Yes, once again the grandaddy of 'em all, Wrestlemania, is upon us again. And yes, while the WWE is far from at it's best as it relates to storylines and top stars right now, there's still something about the big show that has me excited every year. As sad as it is, the thing I may be looking forward to the most this year is the venue. I can't wait to see how they pull off having an outdoor Wrestlemania with 70,000+ people. It should make for an awesome visual, no doubt. And it could be even more interesting if the forecasts of rain come true. So to prepare for the big event this Sunday, here are my fearless predictions for winners:
Triple Threat for the WWE Championship:
Randy Orton (champ) vs. John Cena vs. Triple H
(A real pick 'em here as Cena or HHH have a viable shot of winning. I'm picking HHH just because Cena has won the main event at the last three 'Manias. However, it will not surprise me one bit if they once again give us the stomach churning finish of Cena coming out on top.)
World Heavyweight Championship:
Edge (champ) vs. The Undertaker
(They could have done so much more with this feud than they have. Starting all the way back at last year's WM by not having Edge lose in the Money in the Bank match so that this could have been a battle of the undefeated men. Still, what matters is what they do in the ring. I think this will be a very solid match between two guys who have never really had a big one-on-one match. The Undertaker's streak is too valuable to throw away here, so I'm picking the Dead Man to win.)
No Holds Barred Match:
Big Show vs. Floyd 'Money' Mayweather
(I really don't know what to expect here. The build for this match has been at it's best intriguing and at it's worst eye-rolling. Altogether it's been downright confusing as they can't seem to figure out who they want as the heel. This could be bowling shoe ugly or mildly amusing. The rule of Wrestlemania says that the celebrity always goes out on top, so I'll choose Mayweather.)
Potential Retirement Match:
Ric Flair vs. Shawn Michaels
(They've been running this storyline with Flair where the next time he loses, he has to retire. The whole thing has been booked backwards and really doesn't have the emotional weight behind it that it should. With Flair getting inducted into the WWE Hall of Fame this weekend, I'm pretty sure he'll lose here. Whether he does hang them up for good or not is another story. It would have been nice to give a big win like this to an up and comer, but there was no one really right for the role, so I have no problem with them having HBK do it, since it should at least give Flair one last good match.)
Money in the Bank Ladder Match:
Chris Jericho vs. MVP vs. Mr. Kennedy vs. Shelton Benjamin vs. CM Punk vs. Carlito vs. John Morrison
(Jeff Hardy was not only supposed to be in this match, but he was the odds-on favorite to win it, but that all got ruined when he got suspended for a wellness violation. Now this thing is really a toss up. I can't see them wasting it on a Smackdown/ECW guy since they are the lower brands and this match is meant to elevate someone. Mr. Kennedy could win it, but he won it last year and he's proven himself to unstable to be trusted with something like this. By process of elimination, I'll go with Jericho and pray that it means they do something interesting with him. However, virtually everyone here has just as likely of a chance to get that briefcase.)
Belfast Brawl:
Finlay vs. JBL
(An potentially interesting match between two legitimate brawlers that has been marred with the ludicrous Hornswoggle storyline. They'll only redeem themselves by having a good, lengthy, bloody brawl. Otherwise this is just a waste of everybody's time. Since he won't be forgotten completely, I'll predict Hornswoggle returns here and helps Finlay pick up the win over the 'Wrestling God'.)
Battle for Brand Supremacy:
Batista vs. Umaga
(Matches between RAW and Smackdown guys have not had any intrigue to them in a long time, if ever. This is basically a case of throwing two relatively big names together in a match because they couldn't think of anything else for them. If they're motivated, these two could have a decent power match, but I'm not holding my breath. My coin flip tells me Batista will win, so that's who I'll go with.)
ECW Championship
Chavo Guerrero (champ) vs. ???
(Before the show, there wiil be a 24 man battle royal and the winner faces Chavo on the actual show. The guys involved pretty much consist of everyone else left off the card. Since Chavo isn't really feuding with anyone, it makes picking his opponent all the more difficult. Kane is the biggest name that's a babyface in the match, so I'll say him. However, I think it would be a nice gesture if they gave Tommy Dreamer the title shot and show that they don't completely hate everything about the original ECW. No matter who gets the title shot, though, Chavo is likely to win as it doesn't make sense to do all this and have him lose. If they were going to have that happen, they would have actually built up a feud between him and the person they wanted to have win the belt.)
Bunnymania Tag Team Match:
Maria and Ashley vs. Melina and Beth Phoenix
(I could care less about the women fighting, but there are two elements that make this slightly appealing. First, Santino Marella is bound to make his presence known at some point during the match which is always a comedic highlight of any show. Second, Snoop Dogg will also be involved in some capacity with this match as well and how can you not love Snoop-a-loop. With no title on the line here, the Playboy girls (Maria and Ashley) should easily get the win in this one.)
And that's the show. Interested yet? Maybe not, but I'll be watching regardless. If you'd rather reminisce about the "good ol' days" well then I'll help you out with that as well. In honor of this year's boxer vs. wrestler match, here's a classic Wrestlemania moment from another boxer vs. wrestle match from 1999:
Friday, March 28, 2008
NMR: Double Feature
I've fallen behind again, so here's another two-fore of Netflix films I've caught recently:
Gosford Park: Nominated for a Best Picture in 2001, this film plays like a who's who of British acting royalty. That's probably why I ignored it in the past, but have since come to appreciate a lot of their talents. Mostly due, oddly enough, to the Harry Potter films (Gosford Park includes Maggie Smith and Michael Gambon). This is also directed by Robert Altman; a director who has great acclaim, but I've never seen most of his film. The story here is an upstairs/downstairs murder mystery that occurs when a bunch of wealthy British people get together for a hunting weekend.
Overall, this is really well done and provides enough solid drama and comedy. Two major points drop this down from a perfect score though. First, while I can't fault them, I found it terribly difficult to follow the film at times because of the British accents. Given that the film is so dialogue-driven, this was very frustrating. Second, it takes too long for the actual murder to take place. I understand that you want to establish character and motive, but I felt some of that could have been trimmed or established after the fact. Still, if you're looking for a bit of sophistication in your movie-going experience, this is a perfectly good choice. Netflix rating: ****
Confessions of a Dangerous Mind: I had really wanted to see this when it was initially released, but it only got a limited number of screens to open on and by the time it hit DVD I had forgotten about it. This is a depiction of Chuck Barris' autobiography and was directed by George Clooney in his directorial debut. If you aren't familiar with Chuck Barris, he created a number of notable game shows including The Dating Game, The Newlywed Game and The Gong Show (which he also hosted). However, that's just half the story as Barris claims that he also was an assassin for the CIA.
This is a very stylish and engaging film, particularly for someone's directorial debut. Sam Rockwell does a good job playing the eccentric Barris (although I could have done without the numerous bare ass shots). Barris' CIA stories are likely bogus (they've never been confirmed or denied), but the film does a great job of making you not care whether it's true or not. This guy supposedly lived my dream life; a spy and a game show host!! Drew Barrymore and Julia Roberts show up in supporting roles and do a nice job with the characters they have. The film is about too obscure of a person to truly considered significant, but I found it fascinating nonetheless. If you're looking for something a little different, I'd definitely suggest this one for you. Netflix rating: *****
Gosford Park: Nominated for a Best Picture in 2001, this film plays like a who's who of British acting royalty. That's probably why I ignored it in the past, but have since come to appreciate a lot of their talents. Mostly due, oddly enough, to the Harry Potter films (Gosford Park includes Maggie Smith and Michael Gambon). This is also directed by Robert Altman; a director who has great acclaim, but I've never seen most of his film. The story here is an upstairs/downstairs murder mystery that occurs when a bunch of wealthy British people get together for a hunting weekend.
Overall, this is really well done and provides enough solid drama and comedy. Two major points drop this down from a perfect score though. First, while I can't fault them, I found it terribly difficult to follow the film at times because of the British accents. Given that the film is so dialogue-driven, this was very frustrating. Second, it takes too long for the actual murder to take place. I understand that you want to establish character and motive, but I felt some of that could have been trimmed or established after the fact. Still, if you're looking for a bit of sophistication in your movie-going experience, this is a perfectly good choice. Netflix rating: ****
Confessions of a Dangerous Mind: I had really wanted to see this when it was initially released, but it only got a limited number of screens to open on and by the time it hit DVD I had forgotten about it. This is a depiction of Chuck Barris' autobiography and was directed by George Clooney in his directorial debut. If you aren't familiar with Chuck Barris, he created a number of notable game shows including The Dating Game, The Newlywed Game and The Gong Show (which he also hosted). However, that's just half the story as Barris claims that he also was an assassin for the CIA.
