StumpTown Entertainment

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.