest, I'm not just a movie nerd, I'm pretty much an all-around media nerd. If it's media, and it can be watched/read/consumed, I'm probably interested in and at least moderately aware of what's going on there. It's about damn time I brought TV onto this blog, as I spend at least as much time there as I do with movies. It's time to bring in other media.

So here I'm going to rank the top comedies. As is usual with everything else here, this is 100% my opinion, so feel free to disagree... but know I'm probably right.

How does on rank a comedy? Humor is extremely subjective and individual, so no doubt we're going to differ on nuance, but let's be honest, if you're a big Two and a Half Men or How I Met Your Mother fan, with laugh tracks and what I call "misunderstanding" comedy, we probably don't really get along that well. So I'm going to rank comedies based on a mix of quality of writing, quality of characters, laughs produced and overall effectiveness. I'm not going to put forth any Simmons-esque faux statistical analysis and pretend that my evaluation has anything to do with anything other than just my opinion. To clarify further, this post is ranking my current excitement level for each of these shows. I recognize that all of them are at varying points in their lives as shows, with some being relatively new and coming into their own while others are winding down or in their prime. I'm basically ranking, if there was a new episode of each of these shows on tonight, my excitement level to watch each of these shows. Here, in countdown form, are the comedies I most enjoy.

Honorable Mentions: South Park, Wilfred, 30 Rock (two once bright stars at the end of their runs though still occasionally brilliant and a new promising premise that's still in its infancy)

7. Curb Your Enthusiasm
If you don't know (and if you don't, I wonder how you're able to read this successfully), Larry David was the co-creator of probably the greatest comedy in television history, Seinfeld. George Costanza is at least 85% based on him, and needless to say, he made himself a whole ridiculous boatload of cash from the whole experience. Curb, which recently started its 8th season on HBO, is basically a fictionalized version of Larry David's life, where the tremendously wealthy and moderately famous Larry David cavorts about Los Angeles interacting with his friends and famous acquaintances in awkward and often hilarious ways. Basically, it's Seinfeld, with an R-rating, and if everyone was rich and Jewish. Although almost always hilarious and a good 25 minutes, this one is all the way down at #7 simply because I know where its ceiling is going to be. And that's nothing against the show really, it's just that the whole "misunderstanding, awkwardness, hilarity" outline, even when done tremendously well (The Palestinian Chicken episode, on the whole, was probably the funniest half hour of television I've seen all year), can only get you so far. Curb is very, very funny, I'm just a little more excited about the other 6 entrants on the list at the moment. Season 8 is currently airing, Sundays at 10 PM on HBO.

6. It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia

A few years ago, this one may have well been #1. Unfortunately, this one has fallen from the seasons 3 and 4 heights, where you knew definitively that every episode was going to be tremendous, offensive, hilarious and full of quotable material. I think 31% of my 3L year of law school was spent quoting Sunny in some fashion or another. Now don't get me wrong, I still get very excited for Sunny Episodes, its place on this list should assure you of that, I just feel that at some point over seasons 5 and 6 the limitations of the small group and world that is the focus of every single episode began to show up and the storylines and interactions began to feel strained. Really, considering that every episode features the same 5 people in the same bar and very few recurring characters, it's kind of remarkable it took that long. If Curb is Seinfeld with an R rating featuring rich Jewish people, Sunny is Seinfeld with a serious PG-13 rating featuring dumb drunk people. The show basically centers on the group tackling a subject by being as ridiculous, offensive and horrible as possible. While the show may not be as strong as it once was, it still contains moments of brilliance, and I'm hopeful that Season 7 will come back with a serious bang. (Fat Mac should be great) It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia's Season 7 premiere is Thursday, Sept. 15 at 10 PM on FX.

5. The League

Ostensibly a show about a group of mid-30's longtime friends with a fanatical Fantasy Football league, this show became one of my favorites in Season 2 when it became less about Fantasy Football and more about the oddball shit that groups of guys that know each other intimately and have a weird hetero love going on get into. Like Sunny and several other entrants on this list, the League takes full advantage of FX's basic cable status to be a little raunchier than basic cable allows, and this really adds to the authenticity of the group's interactions. If I have a main problem with this show, it's that no one has an 8 team league... and any 8 team leagues that exist suck. Everyone's team is ridiculously stacked and it takes all the fun and nuance out of fantasy sports. But this show has a really strong ensemble cast with a great rapport between the cast members.. you really believe that these people get along and would be/are friends.. and I dig that. High school friends Pete, Kevin, Ruxin, Andre and Kevin's pothead brother Taco have the sort of chemistry that makes them being longtime friends utterly believable.. and the various supporting characters only add to the strength of the ensemble. When dudes who have known each other for a long time get together, it feels a lot like "the League". I feel like as I get older I may like this one more and more. The League returns for Season 3 on Thursday, October 6 at 10:30 (After Sunny) - happy birthday to me.

4. Archer

Archer is a delicious little spy cartoon comedy on FX (look at FX, just taking over this list). It's raunchy, it's filthy, it's nonsensical, but mostly, it's hilarious. Main character Sterling Archer (Code Name: Duchess) is a dense, egomaniacal, politically incorrect, womanizing international super spy who happens to tiptoe the line between constantly almost starting international incidents and being really, really good at his job. He's part James Bond, part Don Draper, and pretty much all asshole. He's also an amazing character, with deadpan witticisms, pickup lines and incredibly offensive one-liners for pretty much every situation. Oh, he also has some serious Mommy issues. The show, which appears to be set in some odd alternative world where they have cellphones in the '60s (The Cold War is in full-swing, and the computers at the spy agency are large boxy mainframes), focuses on super spy Archer as he selfishly and effectively solves problem after problem while belittling and harassing pretty much everyone he knows. Archer is full of pop-culture references, running gags, Burt Reynolds love, family feuds, sexual innuendo and awesomeness. His cast of supporting characters at ISIS are of varying competency levels, including Archer's mother, Mallory, who runs ISIS and may in fact be Lucille Bluth at a spy agency. I'd describe Archer as part James Bond, part Get Smart, part Family Guy, and all hilarious. Season 3 of Archer premieres on Thursday, September 15 at 10:30 (after Sunny), for a short 3 week run, before returning for the rest of the season in January, 2012.

3. Louie

Look at FX, just dominating this list. Kudos to one of the few networks on TV willing to take chances with their programming. They've really put together a comedy lineup that complements each other and feels like a cohesive voice. Louis CK is a top 3 stand-up for me (he, Patton Oswalt and the tragically deceased Greg Giraldo will have to fight it out in my mind for the top spot), and he has a show on FX that lets him do basically whatever the hell he wants. The first season was great... but the second season (currently airing) is one of the most bizarre, fascinating, and outstanding things I've ever seen. To be honest, I don't even know if it's a comedy anymore, or if it's just a great damn show - period, regardless of genre. The show appears to be set a few years ago, before Louis CK was one of the top stand-ups on the planet, but while he's still relatively well known, as he's playing small-ish clubs and worrying about money, but still obviously being connected enough to have friends in high places. Louis is recently divorced and his two daughters split time between his place and his ex's, and the show takes painful and yet hilarious glimpses into the man, his worldview, life, and bizarre little stories that happen to all of us and yet are amplified 10-fold by the mind of a brilliant comedian like Louis. The show features his bleak, often pathetic, often hilarious, mostly dark takes on life, family, love, sex, and parenting. There's no continuity between episodes (different actresses have played Louis' mother, for instance, and in one episode he has a brother while in another, a sister), and the show usually features short (8-10 minute) stories intercut with bits of Louis' standup, which are always, always hilarious. The stories typically have a surrealist bent to them, which make it clear that they are exaggerated or enhanced versions of things that have really happened in Louis' life. Last week's episode, which was set on a Louis CK USO trip to Afghanistan, was one of the top 2 or 3 hours of TV I've seen on any show all year. I hope FX continues to give Louis CK all the rope he needs, because by the time he's done, this may be #1 on the comedy list and close to that spot on the "all TV" list. Season 2 of Louie is currently airing, Thursdays at 10:30 on FX.

2. Parks and Recreation
Filmed in the style of the Office, and created by Greg Daniels and Mike Schur, two of the men behind the original/good American office, this show instead spun off into something different, separate, and superior to the Office, done in the same style. The show focuses on Leslie Knope (Amy Poehler), the Deputy Director of the Pawnee, Indiana Parks and Recreation department. Leslie's coworkers, friends, and the outrageous citizenry of the city of Pawnee form the supporting characters, and as their chemistry grows, so does the quality of the show. In season 2 Parks and Rec really hit its stride, as Leslie's silly ditziness gave way to a manic competence and the bizarre cast of supporting characters was given more to do. Clearly influenced by the Simpsons, where the citizenry of Springfield was expansive and outrageous, the townspeople of Pawnee, as shown through the media and various town hall meetings are completely over-the-top and completely hilarious. Personal favorites: Nick Offerman's ridiculously manly libertarian Parks director Ron Swanson and Aziz Ansari's horndog would-be cool guy Tom Havingford. What makes this show transcendent of the typical comedy is the sincerity of the relationships between the characters. You (the viewer) truly get and feel the connections, relationships, ups and downs of these people, despite the often preposterousness of their surroundings, the emotions are and feel real. There's an underlying sweetness to Parks and Rec that helps make it great. Along with Ron's enthusiasm for meats, of course. Season 4 of Parks and Recreation premieres Thursday, September 22 at 8:30.

1. Community

Sometimes a piece of media and a particular fan/set of preferences overlap pretty much completely exactly. Let's see how this is true of "Community" and me: I am particularly amused by absurdist situations, I LOVE pop culture/nerdy references, get a big kick out of sarcasm/smart assery, and can't get enough of genre satire. So I'd say that for at least 1/2 of Community episodes, I feel like they are written especially for me. Community is set at fictional Greendale Community College, and features a diverse and ridiculous study group originally formed to allow Jeff (Joel McHale) to hit on Britta (Gillian Jacobs) but that over the course of the series becomes a close-knit group of people surviving the ridiculous situations and characters of Greendale Community College together. Community episodes often have a "theme" in which they brilliantly and succinctly send-up a genre or movie (season 2 featured a Star Wars episode, a Western episode, an Apollo 13/Right Stuff episode, a Zombie episode, and a claymation Christmas episode to name a few) and needless to say, that's right in my wheelhouse. Very much like Parks and Recreation, the actors and characters share a strong like for one another that really allows you to get invested in their relationships and the emotions of a particular episode despite the under/overlying preposterousness of what may be going on. The study group, consisting of Jeff, Britta, Annie, Shirley, Pierce, Abed and Troy, along with many recurring characters, get closer as the show progresses (well, Pierce takes a villain turn, but it works), and I feel that Community has gotten stronger through every episode. Every episode rather copiously references Popular Culture, particularly through Abed, and I can't get enough. Community may well be my favorite SHOW on tv, not just comedy. Season 3 of Community (I can't believe it's gotten a third season) premieres on Thursday, September 22 at 8 PM. If you're keeping track at home, that means that Community, Parks and Rec, Always Sunny and Archer will all be airing on Sept. 22nd. Somewhere, someone's singing "it's the most wonderful time of the year" and it may or may not be me.

Facebook II, Son of Facebook

2011-08-18T13:00:00.002-04:00

So the facebook post was a big hit. It makes me somewhat proud, like my parents probably felt when they realized their kids weren't complete screw ups. I thought I'd follow up that goodwill with a part 2. It's come to my attention that some important people are missing from the hall of shame that was assembled in the last post. But just in case you for some reason didn't read part I (and are, indeed, too lazy to just scroll on down there right now), here are the first standard bearers of douchebaggery: 1. The Hunny Bunny, 2. The Itinerary, 3. The Spelling Champ, 4. The Soapbox, 5. The App, 6. The Creep. These deplorable citizens of the cybercommunity all serve as reminders that just because the experience of being a person on planet earth can largely be transferred to the digital realm, the fact that 90+% of humanity is utterly obnoxious can never be removed. But that list was by no means an exhaustive one, so I've come back with a sequel. Facebook is one of those things that pretty much everyone has.. and given that everyone has it, and what people do is more or less public (which people obviously don't realize), it gives you a glimpse into how people actually ARE in a way that you wouldn't have any clue with the vast majority of casual acquaintances in actual life. There's something wonderful and soul-crushing about that. So, yeah. Thinking about all of this made me feel like Daniel Plainview and kind of had me down in the dumps.. so I let this one sit on the shelf for a while. But time has taken the edge off of the blade that is my realization that I hate almost everyone, so I've returned to the realm of the anti-social, delusional, narcissistic, vain and downright stupid to bring you part two of the most obnoxious people on Facebook.

1.) The Chronicler - This founding member of the goof troop thinks that every detail of his or her life is worthy of posting in a public forum. Very similar to "the itinerary", this one somehow manages to be even worse. Where "the itinerary" is just boring.. "the Chronicler" assumes that the everyday happenstance of their existence is worthy of documentation in a very public forum. Let's just keep this simple... it isn't. Sure, I understand that to you, this ______________ (insert vacation, job, whatever) is extremely exciting. Know what it is to everyone else? Dull, boring, narcissistic? All of the above? If you're doing something cool, by all means, throw a witty status out there or something. What we don't need is a damn play-by-play. Are you even there or are you just trying to make everyone jealous while you miss your entire trip buried in your iphone? Trust me, anyone who cares enough about your life experiences to want to get all up in there will probably just ask you the next time you see them. Casual acquaintances give less than a shit and a half. If you feel the need to share minute details of your life with people you hardly know, met while drunk, sat by Freshman year in geology, or friended because they dated your friend and you met at a wedding in 2007, your life is NO where near as awesome as you're trying to make it appear. I don't even care about what I'm eating, not really.. and believe me, no one is impressed by the details of your life. If your life is cool enough that people WOULD be impressed by it, then parading it about is just bragging. So either way, keep it to yourself.

a.) The Walter Iooss - not content to describe their life through words alone, this person feels the need to overwhelm the interwebs with album after album containing pictures of every place, meal, person, sunset and so on they've ever been, seen, met, eaten or happened across. Not that there's anything wrong with pictures in and of themselves.. that's clearly one of the purposes that facebook has in mind. But, come on now, let's be reasonable. Why are you taking 250 pictures of anything, let alone taking the time to upload all 250 pictures? I think I've taken a grand total of 45-50 pictures in my life.. and probably 19 of those were completely obscured by a finger/thumb. Granted, I may be more incompetent with a camera than most, but the point remains.. what are you doing taking so many pictures? Probably more importantly, what are you doing sharing ALL of these pictures with the world? By all means, if you've got some cool pictures, throw 'em up. Met Obama? Awesome. Post it. Saw the Eiffel tower? Sweet. Deserving of the public domain. But random meals and drinks and minutiae? I'd say a good rule to follow would be: would I want to see this if someone else posted it? If the answer is "no", don't post it. Is that so crazy? You know how boring it is when people show you stuff/tell you stories about things you don't care about? Well why are you sharing it with quasi-strangers? Granted, there's always the argument "you don't have to look at them". No, I don't, and I don't have to look at the car accident in the other lane either, but I will... and that perverse part of me can't help but be caught up in morbid curiosity at why someone would post 300 pictures in one album. Like... is there something awesome in there? Did they party with Dave Chappelle and Raekwon? Blew Joachim Phoenix? Make out with someone from the Real World? Nope. Just 743 pictures of ________ and boyfriend showing the internet how "happy" they are. Burns me every time.

2.) Super Parent - This is basically the same concept as "the chronicler". We get it, to you, your kid(s) is/are the most important thing to you. Kudos, that's how it should be. You aren't a deadbeat... congrats on that point. But do you know how little 99.95% of your facebook friends care about your little snotnoser? How many friends do you have? 300? 400? Then it's a safe bet that less than 10 people, basically no one but family and/or super good friends really cares what little Jimmy said. I'm going to let you guys in on a little secret: little kids suck. I mean, sure, they're cute, but that's an evolutionary tactic to trick adults into not neglecting them into oblivion. How would we treat an adult who acted like a 5 year old? They're selfish, loud, oblivious to social tact and custom, corny and not very smart. Now that's of no fault of their own, I fully recognize that their developing minds have not yet acquired the necessary experience, knowledge and nuance to be a fully functional member of society, but that's why no one likes someone else's kids. The relationship between parents and kids is (and should be) a deeply private one.. both because they should be cherished moments that are seminal in the creation of a fully fledged human being, and because no one else gives a shit and a half about a near stranger's child. The amount that anyone cares about random classmates'/coworkers'/party partners from last decade's kids can be measured in millimeters. Anyone who cares will ask, I assure you. In fact... there's only one thing more annoying than 24/7 running commentary of the antics of a snotnosed twerp...

a.) The Super Pet Owner - at least a child is, in fact, a human being and thus deserving of at least some attention, pets on the other hand are animals kept loyal by food and used to replicate human companionship. By my approximation, living beings on earth have two biological urges: survival and reproduction. Now for the modern American pet, they're almost all spayed/neutered, and they live with comforts that put 99.9999% of all the humans who have ever lived on planet earth's living conditions to shame, so their "survival" urges consist basically of stuffing their fatass faces. Not only are Americans fat as hell, our PETS are fat as hell. But I digress, as I said, at least children are (or will be) human beings, pets are animals. If no one cares about children, imagine how little everyone cares about dogs and cats. Now I get it. People (women) really like their pets. That's fine, you spend a lot of time around them, I understand. But seriously, why/how would you believe that anyone else gives a hell? The constant status updates, photo albums and etc. pertaining to the creature that you feed to bribe it into being affectionate are the very definition of antisocial behavior. It's just like everything else. Fine in moderation, like all things.. but just ask yourself: does anyone care? If the answer is or probably is "no", just keep it to yourself. Thanks.

3.) The running (wo)man. In the similar narcissistic vein to basically everyone else, this person assumes that their shit is worthy of publication to pretty much everyone they know. Working out/running sucks. I hate that I have to do it, and it's pretty much the most boring, masturbatory activity one can partake in. Tyler Durden said it best: "self improvement is masturbation. now self destruction?" Less than no one cares about your exercise habits. At least kids/pets/vacations are noteworthy life events. Working out? Really? Do you really think anyone cares? I don't even care about MY OWN exercise habits, let alone someone else's. This blog has previously derided the unfortunate state of affairs that has rendered human existance so meaningless that we must set arbitrary goals to meet as some measure of "achievement" and barometer of personal self-worth, but of all the reasons to set out to run an arbitrary distance, make the approval of internet acquaintances second to last, please. (last should be to put one of those "13.1" or "26.2" stickers on your Hybrid/Subaru) Most annoying of all is that Nike+ iphone app that syncs your runs.. jesus christ. "________ ran 7.2 miles in 57 minutes with Nike+ from iphone". I can't tell who this makes me want to kill more... Zuckerberg for unleashing this tidal wave of self centered delusion or the committing party for being so goddamn vain that they think a single other person on earth gives such information anything other than the most hateful of glances and the very least of concerns.

4.) The exhibitionist - This is quite possibly the single most painful type of individual on the internet. For some reason they feel that basically everyone they know (and a lot of people they don't know) need to be brought into intensely personal stuff and/or drama going on with them. You know how it goes... statuses that say things to the effect of "Kno u cant trust nobody" (of course the spelling is often atrocious, these antisocial individuals tend to fit into multiple categories) or "some people are just pieces of shit" like the appropriate place to air conflicts/fights/issues with people is on a public website. Let's talk about what facebook actually is. It's sort of like an online cafeteria for the "high school" that is attended by "everyone you know". You wouldn't scream to the whole cafeteria that your boyfriend cheated on you or that you had a big fight with your friend, right? So why are you announcing it for all to read on a website where literally everyone you've added can see it? Isn't that uncomfortable for you? Some of these cringe-worthy posts are so uncomfortable for me that they, more than anything else, lead to instant blocking or de-friending. Even worse than intense words (always horribly misspelled) are intense relationship status changes. You know how it goes. ____________ is in a relationship with _____________ turns into ____________ is in a relationship, turns into ______________ is single, turns into _____________ is in a relationship, turns into ________________ is in a relationship with ______________. Look, I understand how it goes, believe me.. people are crazy enough without emotions involved, throw in emotions? Coocoo for life. But that doesn't mean your drama needs to be embarrassingly displayed for all the world to see. This sort of public forum behavior leads me to believe that these people are either oblivious to the fact that everything you do on facebook is displayed to everyone you're connected to on facebook (and thus, very dumb), or they get a perverse pleasure from conducting extremely personal affairs in the public domain (and thus, very creepy). Either way, I'm uncomfortable, and you're blocked.

