Man, it almost seems surreal to have so much new television on the air right now. If there was any silver lining to the writer's strike, it's that it forced these shows to cram as much goodness as they could into the few shows they could still do for this year. Let me share some thoughts on everything from this glorious week and be prepared for a long post:
Monday:
How I Met Your Mother - The return of Robin Sparkles! Need I say more? Probably, since most people I know don't watch this show. So, Robin is one of the five main characters on this show and we learned last season that she used to be a teenage pop sensation in Canada under the name Robin Sparkles. She was just like any U.S. pop star of the 80s (Tiffany, Debbie Gibson, etc.) except that her fame happened in 1993 because Canada is so behind the times. To see what I mean, check out the hilariously awesome music videos the show created (here's the first from last season, and the new one from this past week's episode). Seeing another song from her was great, but wasn't as shocking as the closing moment when we saw Barney and Robin making out. Totally torn on this issue, as there is some good chemistry between the two characters, but I like Ted and we he learns this, it's gonna kill him. Mark out moment of the episode, besides Robin's video was Ted wearing a Chief Wahoo t-shirt!
Big Bang Theory - I decided to give this another chance after it changed timeslots. It definitely has it's moments, but is also a notch below most of my favorite sitcoms (i.e. My Name is Earl vs. The Office). I think I would like this better if they made Sheldon just a little bit more likeable. He typically has the best lines of the show, but I don't like that he's egotistical to everyone. I can understand him having a superiority complex against dumb people, but I'd like him to be more friendly with his fellow nerds. This week's episode involving a Physics Bowl was entertaining enough to keep me around, but this hasn't yet been cemented as Must-See TV for me.
RAW - I'll just briefly touch upon this, since it was a special 3 hour show. I would be really excited about the fact that they made William Regal the new King of the Ring if it weren't for the fact that I'm pretty sure that this will lead to nowhere. I would love to see him get a push and they easily have enough Brits to create a nice stable for him, but I doubt it will happen. So while it was a cool moment to watch this past week, my cynicism prevents me from enjoying it more. On an unrelated note, +10 points to the WWE from scoring taped interviews from all three presidential candidates, which came off, as it should, as a big deal, but -100 for then still going through with their fake Hilary vs. Obama fight. Thankfully the fake Bill Clinton and an Umaga run-in saved it from being a complete disaster.
Tuesday:
Reaper - The show actually seemed like it was trying to move forward this week, but at the end of things we're really not that much further along. The Tony and Steve story arc (gay demons banished from Heaven, but not hellbent on destroying the devil) certainly had possiblities, but like everything else just seemed to ultimately be another con by the Devil to keep Sam frustrated. It was nice to see Sam and Andi heat up their relationship, but you know that if this show is going to last, that it will be a long time before those two have any true happiness. It just seems so contrived in a Hollywood way that the Devil would allow Sam to have Sock and Ben in on his secret but prevent him from telling Andi. Wouldn't everything just be more awesome if Andi knew and helped the guys kicking escaped souls' asses every week?
Wednesday:
Back to You - Meh. What can I say, Wednesday is a slow night for TV.
Thursday:
My Name is Earl - The whole story arc with Earl in his coma finally ended this week. While it didn't provide a lot in the way of laughs, it did offer some solid emotional moments. And while that's not the greatest quality in a sitcom, having it hear does a nice job of offsetting the raunchy hilarity found in some of my other favorite comedies. One thing that's been nice about this coma storyline is that it's allowed Alyssa Milano to be on for multiple episodes, which in my book, can only be considered a good thing. Hopefully now with this storyline over, they can go back to some solid episode involving the list.
