StumpTown Entertainment

Suspended Animation

2008-02-04T23:35:00.000-08:00

If you've found this blog, one of the first things that you might notice is that this is the first post in about 7 months and there isn't anything after it. I tried to do 3 blogs and I don't even have time for one. So, this one got cut first. If you like the reviews though, I now talk about the entertainment stuff along with everything else in my life over on my main blog at www.stumpedblog.blogspot.com.

Some overdue movie thoughts

2007-06-14T11:25:00.000-07:00

Time to catch up on some entertainment stuff. I’ve seen a bunch of stuff that I feel I must comment on, even though I don’t have time to do full reviews.

In no particular order….

Stranger Than Fiction – I saw this on DVD a couple weeks ago after missing it in the theater. Very good movie. I enjoyed it more and more as it went along and continued liking it even more the more I thought about. I should really try to use the word “more” more. I suppose this is Will Ferrell’s Truman Show, but it is a much better movie and Ferrell is still funny. Maggie Gyllenhal (or however you spell that) stole the show though. I really like her. Just someone who is fun to watch. I think she’s kind of a punk young Meg Ryan. The movie is weird so if you don’t like weird in your movies I’m sad for you, but you shouldn’t bother with this one. It isn’t “Being John Malkovich” weird or “I Heart Huckabees” weird, but it does play fast and loose with reality and provides you no explanation in a sort of Kafkaish way. In fact, it is really pretty Kafka like, just not as harsh as something like The Trial. Dustin Hoffman was just a distraction. Man has he gone down hill. Too bad. I’d love to write a script for him and Pacino and make them play characters that are totally flat and straight just to remind them it is possible. Anyway, you should see Stranger Than Fiction. It is one of the best movies I have seen this year, though admittedly that isn’t saying all that much.

Rocky Balboa – Big shock, it was bad. I know you’re reeling from that news, but it had to be said. I really enjoyed the first 4 Rockys. They were flawed and silly and appealed mostly to those younger than 18, but I was flawed and silly and younger than 18 and so I enjoyed them. There is no such thing as Rocky 5. It never happened. I don’t know why people keep insisting to the contrary. Rocky Balboa was actually fairly well received by critics and fans alike. I have a theory about this (no way). I think they were just cringing so much at the idea that this movie was even made, that they just hoped it wouldn’t be so overwhelmingly embarrassing that it would spoil the whole franchise once and for all. Then when it wasn’t that bad, they all hailed it as worthy of being in the same family as the first movie. Well, it wasn’t as bad as you might expect, but it was still really, really, really bad. Not since “The Mummy” has there been a movie where I found myself asking this much, “was that supposed to be funny?” Stallone has had so much work done that he looks like a creepy wax replica of himself. The characters and plot lines dance between outrageously far fetched, boringly predictable and just inane. The worst thing about it though was how bad the boxing scene was. It was the worst choreographed climactic fight scene I’ve seen in a decade. Just awful. If it weren’t for the fact that I have seen Stallone at plenty of boxing matches, I would swear he had never even seen one. Shamefully unrealistic in every conceivable way. You should not waste your time with this movie.

Just started watching the most recent season of the Sopranos that is currently out on DVD. Great show, but I’m 3 episodes in and already very ready for Tony to get out of the hospital. That whole coma dream sequence sucked the life out of the show. Glad it appears to be coming to an end. By the way, if anyone posts spoilers here about the last season, I’m sending Paulie and his goons to find you.

Watched the first episode of the first season of “The Wire” last night. Tons of people have been raving about the show, but I’ve managed to miss it. Very promising. I liked it a lot. Almost spooky in how real it seemed. Looking forward to filling the Summer TV doldrums with all 3 seasons of The Wire, the 6th season of Sopranos and the 3rd season of Deadwood, just released. Thank goodness HBO started doing TV.

Spiderman 3 deserves a full review, but time doesn’t allow and now I’m over it anyway. But my take is that it is by far the worst of the 3 and was really quite disappointing. Too many villains/storylines and too little wow factor in the battle scenes. Nothing in 3 touched the train or building fight with Doc Oc in the second movie. Great effects and it wasn’t terrible, but not that great.

Shrek 3 – Same as Spiderman. Not awful, just not nearly as good as the first 2. We rewatched part of the first Shrek on cable the other night and it was so good it really showed how far they’ve fallen in the 3rd one. My boys still liked it and it was OK, but a significant step down. The 3rd movie in a trilogy is just so hard to do well. Hope they do better with Bourne Supremacy later this year.

Ok, that’s all I’ve got for now.

TV Update

2007-03-30T11:15:00.000-07:00

I’ve posted a new movie review for the 300 below in case you haven’t checked in a while and don’t scroll down.

Here’s a quick note about some new TV shows

I’m now Tivo’ing a couple new TV shows. One is Raines starring the very talented Jeff Goldblum in a surprising move from Movies to TV. He plays a detective that sees his cases’ victims as hallucinations and solves his cases by getting to know them and watching his hallucinations change. Basically it is your standard cop/mystery show with the hallucinations as the only differentiating angle. Goldblum is very good. Like James Woods in Shark, it is amazing how a single actor can so dramatically affect how good the show is. That said, I don’t think Goldblum is enough. The show is just the same old mystery show we’ve all seen a thousand times or more. The only part of the show that stands out is the 3 minutes of dialogue per episode where Goldblum is humorously insulting to a fellow officer. That’s not enough. I’m giving it one more episode to change my mind and then it’s getting the axe.

The other show is the USA or is it FX…not sure…show (if I had wifi here where I’m typing I would look it up, but oh well) titled “The Riches.” Eddie Izzard and Minnie Driver play modern American Gypsies that steal the identities and lives of a wealthy family and try to pull off faking their way through these other people’s lives. It is pretty raw with some shocking violence and drug use, but it is also very smart and so far quite entertaining. The stars are great, the plots are real and engaging. So far I like it. It’s tough to watch sometimes, but worth it so far.

Oh wait, there’s another one I almost forgot. I’m also watching “The Black Donnelly’s” which I think is on NBC. It’s about 4 Irish brothers in….Boston…I think or is it NY? I can’t remember. Anyway, they are a poor family trying to maneuver through the mob and the neighborhood. It is really good. The main brothers is the perfect combo of sweet and duty-bound, cold strength. He’s clearly ripping off Michael Corleone, but that’s forgivable. This show appears to be a keeper so, of course, it will not be renewed for next year.

The 300 as told by a 13 year old

2007-03-30T11:08:00.000-07:00

Wow it has been along time since I posted here. What’s up with that? Another dry run like that and I may have to fire myself. So now that I’m finally posting, I’ll try to get down as much as possible.

I have to start with a review of the movie I saw last night, “The 300”. I’m going to abandon my current movie review form and just hit the points that jumped out at me after seeing the movie.

The movie is about a single battle where “history” tells us 300 Spartans stood against the Persian army in a move that went a long ways toward unifying Greece and holding off the Persians.

First, I think your expectations are always important when you go in to see a movie. Your expectations and your mood (also affected by things like who you are watching with, whether you found parking near the theater, what you ate for dinner, whether you got fresh popcorn, whether you are just a grumpy person in general and many other factors) is like a surface ready to be painted. Sometimes you go into a movie as a blank canvas stretched and ready to absorb the paint with any direction a possibility. Sometimes you go in as a greasy old piece of furniture picked up at a flea market that “will look great with just a little paint” only to discover that the surface seems completely resistant to holding any kind of paint whatsoever. Your mood can make you hate or like the same movie and expectations are a big part of that.

I had seen tons of previews for The 300. They have been pushing that movie at us for months and it is so distinctive in its look that it catches your eye and makes you watch. And I read many reviews, including a great one in the NY Times that is worth reading if you are so inclined. In fact it is worth reading even if you are not so inclined. You should really be inclined.

Anyway, I knew what this movie was going to be. I checked out the graphic novel. I’ve seen other Frank Miller films. I’ve seen enough movies to recognize from the previews what kind of movie it was, so I knew what it would be. I knew the plot would be very thin, the dialogue would be forced and over dramatic and, if everything went well, it would be visually dazzling and provide some great, memorable battle scenes. This is, afterall, an adult comic book come to life in vivid CGI. If you go into a movie like this expecting brilliant writing and a compelling story with ups and downs and plot twists, then you are going to be sorely disappointed and, frankly, it will be your own fault for not going in with reasonable expectations. If you don’t like movies with little to no plot or character development, no commentaries on relationships or modern existential angst, then please do not see this movie.

If, however, you like a good visual show, and long for Mountain Dew to start adding straight testosterone to a new drink offering, then you may want to check this movie out.

As it turns out, this movie was not written and directed by a 13 year old Spartan boy who lived at the time the movie was set. But if it had been there wouldn’t be a single change. This movie was not smart. It was not clever. The dialogue was so bad and such a watered down version of already marginal writing from movies like Gladiator and Braveheart that it was almost hard to listen to sometimes. But that wasn’t my entire point in saying it could have been written by a 13 year old Spartan boy.
The movie wasn’t so much a historical rendering of a real battle, but a melodramatic, over-blown, mythic account of an important moment for Greece and Greek people. This was presented as a Spartan myth. The point was not historical accuracy and I don’t believe the point could have been telling a good story. It was as if the point was to demonstrate and glorify the important values of ancient Sparta. I mean, I’m guessing an ancient Spartan would have loved this movie. It romanticized strength, duty, loyalty, honor, bravery and success in battle and nothing else. If you’ve studied much world history, you know that is what Sparta was really about. This movie did not try to depict Sparta as it actually was, but rather how they would have liked to see themselves.

Of course, that all makes me wonder who the target audience of this film is since, as far as I know, there are no living ancient Spartans. But there are men. And a majority of men and a handful of women have the Spartan gene. There is something inherent in many, if not most men, that will connect to this movie. It is an important part of my “cave man” theory that explains most human behavior (at least in my own mind), but I’ll have to leave that for another post, or book or something. Basically, there is something in us that once allowed us to be great warriors that yearns to prove ourselves physically and against a foe. This is still in us and the more our society pushes that impulse to the margin, the more we enjoy football and movies like this so that we can live vicariously for a moment through our heroes and try to convince ourselves that we could still be brave warriors ourselves if we were called to be.

Given that internal drive, this movie works on a certain level. It taps into that as directly as any movie I have ever seen. This is a masculine, manly movie in the extreme. Not saying women won’t enjoy it, just that it is about manliness and nothing else.

I very much enjoyed the stunning visuals from this movie. Movies that are heavy on the visuals have come to be called “eye candy” and this is like a Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory for the eye. It is beautiful and disturbing. It forces you to look, sometimes against your will. It is hypnotic. The greeks look like statues come to life. The villains have beautiful robes and capes and masks and weapons, the action moves at different speeds, the shots are never the expected, never the things you’ve seen before. It is impressive. Elephants fall off cliffs, thousands of arrow’s blacken the sky, ships are broken in a furious ocean and it all looks amazing.

Back to the 13 year old for a minute, all the bad-guys (the army of king Xerxes and Xerxes himself) were all way over-done. They weren’t real, they were what a 13 year old Spartan would imagine them being if his father had survived the battle and came back to describe it. It wasn’t literal, but an imagining of what would have been feared by a Greek facing the unknown armies of the unknown world. That’s fine and all and made for some interesting things to see, but nothing about it is real. For example, there is one scene where the king of Sparta had to scale a treacherous cliff up to consult some creepy priests and a dancing girl. He is in tremendous shape and barely makes the climb. After that you see a hugely overweight Persian guy on the same hill. How did he get up there? How do they bring the young dancing girls up there? It makes no sense. But if you’re 13, you just don’t think of stuff like that. Of course, the writer/director isn’t 13 and neither are most of the people seeing this movie, but let’s just move past that. The point is that if imagination over reality is fine with you, then great. If you need to see something real to enjoy it, take a pass on this one.

So, here are the other things I liked:

The guy who played Leonitis. Captured it perfectly.

The scene where they kick the Persian messengers into that big well/hole/whatever it was.

The queen. She was strong without being obnoxious. She was loyal and fierce in defense of her family and country and had the right look as well.

The battle scenes…of course. Good stuff. A little gruesome, but so stylized it didn’t turn my stomach like Saving Private Ryan or something like that.

The scope. The scope of this movie was about one battle and one group of men from Sparta and nothing else. It didn’t make other points or try to tell the entire story of world politics of the time. And that was good.

Here are some things I didn’t like:

The narrator. Ugh. This was so bad it came close to ruining the whole movie. It told you waaaaay too much and for a movie so much about someone else’s imagination, it ironically refused to leave anything to the viewers’. Just a terribly bad cop out. I hated it. I can’t say it strongly enough. Let’s move on.

The dialogue. I wasn’t expecting much, but even with low expectations it was bad. I mean if Deadwood has taught us anything, it is that you can take a crass, primitive setting and still supply engaging and clever dialogue. The makers of this movie, do not understand this.

The political side/story – This generally made no sense, did not add anything to the movie and was at best a distraction and at worst made me want to hum and cover my ears and hide my eyes until the terribly forced and idiotic scenes were over.

The stealing – This movie stole shamefully from Lord of the Rings and Gladiator. What’s with the scenes in the wheat fields? Did they not see Gladiator? Did they think we just wouldn’t notice? Sheesh.

In the end, I enjoyed the movie, but was disappointed. Not in what it was, but because of what it could have been. It wasn’t that it failed to meet my expectations, it was that it could have been so much better with just a few changes. Some improved writing and just getting rid of the narrator would have made this movie an instant re-watchable classic along the lines of Desperado. But it didn’t get there. I had a good time watching and I think it really captured what it set out to do, but it could have been better and won’t be for everyone.

If you want to know whether you should see it and still can’t tell, here’s a few other comments. It is extremely violent and has some disturbing violent images. There is nothing at all to this movie other than the fighting. It is not like Gladiator, where there was a personal journey and some character development and political intrigue and, you know, story. It is just about the manly violence. That’s it. Really.

Bond.....James Bond

2007-02-06T16:43:00.000-08:00

I have to begin this review by saying that I love James Bond movies. Love them. The great acting, the great writing, the originality and gritty realism of the story lines, the positive moral lessons, the penetrating political commentary, it has it all. Actually, when you think about it, you have to wonder why anyone still watches these movies. If you’ve read anything I’ve written here or elsewhere, you have likely heard me blast the American movie/TV watching audience as it constantly rejects quality and embraces the muck that usually gets churned out of Hollywood and TV land these days. But this is one instance where I am happy for that tendency. You see, I know the Bond movies are bad. I know they have nearly none of the characteristics of good movie making. I know my defense and praise of them makes me a hypocrite as I usually trash movies like this, but I also know that I rarely have as much fun at the movies as I do when a new Bond film comes out.

(TANGENT ALERT, TANGENT ALERT: why is there no “Hollywood” for TV? I mean when we want to refer to the movie industry by shorthand we refer to the whole industry as “Hollywood” in much the same way I did in the prior paragraph. But what is it for TV? Is there no street or studio or area in NY or LA that could be a shorthand for TV? Surely there is. There must be. I suggest we convene a congressional committee to investigate this immediately.)

My love for the Bond movies is deep seeded. Growing up I often suffered the education of my Father’s rather sophisticated taste in cinematic entertainment. My Dad’s choice in TV shows and movies has always been interesting and insightful, but as a child, I didn’t want interesting and insightful, I wanted fun. I didn’t want subtitles or symbolism. I didn’t want poignant or moving or gut wrenching. I wanted fun or funny or both. It was the same with food. My Dad wanted pickled beats and stewed tomatoes. I wanted tacos. My Dad wanted stir-fry. I wanted Tacos. My Dad wanted variety and interesting flavors. I wanted TACOS!!! I wanted the 6 Million Dollar Man and Tacos. My Dad would have none of it.

But when my Dad was traveling, my Mom would make a big mess of tacos and we would sit down and watch James Bond together. It was a great way to distract ourselves from missing having Dad there (which we always did a lot) and since my Dad liked Bond about as much as SPECTRE does, and doesn’t consider tacos an actual meal, these times with my Mom always felt like we were getting away with something. And as a kid, that was pretty cool.

Now, like in other things, I’m a mix of my Mom and Dad. I like symbolism and subtitles and rarely eat Tacos. But I still love Bond.

Of course, as similar as they all are, not all Bond movies are created equal. For me, “For Your Eyes Only” has always been my favorite, though “Goldfinger”, “Octupussy” and “The Man with the Golden Gun” were also right up there. As a kid, I loved Moonraker mostly because of “Jaws” and his metal teeth. But when you start out liking a movie franchise, and then they actually make a good movie, that is a real treat.

That’s what happened with Casino Royale. Not only is this a good Bond movie, this is a good movie. Not good like the Godfather or American Beauty, but as action movies go, this is a good one.

What’s to like

With this franchise, the first really big question for this movie is “how is the new Bond?” There have been, as I’m sure you know, 5 different actors who played Bond before the new Bond Daniel Craig (star of the very underrated Layer Cake). The franchise started with Sean Connery who will always define the character. He is the standard by which any other bond is judged and now has the Citizen Kane mystique that assures there will never be another Bond considered anything better than the second best Bond because Connery is the man, whether he really is or not, in the minds of movie fans. And, really, it’s hard to argue. When you go back and watch him in the early movies, you are reminded that no one pulls off misogynistic charm like Connery did. He is a man’s man in a perfect suit and car and you can’t imagine him not getting whatever or whomever he goes after.

I grew up on Roger Moore who was fine, but not nearly as good. Some of his movies are better and certainly flashier, but he never pulled off the character like Connery.

George Lazenby was only in one movie and for good reason. He was bad and the movie was such a departure from other Bond movies, that he was doomed from the start.

When Moore and Connery were finally too old (and this happened a good decade after Connery was much too old) for the role, the franchise was given a gift. There was a perfect actor to play the part. He had the look, the accent, and the characters he played were more Bond than Bond at times. Pierce Brosnan was born to play Bond. He could have been a bit more masculine at times, but other than that he was about perfect. But NBC had other ideas. They didn’t want to loose Remington Steele in which Pierce was starring, so they refused to allow him out of his contract to do Bond. The studio went with Timoth Dalton instead and NBC promptly dumped Steele. Nice.

So, Bond fans had to endure 2 films with Dalton as Bond. He’s not a bad actor and the movies he made were actually pretty good. But he just wasn’t Bond like.

Eventually, Dalton was killing the franchise and they had to make another change. Pierce was available now and still young enough, but the movie makers needed to breathe new life into the franchise. Would the guy who seemed to be the natural for the role be enough to bring it back? They actually toyed with bringing in Sharon Stone to be Jane Bond or even someone like Denzel Washington to completely change the look and feel.

Mercifully, in the end they decided to go with Pierce. Unfortunately, they didn’t give him much to work with. The movies were pretty underwhelming and they started simply trying to outdo the last one made. Bigger explosions, more outrageous characters, more obvious double entendres and everything became more and more in your face until the movies were incredibly cartoonish. They stood out more than ever from other action movies because many action movies, the good ones at least, were continuing to push the boundaries. They were mixing up the look and feel constantly and Bond just kept riding the form over substance until the Bond experience was so terribly predictable and corny, even big fans like me lost some of that lovin’ feeling.

Then Pierce pulled out or got fired or whatever and Craig was brought in. Blonde haired, blue eyed, rough looking, he had none of the smooth, dark, look or charm as the prior Bonds who practically all could have been related. Bond fans were skeptical. Then he admitted he couldn’t swim. Then he had some mishaps during some publicity for the movie. All in all, he started to come across like a major weenie. Not a good rep for someone set to play the world’s most invincible super spy.

And, if the Bond folks had simply made the same kind of movie they had been making and stuck Craig into the role, I’m guessing he would have been the second coming of Lazenby and would have failed badly and ended his run at one movie.