5.) The Mitch Albom. You know who Mitch Albom is. He's one of the corny assholes on "The Sports Reporters" who maligns the fact that sports aren't as magical as they were when he was 6 and watching Mickey Mantle like he's completely oblivious to the fact that as you become older and accumulate life experience and cynicism, NOTHING is a joyous or meaningful as early childhood experiences. Well, he applied this same cornball naivete to writing several extremely popular "Oprah's Book Club" type corny inspirational books. He's one of the leading cornball pseudo-spiritual secular types who are leading to the downfall of society. Well anyway, everything he writes is pervaded with a mind-numbing sentimentality and false carpe diem "inspiration". Well, the last (for today) obnoxious facebook citizen is the one responsible for putting cornball sentimental or falsely inspirational and/or pseudo-religious "spiritual" quotes in an effort to...? No one knows what the purpose of these things are. Is it to "inspire" other people? Isn't inspiration a personal thing? If it inspires you, great, throw it on a coffee mug, read it to yourself. For some reason people really like posting quotes as statuses... and I can't figure out why. Is it to get validation that a quote they like is a quote worth liking? (I hope not) Is it to "share" said quote? Didn't the original author already do that? Whatever the reason, Mitch Albom is an asshole, and so are all his little immitators, whatever and whoever their audiences may be. Keep your cornball shit out of my newsfeed.

The Inaugural Edition of the Greatest Mailbag on the Web

2011-08-08T23:59:00.001-04:00

The Brenner Bag I.

So I'm a big fan of the website mailbag. Whether it's done by Bill Simmons or Drew Magary over at Deadspin, a good mailbag is one of the more enjoyable website reads out there, along the author to spout off on his own nonsense while being guided somewhat by the reader. Best of both worlds! Ideally I'll be doing one once every month or so. I'm planning on picking up the blogging schedule here... at least I feel like writing is somewhat productive, unlike most of the nonsense I spend my time doing. So hopefully this one is at least somewhat good, right? Here goes nothing.

BD: Question regarding War Machine's origins in Iron Man 2:

I was watching the two Iron Man movies again last night, and all through Iron Man 2 War Machine was bugging me for the following three reasons:

1. Jarvis and the rest of Tony Stark's system put him in the Iron Man armor when he's ready to suit up. Why did it put the Iron Man armor on James Rhodes when he is clearly not Iron Man? We know that his system is pretty locked down to only allow people to do things they are authorized to do (see Christine Everhart touching one of the panels the morning after shacking up with Stark and being rejected by Jarvis), but we are supposed to think he didn't put those same security checks into outfitting the most dangerous weapon known to man?

2. In the first movie, we learn that the suit has an icing problem at high altitudes. Stark tells Jarvis to build the suit with a gold alloy that will allow for better temperature management while keeping the weight distribution correct. So, the suits he is building are coming off the assembly line gold and then applying some "hot rod red" paint job. Why does Tony have a silver-colored suit? Did he build a gold one and paint it silver or is this one of the old suits with the icing problem? If the latter, War Machine has a major weakness in future battles.

3. This is my biggest problem with the War Machine armor. Up to the point that James Rhodes steals the armor, these things have been built solely for Tony Stark and are powered by a miniaturized arc reactor that goes about six inches deep in his chest. So, the suit is aligned to power up off of an arc reactor positioned exactly like Stark's. When Rhodes suits up, why doesn't the arc reactor in the armor crush his chest and impale him six inches deep? Does James Rhodes just happen to have a very concave chest?

The Iron Man flicks, while exceedingly watchable and just an all-around "good time", aren't exactly the most plausible things out there. The strength of Robert Downey Jr. as the titular hero certainly glosses over a lot of the more preposterous aspects of the screenplay. I've had similar problems with War Machine's origins myself... it really is a rather large plot hole and problem that just gets completely glossed over. #3 is indeed the biggest problem, and the most difficult to explain away... but here goes nothing. Regarding #1, it would seem to me that events in the films seem to suggest that Tony's inner circle (Pepper, Rhodey and Happy Hogan) have pretty unimpeded access to the Stark mansion, and are on Jarvis' "good side". Christine Everhart's sexy Vanity Fair reporter on the other hand, is an intruder, and treated as such. Pepper Potts shows up more than once in Tony's lab uninvited, and Rhodey is the one who discovers Tony in his lab towards the end of the first movie, suggesting he's been there before and is a welcome guest. As far as gaining access to the Iron Man armor, it seems as though Rhodey would have been one of the few who would have been able to get by Stark security and Jarvis at the point that he does in the second film, and Tony's not exactly in any position to enforce security protocol at the time that Rhodey actually gains access to the gray Iron Man armor he uses to fight Tony at Tony's birthday party. As far as #2 goes, it appears that what becomes the War Machine armor is indeed the Mark II suit that Tony builds upon his return from Afghanistan. This armor, on its first flight, wound up icing over as Tony attempted to break SR-71's altitude record, resulting in him falling back to earth after his electronics froze over. Tony fixes this problem on the Mark III suit by adjusting the alloy used in constructing the suit, allowing for greater temperature variance. Therefore, regarding the Mark II armor that Rhodey takes, it would seem that at the moment Rhodey takes it following Tony's birthday party, the Mark II suit would be susceptible to the freezing problem. So stay out of the stratosphere, Rhodey! However, based on what we see of Hammer industries in Iron Man 2, it does appear that Justin Hammer has SOME skill as a developer.. obviously he's not the revolutionary genius that Tony Stark is, but he's not completely inept either. Therefore, it could be that when the Mark II suit is taken by Rhodey to the Air Force and the armor is modified by Hammer Industries into War Machine, Hammer and Vanko came up with an alternative solution to the icing issue. Perhaps they decided on a heating system to defeat the ice build-up. Perhaps they insulated the suit's electronics or decided on a different solution when turning the sleek gunmetal gray Mark II suit into the gray and black War Machine armor. Pure speculation on my part, but it seems that a designer like Vanko, seemingly the (almost) peer of Stark would be able to come up with a solution of his own. Switching alloys isn't the only solution to icing, or all high-altitude craft would be made of a gold alloy. As I mentioned earlier, #3 is the biggest issue. It's clear that Stark is a genius, but that the true genius of the Iron Man suit design is the miniaturized arc cold fusion reactor technology. It's unclear how precisely the suit hooks up to and interacts with the arc reactor embedded in Tony' chest, but you can see the reactor glowing through the armor, which leads me to believe the suit features a transparent covering directly over where the arc reactor is located in Tony's chest. Indeed, if you take a look at that almost profile view on the movie picture, it looks like Iron Man's chest protrudes in the chest area, thus suggesting that there may plausibly be room for an extra-body power source. Given that the arc reactor built by Tony Stark fits comfortably in his hand, it can't be more than a couple of inches deep. The only plausible explanation for Rhodey's being able to successfully pilot the Mark II armor is that Stark subsequently went back and built extra arc reactors and that the suit exists so as to be piloted whether the arc reactor is in-chest or outside of the body. Whether the armor was originally built with this in mind (seems somewhat plausible, as Tony wouldn't have known how permanent his health condition was at the time of building the Mark II armor) or subsequently modified following the events of the first film is uncertain, but it seems somewhat likely that the Iron Man suits are designed so that they can be powered by external or internal arc reactors. So, that seems to be the only plausible explanation for James Rhodes successfully accessing, piloting and taking the Mark II armor. I think typing that was the equivalent of having sex negative 7 times.

RL: How about rating and ranking the best rappers turned actors and movies starring rappers turned actors.

I like this question. It does appear, for whatever reason, that rappers like to try to transition to the acting game more than any comparable entertainment types. The list of rock and rollers who have successfully transitioned to acting is a rather short one, and while country singers have had more success, there haven't been any country singers become mega-stars like say, Will Smith or Mark Wahlberg. I guess it's somewhat logical, given that rappers succeed largely based on their charisma and stage presence, skills that, needless to say, transition rather well to the big screen. I'm going to do a top 3 and a bottom 3, with a couple of honorable mentions/people to watch.

Bottom 3:
3. Ice Cube. Nothing against the guy, I just think his flicks and acting style are complete garbage. And Ice, really, why are you making all of these cornball family flicks? It's pretty strange that the dude has any street cred left after all of the family flick nonsense he's been up to. The only reason he's not #1 is Boyz in the Hood and Friday. Past performances will win you some points 'round these parts. Being involved in the atrocious current Coors Light campaign is bad enough to get you notice.. making "Are We There Yet" and the like will score you HUGE negative points. And seriously, what's the deal with Coors Light commercials? Isn't beer EXACTLY as cold as the refrigerator it's put in? If you have a cold fridge, you probably have cold beer. Leave some Coors Light in your trunk all day and grab one. Bet you it's the grossest thing you've ever sipped.

2. Bow Wow. Do this dude even count as a rapper? I don't even know. I wasn't going to include him on this list because I didn't want to pick on a little kid, but then I looked him up and realized he was 24(!), that's plenty old enough to get mocked on the Internet. If he counts as a rapper, he's certainly pretty damn bad as an actor too. I haven't seen too many of his flicks, but I saw half of "Tokyo Drift" at the gym once, and it was just all-around garbage to the point that anyone involved should have their SAG membership revoked. A quick glance at the Internet shows that he's been up to an array of limited marketability "comedies" of dubious worth since, and yes.. the dude made "Like Mike". He just barely missed #1.

1. DMX. Dark man baby. This one hurt, because I'll always have a soft spot for DMX. He was the man when I was becoming a man and hanging out, listening to lots of rap, drinking beers on country roads and talking nonsense with other dudes. I still know approx. 9 billion too many DMX lyrics, and will definitely rap along whenever Earl Simmons is played within earshot. However, that doesn't change the fact that his (now direct-to-DVD) acting career was a blight on Hollywood and helped usher along the death of the 90's action flick heyday. In "Romeo Must Die", "Cradle 2 the Grave" and "Exit Wounds", DMX displayed stiff acting, zero charisma and a complete lack of any range or likability. Belly is halfway not awful though.. so he has that going for him. Now I hope he doesn't kill me for writing that. Your dogs are certainly not in the movies, D.

The top 3. Does Mark Wahlberg count? I'm going to say he counts... because Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch was definitely rap, and he was doing that before he was making movies and/or creating Entourage. So given that Marky Mark counts, here's the top 3.

3. Mos Def. I believe Mos Def has the most potential of any rapper turned actor. He shows tremendous range and a certain sensitivity on screen. I would in no way be surprised if Mos Def brought home a best supporting Oscar in the future. In flicks as varied as the Italian Job, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, 16 Blocks and Be Kind Rewind, Mos Def has shown a willingness to take chances and try different genres and character types on for size... definitely admirable. This #3 ranking is probably more for potential than anything else... but I've found that in everything I've seen him in, more than being a liability, Mos Def has more than held his own and actually been a strength. So kudos, not only are you one of the most innovative and legit MC's, you're also a decent actor.

2. Mark Wahlberg. While his rapping credentials may be questionable... (without including him, Common would move up to #3), he is undoubtedly one of Hollywood's stars. He's also a complete enigma to me. I don't know if he just has horrible management or what, but for every great role (Boogie Nights, Three Kings, The Departed) he has some real head-scratchers (the Tim Burton Planet of the Apes abortion, Four Brothers, Max Payne, The Happening). The dude is clearly an above-average actor, and given the right script, right surrounding cast and right director, he can be great, but he's not quite the type of dude who can carry a flick alone. His circuitous route to Hollywood stardom (underwear model, "rapper", actor) makes me laugh, and I'm sure Marky Mark is ashamed... all the way to the bank. White, black, red, brown, feel the vibration.

1. Will Smith. Could it have honestly been anyone else? Arguably, this dude is the biggest movie star on the planet. There's no doubt he's a talented, charismatic SOB.. but I wonder if he's ever going to win an Oscar. He just doesn't take the necessary chances or gutsy, demanding roles. He's undoubtedly strong in pretty much everything (We won't mention the cinematic spray-fart that is "Wild Wild West") and the kind of dude that everyone from little kids to 25 year old dudes to moms like, but pretty much every role is "safe". There were stories all over Hollywood about how desperately Tarantino wanted him for "Django Unleashed", QT's slave revenge saga, and Smith wouldn't take it, out of fear of the controversial material. While there's no doubt something to be said for looking out for your brand, there's also something to be said for pursuing greatness in your brand. If Will Smith was an NFL RB, he'd run out of bounds on long runs. But either way, he's a huge, huge star.. was responsible for one of the most beloved TV shows of the '90's, and made some catchy ass corny rap songs. He's now exploiting his children to make even more money and being a secret scientologist. Kudos, Will.

Honorable mentions: Tupac Shakur - I truly believe he would have been an amazing actor had he lived. A true tragedy robbing both rap and cinema of his talent. Common - one of my favorite MCs has proven to have a knack for the screen, although it's too soon to tell. Queen Latifah - I don't like anything she stands for, but there's no doubt that she's a HUGE star. LL Cool J - Surprisingly solid in a lot of things. My personal favorite role was "Any Given Sunday".

So that's my take on the rap/acting game. Kind of a cop out including Marky Mark, but dude WAS a rapper (kind of).

JRC: Each of the first three season of Mad Men built up to a specific moment in history (i.e. Kennedy/Nixon election, Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK assassination), and the writers weaved their storylines around those events. I have always enjoyed how the writers included these major events in the storyline, but never made them the focal point of the storyline. In other words, there was not some awful CGI scene where Don Draper was standing on the street in Dallas in 1963, and we see Kennedy get shot in the background. Now we definitely see how the characters respond to these events - which makes complete sense for a character driven show - but it is all in the context of the characters, and is used to show us a little bit more about these people (not to make a social commentary on the event). Well, all of us that watch the show know that there was no comparable event in Season four (which was still just as great as the other seasons). My question is: If you were writing season four of Mad Men, what historical event would you have build the season around, and how would you have incorporated the event into the storyline?

Awesome question.. and I'm sure that Weiner and the writers struggled with this one. I know that Weiner has said that he intends to end "Mad Men" in 1970, so given that Season 3 ended in late 1963, we're kind of boxed in to the '64-'65 time frame for Season 4 if you plan on having more than a season or 2 after Season 4. While the 60's were undoubtedly a tumultuous and important decade... 1964 and 1965 were basically the calm before the storm. Trouble was brewing, but it hadn't boiled over yet. Malcolm X was assassinated in 1965, but that was hardly a momentous event at the time and it wasn't exactly something that would have registered with the mostly white and predominantly upper-class characters of the Mad Men universe. Indeed, the most important cultural events of 1964-65 are probably Beatlemania and the rise of Cassius Clay/Mohammed Ali as cultural icon, and both of these events are referenced heavily in Season 4. The Tulkin Gulf Incident took place in August 1964, and ultimately led to military build-up in Vietnam, but the Vietnam war didn't become heated and controversial on the massive scale we think of today until '67-'68. The Civil Rights movement is heating up as well, but, again, not to a level that would impact the largely white upper class cast of Mad Men in a momentous way, not yet. '68 saw the assassinations of Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr., the Tet Offensive and the realization that Vietnam was not going as well as advertised, and '69 saw Woodstock and the Moon Landing. So the writers are in a difficult spot. If you intend on ending the show in 1970, skipping ahead to 1968 for Season 4 means you either squeeze several seasons into the last year and a half of the decade, or you only have one more season remaining, which I'm sure AMC (or the fans...) wouldn't be happy about. So the writers, trapped in a (comparatively) quiet period of the decade, wisely chose to have the tumult take place within the characters' lives, rather than imposed on them from the outside. But, you didn't ask for a history lesson. I suppose what I would have done is have Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce have a major military contractor (say.. a helicopter manufacturer) for a client, and have the characters closely follow unfolding events in Vietnam. (The US had military advisors in-country from 1950 onwards, but LBJ ramped up participation starting in '63 and culminating with the Gulf of Tonkin incident and subsequent retaliatory airstrikes and resolution approving military action) So what you could do is have the season end with the US bombing North Vietnam following the Gulf of Tonkin incident and our Sterling Cooper Draper Price staffers celebrating because their military client was about to get a whole lot bigger. Of course, we the viewers would know that the last thing these characters should be doing is celebrating, but hindsight is 20/20 after all. That puts you in fall '64, and would be a neat little way to wrap things up in a similar fashion to the other seasons.

JT: How many questions do you have?

I have a shit-ton of questions. Why does corn, despite being chewed, come out intact on the other end? Why did Wendy's raise the $2.99 combo prices to $3.29? That's such an ugly number in comparison. Why do guys in wildly successful bands act like high school girls and refuse to get along despite being ridiculously wealthy and the lessons of history that suggest they'll never meet similar levels of success and wind up reuniting in 20 years when no one cares about them any more? How do all of my clients who have no jobs and no money afford to smoke a pack a day? How do guys who wear pre-frayed ballcaps and boat shoes get hot girlfriends? How are there so many legitimately beautiful women in porn? Why is the American political process so goddamn broken? What did people do for entertainment before the internet? Probably lots of drinking, right?

I could go on all night, but I won't. Depending on your counting method I have between 7-12 questions for the mailbag.

Who's your favorite Stark? Tony? Ned? Robb? Explain.

This one was submitted anonymously... but I love it, so I'll gladly dive in. So this is basically an Iron Man vs. Game of Thrones question. Tony Stark, of course, is the billionaire genius/playboy/arms manufacturer protagonist of the "Iron Man" comic book and movie series of Marvel comics fame. House Stark, of Winterfell, of the Seven Kingdoms of the Iron Throne of Westeros, Warden of the North, is the most ancient noble house of Westeros, and Ned Stark is the partiarch and Lord of House Stark at the open of "Game of Thrones" the show and the book. He has various living family members, Catelyn, Robb, Bran, Rickon, Sansa, Arya and Benjen, of which I will eliminate all outright excepting Robb from consideration. However, Ned being daddy, and being on a TV show where according to the complicated rules of TV shows the relationship between characters is always depicted via height, I'll go with Ned. (Have you noticed that? In real life, approx 85% of people are taller than their parents, right? Excepting situations where say, Dad is a foot taller than Mom, I'd say most people are on average, 4-6 inches taller than the average height of their parents. Not so on TV shows. Parents are almost always taller than their children, no matter what the age. Fresh Prince? Carlton is about 8 inches shorter than Uncle Phil. Modern Family? 17 year old Hailey is a solid 6 inches shorter than BOTH of her parents. That's literally never happened before, but I digress) So basically, this comes down to Tony Stark vs. Ned Stark. Let's see. Tony Stark is a wisecracking hedonist who has a moral awakening following a near death experience and realization of the horrors of war and that his weapons systems are being used by foreign terrorists. He has a quick mind and a wit that's nearly as quick, and is unafraid to disarm any situation with force that he's unable to disarm with a smile and quip. Ned Stark is a devoted husband and stern, loving liege Lord and father who is devoted to his King and to his Honor. He believes that a lord should carry out his own justice and his beloved by those who serve him. He's soft spoken and worn by the weight of his duty and responsibility but skilled with a sword and one of the most respected men in all of the seven kingdoms. However, he is far too honorable for the machinations at court, where he finds himself outmanuevered by those who are unencumbered by honor and notions of fair play, who exploit Ned's devotion to honor again and again during the events of "Game of Thrones". Due to Ned's fatal, tragic flaw, I must say that Tony Stark is my favorite Stark.. simply because a fatal flaw will always come back to bite you. Even if your fatal flaw is as virtuous as being too honorable.

AM: I always think it is weird/awesome when popular products are co-branded with others or just sold outside their usual category. In fact I often end up buying the co-branded product when I would never have bought the original. I mean, 7up flavored Popsicles? YES. But 7up yours on your own, 7up. Wait I can buy Taco Bell salsa in the grocery store? I don't buy regular "restaurant style" Taco Bell lest my toilet be party to a red scare, but bring that salsa on. Holy fuck there is a Velveeta Sheels n Cheese that features Hormel bacon bits in it? If I could divine a way to make love to that unholy alliance it would already be done, and our children would feed the entire non-Muslim population of Africa. DiGiorno now sells cookies and pizza in the same box. Stoners everywhere calmly cool the fuck out and rejoice, man.