The Office - A bit of a letdown after last week's spectacular episode, but solid nonetheless. I'm growing frustrated with so many episodes this season taking place outside of the actual Office. When the show began it did episodes that were hilarious takes on universal experiences of working in an office. Now there too focused on situations that are only specific to these characters; and depending on what those situations are the comedy has been more hit-or-miss. But despite this complaint about the direction of the show, let's point out the funny stuff from this episode. I can't say that I'm surprised by Ryan's coke addiction, as there have been signs of that since he took the job in NY. Dwight provided a number of great moments throughout this episode including his fascination with Ryan's hobbit friend/dealer (see the deleted scene for confirmation of that), his story about weevils, his refusal of a drink from a lady and then subsequent makeout with an 'Amazon' (member of the Jersey State basketball team), and then trying to help Ryan out once they were back at his place. As for the B-story, we once again saw Jim trying his best at taking charge and failing. One of the cool developments this season, has been seeing Jim unwittingly becoming more and more like Michael. A lot of his actions here after causing everyone to get locked in at the office seemed like stunts Michael would pull (not knowing the security guard's name, assuming the cleaning women only spoke Spanish, etc.). The other interesing moment involved Toby coping a feel on Pam. I'm not sure if he got caught up in the moment or decided to grow a pair. His subsequent announcement about going to Costa Rica was interesting as well. Was this just a throwaway line, or could he perhaps be the character that's leaving the show to start up the Office spinoff. Hands down the best part of this episode though was the staff meeting to talk about the failures of the company's website. It not only provided a number of laughs from the minor characters (Creed, Kelly, Phyllis) but it also made a great commentary on the typical corporate naivete when it comes to the implementation of technology.
30 Rock - We had some wonderful returning guest stars back in this one as Will Arnett and Rip Torn were back in the ongoing storyline with Jack trying to become the new head of GE. Thinking he has the job, Jack appoints Liz to his old position, which allows us to see her becoming a 'suit' which has some hilarious results. The other storyline involved Tracy trying to invent the first pornographic video game, which Frank claims can't be done (hilariously explained using a graph to show how the more realistic a computer generated charcter becomes, the more creepy he also gets ala Tom Hanks in The Polar Express). Somehow this storyline then turns into a very funny Amadeus spoof. But clearly, the best part of the episode and the mark-out moments for me was the return of Dr. Spaceman (that's pronounced Spa-Che-Mun). Chris Parnell as the clueless doctor is always excellent and he added to his awesomeness this week by now sporting a cape. Of course, at the end of the episode, Jack didn't get the job, which should mean trouble for him, and more laughs for us.
Survivor - What an oddly frustrating season this has been. Each episode thus far has been solidly entertaining and should make it one of the best seasons ever, except for the fact that who's been ousted and who still remains is the complete opposite of what I want. Given who's left, there are very few that I want to see win and there are a couple that I will be very angry if they become sole survivor. Namely, Cirie and Natalie. In this episode, we saw Parvati have to do damage control for her masterminding of Ozzy's elimination last week. During this we hear Amanda naively (a recurring trait of hers) comment on how Parv has Cirie wrapped around her finger; which couldn't be further from the truth. Cirie remains smug as ever about he gameplay, yet no one seems to realize that she's been pulling the strings since very early on in the game. I don't see how everyone can be so blind to this. Then there's Natalie, who couldn't have spoken more than two words the entire season before this week's episode, yet just had this look of bitch about her. Well that look became manifested into an actual personality this week as she took such glee over her plan coming together to get rid of Jason. You know, Jason has been so stupid and self-centered this entire season that his blindside should have been a great moment, but when the people conducting the blindside are so gleefully evil about it, the moment is ruined. As a side note, I absolutely loved Probst's verbal beatdown of Jason when he told him that maybe this time he would find a real idol when going to Exile Island. Ha! Anyway, this season is starting to shape up like Vanautu with a girl alliance intending to go all the way to the end. Let's hope this one ends like that season did and one of the remaining males can somehow breaks things up and pull out a victory.
Whew, that's a lot of TV and I still have a new CSI and Mythbusters to go. All this, plus trying to keep an eye on the Indians has been daunting. It's a good thing I got as much work done before the strike ended in order for me to enjoy this now. And now that I've gotten a chance to say my piece on all my favorite shows, I turn the floor over to all of you. I've talked for long enough, so now you can have a chance to spout off on all of your returning favorites, if you like.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Indians Week in Review (Week 3)
With the Indians off yesterday, it slipped my mind to do this post then. Although with the way the week went, I wasn't really motivated to talk about them in general. The Tribe went 2-5 in another disastrous week.