This is a very stylish and engaging film, particularly for someone's directorial debut. Sam Rockwell does a good job playing the eccentric Barris (although I could have done without the numerous bare ass shots). Barris' CIA stories are likely bogus (they've never been confirmed or denied), but the film does a great job of making you not care whether it's true or not. This guy supposedly lived my dream life; a spy and a game show host!! Drew Barrymore and Julia Roberts show up in supporting roles and do a nice job with the characters they have. The film is about too obscure of a person to truly considered significant, but I found it fascinating nonetheless. If you're looking for something a little different, I'd definitely suggest this one for you. Netflix rating: *****
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
War, what is it good for?
There are slim pickins at the budget theater these days, which is fine since I should be studying for my comps anyways. But I did manage to head over there and catch Charlie Wilson's War, since it's one of the last few notable films from the '07 holiday season that I had not seen yet.
It's actually been a few days now, since I've seen it, so I hope I can remember everything about it. I make that caveat in particular with this film, because of how shockingly unremarkable the film ended up being. I was stunned that a film that boasted a cast of Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, and Philip Seymour Hoffman and had a politically charged plot could be so forgettable.
For the unaware, the film is about a Texas democratic congressman (Hanks), who manages to get our government to supply Afghans with weapons, so that they could defeat the Soviets during the Cold War. Charlie Wilson may not have been a well known figure before this film, but given how his efforts have had such an impact on global politics, it is easy to understand why a film would be made about him.
The film moves along briskly as we see Wilson scheme and schmooze people in order to get these weapons to Afghanistan. As I watched the events unfold I was struck by how easy everything seemed to fall into place. By the way things were portrayed in the film, he never really faced any true conflict in getting this done. I have no problem with this (for all I know, it really was that easy), except that the director then opts not to hammer home the significance of Wilson's actions. There are a few scene at the end which show Wilson having some mixed emotions about what he's done, but I didn't find that sufficient.
The tone of the film just felt off to me. The director seemed more content with having the characters engage in witty banter rather than give any thought to the implications of their actions. Instead of trying to depict Wilson as a political hero or villain, they opt to instead focus more of the fact that he's a drunk and a womanizer.
This is not a well-known chapter of U.S. history, so if you're going to make a film about it, why trivialize it more than what it already is? If you want your audience to reflect on Wilson's actions and realize how different things would have been had he not been successful, then do a better job of giving these events some significance. Frankly, I think it would have been better had they opted for a fictionalized version of this story. A lot of the same points would have been made without the burden of doing any injustice to the people you're portraying.
I will say that while I think the tone of this movie is way off, it is still somewhat enjoyable; mostly as a result of the lead performances. Tom Hanks can't deliver a bad performance and he's entertaining here in a sleezier than normal character. Julia Roberts is also delightful in a small role as a Conservative lobbyist (plus she still looks damn good in a bikini). What surprised me, though, was the excellent performances by two actors that I typically don't care for. Amy Adams (who's typically too saccharine for my liking) is actually really good here playing one of Wilson's many secretaries. And Philip Seymour Hoffman (who I've slowly started to come around and see his brilliance) is just fantastic as Gust, who works for the CIA and helps Charlie know what type of weaponry will be needed to defeat the Soviets. I fully agree with him getting an Oscar nomination for this role.
At 97 minutes, the movie never overstays it's welcome and keeps you engaged the entire time. However, that engagement only works if you're there to watch a light political farce. If that suits you, you should enjoy this just fine. However, if you're interested in finding deeper meaning behind Charlie Wilson's actions, you'll have to rely on yourself to provide them because the film offers none. At a time when so many in Hollywood seem all too enthusiastic to espouse their political opinions, it is stunning that this film decides to ride the fence between escapism and making a statement. Grade: B-
It's actually been a few days now, since I've seen it, so I hope I can remember everything about it. I make that caveat in particular with this film, because of how shockingly unremarkable the film ended up being. I was stunned that a film that boasted a cast of Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, and Philip Seymour Hoffman and had a politically charged plot could be so forgettable.
For the unaware, the film is about a Texas democratic congressman (Hanks), who manages to get our government to supply Afghans with weapons, so that they could defeat the Soviets during the Cold War. Charlie Wilson may not have been a well known figure before this film, but given how his efforts have had such an impact on global politics, it is easy to understand why a film would be made about him.
The film moves along briskly as we see Wilson scheme and schmooze people in order to get these weapons to Afghanistan. As I watched the events unfold I was struck by how easy everything seemed to fall into place. By the way things were portrayed in the film, he never really faced any true conflict in getting this done. I have no problem with this (for all I know, it really was that easy), except that the director then opts not to hammer home the significance of Wilson's actions. There are a few scene at the end which show Wilson having some mixed emotions about what he's done, but I didn't find that sufficient.
The tone of the film just felt off to me. The director seemed more content with having the characters engage in witty banter rather than give any thought to the implications of their actions. Instead of trying to depict Wilson as a political hero or villain, they opt to instead focus more of the fact that he's a drunk and a womanizer.
This is not a well-known chapter of U.S. history, so if you're going to make a film about it, why trivialize it more than what it already is? If you want your audience to reflect on Wilson's actions and realize how different things would have been had he not been successful, then do a better job of giving these events some significance. Frankly, I think it would have been better had they opted for a fictionalized version of this story. A lot of the same points would have been made without the burden of doing any injustice to the people you're portraying.
I will say that while I think the tone of this movie is way off, it is still somewhat enjoyable; mostly as a result of the lead performances. Tom Hanks can't deliver a bad performance and he's entertaining here in a sleezier than normal character. Julia Roberts is also delightful in a small role as a Conservative lobbyist (plus she still looks damn good in a bikini). What surprised me, though, was the excellent performances by two actors that I typically don't care for. Amy Adams (who's typically too saccharine for my liking) is actually really good here playing one of Wilson's many secretaries. And Philip Seymour Hoffman (who I've slowly started to come around and see his brilliance) is just fantastic as Gust, who works for the CIA and helps Charlie know what type of weaponry will be needed to defeat the Soviets. I fully agree with him getting an Oscar nomination for this role.
At 97 minutes, the movie never overstays it's welcome and keeps you engaged the entire time. However, that engagement only works if you're there to watch a light political farce. If that suits you, you should enjoy this just fine. However, if you're interested in finding deeper meaning behind Charlie Wilson's actions, you'll have to rely on yourself to provide them because the film offers none. At a time when so many in Hollywood seem all too enthusiastic to espouse their political opinions, it is stunning that this film decides to ride the fence between escapism and making a statement. Grade: B-
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Time to talk TV
I realized I hadn't share any thoughts about what's gone down on the boob tube lately, so I figured I'd take some time and do that now.
Lost: I have to start with the best and more important one here first. Simply put, I have been loving this season. There have been so many great moments, whether they be in the form of shocking reveals, hilarious one-liners, or scenes full of drama and tension. There may be some who are uneasy about the introduction of time travel into the storylines, but I'm really intrigued by it. Speaking of time travel though, the most recent episode had us going back in time to see what Michael aka Kevin Johnson has been up to ever since Ben let him and Walt go. I was actually somewhat disappointed with this whole backstory. From a temporal perspective it seemed a bit of stretch for Michael to have made it back to the U.S., met Tom and then flown to the freighter all in the time since we last saw him. Plus, would Tom have been available to see Michael given how involved he was with island happenings last season? Hopefully those issues will be dealt with later on. As for the 'shocking' final seconds of the episode, I was disappointed to see Carl and (seemingly) Rousseau get killed off as I thought they were both good characters, but I also understand that their storylines had mainly come to an end and they served no real purpose. So the question is, who shot them? It's likely the Others, but I've learned that nothing is a given on this show. I'm certainly glad that the strike got resolved though as that would have been a terrible way for the season to end and not resume for a full year. Now we just have to wait a month and then watch the show come back with more awesomeness.
Survivor: For the most part, this has been a pretty awesome season of Survivor thus far, even though a lot of the more interesting people have been voted off already. Anytime you have people working hard at the strategic game and blindsiding people, it's always fun. Having said that, I am really disliking Cirie this season. She has been so damn smug about the way she's ousted people. I really hope other people catch on soon to the game that she's playing. I loved Ozzy's fake idol, as cheesy as it was. I'm really curious as to what Jason thinks at this point. Does he believe that stick is the idol? Does he truly believe that Ozzy has the idol or was he just grasping at straws hoping Ozzy would admit it? It's so nice to see both Chet and Kathy gone; they may go down as two of the most pathetic Survivor contestants either. Right now, I feel that this is anybody's game and I'm excited to see how it plays out when it returns in a couple of weeks after basketball is done.