Keeping this in mind, what name brand products do you think are a match made in heaven and simply must be combined? Are there any fast food or restaurant staples you'd rub out a wax dart in aisle 3 (cleanup in aisle 3 btw) over if they ever popped up? Which combination would be most like to bring about the downfall of humanity? I'll hang up and listen to your answer.

I have thought about this far too often to be normal, and never really talked about it because I thought it was a uniquely "me" thing and far too weird and embarrassing to share publicly. Sort of like how when you first start jerking it you think you're a psychotic freak and no one would talk to you ever again if they knew what you were secretly doing until you find out that literally every person has been jerking like a mad man and between 2 and 3X more frequently than you. This realization isn't THAT liberating (nothing ever will be again), but it's in the same neighborhood.

At this point, it seems like the combinations that DO exist are way down the totem pole on the potential combinations. Like, Digiorno and breadsticks. Meh.. can already get that, Digiorno. Taco Bell salsa. Do they even HAVE salsa at Taco Bell? The awesome combinations that do exist seem to be in the realm of desserts. Actual Oreo ice cream (rather than the pretend Oreos that comprise most "cookies and cream" contraptions).. boner pants. Snickers Ice Cream Bars. Oreo breakfast bars. Golden graham breakfast bars. (with real marshmellows!) All of these things are that rare breed of awesome in that they're so awesome I avoid buying them because I know that actually purchasing any of these things will result in me eating the entire package within 18 hours of purchase and then wondering why my pants hardly fit.

But the untapped combinations have to be fast-food related, right? Come to think of it, the only real fast food presence you ever see in the Grocery store is frozen White Castle burgers... which is disgusting. If there's one thing I love in this world, it's Chipotle, (well, that's an exaggeration, but I do love Chipotle) and I fail to understand why they are doing no non in-restaurant sales of any kind. If you're in a Chipotle and take a look behind the counter, there's always some small Guatemalan gentleman grilling large, scrumptious-looking chunks of meat, which he then dices into small chunks and throws in one of those pans to be scooped into your burrito/bowl. (or taco, but if you're ordering those tacos, I hate you) Now granted, those diced pieces are necessary for optimized burrito consumption, there'd be too much biting/tearing/mess if otherwise, but I'm intrigued by the untapped potential of those giant sexy looking marinated chunks of meat that are so delicious diced up in my burrito. I want to throw one on a toasted bun with a little lettuce and mayo and take a bite of what may in fact be the most glorious sandwich on the planet. Can you imagine what a Chipotle slab of steak would taste like on a bun? Good lord I'm getting hungry just typing this. But herein is why restaurants don't do that stuff. I'm going to use the opportunity to buy frozen chunks of Chipotle meat for good, but the crazed ranch-obsessed redneck is not. Chipotle has to protect their brand and their perceived quality. If they start selling stuff in the freezer section, you're going to have people serving it up half-cooked and slathered in nacho cheese and a half-gallon of ranch and then suing Chipotle when they get salmonella from undercooked poultry and/or when they gain 600 lbs from eating 19,000 calorie meals. Boom, all of a sudden, Chipotle's brand is shot. Thanks, Cletus, for eating like an asshole. You'd better believe those dudes are out there. I ate Subway for lunch today and the dude with the sleeveless shirt and flame tattoos got more ranch than I've ever seen anyone get before slathered on his sub. The worker looked at him like he was an idiot when he asked for more. And that's when you're asking for it at a restaurant. Can you imagine what this dude is up to at home when he has control over the ranch supply? I want Wendy's to sell their hamburger patties too. I know they're frozen, I've seen a glimpse inside of a Wendy's freezer before... but god damn are they delicious. But, same deal. Wendy's can never be sure what the mouth-breathing public is going to do with their delicious patties should they be set loose on the world. People will be throwing 9 of them on a bun with 19 slices of provolone cheese and 38 slices of Bob Evans bacon and then blaming Wendy's on the 10 o'clock news when they collapse a deck or capsize a catamaran.

As far as combinations go, as you may or may not know, I love me some Smoothie King. Well, I need Chipotle to buy Smoothie King and put Smoothie Kings inside of their Chipotle locations so I can get my steak burrito with fajita peppers and black beans along with a Caribbean Way and die a happy man. This is do-able at the Kenwood Towne Center, where the Chipotle in the food court is separated only by a Chick Fil-A from a Smoothie King, but that would entail dealing with nightmare parking plus nightmare wading through 17 year olds plus nightmare long ass Chipotle line plus then nightmare dealing with traffic to get home to eat your now cold Chipotle and/or nightmare trying to find a table in that crowded-ass food court where 17 people will undoubtedly run into you while you're trying to enjoy exquisite food glory.

At the grocery store, the combination that would make me happiest would be if Smoothie King sold frozen ready to go Smoothie Mixes. I spend my time at home carrying out elementary school science fair experiments trying to concoct awesome Smoothies but failing epically at least 45% of the time. My culinary skill consists basically of baking a frozen pizza, so I need my hand held through these things. This is a massive potential revenue stream for Smoothie King. Just freeze all of the ingredients in a bag or whatever, you take it home, throw it in your blender, add juice or milk or whatever and boom. Smoothie King. At home. That's not even a combination, really... just an awesome idea.

PB:
1. You're an all-Ohio guy -- love the Indians, love OSU, went to Miami, UC, etc. Seem to be someone who has a good sports-fan ethos and would hate on anyone who arbitrarily picks a team to root for. How did you end up a Bills fans? If not a Browns fan, it seems the Lions would be the next logical choice for a Fo-town native.

2. I often refer to Bob Seger as "the poor-man's Bruce Springsteen" or the "Midwest's Bruce Springsteen." Knowing that any member of the Brenner family would be willing to give a kidney to Seger if need be, is this an accurate sentiment? Is there a Midwest v. East Coast rivalry here? If Bob Seger is from New Jersey, does he get the same level attention as the Boss?

I respect both of these questions very much, so, kudos. I shall address both in turn.

1. A complex set of circumstances led to me embracing the Buffalo Bills as my NFL team of choice. First, my father was a semi-psychotic Browns fan growing up, to the extent that destruction of property was not un-heard of. So growing up in the '80's, that era of "the Drive" and "the Fumble" so infamous on the banks of the Cuyahoga some of my earliest memories of football Sundays are slammed remotes, turned off TVs, stomping away and angry yelling. At the same time, I had an Aunt and Uncle who lived in Lewiston, New York, very near to Niagra Falls and Buffalo, New York. At the same time, the Bills had a dominant team, making 5 of 6 AFC title games and 4 straight Super Bowls, as well as having a top-2 team on the greatest sports video game of all time, Tecmo Super Bowl. Repeated visits to the Buffalo area and proximity to Bills-fandom through my aunt and uncle + psycho Browns fan at home + me being a little kid and little kids liking weird shit like "cool team colors" + the Bills being very good + Tecmo Super Bowl led to my brother and I liking the Bills. Plus, if you DIDN'T like Jim Kelly, Thurman Thomas, Andre Reed, Bruce Smith and co. you were definitely a communist. Or a Dolphins fan. As I progressed into young man-dom (I am of the belief that no one is really a "fan" of anything until they are an actual "person", which happens around ages 12-15 depending on the person), the Browns packed up and left Cleveland, leaving C-town with no NFL team, and the Bills being the dominant AFC CBS team broadcast in the Northwest Ohio area from '96-'98. Also, by the time I was old enough to have opinions on things, I was too obsessed with Ohio State to possibly root for any M*chigan-based team, even the hapless Lions. That was a contentious time in OSU fandom, being completely owned by M*chigan for basically a decade. By the time the Browns came back, I was a semi-man and a full-blown Bills fan. At that point, switching from the Bills would have been seen as a poser move from my own perspective. So, I'm not sure if I would approve if someone just explained that situation to me, but that's my explanation. I have said that when and if the Bills move from Buffalo to Toronto or LA or wherever, I'm going to switch to the Browns. So there's that. Plus there's the fact that the Bills' ineptitude over the past 12 years has been matched and exceeded only by that of the Browns and Lions.

2. I like to refer to Bobby Rock as "the midwest Springsteen" myself, and there's certainly a slight rivalry going on there. When you're from Ohio and meet people from out-of-state you're automatically on the defensive. For some reason or another, pretty much every other state thinks it behooves them to look down on Ohio, and that's Ohio's own fault. The state is too fractured to create a unified front. There's Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus, and several other semi-major urban areas, and all of these cities have a certain rivalry going on with all of the other. None of them have ever been big enough to completely dominate the other like happens in most states, so accordingly, Ohio doesn't present a unified front to the nation as a whole. Since Ohio's identity is so fractured, people mistake this fractured identity for a lack of an identity, and pounce accordingly. I've even heard people from Indiana and Kentucky and (gasp) M*chigan making fun of Ohio.. really? It's not even a discussion. So for Ohio at least, we deal with a sort of inferiority complex that leads to much conflict with the East Coast in particular. Despite the fact that Ohio boasts an impressive population (7th) and population density (10th, with only NY and Pennsylvania having both higher populations and population densities than Ohio), we are treated as a cultural backwater by anyone from somewhere that the coast-centric media has deemed "cool". So it's a Catch-22. Coast-based media deems place "cool", place then becomes "cool". Total chicken/egg situation. Now, granted, Seger isn't from Ohio, but he's sort of been adopted and his blue-collar ethos and worldview speaks to a large chunk of the Ohio-based population. If you're putting Bruce and Bob head to head, I think it goes without saying that Seger's pipes are far superior. Bruce is a superior songwriter and probably boasts a superior band (but Alto Reed vs. Clarence Clemons is a good debate..), but Bob's no slouch there either. Bob had his moment in the sun, but ultimately never caught fire nationally the way that Bruce did. Seger's songs don't have the same cultural/societal bent that Bruce's do, with Bob being more focused on life and love and pondering while Bruce takes more chances, but I'd argue that it's almost impossible to pretend that if Bob Seger was a native son of Jersey and embraced by the media center that is NYC like Bruce Springsteen, he'd have enjoyed a cultural significance similar to that of Bruce. Seger is 5 years older, but it's impossible to ignore that the midwest isn't exactly launching music careers like it used to. Back in the 50's when Detroit was the 3rd biggest city in the US and Cleveland was top 10 that Detroit to Cleveland corridor carried a lot more clout than it does today, when Detroit looks like the setting of the next Snake Plisskin movie and Cleveland is pretty damn depressing on its own accord. If the Black Keys were LA-based instead of Akron-based they may well be the biggest band on the planet. But, as any native son of the midwest can tell you, that's just how it goes. We've been downtrodden and overlooked for so long that it's just par for the course. Seger would have something wise and profound to say on the issue, but that's why he's an icon and I'm just a bored guy pontificating to the 13 people that actually read this far.

2011: The Year in Film: "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" Review.

2011-08-05T22:55:00.005-04:00

I'm not going to lie, until the reviews came back, I had absolutely zero interest in this one. I'm a big fan of the original Planet of the Apes (no, not the Marky Mark/Tim Burton version), and felt like the concept here may be betraying the spirit and message of the original. The mythology and concept behind the original Planet of the Apes and its decreasingly effective sequels is one of the cooler and high-minded concepts in classic sci-fi. The cold-war era antiwar message is poignant and extremely effective. So here we are with a reboot of the franchise and retooling of the origin tale., let's check it out, shall we? I was openly scoffing at the trailers for this one... up until the reviews came back. So after I read a couple of those reviews, I was interested enough to check this one out in the theaters on opening night, and I'm glad I did.

It's the near future (the exact date is never specified, but America is headed to Mars, so it's obviously not today), and scientist James Franco is nearing a breakthrough on his Alzheimer's cure. Chimpanzee test subjects are responding favorably to the treatment, one in particular. This chimpanzee gives birth, and Franco smuggles the infant home and raises him there. Over time, it becomes clear that the Alzheimer's drug has enhanced Caesar's (as he named the infant) intelligence, which is far above normal both for chimps and for humans of comparable age. A fateful incident leads to Caesar being taken by animal control, and he's sent to a great ape sanctuary. There, after being mistreated, he blossoms into a revolutionary leader and leads an uprising.

English director Rupert Wyatt was given the task of helming his first major Hollywood picture, and Planet of the Apes reboot, with James Franco, Jon Lithgow, Brian Cox and the absolutely gorgeous Freida Pinto filling out the leads. The man who may be the world's first CGI star, Andy Serkis (of Gollum and King Kong fame), was given the Herculean task of playing the all-CGI Caesar. The human leads are adequate, but the film really sings once Caesar becomes the focus. It's strange that someone/something that doesn't even exist can be so compelling and interesting a character. Caesar is charismatic, charming, funny, thoughtful, tragic, sad and above-all, good. We see through a character who hardly speaks the rise of the George Washington of apes.. and it's completely awesome to see. Serkis yet again knocks it out of the park.

My complaints are, simply, that the human parts of the film simply don't measure up to the ape-centric parts. Pinto, who plays a Primatologist, isn't given much to do, and doesn't add much to the flick other than window dressing. Lithgow, who plays Franco's Alzheimer's-afflicted father is solid, but simply isn't given enough to do. Franco's scientist, desperately seeking a cure for the disease that has ravaged his father, is by far the strongest human character, and really the only character who's given anything other than a stock personality.

Conversely, basically everything that centers on Caesar and the apes is great. There are several "characters" among the apes that are compelling, and that just speaks to the strength of the script. The film's second and third acts are extremely strong. The scenes dealing with the rise in Caesar as a leader and subsequent uprising are heart-wrenching and simply great. The script is outstanding, the directing is strong, the acting is more than adequate, and the effects are amazing. Caesar is expressive and more convincing than all but a handful of real-life human actors. His struggle and journey is heart-wrenching. My concerns over the plausibility of the story are more than handled by the script... I'll spare you major spoilage. Just be comfortable in the knowledge that they've successfully updated the mythology of the franchise from cold war era nuclear to something more modern and more in-line with present day realities. I am completely content with the updated treatment.

I would rank this as just behind Captain America and Super 8 as best "blockbuster" movies of the summer. This flick will be a giant hit, and deserves it. Rare is the film that is as rewarding to the viewer.. this is a true achievement. The crowd cheered several times during the flick.. that doesn't happen all that often. It's thoughtful, emotionally powerful and features a truly great character who manages to be completely compelling while speaking a grand total of 5 words.

8.2/10.. do yourself a favor and see this incredibly watchable flick in the theaters.

2011: The Year in Film: "The Tree of Life" Review

2011-07-28T18:21:00.001-04:00

See? It's not all CGI and wide-release flicks here at HoB. I'm a movie fan, and movies come in many forms. Terrence Malick is quite possibly the single biggest crazyman auteur in Hollywood. And that's saying something. He's not in it for money, for fame, for any of the material comforts that a life in show business offers. Malick makes films for one reason and only one reason, to explore and expand upon his art. He touches on and explores themes that seem to be more at home in literature.. utilizing the visual medium to portray the depths of feeling and emotion. His flicks are divisive among viewers because plot and narrative are often a secondary or tertiary concern. Rarely is someone "meh" on Terrence Malick. He's either a genius or a hack to most of those informed enough to have opinions on these kind of things. To me.. I recognize that while his films lack a certain cohesiveness of narrative and structure, his art manages to achieve that rarefied air of evoking strong, genuine emotions, and not from manipulation or cheap parlor tricks, but rather from amplifying and exemplifying genuine experience and reaction. And while this is something that surely all (or at least, most all) filmmakers aspire to, it is something that very few ever achieve, and just about none achieve with the consistency or success of Malick. Whatever your feelings about, say "The Thin Red Line" or "The New World", there's no disputing that the films contain scenes of heartbreaking beauty, despair, and depths of emotion that can only be described as "authentic".

So our crazyman/genius has set off on his most ambitious endeavor to date, a film that sets its sights no lower than depicting and reaching for the definition of the whole of existence.. human life just as the starting point. This flick asks questions.. unanswerable questions, dealing with spirituality, eternity, religion, and love. It doesn't bother itself with answers either, contenting itself with pondering in the manner of a late-night debate between friends. The flick unfolds in a series of vignettes, each one depicting a brief glimpse into a life, whether it's a conversation, an afternoon, a weekend, a month or a phone call. Concerned much more with visceral feeling than with narrative structure, the entire film unfolds like a prayer of sorts. This film achieves the impressive feat of pondering spirituality without preaching or extolling any one set of virtues.

The central conflict that drives the narrative, such as it is, is between the differing philosophies and approaches employed by young Jack's parents, Mr. and Mrs. O'Brien (Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain). Dad is a disciplinarian and very much a man of his Truman/Eisenhower-era ethos. He's a worker and believes that through dedication and discipline, the world is your oyster. Mom is much more ethereal and spiritual, appreciating beauty, spirituality and individualism. These dueling forces could very well be the defining conflict of western civilization.. but here, they just make young Jack a very confused boy.

After I saw this one... it took me a solid 2 hours to decide whether I liked it or not. The more I thought about it - the more I realized.. um, this was great. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense.. and it explores much more than it tells. In the hands of a lesser artist this would come off as pretentious at best, far worse in the alternative. However, in Malick's hands and the hands of his cast, it comes off as... beautiful. This is an important film, important for what it says without saying anything. For putting human life into perspective... as something precious and yet insignificant. For asking... "why?" and "what else is there?" and daring to seek an answer. For putting together some beautiful sequences.

Powered by strong performances from Pitt, Chastain and the children.. this flick comes off as very, very real. I have no doubt that this is how our parents and grandparents grew up, and that this world would be all-too recognizable to them. Despite being set in the '50s, being a kid is being a kid, and the sense of confusion, wonder, anger and frustration that comes with it is perfectly conveyed here. Don't come in expecting for your hand to be held through a neat little narrative. Come in expecting an exploration.. a journey if you will. And be amazed at what results.

9/10. The Best movie I've seen in 2011.

2011: The Year in Film: "Captain America: The First Avenger"

2011-07-23T11:59:00.005-04:00

So Captain America is the last piece of Marvel's grand "Avengers" experiment, where super heroes each with their own franchise come together, played by the same actors, as part of a cohesive storyline, in next May's Avengers picture. Captain America is one of Marvel's heavy hitters. Nominally the leader of the Avengers, he's sort of a legendary figure in Marvel's universe, and a movie featuring him could either go very, very right, or very, very wrong, depending on how capable the hands responsible turn out to be. When I found out that they'd be setting the Captain America movie in WW2 where it belongs, and that the flick would be in the very capable hands of director Joe Johnston, who proved to be more than up to the genre and period in the underrated classic "The Rocketeer", I breathed a little easier, and Captain America was one of my most anticipated flicks of the summer.

So it's 1942. The US is newly joined in WW2, and the nation's war machine is gearing up for the war of the century. Basically every able-bodied man has enlisted or been drafted into the armed forces, and 90 pound Steve Rogers wants nothing more than to be able to do his duty, like his father before him and pretty much everyone he knows, including best friend Bucky Barnes. Despite rejection after rejection, all-around good dude and general weakling is determined to do his part and continues to try and enlist, despite common sense and the advice of pretty much everyone, everywhere. His determination and heart of gold catches the attention of a Dr. Erskine, a German scientist who has been working with a secret American program. This program seeks to develop "super soldiers" to combat advanced Nazi weaponry. Steve gets selected as the test subject, and the rest, as they say, is fate. He becomes Captain America, whose strength, speed, and agility are greatly enhanced, and he becomes a legend both at home and abroad.

Now in the wrong hands this flick could come off as overly corny or jingoistic at worst. Captain America is the most American of super heroes.. he's literally in the US military and a wartime propaganda tool after all. Rather than run away from this fact and attempt to insert some postmodern cynicism, the filmmakers decided to embrace it headlong. At times the flick seems like a wartime propaganda film, but it's so earnestly and well done that it works. 21st century snark doesn't belong in World War Two.. and the ethos of Steve Rogers, which would be naive and laughable in 2011, are endearing and heroic in World War Two's greatest hero. The tone of the flick is pitch-perfect. It's part super hero story, part Indiana Jones-type adventure, part war flick. It's funny when it needs to be, and yet serious enough for the subject matter.