It began with two losses against Boston where we had leads late in the game then coughed it up. That led to closer Joe Borowski (aka 'Joe Blow') to go on the DL, which is fine by me since he was doing nothing for us.
Then we had the two game series with the Tigers where we split and each game was a blowout. So that gave neither of the struggling Central division teams any sort of edge or momentum.
Finally, we had a three game set with the Twins that began promising with a masterful pitching performance by Cliff Lee and then ended with us losing the last two thanks to more of our inept performance.
At this point, I just can't figure out what's going on with this team other than we can't seem to get any momentum. Every day it seems like another facet of the team is letting us down. But if anything can help us get out of this funk, it's our favorite whipping boys, the Kansas City Royals. We've got a 4 game series there and we really need to take at least three of them to get back on track, especially because afterwards is a weekend series with the Yankees. We never seem to do well against NY, so we can't allow us to get too far behind before they arrive. Let's hope when I post next week, I'll have more positive results to report on. And as always, Let's Go Tribe!
It began with two losses against Boston where we had leads late in the game then coughed it up. That led to closer Joe Borowski (aka 'Joe Blow') to go on the DL, which is fine by me since he was doing nothing for us.
Then we had the two game series with the Tigers where we split and each game was a blowout. So that gave neither of the struggling Central division teams any sort of edge or momentum.
Finally, we had a three game set with the Twins that began promising with a masterful pitching performance by Cliff Lee and then ended with us losing the last two thanks to more of our inept performance.
At this point, I just can't figure out what's going on with this team other than we can't seem to get any momentum. Every day it seems like another facet of the team is letting us down. But if anything can help us get out of this funk, it's our favorite whipping boys, the Kansas City Royals. We've got a 4 game series there and we really need to take at least three of them to get back on track, especially because afterwards is a weekend series with the Yankees. We never seem to do well against NY, so we can't allow us to get too far behind before they arrive. Let's hope when I post next week, I'll have more positive results to report on. And as always, Let's Go Tribe!
Monday, April 21, 2008
On Your Mark, Get Set, Go Kart!
Here's the IGN review for the first Mario Kart title for the Wii:
I'll probably end up getting this regardless, but it sure would be nice if some of my friends would get a Wii so we could take advantage of this game's online play (hint, hint).
I'll probably end up getting this regardless, but it sure would be nice if some of my friends would get a Wii so we could take advantage of this game's online play (hint, hint).
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Got the munchies?
Happy 4/20 everyone. In honor of the day, here's a list of 20 of the Craziest Breakfast Cereals ever made. Looking over the list, it looks like most of them were made by stoners for stoners. So everyone grab a bowl and enjoy!
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Deleted scenes from 'The Chair Model'
Here are the deleted scenes from this week's episode of The Office, which I thought was just fantastic. Even better than last week's Dinner Party episode. I would have liked for them to have included clip one into the actual episode as it tells us how much time has passed between the Dinner Party episode and this one (6 weeks!) Enjoy!
NMR: Quiz Show
Had I been older when this was released, I likely would have seen it then. As it is, I'm just now getting around to seeing this film dealing with the Twenty-One game show scandal of the late 1950s. This is a very well-made film on a subject that I find fascinating. I particularly am struck by the fact that Charles Van Doren became the scapegoat in the whole scandal and the network escaped from the situation virtually unscathed. I really like Ralph Finnes' portrayal of Van Doren as he does a good job of making you understand his actions in this complicated situation.