Instead, the franchise started over. The movie tells the story as if it is Bond’s first mission and shows him first becoming a double-O. The look and feel are different without being totally different and the whole thing worked. Craig was good, the story was scaled down and most of the cartoonishness was abandoned.

I really liked the look and feel of this movie which I will discuss in more detail later.

I liked the night chase scene near the end.

I also liked the scaled down story. Most recently, all the movies are basically about some uber-bad guy seeking world domination. That’s fine and all, but they had reached a point where they couldn’t outdo themselves. So, instead they simplified and gave us a wealthy, evil middle-man. He’s not seeking to conquer the world, but is very bad and, of course, is a terrorist seeking personal gain. He’s bad enough and the plot is big enough to explain why a secret agent is involved, but small enough that you could enjoy the tension of a poker game without their being a nuclear warhead or giant laser pointing at a beautiful young woman hostage.

I really liked the movie’s opening sequence. It set the tone for the whole movie. It was darker and more serious than earlier films and came right out of the gate saying this was going to be a different sort of Bond film.

Great, great chase scene on foot at the beginning of the movie. Bond chases a guy who appears to be a cross between Jackie Chan and Reggie Bush and has some fantastic, if not believable, sequences. Good, good stuff.

This Bond was tough. Much tougher than Brosnan. He wasn’t doing outrageous wire-fu or anything so the fight scenes seemed more real and you believe that this Bond, unlike any in the past with the possible exception of Connery, might actually be able to win a fight.

I liked the more graphic violence. I know that’s a weird thing to say. I’m not a violence junky by any stretch, but the movie benefited from a more gritty real feel.

I liked his car…of course.

I liked the opening credits – not just one strange sexual reference after another.

What I could have done without

Where was Q branch? I know it is usually comic relief and this movie was going for more real and less hokie, but I missed Q and the gadgets. Not much in the way of super spy gadgets which has always been one of my favorite things, and no Q at all. Too bad. And now I hear the next movie won’t have them either.

Why does Craig walk that way? He holds his arms like his biceps and triceps are 10 times bigger than they are and swings his shoulders like he’s carrying a large 2x4 across them and is trying to smack something with each end with every step. Especially when he’s coming out of the water in his swimsuit (I prefer Halle Berry thank you), he just looked ridiculous.

Speaking of Halle, the Bond girls weren’t pretty. They weren’t particularly good actresses and weren’t called on to do much acting, so why not go pretty here. I mean, that’s a big part of these movies, and these girls just did not live up to the standard. Just confusing more than anything else.

I don’t want to spoil anything, but there is a section in the middle of the movie where it shows an extended romance between Bond and a woman. It seems to take about 45 minutes and could have easily been accomplished in 5…or less…it is slow, boring, almost painful. Oh look, they’re kissing on the beach. Now they’re kissing on a boat. Now they’re kissing in their room. Wow, they really like kissing in various locations. I feel like the director is trying to tell me something. You think they might have actual (gasp) feelings toward each other? Maybe it will be clear to me if this only goes on another 30 minutes or so. Oh, look now they’re kissing in a cute little café with sweeping violin music in the background. I hope this goes on forever.

It felt like it did.

I felt like it could have been better if more things had connected. The opening sequence was pure set up. What about her necklace? There were just a number of things that could have tied together to make the whole story a bit more clever.

What you see and hear (this is a new section to say what I thought of the camera/sound stuff) – the cinematography was good. Lots of cameras in strange locations gave some good shots and the editing during the initial chase was perfect. The music and sound was just like every other Bond movie, and frankly, that’s fine. Nothing real noteworthy here.

What’s new

The look and feel as discussed above. The opening sequence is in black and white and features a fight scene in a dirty public bathroom with lots of blood and rather graphic, realistic violence. That’s a complete departure for Bond which has stayed away from anything too dark until now. It appeared that this movie was trying to do for this franchise what Batman Begins did for the Batman franchise. It worked….for both.

What’s the last word

Good ending. Could have gone a bunch of different ways, but it went the right way. Plus when it ends, you’re just glad to stop the romantic music video that has been going on forever.

Who you should bring

Men, mostly, though in my experience women like Bond as well and so I expect they would like this. One word of warning. My parents generation who grew up with Connery and the smooth, light-hearted, inferred violence or glitzy explosion Bond, may not like this new more gritty Bond, and most likely will not appreciate the more graphic violence. So even though I grew up watching these movies with my Mom, I’m not sure I would recommend it to her.

Where you should watch

You need to see this on a big screen. The explosions and chases and action really needs the big screen and sound system.

What’s the couch rating

I saw this with my lovely wife and she liked it. In fact, as Bond movies go, I think she liked it quite a bit. That said, that long “we’re so in love” scene(s) might have put her to sleep if we were home. Probably not though. I’m betting she would have made it through this one.

What my gut tells me

I came out pretty pumped up about it. I was not only excited to see it again (which I already have), but I was excited at the direction of the franchise again.

What it’s like – For the reasons I discussed above, it’s like Batman Begins. It is a lot like some of the earlier Bond movies with a modern noir twist.

Where it rates – For Bond movies I give it a 9. For movies in general, probably an 8. worth seeing unless you hate this kind of movie.

Happy Feet

2007-01-27T12:39:00.000-08:00

My oldest son Gibson has loved going to the movies since he was barely 2 years old. Even at that age he had an amazing attention span and ability to sit quietly and still when asked to. We took him to see Finding Nemo and once he got used to the dark and the noise and the spectacle, he was hooked. We’ve never had trouble taking him to movies.

My youngest son Griffin on the other hand, will not sit still…ever….for any reason….no matter what. He just turned 3 and seems to be taking a greater interest in TV and movies so we decided to take him to see Cars a few months back. Great movie which he seemed to enjoy, but it really only held his attention for about 45 minutes. After that, he was much more amused by the fact that his seat flipped up and down and that he was getting to eat candy and should probably ask the others in the theater if they wanted some.

So, it was with some trepidation that I took the boys to see Happy Feet. But several months had passed and with a 2-3 year old he changes dramatically about every 15 minutes. In fact, we practically have to reintroduce ourselves every day when I get home, which he does these days by hiding under the coffee table when I come in and saying “I’m not going to give you a hug.” It warms the heart. Anyway, he seemed to have changed in that he was much more able to watch movies for a longer period of time…or so I thought. Plus, he had somehow become aware of Happy Feet, no doubt because you can not walk 10 steps in suburban America without being blasted by adds for whatever the newest animated kids flick is.

Well, Happy Feet was good, and I think Griffin even liked it, but he’s still not movie ready. I say all of that only to say that even while wrestling a 2 year old and trying to translate some story lines for a 6 year old in a theater filled with noisy young children, I still thought the movie was pretty dang good, and that’s saying something.

But, even though I enjoyed it, what you really need to know is whether its target audience liked it. So, even though my usual crack correspondent team of my son Gibson and his buddy Douglas isn’t available (Douglas hasn’t yet seen it), I’m going to go forward with the up and coming tandem of Gibson and Griffin for this one. As I’ve done once before, I’m going to let them do the review. I will list my responses and then their responses when I asked them questions like, what was the movie about, what was your favorite part, etc.

What it’s about

Josh – This movie is about animated (in every sense) penguins. They all sing. I don’t know if you knew that, but penguins are all great singers favoring primarily American pop songs. They sing to find their soul mates. The details on how that works are a bit fuzzy, but frankly the revelation that all penguins are beautiful singers was stunning enough without learning every nuance of this beautiful mystery of nature. Anyway, the story revolves around a newborn penguin that can not sing. This tragic twist of fate leaves him unable to find his soul mate. Soon he discovers that, while he can’t sing, he can tap dance. As I’m sure you can imagine, hilarity ensues.

Gibson – Its about a little penguin that runs away and tries to find….no wait, backspace all of that…He finds these little penguins that speak espanol. They take him to Lovelace because he doesn’t know people and wants to find them. And while he’s doing that, he gets chased by a leopard seal and then…ummm…ok, that’s all.

Griffin – When that little big egg came out he body, when he walks down a doggy runs and runs faster and faster and that’s all.

What’s to like

Josh – Incrdible animation. Seriously, amazing stuff. Remember how that opening race sequence in Cars looked like they had spliced in some real footage in parts? Well there is a scene in this movie that I seriously could not tell whether I was seeing actual footage of Antarctica or if it was still animated.

The Hispanic accented side characters. Hilarious.

The premise. It’s not the traditional tap-dancing penguin outsider movie. This one really adds some interesting twists on that old genre

The rapping penguin

The seal chase scene. Think you can’t make a seal look mean…think again.

Gibson – When one of the little penguins says “sometimes I trick myself. Oh look up there..aaaaaaaaahhhhhhh!” I think he had orange hair, but I’m not sure.

Griffin – (rapping) “Don’t push me ‘cause I’m close to the edge, we’re tryin’ not to lose our heads.”

What I could have done without

Josh – It was a bit slow at times, especially toward the end. One of the penguins has one of those plastic things that hold a 6 pack together. My Dad for years has cut those things up before throwing them away and lectured me sternly that I should do the same. I couldn’t help but suspect that he found a way to get that added to the movie just to make his point to me.

Gibson – I didn’t like when he got chased by the leopard seal. That was very, very scary.

Griffin – I liked the part when they walked like this (walking like a penguin). Dad: What didn’t you like? Grif: I like the dolphin with his flat belly, the end. Dad: did you like that or was that something you didn’t like? Griff: I like it. Dad: Ok.

What’s new

Josh – well, tap-dancing and singing penguins. That’s new. This really was another step forward in animation. It is pretty fun just to look at.

Gibson – When they ran into the elephant seals

Griffin – I like the elephant was not saying “uuuuunnnnhhhh” (elephant noise)

What’s the last word

Josh – Good ending. Somewhat predictable, but that’s not really a criticism in a kids movie.

Gibson – Good.

Griffin - Good

Who you should bring

Josh – Kids….older than 2. It isn’t terribly scary or hard to follow, so young children will probably enjoy this more than the older ones. It may appear to be a musical and while there is lots of music in it, it isn’t the full on Little Mermaid or anything, so Dad’s might like this one more than the average movie of this type.

Gibson – Douglas, Jake, and …ummm…Lawrence. (Gibson’s friends from Church)

Griffin – Jennifer, Tony and we can have Pizza and have Sprite and that’s all (Tony and Jennifer are Douglas’ parents, so apparently, my boys feel it would be a big hit with them).

Where you should watch

Josh – This is a great movie visually and especially the scenes with the seals and the killer whales will be much better on a big screen. It’s worth the theater prices.

Gibson – In the theater

Griffin – At home downstairs

What’s the couch rating

Josh – Well, we tend not to watch these kinds of movies late at night without the kids, so this hasn’t really been put to the test. That said, my wife would have dug this movie and stayed awake.

Gibson – She wouldn’t fall asleep because she would probably like, Julia the girl penguin.

Griffin – Dad: Do you think Mommy would like it? Grif: Yes. Dad: Do you think she would fall asleep? Griff: Yes.

What my gut tells me

Josh – We all came out tap dancing. You can’t come out of this one feeling bad. If you do, go directly to someone who can prescribe you something.

Gibson – Good

Griffin – What? Good. The end.

What it’s like

Josh – with it’s incorporation of modern pop songs into large musical numbers it is a bit like Moulin Rouge, except not heinous and painful to watch. It is a little irreverent, not as much as Shrek but more than say, finding Nemo.

Gibson – I have not seen any movies like this one.

Griffin – Bruder (Brother) is not sharing my toy.

Where it rates

Josh – For this kind of movie, I would give it an 8. Worth seeing if you have kids.

Gibson – 10, but the chasing by the leopard seals, that part was a 1

Griffin – 1, 2, 4, 6, 13.

The Departed

2006-10-12T17:14:00.000-07:00

Personally, I think the whole movie industry is just a big scam. I refuse to believe that so many people could make so many bad movies and churn out so much…searching for a family friendly term….lameness (best I could do). I mean, we’ve all seen lots of movies and while everyone has their own taste, we can all agree that much if not most of what gets put out is not worth the popcorn left on the floor of the theater after it is viewed.

Then, there is a movie like “The Departed” where it is as if the power brokers in Hollywood get together and say, “ok, we’ve messed with them long enough, lets just get a bunch of good people together and make a good movie.” I’m guessing the most common response to that is, “really? It’s only been 3 years since we made a good movie, shouldn’t we hold out a little longer? I mean, that whole Lord of the Rings fiasco was like 3 great movies in 3 years or something and that really screwed up our averages.”

But somehow, some way more benevolent minds prevailed and they called Scorsese and said, “hey, why don’t you round up some of the better younger talent around, mix in a few veterans and make a good, uncompromising movie.” Fortunately for us, he agreed.

Now, I don’t want to over sell the movie. It isn’t the next Godfather and it probably isn’t even the next Goodfellas. But it is a very good movie done right. They avoided most of the obvious pitfalls and clichés and turned out a good movie.

The movie is about two young cops (Damon and DeCaprio) who come up at the same time. Damon is a hard charging fast climber who happens to actually be working as a mob informant. DeCaprio is guy on the edge who gets turned back to his old neighborhood to be an informant for the police. The main story is a cat and mouse as each tries to find the “rat” in their respective organizations while appearing to work for the opposition.

What’s to like:

1. This list could honestly be very, very long, but I’ll keep it somewhat limited. First, the movie is brilliantly directed with no shot wasted and every scene advancing both the story and the character development. The way the scenes are shot both raise the intensity and tension in the movie and know when to give us a break and let us relax a bit. Could be his best work since Raging Bull and that includes Good Fellas if you’re just talking directing.

2. The characters are believable and sympathetic starting with the stars. Damon and DiCaprio are both balanced complex characters neither all good or all bad. They square off against each other without even knowing it and dominate their respective story lines like Pacino and Deniro in Heat. Not saying they were that good, but they played their characters perfectly.

3. Jack. Nicholson is always good, always. He does tend to play himself a bit, but he’s so layered and intense and weird, that isn’t really a bad thing. He is great in this movie. Go ahead and send him the gold statue for best supporting actor right now. I’m telling you, mark it up. The great thing about the performance is that with very little set up you have to be completely convinced he’s a powerful bad dude completely in charge and to be feared. He convinces you of that in about 2.4 seconds.

4. The other players. Alec Baldwin, Martin Sheen, Marky Mark and Vera Farmiga are all brilliant. In some ways their performances even outshine the stars. Baldwin and Wahlberg play the best characters in the movie and Farmiga (who was great in the very underrated “Dummy”), gets my nod for best performance from this movie. Completely believable

5. The twists of the story. I can’t tell you what they are of course, but some of them just about take your breath away. The whole movie has a you see it coming but you don’t see it coming sense to it that keeps you on edge

6. I really could go on and on about the movie having the right look, not overly romanticizing the bad guys, being real about the good guys, the great writing, and so forth, but I have to cut it short.

What I could have done without:

1. I can’t decide if I like the ending. I think I didn’t

2. Damon and DiCaprio looked too much a like. It wasn’t that I got them confused or anything, but it was almost like the same actor playing both parts. I think some variety would have added something, though they were both good.

3. That’s about it really. At least that’s all I can think of at the moment.

Who do you like: I’ve been through this, but DiCaprio’s character is quite sympathetic and Farmiga is brilliant. She draws you in to her character and the ones she’s connected with. Marky Mark is the best though. Hilarious.

What’s new: A great cast in a mob movie done right. It isn’t the first time, but it’s been a good long while. Since Casino I guess and this was better than that.

What’s the last word: As mentioned above, I don’t think I liked the ending….I don’t think. I’m still on the fence. It worked for the movie, I’m just not sure it worked for me.

Who you should bring: Uhmmm, well, adults for one thing. This movie is very violent and no one in the movie says 4 words together without cursing. Don’t bring anyone who prefers not to watch that kind of movie and don’t bring anyone younger than 18 (though 25 is probably a better number). With all the violence and most of the characters being men doing manly things and acting like men do with other men when they are violent psychopaths, I think this movie will appeal more to men than to women, but certainly not exclusively and I think anyone who likes Scorsese’s other gritty movies will like this one.

Where you should watch: Well, you will get your money’s worth at the theater (how often can you say that), but you don’t really need a huge screen to enjoy it.

What’s the couch rating: Tough to say how much my lovely wife would have enjoyed this, but it is safe to say she wouldn’t have fallen asleep.

What my gut tells me: My gut and brain are on the same page here. I walked out liking it immediately and the more I think about it, the more I do. That said, I don’t want to see it again. It is a good movie, but it is unpleasant.

What it’s like: Good Fellas, Donny Brasco,

Where it rates: 9. I went in with very high expectations and it didn’t disappoint.

Fearless

2006-10-12T12:30:00.000-07:00

I like Jet Li. He is an incredibly skilled martial artist and just a phenomenal athlete. I like his movies, because I am bound to see some move or fight sequence that I’ve never seen and makes me say, “wow.” That said, as his career “progresses,” it is becoming sadly apparent that he can not act. I mean not at all. Not even a little. Most of the time, that is just fine because he doesn’t have to. He has to fight lots and lots of bad guys, preferably all at once. He is the Chinese Keanu Reeves. As long as it’s an action movie requiring little more than some looks of pain and stern “I’m about to open up a can” looks, both Reeves and Li are just fine. Ask them to act and you get “A Walk In the Clouds.”

So, Fearless starring Jet Li and lots of other fighting Chinese people was a bit of mixed bag. It had tremendous fight sequences without heavily relying on wire work, but also asked Li to act which was nearly unwatchable. He may have the worst fake laugh in the history of cinema. On to the review

What’s to like:

1. Jet Li’s fighting. He’s amazing. On thing though, that was the subject of a long and continuing debate between me and my buddies that I saw the movie with, and that is, why don’t martial arts movies make some attempt to show real fighting, ever? I mean I get why we get the styalized stuff most of the time, but why does it never make an attempt to be real? It is always so obviously choreographed, I’m left wondering, would any of those things actually work in a real fight? I’m sure some would, but you can’t tell from watching the movies. All the moves end up looking like that scene from Napoleon Dynamite where the karate instructor is showing a move that requires you to grab his left arm in a certain way for it to be effective. I always think, sure if that guy happens to grab you just so and then stayed still while you whirled around, that might work, but when does that happen?

2. The fight scene in the restaurant. Great wood breaking, table smashing more “realistic” type fighting. Best scene in the movie.

3. The landscapes, CGI city shots and just the look in general. Had that epic look and feel even if the story didn’t.

4. The fighting. Oh wait, did I mention that already, oh well, it was the good part of the movie, so there you go.

What I could have done without:

1. The horrible dialogue. Now, here I’m not sure whether to blame the writing which was all in Chinese which I don’t speak even a little, or the subtitles which were in 2nd grade English which I know well enough to know it stunk. For example, the crowd would erupt in chants and cheers after the conclusion of a fight and the subtitle would read, “Great” “Really nice job” “Excellent victory.” I mean, is that really the kind of thing Chinese people yell at the close of a fight? Seriously? Then there was one fight when one of the fighters was mysteriously able to tear Li’s clothing and skin using his finger tips at which point Li said (according to the subtitles) “kitten paw” This provoked the other fighter to yell, “Tiger claw!!!” and they exchanged these piercing barbs which no doubt left a deeper impact than their blows. Ugh. So, either this movie boasts the worst dialogue since Battleship Earth, or we have to do something about how we translate movies from Chinese. I also enjoyed that there were some words they didn’t translate like “Wushu” I guess maybe because some people familiar with martial arts would have known that term, but whatever the reason it allowed for great lines like, “Master, his wushu is greater than yours.”

2. All the Westerners being corrupt morons. I know, Hollywood deserves this for doing the same to Asians for years in movies, but it is no more fun in reverse than when we do it to them. It’s a movie, not a cartoon.