Now none of this would be possible without the cast. They all hit the right notes. Chris Evans plays Rogers' earnestness just right.. you truly understand why such a man would be beloved by children and fellow soldiers alike. Tommy Lee Jones is great as the gruff Colonel Phillips, in a role that few other actors could have pulled off. Hugo Weaving (as the villainous Johan Schmidt), Dominic Cooper (as Howard "Tony's Dad" Stark), Sebastian Stan (As Bucky Barnes), and Stanley Tucci as Dr Ermitage create a great cast of supporting characters and round out the world of Captain America. English Actress Hayley Atwell is both slamming hot and terrific as love interest Peggy Carter.

All in all, this is a movie that's a ton of fun to watch. The characters are well-rounded, the plot is straight-forward enough, and the atmosphere, direction and acting are done just right. This is what summer movies and superhero movies are all about. Personally, I can't wait for this one to come out on DVD so I can watch it repeatedly. Marvel has done it again, kudos.

8.3/10.

2011: The Year in Film: "Horrible Bosses" Review

2011-07-17T21:03:00.003-04:00

This is one of those flicks that I had completely mixed feelings about. I love a lot of the talent involved, but silly comedies can go either way, and I typically wait until reviews come back to determine whether or not I'm going to see a comedy, no matter how much I love the talent involved. Well, the reviews here were pretty good and I didn't have much to do on a weeknight, so why not check it out? Sudekis is slowly but surely becoming one of my favorites on SNL (he has a certain earnestness that endears his clownish behavior), Bateman does his schtick well (the regular dude caught up with crazies) and Charlie Day's manic routine has made him the favorite of many Always Sunny aficionados. This flick is unique in that the titular "bosses" are significantly bigger stars than the protagonists involved. Kevin Spacey plays Bateman's boss, Jennifer Aniston is Day's and Colin Farrell (mid-level "boy" of this blog) is Sudekis' nemesis. So let's get on with this review, shall we?

So Kurt, Dale and Nick are old high school pals who enjoy varying levels of success at their chosen professions. Nick (Bateman) is a white collar cubicle dweller, putting in extra long workweeks in hope of an oft-hinted at promotion from his boss, Mr. Harken (Spacey). Dale (Charlie) is a dental hygienist who works for a sex-crazed dentist (Aniston). Kurt (Sudekis) finds himself working for an uber-douche (Farrell) who seeks to run his father's company into the ground for coke and hookers. After their bosses' antics become increasingly psychotic, our worker bees decide that there truly is no other option, and that killing or otherwise disposing of their bosses is the absolute only option for removing themselves from the day-in-day-out hell that has become their lives. Their attempts and plots at going through with this ridiculously morbid and over-the-top scheme take them to a variety of places and end up involving a colorfully named Jamie Foxx, who may or may not be a murder professional.

In the end, this is a dark, profane, very funny movie. I laughed out loud quite a bit and all of the primary players are very strong and very funny. Aniston is surprisingly funny as a sex crazed cougar and Colin Farrell rachets up the weird to play a cokehead douche. Our comedic leads more than meet their matches with their respective bosses, and as the plot devolves into chaos, more laughs ensue. (Plus: The Bunk!)

So this is a good time at the movies, well worth your $10 if you feel like laughing for an hour and a half. 7.5/10.

2011: The Year in Film: "Transformers: Dark of the Moon" Review

2011-06-27T22:45:00.003-04:00

First, a couple of confessions. As I'm sure you've figured out by now, I'm a whore for spectacle. I'm a total sci-fi nerd and big-budget flicks are simply the only place where visual spectacle on the level of a "Star Wars" or "Star Trek" or "Avatar" is possible. To me, there's nothing wrong with escapist entertainment. Are big-budget action flicks going to revolutionize your worldview? No. But why do they have to? If you're really so dreadfully serious that you can't turn it off and enjoy a spectacle for what it is, I truly feel sorry for you. However, there are good spectacles and bad spectacles. Michael Bay has been responsible for plenty on both sides of that equation. Hardly any director is as divisive among movie fans as Mr. Bay. He's made flicks that stand up against any other action flicks of the past 15 years (Bad Boys, The Rock, Bad Boys 2, The Island, Transformers) while also making some complete shitballs (Pearl Harbor, Armageddon, Transformers 2). However, whether his movies are on the good side or the bad side of the spectacle equation.. they're going to be big, they're going to be loud, people are going to die, shit is going to blow up and you're going to be in for a ride. Whether that ride sucks or not depends on certain factors that apparently only Mr. Bay is privy to.

My second confession is that I love Transformers. Not the film franchise of recent years so much as the old school (known as Gen-1 in fan parlance) cartoons that aired along with GI Joe back in the days of my young childhood. Transformers were a big hit in the Brenner household. Not only because they are giant alien robots (which is, in and of itself, inherently awesome), but because they are heroic, man. Optimus Prime is one of the all-time stand-up dudes. He's like Ned Stark without the idiot streak. He's like Luke Skywalker without the self-doubt and whining. He's a true-blue hero and all around good guy. Sort of like Abe Lincoln plus Captain American plus Maximus. All-around stand up guy. You want Optimus to raise your kids and can leave him around your wife. This 3 minute youtube clip will show you what Optimus Prime was up to back in the 80's and why he's ingrained in my consciousness as a hero for this and every time: (and yes, the music only makes it more awesome) So yes, that's Optimus Prime mowing down half of the Decepticon roster and then taking out Megatron despite a litany of dirty tricks and tactics. Needless to say, once Mike Bay hired Peter Cullen to be the voice of Optimus Prime (you may recognize the voice in the cartoon..), he had me hooked. Some continuity of character and boom.. I'm on board, Mike Bay.

So, with me having confessed that I'm a sucker for spectacle and that I will forever have a soft spot for Transformers generally and Optimus Prime specifically (I had an Optimus Prime poster in my room from about 2003 onward..) enter my Transformers 3 review at your own peril. That being said, however, the Transformers movie franchise has been a troubled one. The first flick is a lot of fun.. and I feel it pretty perfectly captured the spirit of the Gen-1 cartoon that so enthralled the boy I was. At the heart of the Transformers story is a battle of good vs. evil, but it's more than that.. it's an alien civil war that humans have been thrust in the midst of and one heroic side takes the side of humankind even over themselves. There's something admirable and damn heroic about that. And hell, I can be a sappy bastard.. the friendship and even.. love? that is shared between the Autobots and their human friends is a big part of the appeal. So the first movie captured a lot of that feeling and spirit and that was a big part of the draw for me. Sure, there were battles and explosions, but at its heart, the movie was about the relationship between a regular dude and the group of 50 foot sentient alien robots he happened to run into. The second flick sort of lost sight of that heart, amongst other things, and lost its way in a web of bloated new characters, a convoluted plot, incomprehensible action sequences and childish "comedy" in the form of juvenile cracks about sex, balls, race and the like. I'd give the first Transformers a 7.5 or so and Transformers 2 a solid 5. No one's actually said that this is the last Transformers flick.. but it's been hinted as much.. and it certainly seems and feels like it is.. so last go-round Mr. Bay, let's see if the good or evil Mike Bay is going to come around this time.

The opening sequence is damn cool. Basically, it treats the space race of the 1960s as a race to discover alien (Transformer) tech on the moon (there was 21 minutes of radio silence on the first moon mission, after all). (Hence the "Dark of the Moon" of the title) Something long thought lost to the Transformers turns out to have been on earth's moon the whole time.. and this technology turns out to be the key to the entire eons-long war between the Decepticons and Autobots. A long-simmering plot by the Decepticons, lying in hiding after their defeat in the second film, brings the conflict to a head, here on earth, and full-fledged war erupts with humanity caught in the middle. Amongst this background, our erstwhile hero, Sam Wittwicky, tries to move on with his life, with a new girl, and trying to get a "regular" job, now that his friends, the Autobots, have moved on without him.

First, this is a much, much better film than the last go-round. The last flick felt like it was made by a 14 year old boy with a high CGI budget and no adult supervision. WAY too many stupid cracks and just needlessly silly scenes sabotaged the last film from the jump. Here, there are still silly cracks and John Turturro is still WAY over the top and cheesy, but it's been scaled way back to tolerable levels. I did see the flick in 3D (not by choice, although Bay did supposedly work with Cameron on the conversion), and while the 3D is very, very cool for the battle scenes (you're actually able to tell the robots apart, which was borderline impossible in the large battle at the close of Transformers 2) and several other scenes, on the whole.. it doesn't add a lot and it makes the flick needlessly dim, as 3D is want to do. So it's a mixed bag on the 3D. I will say this, it's well done and doesn't look cheap.. it just doesn't add THAT much to the flick as a whole. So the flick feels like grown-ups made it, which is a nice break.. and the "heart" that was largely missing from the last flick has returned, as Sam "shares" several nice scenes with Optimus and Bumblebee. He's given a decent amount of personal drama as well. But let's cut to the chase.. you're coming to a Transformers flick for the battles.. and let me tell you, this one does not disappoint. I literally felt exhausted leaving the theater. The last hour of the flick is one prolonged battle scene.. and it looks incredible. I know of nothing that approaches the level of epic-ness this one achieves other than Return of the King, the last Lord of the Rings flick. Granted, that was a much, much, much better flick all-around, but in terms of a prolonged epic battle? Yeah. That's the neighborhood we're in.

So on the whole, this is definitely a Transformers movie. It's big, it's loud, it's childish in parts.. but it's fun, it's intense without being overwhelming, and I, for one, am always a fan of good old-fashioned heroism. It's good guys vs. bad guys, with the fate of the world at stake.. and the action scenes are so damn well done. What can I say, like I said, I'm a sucker for spectacle.

7/10, a return to form for the Transformers franchise, and I for one am glad Optimus Prime gets to go out on top.. he deserves it. This flick will make $500 million.

2011: The Year in Film: "Green Lantern" Review

2011-06-20T23:25:00.003-04:00

Green Lantern Over at DC Comics they have to be pulling out their hair in bunches. Marvel successfully self-financed several of their second-tier heroes to Blockbuster status, and seen Spider Man and the X-Men achieve serious success with other studios while DC has managed to only turn Batman and Superman into successful films, while Superman is currently languishing after a sub-par last effort. Warner Brothers owns the film rights to the DC collection, and with "Green Lantern", we see their first foray into the deeper parts of the catalog. With a rumored budget of $200 million (plus an additional $100 million with the summer's largest marketing campaign), and the Harry Potter franchise drawing to a close in a few weeks, Warner was desperate for a new tentpole franchise to be a summer staple and hopefully that Ryan Reynolds and the Green Lantern would provide just that. While time will ultimately tell how the flick performs and the stage is certainly set for a sequel, unfortunately, the flick just falls a little flat. But, on with the review.

Green Lantern is one of the trippier super heroes out there. He achieves his power, which basically is to create green energy manifestations out of anything he can imagine through sheer power of will, through a ring and a lantern that are imbued with the green power of will through the Guardians of the Universe on a distant planet called Oa. The universe is divided into 3600 sections, and earth, located in section 2814, has long been under the protection of a particularly powerful Green Lantern. When this lantern falls to a foe long thought dead, the ring seeks out a replacement.. someone said to be without fear. This happens to be Hal Jordan, the first human ever selected to be a Green Lantern, a brash and cocky test pilot whose life is apparently in shambles despite his baller apartment and line of hot chicks dying to fall into bed with him. Poor Hal. But alas, origin story ensues, with Hal rising to the occasion and fighting for the forces of good. He travels to Oa to receive his training and meet the other members of the Green Lantern Corps, where it is revealed that a grave threat to the safety of the Universe and Lantern Corps has returned. Like I said, pretty nonsensical, even for super heroes, but it's actually kind of cool in the way that whoever actually thought it up was particularly crazy. I respect that.

So this movie has been getting absolutely shredded by the critics. I'm not sure how much of that is fair, but some of it surely is. It feels rushed and thrown together in parts. Some parts are good, some even very good, but others fall flat and overall the flick comes off as very uneven and the last half hour is very, very rushed. Martin Campbell directs, (best known for Goldeneye AND Casino Royale) and he does a fine job. The primary problems here are with the script, as some parts simply do not work. Ryan Reynolds stars as Hal Jordan/the titular Green Lantern, and he's perfectly likable and charming, good even in spots. I'm surprised the flick didn't get more positive reviews simply because of how likable Reynolds is. Blake Lively stars as Carol Ferris, his love interest/co-worker/boss, and the flick is at its best when Lively and Reynolds are together. They clearly have chemistry, and she's downright good at being in movies, which is surprising to me because it seems odd that someone who was in "Gossip Girl" would actually be good at acting. Let me also state for the record that I've had a huge crush on her since "Accepted". Marc Strong is "Sinestro", the leader of the Lantern Corps.. and he's pretty darn good as well. But for me, the treat of the movie was Peter Saarsgard. He's been on my "main man" list for a while, and he absolutely crushes his part in this flick... and longtime acquaintance of Ferris and Hal who happens to be a scientist and come into contact with the evil power rising in the galaxy. Saarsgard is actually really good, and one of the shames of the flick is that he's just sort of allowed to lapse away in favor of bigger, badder bad guys. I rather enjoyed his little storyline. Tim Robbins plays a Senator/Peter's dad and seems criminally underused as well.

Therein lies the main problem. The flick is too concerned about jumping from place to place.. from Oa, to Earth, to various places Hal is going, to various government offices and stuff without much warning or very much explanation. Some parts work very well.. as I said, pretty much everything with Saarsgard is gold. Reynolds and Lively are good together and their scenes work. I like the stuff on Oa (I'm a sucker for a good training sequence and Strong has charisma). But.. there's just too much expository dialogue and cheesiness going on. In the post Dark Knight/X-Men 2/Iron Man universe, this feels more in line with a "Men in Black" or other clownish late 90's movie. The CGI (of which 75% of the movie consists of) at times looks great and other times looks like a PS3 game... that is to say, not so great.

So even though there's quite a bit to like about this movie and it is in no way "bad", I simply can't give it a ringing endorsement. The plot moves in spurts and there's just way, way, way too much cheese. For instance, Thor is similarly nonsensical.. but it never comes across as cheesy. Here, nothing resembles an actual reality.. and that takes away from the gravitas of the happenings.

I'm going to give it a 6/10.. even though Reynolds is very likable and the actors did basically everything they could. Sorry, Green Lantern, I just Can't give you a ringing endorsement.

2011: The Year in Film: "Super 8" review.

2011-06-07T22:27:00.004-04:00

JJ Abrams is one of the hottest names in tv/movies today. Steven Spielberg is the all-time master of the popcorn flick.. whether you're talking Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, ET, Jurassic Park or Indiana Jones, Spielberg knows how to craft a classic crowd pleasing flick and good time at the movies. The famously secretive Abrams is fresh (somewhat) off of 2009's fantastic "Star Trek" reboot, and when I found out about this one.. I became more and more excited as details continued to slowly leak out. So needless to say, when I heard JJ Abrams + Spielberg + 80's retro + aliens/monsters + kids.. I immediately thought "AWE-SOME, where do I sign up?". Abrams is a sci-fi master, and Spielberg is directly responsible for creating or influencing small-scale movie aliens as we know them today.. match made in heaven? Possibly. When I found out Kyle Chandler, aka Coach Taylor, aka "the guy I wish was my dad even though I love my dad" for folks nationwide was going to be starring... my state of excitement began to resemble low-level arousal. This flick, along with Captain America, is my #1 most anticipated of my summer.. so when an opportunity came to catch it a couple of days early, I jumped at it.. even if that required sitting in the midst of all sorts of rabble, including a guy who was wearing tube socks on his arms. (If there's one thing crazy people love more than being crazy, it's free shit..) So with clear eyes and a full heart, here goes nothing..

In small town Ohio (the flick is set somewhere outside of Dayton) in 1979 (it's never explicitly stated, but they mention 3 Mile Island on the news), a young boy, Joe Lamb, has just lost his mother in an awful industrial accident. He lives alone with his father, Coach, er, the town Deputy. His group of friends are a plucky bunch, and spend their time helping their friend Charles with his Super 8 zombie movie. (something tells me this is how Spielberg and Abrams spent their summers) Joe does the sound and makeup, and is also pretty talented at making models. He's a pretty quiet kid.. generally dominated by his louder and more aggressive friends. After recruiting the prettiest girl in school (they are either in 7th or 8th grade - we see their last day at middle school), the group takes a fateful trip to an old train station outside of town (for "production value). While filming a scene, the gang witnesses a horrible train derailment, an event that would prove to be fateful for them all, and the town. I'll spare the spoilers.. but needless to say, the train has some connection with the US military, and the mysterious events befalling the town in its wake may be more nefarious than first appears. Amongst the investigation, cover-up and such, our gang of plucky kids attempts to finish their zombie movie.

First, this is an outstanding flick. The sense of childlike wonderment, a certain precocious innocence peculiar to that age and time period and adventure is pitch-perfect. The acting is outstanding.. the lead, Joel Courtney.. can seem a little overpowered by his friends at times, but I'm not sure if that's the script or the actor. Elle Fanning (Dakota's little sister) is simply outstanding as the pretty gal from across the tracks who surprisingly agrees to help out with the movie. A sense of mystery pervades the film's first 2/3rds, while the final act becomes your classic "kid mission". This flick captures perfectly the nostalgic spirit of the time period.. when everything was less cynical and not quite so dark. The kids share a completely believable bond, and come off as an authentic group of 13-14 year old kids. This flick is sort of ET meets Stand By Me meets a monster movie... but definitely more "ET" than say, "War of the Worlds". The action is an afterthought here.. it takes a backseat to the characters... which is how it should be, in my humble opinion. Chandler is great as the overwhelmed Deputy struggling with being a widower and single parent to his son that he doesn't really have much in common with. At times sweet, funny, moving, harrowing and exciting... this flick combines much of what is great about flicks. Don't go to have your worldview fundamentally challenged or altered.. go for some great directing, great acting, and a fun story with great characters. The film is at its best when the monster is in the background.. and I, as a child of the 80's, loved it. As a small caveat... the theater I saw this one in had the volume turned up to 1100000.. the action sequences were uncomfortably loud. So I am making my review under the assumption that this was a theater error and not something fundamental about the film. If the flick is in fact this loud for some mysterious reason, adjust my score a full point down.

Do yourself a favor and see this one, the best movie of the summer season so far. 8.5/10

2011: The Year in Film: "X-Men: First Class" Review

2011-06-04T20:00:00.004-04:00

After the mutual disasters that were "X-Men: The Last Stand" and "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" (which is approx. 19X better than XMen 3 but still a mediocre movie, at best), it was clear to lots of folks (well, at least me.. and hopefully everyone else who cares about these sort of things) that something needed to change with what Fox was up to with their X-Men franchise. After the departure of Bryan Singer (the director and mind behind the first X-Men flick and the superb X-Men 2), the franchise appeared to be floundering and in need of a serious overhaul. Enter Matthew Vaughn, producer pal of Guy Ritchie and the dude behind Kick-Ass, a time warp, the return of Bryan Singer and a couple of serious Hollywood up-and-comers and Fox is looking at a serious revamp a bloated and troubled franchise.

The film opens with looks at Charles Xavier and Erik Lehnsherr (who would become Magneto) at age 12 in 1944, dealing with the initial manifestations of their powers in settings that could not be different. Xavier in a mansion in New York and Lehnsherr in a Nazi death camp. The action next skips ahead 18 years to 1962, where as adults, Xavier (James McAvoy), fresh upon receipt of his PhD from Oxford and Lehnsherr (Michael Fassbender), hunting down those responsible for his parents death, are two of the most powerful mutants on the planet. In the midst of the Cold War, the CIA are investigating a mysterious organization known as the "Hellfire Club", who have mysterious connections with those in power both in the US and in the Soviet Union. Upon discovering that mutants exist, the CIA turns to Charles Xavier, now a leading expert on mutation, for help in learning about and identifying this new threat. After happening across Lehnsherr, Xavier and his new friend get along fabulously, and set about recruiting other mutants for their new team. As the Cuban Missile Crisis looms, the new "X-Men" play an important role in averting nuclear holocaust amidst the growing tensions between the two leaders of the team.. Xavier who seeks peace and cooperation, and Lehnsherr who believes confrontation and war is inevitable.