As good as this film is, I can't help but think how much better, or perhaps more authentic, this movie would be if it were made today. While it is an enjoyable film, I was always cognizant of the fact that it was a movie. I never felt like I was taken back to the 1950s with this film. I think with today's visual effects and perhaps a more visionary director (this was directed by Robert Redford), this could have been even more impressive. Still, this is a film that is a must see for anyone who is interested in this subject and highly recommended for those who simply enjoy good films. Netflix rating: ****
As good as this film is, I can't help but think how much better, or perhaps more authentic, this movie would be if it were made today. While it is an enjoyable film, I was always cognizant of the fact that it was a movie. I never felt like I was taken back to the 1950s with this film. I think with today's visual effects and perhaps a more visionary director (this was directed by Robert Redford), this could have been even more impressive. Still, this is a film that is a must see for anyone who is interested in this subject and highly recommended for those who simply enjoy good films. Netflix rating: ****
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
NMR: Double Feature
I've got nothing in terms of an intro, so let's get to this...
No Country For Old Men: This is probably the last movie from 2007 that I wanted to see. And as you probably know this won Best Picture this year. While I enjoyed this, I'm not sure if I would agree with giving it top honors. For the first 2/3rds of the film, this was phenomenonal. I can't remember the last time I was this consistently tense while watching a film. Javier Bardem's Anton Chigurh is one of the creepiest movie villains in a long time and was well deserved of his Oscar for Supporting Actor. In addition to being a great thriller, the film is gorgeous looking and does a good job of capturing the Texas landscape.
It's in the final third of the film that they lost me and, as I've read, a lot of the audience. The Coens decide to start playing fast and loose with the narrative, which makes things very confusing. Although I'm not sure if they should be faulted since it seems that they remained pretty faithful to how the story unfolds in Cormac McCarthy's novel. By the end, I guess I understood everything that had happened and I could see the symbolism that they were going for, but it felt unnecessarily unconventional. Knowing how everything played out, I may want to watch it again and see if I see the whole film differently. With a second viewing, this has a chance at being part of my top ten for 2007. But for right now, it just misses the cut. And since this was the last film I needed to see from last year, I'll officially call my Top Ten list finalized. Netflix rating: ****
This Film is Not Yet Rated: I was recommended this documentary by one of my students who felt it was applicable to a lot of the topics we're dealing with in my Media History and Theory course. This film takes a hard look into the MPAA and how ratings are given to films. This process has been under scrutiny for sometime, so it was nice to see a film finally made on this subject.
While I enjoyed a lot of the information that was addressed in this film, I felt the film itself wasn't really that well made. The director is really all over the place here and doesn't provide a strong narrative. At times he wants to expose the hypocrisy of the MPAA in the way they focus too much on sex and not enough on violence. At others times, he'd rather be playing junior detective in trying to find out who the secret members of the ratings board are. While it's clear that changes to the MPAA's methods need to come, the film doesn't provide a strong enough attack on them. If you know nothing on this subject, but are interested in it, then I'd recommend you give it a look. Otherwise, you'll just end up being frustrated at being reminded how pointless the ratings system truly is. Netflix rating: ***
No Country For Old Men: This is probably the last movie from 2007 that I wanted to see. And as you probably know this won Best Picture this year. While I enjoyed this, I'm not sure if I would agree with giving it top honors. For the first 2/3rds of the film, this was phenomenonal. I can't remember the last time I was this consistently tense while watching a film. Javier Bardem's Anton Chigurh is one of the creepiest movie villains in a long time and was well deserved of his Oscar for Supporting Actor. In addition to being a great thriller, the film is gorgeous looking and does a good job of capturing the Texas landscape.
It's in the final third of the film that they lost me and, as I've read, a lot of the audience. The Coens decide to start playing fast and loose with the narrative, which makes things very confusing. Although I'm not sure if they should be faulted since it seems that they remained pretty faithful to how the story unfolds in Cormac McCarthy's novel. By the end, I guess I understood everything that had happened and I could see the symbolism that they were going for, but it felt unnecessarily unconventional. Knowing how everything played out, I may want to watch it again and see if I see the whole film differently. With a second viewing, this has a chance at being part of my top ten for 2007. But for right now, it just misses the cut. And since this was the last film I needed to see from last year, I'll officially call my Top Ten list finalized. Netflix rating: ****
This Film is Not Yet Rated: I was recommended this documentary by one of my students who felt it was applicable to a lot of the topics we're dealing with in my Media History and Theory course. This film takes a hard look into the MPAA and how ratings are given to films. This process has been under scrutiny for sometime, so it was nice to see a film finally made on this subject.