3. The obligatory fight with the giant, growling westerner where in spite of the fact that he is about 7 feet tall and freakishly muscular he is helpless against the Yoda sized Li. I get that Li is fast and skilled, but give me a break. By the way, the growling goliath is the same guy that take it in the neck from Achilles in the best scene in the movie Troy and has apparently started making a living being the huge guy that the little guy beats up on. Given how unlikely that would be for him in real life, I wonder if it bothers him…..probably not.

4. The story – It was allegedly based on a true story, though my buddy James did some reading and discovered they (gasp) actually changed some of the facts. Shocking I know. Nonetheless they should have kept on changing because the story is a wee bit thin with a strange disconnect from the final scene. Nevertheless, the look and action of the movie propped the story up well enough so this is only a minor criticism.

Who do you like: Li’s character passes for sympathetic. Otherwise, there is no one of note in this movie. So, if you don’t like Li, stay very far away.

What’s new: Good new fighting scenes, the best of which was Li fighting with this 3 rod contraption. Think extra long nunchucks but instead of a length of chain in the middle a third rod with all three connected by short lengths of chain. I’m sure there is a wushu name for this, but I don’t know it. He uses that to fight a guy with a sword and it is pretty amazing.

What’s the last word: As mentioned above, the ending seemed disconnected to the rest of the story. It is also, apparently, not very grounded in truth. Not a criticism, just letting you know.

Who you should bring: People who like martial arts movies, which I suspect mostly means guys. There is a love story….sort of, but this movie is really about a guy who learns to fight and spends his life fighting and very little else. So, bring people that don’t mind subtitles and love fighting.

Where you should watch: See this on as big a screen as possible. The scenery is beautiful and the fight scenes are better when bigger. You need to go to the theater (and quickly) if you want to see this movie.

What’s the couch rating: Tanya digs martial arts fighting so I think she would have stayed awake through most of it. That said, she would have been sound asleep for the last 25 minutes or so. Once the fighting slows and the characters don’t engage you, she would have been out.

What my gut tells me: I liked it. It doesn’t stand up to criticism when you break it down, but I enjoyed it and enjoyed all the discussion and debate afterward about whether a tiny kung fu expert could beat a big fast boxer type like Tyson. Over all I enjoyed it.

What it’s like: House of Flying Daggers meets every other Jet Li or Jean Claude Van Dam movie.

Where it rates: 7. Not great, but enjoyable enough.

TV Update

2006-10-10T00:44:00.000-07:00

So, I finally get around to writing something about TV since the new Fall season just started and almost as soon as I write it, everything changes and it’s out of date. So for the good of the 3.5 people who might read this, I feel compelled to offer an update. So, here’s some additional thoughts on TV and the new fall season.

You may have noticed that for years now there is a strange copycat phenomenon that happens in Hollywood. Every couple years there will be a movie on some random subject matter that sounds interesting and seems worth seeing and then you hear just days later that there is another movie coming out with virtually the identical subject matter. Just the ones I can think of off the top of my head include: a couple years ago there were two volcano disaster movies; 2 asteroids headed toward earth movies; two movies about Columbus; two drill to the center of the earth movies; two movies about cops who are partners except for one is straight laced and by the book and the other one is a rule snubbing maverick (not the basketball team), they both argue with their African American police chief as they fight against Asian drug lords preferably referred to as the “triad” or “triads” (no one in Hollywood is sure if there are more than one), actually at least 2 of these movies get made every year.

The explanation I have heard for this phenomenon is really quite simple if not rather pathetic. Apparently, it works like this: One studio gets a hold of a great script that is new and fresh and gets a good buzz going. Big time directors and stars are interested and the “industry” starts getting all hyped up. A rival studio then sees an opportunity to cash in on all this free buzz and publicity and pays extra for a different big director and different big name stars. If you notice, when you have these double movies, they almost always both feature bankable stars. The copycat film studio knows their movie will suck. I mean, it is just a rip off of something else and gets thrown together quickly, so how could it not? Because they know they will suck, they rush their movie to get to theaters fast and first. It doesn’t matter if it is good, it just needs to have big stars, enough decent material to put together a good trailer and the buzz generated by the second movie which inevitably gets blended into the copycat. Then the first one comes out, does OK and usually takes an audience away from the real movie which is usually much, much better.

I mean, you probably already either figured this out or at least assumed it couldn’t be coincidence. But it is at least conceivable that two people just happened to think a giant space rock headed toward earth to wipe us all out dino-style might make for some cool special effects and a profitable movie. So, how do I know that it isn’t just coincidence when this happens? First, I know because it always plays out just as I described above in terms of one movie sucking and one being good. Second, I know because this year there are mysteriously two movies about magicians set in the 1800s or thereabout where there is mystery and intrigue and heavily waxed mustaches. I think the odds of two different people coming up with that concept for a movie at the precise same moment in time are roughly the same as me becoming a huge Colin Farrell fan…in other words, less chance of surviving a space rock the size of Mt. Everest landing on you as you walk to work.

That means, of course, that only one of those movies is going to be good despite the fact that both have big stars and cool looking previews. Trust me, only one will be good, the second one. The first one, “The Illusionist” stars Ed Norton (one of my favorites) with the great Paul Giamatti and the easy on the eyes Jessica Biel. This movie already came out and even though I didn’t see it and still want to see it and definitely will see it eventually, I already know it will be hackish and bad. The second movie is “The Prestige” which stars Christian Bale (one of my favorites), Hugh Jackman (sans claws) and the even easier on the eyes Scarlett Johansen. That movie has a chance to be pretty dang good. Give it a chance even if you saw the other one and it was bad.

Now you’re thinking, “hey wait, I thought this was going to be about TV?” Well, I bring all this up to say, that this phenomenon happened in TV this year in almost identical fashion, except with “stars” who could only be considered big on TV. I’m guessing that someone in the Timothy Hutton fan club, proudly wearing their “Turk 182” T-Shirt, let slip that he was inked to do a hip new serial drama about a wealthy powerful family who has a family member get kidnapped and the plot takes strange and interesting turns as the good guys fight to get the victim back. So, Fox grabbed some guy with a nice face who couldn’t act to go with a bunch of guys you recognize but can’t place, like a doctor from ER and Penelope Anne Miller who looks like she has borrowed Star Jones’ hips (ok, that was a cheap shot, I apologize, writing about entertainment stuff makes me catty I guess). They rush to make a rip off kidnapping show so they can get theirs on the air first.

Well, that show became Vanished and as I mentioned in the last post, I got sucked in and started watching it and am still watching it even though it is really fairly lame. They did just replace the nice face with a guy who can act a bit, so I’m sticking with it for a bit longer. The good show, that came after, even though I guarantee it was the original, was called “Kidnapped” and just got cancelled. So, when I told you to pick Kidnapped if you haven’t picked one yet and you want to watch a show about kidnapping that doesn’t have Anthony Lapaglia in it, you can leave hateful comments to this post for the terrible advice.

Staying with the “shows that got cancelled” theme., you might recall that I named Smith as the best new show on TV. I almost wrote that it is so good that it is sure to be cancelled. But my doctor has asked me to cut my cynicism in half which is still roughly 3 times the recommended daily allowance, so I didn’t say anything even though I was thinking, this show is actually pretty good, I bet it gets cancelled. Why would I think that? Am I just a pessimist of the first order? Of course not, I couldn’t make it out of the 3rd order, but also I just know that the people in American television believe that the American audience is really, really stupid and they believe that regardless of how good a show is or how bad a time slot is, if the show doesn’t explode on to the scene like Lost or Alias did, then there is no way anyone in America will figure out that it is worth watching and yet a 7th installment of CSI is not. This is irrefutable fact. I know because I’m a lawyer and get paid to refute things and use words like “irrefutable” in non-legal conversations as if normal people would ever do that. So, I know irrefutable and this is as irrefutable as it gets. So there. Convinced? I’m guessing you already were.

So, of course, Smith got cancelled. How on earth is “My Name is Earl” still on the air? I mean it is good and funny and smart (even while being stupid). I can’t believe they brought it back. They better be careful, if it goes on much longer it will become a runaway hit and a huge success.

I watched the first few episodes of “Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip” which was apparently named by the owner of the “California Angels of Anaheim brought to you by Orange County in conjunction with Long Beach.” Here’s my take. I think I enjoyed this show more when it was called West Wing and it was in its first season. I mean, the writing, acting, directing, story lines are so much like West Wing it is a like trying to find the difference between the hook of Queen’s “Under Pressure” and Vanilla Ice’s “Ice Ice Baby.” Except now, instead of the White House, it is the set of a show that is exactly like Saturday Night Live. The problem is, that everyone still acts like they are running the most powerfull nation on earth instead of a sketch comedy show. This show, in addition to feeling warn out before it even gets going because it is so much like a show we’ve already seen, takes itself waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too seriously. It is about a comedy sketch show and the people who make it go and nothing funny happens. Come to think of it, that makes it pretty much like the real SNL, but I don’t think that’s the intended goal. The writing is good and sharp and Matthew Perry is really, really good playing a slightly more serious and stressed out Chandler from the first season of Friends….when he was still funny. But good acting and writing are not enough to save this show from a seriously flawed premise. I don’t care what happens behind the scenes of SNL and even if I did, I wouldn’t believe this was an accurate depiction. And I write a whole blog dedicated to entertainment stuff. So, how is a normal person going to get into this show? I don’t think they will and I think this show isn’t going to make it.

Also, I’m done watching it. I’m going to check in with my lovely wife, but unless she really wants to keep watching, I’m taking it off the Tivo list. It isn’t just because of the criticism above, it is because the show’s agenda is too obvious and it is an unwelcome distraction from the entertainment. In the first season of West Wing, they took their shots at Bush and Republicans and even when they would bring in a character to offer an alternative point of view, it was obviously a show with an agenda to the left of center. That was fine because they didn’t trot it out every week and beat us over the head with it and the writing and acting was so fresh and good, it still made for a great show. Then the real presidential race started and the show couldn’t help itself. They dropped any veil still slightly masking its pointedly liberal agenda and turned into little more than well crafted propaganda. Laying my cards on the table, I’m a registered Republican and I’m sure that’s part of what soured me on the show. But more than that was I felt insulted that the show started taking its mission so seriously as to assume I would actually get my political opinions right from Martin Sheen. It was obnoxious and patronizing.

Well, Studio 60 skipped right to the 3rd season in that regard with its anti conservative agenda. Every episode takes some shot at “the Christian Right.” Like in West Wing, they are smart about it and always do it in such a way that you think, “aw, they’re just being tongue in cheek” or “one of their characters is a Christian and they actually showed people praying, so they are being fair.” I don’t care if they are fair. It’s entertainment, they are welcome to use the show to forward any agenda they want to pursue. I’m glad they have that right. That said, I don’t really care to get preached at while I’m watching a drama as it tries to jam an anti-Christian, anti-conservative message down my throat while pretending to be about a sketch comedy show. Plus, did I mention it is about comedians and it is never funny? And it has DL Hughly who has never been funny a day in his life…ever.

So, I’m going to skip the sermon and lament that a lot of good acting and writing is going to waste. I will take solace, however, in the knowledge that the show has such an obvious level of quality in its production that it is sure to get cancelled.

I have to say this to the makers of the new show “Heroes” who I like to pretend read my blog. STOP TELLING US EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING AND WHAT WILL HAPPEN WITH VOICE OVERS AND PREVIEWS AND ENDLESS STUPID NARRATION!!!!! They have about ruined a promising show by laying out for us not only what is going on now with events that are only interesting if they contain enough mystery to tempt our imagination to engage, but they insist on giving us weekly previews of the entire season which maps out for you where the show is going. Why would I still want to watch if I already know what happens? Ugh. It’s a decent show really with a fun premise (stolen from X-Men), but having the narrator tell you, “this is the bad guy, stay with us to see him do these bad things, for these motives, with this hidden agenda against all these people in the following order,” is destroying the show. I’m sticking with it for now, but I’m concerned. I haven’t watched tonight’s episode yet, so no spoilers in the comments please…as if there were some left. My lovely wife insightfully pointed out, while I was ranting and raving about this, that it is likely this way so the show doesn’t become an early victim if people aren’t willing to invest, but removing our imagination from the equation is not the way to build a following. Don’t believe me? Check the popularity of Lost or tell me whether or not people watched the X-Files.

Ok, I think that’s it for now. I still haven’t seen The Nine or Six Degrees, though they are piling up on my Tivo. Hopefully, at least one of them will be decent and no one will tell the TV execs, so it has some small chance of staying on the air.

What's on TV?

2006-10-05T15:40:00.000-07:00

Here’s a few quick thoughts on some of the TV shows I’ve got Tivo’d at the moment. Let me know if I’m missing something good out there. WARNING – THE FOLLOWING WILL CONTAIN SPOILERS IF YOU ARE NOT CAUGHT UP ON A SHOW AND SINCE I AM NOT CAUGHT UP ON MOST OF THESE SHOWS IF YOU PLACE ANY SPOILERS IN THE COMMENTS I WILL HUNT YOU DOWN WHERE YOU LIVE AND…AND WELL…GET REALLY MAD AND STUFF….
1. Vanished – One of two kidnapping shows out. This one features mediocre production quality, bad directing, even worse writing and truly awful acting. I mean, some of the worst non-soap opera acting I have ever seen on TV. It also features a pretty interesting plot line with layers and conspiracies and enough to get my imagination going….so I’m still watching. I almost stopped watching because the acting was so brutal and then in the last episode I saw they took out the main character!!! He could be still alive, but I think it just as likely that he’s really dead and getting replaced by an actor that I actually like. Fantastic surprise to give the show much needed credibility going forward. Now I’m going to stick with it for a few more weeks, especially since I admittedly want to know what’s happening.

2. Kidnapped – The other kidnapping show that got a later start features much better writing/acting/production quality, etc. The plot seems much less layered or intriguing, but I think it is by far the better show. I have only seen one episode so far, but I liked what I saw. If you haven’t seen either and want to choose one to watch, definitely choose Kidnapped.

3. Prison break – don’t know why I’m still watching, but I am. It’s not a good show, but it hooked me in. I swore than if they didn’t get out of prison by the end of last year I was quitting. They made it. I was stunned. So, now I’m still watching. I’m a few weeks behind, but already I spend every week saying, “why would they do that? Do they want to get caught?” Oh well, if you aren’t already watching, don’t get into this one. You will get sucked in and then just end up watching a bad show.

4. Lost – Season premiere was last week. The characters on this show are really, really annoying at times as they seem bent on not allowing us to actually like or respect anyone on the show, but it isn’t enough to outweigh the fact that it is a really smart and creative show. It is the best keeps you guessing show since X-Files and if you can put up with the silly love triangle stuff and the implausibility of it all and the fact that Kate likes Sawyer more than Jack and so do most women I’m guessing (and yes I hate myself for writing that), then this is a really good show.
Get the DVDs of the earlier season and then get on board. Pretty fun adventure.

5. Shark – first episode was outstanding. Directed by Spike Lee and brilliantly done. Believable court room stuff which almost never happens for me. James Woods is great. After that the show has gone down hill a bit, but I’m still watching. If you are looking for a new legal drama or a replacement if L&O is getting stale, try this one out. A bit cliché, but Woods makes up for it.

6. Smith – this is “Heat” the TV show. Very good so far. Intense, well written, moves along, has some layers, good acting. No complaints. The heist story has become a bit old, but still a good show. My vote for best new show I’ve seen this year.

7. Heroes – After one episode I’m still watching. Some bad acting and I get the sense it could become cheesy, but pretty creative and well done. That said, it is a blatant rip off of X-men. I mean, it is the same story with less bizarre super powers (so far). I can’t believe they aren’t getting sued. Jury’s still out on this one, but I’m intrigued.

8. The Nine, Six Degrees, Studio 60 – Who has time? They are on my tivo, but at this rate, I may never watch them.

9. L&O – the original is still as good as ever. Both the new women on the show are great. I especially like the new DA. Too bad it got moved to Fridays which means this will be the last year, but it is still worth watching.

10. L&O Criminal Intent – this show is now good every other week. The shows with Chris Noth are a total waste of time even though I like his new partner. The shows with D’Ofriono or whatever his name is have been as good as ever so far. I’m still watching, but might start skipping the episodes without Bobby.

11. The Office, My Name is Earl – Best comedies on TV right now. Some glitch kept them from recording last week, so I’ve only seen one episode each, but they are still funny. If you are one of the apparently millions watching 2 and a half men, do yourself a favor and drop it and start watching something funny.

Ok, that’s all for now.

Invincible

2006-09-28T16:27:00.000-07:00

I don’t usually like sports movies. Why? Because I like sports and people who make sports movies don’t seem to understand the first thing about what makes sports fun and interesting and engaging. Apparently, they think it mostly involves predictable fake looking sequences in slow motion and overly-sappy “inspirational” speeches by down on their luck coaches.

Of course, there are exceptions. I LOVED Hoosiers (yes, I’m yelling). Slap shot was pretty good. He Got Game is very underrated. The original The Longest Yard was worth watching (the Adam Sandler version should have resulted in real prison time for anyone associated with it). There’s The Natural and Bull Durham and Field of Dreams. The first Rocky is a classic, and there are a few others. But for the most part, sports movies all share at least some or all of the following flaws:

1. They focus too much on the behind the scenes and not enough on the game which usually means a horrifically sappy love story
2. They have 9 foot basketball hoops and many other things that make the sports sequences appear completely fake.
3. They can’t replicate the real drama of a real game that means something. Not sure why, when they can do it much better with the exceedingly more difficult subject of war.
4. They sometimes include Drew Barrymore
5. They are fake, fake, fake, fake to any actual sports fan. Yes I know I’m repeating myself.

Usually, the movies that overcome the sappiness factor and the fake factor are the ones that are based on real events and make some attempt to portray them accurately. Miracle did a nice job there for example. This is the thing that saves Invincible and ultimately makes it a very enjoyable movie. It is a true story and still nearly impossible to believe. But it really happened and is one of the best stories in sports. So, the movie really just had to show up and not screw it up. They did that and even a little more. Over all, I wouldn’t put it in the same breath as Hoosiers or some of the others I listed above, but it is definitely worth seeing unless you hate Marky Mark, football and good things happening to people who work hard and take some risks.

What it’s about: Marky Mark (sans “Funky Bunch”) plays Vince Papale. In the 1970s when the Philadelphia Eagles were really bad, unlike the ‘60s, ‘80s and ‘90s when they were just completely inept, they hired a new coach named Dick Vermeil who went on to great success and even more crying. Vermeil, looking to shake up the team, holds open tryouts for the Eagles. Half the city of die hard fans show up and one guy, Vince Papale, who is just a fan with no football experience other than being a season ticket holder, makes the team. And that really happened. Incredible. The movie takes a look at his tough life living poor in Philly and is as much about Philly in the ‘70s as it is about Vince or football. It is your basic feel good story

What’s to like:

1. Marky Mark. I can’t claim he’s a great actor, but I always like him. Not even sure why. I’m pretty sure I understand why my wife is also a fan, but I’m certain it’s for a different reason. Anyway, he does a great job in this movie. Very likeable.
2. Elizabeth Banks – She plays the girl. She’s been in a few things, but isn’t a star yet. She will be though. Trust me.
3. The football scenes were fairly authentic, especially for movie scenes and the CGI crowds made the whole thing seem more real
4. All the bad mustaches
5. It told an inspirational story without over doing it or going out of its way just to try to manipulate the audience. Had to be tempting, but they resisted and it worked.
6. The Story is simply great. Unless you are a football fan, you might not be able to appreciate how unlikely it is that this happened, but it did and you gotta love it.

What I could have done without: Dick Vermiel didn’t cry once. That’s a bigger upset than Vince making the Eagles. Just completely ignoring reality. Real Dick Vermiel probably wept watching this movie. I don’t know how or why they missed this.