This is a very, very strong film and a much-needed reboot of the X-Men franchise. McAvoy and Fassbender are truly fantastic. Without either one of them this film would have fallen flat on its face under the stuffy weight of its absurdity and pretension, but these two talented actors, through sincerity and a necessary levity, allow the film to rest on their capable shoulders so that the rest may fall into place. This is an absolute must given the sometimes whirlwind action of the plot, bouncing around the globe and introducing tons of new characters in a short period of time. The effects and direction are more than adequate.. but the strength of this film is the acting. Kevin Bacon is convincing and sufficiently smarmy as the villainous Sebastian Shaw, (soon to be Catniss Everdeen) Jennifer Lawrence brings a much-needed humanity to the Mystique role, and January Jones and Rose Byrne are both strong as the sex appeal on both sides. Oh, and there's the single greatest cameo and one-off use of the PG-13 F-bomb that I can recall.. that's all I'll say about it. Let me say that it is absolutely criminal how under-used Oliver Platt is in this flick. He is one of my secret favorites and never seems to get enough to do.

Michael Fassbender is going to be a star. Let's just get it out there and say it. I've dug him ever since Inglorious Basterds (he's the awesome English dude), and if you haven't seen "Centurion".. Netflix instant it RIGHT NOW. He absolutely crushes the Magneto role out of the park.. bringing the requisite pain, rage and nuance to an absolutely essential role. That's a large part of the appeal of the X-Men franchise.. the primary villain isn't just a dastardly prick that can be written off as evil incarnate.. he's a nuanced human with a depth of character and sympathetic view. He gives a star-making performance, truly. But this flick wouldn't be good if Magneto kills it and Professor X mails it in.. and another favorite of mine, James McAvoy ensures that doesn't happen. McAvoy and Fassbender clearly enjoy working together, and share a number of absolutely terrific scenes. I, for one, look forward to a number of prequel films in which they work together. This is a quality super-hero flick folks.. come for the acting and stay for a fun period flick with a solid mix of action and character. It feels a little crowded and frantic at times.. but with actors as good as McAvoy and Fassbender bringing the goods, I'm willing to overlook a lot.

8/10.

2011: The Year in Film: "The Hangover: Part II"

2011-05-30T21:37:00.005-04:00

What is this? A PF Changs?
The first "Hangover" in 2009 was a revelation. It brought the raunchy bromance R-Rated comedy to a new level and made the chubby bearded guy from the Kanye West youtube video a bona-fide star. In addition, it made boatloads of cash and spawned the inevitable franchise. The "party flick" has been a standard sub-genre of the comedy for years.. fueling the young nationwide. From Animal House to Porkys to PCU to Van Wilder, Old School and Wedding Crashers, these flicks become part of the greater cultural milieu and sort of define partying for a couple of years. If you're my age.. your partying years were probably spent emulating "Frank the Tank". If you were in college when the Hangover came out, I'd imagine every group of guys referred to themselves as some sort of "wolfpack" or another. The Hangover even rose to a higher level than earlier contenders for the title, becoming a legitimate cultural phenomenon... a profane, offensive masterwork that rose beyond the usual confines of the genre to be commented on and critiqued (and largely loved) by pretty much everyone.

2 years later, here we are, with part deux. Pretty much everyone knows the story by now.. a group of longtime friends, Doug, Phil and Stu (Justin Bartha, Bradley Cooper and Ed Helms) head to Vegas for a bachelor party before Doug's wedding. Doug's future brother in law, the childish and socially retarded Alan (Zach Galifinakis) tags along... and outrageous hilarity ensues from a night that none of them can remotely remember. This time around, the gang heads to Thailand, where Stu is going to be married to Lauren (Jamie from the single best season of the Real World to date) in her ancestral home. After some peer pressure and bribing, Stu is convinced to invite Alan despite everything that went down in Vegas. After a disastrous rehearsal dinner, the guys decide to have one beer on the beach with Lauren's brother Teddy and wake up amidst all sorts of mayhem in Bangkok.. without Teddy, with Chow (Ken Jeoung), with a monkey, and with varying degrees of ailments from the night before, a night none of them can remember in the slightest. Our heroes spend the next day plus retracing their steps from the night before via various clues in an effort to locate Teddy and save the wedding.

First thing first, this is the exact same movie as the first go-round.. just stepped up a level or two, largely due to taking place in Bangkok (a global den of sin) as opposed to "just" Vegas. Literally, if plotted out, the flick follows the entirely same pattern. So if what you're looking for in the sequel is something new and groundbreaking... I'm sorry, but you're going to be sorely disappointed. When they say "Part II", they truly mean Part II.. this is just the same guys doing the same shit.. and then some. If you laughed at the first one, you're going to laugh at this one. It's Thailand.. there are going to be monks, there are going to be outrageous gangsters, and you'd better believe there are going to be ping-pong balls and lady men. So the question is whether you consider more of the same to be a bad thing or not. This is our intrepid wolfpack acting outrageously and being hilarious. Galifinakis is completely outrageous, dropping one-liners left and right while acting like a potty-mouthed 4th grader, Phil is a giant foul mouthed dick and Stu is the boring guy pissed and incredulous that he's in this situation. Say what you will.. these guys know how to have a good time.

As far as I go.. I laughed at this one, a lot. If you like the first one, you're going to like this one. If you like Galifinakis.. you're going to laugh a lot. The cast has a ton of charisma and great rapport.. you can tell these guys really get along and feed off of each other. Director Todd Phillips clearly knows how to ratchet up the raunch... and just "goes for it" with abandon. This is a fun, raunchy time at the movies.. but seriously, the theater I saw it in was filled with way too many kids. That is just ridiculous. There are at least 2 scenes of full on male nudity I can recall and between 1000-1200 f-bombs (rough estimate). Someone under the age of 14 or so has no business seeing this movie. But that aside, I had a good time. It doesn't have the same pull as the first (which I loved), simply because, like I said, it's the exact same movie. So I liked it, but wasn't blown away.

7/10. But certainly well worth seeing if you're a fan.

2011: The Year in Film: "Thor" review.

2011-05-07T20:01:00.004-04:00

Thor Marvel movie studios are embarking on perhaps the most unique and ambitious undertaking in the history of film. Without their three most high-profile properties (Spider Man, the X-Men and the Fantastic Four - owned by Sony and Fox), they are in the midst of creating a comprehensive universe where each movie builds on the one before it and events and characters reverberate throughout the films to create a larger narrative the likes of which are common in the world of comic books but as to yet unheard of in film. This is all building towards 2012's "The Avengers", currently filming, in which the stars of Iron Man, Thor and Captain America join with the Hulk and other various SHIELD characters to form Marvel's A-list team. As a true blue Marvel comics nerd growing up, I, for one, am pumped to see how it turns out. Captain America comes out later this summer, and there's the last piece of the Avengers puzzle. Now, onto Thor itself. The powers that be over at Marvel basically have the origin tale down to a science at this point.. and Thor is no exception.

I'm going to admit, I didn't have high hopes for this one. Thor's mythology is pretty damn nonsensical, even for comics. To make a long story short, he's the actual Norse god of thunder of myth, who wields a mythical hammer, Mjolnir, which he's able to throw and use to summon thunder and windstorms and the like. He and the other figures of Norse myth, primarily his father, Odin, and brother, Loki, reside in Asgard, a transdimensional plane. Thor, a great, but proud and vain warrior is banished to earth by his father for inciting an ancient foe to war. Thor, powerless, is trapped on earth until he can learn humility and become a worthy heir to his father's throne. On earth, he is happened upon by a group of scientists investigating the astronomical phenomena resulting from these trans-dimensional trips. On earth, SHIELD has found his hammer, and is trying to decipher what it and the phenomena are exactly. See what I mean? Completely nonsensical, and if the film took itself too seriously, you'd be completely crushed beneath the preposterous weight of this pretentious nonsense. Luckily, the flick does it all with a wink and a grin, recognizing that this is about a comic book character and should be fun.

Chris Hemsworth, in the title role, takes the part with aplomb. He brings a swagger and a joy to the role that permeates the entire film. Just as Downey is perfect in Iron Man, Hemsworth, heretofore most recognizable for playing George Kirk in the first 5 minutes of 2009's "Star Trek" reboot, makes the role his and manages to be charming and convincing all while bringing the requisite physicality to a role that requires a physically imposing presence. The film jumps back and forth from Asgard to Earth seamlessly and effectively, and despite the possibly confusing forces at work, the film remains surprisingly easy to follow. Personally, I enjoyed the scenes with the Asgardians more.. as they featured stronger characterization from Anthony Hopkins, a surprisingly nuanced villain in Thor's brother Loki, and Mr. Stringer Bell himself, Idris Elba as Asgard's gatekeeper. Thor's battle-hardened comrades in arms are good for a laugh or 3 as well. On earth, the typically strong Stellan Skarsgard plays a mentor scientist and is very strong in his role. Kat Dennings is comic relief and Natalie Portman is the love interest, a scientist named Jane Foster, whose experiments happen across the gateway to Asgard. If there's a weak spot in the cast, it's a lack of characterization for Portman's character. Actually, not even a lack of characterization... a lack of explanation for why she and Thor fall for each other other than they are both sexy people. But considering the deep cast, rather complex plot and relatively short running time (under 2 hours), that's not a huge surprise.

Shakespearean actor and director Kenneth Branagh directs, and despite the seeming discord between director and material, he proves to be more than up to the task. The film remains light and fun, while appropriately tense in parts, and looks amazing. While creating other dimensions and worlds, if that's not done properly it can come off all wrong, but Asgard looks incredible.. so kudos to the effects team.

In all, this is a fun time at the movies, and well worth the price of admission. Marvel is now 4 for 4 in independently produced flicks (the Ed Norton Hulk, Iron Man, and Iron Man 2 being the others), and I would say that after Iron Man, this is their strongest effort to date. Consider me 100% pumped for "Captain America" and next year's "Avengers".. oh, and there's a post-credits Easter egg as w/ all Marvel Movies.

8/10.

The Most Annoying People on Facebook.

2011-05-05T12:00:00.000-04:00

So a lot has happened since last we spoke. "Game of Thrones" premiered and was awesome, Donald Trump sold his soul for even more money as if he didn't have enough, an earthquake/tsunami combo decided it wasn't necessary for Japan to be a place where people felt comfortable anymore, Bin Laden got capped in a badass real-life version of Call of Duty: Black Ops, it apparently became the rainy version of the apocalypse where all it does is fucking rain until everyone kills each other and then themselves, etc. Another thing that happened (well, this has been happening, but I notice it more and more every day) is every single person on earth joined facebook. I can seriously think of like 5 people under 60 and over 10 who don't have it. Now with this many people wandering around the cybersphere.. where there is even less social convention than there is in real life (and that's saying something in a world where pajama pants are approved public garb), there's bound to be some obnoxious shit going on... considering I'd say roughly 60% of humanity give or take is generally obnoxious. I'm going to walk you through the worst of the worst. If Zuckerberg wasn't such a goddamn greedy dweeb he'd do well to ban these folks from ruining the fun for everyone else. Feel free to disagree.. but deep down, you know I'm probably right. So without further ado and in no particular order, here we go with the most annoying people on the most annoying thing on the planet:

1.) "The Hunny Bunny": to this noxious denizen of the interwebs it's not enough that they actually tricked someone into getting into a relationship with them, they have to overcompensate for whatever happiness may or may not actually exist by ensuring that everyone knows that they are 1/2 of the greatest fucking romantic coupling that ever came to be. You know how it goes.. cutesy exchanges back and forth on the comment section of wall posts and statuses, excessive wall posts exclaiming "love" and protestations of absence, obnoxious pictures where the comment section is a blithe back and forth. Bleh. The worst. If you've ever captioned a picture "Me and my baby!" or put up a status about how "lucky" you are (or, even worse, put up one of those emoticon <3s)... then yeah, you're on my facebook shit list. If you're in a long-distance relationship.. please recognize that facebook is not real life. A text is infinitely more personal than a facebook post.. and significantly less vain as well. If you have to post how "happy" you are on effing facebook, you aren't that happy. (Note: Wedding and/or other countdowns are the worst of the worst. Why are you posting how long until ________? Isn't that something that should be shared between you and your significant other? Are we just going to be doing everything in public view of each other in 5 years like dogs?)

2.) "The itinerary": this individual thinks an appropriate contribution to the world is just listing everything they are doing in an effort to elicit god knows what from people who care what you're eating or how work is going or that you have to drive 45 minutes to somewhere or whatever else boring nonsense you think is appropriate to share with the entire world. How needy and vain are you that you think your daily calendar is worthy of sharing with the public at large? Anyone who actually cared what you were up to would probably ask you.. otherwise, your life is just as boring as everyone else's.. deal with it. I can definitively say that I have never once cared about someone's test or lunch or appointment or any other such mundane shit. If you have ever posted: "Bed then work, ugh". Think about what you're doing.. and stop. If your day is boring to you, how do you think it is to everyone else? I'll give you a hint... extra boring. This is a trend that needs to be snuffed out RIGHT NOW. If you don't have anything worthwhile or at least moderately interesting to say... don't say it.

• 2a.) 2a is an especially annoying subspecies of "the itinerary".. and this is "the sympathy bug". This person complains about their itinerary in an effort to elicit sympathetic comments from their "friends" who for some reason don't recognize blatant desperate attention-seeking nonsense. If you are posting it on facebook.. something that was invented to waste time.. you aren't that busy. If you have more than 20 or so friends, you probably shouldn't be posting things like "3 papers and an exam to go"... because the guy who you randomly friended because you kind of met him once doesn't give two shits. No one held a gun to your head and told you to schedule paper classes, go to law school, etc. Don't complain about shit that was entirely voluntary at your part... unless you're going to at least ATTEMPT to be funny about it.

3.) "The Spelling champ". This person entirely ignores the fact that pretty much every phone and web browser automatically includes spell checking and it's usually auto-correct now and just types basically illegible nonsense in an effort to make sure the world knows how utterly ignorant they are. Is typing "see" instead of "c" really that difficult? Look at your keyboard and notice how close together "s" and "e" are.. it takes literally no effort. How lazy are you? If you've ever typed "wut" instead of "what" you should seriously ponder what in the hell went wrong in your life. Facebook is a text-based medium. Spell-check is a pretty basic computer function. If you honestly can't spell.. I question why you're using a service that requires an inordinate amount of typing to use, but it's a pretty simple computer function to address the issue. Otherwise you're just lazy.. and lazy + dumb is an awful, awful combination. I understand that broadcasting ignorance is par for the course among a decent-sized chunk of the population, but seriously... such pisspoor spelling just makes you look like a dolt. If you've ever typed something about how people are "dumb" and then gone on to mix up "there" and "their" or "your" and "you're"... I suggest you consider ending it, because I fail to see your worth to anyone. At least look into castration to spare future generations of dealing with the results of what you're up to.

4.) "The Soapbox". This person thinks that having a facebook account and access to an rss feed and the copy/paste function makes them an authority of all things under the sun. They might be the very cream of the obnoxious facebook crop. There's a reason politics was a forbidden topic in the French salons... you aren't going to convert anyone, ever. No one has ever read a Huffington Post article and said "wow, you're right" and then switched who they're voting for. If you're using the 'book for politicking purposes, take a look back through your feed. Is everything you post from either HuffPo or Fox News/Wall St Journal? If so, you're completely one-sided and everyone has tuned you out months ago. You have no credibility as a source if you're just regurgitating what's being force-fed you by people with an agenda. Politics doesn't have a "right answer", if it did, any one of the thousands of brilliant people who've attempted over the last few hundred years would have figured them out by now. We're talking about governing large groups of infinitely complex individuals. It's not like there's an equation that can optimize life for every single one of them through a democratically elected system. Both sides are extremely stupid about certain things but also have valid points.. that's why they are followed by roughly 50% of the population. Well, that and people being too afraid to think critically. Having a computer and a keyboard isn't license to pontificate on whatever hot-button issue you see fit. Think about what you're posting before you do so. If you're going to be commenting on things other people are up to, think before you jump in being obnoxious. You wouldn't run up to some dude you overheard on the street and get in their face because they said something you didn't agree with (unless you're a psycho..), so why would you act any differently just because you're on the computer? I mean, if you want to talk like you're an adult and have a productive conversation that's one thing.. but if you're just going to regurgitate talking points and generally be a pawn... seriously, kill yourself.

5.) "The App" - These people are constantly blowing up everything with this or that app they are playing and as a result are probably blocked by 85% of the people they are "friends" with. You do realize that when you click "publish" on your farm or some bullshit "quiz" or whatever, it publishes to every single person you're friends with, right? Congratulations, you're the digital equivalent of the scientologists handing out pamphlets outside of Reds games. I mean, how obnoxious are you? Participating is one thing.. but broadcasting it to every single person? And if you're dumb enough to click on one of those "Miley Cyrus nude video" or "Bin Laden death video" which then gives your computer/facebook a virus that results in you obnoxiously posting on everyone's wall with that same post.. look into taking a warm bath and opening a vein or three. Did you just learn about the internet and the various scams that are abounding on there? Do you often take "Nigerian princes" up on their offers of vast wealth? If so, just stay clear of a computer... you clearly can't handle the responsibility.

6.) "The Creep" - this dude makes me squeamish. He's up to stuff like "liking" pictures of girls in bikinis or (even worse) "commenting" things like "damn girl". Maybe the worst move of all is "liking" when someone is single. Yikes. Way to ruin it for everyone else that just enjoys being creepy in silence, dude. Facebook is a creepy thing, inherently, but when you're just up in everyone's face about the aggressiveness of your particular brand of creep you're doing nothing but branding yourself as a possible date-rape suspect and making everyone uncomfortable. This particular individual completely ignores the fact that online interactions are in fact interactions with living, breathing humans. Treating actual girls like you're at a strip club? Um, yeah. I wish Ed Hardy and "affliction" tshirts secretly contained sarin gas that would be simultaneously released at a UFC fight or swim up bar party or something similar and do some serious and much needed cleansing of our gene pool.

So seriously, Zuckerberg, I know your invention was pretty cool and all and you got a cool movie made about it that made you look like kind of a twitchy spastic badass, but can we get some basic social restrictions in place? Folks are out of control and what not. I don't think that's too much to ask. And if you, loyal reader, find yourself posting questionable shit on the 'book.. just follow these simple instructions... think before you post.

2011: The Year in Film: Your Highness Review

2011-04-17T19:34:00.004-04:00

Your Highness

Man, I suck at reviewing movies on time almost as much as I suck at having a blog. I'm really bad at blogging nowadays. I'm like the Michigan football of blogging, and I feel awful about that. To be honest, I'm shocked anyone still reads this thing. I'm so goddamn lazy there are like 11 half-written posts that are just languishing there because I don't have enough self-discipline to finish. There's an approx. 5000 word LOST post that's been sitting there for more than a year now and is about 70% done but I can't get in the right frame of mind to wrap it up. Now I'm so awful at blogging that I can't even put up 3 paragraph movie reviews until more than a week after I've seen the damn movie. So, in summation of this opening whine-fest on my part, I apologize if you actually enjoy reading these reviews... because I am the absolute worst at putting them up. I saw "Your Highness" last Friday (opening night), and just never got around to typing up this thing.. basically defeating the purpose of blogging movie reviews altogether by waiting more than a week to put it up. But oh well, here goes nothing..

So "Your Highness" is a flick that I've been pumped to see since I first discovered it was being made. Danny McBride, James Franco, the creative forces behind Pineapple Express & Eastbound & Down, and two of the biggest crushes of my relative youth, Natalie Portman and the lovely Zooey Deschenal.. I mean, what's not to like, right? When the preview for this one hit, I was fond of saying that it felt like this movie was specifically written for me. Alas, my high comedic expectations began to be tempered when the reviews hit... almost all of which were emphatically negative. But I still had enough excitement to head out opening night, an honor reserved for only those most anticipated of flicks. Would Danny McBride deliver again? Or would this swords & sorcery clownfest fall short?

Let me preface this review by saying I LOVE Danny McBride. Whether he's Kenny Powers or an FX guy in "Tropic Thunder" or a drug dealer in Pineapple Express, he makes me laugh my ass off.. so bear that in mind. This movie is completely clown. Completely, utterly clown. I feel like its intended audiences are 13-16 year old boys and 19-30 year old stoners.. and yes, these two groups share basically the exact same sense of humor. The number one thing this movie is is dumb. It is often painfully, excruciatingly dumb, but at the same time, there are laughs to be had, and quite a few of them.