While I enjoyed a lot of the information that was addressed in this film, I felt the film itself wasn't really that well made. The director is really all over the place here and doesn't provide a strong narrative. At times he wants to expose the hypocrisy of the MPAA in the way they focus too much on sex and not enough on violence. At others times, he'd rather be playing junior detective in trying to find out who the secret members of the ratings board are. While it's clear that changes to the MPAA's methods need to come, the film doesn't provide a strong enough attack on them. If you know nothing on this subject, but are interested in it, then I'd recommend you give it a look. Otherwise, you'll just end up being frustrated at being reminded how pointless the ratings system truly is. Netflix rating: ***
Happy Anniversary!!
Adam's Sound Blogic in this current incarnation turns 1 year old today. A lot has gone down in the past year and I've done my best to document it all. Here's hoping to many more prosperous years of ranting and raving about everything that's on my mind. Although, if I'm to believe the scholars at the conference I attended last weekend, I should shut this site down right now because I have no chance of ever getting tenure if I'm a blogger. I try to tell myself though that they are just old fashioned and need to catch up with the times.
Anyways, happy anniversary to the blog and I'll drink a beer to that. And with the way the Indians are playing tonight, I'll probably could use more than one. Ugh.
Anyways, happy anniversary to the blog and I'll drink a beer to that. And with the way the Indians are playing tonight, I'll probably could use more than one. Ugh.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Indians Week in Review (Week 2)
A thoroughly frustrating and depressing week that saw the Indians only go 2-4. In those 4 losses, absolutely nothing went right. The starting pitching was terrible and our offensive continued to struggle to score runs.
Tops on the list of concerns right now is the starting pitching, particularly C.C. and Paul Byrd. Neither man has had good control of their pitches and the end result was short starts for both of them. Then Fausto added to the worries with a shaky performance himself (he gave up a career high 8 walks!). These guys have been around long enough to know what it takes to pitch well, so hopefully they can work through these mechanincs issues and get back on track. Thankfully, we've had a saving grace in Cliff Lee, who had another stellar outing yesterday. It's weird that the biggest question mark coming into the season has been our most consistent performer thus far.
On the offensive side of things, I'm worried, but not as concerned as I am with the pitching. I think a lot of the problems we're dealing with stem from the fact that Wedge keeps tinkering with the lineup. I don't know if we've had the same lineup in back to back games yet this season. If we're to expect consistent hitting, we need a consistent lineup. The Tribe finally showed some sparks of offense yesterday by scoring 7 runs, but it's not enough to convince me that our problems are over with. We really need to start scoring more in the first few innings, something we did so well last year. It's amazing what getting out to an early lead will do to both your offense and defense.
The one bright spot this week was the signing of Fausto Carmona to a new 4 year deal at a super cheap price. Locking him up long-term and not having to pay that much could make this the steal of the century if he consistently pitches like he did last year.
Despite our performance and subpar record, we're only 2.5 games out of first place, so it's not like anybody is going to be running away with this division. I don't want to push the panic button yet, but this will be a critical week for us as we have a short two-game series with Boston and then a couple of series with division rivals, Detroit and Minnesota. Getting wins off of each of those teams will be critical in helping us get back on track and reaffirming our status as the team to beat in the Central Division. Until then, Let's Go Tribe!!
Tops on the list of concerns right now is the starting pitching, particularly C.C. and Paul Byrd. Neither man has had good control of their pitches and the end result was short starts for both of them. Then Fausto added to the worries with a shaky performance himself (he gave up a career high 8 walks!). These guys have been around long enough to know what it takes to pitch well, so hopefully they can work through these mechanincs issues and get back on track. Thankfully, we've had a saving grace in Cliff Lee, who had another stellar outing yesterday. It's weird that the biggest question mark coming into the season has been our most consistent performer thus far.