Reaper: I forgot to tape this past week's episode, but did see the return episode last week. As much as I enjoy this show, I feel like it's been in a holding pattern for a while. I would like for the show to reveal some sort of grander plan of what's to come instead of having this be simply a 'lost soul of the week' show. I thought is was interesting how Sock's mom kicked him out. I know that this week's episode dealt with the three guys moving in together, which could be a sign of something else happening, or it could be just another mild diversion like the contract, or Cady possibly being the devil's daughter. They keep introducing these ideas but then never doing much with them, so like I said, hopefully that will soon change. This show is still very much on the bubble in terms of whether it will get picked up or not. I think the fact that the strike prevented a lot of new pilots from being made for next fall helps its chances of survival.
Aliens in America: It's the same old story with this one. The show always has nice, feel-good stories, but it's never laugh-out-loud funny. I've feel that this show has squandered a lot of potential. It's not bad, it's just not what I would like it to be. It's getting killed, ratings-wise, in its new Sunday timeslot, so I'm not sure how long this one will last.
Simpsons: I usually don't bother to mention this show, mostly because I only catch it when I can these days. However, I must give them credit as their last two episodes have been really solid. One was a parody of The Departed and the other had a Columbo-esque mystery in it. Both had a number of laughs and decent plots; usually it's one or the other with most of the new episodes. If you have some free time, I would suggest checking them out online. You can go to this new video hosting site, Hulu, and watch them for free. I may post at a later time some more thoughts on Hulu because it has the potential of changing the TV viewing landscape if it takes off, but for now just give it a look.
The Office: I know, I know. It's not back yet. I'm just as eager for new episodes as you are. So to help fill the void, here's some news from EW about what we can expect when the gang from Dunder Mifflin does return:
Lost: I have to start with the best and more important one here first. Simply put, I have been loving this season. There have been so many great moments, whether they be in the form of shocking reveals, hilarious one-liners, or scenes full of drama and tension. There may be some who are uneasy about the introduction of time travel into the storylines, but I'm really intrigued by it. Speaking of time travel though, the most recent episode had us going back in time to see what Michael aka Kevin Johnson has been up to ever since Ben let him and Walt go. I was actually somewhat disappointed with this whole backstory. From a temporal perspective it seemed a bit of stretch for Michael to have made it back to the U.S., met Tom and then flown to the freighter all in the time since we last saw him. Plus, would Tom have been available to see Michael given how involved he was with island happenings last season? Hopefully those issues will be dealt with later on. As for the 'shocking' final seconds of the episode, I was disappointed to see Carl and (seemingly) Rousseau get killed off as I thought they were both good characters, but I also understand that their storylines had mainly come to an end and they served no real purpose. So the question is, who shot them? It's likely the Others, but I've learned that nothing is a given on this show. I'm certainly glad that the strike got resolved though as that would have been a terrible way for the season to end and not resume for a full year. Now we just have to wait a month and then watch the show come back with more awesomeness.
Survivor: For the most part, this has been a pretty awesome season of Survivor thus far, even though a lot of the more interesting people have been voted off already. Anytime you have people working hard at the strategic game and blindsiding people, it's always fun. Having said that, I am really disliking Cirie this season. She has been so damn smug about the way she's ousted people. I really hope other people catch on soon to the game that she's playing. I loved Ozzy's fake idol, as cheesy as it was. I'm really curious as to what Jason thinks at this point. Does he believe that stick is the idol? Does he truly believe that Ozzy has the idol or was he just grasping at straws hoping Ozzy would admit it? It's so nice to see both Chet and Kathy gone; they may go down as two of the most pathetic Survivor contestants either. Right now, I feel that this is anybody's game and I'm excited to see how it plays out when it returns in a couple of weeks after basketball is done.
Reaper: I forgot to tape this past week's episode, but did see the return episode last week. As much as I enjoy this show, I feel like it's been in a holding pattern for a while. I would like for the show to reveal some sort of grander plan of what's to come instead of having this be simply a 'lost soul of the week' show. I thought is was interesting how Sock's mom kicked him out. I know that this week's episode dealt with the three guys moving in together, which could be a sign of something else happening, or it could be just another mild diversion like the contract, or Cady possibly being the devil's daughter. They keep introducing these ideas but then never doing much with them, so like I said, hopefully that will soon change. This show is still very much on the bubble in terms of whether it will get picked up or not. I think the fact that the strike prevented a lot of new pilots from being made for next fall helps its chances of survival.
Aliens in America: It's the same old story with this one. The show always has nice, feel-good stories, but it's never laugh-out-loud funny. I've feel that this show has squandered a lot of potential. It's not bad, it's just not what I would like it to be. It's getting killed, ratings-wise, in its new Sunday timeslot, so I'm not sure how long this one will last.
Simpsons: I usually don't bother to mention this show, mostly because I only catch it when I can these days. However, I must give them credit as their last two episodes have been really solid. One was a parody of The Departed and the other had a Columbo-esque mystery in it. Both had a number of laughs and decent plots; usually it's one or the other with most of the new episodes. If you have some free time, I would suggest checking them out online. You can go to this new video hosting site, Hulu, and watch them for free. I may post at a later time some more thoughts on Hulu because it has the potential of changing the TV viewing landscape if it takes off, but for now just give it a look.
The Office: I know, I know. It's not back yet. I'm just as eager for new episodes as you are. So to help fill the void, here's some news from EW about what we can expect when the gang from Dunder Mifflin does return:
Michael and Jan (Melora Hardin) — who aren't exactly living in domestic bliss — throw a dinner party, complete with an ill-fated game of Celebrity. As for Jim-Pam, ''They're together and things are going strong...but are they?'' says Office exec producer Greg Daniels cryptically. Well...are they? ''Hard to judge,'' he answers. ''I'm not with them every moment.'' Let's ask someone who is: John Krasinski. ''They're a fantastic couple,'' he reports. ''They're very real. It's nice to see that a love story that people have waited for doesn't bend toward the gooey side.'' In other non-gooey relationship news, Angela (Angela Kinsey) finally gives in to the advances of Andy (Ed Helms). ''They're going to be like a very old preppy couple from the get-go,'' says Daniels. Meanwhile, Dwight (Rainn Wilson) — who's ''a seething cauldron of tension'' over Angela's new romance — enters a management training program that Jim hijacks. Plus, he'll sue some neighborhood kids in small-claims court. (''It's an agricultural dispute,'' explains Daniels.) We'll also meet the other tenants in the office park (''a mix of the attractive and the dangerous'') after a parking-space flap. And as for life outside Scranton, Ryan (B.J. Novak) is joined by Michael and Dwight for a night of NYC clubbing. How does that go? ''Have you been clubbing in New York recently?'' asks Daniels. ''Neither has Michael. It's really not his world
A unique look into the mind of a WWE writer
I know I don't talk about wrestling on here much, but I still watch it when I can; mostly out of habit. When I don't watch the shows, I typically visit Online Onslaught for all the news and snark I need to fill my wrestling quota. However, that site has vanished for some reason (I've been told the webmaster is currently working on getting the site back).
So to fill that void, I ended up stumbling upon a new blog that's being written by a former writer for the WWE. His tenure was from '02-'03, so he's got plenty of stories to share. Some of the tales he's teased talked about in the future include the origins of Katie Vick, the Billy and Chuck wedding, and the Al Wilson storyline. If those names mean anything to you, I would say this site is definitely worth a look. To check it out, click here.
So to fill that void, I ended up stumbling upon a new blog that's being written by a former writer for the WWE. His tenure was from '02-'03, so he's got plenty of stories to share. Some of the tales he's teased talked about in the future include the origins of Katie Vick, the Billy and Chuck wedding, and the Al Wilson storyline. If those names mean anything to you, I would say this site is definitely worth a look. To check it out, click here.
Friday, March 21, 2008
NMR: Rendition
There's an old insult in wrestling where you claim a guy has a 'million dollar body, but a ten cent brain'. Well if I may paraphrase that insult, Rendition is a movie with a million dollar cast and a ten cent story. It seemed to be in trendy in 2007 for moviegoers to ignore war films at the box office, but even I was surprised to see this one do so poorly given the pedigree of the cast. Now that I've seen it I can see why.