Characters which are bit stereotyped

Absolutely nothing in this movie that you don’t expect. Nothing. I know, it’s based on a true story, but still. How about a wrinkle?

Who do you like: See above. As a side note, do you think the Funky Bunch sits around somewhere when a new Wahlberg movie comes out and just trashes him as they drink their pathetic lives into oblivion? I prefer to think they’re happy for him, but it seems unlikely.

What’s new: You’ve never seen a true story quite like this. Plus the sports shots were some of the best I’ve ever seen for football. That’s a pretty low bar, but still.

What’s the last word: Good ending. You know what it is already and you see it coming clear as day in the movie, but still good.

Who you should bring: Just about anyone. Not sure what the rating is, so not young kids maybe, but anyone else. Even though it is about football, a non-football fan will still like this movie and I think it would appeal almost equally to men and women.

Where you should watch: You don’t need the big screen for this one, so your couch will be just as good as your local multiplex

What’s the couch rating: I saw this with Tanya, but not on the couch. Still, she liked it and would have stayed awake, even if we started it late….and she’s not a football fan by any stretch.

What my gut tells me: I liked it. I didn’t even want to analyze it too much, because I didn’t want to talk myself out of liking it. It was cheesy, but good.

What it’s like: It is a bit like Miracle. It is a bit like The Rookie.

Where it rates: I would say 7.5 to 8. Certainly worth seeing.

He Should Have Armed Himself

2006-09-19T16:42:00.000-07:00

A few weeks ago, my friends and I got together for “Cut to the Chase” night at my place. We each brought DVDs of our favorite movie chase scene and watched about 3 and a half hours worth of just the chases. It was a blast.

So, following up on that, I’m going to plan a movie night for best shoot out or gun battle scene and I need your help.

If you read this, leave a comment letting me know what your favorite is so we can make our list and that way it will be here for anyone else who might like to do the same thing.

If you don’t read this, then never mind.

Thanks.

BeerFest

2006-08-28T12:37:00.000-07:00

I saw Beerfest last night. About 10 minutes into it, it became one of those movies that I didn't want to admit I had seen. I'm not going to write a full review here, because that movie doesn't deserve that much more of my time....or yours, which is why I am writing this. Save your money and your time and your sense of humor and skip this movie. Don't even rent it. I'm only admitting that I saw it as a public service to warn others. If I hadn't been with a group of guys who are my buddies, I would have walked out in less time than it took to watch the previews. And I never walk out on movies.

Admittedly I'm not a big drinker. Ok, so I'm barely a drinker at all and I bet this movie would have been much much funnier if I had been completely hammered, a state I just don't ever find myself in, but this movie was awful. I'm not uptight about movies. I watch a broad spectrum of stuff and enjoy a large range. That said, this movie managed to cross lots of lines without being funny. It's ok to be gross and irreverent and disrespectful and sometimes even insensitive in a comedy, but if you do that, you have to at least be funny. This was not. Of course, I should have known this, even though the previews had a couple funny things in them (most of which were not in the actual movie, by the way), and I can't claim great shock or surprise that it wasn't funny, but I went in ready to laugh and couldn't make it happen.

Please, please, do not see this movie. It is disgusting and perverse and raunchy and revolting, all of which would be forgiveable to a degree if it had also been funny, but it wasn't...at all...not even a little. It just made me a little sick to my stomach.

Observations

2006-08-25T16:40:00.000-07:00

Haven’t seen any movies in a while so just a few observations about what I’m observing in the entertainment world:

1. I’m still watching and enjoying the TV show the Contender. I wish they would lose the hokey slow-motion stuff during the fights and replace it with some replays before going to commercial, but it is still the most enjoyable thing happening in boxing right now by far. And it is also good television unless you hate boxing, then it’s just decent television.

2. I’m still watching Blade the series on Spike tv, but it dancing on the edge of getting cancelled from my tivo. Blade’s character is a little to one dimensional and they are going over the top with the gross out factor. I don’t like the gore to begin with, but I’ll tolerate it for a cool vampire show, but some of the stuff they’ve done in recent shows crossed the line. I’m giving it another show or two.

3. I’m enjoying this season of the 4400 on USA. It is sort of X-Men meets X-files and while it is not nearly as well done as X-Files, it is still pretty entertaining. So far, they have left enough to our imagination to make it engaging. I do hate the acress playing Isabel though. I’m sure she’s a fine person or whatever, I just don’t like her acting. Then again, the acting isn’t exactly this show’s strong suit. Interesting story though.

4. Prison Break narrowly held on to its spot on my tivo for another season (or less if it starts bugging me too much). I vowed during last season that if they had not gotten out of that prison by the end of the season, that was it. I would be done. Well they got out and now they’re on the run so the show has a newness that got me come back. The first episode was solid, so we’ll keep it going. Mark my words, with Veronica gone, they will replace her with another attractive woman. These shows have formulas and having a certain number of attractive women on them is a must. Just wait and see.

5. I think that new show “Vanished” has promise. I watched the first episode and even though I think the main guy is really bad and a really bad casting decision, the story has some interesting layers and it was pretty enjoyable. I’m going to keep watching that one.

6. The next movie I’m looking forward to seeing is Invincible. Beerfest looks plenty funny, but Invincible is such a great story and has been getting good reviews. I can’t wait. I’m also looking forward to Departed later this fall.

7. In the world of Music, if you haven’t had a chance to check out Beck’s new album Guerro, you definitely should. I love it and strangely, so do my boys.

8. Some friends of mine and I all got together at my place last week to watching nothing but our favorite movie chase scenes. We watched everything from The French Connection to Raising Arizona to Star Wars to Ronin. I have to say I believe top honors for best movie chase scene ever have to go to Ronin in the realistic category and Matrix Reloaded in the overall category. That Matrix scene has it all and whether or not you are a fan of those movies, you owe it to your self to rent the DVD and at least watch that scene. Amazing stuff.

Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby

2006-08-16T15:41:00.000-07:00

Will Ferrell is funny. You know this right? But as Robyn Williams and Steve Martin keep reminding us in movie after movie, you can be funny and still make movies that aren’t. Will Ferrell has given us some of both. Anchorman was hilarious and gets better every time I watch it. He was the best thing in Old School a funny movie and his bit parts in various other movies have been great. Then there was Elf (which did have one really funny scene) and Kicking and Screaming which got its title from the phrase “You would have to drag me kicking and screaming to see that movie.” But for the most part, Mr. Ferrell is the funniest SNL cast member in a long long time and is on a roll with his movies.

And if you liked Anchorman, you should drive fast to see Talladega. If you didn’t like Anchorman, think Will Ferrell is too silly to be funny and just can’t get behind a movie that clowns NASCAR, please stop reading this review and don’t talk to me about movies….ever. Thank you.

However, if you still have an open mind about Ferrell, keep reading and then go see the movie.

Before we get to the review though, I have to get something off my chest about the latest unofficial American comedy troupe starring Ben Stiller, Vince Vaughn, Steve Carrel, Will Ferrell and the Wilson brothers and including various regulars like David Koechner, the guy who plays Champ in Anchorman.

First, is it time for their movies to officially have their own genre? Every movie these guys make is essentially the same kind of movie. Sort of silliness with heart and with a very successful formula. All these guys excel at playing the “average” guy hero. You take an average and very flawed guy, give him some mission and an improbably beautiful love interest, then throw in a way over the top villain often played by another member of the troupe and “Viva!!”, you have a movie. The thing is, these guys are not all that interchangeable.

Ferrell is, in my opinion, the best of the group and it’s not just because he is funnier than the others, but his movies and characters have, so far, been the best. I also have high hopes for Carrel, but it is still too early to say. That said, he is starring in the sequel to Bruce Almighty and I’m guessing that will be worth seeing. I admit I am growing tired of the Wilson brothers. And Vince Vaughn, while good, has even less range. That brings me to Ben Stiller. Has there ever been a more popular comedian with a worse track record than Stiller? People flock to his movies and talk about him like he’s the greatest, but how many funny movies has he actually made? Let’s do a quick recap and see.

Stiller has been doing TV and Movies since about 1975 believe it or not, but I think his current run really started after the mildly amusing Ben Stiller Show in the early ‘90s. It wasn’t a huge hit, but it got him some attention which he followed up with a memorable role in the waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay overrated Gen X angst movie Reality Bites, which would have been more aptly named, “This contrite, pretentious script Bites”, but it wouldn’t fit on the poster. Then came the following:

Heavy Weights. Remember that one? Me neither

Duckman (voice). Yikes.

Happy Gilmore – actually one of the better Adam Sandler movies, but Ben was barely in it.

If Lucy Fell – full title “If Lucy Fell and we made a movie about it would anyone see it” The answer, of course, was “no.”

Flirting with Disaster – uhhhh…right.

The Cable Guy – another bit part in a pretty underrated movie really

Zero Effect – You know, that was the one about….right, another completely forgettable dud

There’s Something About Mary – This movie single handedly led to an absolute onslaught of horrible copycat, gross-out comedies, but I can’t really hold that against it since it is a classic. It is very crude which always makes it hard for me to recommend it, but I laughed so hard I cried. And, Stiller was perfect for the role, though I really thought Matt Dillon made the movie. Still, this is a plus

Your Friends and Neighbors – seriously, it was a movie. I promise. Actually, it had a pretty good cast and that’s it

Permanent Midnight – Actually…not bad, though no one saw it.

Mystery Men – Pretty dang funny really, but no one saw it which is a shame. When I saw this movie, I really thought Stiller was going to be one of my favorites. Something About Mary and then Mr. Furious in this movie and I thought we really had something here. Also, about here, he got a free pass from the public to never have to be funny again. What happened?

Keeping the Faith – Not funny or good.

Meet the Parents – A mediocre movie with some memorable stuff that went on to become the most overrated comedy of all time

Zoolander - I’m sorry, but this was not a good movie. It had some great lines and scenes and is better the second or third time especially if you are drifting in and out while watching it on your couch in the middle of the day when you have to stay home from work with the flu. If you are just watching it start to finish and really paying attention, it is brutal. I mean, there is a good hour where you become so desperate for something funny to happen a Carrot Top cameo would be welcome. I know a bunch of my peers love this movie, but it’s just not that good.

The Royal Tennenbaums – Great, great potential not realized

Orange County – Jack Black was the only thing funny about this movie and he was not in it nearly enough to make it worth seeing

Duplex – One of the worst movies I have ever seen. The lug nuts are loose and the whole car is shaking at this point.

Along Came Polly – This time Ben is joined by Jennifer Anniston with her freshly minted free pass to never have to make anything worth watching again to retain her popularity. The wheels have come all the way off.

Starksy and Hutch. Now Stiller appears to be just rehashing his old characters like maybe we’ve never seen them before or maybe he is parodying himself. Either way, it is nearly unwatchable

Envy – Putting him in a movie with Jack Black simply confirms Stiller’s just taking up space at this point. Plus, another really bad movie.

Dodgeball – not an awful movie, some funny stuff, but Stiller is the worst thing about it. And yet, people are flocking to his movies more than ever. What??

Anchorman – Great movie, very little Stiller – perhaps the right formula

Meet the Fockers – I was trapped on an airplane with nothing to do but watch this movie and I still stopped watching about half way through. There are barely words to describe how bad it was. Please someone let Dustin Hoffman in on the worst kept secret in Hollywood, that he is not, I repeat is not funny….at all…ever.

My point is not that I hate Ben Stiller. I like him. I want him to make good movies. The thing is that we think of him as this guy who has made all these hilarious movies, when in truth he has only made a couple and has made a ton of duds, many of which flopped because he wasn’t that good. So why do we still think of him as some kind of comic genius? Perhaps we’ll never know.

Regardless, he’s no Will Ferrell.

Now, back to Talladega.

What it’s about: Ferrell plays Ricky Bobby who grows up as a kid wanting to go fast and ends up as a NASCAR driver. The movie follows his exploits as he learns some valuable life lessons like: neither “Jewish God” nor Tom Cruise can save you from imaginary fire covering your whole body on a racetrack. I think we all remember where we were when we first learned that lesson.

But that’s not really what the movie is about. The movie is really about how funny it is to watch the exploits of ignorant rednecks, especially when they get some money and fame. It’s about how classless and silly so many Americans are. It’s about how much we hate the French. It’s about the complex strategies involved in NASCAR racing (go fast, turn left, go fast, turn left, repeat until you crash or some guy waves a checkered flag at you. If you win, drink Pepsi). And primarily, it is about how seriously so many people take some things that are so silly: like who’s the fastest around a track, 500 times in a row.

What’s to like: So, so much. This was a genuinely funny movie. No courtesy laughs required, there were plenty of the real thing. Here’s what I liked the most:

The French baddie called Ricky “Ricky Booby” Funny every time he said it.
The scene when Ricky says “grace” to Christmas Jesus. If they had made a whole movie of just that family at the dinner table, it would have been one of the top 5 comedies of all time.
the little red head kid, especially the line about being “on you like a spider monkey.” I’m laughing now just writing that.
Molly Shannon. Could have used about twice as many scenes with her in it.
The outtakes in the closing credits. The DVD may end up being twice as funny as the actual movie
The driving scenes. They had a very real look and sound. Not saying, that’s really how they drive in NASCAR, just that it was good camera/effects work
Ferrell is funny all the time.
The totally random stuff like, how they like to picture Jesus, French guy’s dinner guests, French guy and Ricky holding hands, Ferrell’s running commentary when hooking up with the girl in the bar.
Ricky praying to Tom Cruise
I loved how self-aware the movie was. It was almost like we were watching the movie with the actors as we all made fun of this stuff. Lots of truth, very little reality. Lots to laugh at.

What I could have done without: All the guy kissing. Yuck. When did that become ok, even to be funny? I like being funny and I’m not going to start kissing my guy friends on the lips, I don’t care what kind of laughs it gets.

Also, the 30 minute down time in the middle. Like every comedy in this new genre, there is a requisite 30-45 minutes in the middle of the movie where the jokes go from one after the other to one every 5-10 minutes. Why do movies do this? Do they think we need a rest? Do they not know what they are doing? Can’t someone put a stop to it and just make a movie that is funny start to finish?

Who do you like: I’ve really already covered this, but you really like Molly Shannon, the red head kid, Ricky’s wife, Ferrell and Reilly and even Michael Clarke Duncan in the only role he hasn’t ruined to date.

What’s new: A long overdue movie making fun of NASCAR. There is infinite untapped material here. That’s about all that is new, but you don’t go to a movie like this for groundbreaking cinema

What’s the last word: Good ending, especially if you consider the outtakes in the credits which may have been the funniest part of the movie.

Who you should bring: People that like these kind of movies. I think you know who they are at this point. If you like the movies made by this comedy troupe which include, among others: Old School, Anchorman, The Wedding Crashers, The 40 Year Old Virgin, then you will like this movie. If you hated one or more of those movies, you won’t. It’s that easy. Don’t bring anyone who takes themselves or their movies too seriously. The funny stuff in this movie is really, really dumb and sometimes crude and often disrespectful and irreverent. You want to be able to laugh at all that stuff so don’t bring anyone who can’t see the humor in Saturday Night Live. It will bring you down.

Also, don’t bring kids. I don’t care what the rating is, the jokes are too crude and, as mentioned, dudes kiss. Kids don’t need to fill their heads with those terrifying images. I think both women and men will enjoy this movie, but it is clearly aimed a bit more at men.

Where you should watch: If you want to go to a movie, you can see this and get your money’s worth, but you don’t need the big screen to enjoy it and in fact, as I mentioned, the DVD will probably be hilarious, so if you don’t need a funny fix for a while, you can wait to rent or buy this one.

What’s the couch rating: I didn’t see this with Tanya, or at home, but I can tell you Tanya would have rolled her eyes at plenty in this movie, but she would have laughed at even more. No way she falls asleep during this one.

What my gut tells me: I walked out and wanted to see it again right away. You just know it is the kind of movie that gets funnier the more you watch it. I will be going back. And then repeating the lines until all my friends want to kill me.

What it’s like: We’ve been over this.

Where it rates: 8 – That just feels right. It had its flaws like most comedies do and I liked Anchorman better, but it was pretty dang funny.

It's been a long November....

2006-07-21T11:49:00.000-07:00

Just saw a couple movies from my Blockbuster queue and if you like weird movies that make you wonder if it is even possible, much less desirable to understand what is going on, these movies are for you. I’m not going to do a full review, just because I don’t have the energy and I’m not sure I could do it without giving too much away. But, here’s a bit of info on a couple movies in case you’re wondering what to add to your queue....or not.

The Machinist.

This movie stars an emaciated Christian Bale as a guy who can’t sleep and pays the price of extended insomnia. Bale (the most recent Batman) is an actor I really like and so I thought I would check this movie out. He starved himself for this role and became freakishly thin, I mean, can see every bone, think he’s going to just break in half, makes Ally McBeal look like Rosanne kind of skinny. It is hard to look at and really the most memorable thing by far about the movie.

Bale plays a guy who can’t sleep and is literally wasting away as a result. To make matters worse he begins to crumble mentally as he can’t tell if he is seeing things or at the center of a conspiracy. The movie leads the audience down the same path of confusion as you wonder what is real and what is imagined while desperately wanting to feed this poor guy. The movie is dark, intense and disturbing. The ending actually fairly well redeems an otherwise unpleasant movie, but I’m not ready to call it “good.” On my scale I think I will give it a 6.5, which doesn’t actually exist on my scale, but it is better than your typical 6, but probably not quite a 7…I think. If you like small, dark psychological thrillers, it is worth renting, but not with children. Take that R rating very seriously.

November

If you watch The Machinist, but decide it was really too light and “normal” for you, check out November. Courtney Cox plays a woman trying to put the pieces together to understand her husband’s shooting in a convenient store robbery.

As an aside, I never got why so many people thought Jennifer Anniston was the “hot one” on friends. She is not even in the same league as Cox. I don’t get this one at all. But anyway…

This movie is one of the most vague, difficult to follow, impressionistic movies I have ever seen (at least that was made by Americans in America). If you get to the end of this movie and understand exactly what is going on, my hat’s off to you, but I sure didn’t get there. That said, the movie was fairly captivating to watch. Visually, it grabs and keeps your attention with changes in color, lighting, lenses, perspective, etc. And it presents just enough of the story to make you really want to know what on earth is going on, or to break the dvd up into little tiny pieces and mail them with a strongly worded letter expressing your displeasure to the director. I sort of felt both at the same time for most of this movie.

The movie is told in 3 acts and when you get to the beginning of the second act, the presented reality is so altered, that you really have nothing but pure speculation to help you figure out what is going on. Then when you move to the 3rd act, you will likely become angry as you realize that even the bits you thought you understood, you really didn’t. It was at this point while I was watching that I was very thankful I had decided to watch this one without my lovely wife Tanya. She wouldn’t have liked this movie even before the final act, but she might have kept watching, because there was something engrossing about it and then she would have become angry and maybe violent and frankly, I couldn’t blame her.

Then the movie ended and I was pretty lost. The ending provides some “real” answers finally, but it doesn’t really help you understand little details like the chronology of the story or even what actually happened. I was so baffled, that I watched the entire movie again with the director’s commentary on, foolishly forfeiting sleep in hopes of finding out what I had just invested the last 2 (and then 4) hours on. Turns out the director commentary was very helpful. There was a whole lot going on in that movie and the sometimes nauseating ambiguity it turns out, was entirely purposeful.

I have to say that while I did not enjoy the movie really before the commentary, after the commentary, the movie really got me thinking. I’m going to give it a 7 even though without the commentary it would have been a 3. It is brutally difficult to understand, but it turns out there is a pretty good reason for that and to do it any other way may have defeated the purpose behind making the movie. That said, it was hard to watch.