On the offensive side of things, I'm worried, but not as concerned as I am with the pitching. I think a lot of the problems we're dealing with stem from the fact that Wedge keeps tinkering with the lineup. I don't know if we've had the same lineup in back to back games yet this season. If we're to expect consistent hitting, we need a consistent lineup. The Tribe finally showed some sparks of offense yesterday by scoring 7 runs, but it's not enough to convince me that our problems are over with. We really need to start scoring more in the first few innings, something we did so well last year. It's amazing what getting out to an early lead will do to both your offense and defense.
The one bright spot this week was the signing of Fausto Carmona to a new 4 year deal at a super cheap price. Locking him up long-term and not having to pay that much could make this the steal of the century if he consistently pitches like he did last year.
Despite our performance and subpar record, we're only 2.5 games out of first place, so it's not like anybody is going to be running away with this division. I don't want to push the panic button yet, but this will be a critical week for us as we have a short two-game series with Boston and then a couple of series with division rivals, Detroit and Minnesota. Getting wins off of each of those teams will be critical in helping us get back on track and reaffirming our status as the team to beat in the Central Division. Until then, Let's Go Tribe!!
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Blue Hawaii
Last Monday, they had a special advanced screening of the new Judd Apatow produced comedy, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, at NC State's campus theater and I was lucky enough to check it out. I'm just sorry that it's taken me so long to write up my review for it. At this point, it's barely an early review (the film opens this Friday).
If you haven't seen the ads for this yet, the movie stars Jason Segel (How I Met Your Mother, Knocked Up) as Peter,who's recently broken up with his girlfriend of five years, the titular Sarah Marshall, played by Kristen Bell (Veronica Mars, Heroes). Depressed over the break-up, Peter tries to find solace by going on vacation to Hawaii, but ends up staying at the exact same place that Sarah is staying at with her new boyfriend, a British, pretty-boy rocker named Aldous Snow (Russell Brand). And awkward hilarity ensues.
Now while the set-up may sound cliched or sitcom-y, the humor is anything but. This is a flat-out hilarious film. Virtually every scene that is intended to be humorous scores. Segel and Bell play well off each other as the exes who can't seem to get away from each other. But a number of the film's funny scenes come from a whole host of side characters, many of whom are Apatow regulars. Guys like Paul Rudd, Bill Hader, Jack McBrayer all show up and bring the funny. Jonah Hill, who I find to be very hit and miss, also has a few good lines as well (although he once again plays a character that gives off homosexual vibes, for some reason).
Mila Kunis, who's no stranger to comedy (That 70s Show, Family Guy) plays a hotel worker, who Peter begins to fall for. Looking tan-tastic in this film, she has very good chemistry with Segal and plays a nice romantic foil. And I have to give credit to relative unknown Russell Brand. He easily could have played the character as the Euro-trash boyfriend that everyone hates, but he provides a number of funny scenes as well that actually make him quasi-likeable.
While all the actors I have listed above are funny, their inclusion in the film makes things a bit crowded. I would not consider any of these people to have cameo roles. Each have developed characters and have several scenes devoted to them. Unfortunately, many of these characters are completely unnecessary and really do nothing to move the plot along. Aside from the four characters involved in the love rectangle, no one else in the film has a bearing on the primary storyline. They are just there simply to add laughs.
This brings us to the film's primary problem. With each scene I found myself laughing hysterically at what's happening and then when it ends, I think, 'wait, what did that have to do with anything?' I felt that maybe these side characters and subplots would have some callback as the film reached a conclusion, but that never happened. When the film reaches it's conventional conclusion, it comes as somewhat of a disappointment because I expected something more outrageous given the oddball scenes that preceded it.