The plot is rather nonsensical but basically goes as follows.. in a magical kingdom, there are two princes, one, Fabious (Franco), is brave and bold and strong, who goes on many quests, bringing glory to the kingdom. His younger brother Thadeus spends his days wenching and drinking and generally having a roaring good time, being a general fuck-up. When Fabious' bride (Zooey Deschanel) is stolen away by an evil wizard (Justin Theroux) who would use her to complete a prophecy to bring darkness to the earth, King Tallious orders Thaddeus to accompany his brother on the quest to rescue Belladonna and defeat the evil wizard's plot. Along the way there are betrayals, challenges, creatures, battles and dangers aplenty.. the travelers also meet a fellow quest-er in the person of Isabel, a lovely and deadly warrior in her own right. Along the way, Thaddeus comes into his own and proves his worth. But let's be honest here, no one's seeing "Your Highness" for the plot, centered around a prophecy known as "the fuckening".

This is a flick that feels disjointed and rather thrown together. At times it is completely, utterly silly, at other times it expects the audience to take the actions on screen somewhat seriously. Much like Pineapple Express, it tries to have its cake and eat it too.. to have very sincere and violent action scenes accompanying outrageous comedic scenes. That is a mix that in my experience is very, very hard to pull off.

The leads are all solid and seem to be enjoying themselves. If you like Danny McBride and what he brings to the table you'll laugh a lot at this one. Franco is very good as the straight man to McBride's outrageous debauchery. Miss Deschenal is clearly enjoying her silly ass character and I have a theory about Natalie Portman's 2010. I think she knew she was going to get knocked up (didn't really care who..) so she took every pay check she could get in an effort to make a bunch of cash to pay for a few years of maternity leave. I mean Black Swan, that Ashton Kutcher friends w/ benefits movie, Your Highness, Thor.. there is literally nothing linking these flicks except for the paycheck. But Portman is very sincere and her character grows on you. The supporting characters are sufficiently outrageous and bring their share of laughs. I especially enjoyed a silly ass mechanical bird who just kind of hangs around with his own certain charm.

Ultimately though, this movie can't tell what it wants to be. There is very hard R violence alongside silly ass comedy. Much like Pineapple Express, that leaves the flick lacking an identity. A lot of the humor comes from modern terminology while mixed with medieval phrases and english accents (Magic... motherfucker). So while I laughed a whole hell of a lot, I can't say I loved or even really liked this one. I can conclusively say, however, that if you laugh at Danny McBride, you'll laugh at least 20 times.. which is rather a lot.

6/10

2011: The Year in Film: Blue Valentine Review

2011-03-02T22:20:00.001-05:00

Once again I suck. I saw this one on February 15.. pisspoor turn around on this one. People fall in love.. they fall out of love.. it happens all the time and as a big-picture issue, who really cares? Dumbass kids, right? When the reality is that "love".. whatever it may actually be, is often the defining experience of most of our lives. Lives are defined through relationships.. and the ebbs and flows of a love story are as heart-wrenching as anything. This is a film that focuses on the beginnings and end of a relationship that would become a marriage in a raw, uncompromising and gritty way. This is a small, intimate film that leans entirely on the capable backs of its stars to express the joy and pain of affairs of the heart. Thankfully, Michelle Williams and Ryan Gosling are more than up to the challenge. With performances like these.. I have hope for young Hollywood.

Cindy and Dean are a young-ish married couple.. working class, with a school age daughter. The actual narrative of the film occurs over a Friday and Saturday, but through the use of flashbacks intercut with the actual narrative, you're given glimpses of how they got together while seeing how they're falling apart. That narrative device is incredibly effective and all the more heart-breaking. Seeing Dean and Cindy young and happy is all the more glaring after you've seen them struggling and worn down. There's nothing special about these two.. they could be a working class couple in any town in mid-America.. they work, they fight, they try to get on..

This film is tiny in scope. Outside of Dean and Cindy there are about 4 characters.. Cindy's parents and ex boyfriend, a co-worker of Dean's... and that's about it. The film is shot very close to give it a home-video feel and you can't help but to be charmed and drawn in by these two pretty young people and have your heart broken along with theirs. In seeing Cindy and Dean's highest highs and lowest lows you're taken on an emotional roller coaster along with these two kids who once had something special and now don't. We follow them from their first meeting, a chance encounter, to the day it becomes clear their marriage is over.. a period of 6 years or so.. and by skipping back and forth in time we see what they had.. as it's contrasted with what they didn't and don't today.

This film reminds me a lot of Revolutionary Road.. only instead of being more of a parable for our society it's an intimate tale of an individual couple. Ultimately the lesson is the same.. marriage between people who are ultimately wrong for each other is devastating. Here, Dean remains static.. a child of sorts, while Cindy wants more.. she wants better. Who's right depends on your point of view.. but I do know that this one completely broke my heart.. and contained moments of pure joy at the same time.. and there's something magical about a film that can tug on your heartstrings like that. It's not always easy or enjoyable to watch.. but it's a hell of a film. Gosling is a star.
8.4/10.

2011: The Year in Film: Green Hornet Review.

2011-03-02T21:19:00.000-05:00

Man, I suck at posting these reviews lately. I think I saw this one on January 21 if my calculations are correct, and here we are more than a month later and I'm finally posting my review, thereby completely eliminating the purpose for reviewing it at all.. but, c'est la vie. The Green Hornet is one of those flicks that's had a tumultuous trip to the screen after existing in various incarnations for something like 75 years via radio, comic books, tv series, movie shorts and so on. Seth Rogen and his writing partner Evan Goldberg wrote this one, and Rogen stars as partyboy heir to a media empire Britt Reid. Indie darling Michel Gondry (Eternal Sunshine, Science of Sleep) makes his transition into "big" action here, and the result is... interesting. There are some impressive names attached to this one in various supporting roles: Christoph Waltz as the crime lord of LA, Tom Wilkinson as Britt's father, James Reid, Cameron Diaz as Britt's secretary/crush and a personal favorite of mine, Admiral Adama himself, Edward James Olmos as longtime publisher and write hand man of James Reid's media magnate. This is a weird flick that couldn't quite decide what it wanted to be. Is it an action flick? Kind of. Is it a comedy? Kind of. It actually reminds me most of the Joel Schumacher Batman flicks.. and that's not really a compliment. There are some cool action scenes.. I think Gondry has potential there.. and there are some funny bits.. but overall the film feels scattershot and kind of pointless. Taiwanese pop star Jay Chou is interesting in the role made famous by Bruce Lee, as Britt's handyman/genius/badass Kato.

In this day and age when films like Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Iron Man, V for Vendetta and the Ed Norton Hulk have shown that comic book movies can be adult and compelling with actual character development. In this atmosphere, this film seems like something that would have been made in the late 90's.. it's just not rooted in any semblance of reality and despite being rather violent and dark isn't gritty at all. Seth Rogen is pretty much constantly playing shades of Seth Rogen.. and that just doesn't work for a flick that's asking to be taken seriously. Wilkinson, Olmos, Diaz and Waltz try their damndest but ultimately can't hike this one beyond a less-funny Pineapple Express. James Franco does have a hilarious cameo that for me was the highlight of the whole flick. Yes, don't let your impression at the Oscars the other night ruin your impression of Mr. Franco, the dude is pretty damn talented.

Overall, the film looks great and there are some funny scenes and a couple of impressive action sequences, but the film feels like it belongs in 1997, not 2011. Mediocre at best - 6/10.

2011: The Year in Film: "The King's Speech" Review

2011-01-09T19:05:00.004-05:00

So here we are in 2011. One week down, one movie seen. While technically this one was released in 2010, I saw it in 2011, so I'm counting it as movie #1 of 2011, and it was a good one to start with. Colin Firth has become one of the best actors working today after popping out of relative obscurity just a few years ago, if it wasn't for Jeff Bridges' brilliance last year, he'd have won best actor last year. We here in America have an odd obsession with the British royal family. They certainly can be fascinating, and serve as an odd juxtaposition of how different our world is today than it was a hundred years ago... as royals feel like an anachronistic relic. Queen Elizabeth II is now the longest reigning sovereign in the history of Great Britain, but before she became Queen Britain was ruled by her father, King George VI. King George VI inherited by a quirk of history, as his brother, Edward VII abdicated the throne so that he may marry an American divorcee. The story behind this film is really a fascinating story in British royal history and in world history in general. As royals found their practical function all but eroded, they discovered they were in demand for another purpose, as popular inspirational figures expected to make speeches and public appearances. So people were born into positions that now demanded that they be able speakers and handsome faces. George VI had a speech impediment that made him nearly unable to communicate, and due to his brother's scandalous affair, ascended to the throne of Great Britain. This film tells his story.

This film is first and foremost a story about a remarkable friendship. Colin Firth shines as Prince Albert who would become King George VI, displaying the fears, anxiety and sheer terror that can accompany having to speak in individuals afflicted with a stammer. Geoffrery Rush plays his speech therapist, an Australian named Lionel Logue, who worked with Prince Albert for a number of years to help him overcome his difficulty speaking. Helena Bonham Carter plays Queen Elizabeth, mother to the current queen and wife to "Berty". Having exhausted more traditional means of treating the problem, the Dutchess and Duke of York find themselves in a London basement seeking the help of a forward-thinking and eccentric Australian by the name of Lionel Logue who insists on crossing just about every social barrier that the Prince has ever known. His unorthodox techniques get through, and the Prince and commoner strike off an interesting and unorthodox friendship. When George VI takes the throne, the outbreak of war with Germany is upon us, bringing new obligations to his position. The king is now looked to by the people to inspire and lead, something that could be tremendously difficult for a stutterer.

This is a remarkable film. Part period piece, part historical study, part buddy flick, it does exactly what it sets out to do, tell the story of how this friendship came to define these men in a critical time and place in British history. A historical odd couple.

This film is small in scope and yet sweeping at times. It ranges from taking place in a single room to sweeping palaces and Wembley Stadium and Westminster Abbey. It is at its strongest when Firth and Rush are together, bantering back and forth. In the hands of these two capable performers, you believe the friendship and depth of feeling between these men. Firth's performance cannot be understated. In his hands George VI has all the anxieties and vulnerabilities (and yet potential) of a man beaten down by years of criticism and beratement who continues to persevere. The cast is tremendous, led by Firth and Rush obviously, who will both be nominated for academy awards, but Bonham Carter is strong as well (and I was concerned about her going in) and a slightly miscast Guy Pearce does pretty well with the material he's given as Edward VII. Michael Gambon as George V is great as well.

I have criticisms. First, the film is overly sentimental at times, feeling like a feel-good hit when it's far too good for that. Second, it's almost like there are little historical Easter eggs thrown in, that can distract from the film. Look! She'll be Queen Elizabeth! (as the camera lingers a bit too long on Firth's daughter in the film) Ditto for Neville Chamerlain and Winston Churchill. Also, Guy Pearce is supposed to be playing Firth's older brother, and it is not for one minute believable that the 50 year old Firth is younger than the 43 year old Pearce. Just poor casting. Also, the film could have benefited from more characterization of Logue. The king becomes a fully developed character while the motivations for his therapist aren't as clear.

But these are small critiques from a film that is often funny, inspiring, tremendously well acted, and tells a story that certainly is worth telling.

8.3/10. If you need a flick to see with your parents, this is the one.

2010: The Year in Film: Black Swan review.

2011-01-04T14:53:00.005-05:00

This is the last entry in the "2010: The Year in Film" series, with which I documented my personal journey through what ultimately proved to be a rather strong year in movies. Never fear though loyal readers, as I've decided to continue the trend of reviewing every flick I see in theaters into 2011. Secondly, let me apologize for taking forever to post this review. I originally saw "Black Swan" on Thursday, December 30th and was delayed by epic NYE revelry and subsequent illness from posting this review. Without further ado, let us begin. Darren Aronofsky is a true auteur/madman. He is one of the most rewarding directors working today, in my opinion. Every one of his films (Pi, Requiem for a Dream, The Fountain, The Wrestler) is an achievement, and an Aronofsky film is a "must-see" for me in a way that only a select few other directors' works are. And it never-fails, his films bring something unique to the table. This particular film has a lot in common with Aronofsky's last film, "The Wrestler", which similarly dealt with an individual making sacrifices for the sake of their craft.

"Black Swan" is, at the surface, a film about a ballerina who, through an obsessive dedication to her craft, sees her life and psyche begin to unravel. Our protagonist, Nina (Natalie Portman) is a dancer with a prestigious New York City ballet company whose entire life has been a single minded dedication to ballet. Nina, presumably in her mid-20's (she's at least 21, and comments are made about how she's been at the company for several years), shares a small apartment with her overbearing mother, an ex-dancer herself. Her life, from morning to night, consists of attempting to become a perfect dancer. When the longtime prima ballerina at the company is forced into retirement (Winona Rider), Nina sees an opportunity for her profile at the company to expand, and the company holds open auditions for the role of the Swan Queen in the next season's performance of "Swan Lake". Nina wins the role, but the skeezy choreographer Thomas cautions her that she must embrace a darker, more sexual side of herself to become the Black Swan in the ballet's second act. The girlish Nina struggles with pleasing her mother, Thomas and herself, and finds the pressures of the role begin to drive her to a mental breakdown. The arrival of a new dancer, Lily, from San Francisco, who is everything that Nina is not, hastens Nina's paranoia and breakdown.

The Wrestler focused on the destructive physical effects single minded dedication to a demanding craft could have, and while there is some of that here (Nina's feet are grotesque), this is the other side of the coin, the psychological side. In pursuing perfection, the obsessive Nina finds herself losing her grip on reality. As the film crescendos to its conclusion, Nina and we, the audience, are unable to discern what is real from what is psychological, and the film reaches Hitchcock-ian levels of surreal hallucination.

This film looks great, with close shots and angles adding to the feeling that Nina is becoming trapped. What ultimately makes this film are the performances. Portman gives the performance of her lifetime, and her sincerity in the role grounds what could be absurd as something visceral and serious. Kunis, as the sensual and eccentric Lily, is a revelation. Rider does a great job of conveying the damage that a lifetime of pressure and mindgames can do, and Vincent Cassel is convincing as a choreographer who doesn't hesitate to take advantage of his position relative the dancers. But make no mistake, this is Portman's show. She is prominently featured in just about every shot and without her bringing her "A" game, this movie simply doesn't work.

But work it does. This is a film about showbiz, about the dangers of obsessive behavior, about how the pursuit for perfection and beauty warps those pursuing it, and ultimately, about creation. On a meta level, as an allegory about creating films, is probably where it feels the most personal. The farther away I get from this film and the more I think about it, the more I like it. This is a work of art from a director and a performer at the top of their games. Portman clearly dedicated herself to the role, she is convincing as an elite ballerina, even if it's sometimes clear that she's not always dancing, she does a good enough job all things considered. My criticisms are few, but there are some, mainly that the psychological trippiness of the last act can devolve to almost horror-esque shocks, and it is impossible to discern what's real from what's not. While that's fine as a psychological thriller, as a narrative, it's a questionable move. But that in no way detracts from the impact of the film's conclusion or the value of this film.

As a psychological thriller among other things, this film stands tall among the year's best. This one will be heard from at award's season and stands proudly among Aronofsky's strongest efforts.

8.5/10.

2010: The Year in Film: "TRON: Legacy" Review

2010-12-19T23:42:00.005-05:00

I set a personal record for myself this week, I saw "True Grit" on Thursday, "The Fighter" on Friday and this one on Sunday. As another aside, maybe I'm not the best person to be seeing and reviewing this one, I've only seen the original once, and only kind of remember it - but hey, here goes nothing. The original "Tron" is a sci-fi classic that has achieved "cult" status in the 28(!) years since its release. Indeed, the original was the first film to use CGI in a feature film. Given the state of film today, that becomes quite the milestone. A rough outline of the original goes as follows - brilliant computer programmer and video game designer named Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges) who's had his designs stolen by a rival discovers a way to transfer himself into a digital world and directly confront the programs and games in highly stylized "battles" that replicate the games designed by Flynn. The story doesn't make a lot of sense in a realistic type of way, but it's original and had a visionary approach to the future that has turned out to be increasingly accurate (in terms of the involvement of computers and games in our lives). So the original is remarkable for the visuals, which were entirely groundbreaking at the time.

Here were are at Tron: Legacy. 20 years have passed since Kevin Flynn inexplicably disappeared, leaving behind his young son, Sam, after promising to show him his creation. Sam is running from his father's legacy, choosing to shun involvement in the empire built on his father's creations. When a mysterious page from his father's office to his former partner shows that something may be stirring, Sam investigates, and winds up immersed in the digital world his father created so many years prior. Searching for his father, Sam finds himself embroiled in a struggle between his father and rebellious creations who have corrupted "the grid" and threaten our world as well.

So there's the plot - pretty nonsensical, indeed, but this isn't a flick you're seeing because of the narrative structure. This is a spectacle. Escapism and entertainment at a very high level. Movies can be a great storytelling venue - but at a certain level, there's an appeal for visual spectacle, the kind of thing that can never be achieved in a book or story. This film looks great. Seamlessly melding CGI environments with physical actors is a trick that hollywood just about has mastered. The bright colors, unique world, soundtrack (scored by Daft Punk) and fantastical outfits, buildings and machines all serve to create a sort of techno-gothic land of perpetual twilight. There are some terrific action sequences and the nature/physics of the environment allows for some pretty cool stunts.

What grounds this one are the performances. Without the gravitas of Bridges (who plays two roles), this could slip to B-movie schlock, but Bridges keeps the necessary humanity present and grounds the outlandish nature of pretty much everything going on. Olivia Wilde is great as well as Bridges' surrogate daughter figure, and the very underrated Michael Sheen makes the most of his limited part. While the lead can't match the strength of Bridges or Sheen, he does what he needs to, playing the headstrong young hero part, and definitely resembles Bridges.

This is a fun movie that looks amazing. I was impressed, it was significantly better than I thought it would be. The visuals, color scheme, soundtrack and design of the architecture and vehicles all combine to create some sort of technological bad dream. Considering the original was made in 1982, the TRON franchise has a lot of credibility as far as sci-fi goes, for who could have envisioned in 1982 how central computers would eventually become to our existence?

A good time at the movies, and well worth seeing on the big screen.

7/10.

2010: The Year in Film: "The Fighter" Review

2010-12-18T10:14:00.002-05:00

Boxing movies have a special place in the American pantheon of film. There's something about the dedication, the training, the strength of will and the determination of the pugilist that makes boxing a perfect metaphor for so much of what defines us as a culture. "Irish" Micky Ward was a popular champion in the late 90's and early 2000s, a working class hero of sorts who spoke to many. This fllm purports to tell the story of a fighter whose once promising career derailed by misfortune, bad luck and bad advice, and ultimately was rediscovered through adversity to rise to the very top of his sport. While there are some inaccuracies and artistic liberties taken with actual events, the finished product is a compelling story of a family, time and place whose lessons of determination, redemption and triumph resonate loudly today - when so many places and families struggle with the very challenges facing Lowell, Mass and the Wards/Eklunds. This has been a passion project of Mark Wahlberg's (a native of the Boston area) for years, and has seen Darren Aronofsky come and go, Brad Pitt come and go, and the project pick up and die several times. In steps David O. Russell (Three Kings, I Heart Huckabees) and the insane method actor who is Christian Bale (you know damn well who he is), and they deliver one of the great sports movies of recent memory. Indeed, Sports Illustrated recently named "The Fighter" as "Sports Movie of the Decade", high praise indeed from the most respected sports publication around.

The year is 1993. Boxer/road crew worker and local semi-celebrity "Irish" Micky Ward (Wahlberg) is a boxer who's career is at a crossroads. After a promising start, he's lost his last few fights, and is facing a hand-picked opponent in an effort to turn his career around and avoid the "stepping stone" label. A native son of Lowell, Mass, once the birthplace of the American industrial revolution and now a post-industrial wasteland of drugs, petty crime and housing projects, Ward is managed by his overbearing and larger than life mother, Alice and trained by his half-brother, Dickie Eklund (Bale), who had a title fight against Sugar Ray Leonard in 1978 and has spent the last 15 years basking in the quasi-celebrity that resulted for all it's worth. Dickie, who's seen by his family as a legend, has spent his time wallowing in the depths and darkness of drug addiction instead of training his brother. Completely overshadowed by the insanity that is his family (he's the youngest of 9 kids, and one of only two boys), Ward is quiet and contemplative, resigned to his fate despite the often negative effect it may have on his career and livelihood. Things get worse before they get better, but Micky meets and falls in love with a local bartender and former athlete (a great Amy Adams) who, along with a new trainer and manager, help return the focus to boxing. Ultimately, this is a redemption tale. Redeeming a legacy, a career, a family and really, a life.