If you’re a film buff and you like weird, experimental movies, this one is worth checking out and then once you do, watch it again with the commentary. Maybe I’m just an idiot and you won’t even need the commentary, but it is worth hearing anyway. If you just can't wait for the next Michael Bay or Jerry Bruckheimer movie, you may want to take a pass on November.

Psych

2006-07-14T16:51:00.000-07:00

Summer has become the time of new series on cable while the major networks just pretend that people stop wanting to watch decent TV in the summer. The track record has actually been fairly good. Usually there are 3-6 new scripted shows (the only ones I care about. I live reality, I don't need to watch it and pretend it's not scripted), and out of those there have been one or two good ones a year recently and out of those maybe one sticks. Nothing too ambitious, but a better percentage than the networks. Last year I watched the 4400 which is basically X-Men without the fancy suits and gadgets where we're not sure if the mutants are good or bad or both. And of course, there was my favorite Over There which is apparently not coming back.

I have already commented on Blade which I liked well enough to keep watching for now and then last night I watched Psych. What I loved about this show was that it was such a blatant rip off of Monk and was so obvious, that USA basically admits it in some adds it ran showing both Tony Shaloub from Monk and the main guy from Psych. Basically both have the same ability to notice the little things that others don't and reason out what they mean. The only difference is that Monk is a crazy freak and the new guy is an immature brat.

Usually, when a show like Monk catches on, there are some rip offs, but not usually such a close one by the exact same network. Oh well. In some ways it works a bit better than Monk only because the schtick about all of Monk's hangups got tiresome. Psych was not great by any means. but it was decent light, brainless summer watching and I'm going to give it a few more episodes before I decide. For right now, it's a maybe, but if you're looking for something mildly amusing to watch instead of the latest version of American Idol, you could do a lot worse.

Blade the Series

2006-07-13T11:33:00.000-07:00

I was never a huge comic book guy and never a collector or anything like that, but I have always liked superhero stuff. I enjoyed the comics when I was a kid, I see every movie made from a comic book and often dress in red and blue tights when home bymyse.....ummm....wait, never mind, forget that last part.

So, when a new movie or tv show comes out that is based on a comic book (or "graphic novel" which is what you call it if you are an adult not wishing to admit you read comic books), or comic book character, even if I know it is going to be bad, I will check it out just in case. In truth, TV and Hollywood only get this stuff right maybe 35% of the time, but when they do it is some of my favorite stuff. Superman 1 and 2, both Spidermans, Batman 1 and 2 and the latest "New Beginning", and The Crow (just the original) are all among my favorite movies.

I never read "Blade", but enjoyed the first movie and generally like vampire stories and legends so long as they don't over emphasize the gore. The second and third Blade movies were not worth watching, but I still figured I would check out Spike channel's Blade the series and added it to Tivo. I watched the season premier last night and to my surprise, it was actually pretty decent. Pretty high production value on the look and special effects helps. The big mean black dude from Over There, who may be named "Sticky" plays Blade and did a good job. They are going to need to keep the characters around him with plenty of personality since Blade mostly scowls, growls and fights and little else, but if they can keep from trying to outdo themselves in every episode, they might have a watchable show here.

It is dark and violent and bloody and I just don't have the temperment to watch that all the time, but I'm keeping it on my tivo for now and if you liked the Blade films and have cable, you should check it out.

10 Things I Think I Think

2006-07-12T14:31:00.000-07:00

Just thinking about a few things that I thought I would toss out there with a nod to the excellent Peter King who writes a must-read article called Monday Morning Quarterback for CNN/SI that no football fan should miss during the season. He always includes 10 things he thinks he thinks about football, so here are 10 things I think I think about sports. Also, check my other blogs later for 10 things I think I think about in general and about sports.

1. I think of the movies I have seen lately, but probably won’t have time to review, I think the following: Munich was very good, very well done and very long. Too long. Shave 35 minutes off and you have a great movie. Firewall was complete rubbish. I can’t imagine why Harrison Ford agreed to do that movie. Completely formulaic and predictable. Unleashed was good evidence that Jet Li should stick to fighting and not try acting. Some of the fight scenes were great and the story decent if you ignore the dumptruck sized holes in the plot, but Li’s acting was nearly unbearable. That said, saw the previews for his new kung fu epic and it looks great. Syriana was too slow and to convoluted and too pointless. I don’t know if I just wasn’t following the plot, or not caring about the plot, but either is bad.

2. I think I hate American TV because a truly great comedy like Arrested Development couldn’t catch on while that show with Charlie Sheen is a hit. Ugh. By the way, here’s my list of best (intentional) comedies on TV in order:
a. Curb Your Enthusiasm
b. My Name is Earl
c. The Office
d. Seinfeld reruns
e. I’m Alan Partridge reruns

And that’s it. Let me know if you think I’m missing something here, but I think that’s it. Also, speaking of the Office. I’m so glad, it has managed to survive after the first couple of episodes so lamely copied the vastly superior British version. The American version is dumbed down and is working with about half the talent of the original, but has made itself into a good show worth watching every week. Ordinarily I do not tivo sitcoms because if you miss one, so what, there will be reruns on forever and most of them are so bad, but both My Name is Earl and The Office have joined Seinfeld as the only sitcoms on my tivo.

3. I think I will be the last American to see that Pirate movie. I can tell from the previews that it has no shot at being better than the first one which was, I thought, a 6 out of 10 at best.

4. I think the great and groundbreaking TV show “Over There” must have been canceled and I couldn’t be more disappointed. Very underrated show. Pick it up on DVD.

5. I think there has never been, in the history of movies, an actor who made so many comedies that were not funny and yet maintained such an adoring fan base that think he’s funny as Ben Stiller. I like Stiller, but he has made a lot, I mean a lot of movies that just weren’t that funny. There’s Something About Mary was an instant classic, Zoolander had some funny parts, but dragged mightily, Mystery Men was underrated and funny and that’s really about it since I was too ashamed for Robert DeNiro to enjoy those wildly overrated “Me the…” movies. I mean really, people think he’s awesome, but he’s not a tenth as funny as Will Ferrel, Vince Vaughn, Jack Black or Steve Carrel.

6. I think I don’t understand why, when the LOTR movies were so good and so huge and so profitable, they didn’t immediately start making the Hobbit. Do people in Hollywood not like making money? Is there any other way to explain a movie like Firewall?

7. I think those new theaters with stadium seating and that big aisle that runs across the middle are fantastic and I can’t for the life of me understand why anyone would sit in any row other than the one where you can stretch out in the big aisle and yet those seats are almost always open.

8. I think the things I’m about to start watching in the near future are: Superman Returns, Blade the Series, Psych, Deadwood Season 2, Entourage Season 2, November, The Machinist.

9. I think I’m ready for Woody Allen to make another great movie. I’m sorry, but Match Point was not it. Scarlet is nice, but that movie had not a single likeable character.

10. I think if you are contemplating a TV upgrade, you are insane if you don’t at least consider the possibility of getting a video projector. After doing about 6 months of research on these little gems, I would be happy to assist you if you have any questions. They are just too good and cheap (relatively) to ignore any longer.

Cars

2006-07-08T21:15:00.000-07:00

I sat down to write a review of the latest Pixar offering, Cars, and it started to feel silly for me to be reviewing a movie that couldn’t care less if I liked it. Well, I’m still going forward, but I thought I would solicit some help from the target audience. So, for this review, you are going to get 3 opinions for the price of one….or actually none. My oldest son Gibson, who is 5, going on 35 will offer his opinion in response to my questions and his pal Douglas, who is 3 and a half and undeniably the biggest “Cars” fan on the planet will offer his as well with the interviewing and notetaking help of his Mom Jennifer. I mean, this kid loves this movie more than Cliff Claven and he wouldn’t be working if it weren’t for Pixar.

So, I’m using the same template as usual, but I altered the questions slightly to make them somewhat more kid friendly. What you will get is the unedited words of these two uber critics. To keep from holding you in suspense, let me just say that both Gibson and Griffin loved the movie, and I have to say that I did too. Movies like Cars make me very grateful. Now that I have kids I have been plunged into the world of kids entertainment and let me tell you in all honesty, if Dante were alive today and writing he would make the world of kid’s entertainment one of the levels of Hell and he'd be spot on.

So, when someone actually takes the time to make a kids movie that is also enjoyable for adults like Cars and Finding Nemo and Chicken Run and the Incredibles, it makes me want to find them and kiss them. I don’t however as I fear it would discourage them from making adult friendly kid movies in the future. Plus it’s against the law….and creepy…let’s just move on.

What it’s about: Warning – Gibson’s description of the movie, which I finally cut-off to keep it from being twice as long as the actual movie (like father like son, I guess), contains some spoilers about the story and the end. Douglas keeps you guessing.

Me: Basically, this is the story of Lightening McQueen who is an upstart race car in a world inhabited only by cars (and other motorized vehicles). The cars talk and such and have eyes in the windshield. McQueen finds himself in a small town that was bypassed when the new interstate replaced a section of old Route 66. While trapped in the small town, he makes friends with some small town cars and learns some important life lessons about maturing as a car….and how to effectively navigate a hard turn on a dirt track.

Douglas: ‘Bout Chick bumped Light Nin-Queen off the track (nods head vigorously).Yep.

(Douglas’ Mommy: What else is it about?)

It is ‘bout Chicken Little lost his underwear. (Smiles)

(No really, what else is it about?)

‘Bout how Mater says “Howdy, Howdy.” ‘bout 94 movies. ‘bout Cars. 59 onstereo on the DVD.

(Really?)

(Nods head.) Cars is not on DVD.

Gibson: It’s about cars that are funny and lightening McQueen the red car is the best race car in Cars. The car whose name is “The King” at the very end he got injured ‘cause he broke down. And when he broke down, lightening McQueen came over and brought Tow Mater, the rusty tow truck, and Tow Mater fixed the King and the King is the guy of blue. (I have to point out that Gibson can see that I’m typing his every word so he talks the entire time in this deliberate stilted voice like he’s been giving dictation for 25 years…It cracked me up and even when I pointed it out and told him he could talk normally, he said, “I am, just type. I have more to say”)

He has a really fancy thing sticking up on the back of his car and Tow Mater is Lightening McQueen’s friend and when he lost the race, the boss and lightening McQueen were going to play a race and he lost and so the road was broken because there was a little car and a statue and he broke down of it and he pulled it along on the road so that’s how he broke it and so when he lost the game he…let me think about what I’m going to say…he made him fix the road because he lost and he didn’t do a very good job on the first time but the second time he did a great job. (At this point I asked if he thought we should move on to the next question and he gave me an incredulous look and agreed. Otherwise, I guarantee you he would still be talking…no matter when you are reading this, he would still be going. Trust me).

What’s to like: I asked the boys what their favorite part was and you can see their responses below, as I know full well you are already skipping what I have to say to get to the good stuff. Anyway, I’ll just add that the animation was the best I have ever seen, the story was great. I absolutely loved the tractor tipping scene mentioned below as well as the two Italian cars who sell tires. Really, there was tons they got right, including the cameos by real drivers, the random pop culture references aimed purely at adults (“freebird”). But I will cut myself off to get to what the boys said.

Douglas: Light Nin-Queen

(Mommy: Really?)

Like the big race. Sheriff says (switching to deep voice) “you in heap o’trouble, son.” Mater says “Ray-der Springs. The cutest little town incounterator county.” Mater says
“Just like ta-mater, but without the toe.”

Gibson: My favorite part was when Lightening McQueen and Tow Mater and the tractors on the grass were sleeping and Tow Mater snuck up on them and honked and then one of them tipped over and then the tube that tractors have, they tooted out of their tubes and that is my favorite part (giggling and laughing hysterically…by the way, flatulence is always funny, I mean from birth to death).

What I could have done without:

Me: Had a long section about two-thirds in that was basically just a cartoon music video. Snooze.
Douglas: I like everything.

Gibson: Nothing. It was all great.

Who do you like:

Me: The tire sales guy and his assistant. Especially in the big race. Hilarious.

Douglas: Light Nin-Queen

(Why?)

Because him red. I like red.

(Do you like anyone else?)

Chick is one too.

(Why do you like Chick?)

I don’t.

Gibson: Tow Mater and Lightening McQueen because Tow Mater made the tractors toot and Lightening McQueen won all the races….and I do like races.

What’s new: I didn’t ask the boys this question, so you’re stuck with me on this one. Well, it was about cartoon cars and the eyes weren’t the headlights. Why not? Don’t know, but that was new.

Also, the animation really is amazing. The scenery shots, for the most part, would not have looked odd with real actors walking through and made the whole movie a fun visual experience.

What’s the last word: Just me here too. Ending was great. No complaints. Predictable, but it’s a kids movie. You don’t really want one of those scary, sad, pshycho French Movie endings, now do you?

Who you should bring:

Me: I asked the boys, whether this was a movie they thought Mommies and Daddies (or Grown ups if you prefer) would enjoy, in addition to kids of course. Their answers are below. As for my answer, this is a movie that you will enjoy with your kids. I haven’t so fallen in love with this sort of movie that I would see it without kids. It was good and all, but it was still for kids. If you don’t have kids, find someone who does and take theirs…with permission of course.

Douglas: Grown-ups?

(You know, grown-ups. Like Mommies and Daddies?)

Like my parents? At my house?

(Yes. Would we like the movie?)

Nope.

(Why?)

Because there don’t. That be not very nice. (singing to himself whilesitting in front of Daddy’s computer) I want to look at Car trailers. Lookat car trailers. Look at car trailers. Yeah, yeah yeah. I want to go toCars CD. Cars. Cars.(Did Mommy like this movie?)
My mom? Mmmm, yeah. Her did. Her liked it from the ‘ginning of the racewith Chick and Light Nin-Queen. Reving up in the trailer. “I am speed,”the racecar bellowed to himself, “I am light-nin.” Burst into the crowd.Flashlights went around him and the fans went wild! (all of the last part is“quoting” from a Cars book we have).

Gibson: Kinda, kinda not, or actually let’s just go with a “kinda yes.”

Where you should watch: It’s worth going to the Theater, even though when you do this with a popular kids movie, you are just tacking on one more to the hundreds of times you will end up seeing the movie. Nevertheless, the visuals on this movie make the big screen well worth the price of admission. I asked the boys whether they would rather watch the movie at home or at the theater.

Douglass: At home.

Gibson: Theater because there’s much more room and my favorite part of the theaters is the big giant screen

What’s the couch rating: Gibson would never have let Mommy fall asleep even if she had wanted to and she wouldn’t have in this one anyway.

What my gut tells me: Loved it. I suspect I won’t start hating it until at least the 16th or 17th time I see it and maybe not even then.

What it’s like: It is a lot like the other Pixar films in story, look and feel. In fact the movies are starting to show a formula to their story lines if you look for it…so don’t.

Where it rates: As a movie for kids: 10. They will love it. For adults: 8. I mean it would be higher, but it is a kids movie.

Finally, just for fun, I asked the boys the following question:

Do you think the use of camera angles in animated films that simulate live action cinematography engage the viewer by tapping into previously conceived ideas about how one views something that is real, or do you feel it limits the otherwise limitless boundaries provided by digital technologies?

Me: I find it adds to the experience by drawing you in to the created world.

Douglas: (Sticks out tongue. Ignores me. Tilts his head to one side.) Huh?

Gibson: (smiling like I’m tricking him) Uhhhh….I don’t know what that means.

And there you have it. Special thanks to Gibson, Douglas and Douglas' Mommy and Daddy Tony and Jennifer. Look for future reviews by these two budding prodigy critics in the future. Until then, Gibson says, “I better get my picture on this blog.”

Nacho Libre

2006-07-06T22:33:00.000-07:00

Jared Hess (the director of the wildly funny Napoleon Dynamite) and Jack Black (personifies wildly funny) teamed to make Nacho Libre. Can’t miss right? I mean, that is going to be nonstop funny, yes? Ummmm…no. To quote one of the better lines from the movie: “It was a stinky.” Actually, the movie didn’t stink and it led to some mild chuckling, but given the comedic fire power at work here, I expected and just plain wanted more.

Even before I saw this movie, I had heard not to expect much and so with lowered expectations and a carefree attitude that can only be brought on by a Thursday afternoon matinee while on vacation with my best pal in LA, I bought my ticket and looked forward to a couple hours of silliness. What I got was one of the worst accents in the history of Hollywood, some funny wrestling scenes, a really skinny dude and a not quite fat enough dude becoming friends and yet another actress who looks like Penelope Cruz.

What’s that about by the way? First there was Sidney’s sister on Alias and now there’s another one. Is someone cloning Cruz? I know some people think she’s beautiful (I say, call me after you start eating more than 3 meals a week. And by “call me” I of course mean “don’t call me, I’m married, what are you trying to pull here?”), but next time can we vote on who gets cloned? I can only think of about 50 actresses off hand that would be ahead of her on the list. Oh well.

What it’s about: Nacho is an orphan raised by monks? Padres? Priests? ...I’m not really sure, let’s just call them “religious guys in robes” and grows up in this small Mexican orphanage to become one of these religious guys but with much bigger hair. He reluctantly goes about his duties as the orphanage’s cook dreaming of the day when he can pursue his real dreams as his small village's Mexican professional wrestler. See? That already sounds funny right? He hooks up with a really skinny guy off the streets and they begin secretly wrestling at night while maintaining their secret identities as mild-mannered religious guy and skinny street guy by day. Eventually, there is more wrestling and some mildly funny attempts to impress Penelope Cruz 3.

What’s to like: Jack Black’s Mexican/Italian/California accent is so awful, it is funny. Sometimes, he can barely speak English. Other times he speaks with a slight lisp. Often he completely casts aside any attempt to have an accent at all. Seriously, if you can spend the next 2 minutes doing a half-hearted impression of the taco bell dog, you will be doing a better accent than Black. That said, it was perfect for this over the top campy movie. I loved it.

I loved that he tries to woo Cruz the 3rd by bringing her toast in the middle of the night. No, that’s not a euphemism, and there is no explanation as to why someone, Mexican religious guy or otherwise, would try to do this. Good stuff.

The skinny guy was great. He was like all those random characters in Napoleon Dynamite that make every scene awkward, strange and entrancing. His full gum grimace and moaning about his hair being pulled out are some of the funniest things about this movie.

The wrestling scenes, where Black gets to cut loose and be himself are all pretty funny.

Basically Hess recreates the same look and feel he had going in Dynamite. There are the same dramatic exits, strange close ups, unexplained moments of just watching people’s strange faces doing odd things. Everything is perfectly understated. Everything, that is, except Jack Black who just happens to be in every scene and is about as understated as a bright orange Lamborghini.

There was enough comedy in the movie to keep me sort of giggling or snickering through most of it, though never any laugh hard moments, but I wasn’t in pain or bored watching it.

What I could have done without: I hate to say this, but…Jack Black. He often provided some of the funniest parts of the movie just being himself, but he was so over the top and generally inconsistent with the way he approached a scene, it came off as amateurish and lame most of the time. When everyone else was understated and odd, he was loud and melodramatic. Some was funny, but he also sabotaged any chance this movie had of being really funny.

One guy gets randomly stabbed in the eye and it’s sick. It is out of context and doesn’t fit with the movie at all. Very strange and disturbing. Could've done without that.

Those Sprite adds that are trying to be subliminal. I know that’s not in the movie, but they run it over and over before every movie and they consistently make me want to punch someone and that is just no way to start a funny movie.