The movie is about an Egyptian man who is taken by the U.S. government and tortured under rendition because they believe he is connected with a terrorist act that took place in North Africa. Reese Witherspoon plays the wife trying to figure out what has happened to her terrorist. The film also boasts a cast that includes Jake Gyllenhaal, Meryl Streep, Alan Arkin, and J.K. Simmons. Within about 10 minutes of the film, I basically could figure everything that would happen. And I'm not talking about simply guessing that the government is wrong about this guy, I'm talking knowing how each of the subplots would play out. About the only thing that threw me for a loop was a illogical 'twist' near the end of the film that made no sense from a narrative perspective. The movie then ends with a thud as we get a schmaltzy ending that provides no closure whatsoever. You could argue that the conclusion is ambiguous because the director wants the audience to make their own judgments on the events they've just seen, but that would be giving the director too much credit. To me, the ending is just cowardice as they were too afraid to take a direction on anything they presented in the film. I should give this film only one star, but I'll be kind because the quality actors in the film still provide good performances, despite the lousy material they have to work with. Netflix rating: **
The movie is about an Egyptian man who is taken by the U.S. government and tortured under rendition because they believe he is connected with a terrorist act that took place in North Africa. Reese Witherspoon plays the wife trying to figure out what has happened to her terrorist. The film also boasts a cast that includes Jake Gyllenhaal, Meryl Streep, Alan Arkin, and J.K. Simmons. Within about 10 minutes of the film, I basically could figure everything that would happen. And I'm not talking about simply guessing that the government is wrong about this guy, I'm talking knowing how each of the subplots would play out. About the only thing that threw me for a loop was a illogical 'twist' near the end of the film that made no sense from a narrative perspective. The movie then ends with a thud as we get a schmaltzy ending that provides no closure whatsoever. You could argue that the conclusion is ambiguous because the director wants the audience to make their own judgments on the events they've just seen, but that would be giving the director too much credit. To me, the ending is just cowardice as they were too afraid to take a direction on anything they presented in the film. I should give this film only one star, but I'll be kind because the quality actors in the film still provide good performances, despite the lousy material they have to work with. Netflix rating: **
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Beasts of burden
A couple of bizarre "When Animals Attack" stories:
Rat bites woman on toilet!!
Leaping eagle ray kills woman
I don't know if this is a sign of the end of days, but, just in case, I'll be praying extra hard this Good Friday.
Rat bites woman on toilet!!
Leaping eagle ray kills woman
I don't know if this is a sign of the end of days, but, just in case, I'll be praying extra hard this Good Friday.
Let the madness begin
I should have posted this before tipoff of today's games, but with everything going on, that just didn't happen. Anyway, here are my picks for this year's men's basketball tournament.
Final Four:
East - UNC (Believe me, it pains me to pick them)
Midwest - Georgetown
South - Texas
West - UCLA
Championship:
UNC vs. UCLA
Winner: UCLA
If you care to procrastinate at work, you can watch all of the games online here.
Final Four:
East - UNC (Believe me, it pains me to pick them)
Midwest - Georgetown
South - Texas
West - UCLA
Championship:
UNC vs. UCLA
Winner: UCLA
If you care to procrastinate at work, you can watch all of the games online here.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
NMR: The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters
Man, what a nice hidden gem was. Despite the appeal of a documentary on playing arcade games, I was worried that this was going to be cheesy or attempt to mock its subject matter. Instead, this was the best documentary I've seen this year. I'm not sure how this got overlooked for an Oscar nomination. I guess we really needed to nominate 3 films on the Iraq war (groan). Anyways, this film does an awesome job of providing a hero and villain and letting their story played out in front of your eyes like some sort of Shakespearian play. I don't deny that the director may have omitted or ignored some of the events that actually happened in order for the story to work, but I understand why he wouldn't want it to get in the way of a good story.
If you're unaware the film focuses on two men who are out to claim the best score on Donkey Kong. We learn all about their strategies to play the game and the organization that is in charge of determining when a high score is valid. You would think this would be a simple process, but it turns out video game record-breaking business is more devious than it seems. The people portrayed here all suck you in with their stories and their explanation for why things the way they are in the gaming community. About the only oddity is that there are a few moments in the film where it seems like the focus is going to shift to other people, but instead nothing happens (i.e. the Qbert lady, the guy slamming his trunk). However, it doesn't really detract from the film's quality. In general, this is an excellent film and I found myself wanting to stay in their world longer. The most unfortunate thing about this movie is that it's only 80 mins. long. Still, for those 80 minutes, I dare you to find a more entertaining and interesting documentary. I never would have guessed it, but this one's actually making my top ten for 2007. Netflix rating: *****
If you're unaware the film focuses on two men who are out to claim the best score on Donkey Kong. We learn all about their strategies to play the game and the organization that is in charge of determining when a high score is valid. You would think this would be a simple process, but it turns out video game record-breaking business is more devious than it seems. The people portrayed here all suck you in with their stories and their explanation for why things the way they are in the gaming community. About the only oddity is that there are a few moments in the film where it seems like the focus is going to shift to other people, but instead nothing happens (i.e. the Qbert lady, the guy slamming his trunk). However, it doesn't really detract from the film's quality. In general, this is an excellent film and I found myself wanting to stay in their world longer. The most unfortunate thing about this movie is that it's only 80 mins. long. Still, for those 80 minutes, I dare you to find a more entertaining and interesting documentary. I never would have guessed it, but this one's actually making my top ten for 2007. Netflix rating: *****
Monday, March 17, 2008
SNL of a host
So I was watching SNL last night and I thought to myself that it had been a while since we had seen Christopher Walken host the show. Then just a few minutes later they announce that he'll be hosting the Apr. 5 show. Needless to say, I was stunned and thrilled by the news. So in honor of the man's upcoming 7th time hosting, here are a couple of clips of some of his more obscure, yet still hilarious skits.
Colonel Angus (may be NSFW):
Pranksters:
Colonel Angus (may be NSFW):
Pranksters:
Sunday, March 16, 2008
NMR: After the Sunset
Pure popcorn fare here, which is about as best you can hope for when Brett Ratner is directing a film. This is a really good movie for someone who doesn't have the time and/or money to go on a real vacation. The locales shot for this movie are just beautiful and make you feel as if you're living in paradise.
The premise here is that Pierce Brosnan and Salma Hayek are a pair of jewel thieves who have supposedly decided to retire from the heist business and settle down in the Caribbean. Woody Harrelson plays the FBI agent who is tracking them down, convinced that they are planning another burglary.
If you try to think too much about all the supposed twists and turns offered by the film, you'll just make your head hurt, so it's better to just sit back and watch Salma Hayek in various stages of undress for 90 mins. There are a lot of contrivances found throughout the film, particularly in the relationship between Brosnan and Harrelson. But the film never takes itself too seriously, so it's not that bothersome. This one is the epitome of average and probably worth skipping unless you're desperately seeking some mindless entertainment. Netflix rating: ***
The premise here is that Pierce Brosnan and Salma Hayek are a pair of jewel thieves who have supposedly decided to retire from the heist business and settle down in the Caribbean. Woody Harrelson plays the FBI agent who is tracking them down, convinced that they are planning another burglary.
If you try to think too much about all the supposed twists and turns offered by the film, you'll just make your head hurt, so it's better to just sit back and watch Salma Hayek in various stages of undress for 90 mins. There are a lot of contrivances found throughout the film, particularly in the relationship between Brosnan and Harrelson. But the film never takes itself too seriously, so it's not that bothersome. This one is the epitome of average and probably worth skipping unless you're desperately seeking some mindless entertainment. Netflix rating: ***
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Epitomies of professionalism
To give you a couple of laughs, here's some more fun from the world of local news:
This one is my favorite:
This one is my favorite:
Friday, March 14, 2008
NMR: Double Feature
I'm still trying to play catch up with posting everything I've seen lately, so here's a pair of mini-reviews for the last couple of movies I've caught on Netflix.