It's impossible to praise this movie without praising the performances. It's no secret that this blog is a HUGE Chris Bale fan, and he's never been better than he is as the charming, infuriating and rambunctious Dicky Eklund, a guy who dominates every room and has managed to completely recreate his own life and legacy through a web of delusions of grandeur. Bale will break your heart and ultimately bring you back from the brink, he's that good. He truly steals every single scene he's in, just as the real-life Dicky would have. Emaciated and squirrelly, Bale once again recreates himself physically to play a man who lost himself in the devastating web of drug addiction. Right behind Bale though is Amy Adams, who completely surprised me as the tough, determined, wise beyond her years Charlene, local sexpot and ultimate girlfriend of Micky. Adams believably brings to life a smart, fiery woman who impacts our protagonist greatly. The rest of the supporting cast is great, at times too believable as the lower-class cast of characters populating Lowell. Wahlberg pales next to Bale, but I'm pretty sure the real Micky Ward pales next to the dominating personality that is his brother Dicky. Wahlberg plays Ward with a quiet frustration, a man who feels trapped by his circumstances but who is too loyal to turn his back on his family.

This is a film that paints a picture of a time and place. Lowell, Mass in the mid to late 90's and a family who left their mark, both good and bad. This film is about boxing, sure, but it's about family, about post-industrial America, and ultimately, about redemption. Bale gives a truly unforgettable performance. There are flaws, mostly with the direction. 1.) It is impossible to tell what the time period is. Does the film cover 1 year? 10 years? Also, the boxing montage of Micky's comeback looked cheap. 2.) I take issue with the use of music. 4 or 5 times throughout the film a song plays nearly in its entirety, dominating a scene, and I don't feel it fits with the rest of the film. However, make no mistake, this is a great film. Easily the best sports movie since Cinderella Man, this is a story well worth telling that deserves to take its place among the great boxing movies.

8.7/10. Bale will win Best Supporting Oscar, I guarantee it.

2010: The Year in Film: "True Grit" Review

2010-12-16T22:20:00.005-05:00

The Coen Brothers (Joel and Ethan) are true artists and have contributed more to film in the past 25 years than just about anyone else. Their catalogue (Raising Arizona, Fargo, Miller's Crossing, The Big Lebowski, O Brother, Where Art Thou?, No Country for Old Men, A Serious Man, etc) contains a number of classics (and only a few duds, Ladykillers *cough*) in a number of genres and they are one of the few director(s) who makes a film a virtual must-see just as a virtue of their mere involvement. Jeff Bridges is without a doubt one of the top actors working today. His performance in "Crazy Heart" was truly remarkable, and elevated something that could have been Lifetime "Movie of the week" level schlock to something much, much more. He's worked with the Coen's before, in the comedy/cultural cult classic "The Big Lebowski", as the legendary Dude, a film and role that are near and dear to my heart. This film is the Coens' second remake, after the deeply flawed "Ladykillers", but the source material is quite different indeed. The original, 1969's True Grit, is one of the great westerns, and for my money, one of John Wayne's best performances, indeed the only won for which he brought home Oscar gold. Into the Duke's sizable shoes steps Jeff Bridges, playing the deliciously crusty Reuben "Rooster" Cogburn, a man who's cunning, violent, drunken, debauched, and also quite funny.

This is a remarkable film. Visually stunning, tremendously acted, where it may be strongest is in the language and dialogue, it's poetic and often artistic.. hearkening back to an era where language held a prized place in our culture, as opposed to today's "Jersey Shore" era where "like" is every other word and mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers are barely capable of forming coherent thoughts. This film calls to mind the great era of Westerns - where the majesty of the settings and the strength of the personalities defined us through American fables, featuring great men and grand deeds, the stuff of legends filtered through a distinctly American lens. In an era where cynicism and moral relativism dominate discourse, it's refreshing (to me at least..) to know the stakes and get a classic, straight-forward story presented in such a well-done fashion.

Bridges, is, as expected, terrific. Wonderfully gruff and just an all-around miserable bastard, he's part hardened killer, part Bad Blake, part "The Dude" and all awesome. Matt Damon more than holds his own as a more straight-edged lawman, a Texas ranger known only as "La Beouf". The real star here is young Hailee Stanfield, who more than holds her own as spunky, precocious Mattie Ross, who seeks vengeance for the murder of her father. This isn't a story you've never seen before, it's a manhunt with revenge as the primary motivation. Josh Brolin (also a Coen vet) plays a somewhat vile villain and Barry Pepper is an unexpected surprise as the leader of the outlaw gang our intrepid wanderers are pursuing. It's sort of a Western road trip movie with a solid body count stacked up along the way. I won't say any more so as to not spoil the plot.

At once epic and intimate, the Coens do justice to a classic cinematic genre, rendering the period brilliantly. The artfully done portrayal of a time and place that seems so far away elevate this film from an homage to something more.. a great example of the genre perhaps? At times funny, dark, charming, witty and violent (not entirely unlike the old west itself), this is a great flick that's well worth a watch. Don't go in expecting your worldview to be forever altered by what you're seeing, but simply enjoy the artistry of filmmakers and performers at the top of their respective games, and remember that films like this is why there will always be a special place for movies.

8.5/10.

2010: The Year in Film: "127 Hours" Review

2010-12-04T09:58:00.004-05:00

I saw this one last night - and am actually being prompt in my review - whaddya know? Every once in a while there's a news story that's so damned insane that no fiction could possibly match it. Most of you surely remember the story about Aron Ralston, the man who got trapped alone in a canyon in Utah and cut off his own arm to survive. It doesn't seem to me like it'd have enough substance for a feature film without a bevy of flashbacks (which are played out), but when one of the better directors working today, Danny Boyle (Trainspotting, 28 Days Later, Slumdog Millionaire) was attached, I became intrigued. When they cast James Franco - who I've been a huge fan of since he stole the show in "Pineapple Express" - my interest was piqued. This is basically a two-man show, as Director and lead craft a tale of human perseverance, determination and growth, while largely working within the tight confines of a narrow canyon.

Aron Ralston is a loner and adrenaline junkie. A man who needs nothing an no one other than himself, and sets out every weekend to prove to himself just how independent he can be and what he can do. The weekend of April 24, 2010, he sets out alone to Blue John Canyon in Utah without telling anyone where he's gone or how long he'll be away. After a brief run-in with some female hikers, he sets back off alone to do some rappelling. A freak slip ends with him trapped and pinned beneath a boulder for the next several days as his supplies and morale slowly dwindle.

This film is a celebration of the individual will, of the strength that comes from determination to survive. Shot on location in Utah, Boyle makes the most of the immaculate (and desolate) vistas, cliffs and rock formations present in one of America's true natural wonders. While I'm not much of an "outdoors" type myself, I can certainly respect and understand what would drive someone to lose themselves in the majesty of nature. Through flashbacks, hallucinations, visions and the like, Boyle expands the narrative from simply a man and a boulder to help express the despair and thought process one would experience in such a bleak, desperate situation. Through different camera angles and speeds, Boyle heightens the experience and joy followed by crushing devastation of what should have been a fun weekend for an adrenaline junkie.

But make no mistake, Mr. Franco is the true star of this production. He brings a charm, wit and "joi de vivre" necessary for a film where 99% of the shots feature him prominently. This is one of the great performances of our time. Franco is riveting, and manages to (along with Boyle) make this about more than a guy stuck under a rock, but about personal growth and what the sheer determination to survive can drive us to. It kind of makes you feel like a pussy for complaining about the minor problems in your life.

Make no mistake kids, this is must-see.

8.5/10.

2010: The Year in Film: "Due Date" Review

2010-11-20T20:21:00.003-05:00

Well you can call me "motherfucker" for long. I'm back. With yet another review of a movie I saw weeks ago. In my defense, I did spring for one of them spankin' new HD tele-visions so I've been transfixed by shiny sparkly items and unable to content myself with slaving away at the interwebs. Anyway, enough excuses out of me - let's review this bad boy already.

Todd Phillips is one of the princes of American comedy - a godfather of sorts of the "Fratpack" group of flicks, in which grown men act like infantile imbeciles.. and hilarious ones at that. Road Trip, Old School, Starsky and Hutch, School for Scoundrels, and The Hangover are all Todd Phillips joints. This one is the follow-up to possibly the biggest comedic hit of all time, Summer '09's smash hit The Hangover - widely beloved, and largely for the outrageous performance of Zach Galifianakis, perhaps the most infantile of all. Phillips famously cameos as creeps in his movies, whether it's as the creepy bus passenger with a foot fetish in Road Trip, a gangbang participant in Old School, the guy going down on his girlfriend in an elevator in The Hangover, or the robe wearing boyfriend of Ethan Trembley's pot dealer in this one. So you get the vein of what this one is going for from the get-go. So other than being the Galifianakis/Phillips reunion, this one adds one of the truly great actors of our time, who proved he had epic comedic chops in his own right in "Tropic Thunder", namely Tony Stark himself, Robert Downey, Jr.

This is basically "Planes, Trains and Automobiles" in 2010, and is a very funny movie in its own right, I laughed quite a bit, although it is far from perfect. RDJ is a smarmy, upper class asshole architect by the name of Peter Highman who needs to get from Atlanta to LA for the birth of his first child. A chance encounter at the airport with a simpleton, would be actor/Two and a Half Men devotee Evan Tremblay derails a direct first class flight and results in Peter hitching a ride to LA with Evan (and his outrageous dog, Sonny) in Evan's rental car. Don't get me wrong, this story has been told before, but Phillips and Co. bring enough twists and the actors are talented and funny enough to keep you thoroughly entertained. Aside from brief appearances from a very funny Danny McBride and Jamie Foxx, this is basically a two-man show, and unlikely partners Peter and Ethan find their way into hijinks as they meander from Atlanta to LA by car.

There are some ridiculously funny scenes - I won't spoil them for you here, but I laughed a lot. It's just slightly... off. Especially compared to Phillips' hits like Old School and The Hangover. Tremblay and Highman's inevitable bonding seems unrealistic and ill-timed, and a particularly ridiculous scene in Mexico sort of ruined any pretense of reality. Galifianakis and Downey Jr. have great chemistry and are both very, very funny. This is a movie definitely worth watching, although it is in no way a classic.

Enjoyable, solid, funny. Galifianakis is the most dynamic force in comedy today.

6.5/10.

2010: The Year in Film: "Waiting for Superman" Review

2010-11-20T19:43:00.005-05:00

I'd be damned shocked if I still had any loyal readers left.. and kids, I can't say I blame you. I've been awful, read: awful at updating this thing, and I'm sorry about that, because lord knows I've got the thoughts and opinions to fill this bad boy up. A lot has happened since we last spoke: the election, the fact that the Gator chomp is ok but this: Devier Posey taught me how to Dougie, isn't, the world banned Four Loko, but right now I'm here to review some GD movies, so let's get to it. I actually saw this flick weeks ago, but for some reason just never got around to blogging it. So here goes nothing.

Now documentaries don't usually find their way to my movie schedule too often, I like to consider myself pretty damn well informed, and usually already know 99% of what's in them (let's be honest: almost every documentary ever made is a dumbed down version of a book, which is a dumbed down version of some research because Americans are damned stupid), but since I'm obsessed with how stupid people are, this one was right in my wheelhouse. Acclaimed documentarian Davis Guggenheim (the director of "An Inconvenient Truth") takes aim at the American education system, once the envy of the world, and now a glaring eyesore.

This documentary does an amazing job at certain things but fails at others, and seems at times to lose sight of its actual mission. It focuses on the failings of public schools, especially in inner cities, where "dropout factories" often fail to graduate 60-70% of their classes. Considering the demographic reality of what a high school drop out can hope to achieve in modern America, the devastating long term impact these failing schools can have on their surrounding communities is evident. Guggenheim chooses to give the subject matter heft by focusing on 5 families, each who have their hopes for their childrens' future pegged on gaining admission to prestigious charter schools that succeed where the public schools in the same communities fail miserably.

Guggenheim sets his sights on two things in particular: teacher's unions (which, like all public employee unions - can be pretty damn evil), who focus on keeping jobs over ensuring quality education and school bureaucracies, which hog resources and shift the focus from educating. The emergence of charter schools over the past 20 years has made it evident that inner city kids can be educated, so it is the school systems themselves that are failing. Of course, there are counter-points to everything, but Guggenheim does a great job in effectively and often powerfully demonstrating the societal costs of shitty teachers, shitty schools, and a shitty education.

This flick's major failing, for me, was in not demonstrating the actual techniques that allow these charter schools to succeed where their traditional brethren fail. That is a major shortcoming in an otherwise powerful message. Guggenheim focuses on those who seek to reform education, and have had success in doing so. There should be no doubt that the American educational system is an embarrassment, one we should all be ashamed of. People are dumb, very dumb, and without outrage, that's never going to change. Actually this flick reminded me a lot of the absolutely essential television series "The Wire", which if you haven't watched, get the fuck off of the internet and go make that happen already, in that the failings aren't due to any bad intentions on anyone's part, just ossification of institutions and a whole lot of CYOA at all levels(that's cover your own ass) without taking any chances.

While it can be manipulative at times, on the whole, the flick does a good job of effectively delivering a much-needed message. If we don't wake up, and sooner rather than later, it will be too late, and our society will lose those advantages that allowed America to become what it is today. Education is the foundation of "democracy", and dumb kids become dumb voters become dumb workers and so on.

7.5/10.

2010: The Year in Film: "Hereafter" Review

2010-10-21T13:57:00.004-04:00

I really didn't know what to expect from this one. Was it a thriller a la "The Sixth Sense"? What was it really about? The trailers didn't really spill too much on what to expect, so I went into this one more or less in the dark. What I did know was that this one was getting early Oscar buzz, and that Clint Eastwood is one of the top 5 or 6 directors working today, and that Matt Damon is an absolutely tremendous actor. So when I scored some passes to an advance screening of this one, I jumped at the chance.

"Hereafter" deals, obviously, with death, what may or may not await us after we've departed this earth, and how it impacts those who are left to pick up the pieces. This isn't exactly an easy topic to deal with, and can quickly degenerate into religious debate or intense faith-based discussion. Eastwood wisely focuses on the characters, played so adroitly and capably, and on the emotions surrounding the situations they're placed in, with some great shots and truly terrific camera work.

This one is quite unlike basically everything else of Eastwood's that I've seen, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. This film is completely made on the strength of the director and of the performances. The film basically focuses on three characters, an American psychic (Matt Damon - proving once again while he's one of the best actors working today), a French reporter (Cecile De France), and an English schoolboy (Frankie/George Mclaren), each of whom has an intense and jarring encounter with death. The psychic, George Lonegan, is really able to communicate with the dead, and is unable to form a real relationship with anyone because of his strange ability. The French reporter, Marie LeLay, finds herself in South Asia during the devastating tsunami of 2004, where she is rescued from the deluge and revived with CPR. The schoolboy, Marcus, is a twin with a drug addict for a mother, and so is incredibly close with his brother, who dies in a horrible accident. These people find their existences defined by their experiences with death and the beyond, and find that they are inexplicably drawn to discover the meaning behind what's happened to them. Their journeys drive them on a collision course, and their stories eventually intertwine as they help each other understand and move on.

This is in no way a perfect film. The script and story at times doesn't make a whole lot of sense, often being cliche and overly sentimental. This, however, is overshadowed by the quality of filmmaking and the truly great performances out of De France and Damon. There are some soul-crushing moments that our protagonists endure, and through the strength of the performances you can't help but empathize and be brought along on Eastwood's journey. This film doesn't seek to explain, lecture, or offer any answers. It's simply one view of what may or could be awaiting all of us, and how death inevitably touches us all in different and often tragic ways.

Flawed, but with some great scenes (the tsunami scene is especially intense - as is the break down of George's burgeoning flirtation with a girl he met at night school), great performances (Damon's a best actor nom shoo-in), and something worthwhile to say, I'd say it's a safe bet this one will be one to reckon with come awards season.. the academy loves sentimental dramas with a strong director/acting pedigree. I went in not knowing what to expect, but wound up liking this one a whole lot more than I probably should have. What can I say? I can go sentimental.

7.5/10.

2010: The Year in Film: "The Social Network" Review

2010-09-16T08:13:00.007-04:00

If you were in college from 2004-2006 you probably remember the moment it happened. You probably remember exactly when facebook hit your campus and changed everything.. from the way people socialized to the way you got a hold of someone to the way you got help with an assignment to the way you dated to the way you took pictures. If you're around the ages of 24-28, call us "the facebook generation".. when a new and revolutionary social networking tool completely changed the way people interact with one another. This movie is the story of how that happened. How a couple of nerds from Harvard created possibly the greatest idea of our generation. How a guy who couldn't keep a girlfriend became the youngest billionaire on the planet.

I'm not going to lie - I was not excited at all to see this one. First, I find Jesse Eisenberg to be obnoxious. He damn near ruined "Zombieland" for me with his twitchy spastic shtick and not-quite Aspbergers. Second, how could a movie about the creation of a website be engaging and entertaining enough for the feature-length picture, even if said website is one I use basically every day? Third, director David Fincher is more miss than hit for me. Love Fight Club, love Se7en, hate Benjamin Button, hate Panic Room and hate Zodiac. I don't really like Alien cubed either. So basically I saw it because it was free and because these passes were WAY in advance.. but boy am I glad I did.

This movie is so much better than a film about the creation of a website should be. This is largely due to the often frantic script (written by Aaron "the West Wing" Sorkin) pitch-perfect casting and acting and a nearly pitch-perfect tone. The story opens in the fall of '03 with the genesis of what ultimately would become Facebook on one late drunken night in a Harvard dorm as Mark Zuckerberg, spurned by his now-ex, fumes online. After Zuckerberg's hastily thrown together Facemash crashes the Harvard servers, it becomes apparent that the college social landscape hungers for a means of eased online interaction (and hell, stalking).

The film is told through a series of vignettes as the various parties involved recount their stories through varying depositions, with plenty of witty banter (the vast majority of it coming from Zuckerberg) accompanying. This narrative device allows the film to rather seamlessly jump from month to month, highlight to highlight without getting bogged down in the mundane. Best friends and co-founders Zuckerberg and Eduardo Saverin (Andrew "The new Peter Parker" Garfield) build Facebook from literally nothing, and gradually grow apart as the more short-sighted Saverin is forced out by more visionary and ambitious figures (mainly "Napster" co-founder Sean Parker) thrust Zuckerberg into Silicon Valley's upper echelons and he leaves the dorm room far behind.

This really is a terrific film. Eisenberg and Timberlake (who plays the charming yet smarmy Parker) are both perfectly cast and hit every note just right. Garfield is more than capable as the somewhat tragic Saverin figure. The story moves along at the right pace - never feeling slow or boring (which can be a problem for Fincher). My complaints: the PG-13 rating felt forced. These are college kids, partying and hanging out. That scene is not a PG-13 one. Also, at times the tone of the film didn't feel right. It felt a bit too dark and mournful for what is, in effect, one of the great success stories of our time. The score and lighting felt ominous at times when there was no threat on the horizon. Ultimately though, this film is capably directed, superbly acted, superbly written, and it manages to tell and say something without preaching. Zuckerberg is neither hero nor villain, he is an opportunistic genius who seized the day and screwed over a couple of people along the way. That feels so much more appropriate for this day and age. This is a top 3 or 4 movie I've seen in 2010.

8.5/10.

2010: The Year in Film: "The Town" Review.

2010-09-15T10:00:00.000-04:00

"I need you to help me hurt some people. I can't tell you why, and you can never ask me about it again" - Doug.
"Which car do we take?" - Jem.