Stay with me here, but Jack Black wasn’t fat enough. Jack Black is fat. He is not pretty to look at, but they relied heavily on sight gags of him without his shirt and in spandex pants trying to appear sexy or macho. Remember that classic SNL skit with Chris Farley and Patrick Swayze trying out to be Chip ‘n Dale dancers? 75% of the humor in that skit was how fat and gross Farley was. He was huge. He may have eaten Swayze after that skit, which would help explain (along with a definite lack of talent) Swayze’s career disappearing act. Black is fat, but in a sort of typical American who spends too much time on the couch drinking Big Gulps and playing video games sort of way. For the humor to work, he really needed to be fat in a it’s time to intervene before he explodes right in front of us kind of way.

I could have used some more funny in this movie. Like maybe 3 times as much. Just nothing really clever and agonizingly long stretches between anything funny. It was like everyone just stood back and said, “hey Jack, be funny now.” And then probably stood around saying, “that doesn’t seem funny, but it’s Jack Black, it must be funny, …right? Right?”

Sadly, it just wasn’t.

Who do you like: The skinny guy is great. Seriously, I wish he had been the main character. I could have watched him do nothing but grimace and look pained for an hour and a half and I would have been happy. Let’s hope we see him in more.

What’s new: The skinny guy was new. Nothing else of note.

What’s the last word: The ending was actually really good. I don’t think I’m giving anything away here by saying there is a wrestling scene prominently involved and it is so ridiculous it is funny. One of the best scenes in the movie, so at least it went out with a bang.

Who you should bring: People whose reality has already been altered with the help of pharmecuticals. If this movie is going to be funny at all it will only be to people who worship Jack Black and who are 16-35 and probably male. I don’t know why women would like this movie and wouldn’t expect men to like it all that much. Don’t go looking for your buddy who loved Napolean Dynamite or School of Rock, because they will only be disappointed. Instead, find your friend who just laughs every few minutes for no apparent reason.

Where you should watch: No need for a big screen. The visuals were interesting at times, but you can wait until this one comes out on cable.

What’s the couch rating: Tanya would have been in REM sleep before the opening credits ended. One shot of Jack Black in that hideous hair and belly and she would have closed her eyes not to reopen them until I was taking her off to bed with her asking me in a dazed stupor, “why did you choose that movie?”

What my gut tells me: I didn’t hate it. I wasn’t angry I had watched it, but I only spent about 3 minutes quoting back diologue and referencing scenes after the movie which is about 4 years less than I do with a good comedy. I guess that last sentence should also serve as a warning in case you ever spend time around me.

What it’s like: Napolean Dynamite except that Napoleon is played by Jim Carey and nothing really funny happens.

Where it rates: 5. Maybe the perfect 5.

Thank You For Making This Movie

2006-06-26T12:40:00.000-07:00

Ever thought about what kind of villain you would make? Ever watched some movie where the evil genius has a brilliant plan and then messes it up by letting the wrong person live or by confessing their whole plan before leaving their incompetent henchman to off the hero, and thought, “man, I could do that so much better.” Maybe I’m revealing too much about myself here, but I think about that all the time. Of course the key to all of that, to borrow a line from “Thank You For Smoking” is that you would have to have a moral flexibility that is beyond most people. Thankfully, most of us don’t have that type of moral flexibility, but there can still be something seductive about the bad guy. Maybe it’s that black is slimming.

Whatever the reason, I have to say that the main character of this movie, a spokesperson for “big tobacco” made the bad guy seem as cool as possible while forcing me to spend 2 hours wishing I was that clever. The “sultan of spin” as he is called is absolutely brilliant in this very tongue in cheek comedy about the art of spin.

In some ways this movie also hit close to home because, like lobbyists, lawyers are asked to advocate the positions of their clients as if they were their own without making those issues their own. It is a very strange and difficult line to walk and some are better at it than others. Some become true believers and only represent causes they believe in. Some separate themselves from their work entirely and would not bat an eye at representing Osama or Saddam or a serial killer. Most stay in the middle constantly asking themselves if ethics and morality only require honesty, courtesy, professionalism, committed advocacy and playing by the rules. Or does it also require us to examine the causes and people and companies for whom we advocate? It is a very tough question to which most lawyers have at best an unsatisfactory, but functioning answer that changes from client to client

Anyway, this movie examines those issues in a very sarcastic, wickedly clever and above all very funny satire.

What it’s about: The movie follows Nick Naylor who is the chief spokesperson and lobbyist for American tobacco companies. It follows him as he bribes and manipulates cancer victims, slanders cheese, tries to put cigarettes back in the movies and all this while trying to parent his young son. Yes this is the story of the guy who wants your children to start and keep smoking and somehow makes a convincing case as to why they should.

What’s to like: Above all, the writing. Incredibly smart script on a couple levels. First, it is laugh out loud funny throughout the movie. Second it is full of subtle details, symbols, inferences, and wordplays that give the movie some depth and offer up rewards for paying close attention. When you watch this movie, and you really should, pay attention to the names of people and places and the themes and symbols. Make note of things like what flavor of ice cream Nick and son eat on the Santa Monica pier, and what’s going on in the movie showing when Nick and his son go to meet the Hollywood agent. Good stuff.

More than anything else, though, this movie is about the guy with the perfect comeback for everything. You know those great comebacks you think of 15 minutes after you’ve left a conversation, well this guy delivers when it matters. You just spend the whole time going, “oh man, that is perfect.” The writing is really that good.

The acting is also good. All 3 of the MOD squad (“Merchants of Death” – a meeting between lobbyists for tobacco, alcohol and firearms), were great. William H. Macy is as good as he always is. Basically, the script was inspired and the actors have the timing and skill to allow it to come alive.

Also, it didn’t suffer from that dead 30 minutes that kills most comedies. That period of time, when they are trying to advance a love story or just go too far between things that make you laugh. This movie starts you laughing right away and keeps you laughing until the end. Not crying, falling out of your chair laughing, but constant amusement.

What I could have done without: It suffered a little bit from “scripting.” There may be some other term out there that describes this phenomenon, but I’m not aware of it, so I’m stealing this word to describe something I see in movies all the time. This movie only works if you believe that Nick is this unstoppable arguing force of spin and confidence. So, the movie has to convince you he is that guy early and often. The thing is that being clever enough to be funny to watch requires not only a quick wit, but the right situation and opportunity. Lloyd Benson doesn’t get off that line about JFK unless Dan Quayle set him up for it.

You need a good set up to deliver that crushing one liner. That’s why George Constanza flew to Iowa or wherever it was to have a shot at delivering that “jerk store” line. If you don’t watch Seinfeld, just ignore me and move on and rest in the shame of having missed the best sitcom ever made for American network TV.

When movies need to set up their story by convincing you that a character is really smart, or an amazing fighter or super strong or super clever or whatever, they give their characters the right set up. Some movies try to “cheat” with narrators which never works quite as well and then others try to short-cut the process by making the set up just a little too good and the payoff just a little to big and those around the hero just a little too weak. That’s what I mean by “scripting.” We would all be a lot more clever if we knew what other people were going to say and some times this movie tried so hard to convince you Nick was clever, the set ups were a bit forced. Also, his opponents were ridiculously incompetent. Even the one person who makes life hard for him has to use talents other than intellect to best him.

Smart against stupid was pretty funny, but smart against smart might have been better.

Also, while the subject matter and situations in the movie were great, the story was ignored at times which gave the movie a choppy feel, but this was just a “day in the life” movie anyway, so not a big deal.

Also, part of the plat revolved around how hot Katie Holmes is and I’m sorry she’s just not all that.

Who do you like: You don’t want to, but you like Nick. You just can’t help it.. If you’ve never been in a position where you have to argue for something you don’t personally believe in (though I’m not sure that was what was portrayed in the movie), you might have a harder time sympathizing with the characters in this movie, but if you have, or if you do so for a living, these characters have a haunting truth to them.

What’s new: This movie never gets preachy and doesn’t get bogged down in the angst over whether it’s ok to argue for big tobacco. It stays true to itself in a way that most movies do not as they try to further some agenda beyond the mere plot of their movie. So, that was new. It also showed this guy corrupting his son in a way that was funny and disturbing all at once. Usually, movies dodge that reality and want us to believe that people with flexible morals, still teach their kids what is right. Not this one.

What’s the last word: Good ending. A bit Hollywood (which could mean a bit too predictable or happy or forced or tidy, etc). I liked the shot at the reporter and the debate about cheese near the end. I also liked that the movie did not break character and try unnecessarily to redeem things that were not on their way to redemption. Sorry to be vague, but I don’t like giving things away.

Who you should bring: Anyone old enough to deal with some coarse language and some minor sexual scenes. All you need to enjoy this movie is a sense of humor that appreciates sarcasm, subtlety and rapier wit. I think this movie would appeal more to men than to women, but not enough to matter in deciding who to take.

Where you should watch: I think this is the first movie I’ve reviewed so far that does not call for a big screen. This movie will play just as well on your little tv at home as it does in the theater.

I should clarify that many people view a discussion of whether a movie is worth seeing in the theater a bit differently than I do. I hear people talking about whether they should see it in the theater or should just wait and rent it and the real debate is: Is this movie worth paying $9 for and arranging babysitting and such or is this a $3 watch it at home with microwave popcorn kind of movie.

I take a different approach. For me, you’re not paying for the value or quality of the movie, but rather the superior screen and sound. So, when I say, there is no need to see this movie in the theater, it is not to suggest anything about how good a movie it is, but rather that nothing is gained by seeing it on a big screen with the best surround sound. So, I would rather see Mission Impossible on the big screen than this movie, even though MI3 was not very good and this movie was, because MI3 is only worth seeing if you can take full advantage of the sound and visuals whereas a movie like this, just doesn’t rely on that sort of thing.

The net result of this for me, is that I tend to see more bad movies at the theater and the better movies at home, because it is much more rare to see a well made big budget visual feast of a movie these days than the smaller films that rely more on acting and writing. But I want to see both eventually, so I’ll go see the big action movies at the theater even when I strongly suspect they won’t be that good.

What’s the couch rating: This is a tough one. I didn’t see this with Tanya, but would expect my lovely wife to like this movie and appreciate the comedy. That said, if she were lying on the couch after 9:30 and watching this, I think it’s iffy that she makes it past halfway. Usually, my wife has to really care about the characters and what is happening in their lives to stay awake. Other factors come into play, but I think that is generally true. This movie is about the shock of hearing someone argue with a straight face that kids should try cigarettes for themselves and not rely on what their parents or other people tell them. That would make my wife laugh, but I’m giving this a couch rating of only 45 minutes to an hour.

What my gut tells me: I walked out wanting to quote back every line. So much good stuff. Just made me laugh and appreciate that a funny movie could still get made that was smart and didn’t rely at all on jokes about flatulents, sex or people’s private parts.

What it’s like: It seems like I've seen a movie or two that was like this, but none leap to mind. It’s a bit like Swimming with Sharks, it’s a bit like an unCareyfied Liar Liar. It has the same sort of feel as some of the Christopher Guest mockumenaries or a movie like Drop Dead Gorgeous. I’m struggling to find a better comparison, but it’s just not coming to mind. The movie is mostly dissimilar to anything else out there.

Where it rates: 9. Instant classic. Not funny enough to get into the very top tier, but on the verge.

Good Movie Alert

2006-06-26T00:30:00.000-07:00

I just saw "Thank You For Smoking." It is brilliant. The review will be posted shortly, but if you're trying to find something to see in the meantime and none of the big budget fair has appeal, find your local art house and check it out. You won't be sorry unles you hate laughing.

The Da Vinci Code's real secret? This Movie is Really Bad

2006-06-25T00:33:00.000-07:00

This was a certifiably awful movie, but let me start with a couple disclaimers. First, I didn’t read the book. I hear that the book tells a fascinating and gripping story in spite of some pretty pedestrian writing. Let me tell you pedestrian writing would have been a breath of fresh air for the movie.

Second, the controversies surrounding this movie completely escape me. Before I get into these, and because of my own sensitivity to spoilers, I must confess, that this discussion gives away some of what the movie is about. That said, if you don’t already know this much about the story, you have likely be living under a rock and are not likely to even own a computer with internet access that would allow you to read this very out of the way blog. Nevertheless if the moss from that rock is still fresh on your shirt and you hate spoilers as much as I do, read the book and then skip the movie and read this review later.

The first mysterious controversy is external to the movie. That is, the Catholic church and many others in Christendom calling for boycotting this movie because it does not accurately depict what is told in scripture, how the Catholic church conducts itself and many other things related to the Christian faith. Uhmmmm….right…it is a work of fiction!!!! No one is claiming otherwise. Neither Dan Brown, the author nor Ron Howard, the movie’s director make any claim whatsoever that anything presented in this book or movie is real or true or should be believed and accepted. Why aren’t the Paris police outraged at how they are portrayed? Why isn’t Harvard coming forward to demand an apology for suggesting that they have a symbols expert who went looking for the holy grail? Why? Because neither the book nor the movie ever claimed to be anything but fiction and everyone except for a select few Christians get that. The mere fact that it references actual people, places and events and then distorts how those things really happened is no reason to be any more upset about this movie than we should be about Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure or Woody Allen’s masterpiece Love and Death.

In my mind, well-meaning church-going folk often get upset over completely the wrong things when it comes to pop culture addressing religion. They raise a huge fuss over an innocuous murder-mystery novel that presents an in your face, easy to identify message about Christianity that you can easily note and choose to reject or accept. And yet a show like “touched by an angel” can turn Biblical theology on its head, but because it seems to have a good moral and because Laura Ingles Wilder’s Pa was on the show, it got a pass from the religious critics. This is backwards.

This movie is no more likely to cause someone to have a crisis of faith than is the National Enquirer making a claim that someone saw the return of Jesus foretold in the markings of their peach pit. Remember, please, this book/movie is pure fiction and never claims to be anything else. If you need further proof consider that they misquoted the “Gospel according to Mary.” If you have to misquote some piece of Gnostic propaganda like that “gospel” to make a point theologically, chances are you aren’t trying to produce a scholarly work.

I also didn’t get the controversy of the story itself. Without getting into a whole philosophical and theological discourse here, why would the discovery that Jesus was married be such a big deal? It would raise some questions about why the Bible makes no mention of it and it would certainly call into question (as common sense and Biblical teaching already do) the Catholic doctrine of celibacy for its clergy, but other than that, what’s the big deal? I believe Jesus was fully man and fully God. Why would His being married make Him less God? I just never bought that this was a big enough deal to kill and go to war over. If an authentic ancient text was discovered tomorrow proving conclusively that Jesus was married, it would not change my perception of Jesus even the slightest bit. It might rattle my notion of scripture a bit, but even that wouldn’t be catastrophic. I just don’t get it. And because I didn’t get it, I couldn’t engage in the drama of the movie.

What it’s about: Tom Hanks plays a symbols expert with a mullet and a mission. He is called in to help in the investigation of a murder and finds himself on a treasure hunt through ancient works of art and history to find the “holy grail” which might just prove that Jesus was married, a fact that would apparently put an end to Christianity and a secret that men who had spent their lives devoted to God would gladly become mass murderers to protect.

What’s to like: The cast. Tom Hanks, Audrey Tautou, Ian McKellan, Jean Reno, and Alfred Molina are all some of the very best in the business. All fine actors and thoroughly enjoyable to watch. All completely wasted in this movie.

What I could discern of the plot line is really a pretty fascinating concept, so there’s that.

Audrey Tautou is really striking and likeable.

My wife also mentioned that she liked the effects used to show us how Hanks’ character was seeing the different codes in his mind which I agree was pretty cool.

By far my favorite thing about this movie is that I was watching it with my wife in the theater in seats where the arm rests can fold up and I could sit closer to my lovely wife. If ever your seat is the best thing about a movie, that movie is in serious trouble.

What I could have done without: Where to begin…. The writing was astonishingly bad. The dialogue between Hanks and Tautou was so painful at times it was almost unintentionally comical. In one scene, Hanks bursts out with demand that she tell him about her past. The scene is so random and out of the blue and so forced and unbelievable, it prompted me to lean over and ask Tanya, “if you’re Tom Hanks and your last 29 movies were huge hits, why would you agree to do a scene like that? Can’t you say, ‘I’m supposed to say what? C’mon guys, I’m Tom freakin Hanks. The writers from Forrest Gump could fall into a coma and write better stuff than this.’ Doesn’t being Tom Hanks mean anything?”

This movie really played like the writer became overwhelmed with all the history stuff from the book that they had to cram in to make the story make any sense at all. The solution was long scenes of an albino whipping himself and then unending, brutal, brutal scenes of Tom Hanks and Ian McKellan talking about historical events. I’m not sure what was worse. The fact that there were poorly staged action scenes that did nothing to progress the story or add to the tension or drama. Or the fact that the writer gave up on trying to show a story and decided to just let a couple characters monologue the story to death.

As I said, a brilliant cast was totally wasted.

Several scenes made absolutely no sense for someone who has not read the book and we were provided no explanation.

If McKellan’s character already knew the whole story, how does it qualify as such a big secret?

Every aspect of movie making, from the camera angles, to the writing to Tom Hanks total lack of personality, to the editing looked like something an accountant would direct after one year of film school. It was the least creative offering for a high profile movie in a long long time.

Who do you like: Audrey Tautou. She’s a keeper. The characters were fairly sympathetic except that the movie so oversimplified things that we saw none of these allegedly Godly men at all conflicted with what they were doing. This rang very false and put a real distance between these one dimensional characters and us the viewing public.

What’s new: Tom Hanks made a really bad movie. That’s about it. Completely uninspired movie making.

What’s the last word: Ending was predictable, but fine. That movie couldn’t have withstood a real plot twist, it would have just left everyone confused as nothing would have been done to set it up correctly.

Who you should bring: People you don’t like. Friends don’t bring friends to see this movie.

Where you should watch: On your couch when you are staying home sick 5 years from now when it is playing on TNT and you can watch it as you drift in and out of your Nyquil coma.

What’s the couch rating: We saw this one in the theater, but Tanya would have been out in 20 minutes on the couch for this one and if she had for some reason stayed awake, she would have been furious at herself for wasting time she could have been sleeping.

What my gut tells me: I walked out thinking, how does that cast and that director take such a promising story and create that steaming pile of excrement on film?

What it’s like: National Treasure. Also total rubbish with a very similar story. Da Vinci code took itself more seriously, but otherwise, these movies are pretty similar.

Where it rates: 4 It only gets this high because the underlying story they couldn’t figure out how to tell was interesting and very promising. It could have been a good movie.

It wasn’t.

Memoirs of a Geisha was as beautiful as it was thought provoking

2006-06-24T23:25:00.000-07:00

This is a movie made from a very popular book which is usually a recipe for disaster. Of course, that is mostly true if you have read the book and loved it since your own imagination is vastly more powerful than even Hollywood and you are bound to be disappointed by the movie version of the book. In this case I solved this problem by not reading the book. I have to say, though, that there was so much depth to what was going on in this movie, if the book does even a mediocre job of telling the story the movie told, I can certainly see why it was so popular.

Before I get to the actual review I have to share what really struck me about this movie. Not surprisingly, the movie is about geishas. As explained by the movie, a geisha was (is?) a paid companion for a man’s entertainment. At least as it was portrayed, except in a few particularly horrifying instances, this was not about paying for sex. Geishas were not prostitutes, at least not in the sense we use that term now, but rather a woman trained in conversation and various forms of entertainment to make a man’s dinner or evening at the sumo match more enjoyable. You might ask, what about these men’s wives, but the movie doesn’t really address the fact that they were apparently left at home with the children while the husbands paid for professional companions.

The movie is beautiful and has some amazing visuals and in some ways is a mirror of the geishas themselves. But what really struck me was the fact that for all the painted on (literally and figuratively) beauty of these women, it was really all an elaborate scheme to cater to the whim of horrifically selfish, narcissistic and cruel men. The painted face of the geisha was the beautiful public face of an ugly culture that robbed poor people of their daughters who were forced to become common whores or the prettified geishas. Neither life was pleasant nor gave any consideration to what these women might want.