Gone Baby Gone: A very well made film, especially considering it's by first-time director Ben Affleck. He does a good job of making the city of Boston (practically a character itself in the film) seem realistic, yet not grating to someone who doesn't live there; unlike in The Departed where I was sick of the accents, course language, and inflated egos within the first 20 minutes of the film. This storyline is a difficult one to watch as it involves the kidnapping of a 4 year old girl from a mother, who is a junkie. As the mystery unfolds, the audience is presented with a dilemma that has no clear cut answer. If you're looking for a good debate, watch the film with someone and you'll have something to talk about for hours. Credit goes to Casey Affleck, Ed Harris and Morgan Freeman who all turn in fine performances. Amy Ryan as the deadbeat mom is so realistic, you wonder if it's acting or if they just pulled someone off the streets of Boston. This is a solid film, but probably one I can't see myself watching again. Netflix rating: ****
Fracture: Those that saw this, (which wasn't very many) naturally made comparisons between the character Anthony Hopkins plays here and his famous role as Hannibal Lecter. The comparison is fair as once again Hopkins plays a devious man who enjoys playing mind games with a young, naive person who's on the other side of the law. While this film is no Silence of the Lambs, the interactions between Hopkins and Ryan Gosling, playing the cocky young prosecutor are just as enjoyable. I may have even appreciated them here more because I didn't find Gosling's character to be that likeable, so seeing him get cerebrally beatdown was fun. Gosling's character is one that I could see being given to Tom Cruise ten years ago. This is a guy who is so smug and arrogant yet we're supposed to root for him because he goes after 'bad guys'. Aside from the acting, the film works because it does a good job of keeping you guessing as to how Hopkins (nearly) gets away with murder. Be warned, though, the longer you think about the film after it's done, the more plotholes you will find. However, if you just enjoy it for what it is, this is an entertaining legal mystery. Finally, I'll just point out that the film also boasts a solid supporting cast with David Strathairn and Rosamund Pike in smaller roles. Strathairn is solid as Gosling's boss, but Pike's role in the film is unfortunately unnecessary and implausible. Overall, this is a simple, but effective thriller. Netflix rating: ****
Gone Baby Gone: A very well made film, especially considering it's by first-time director Ben Affleck. He does a good job of making the city of Boston (practically a character itself in the film) seem realistic, yet not grating to someone who doesn't live there; unlike in The Departed where I was sick of the accents, course language, and inflated egos within the first 20 minutes of the film. This storyline is a difficult one to watch as it involves the kidnapping of a 4 year old girl from a mother, who is a junkie. As the mystery unfolds, the audience is presented with a dilemma that has no clear cut answer. If you're looking for a good debate, watch the film with someone and you'll have something to talk about for hours. Credit goes to Casey Affleck, Ed Harris and Morgan Freeman who all turn in fine performances. Amy Ryan as the deadbeat mom is so realistic, you wonder if it's acting or if they just pulled someone off the streets of Boston. This is a solid film, but probably one I can't see myself watching again. Netflix rating: ****
Fracture: Those that saw this, (which wasn't very many) naturally made comparisons between the character Anthony Hopkins plays here and his famous role as Hannibal Lecter. The comparison is fair as once again Hopkins plays a devious man who enjoys playing mind games with a young, naive person who's on the other side of the law. While this film is no Silence of the Lambs, the interactions between Hopkins and Ryan Gosling, playing the cocky young prosecutor are just as enjoyable. I may have even appreciated them here more because I didn't find Gosling's character to be that likeable, so seeing him get cerebrally beatdown was fun. Gosling's character is one that I could see being given to Tom Cruise ten years ago. This is a guy who is so smug and arrogant yet we're supposed to root for him because he goes after 'bad guys'. Aside from the acting, the film works because it does a good job of keeping you guessing as to how Hopkins (nearly) gets away with murder. Be warned, though, the longer you think about the film after it's done, the more plotholes you will find. However, if you just enjoy it for what it is, this is an entertaining legal mystery. Finally, I'll just point out that the film also boasts a solid supporting cast with David Strathairn and Rosamund Pike in smaller roles. Strathairn is solid as Gosling's boss, but Pike's role in the film is unfortunately unnecessary and implausible. Overall, this is a simple, but effective thriller. Netflix rating: ****
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Remaking it happen
So I'm finally getting around to the final spring break movie I saw; Be Kind Rewind. And like the adage goes, I ended up saving the best for last.
While not a perfect movie, the film's core idea is what drives it to success. For the unaware, Mike (Mos Def) is a video store clerk, who is best friends with Jerry (Jack Black), who is a little on the crazy side. After Jerry unsuccessfully attempts to sabotage the local power plant, he becomes magnetized and ends up erasing every single VHS tape in Mike's store when he visits him. In order to save the store, the two friends decide to make their own versions of the films and sell them to customers. Lo and behold, their remakes (they refer to them as 'sweeded' versions of the originals) become a huge hit with the local townspeople.
Seeing Mike and Jerry remake classic films is where the money is at in terms of this film. We get to see them do their versions of such films as Ghostbusters, Rush Hour 2, Boyz N the Hood, and Driving Miss Daisy. The two have a real chemistry and the scenes involving their filmmaking are a riot to watch. Their versions are skewed just enough to make them funny, yet realistic enough for you to understand what movie they are doing. In addition to being hilarious, I found it interesting to watch their creativity in making these sweeded versions. It gave you a nice insight into the lengths people will go to try and make unreal scenarios seem realistic. In an age where all the visual effects seem to be computerized, it was nice to see a call out to the classic methods of filmmaking.
As Jerry and Mike's films grow in popularity, they bring on other people to help them out. Most notably is the dry cleaner's sister, Alma. Played by newcomer Melonie Diaz, Alma is hired by the guys to start playing the female roles in their films. She ends up bringing an added level of excitement to the filmmaking scenes. This was a character that was clearly going nowhere in her current job and we see how these films end up bringing out the best in her. There are hints of a possible romance between her and Mike, but sadly this subplot never truly gets developed.
That lack of subplot development ends up being the film's one flaw. Directed by Michel Gondry, the films ends up leaving too many ideas up to the audience's imagination. Gondry is best known for directing the quirky film Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Known for his stylistic direction, I feel he was a bad fit for this film. Typically, I will criticize directors for hammering the audience over the head with the film's story, but the opposite is true here. There are too many loose threads that Gondry never delves into. For instance, there appears to be some sort of connection between the VHS store owner (played by Danny Glover) and the kooky Miss Falewicz (Mia Farrow), who frequents the store and is the first to rent one of the fellas sweeded films. Having an concrete idea of what their relationship is/was might have added another dimension to those characters.
The simplistic approach that Gondry takes is annoyingly noticeable in the film's final scenes. After the government shuts down Mike and Jerry's versions of copyrighted films (another subplot that could have been further developed), the store creates one original film that involves the entire town, in the hopes that the screening of the film will generate enough money to keep the store from being torn down. The film ends with the screening of this film and no sense of resolution. I can respect when directors want to end on an ambiguous note, but that only works when you leave certain questions unanswered. The end of this film answers nothing. It seems to insinuate that having everyone come together to work on and then watch this film is enough of a happy ending. Nevermind the fact that we have no idea what happens to any of the characters that we have become invested in over the past hour and a half.
It is hard to say at this point whether successive viewings of this film may soften or harden my criticism of the film's flat ending. On one hand, knowing what to expect may make it easier to digest on future viewings. On the other hand, seeing a lack of resolution over and over again may just cause a buildup of frustration.
Overall, I think the fun and enjoyment that is experienced watching these two friends make these new versions of classic films is predominate enough to recommend this film to others. Since this concept is focused on for the majority of the film, it is likely that the film's flaws won't be that noticeable. Perhaps I have done a disservice by pointing out what annoyed me about this film in this review. However, I couldn't live with myself if I didn't express all of my thoughts on the films I review.
This film was only given a limited release when it first came out, so it's unlikely that you'll be able to find it in a theater at this point. My best suggestion would be to check it out in a couple of months when it's released on DVD. Who knows, maybe someone will agree with me that the film is underdeveloped in certain spots and end up making their own sweeded version of this movie. I know that there are certainly worse things that have been created and put on the Internet. Grade: B
While not a perfect movie, the film's core idea is what drives it to success. For the unaware, Mike (Mos Def) is a video store clerk, who is best friends with Jerry (Jack Black), who is a little on the crazy side. After Jerry unsuccessfully attempts to sabotage the local power plant, he becomes magnetized and ends up erasing every single VHS tape in Mike's store when he visits him. In order to save the store, the two friends decide to make their own versions of the films and sell them to customers. Lo and behold, their remakes (they refer to them as 'sweeded' versions of the originals) become a huge hit with the local townspeople.
Seeing Mike and Jerry remake classic films is where the money is at in terms of this film. We get to see them do their versions of such films as Ghostbusters, Rush Hour 2, Boyz N the Hood, and Driving Miss Daisy. The two have a real chemistry and the scenes involving their filmmaking are a riot to watch. Their versions are skewed just enough to make them funny, yet realistic enough for you to understand what movie they are doing. In addition to being hilarious, I found it interesting to watch their creativity in making these sweeded versions. It gave you a nice insight into the lengths people will go to try and make unreal scenarios seem realistic. In an age where all the visual effects seem to be computerized, it was nice to see a call out to the classic methods of filmmaking.
As Jerry and Mike's films grow in popularity, they bring on other people to help them out. Most notably is the dry cleaner's sister, Alma. Played by newcomer Melonie Diaz, Alma is hired by the guys to start playing the female roles in their films. She ends up bringing an added level of excitement to the filmmaking scenes. This was a character that was clearly going nowhere in her current job and we see how these films end up bringing out the best in her. There are hints of a possible romance between her and Mike, but sadly this subplot never truly gets developed.