I managed to score some passes of an advanced screening of this one and you'd better believe I jumped at the opportunity. Sometimes it just seems like they make movies specifically for me - and hell, who am I to argue? This is one of my most anticipated movies of the fall, and has been getting some serious buzz, so needless to say, I was more than happy to catch an advanced screening. If you would have told the 20-year old me I'd be excited for a Ben Affleck directorial vehicle I'd have laughed you out of the room - but such is the state of things. 2007's "Gone Baby Gone" was an extremely strong debut - and dealt with the rough blue collar Bostonian underbelly dealt with here. One thing is for sure - Affleck can paint a picture of a location - and the locale is as much a character as any of those played by the actors. He may wind up being for blue-collar Boston what Scorsese is for New York - but let's not get ahead of ourselves here.

In addition to directing Affleck stars in this one, portraying Doug McCray, a one-time pro hockey player who washed out and wound up in the family business - robbing banks and armored cars. McCray is smart, fiercely loyal, calculating and imposing. He's the glue that holds his crew together. His best friend and literal partner in crime is a loose cannon named James "Jem" Coughlin, an unpredictable, often brutal menace for whom family and loyalty are paramount. Jeremy "The Hurt Locker" Renner brings a twitchy, troubling menace to his portrayal of Jem, a guy who is literally a blink away from murder at any given time. Jem and Doug have been best friends for basically their entire lives, and now take that trust and camaraderie into the violent but lucrative business of holding up banks and armored cars. Their crew is a sophisticated, efficient outfit, adept at moving quickly and eluding capture. They labor for a local crime boss known as "The Florist", played with an absurd amount of menace by Pete Postlethwaite. On a bank/armored car holdup one day, something goes wrong, Jem brutally beats a bank manager who he thinks set off a silent alarm. This leads to the taking of a hostage, a beautiful bank manager played by relative newcomer Rebecca Hall. The crew decides that in order to find out how much she knows, they have to trail her to ensure she doesn't talk. Doug winds up falling for the beautiful witness as the FBI (in the person of Mad Men's Jon Hamm) closes in on their trail. Doug is torn between who he is (a bank robber) and who he would be and is forced to choose between the life he's known and the life he so desperately wants for himself as the FBI closes the noose.

This film is beautifully shot, the leads are outstanding, and the story is solid. Several of the robbery scenes, the first two in particular, are tremendous. This film is entertaining, tense, and often quite funny in the dark, off-kilter fashion of the modern crime film. The often picture-esque wide shots of the city and the neighborhood are amazing, and Affleck is a director with quite the eye. However, this film isn't without its flaws. The plot demands a certain suspension of disbelief at times, as the crew can seem just a bit TOO good at their craft. The ending is a bit too "Hollywood" and neat for an Oscar contender and some of the characters lack sufficient characterization. The acting, however, is top notch. Hamm comes into his own in the film's later half, and becomes a terrific foil for the criminals we can't help but find ourselves rooting for. All in all, this is a strong film, memorable with some great characters and terrific scenes, but it never manages to rise to its potential. With a few adjustments, this could have been an Oscar front-runner, but I'll settle for a more than solid crime flick.

8/10.

2010: The Year in Film: The Kids Are All Right Review

2010-08-26T18:41:00.002-04:00

Here is American indie cinema at it's best - a quaint, sweet, funny picture that manages to deliver its message through the lens of believable, well-written characters that feel as authentic as the characters in any novel. Of course, pictures of this scope, that feature so prominently and intimately on the lives of a few characters depend almost entirely on the cast, so it's essential that the cast is up to the challenge. Here, the cast steps up completely, and completely inhabits the characters, making them into believable, flawed, charming people who feel so very real and you find yourself investing in and rooting for after just a short period of time.

Annette Bening and Julianne Moore feature as Nic and Jules, a lesbian married couple who are the moms for a pair of children, Joni and Laser (Mia Wasikowska and Josh Hutcherson) who were each conceived using the same sperm donor. The desire by Laser to meet his biological father leads to the children contacting the donor, an eclectic post-hippie named Paul (Mark Ruffalo). The relationship that develops between Paul, his biological children, and Nic and Jules touches on the complexity and fragility of the core family unit, and the universal humanity of it all. Nic and Jules are lesbians, sure, but they're parents first, and face the same issues as any family with teenagers would, just with an extra wrinkle thrown in. This wrinkle, Paul, finds himself drawn to the new family he never knew he had and never knew he wanted, and upends the lives led by Nic and Jules' family in a number of ways.

This isn't a film that seeks to preach the virtue or non-virtue of gay parenthood or tout a particular viewpoint from its soapbox - this is a film that is about people and family first, on an individual basis. The balance between comedy and drama is nearly perfectly tiptoed, with the sometimes heavy narrative never weighing down the overall feel of the picture, yet the necessary gravitas never leaves either.

Led by a number of pitch-perfect performances from Bening, Moore, and especially Ruffalo, who will probably see a Best Supporting nom for his turn as the alternative new-age Paul, this film rises far above what could have been straight from the headlines schlock and becomes a touching story about a family of individuals, who love, fight, betray, laugh and cry the same as everyone. The relationship between everyone is nuanced, believable and often touching - feeling completely authentic and yet highly entertaining - an often difficult balance to strike.

Come for the performances, stay for the funny, yet touching take on the American family, an infinitely diverse institution.

8.4/10

LeBron, The Mothership, Sports Incest and the end of society.

2010-08-01T23:15:00.002-04:00

This post has been a while coming (well, basically a month now), but honestly, it took some stewing, research, and realizations to bring this post from seed to flowering plant of bitterness and disgust that it is. The whole nonsense that was "The Decision" and LeBron's callousness to everyone that wasn't LeBron, and the mainstream sports media's non-response for what were clearly the actions of a self-centered man-child without regard or sophistication basically ruined me as a sports fan, and I know I'm not the only one. That's a sad thing, as sports are supposed to be something that gives people hope, that brings people together, that inspires, distracts and unites, not disgusts and betrays. You aren't supposed to come away from sports feeling like you need to scrub yourself down in a hot shower like you just caught a Tijuana donkey show. What happened to what we were? When kids grew up dreaming of hitting the winning shot for their hometown team and loyalty trumped all? When pride and honor trumped titles, riches and status? When did athletes become corporate raiders and pirates? Sure, there's been a certain element of it ever since the onset of free-agency, but not until "The Decision" did it all become painfully clear, that the entire sports establishment cares nothing for fans or the cities that heap adoration on these young men treated as gods, but rather cares only for the almighty dollar. There's something tragic about that. Sports stars are treated differently from CEOs and politicians. Walk into the bedroom of 99% of boys 5-15 across the country and you'll find jerseys, posters, video games, autographed memorabilia, bedsheets, clothes, hats, etc of their favorite sports stars. Sports stars are beloved in a way no other public figures really are - and to display the kind of callous disregard of what sports mean is to betray an entire worldview and way of life really. No matter how true that worldview ever truly was, the illusion of it fulfilled something meaningful in our present society, where very little has meaning or value, especially for the youngest of us. That is a truly sad thing, friends.

I mean, there aren't a lot of heroes to be had today. Sports is the last bastion of heroes.. and our sports stars are proving to just plain and simply not be up to the challenge. Heroes are loyal. Heroes stand by to the bitter end and fight to the last. Heroes don't quit when the going gets tough. Heroes fight and inspire. Brett Favre? Not a hero. LeBron James? Psh. How many heroes are left? Peyton Manning. Albert Pujols. Tom Brady. Kobe Bryant? Maybe. But heroes don't rape people. That's a pretty short list of heroes, and that's pretty fucking sad. Maybe the saddest thing of all is LeBron is a goofy ass kid who's being used and manipulated by people who purportedly are his friends but are really hooked on to the gravy train. If and when he ever gains the self awareness to realize what he had and where it went, he'll (hopefully and understandably) be furious. Hometown guy takes title-starved town back to glory? They don't write better stories than that. LeBron threw it away, for what? To be perceived as the 2nd guy and join a Svengali figure who may or may not have a red parrot voiced by Gilbert Godfrey in his office? And THIS is the guy who was the center of a Nike ad all but portraying him as Christ? John Wayne would punch LeBron in the face and spit on him while Bron cried for his paid security to come protect him.

When someone does something so callous and truly contrary to the established values of a society that he immediately goes from widely beloved to widely loathed by the public that cares about such things, the role of the media in such a circumstance should be to call it down the middle and roast that guy on a spit. This is what would happen to any other figure in any other field that had such an epic fall from grace. See: Edwards, John, Cruise, Tom for examples. The problem is that the sports media has become so centralized in one entity, which has in turn become populated by insiders and people trying to get back into the business and thus unwilling or unable to piss off important people in the sports on which they report that the media has become unreliable and an ineffective source of information. ESPN has spent the last 15 years destroying all other sports media, to such an extent that it has no real competition as a source of sports information. This would in and of itself not be a problem, the problem is that "the mothership" has spent the last 5 or 6 years hiring players that have JUST retired, coaches that have JUST been fired, and GMs who are still looking to get back into the game. Since Sean Salisbury and Harold Reynolds were both fired, the quality of reporting on ESPN has been in a steady downward spiral. Bill Simmons is probably the most honest voice left on ESPN, and that guy thinks comparing sports figures to "Teen Wolf" is valuable and worthwhile. How worthwhile would CNN's reporting on politics be if everyone reporting was just out of congress, and wouldn't mind getting back in? How much apology, sympathy and downright jerking off would be on CNN and how little actual critical reporting?

You simply cannot staff your entire organization with nothing but insiders with limited journalistic credentials and expect your reporting to be worthwhile. That's just a fact, and it should be common sense. In addition, when your organization invests heavily in the rights to air contests featuring the individuals you're supposed to be criticizing (check out ESPN's contracts with the NBA, NFL, College FB and MLB if you don't believe me), said organization cannot be trusted to accurately report on and perform the necessary function of media for the individuals and leagues in question. The LeBron thing finally pulled back the curtain on the whole bloated, pathetic charade that is ESPN, and the wizard back there is a pisspoor journalist. The response on the ESPN family of networks and reporters could not have been more out of step with public sentiment. Add that to the fact that the Bristol, Connecticut based organization would have you believe that the sports world runs exclusively in the Boston-DC corridor and no athlete or team outside of a major market has any value, and ESPN is basically a Hearst-esque yellow journalism haven that promotes what it wants to promote and protects its investments rather than actually criticizing, reporting and questioning.

That is, and should be, unforgivable. The American public should demand more. I certainly do. I will watch actual games broadcast on ESPN, but there will be no more Sportscenter, no more PTI, no more Around the Horn, no more NFL Live, Baseball Tonight, etc. I refuse to be part of the problem. This changes today - I demand more from something I spend so much time caring about. We need to hold our athletes and our networks accountable. As the consumer, power ultimately lies with all of us. We all know that LeBron's action was what a spoiled child would do, and the way he did his hometown was what someone who keeps heads in a freezer in his basement would do, and the way ESPN handled it was equivalent to Fox News' apologies for Iraq and MSNBC's coddling of Obama. Fortunately, no one takes Fox News or MSNBC seriously (at least no one with an IQ over 90), so why would anyone take ESPN seriously? We can only hope and pray that "The Decision" sounded the death knell for asshole athletes and bloated joke networks alike. My fingers are certainly crossed. Who's tuning into the Dan Patrick show with me tomorrow? Yahoo sports it is.

2010: The Year in Film: Cyrus Review

2010-08-01T14:35:00.000-04:00

See, it's not all mainstream blockbusters and CGI effects-fests over here, we've got room for the little guys too. Our next entry to the list is a quaint, funny yet sweet indie flick, focusing, like so much of indie cinema does, on the American family in its various incarnations. This movie is really small in scope, and there's something sweet and endearing about that. Is it a comedy? Is it a drama? Yes? The entire action involves 5 named characters and occurs in about 6 locations I can recall. This state of affairs puts a lot of pressure on the writers and cast, as without everyone on their A-game, this kind of movie can fall flat on it's face. Luckily for me, audiences, and this movie, this skilled cast is more than up to the challenge. I've been a John C. Reilly fan since his turn as "Happy" Jack Mulraney, the crooked constable in "Gangs of New York", I think he's really come into his own as an actor who can pull off both ass-clownery (see Talladega Nights, Walk Hard), and something a bit more serious. Marissa Tomei has come a long way since she was the widely proclaimed "worst ever" actress to win an oscar, absolutely killing it in 2008's "The Wrestler". Jonah Hill, well, I earnestly believe he's the funniest actor to come out of the whole "Judd Apatow" school of films, and I'll argue that with anyone who'd like to. Indie movie darling Catherine Keener (she's in 95% of the indie movies I've seen over the past 5 years, true story) has more than proven her ability to do drama with that touch of comedy. So what we have here is the solid base for an enjoyable little movie.

John, (John C Reilly) finds himself in an existential funk, unable to move on 7 years after divorcing his ex-wife (Catherine Keener), with whom he remains close. His ex and her new fiancee goad John into getting out of the house and meeting people, which he finally agrees to after some prodding. After going to a party, he hits it off with a seemingly perfect woman, Molly (Tomei). After a brief dating period, he and Molly become more and more serious, but something gets in the way - Molly's coddled, maladjusted 21 year old son, Cyrus. Molly and Cyrus' relationship borders on the absurd, and Jonah Hill relishes living it up as the bizarre, often ridiculous, but also tragic man-child who really is just afraid of losing his mother. A rivalry develops between Cyrus and John, with results that alternate between hilarious and tragic. There are no heroes here, no villains, just people.. all flawed in kind.

This is a movie that on the strength of its cast, rises to be more than what the sum of its parts would appear to be. Funny yet sweet, smart yet simple, it's a little piece of Americana, that, like most art, says so much more about who we are as people than any "study" or essay ever could. I thoroughly enjoyed this little flick - and I think most of you will too.

7.5/10.

2010: The Year in Film: Inception Review

2010-07-14T22:45:00.007-04:00

The most eagerly awaited movie (by me and most people whose opinion I would trust..) of the summer, and maybe the year is upon us, and let me be among the first to say it does not disappoint. Via some Prop Joe type scheming by one BD, several of us scored passes to an advance screening of "Inception" on Monday night. Yes, I was incredibly pumped, and was completely glued to the screen for the entire runtime. Christopher Nolan is one of the most gifted and original talents in Hollywood today, and in much the same way as James Cameron saved 2009 by bringing in a breath of cinematic fresh air and reminding so many of us why we love movies, Chris Nolan is seeking to do the same thing for 2010. This is a blockbuster for the mensa crowd, if such a thing is possible - and only the man who resurrected Batman and brought us two of the 3 or 4 best comic book movies of all time could be given this kind of budget and trust by a studio to make such an ambitious, massive and ultimately rewarding spectacle. Chris Nolan has dealt over and over with altered states of reality, what our perception of that reality can mean for the individuals affected, and unique narrative structures that are truly experiences for the audiences. In much the same way that "The Prestige" unfolds much like a magic trick, Inception unfolds like an intricate maze or puzzle, one whose interlocking parts prop it up. If you pulled one thread it would all unravel, but therein lies the beauty of it all - the intricate, layered narrative unfolds perfectly and results in a truly unique, incredible experience, possibly unlike anything I've ever seen in a theater.

This movie is basically impossible to describe - it needs to be seen to truly be understood, I can't wait to see it again so I can finally get my mind around it. But here's a start - basically, the film deals with a new kind of espionage, one in which people enter dreams in order to steal ideas from an individual's subconscious. These intruders are not welcome in an individual's subconscious, which can turn hostile if their presence is too overt. Inception is part spy movie, with the intrigue, exotic locales and backroom deals, part heist flick, with the "assembling the team" scenes and unique skills, and part sci-fi Matrix-esque exploration of consciousness. Immaculately written, constructed and shot - this is a film made by incredibly skilled and competent people. Every single shot looks incredible and very real - even if that shot is a huge skyline collapsing into the sea or Paris folding over on itself. As the characters enter peoples' dreams, it becomes difficult for them, and for the viewer, to discern between the dreams, and the eerie sense of "what is reality?" pervades the whole endeavor.

The acting is more than strong. Leo is showing why he's hands down the best actor under 40 in Hollywood, his sense of pain, anxiety and dread perfectly tinges the entire picture, Joseph Gordon-Levitt is coming into his own, Ellen Page is going to be a hell of an actress, Marion Cotillard is enchanting, Ken Watanabe is one of the more understated actors working today, Tom Hardy is strong, and Cillian Murphy is great as the "mark" - if I have one cast-related complaint, it's that we could have used more Michael Caine, but hey - the guy is a favorite of mine.

I have minor complaints, but just three of them - 1.) the film slightly drags towards the very end, 2.) not enough michael caine, 3.) sometimes the action feels needlessly over the top. Those are seriously my only complaints. Those are legitimately my only criticisms, and yes - they are extremely minor

This is not a lighthearted fun popcorn flick. This is a heady, brilliant, complex film that has a lot to say and says it in truly remarkable fashion. Everyone involved is on the top of their games here. Immaculately shot, outstanding, ground breaking writing, great acting by an outstanding, clearly motivated cast and a truly original and intelligent story - such a rare thing among big-budget hollywood flicks today. I feel like this review hasn't done it justice - but once you see it you'll understand, it is truly hard to put into words - I have two options, either type 5000 words and completely outline the plot while spoiling everything, or stay frustratingly vague like I am right now and just recommend the flick as strongly as I can. I can say without hesitation that this is absolutely the best movie of the year, is probably Nolan's best (no small order), and is quite possibly the best movie I've ever seen in the theater. I cannot (literally cannot) wait until I see it again, and am telling you, if you care about movies at all, go and see this one.

I'm tentatively giving this one a 9.2, and you'd better believe when I do the "Best of the Decade" list for '10-'20, this one will be right there. This, folks, is why I love the movies. Thanks, Chris Nolan, for giving a damn, and having the courage to make this kind of movie when it would have been easier to just jump right into Batman 3. I truly appreciate it.

9.2/10

2010: The Year in Film: Predators Review

2010-07-14T21:39:00.003-04:00

1987's "Predator" is an all-time guy movie classic, one of those movies that basically spawned an entire genre and remains legendary among fans and industry types alike. The original takes place in the dense, inhospitable jungle of Costa Rica and follows an American special forces team sent to rescue some VIPs who went missing in an area overrun by rebels. In this jungle, they find a lot more than they bargained for as a deadly alien hunter who hunts men for sport is hot on their trail. The original epic spawned a sequel where the Predator took to the streets of Los Angeles, and a rather unfortunate crossover series with Fox's Alien franchise. It took 23 years for the Predator series to return to its jungle roots - a setting that is perfect for sci-fi/horror. I am a huge fan of the original, and have been excited about this one since seeing the talent behind it. This is a pretty stacked cast - Adrian Brody, Lawrence Fishburne, Topher Grace and Danny Trejo are the highlights. Robert Rodriguez EPs. Count me in.

The first hour or so of this movie is incredible. It opens up gangbusters and doesn't let up for quite some time. The tension is palpable, and it really keeps you on the edge of your seat. You're right there with the characters as they try to unravel just what the hell is going on. The film opens with Adrian Brody in free-fall, his shoot opens, but not high enough to prevent him from taking a pretty rough fall. As he struggles to find his bearings, he discovers other humans are dropping all around him. Gradually, our merry band discovers that they are all elite warriors and killers in their own right, and they have been brought to an alien world/game preserve as quarry for a group of Predators on a hunting excursion. The film quickly becomes a struggle for survival, as the Predators take apart the human survivors 1 by 1.

Is this a perfect film? By all accounts, no. However, it is a damn good time and a worthy sequel to the 1987 classic. The film ultimately fails to live up to the promise of its first hour, as by the end it devolves into rather standard fare chase-horror. That is not to say it isn't well done however. The film looks great, hard to believe it was made for only $40 million. Brody and the rest of the cast are strong (of particular note is Walton "Shane from the Shield" Goggins), and do a hell of a job selling what could potentially be a preposterous premise. I do have criticisms - one is that Brody is acting a whole hell of a lot tougher than he looks or could possibly be - another is that the characters make rather large leaps in understanding that don't seem possible given the information given to them. Granted, I understand that these are necessary to further the plot, but they seem a bit off-putting. That being said, this flick is a whole hell of a lot stronger than any Predator film since the original and well worth your time if you're a fan of the sci-fi/horror sub-genre. It's a can't miss if you're a fan of the Predator series, and one of the better flicks I've seen this summer. 7/10.