Of course, in virtually all cultures, men and women both conform their actions and appearance to one degree or another to make themselves attractive to the opposite sex, but the extreme of the geisha and the picture it painted of Japan half way through the last century was really tragic.

What it’s about: This is the story of a young girl ripped away from her family and forced to try to carve out some kind of life and dignity by pursuing becoming a Geisha. The movie takes place in WWII Japan and shows the beauty and pain of Geisha culture as well as how Japanese culture got a tremendous reality slap near the end of the war.

What’s to like: There was lots to like in this one. First the movie was beautiful and beautifully directed. The Geishas, the countryside, the scenes in the city were all breathtaking and stylistically shot with one amazing image after the next. The brilliant colors often contrasted with the mundane grays of the muddy city alleys much like the beauty of the fully done up Geisha women presented contrast to their peasant countrywomen all around them. The acting was brilliant with especially strong performances from both the younger and older woman who played the lead and the main Geisha rival. All were beautiful women who could be demure and strong and syrupy sweet and wicked all at once.

The director also added depth to the story with great use of symbols and imagery. Most notable was the use of the comparison of the main character to water and the use of that metaphor to add a subtle but meaningful sense of spirituality and mystery to what is already a dramatic story.

What I could have done without: I don’t really have anything significant to say to criticize the movie. It was slow moving at times, but this usually added rather than detracted from the movie. The story was compelling and well told and while not necessarily my favorite subject matter, it was very well done.

Who do you like: The main character is very sympathetic even as she lives her life in a culture that is so foreign. You feel her pain in the loss of her family and you share her inner strength that allows her to thrive in a culture where that was extremely difficult for someone like her.

What’s new: There were images of Japan and of the Geisha’s attire that were uniquely stunning.

What’s the last word: Very good ending to this movie. It perfectly presented in microcosm the balance between the dignified beauty of the Geisha and the harsh reality that she existed only to cater to the whim of men and was never as much distinct from a common prostitute as anyone involved wanted to believe.

Who you should bring: Women. This movie had a distinctively feminine quality. I’m not saying no men would enjoy this movie. I did after all. That said, I think most of my guy friends would rather have to recite Shakespeare in Japanese than sit through this movie. I hope I’m wrong about that as this was a great movie, but there is very little action and most of the drama comes from the pain of being a woman in this culture. Many guys will have a hard time relating, will likely find the whole thing wacky and spend the whole movie wondering when the kung fu starts. Women however, I would expect to enjoy this movie very much. It’s not one for kids. The subject matter is very adult both in its complexity and to some violence and sexual references, though there is nothing graphically depicted in the movie along these lines.

Where you should watch: The movie needs a big screen. It is so beautiful in its scenery, you really miss out not seeing it on a big screen. You probably can’t see it in the theater any more so I recommend breaking into some home theater store with your dvd and watching it in one of their mock rooms.

What’s the couch rating: We watched this movie late at night with Tanya on the couch under the blanket and she stayed awake for the whole thing. She began fading near the end, but the story was engaging enough that she was able to power through. That’s a very high couch score for this movie especially since my wife wasn’t feeling all that good while she watched.

What my gut tells me: I liked it and it really got me thinking, but I can’t say it was entirely enjoyable. Some parts were a bit boring for my taste, but that was just how it struck me. Also, I was really struck by the fact that no amount of face paint and silk could mask the ugliness of treating women so badly.

What it’s like: It’s a bit like a Merchant Ivory production or one of the period movies based on Jane Austen. It is a period piece where subtlety wins out over in your face action or drama. I’m struggling to find a movie that compares well to it. Pride and Prejudice, if it were filmed in Japan might be along the same lines.

Where it rates: 9 – I’m not sure I enjoyed it at that level, but thinking of it from the standpoint of the craft of movie making, it deserves this score.

X Men 3: The Last Stand...Thank Goodness

2006-06-22T21:41:00.000-07:00

I loved the first two X-Men movies, but after seeing the last one and knowing it was the last of the franchise, I had a bit of relief like you have when you’ve watched the starting pitcher dominate a close game and then give up a hit and a walk and then the manager comes to get him. You think, whew, let’s not let this poor kid pitch his way out of a great game. X-Men 3 wasn’t terrible by any stretch, but it was enough worse than the first two to make you relieved this trend wasn’t going to be allowed to continue to the point the whole franchise is tainted.

What it’s about: The battle between men and mutants continues with the good mutants (X-Men – name note: the movie, and I believe the comics offers two possible theories for why they are called X-Men. First, their leader is called “Professor X” since his name is Charles Xavier. Second, the mutant gene that gives mutants their unique traits is referred to as the “Mutant X Gene.” Is there a right answer to the name origin?) and bad mutants (the “Brotherhood”) which are led by Magneto, taking sides with or against the humans.The humans believe they have found a way to “cure” the mutants by turning them human again and the mutants have taken offense at this idea. Magneto decides to take the fight to the humans and the X-Men try to save the day. Lots and lots of cool effects and stunts follow at an exhausting pace.Of course, that’s not the real story of the X-Men movies. The real story is about how we view and treat people who are different than we are. The mutations seen are just extreme differences to help make a point and add some good reason to have lots of kicking, clawing, flying, mayhem and Rebecca Romijn in body paint. There are relatively well placed references to what the Nazis did with the Jews and some thinly veiled references to homosexuality.

The idea is that we should accept and embrace our differences because what makes someone different might also make them great and to assign labels to groups of people who appear different is cruel bigotry and to suggest that there is something wrong with them because of their differences such that they should be changed or want to change themselves, is a form of hate that has resulted in some of the worst atrocities in human history....right? Make no mistake, that is what X-Men is really about, not just a bunch of cool dudes and chicks that can do some wicked, sick tricks.Before you stand up and cheer however, consider the idea that diversity should generally be a neutral term. Differences among people are not good or bad because they make someone different, anymore than someone’s difference in itself makes someone good or bad. Differences must be judged by the standards by which all things are judged. For me, that is my Christian faith and the scripture that captures the will of God, but whatever your standard, don’t be fooled by arguments about acceptance based only in the idea that we shouldn’t judge someone for being different.

That is true to a point, but we can and should judge someone’s conduct, even if that conduct flows from some characteristic that we might be more hesitant to judge. Someone who finds pleasure in hurting other people may be different and add diversity to our society, but this is not a characteristic (nor conduct obviously) that should be embraced for what I hope are rather obvious reasons. Like the movie, that is an extreme example, but makes the point: not all differences are the same or good.

More than anything else, I think the movie aims for you to consider issues like homosexuality and teen rebellion. This is rather overt in some ways and subtle in others, but it is part of what these movies are about whether or not you realize it as you munch your popcorn and take in the cool visuals. The movie wants you to see the painful consequences of suggesting that there is something “wrong” with someone with an “alternative” lifestyle and the plot of this specific movie is no doubt aimed much at people who suggest that our genetic research may someday find the source of sexual proclivities (or other traits/conduct considered out of the mainstream) and provide a way to “cure” someone with “abnormal” sexual (or other) tendencies.

Unfortunately, the setting of the movie where someone is genetically mutated with varying obvious results, does not allow for the greater complexities required in a debate about something like homosexuality. There is no room for a distinction between “being” a certain way and “acting” a certain way and there is little discussion of choice or positive presentation of people who have some good reason for treating someone differently based on their conduct.But, hey, it’s a movie not a philosophical treatise, so we have to cut it some slack even if their presentation is rather one-sided. Plus the movie is also about cool super powers and great fight scenes and whether it would be better to control water or fire and stuff like that. But you should not be so naive to think that this movie is the first ever to have no world view or value system to present in its story. I’m not suggesting the movie makers had an agenda when they made the movie other than making money, but they make a point whether they meant to or not. Before you cheer them on, you should at least think about the point they are making.

What’s to like about this movie: First, great casting/acting. Ian McKellan (Magneto) and Patrick Stewart (Prof. X) add a gravitas to this movie that draws you in even though so much of it is so silly. They make you believe that this is a realistic movie even as everything else screams fantasy. This movie franchise is one of the better ones out there because they went for acting prowess even over star power and Jackman, Berry and Jensen are also great. New comer Kelsey Grammer as “the Beast” was absolutely perfect. In the end, this makes the movie.

I also loved the effects. The scene where Magneto takes on a prison convoy is sensational and even the over the top scene with the Golden Gate bridge shown on the previews is amazing to watch. The costumes, makeup, CGI, fight choreography are all first rate and would compare favorably to just about any movie I’ve seen. I still like some of the stuff from the first two X movies better, but on the visual side, this movie delivers.

What I could have done with out: Like many sequels, this movie tried to do to much without taking the time to do it right. There is some I have to hold back to keep from giving things away, but suffice to say some very dramatic stuff happens involving the characters from these movies, but it all comes off as anti-climactic because the story and set up are given such short shrift. They could have done so much more if they were going to take the plot turns that they took, to make it more meaningful.

There were also too many new mutants to allow any one of them to shine. The fun part of superhero movies is seeing how someone with superpowers goes about life and interacts with mere mortals. Just seeing someone clap shockwaves that knock people over or run through walls, is cool at a certain level, but when the whole movie is made up of people who do these different thing, the coolness is diluted and this movie suffers some from that.

I didn’t like the end. I can’t tell you why without spoiling it, but I didn’t like it. Complete anti-climax I though.

Where was the Nightcrawler? He was missed.I could have done without the line from the Juggernaut to the young girl who runs through walls. Why the profanity? Why then? It just seemed forced and lame.

Who do you like: Come on, you gotta love Wolverine. He’s one of the best superheroes out there. Actually, the character development in these movies is mostly pretty good with the main characters. Even the baddies have a good side that makes the whole conflict more real. This is the real strength of the franchise and was continued in this movie, though not quite at the previous level.

What’s new: the Golden Gate Bridge gets knocked off it’s foundation. A girl who can walk through solid matter uses it to her advantage in a fight, the power of the dark Phoenix on display which I won’t describe, but is very cool. The full power of someone who can control metal. A blue Frasier Crane acting like he’s gone a month without a Late. And I could go on and on. The visuals of this movie are so good, you could enjoy it with the sound off.

What’s the last word: I didn’t like the ending. Watch the movie and then answer me this. Wouldn’t it have been better if it ended up where the bald kid could have balanced the power of the one character most in need of balance enough to salvage things?

Who you should watch this with: Just about anyone over the age of 12 or so (unless you have strong feelings on the effects of violent images on someone that young even in a fantasy setting), and especially boys, though this movie should be fun for all really. About the only people you should avoid taking to this movie are people who by age or personality are just too old or serious to see the fun in superheroes. You know who they are. Just leave them at home until the next Harrison Ford, Clint Eastwood or Tom Hanks movie comes out.

Where you should watch this move: You must see this on the big screen. Some very cool effects in this movie and it will just be wasted on any screen less than 40 inches. If you have a big-screen tv, you can wait, but you should really see this in the theater if at all.

What the couch test says: We saw this movie in the theater where my wife could not fall asleep if she followed a marathon with a full turkey dinner and a Nyquil chaser. No sleeping in public for Tanya. I think my wife liked this movie alright, but to be honest, I give this movie only 55 minutes of Tanya’s wakefulness if viewed on the couch. The story bogs down and leaves you not caring and when my wife stops caring about the characters, it is game over. No amount of action can make up for this.

What it’s like: this is easy here. It is most like the previous 2 X-Men movies, just not as good. Bryan Singer left to direct Superman and was replaced by Bret Ratner. If you liked Rush Hour (Ratner’s biggest movie) more than the first X-Men movie, then you will probably think this movie is just as good as the others. If you didn’t, you might be slightly disappointed in this offering.

What my gut tells me: I was disappointed at a gut level when I walked out. It wasn't bad, but I saw greater potential. It was fun, but left me wanting more.

Where it rates: 7. It is worth seeing and I had a good time, but it could have been so much more. Oh well, at least the risk of a downward spiral is mostly over….there are rumors of a Wolverine spin off, so I will only say “mostly” for now.

V For Very Big Explosions

2006-06-22T21:37:00.000-07:00

This movie was really an excellent opportunity for Hollywood to do two of the things they love the most. 1. Attack George Bush and American foreign policy and 2. blow stuff up. What happens other than that is just window dressing. So, if you think our role in Iraq may lead to chaos and fascism at home and for our neighbors, and you like to see large buildings blown up in dramatic fashion, and you loved Demi’s “GI Jane” look and were sorry it didn’t catch on, and finally you really dig guys who dress and talk like the 3 musketeers even in modern times, then this is the movie for you.

Spoiler-free plot synopsis: In the near future, the American wars in the Middle East have led to wide-spread civil unrest on the home front, apparently resulting in anarchy. Reacting to that, England has embraced fascism, or as is often the case, the fascist leaders have embraced fascism; the rest of the country has embraced being oppressed. In the middle of all this, a single individual has taken it upon himself to put an end to the fascist regime all while dressing like someone from 4 to 5 centuries ago. Specifically, he has based his persona on a guy who tried to blow up English Parliament way back in the day. V as our antihero calls himself wears a mask made to look like this earlier terrorist and never takes it off. Never. Meanwhile, Princess Lea’s mom from Star Wars gets caught up in the terrorist fun. This leads to explosions and battles and lots of action interrupted by V giving speeches about revenge and generally justifying his terrorist activities.

Advertising/Expectations: This movie was actually delayed quite a bit after the subway attacks in England started to look like life imitating a movie imitating art. So, I heard of the movie and it’s rather unfortunately timely and troubling plot long before it came out. It originally caught my attention because I was very interested to see what the Wachowski brothers would do after creating the Matrix trilogy. I enjoyed the Matrix movies and was hopeful that this would prove the Wachowskis to be serious movie makers and that Matrix wasn’t a fluke. Of course, the most noteworthy thing in this section is really the name of the movie which has to be one of the worst of all time. It sounds like you are about to watch a twisted episode of Sesame Street where the real goal is learning our letters. V for vendetta, W for warmonger, X for xylophone (because it is the only thing that starts with X and frankly can be pretty scary), Z for zero tolerance. You get the idea. Horrible, horrible title. Almost enough to make me refuse to see the movie on principal. It is like the stupid names restaurants give their menu items that make you feel ridiculous ordering them. “I’ll take the pig and a poke breakfast with a side of slappy happy ramalamadingdong please, and perhaps you could bring me out a bag to wear over my head or just serve it to me down here under the table. Thanks.” You just feel silly saying “I’ll have one adult for V for Vendetta”. Lame.

Storytelling: The story itself was fairly interesting and I appreciated things like the faceless hero who stayed focused on his mission Jack Bauer like, and didn’t let anyone or anything get in his way. I also liked the fact that it explained things about the world during the course of the movie rather than with a lot of narration or people just telling you how things were. It certainly added to the authenticity. That said, there were some gaps and holes in this plot that you could run that free-way from the Matrix sequels through. Lots of loose ends and unresolved plot twists. Is the general public generally more or less terrified of the government when there is someone running around its city blowing things up?

Acting/Casting: No complaints here. I don’t even like Natalie Portman, but she did good work here, shaved head and all. I believed her when she was broken and weak and when she was tough and fighting for her life. Same with V played by Hugo Weaving, or more accurately played by Hugo Weaving’s voice, the same voice that was so important in making the Matrix movies good when Hugo was Agent Smith. Everyone else from the baddies to the sympathizers had the right look and did their job.

Writing: With good writing there is a fine line between making it interesting without going over the top. The HBO series Deadwood is a good example of good writing pushed right up to the edge without going over. V had some good stuff with a very cool monologue that was incredible alliteration using the letter V. Someone did a very nice job with that. But they also took some of V’s ranting a bit over the top. It was just too flowery and too poetic at times, especially when there is absolutely nothing to explain what has turned this otherwise ordinary guy into some sort of brilliant wordsmith. That said, the writing didn’t get in the way and added to the movie quite a bit in various parts, but it did wander into the “roll your eyes” category a time or two.

Directing: Good job here. The action sequences worked and worked well with the visuals and the story. The actors were allowed to perform and the story moved along, even if there were huge gaps along the way. I could have used a bit more insight into what was going on here and a bit less preaching about the role of government in people’s lives, or at least a consistent theme there. Was this movie about revenge or fascism? It was like the directors couldn’t decide and that distracted them at times. Good editing, though and the movie had a good overall look.

Visuals: This movie came from a graphic novel which is what adults call comic books when they are too embarrassed to admit they still read comic books, and it had a good comic book look and feel. It had some startling signature scenes and looks like the mask, Portman’s creepy little Bo Peep outfit, Portman’s concentration camp look, the exploding buildings. Even the streets of London looked simultaneously futuristic and as if from the distant past. This is definitely a strong suit for the Wachowskis.Sound: Well done. Some of the explosions shook the theater like the building next door had blown up. The classical and modern music mixed well also. Crank the sound up for this one.Need for Screen: So, most movies are better on a big screen, but this one is especially. If you think you might want to see this movie, it is worth finding a discount theater that runs second run movies and going to see it there. The visuals are the best part of this movie, which isn’t a good thing, but means you need the screen.

Gut Feel: I didn’t like this one on a gut level. Not too sure why. Maybe I didn’t care for the glorification of a terrorist, especially as it criticized America. Maybe I got tired of the mask. Not sure really, but it just didn’t do it for me.

Who you should bring: Guys. This is a very male movie in tone and presentation and spends much of its time in heavy action and violence. That is a generalization of course. Some women like violent action movies as much as any man and some men can’t stand them, but for the most part, this is more of a night with the guys movie than a date movie.

1-10 Score: 7 – To be honest, I didn’t like this movie this much, but thinking about it and breaking it down, it was better than how much I liked it so I will score it here. Basically, if you need an action fix with more depth than MI3 or something like that, this will provide it, but if you are expecting something as groundbreaking as the Matrix, you will be disappointed. And if you never end up seeing it, you won’t really have missed out. But if you do see it, you might enjoy it and it won’t be a maddening waste of time.

Movie Review: JJ Abrahms Cashes In...err..I mean "MI3"

2006-06-22T21:33:00.000-07:00

Spoiler-free plot synopsis: Super…spy? Agent? …actually, I’m not sure what he is exactly, but he’s Tom Cruise and that’s pretty much all you need to know. He’s not super-human, but no human could the things his character Ethan Hunt does in these movies. In this movie he tries on the never-before-seen action movie premise of trying to save the love of his life and the rest of the free world from a very bad man whose agenda above all else appears to be being bad…especially to Tom Cruise. Even as action movie plots go, this one is pretty basic.Since, action movies basically all follow the same general formula (bad guy tries to kill good guy…and all of man kind, good guy fights back against impossible odds…a fracas ensues), they tend to try to spice up their stories with either twists or layers.

A twist is when you thought a good guy was bad or vice versa and it turns out to be the other way around. Or, the world is really the matrix, or it was all a dream, or "she’s a man, baby." A layer is when you think you know what the evil plan was and who was in charge only to discover that this was all part of a larger plan run by someone even more evil. The tv show 24 has taken layering to a ridiculous extreme, somehow managing to outdo even Alias and the X-Files in this category.Anyway, MI3 provides very little of either and just relies on pure, non-stop action, which it delivers. One more note about action movies in general. To be good, a big-budget action movie must, I repeat must, show me something I’ve never seen before. It can be as subtle as a camera angle or as overt as a giant laser destroying the White House. These sorts of images are critical since these movies tend to otherwise be so much the same. So, when reviewing an action movie, I will have to comment on whether it showed me something new.

Advertising/Expectations: I thought the first MI movie was pretty solid. Lots of twists to compliment the action and a number of things I hadn’t seen, or at least hadn’t seen much. The second one was pretty bad really. That whole helicopter in the tunnel scene was so far over the top it started to become comical…never a good sign for a move that’s trying to make your heart race not your belly ache. I don’t watch commercials anymore thanks to Tivo, but still managed to see this preview about 50 more times than I wanted to. Also, Tom Cruise is now crazy and that dampened my hopes a bit. So, all in all, I was tired of the ads and went in with fairly low expectations.