That lack of subplot development ends up being the film's one flaw. Directed by Michel Gondry, the films ends up leaving too many ideas up to the audience's imagination. Gondry is best known for directing the quirky film Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Known for his stylistic direction, I feel he was a bad fit for this film. Typically, I will criticize directors for hammering the audience over the head with the film's story, but the opposite is true here. There are too many loose threads that Gondry never delves into. For instance, there appears to be some sort of connection between the VHS store owner (played by Danny Glover) and the kooky Miss Falewicz (Mia Farrow), who frequents the store and is the first to rent one of the fellas sweeded films. Having an concrete idea of what their relationship is/was might have added another dimension to those characters.
The simplistic approach that Gondry takes is annoyingly noticeable in the film's final scenes. After the government shuts down Mike and Jerry's versions of copyrighted films (another subplot that could have been further developed), the store creates one original film that involves the entire town, in the hopes that the screening of the film will generate enough money to keep the store from being torn down. The film ends with the screening of this film and no sense of resolution. I can respect when directors want to end on an ambiguous note, but that only works when you leave certain questions unanswered. The end of this film answers nothing. It seems to insinuate that having everyone come together to work on and then watch this film is enough of a happy ending. Nevermind the fact that we have no idea what happens to any of the characters that we have become invested in over the past hour and a half.
It is hard to say at this point whether successive viewings of this film may soften or harden my criticism of the film's flat ending. On one hand, knowing what to expect may make it easier to digest on future viewings. On the other hand, seeing a lack of resolution over and over again may just cause a buildup of frustration.
Overall, I think the fun and enjoyment that is experienced watching these two friends make these new versions of classic films is predominate enough to recommend this film to others. Since this concept is focused on for the majority of the film, it is likely that the film's flaws won't be that noticeable. Perhaps I have done a disservice by pointing out what annoyed me about this film in this review. However, I couldn't live with myself if I didn't express all of my thoughts on the films I review.
This film was only given a limited release when it first came out, so it's unlikely that you'll be able to find it in a theater at this point. My best suggestion would be to check it out in a couple of months when it's released on DVD. Who knows, maybe someone will agree with me that the film is underdeveloped in certain spots and end up making their own sweeded version of this movie. I know that there are certainly worse things that have been created and put on the Internet. Grade: B
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Could lightning strike twice?
No wonder I keep hearing rumors about how much this show is overbudget this year. At least this guy didn't embarass himself upon hearing the news.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Views to a kill
I'm still trying to play catch up on all the stuff I've gotten to see this week, so bear with me. Next up on my spring break movie marathon is Vantage Point. The film's advertising was equal parts enticing and frustrating. I was sold when I saw this would be a film that would use the Rashomon style of filmmaking by showing a singular incident from multiple perspectives. However, I was dismayed to see a critical and surprising plot point get revealed during the commercials. Still, with a limited amount of films to choose from at the theaters right now, there was enough here to get me to go watch up.
The basic premise involves the president of the United States attending a summit in Spain and as he's prepared to speak, he's shot. We then see this assassination attempt from the eyes of many different characters including Dennis Quaid as a Secret Serviceman, who's just returned to the job after being shot himself, Forrest Whittaker as a tourist watching the historic moment, and Sigorney Weaver as a cable news channel producer who is covering the summit. With each person's story, the film rewinds back to noon and replays things, each time adding something new.
In general, I like the idea of telling a story from multiple perspectives. I do wish that the director had chosen some more stylistic ways to shift from one person's perspective to the next. His transitions give the sense of repetitiveness and frustration. We didn't need to see the seconds ticking up to noon each time a new character's perspective was shown. We also didn't need to see the same shots so many times. I'm not talking about seeing the same events over and over again, because that is necessary for this style of storytelling. Rather, I'm talking about seeing the same visuals each time. This, to me, just reeked of lazyness.
While some of the characters' stories built nicely upon each other, others felt forced. There were too many times where characters nonsensically interacted with each other or acted in certain ways that weren't plausible, yet needed to be done in order for the multiple perspectives method to work. I got the sense that the filmmakers fell in love with this method of storytelling, yet did not come up with a robust enough story to make it work.
As I mentioned before, the commercials gave away a major plot twist in their commercials. Now this is not the first film to do this and it certainly won't be the last. However, as annoying as that can be, it was even more problematic for this particular film. When you use this method of storytelling, it means that each story is to provide us something new and interesting. Well, if your commercials reveals something interesting that doesn't occur until halfway through the film, then you're forcing your audience to sit through 50 minutes of unnecessary storytelling. If you have been fortunate enough to miss most of the advertising for this film, you may not care about this criticism since you should still be able to enjoy the film and not realize what will happen.
The film does have one other twist in it, but it's reveal is equally annoying, yet for different reasons. At the end of Dennis Quaid's storyline (which is the second one shown in the film), he spots something on a TV monitor, which shocks him, yet the audience doesn't see it. What he saw isn't revealed to us until the end of the film. That would be fine suspenseful drama if it were not for the fact that we had to sit through a bunch of ancillary storytelling before that point. If we could have just seen what was on that screen during Quaid's story, it would have moved things along much quicker. But on the other hand, the film would have probably only been about 20 minutes long then.
Even though I have been critical of the approach the director took with the multiple perspective method, I could have overlooked at lot of it, had he stayed true to this method. Once the final perspective is shown and we learn the big twist, the film shifts gears into generic action film and spends a significant amount of time on a generic car chase. The chase scene goes on too long and is poorly shot. Many people complain about the shaky cam method of shooting a scene that is seen in films like The Bourne Supremacy, but I typically do not have a problem with it; usually because the people filming them are skilled filmmakers. However, the camera work during this chase scene nearly made me nauseous. I could not believe how long they let this scene go on for, especially considering we basically knew how it would end thanks to some of the earlier scenes from other characters' perspectives.
As the film comes to a close, it can't even find a way to include all of the characters. This just confirmed to me that some were added as mere plot devices. To me, if you're going to provide multiple characters' perspectives, then they should all be involved in how the film is resolved. Instead, the film continues to retread into generic action film territory and loses any goodwill it may have gained with it's initial unique method of storytelling. Worst of all, we never get a good understanding of the villains motives in the film. Would it have killed them to come up with a story from their perspective to make us understand why they chose to attack the president?
I really wanted to like this film and there are certainly elements touched upon the film that make you see it could have been something special. Issues such as media censorship, country loyalty, heroicism, and the importance of family are all introduced but never developed. Instead, we get a half-baked action film filled with actors who seemingly chose to do this in order to make a quick payday.
Despite my complaints, the film isn't exactly terrible. It just came off worse to me given what I had hoped it would be. Perhaps with this review, I have lowered your expectations enough that if you decide to watch this on DVD or cable that it will seem a bit more palatable to you. The film does enough to work as a simple action film, but fails at being an intelligent thriller. Depending on where your tastes fall on that spectrum, this one may just fit the bill. But from my vantage point, the film doesn't offer a fresh perspective on the genre. Grade: C
The basic premise involves the president of the United States attending a summit in Spain and as he's prepared to speak, he's shot. We then see this assassination attempt from the eyes of many different characters including Dennis Quaid as a Secret Serviceman, who's just returned to the job after being shot himself, Forrest Whittaker as a tourist watching the historic moment, and Sigorney Weaver as a cable news channel producer who is covering the summit. With each person's story, the film rewinds back to noon and replays things, each time adding something new.
In general, I like the idea of telling a story from multiple perspectives. I do wish that the director had chosen some more stylistic ways to shift from one person's perspective to the next. His transitions give the sense of repetitiveness and frustration. We didn't need to see the seconds ticking up to noon each time a new character's perspective was shown. We also didn't need to see the same shots so many times. I'm not talking about seeing the same events over and over again, because that is necessary for this style of storytelling. Rather, I'm talking about seeing the same visuals each time. This, to me, just reeked of lazyness.
While some of the characters' stories built nicely upon each other, others felt forced. There were too many times where characters nonsensically interacted with each other or acted in certain ways that weren't plausible, yet needed to be done in order for the multiple perspectives method to work. I got the sense that the filmmakers fell in love with this method of storytelling, yet did not come up with a robust enough story to make it work.
As I mentioned before, the commercials gave away a major plot twist in their commercials. Now this is not the first film to do this and it certainly won't be the last. However, as annoying as that can be, it was even more problematic for this particular film. When you use this method of storytelling, it means that each story is to provide us something new and interesting. Well, if your commercials reveals something interesting that doesn't occur until halfway through the film, then you're forcing your audience to sit through 50 minutes of unnecessary storytelling. If you have been fortunate enough to miss most of the advertising for this film, you may not care about this criticism since you should still be able to enjoy the film and not realize what will happen.
The film does have one other twist in it, but it's reveal is equally annoying, yet for different reasons. At the end of Dennis Quaid's storyline (which is the second one shown in the film), he spots something on a TV monitor, which shocks him, yet the audience doesn't see it. What he saw isn't revealed to us until the end of the film. That would be fine suspenseful drama if it were not for the fact that we had to sit through a bunch of ancillary storytelling before that point. If we could have just seen what was on that screen during Quaid's story, it would have moved things along much quicker. But on the other hand, the film would have probably only been about 20 minutes long then.
Even though I have been critical of the approach the director took with the multiple perspective method, I could have overlooked at lot of it, had he stayed true to this method. Once the final perspective is shown and we learn the big twist, the film shifts gears into generic action film and spends a significant amount of time on a generic car chase. The chase scene goes on too long and is poorly shot. Many people complain about the shaky cam method of shooting a scene that is seen in films like The Bourne Supremacy, but I typically do not have a problem with it; usually because the people filming them are skilled filmmakers. However, the camera work during this chase scene nearly made me nauseous. I could not believe how long they let this scene go on for, especially considering we basically knew how it would end thanks to some of the earlier scenes from other characters' perspectives.
As the film comes to a close, it can't even find a way to include all of the characters. This just confirmed to me that some were added as mere plot devices. To me, if you're going to provide multiple characters' perspectives, then they should all be involved in how the film is resolved. Instead, the film continues to retread into generic action film territory and loses any goodwill it may have gained with it's initial unique method of storytelling. Worst of all, we never get a good understanding of the villains motives in the film. Would it have killed them to come up with a story from their perspective to make us understand why they chose to attack the president?
I really wanted to like this film and there are certainly elements touched upon the film that make you see it could have been something special. Issues such as media censorship, country loyalty, heroicism, and the importance of family are all introduced but never developed. Instead, we get a half-baked action film filled with actors who seemingly chose to do this in order to make a quick payday.
Despite my complaints, the film isn't exactly terrible. It just came off worse to me given what I had hoped it would be. Perhaps with this review, I have lowered your expectations enough that if you decide to watch this on DVD or cable that it will seem a bit more palatable to you. The film does enough to work as a simple action film, but fails at being an intelligent thriller. Depending on where your tastes fall on that spectrum, this one may just fit the bill. But from my vantage point, the film doesn't offer a fresh perspective on the genre. Grade: C
Friday, March 7, 2008
It's like Mortal Kombat, only gassier.
Check out this video from Gamespot where they preview an upcoming game called Major League Eating: The Game that will be released exclusive on WiiWare. If you're unfamiliar, WiiWare is the new channel that will be offered on the Wii which allows people to download games through their server. It works just like the Virtual Controller games, only these are brand new games instead of classic Nintendo ones.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Rim shot
Semi-Pro ended up being the first movie I saw over spring break (there will be more reviews forthcoming) and unfortunately it did not begin on a positive note. Will Ferrell has been pretty consistent when it comes to funny movies (we'll just pretend that 2005, in which he made Kicking and Screaming and Bewitched, never existed). His track record gets marred here, though, as this is one of his lesser efforts.
It would be easy to simply criticize this film as being a carbon copy of his past successes. It is true that there are scenes in this film that feel like retread (i.e. we've seen Ferrell get attacked by several animals in films; this time it's a bear). However, I'm not going to complain so much about that, because I'm of the belief that what's funny once typically remains funny. You don't want everything to be the same, but reusing certain proven jokes is not the worse thing that you can do.
Rather, my primary complaint with the film is that there were too many times where they couldn't follow through on a potentially good joke. There were several instances where I could see a joke being set up and when the punchline was delivered, I was disappointed. A perfect example of this is when owner/coach/player of the Flint Tropics, Jackie Moon (Ferrell) is trying to stop his team from scoring 125 points because that would mean all fans would get a free corndog and he doesn't have any corndogs to give away. When the Tropics do manage to score the 125 points, you're excited to see how Jackie will handle the situation. Will he talk his way out of it? Will the fans riot? Will he try giving them other things and pass them off as corndogs? Nope, none of those viable choices happen. Instead, when the game ends Jackie simply runs out of the arena and the whole scenario is never brought up again. Talk about a major letdown.
Perhaps the most obvious evidence of lazy writing is the film's decision to use coarse language as a substitute for actual humor. The film garnered an R rating purely for its language, most of which was unnecessary. It's not that the language was offensive; it was merely unnecessary. Using foul language sporadically can often produce funny situations, but when it's an endless barrage of f bombs and c words it grows tiresome. The writers needed to use some imagination and not just resort to old tactics when seaching for a laugh.
This is not to say that I sat stonefaced throughout the entire movie. There are several moments of hilarity sprinkled throughout the film. I enjoyed when the Tropics and their opponents engage in a brawl only during a commercial break so that the ABA commissioner won't see any of it occurring. Will Arnett and Andrew Daly as the Tropics announce team also provide a lot of laughs. While the laughs here may have been acceptable in a different comedy, when you go see a Will Ferrell movie you expect a better laugh to dud ratio.
Perhaps the laughs could have been better had they not decided to devote so much time to a subplot involving another Tropics player, Ed Monix (played by Woody Harrelson) pining over a past girlfriend (Maura Tierney). The story is almost a carbon copy of the Tom Berenger/Rene Russo subplot in Major League, but it seems really out of place in this film here. It's not given enough time to make sense and produces zero emotional ressonance with the audience.
In many ways, the film resembles the ABA. It is a cheap imitation of a quality product. It relied on heavy promotion to stay relevant (how many commercials did Will Ferrell do dressed as Jackie Moon?) It contains appealing elements, but the product as a whole isn't sustainable. And finally, it too will end soon and become a mere footnote in its industry.
Those looking for a cheap laugh can probably catch this at the cheap theater and enjoy themselves. For most people, however, waiting until this comes on cable will probably be your best bet. Believe me, having the film's language cleaned up on TV will not eliminate the few jokes that exist in the film. I would have liked another Ferrell gem, but I should have known that this wouldn't be up to snuff with some of his other classics when it got a February release. To finish off my basketball analogies, I would say that this film isn't a complete air ball, but the shot definitely falls short. Grade: C
It would be easy to simply criticize this film as being a carbon copy of his past successes. It is true that there are scenes in this film that feel like retread (i.e. we've seen Ferrell get attacked by several animals in films; this time it's a bear). However, I'm not going to complain so much about that, because I'm of the belief that what's funny once typically remains funny. You don't want everything to be the same, but reusing certain proven jokes is not the worse thing that you can do.
Rather, my primary complaint with the film is that there were too many times where they couldn't follow through on a potentially good joke. There were several instances where I could see a joke being set up and when the punchline was delivered, I was disappointed. A perfect example of this is when owner/coach/player of the Flint Tropics, Jackie Moon (Ferrell) is trying to stop his team from scoring 125 points because that would mean all fans would get a free corndog and he doesn't have any corndogs to give away. When the Tropics do manage to score the 125 points, you're excited to see how Jackie will handle the situation. Will he talk his way out of it? Will the fans riot? Will he try giving them other things and pass them off as corndogs? Nope, none of those viable choices happen. Instead, when the game ends Jackie simply runs out of the arena and the whole scenario is never brought up again. Talk about a major letdown.
Perhaps the most obvious evidence of lazy writing is the film's decision to use coarse language as a substitute for actual humor. The film garnered an R rating purely for its language, most of which was unnecessary. It's not that the language was offensive; it was merely unnecessary. Using foul language sporadically can often produce funny situations, but when it's an endless barrage of f bombs and c words it grows tiresome. The writers needed to use some imagination and not just resort to old tactics when seaching for a laugh.
This is not to say that I sat stonefaced throughout the entire movie. There are several moments of hilarity sprinkled throughout the film. I enjoyed when the Tropics and their opponents engage in a brawl only during a commercial break so that the ABA commissioner won't see any of it occurring. Will Arnett and Andrew Daly as the Tropics announce team also provide a lot of laughs. While the laughs here may have been acceptable in a different comedy, when you go see a Will Ferrell movie you expect a better laugh to dud ratio.
Perhaps the laughs could have been better had they not decided to devote so much time to a subplot involving another Tropics player, Ed Monix (played by Woody Harrelson) pining over a past girlfriend (Maura Tierney). The story is almost a carbon copy of the Tom Berenger/Rene Russo subplot in Major League, but it seems really out of place in this film here. It's not given enough time to make sense and produces zero emotional ressonance with the audience.
In many ways, the film resembles the ABA. It is a cheap imitation of a quality product. It relied on heavy promotion to stay relevant (how many commercials did Will Ferrell do dressed as Jackie Moon?) It contains appealing elements, but the product as a whole isn't sustainable. And finally, it too will end soon and become a mere footnote in its industry.