The ads didn’t give away the entire movie which I appreciated and the movie delivered what I thought it would and maybe even a bit better than I thought it would, so the low expectations ended up making this movie fairly enjoyable.

Storytelling: Definitely the weak point of the film. It needed some twists or layers or something. How about some character development? I didn’t really care what happened to anyone in this movie and I’m a pretty caring guy. On the plus side, this story certainly won’t confuse anyone….I hope. It relied too heavily on action sequences that didn’t advance the story and tried to do all the story telling in a few short scenes where uninteresting dialogue was supposed to advance the story, develop the characters and explain why we should care. That was too much pressure for those scenes and they were generally pretty useless. Basically, you leave this movie knowing nothing about any of the characters and basically having little idea what all the shooting and missiles and what not were really for other than to save a girl we don't know or really care about.

Acting/Casting: Tom Cruise is a whacko, but he still did an adequate job playing a guy who is in a really big hurry to save the world…and the world’s most trusting wife. Let’s just say that my wife would have wanted a bit more explanation as to why I was suddenly going to be gone to an undisclosed location doing undisclosed things for an undisclosed amount of time the day after we got engaged, than a long intense stare and a request that she trust me. My wife trusts me, but she also likes disclosure, mostly because she doesn’t like to miss the action. Philip Seymour Hoffman is brilliant, one of the best in the business. He was fine, but entirely wasted in this movie. Everyone else wasn’t asked to do much and they complied. Basically, the acting didn’t get in the way and the casting was pretty good, though uninspired.

Writing: Uhmmmm….This script could have been written in 30 minutes, which is even less than the amount of time it would take to read the whole script even if you took time to set up each scene. This is the same guy that created Lost? Really? There just wasn’t much said in this movie, and since what was said was usually your basic action movie dialogue (i.e., lots of threats, panicked calls for help, desperate assurances that “you can do it”, and a few moderately funny quips by a sidekick or two), that was just fine. At least, it did not detract from the movie.

Directing: This was pretty well done unless you look at the director as the guy ultimately responsible for telling the story. If you can’t hold a thin story against him, then the movie was pretty well directed. The movie gets you on the edge of your seat pretty much right away and holds you there pretty much the whole way. The scenes fit together and generally it accomplished what a movie like this is supposed to do. You didn’t have to think too much (or at all) and it was something like riding a roller coaster. It’s a thrill while you’re on it, but as soon as you’re off, it’s like it never happened. This movie was a good ride, but you don’t take anything away from it. No great lines or great scenes to discuss over and over, no signature moments, just a bit of a rush for a couple hours and that’s it.

Visuals: Solid. Not a lot of CG or slow-motion which was a nice change. The stunts looked real even when they were impossible. It lacked a signature scene or anything that I haven’t seen before. The closest thing you get is that scene on the bridge from the previews where Cruise gets launched sideways into a car after an explosion. Why sideways? But it was still a good visual experience and the action sequences were tight, impressive and constant.

Sound: I couldn’t tell you much about the music other than Kanye’s song at the end which was fine, but the sound was amazing. My seat shook hard at least twice from some of the explosions and the soundtrack kept you tense without becoming annoying or distracting. And of course, the theme song is a classic, though I was surprised no effort was made to “reinterpret” it for the movie.

Need for Screen: See this on the big screen or don’t bother. You need a good sound system and a big screen to really get what you can out of this movie. This is absolutely a big screen movie.

Gut Feel: This wasn’t a good movie when you break it down, but I walked out feeling pretty good about it. It really was like a roller coaster in the sense of the short-term mindless thrill, but I like roller coasters so there you go. On a gut level I enjoyed the movie, the ending could have been much, much better.

Who you should bring: It is probably mostly a guy movie, so bring guys. But not so much that women who enjoy action movies wouldn’t enjoy this one. It is Tom Cruise after all, and no matter how crazy he gets, chicks dig him. Bring people who don’t over-think movies and are just there to escape for a couple hours and have a good time and move on. If you go with someone who wants to talk about how unrealistic it is or how many holes in the plot there were, it is going to bring you down. (which is why you should never attempt a review like this the moment you walk out of the theater). So, either bring your friends that won’t over analyze or make a promise before hand that you won’t have to talk about how this or that could never really happen.

1-10 Score: 6 – It was fine. I didn’t hate or love it and infact I was pleasantly surprised with how constant and good the action was. It was really pretty unnoteworthy though, which for all the hype and budget, may be the harshest criticism of all for this movie. It will give you an action rush, but you will forget everything about this movie 10 minutes after you see it.

North Country

2006-06-22T21:25:00.000-07:00

Spoiler-free plot synopsis: Charlize Theron plays the daughter of a miner who takes a job at a local mine and ends up in a living hell dealing with the worst imaginable kinds of sexual harassment. In fact the word “harassment” is way to light a word. More like gender-based torture. Theron, who, in the opinion of this author, is rather nice looking, has followed Brad Pitt’s lead and tried to take roles that downplay her beauty and play up her acting chops. In a way that makes her the perfect person to play this role. She has to fight against the way the world sees her to succeed in real life and in the movie. Of course, that’s where the similarities between she and her character end.

The movie is a harsh portrayal of life for a woman in this mine and claims to be based on a true story. The movie follows how she starts at the mine, the suffering for her and her fellow female workers, and then the lawsuit that follows, which is based on an actual suit that set some important precedents for sexual harassment cases nationwide.

Advertising/Expectations: I’m a fan of Theron, so when I saw she was in it, especially when I saw she wasn’t playing a super glam role, I was interested. Throw in my interest in this area of the law and some good reviews and I was even more interested. The fact, however, that it was going to deal with the legal side of things also lowered my expectations as I have become all to used to Hollywood botching legal movies.

Tangent Alert, Alert, Alert.

There are not very many good “legal” movies, loosely defined as movies that deal with lawyers and/or the courtroom. As many of my friends and former Business Law students know, I believe the finest legal movie ever made is “My Cousin Vinny.” You can learn all you need to know about how to handle a court room from that movie, plus the wardrobe is faaaaaantastic. …

ok, back to our regularly scheduled programming.

Storytelling: Some good and bad here. It does a good job of painting the picture of desperation. You get some good character development with Charlize and her son. It does a good job of showing the pain her father feels not knowing whether to cut her off or stand up for her. Very few wasted scenes. All of them advance the overall point of showing how hard it would have been to stand up for herself the way she did. However, the lawsuit aspect became more of a distraction than a benefit to the story. At first it was a useful device to provide a context for the rest of the story, but then it was like the writers realized, “hey wait, how do we show what happened in a few scenes, keep the drama and still wrap this up in less time than it would take to give an opening statement if this were a real case?” Unfortunately, they didn’t have the answer. Woody from Cheers is fairly unbelievable as an attorney. The court room cross-exam of one of the main predators was painful it was so fake. And I’m not just poo-pooing this stuff because I’m a lawyer and “that’s not really how it is”. It was just bad cinema. The writing was bad, it didn’t even resemble an actual legal hearing and worst of all it didn’t significantly add to the story.

Acting/Casting: Charlize was great. She was believably pretty but not too pretty and was the right mix of tough, charming, feminine, and sympathetic. No complaints there. Her father and son also turned in top-notch performances. I have to really give props, though, to Frances McDormant (sp?). She’s the pregnant sheriff from Fargo. She was outstanding. The subtle twitch of pain when she is swallowing her pride in the face of disgusting jokes aimed at her, the defiance coping with…well, to avoid a minor spoiler, let’s just say coping. She made you buy that she was tough, but also showed you that being tough doesn’t mean you don’t feel the pain, it just means you deal with it.

Writing: The writing in North Country was fairly mediocre. The dialogue rang mostly true, though there was nothing special about it. Not like I expect the people of this mining town to suddenly be speaking in flowery poetry, but some choice and quotable turns of phrase would have been nice. As mentioned above, the court room scenes were nearly unwatchable because of how bad the writing was. Woody’s bit about being yellow was brutal.

Directing: Good work here. The movie moved at the right pace and had the right mix of tough scenes to watch broken up by touching scenes of happiness and then the completely different look of the court room. I like that it showed the various “types” of women that would work in a place like that without spiraling completely into caricatures. It was honest with the violence without just going for shock value. The use of flashbacks in certain places worked well as they were few and to the point. It took time to show you the look of the town and the mine which really added to the whole feel of the movie. Well done here.

Visuals: As mentioned above, there were good shots of the town and the setting as well as the mine. The scope of the mine and the general grayness of everything contributed to the sense of depression and despair that underlie the whole movie. It was Paul Simon’s brilliant “My Little Town” come to life on the big screen: “and after it rains, there’s a rainbow and all of the colors are black. It’s not that the colors aren’t there. It’s just imagination they lack. Everything’s the same back, in my little town.” For a movie that lacked special effects or vivid sets and costumes, this movie’s look really stands out and contributed greatly to what was good about this movie.

Sound: Actually, I don’t even remember about the sound in North Country. I think there were a couple good ‘80s tunes, but I don’t think it was a major factor either way.

Need for Screen: The big screen helps in this movie. Wide shots of the mine and areas around town really jump out at you. It’s gone from the theaters, but if you have a friend with a big screen, make an excuse to watch this at their place.

Gut feel: I felt disappointed after this one. I think the court side of the story just ended so abruptly and for me so dissatisfactory, that it tainted my feeling about the whole movie. The other overwhelming feeling was shame about how my gender behaves at times. If you are a man and don’t want to take a few of these “good old boys” out behind the woodshed for a little “re-education”, then I’m not sure we can be friends.

Who you should bring: For this movie though, it doesn’t matter a whole lot. I guess the one thing I would say, is watch it with adults. The scenes and subject matter are fairly graphic and very adult. Not in a pornographic way or anything, but there are some images you don’t want to share with children. Also, the movie moves slowly. This is actually a good thing for this particular movie, but many Gen Xers and younger demand a quicker pace in their movie watching and this one is likely to make them irritated, which will likely make them irritating and you won’t enjoy the movie.

1-10 Score: 7 – Basically a 7 means it was worth watching, but had some fairly significant flaws.

New Movie Template

2006-06-22T21:17:00.000-07:00

This is my new and improved movie review template. I wanted to make it less dry and technical so I made some changes. This is the one I'm using until further notice:

What it’s about: Spoiler-free plot synopsis – I’ve got to keep this one

What’s to like about this movie: This category should be pretty self-explanatory

What I could have done with out: Even the best movies usually have flaws. If you ever read this section and I say “nothing”, run don’t walk to see this movie

Who do you like: This section will concern itself with whether there were any sympathetic characters in the movie. Was there anyone to like, cheer for, relate to, etc? If not, chances are you’ve got a bad movie on your hands

What’s new: So many movies have been made, I’m constantly looking for scenes, angles, techniques, dialogue, twists, etc. that show me something I haven’t seen before.

What’s the last word: A movie needs to end well. The end is usually the most important part of the story really. Many, many great movies have been completely ruined by bad endings, like just about every sci-fi or horror movie ever made. Though I should confess that I don’t really like horror movies as they are nearly all complete rubbish

Who you should watch this with: this is another carryover from the old form that I liked

Where you should watch this move: Theater? Home? Either? Basically, this speaks to how much the screen and sound matter.

What it’s like: This is where I will compare the movie to other movies to give you a better idea of whether you might like it or not

What my gut tells me: Initial, pre-analysis, gutlevel reaction

Where it rates: My 1-10 scale which is detailed in an earlier review

My First Movie Review Template

2006-06-22T20:53:00.000-07:00

This was the first template I used to review movies, but have since modified it. Nevertheless for the sake of history, I'm posting this one here.

Spoiler-free plot synopsis: I hate spoilers. I don’t want to know anything about any tv show, book, movie or sporting event until I’m watching it unfold before my eyes. This has proved to be one of the only downsides to owning Tivo. By the way, if you don’t own Tivo, you might as well just throw a brick through your TV and put yourself out of your misery. And I’m not talking about a “dvr” I’m talking about Tivo. There is no substitute. I will not argue about this. Just accept it.Anyway, now I watch almost nothing “live” on TV. The only problem with that is that sometimes I fall behind on a popular show like 24 or Lost and then have to constantly guard against anyone who might talk or write about what happened in some episode I haven’t seen yet. My brothers and wife openly mock how turbo I am about this, but in my mind, as with most things, I’m right and they’re the crazy ones.

I admit it, I am hung up about spoilers more than most, but I’m not alone here by any means. Why then, do movie critics write movie reviews that are almost entirely made up of a description of what happens in the movie? (and don’t get me started about previews…I feel another post coming on) To be sure, explaining why you thought a movie was good or bad requires some discussion of the plot points or story, but most reviews these days are two sentences up front glowing about or trashing the movie followed by 10 paragraphs of what happens in the movie and ended with a single line saying the movie was either great or not. How is that helpful to we the people?

It’s not, of course, but it also requires precious little thought, making it a very appealing formula. I will strive to avoid that when reviewing movies here. I’m not going to give anything away and won’t spend any more time than necessary reporting on what happened in the movie. I’m also going to try to follow the template you see below so that I can make sure to discuss the various aspects I find important about movie watching. Maybe I will add or subtract from this list and maybe I will see how long it makes the reviews and get rid of it, but for now I will stick with it.

I don’t want to give stuff away, but I will spend a bit of time explaining what the movie is basically about so you can determine if subject matter alone might leave you wanting or not wanting to watch this movie and so you can understand the rest of the review.

Advertising/Expectations: In this section I will tell you a little about what I expected going in as I think that greatly influences whether you end up liking a movie. If you think it is going to be like Godfather II and it ends up like Godfather III, then an otherwise good movie becomes a great disappointment. I will also say a bit, when applicable about the advertising for the movie and whether it properly prepares you for what you get when you get to the theater/living room.

Storytelling: A movie has to have a good story, but then it also has to tell it well. Here is where I will talk about how the movie made use of the scenes and actors to get across the story and whether the story was worth telling in the first place.

Acting/Casting: Acting is crucial. Haden Christianson’s groundbreaking performance as a young Darth Vader in the newest Star Wars movies would have ruined those movies all by himself if Lucas hadn’t so badly wanted to get in on the act with his nearly as bad writing and directing. Truly the worst performance by an actor I have ever seen given the circumstances. But casting is almost as important so I will sometimes discuss that here as well. The LOTR trilogy was next level good because everyone in it matched what was described in the books so well. Likewise, sometimes great actors can hurt a movie by being miscast, like Jack Black in King Kong.

Writing: When it comes down to it, this is the most important factor in most movies. The words have to ring true. They have to be dramatic without being hokey. They have to be familiar enough to draw us in and different enough to keep us interested. The Cohens are masters. Fargo, Raising Arizona, The Big Libowski…great, great stuff. I am a harsh critic of the writing because there is so little that is good and it carries or destroys most movies. If you find yourself asking “why would he have said that” or laughing at a line meant to be serious, that one thing can kill some movies.

Directing: In some ways the Director is really ultimately responsible for everything, but I’m going to limit this section to how well the scenes worked, whether the actors were allowed to do their jobs, how the movie was edited or put together and comments about the general art of movie making.

Visuals: This is all about the look and feel and will include special effects, sets, stunts, locations, camera angles, etc.

Sound: This is both “track” and “effects.” The music and the noise. If you like movies and watch them at home you owe it to yourself and your poor needy family to get yourself a decent sound system and then turn it up until the sub-woofer shakes the whole house, then turn it up again until you have been visited by law enforcement at least twice.

Need for Screen: This section is how important it is that you see a movie on the big screen. After kids, the theater was more of a rare treat than a regular date, so in case you find yourself in the same situation, I’ll try to help you decide when it is worth springing for the world’s most valuable corn and when you can safely wait for video.

Gut feel: This is how a movie makes you feel when you first finish watching. Before you have a chance to really think about it or break it down, how did it make you feel? Sometimes, bad movies still leave you feeling good like Independence Day and sometimes good movies leave you feeling violated, like Monster’s Ball.

Who you should bring: Who you watch a movie with can sometimes be the single biggest factor in determining whether you like a movie. Imagine watching “There’s Something About Mary” with your father or mother-in-law. Would you have still thought it was hilarious when you were having to feign disgust at every sketchy scene? This factor is especially true for comedies. If you watch with other people who think the movie is funny, you are going to enjoy that movie a lot more. This is a much underrated movie watching factor. Choose your movie-mates very carefully if possible.

1-10 Score: My whole number scale and what it means is in a previous post, so you should check it out if you haven’t already.

My Movie Rating Scale

2006-06-22T17:14:00.000-07:00

Here is a my rating scale for movies. Every review I do includes my overall rating of the movie and hopefully this will allow you to understand what the heck I'm talking about when I attach a number to a movie.

10. Transcendent. Leaves you amazed and immediately wanting to watch it again or make others watch it. True brilliance. This category would include The Godfather (I and II), The Lord of the Rings trilogy, Love and Death, American Beauty and Raising Arizona among others.

9. Great and completely satisfying, but with some noteworthy flaw. Good examples include: The Untouchables, Raiders of the Lost Ark, the first 3 Star Wars movies.

8. Very good and entertaining, but not likely to win any awards. Examples: The good James Bond movies (For Your Eyes Only, Octupussy, Diamonds are Forever), Desperado, Fight Club, Anchorman, Pitch Black, The Karate Kid.

7. Ok. Worth watching, but had some significant issues. Sadly, most "good" comedies fall here. Enjoyable movies like Wayne's World, So I Married and Axe Murderer, even Old School maybe, still have long chunks dedicated to the love story, or that are really just extended music videos or basically just take you 20-30 minutes at a time between really funny stuff.

6. I didn't hate it, but it disappointed. This may be where I have to put the most recent 3 star wars movies, though the last one may get a 7. I was excited by the movies coming out and the effects were amazing, but the acting, story, directing, writing, etc., were awful. In fact, I'm still too angry to discuss this, so let's move on.

5. A couple good scenes, but over all a bad movie and not worth watching. A startling number of Hugh Grant movies in this category. Also a favorite ranking of sports movies.

4. Had promise, but so lost its way that it became painful. Fun with Dick and Jane is your basic 4.

3. A complete failure and waste of my time. Charlies Angels might hit the mark here.

2. Makes me angry that I watched it. Just really awful. Most Drew Barrymore movies will go nicely here, but also a number of sequels (Chronicles of Riddick) and super hero movies like Fantastic 4 and Daredevil.

1. If I go to Hell I will get 2 hours off my sentence for time served because I watched this movie. This is reserved for the worst cinematic efforts like Battlefield Earth, anything starring Madonna, The Cat in the Hat, or anything with Keanu Reeves where he isn't an action hero.

Welcome

2006-06-22T16:25:00.000-07:00

This is a new Blog dedicated to movies, TV and the world of entertainment. It will likely consist primarily of my movie reviews which to date have been posted on my home blog. I will move those reviews over here and you can review those to see important things like the way my review form has evolved and how to interpret my reviews and rating scale. Please offer your comments to whatever is posted as that is all part of this blogging fun.

Original content, in addition to my past reviews, will be added shortly and will include at least the following topics:

1. Review for Memoirs of a Geisha
2. Review for Match Point
3. Review for Unleashed
4. Do you know what this Movie is really telling you?
5. Rules for selecting a good movie at the video store
6. My favorite TV shows of all time
7. Movie reviews for my favorite movies of all time

If you want to hear my take on a particular movie, leave a comment or email me and I will post a review as soon as I am able.

Next in my blockbuster queue (like Netflicks) are:

November
The Machinist
Syriana

I also have Munich still to be watched and I will try to review as I go.

Enjoy.