Those looking for a cheap laugh can probably catch this at the cheap theater and enjoy themselves. For most people, however, waiting until this comes on cable will probably be your best bet. Believe me, having the film's language cleaned up on TV will not eliminate the few jokes that exist in the film. I would have liked another Ferrell gem, but I should have known that this wouldn't be up to snuff with some of his other classics when it got a February release. To finish off my basketball analogies, I would say that this film isn't a complete air ball, but the shot definitely falls short. Grade: C
Boobies!!
In case you haven't seen them yet, here are the photos from the Playboy shoot featuring WWE's own, Maria. It probably doesn't need to be said, but just to be safe: WARNING! Pics are NSFW.
For my two cents, it's great to see someone who I actually find attractive do the annual WWE Playboy shoot as opposed to the usual bimbo or tranny (coughAshleycough). But these photos seem like the exact same photoshoot I've seen from Playboy ever since I began checking out the magazine. The photos are rather boring and do not exhibit Maria's personality whatsoever. So while I'll never look a gift boob in the mouth, color me unimpressed with this shoot.
For my two cents, it's great to see someone who I actually find attractive do the annual WWE Playboy shoot as opposed to the usual bimbo or tranny (coughAshleycough). But these photos seem like the exact same photoshoot I've seen from Playboy ever since I began checking out the magazine. The photos are rather boring and do not exhibit Maria's personality whatsoever. So while I'll never look a gift boob in the mouth, color me unimpressed with this shoot.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Little Miss Punshine
Don't worry, I'm still alive. Last week was a hellish week for me at school and right now I'm in the middle of spring break and my mom came down for a visit. So posts will be a bit few and far between. But I did have a bit of time tonight and I wanted to post my review for Juno since it's been over a week since I've seen it and if I wait too much longer, I'll start to forget aspects of the film.
Juno was a film that piqued my interest last fall before it came out. It certainly had a lot of pedigree behind it; stellar cast (including Jason Bateman, Michael Cera, JK Simmons, and Rainn Wilson, just to name a few), an up and coming director (Jason Reitman), and a buzzworthy writer (former stripper Diablo Cody). After seeing the trailer I was sold on the film, but also convinced that this would not click with a mainstream audience. However, it turned out I was wrong and this became the only bonafide hit of the best picture nominess. Now that I have seen it though, I'm a little perplexed as to why it did become a hit.
In many ways, the film is perfect and exactly what I expected it to be. There are several hilarious one-liners strewn throughout the film that are so random and funny that you have to wonder who's clever enough to come up with this stuff. You also have wonderful performances being delivered by almost everyone involved. Everything that I found appealing in the trailer was magnified in the actual film.
Unfortunately, these strengths of the film also end up being a detriment to the film's quality. The first and most glaring problem comes from the witty dialogue. The film seems so deadset on bombarding the audience with pop culture references and sarcasm that it at times takes away from the reality of the story being told. Naturally, Juno (played by Ellen Page) is the greatest abuser of this. And because she is the central character of the film, it poses a big problem. Her use of this type of dialogue prevented me from feeling an emotional connection between her and the characters around her. While her character supposedly goes through some emotional growth (to go along side her expanding belly), I never felt that a change had actually occurred.
This emotional distance is particularly noticeable in her relationship with her baby daddy Paul Bleeker (Cera). On top of Juno's sarcasm keeping him at arm's length throughout most of the film, Cera's character does not get enough screentime for us to truly understand or appreciate their complicated relationship. What ultimately led her to sleep with him? Why does she feel the need to exclude him from all pregnancy matters when he actually seemed willing to particpate? Perhaps if their dynamic had been developed more, I would have felt more about their coming together despite Juno's acid tongue.
Michael Cera is not alone is getting the shaft when it came to screentime. For my personal tastes, I felt like we didn't get to see enough from most of the adults. Most of the actors absolutely shine in their appearances, yet it seems that some of them are merely there as props to allow Juno to spout off more of her bon mots. JK Simmons, in particular, is underutilized as Juno's blue collar father. Perhaps seeing more of him could have given us a better perspective of how Juno became the way she did.
Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner playing a couple planning on adopting Juno's baby actually do get enough screentime to have their characters fleshed out. This is one of the bright spots of the film as their characters seem to be very stereotypical at the beginning, yet as the film unfolds we get to see very different sides to both of them. Had the film just focused on them and Juno, it would have been fine. But because they introduced so many other potentially interesting characters, it was a bit more frustrating.
There is one final aspect that made the film grate on my nerves; the soundtrack. If Juno's dialogue doesn't scream out indie film to you, then the music sure will. Every scene seems to be peppered with these annoying little ditties that think they are clever but instead are just pretentious. Having one song like this during the opening credits would have been tolerable, but they are endlessly played throughout the film.
At the end of the day, I feel so torn on this film. Some aspects of this film I absolutely adored, while other parts really annoyed me. I think because I have such strong emotions for it on both sides of the spectrum, that the film easily warrants my recommendation. It's a film that is great for discussion. I would not be surprised at all if there are some people who absolutely agree with me and other who will love and hate the exact opposite things that I do about this film. I also think that the passion I have for this film is common, which is why it ended up scoring a Best Picture nominee. While it would not have been my pick to win, I can easily accept it's nomination. So go out and see this when you can and then tell me how right or wrong I am about this film. Grade: B+
Juno was a film that piqued my interest last fall before it came out. It certainly had a lot of pedigree behind it; stellar cast (including Jason Bateman, Michael Cera, JK Simmons, and Rainn Wilson, just to name a few), an up and coming director (Jason Reitman), and a buzzworthy writer (former stripper Diablo Cody). After seeing the trailer I was sold on the film, but also convinced that this would not click with a mainstream audience. However, it turned out I was wrong and this became the only bonafide hit of the best picture nominess. Now that I have seen it though, I'm a little perplexed as to why it did become a hit.
In many ways, the film is perfect and exactly what I expected it to be. There are several hilarious one-liners strewn throughout the film that are so random and funny that you have to wonder who's clever enough to come up with this stuff. You also have wonderful performances being delivered by almost everyone involved. Everything that I found appealing in the trailer was magnified in the actual film.
Unfortunately, these strengths of the film also end up being a detriment to the film's quality. The first and most glaring problem comes from the witty dialogue. The film seems so deadset on bombarding the audience with pop culture references and sarcasm that it at times takes away from the reality of the story being told. Naturally, Juno (played by Ellen Page) is the greatest abuser of this. And because she is the central character of the film, it poses a big problem. Her use of this type of dialogue prevented me from feeling an emotional connection between her and the characters around her. While her character supposedly goes through some emotional growth (to go along side her expanding belly), I never felt that a change had actually occurred.
This emotional distance is particularly noticeable in her relationship with her baby daddy Paul Bleeker (Cera). On top of Juno's sarcasm keeping him at arm's length throughout most of the film, Cera's character does not get enough screentime for us to truly understand or appreciate their complicated relationship. What ultimately led her to sleep with him? Why does she feel the need to exclude him from all pregnancy matters when he actually seemed willing to particpate? Perhaps if their dynamic had been developed more, I would have felt more about their coming together despite Juno's acid tongue.
Michael Cera is not alone is getting the shaft when it came to screentime. For my personal tastes, I felt like we didn't get to see enough from most of the adults. Most of the actors absolutely shine in their appearances, yet it seems that some of them are merely there as props to allow Juno to spout off more of her bon mots. JK Simmons, in particular, is underutilized as Juno's blue collar father. Perhaps seeing more of him could have given us a better perspective of how Juno became the way she did.
Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner playing a couple planning on adopting Juno's baby actually do get enough screentime to have their characters fleshed out. This is one of the bright spots of the film as their characters seem to be very stereotypical at the beginning, yet as the film unfolds we get to see very different sides to both of them. Had the film just focused on them and Juno, it would have been fine. But because they introduced so many other potentially interesting characters, it was a bit more frustrating.
There is one final aspect that made the film grate on my nerves; the soundtrack. If Juno's dialogue doesn't scream out indie film to you, then the music sure will. Every scene seems to be peppered with these annoying little ditties that think they are clever but instead are just pretentious. Having one song like this during the opening credits would have been tolerable, but they are endlessly played throughout the film.
At the end of the day, I feel so torn on this film. Some aspects of this film I absolutely adored, while other parts really annoyed me. I think because I have such strong emotions for it on both sides of the spectrum, that the film easily warrants my recommendation. It's a film that is great for discussion. I would not be surprised at all if there are some people who absolutely agree with me and other who will love and hate the exact opposite things that I do about this film. I also think that the passion I have for this film is common, which is why it ended up scoring a Best Picture nominee. While it would not have been my pick to win, I can easily accept it's nomination. So go out and see this when you can and then tell me how right or wrong I am about this film. Grade: B+
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)