So what Forgetting Sarah Marshall ends up being is your standard cheesy romantic comedy wrapped in the raunchy humor you've come to expect from an Apatow production. Now some will say that this is true of all his films, but there is definitiely a difference in quality in his films. This movie doesn't hold a candle to the The 40-Year Old Virgin (an unfortunate comparative burden that Apatow will now have to face with each new movie he produces and/or directs). While Virgin was consistenly funny, it also had a story that logically flowed from scene to scene, whereas this movie is consistently funny but meanders around for a while before reaching its conclusion. As has been typical of most Apatow films, this one could have used to lose a few minutes from its runtime.
I would be remiss if I also didn't give everyone a fair warning that this film certainly earned its R rating as there are multiple full frontal shots of Jason Segal in this movie. Are they funny scenes? For the most part, yes. Could I have done without them? Absolutely. You may be best served with having your hand shield your eyes, particularly in the film's opening moments.
If you are looking to laugh, then I whole heartedly recommend this film. You will not be disappointed. And really, this film wouldn't be seen as a disappointment at any level if it didn't have the Apatow name attached to it. Unfortunately at this point, the bar has been set so high that it will be tough to match, let alone surpass it. If you can allow yourself to watch it without making those comparisons, you'll likely do yourself a favor and really enjoy this movie.
One final disclaimer...please make sure you watch through the credits as there is one final scene somewhere in there that is especially funny and includes a cameo from one of my favorite comedic actors. Grade: B
If you haven't seen the ads for this yet, the movie stars Jason Segel (How I Met Your Mother, Knocked Up) as Peter,who's recently broken up with his girlfriend of five years, the titular Sarah Marshall, played by Kristen Bell (Veronica Mars, Heroes). Depressed over the break-up, Peter tries to find solace by going on vacation to Hawaii, but ends up staying at the exact same place that Sarah is staying at with her new boyfriend, a British, pretty-boy rocker named Aldous Snow (Russell Brand). And awkward hilarity ensues.
Now while the set-up may sound cliched or sitcom-y, the humor is anything but. This is a flat-out hilarious film. Virtually every scene that is intended to be humorous scores. Segel and Bell play well off each other as the exes who can't seem to get away from each other. But a number of the film's funny scenes come from a whole host of side characters, many of whom are Apatow regulars. Guys like Paul Rudd, Bill Hader, Jack McBrayer all show up and bring the funny. Jonah Hill, who I find to be very hit and miss, also has a few good lines as well (although he once again plays a character that gives off homosexual vibes, for some reason).
Mila Kunis, who's no stranger to comedy (That 70s Show, Family Guy) plays a hotel worker, who Peter begins to fall for. Looking tan-tastic in this film, she has very good chemistry with Segal and plays a nice romantic foil. And I have to give credit to relative unknown Russell Brand. He easily could have played the character as the Euro-trash boyfriend that everyone hates, but he provides a number of funny scenes as well that actually make him quasi-likeable.
While all the actors I have listed above are funny, their inclusion in the film makes things a bit crowded. I would not consider any of these people to have cameo roles. Each have developed characters and have several scenes devoted to them. Unfortunately, many of these characters are completely unnecessary and really do nothing to move the plot along. Aside from the four characters involved in the love rectangle, no one else in the film has a bearing on the primary storyline. They are just there simply to add laughs.
This brings us to the film's primary problem. With each scene I found myself laughing hysterically at what's happening and then when it ends, I think, 'wait, what did that have to do with anything?' I felt that maybe these side characters and subplots would have some callback as the film reached a conclusion, but that never happened. When the film reaches it's conventional conclusion, it comes as somewhat of a disappointment because I expected something more outrageous given the oddball scenes that preceded it.
So what Forgetting Sarah Marshall ends up being is your standard cheesy romantic comedy wrapped in the raunchy humor you've come to expect from an Apatow production. Now some will say that this is true of all his films, but there is definitiely a difference in quality in his films. This movie doesn't hold a candle to the The 40-Year Old Virgin (an unfortunate comparative burden that Apatow will now have to face with each new movie he produces and/or directs). While Virgin was consistenly funny, it also had a story that logically flowed from scene to scene, whereas this movie is consistently funny but meanders around for a while before reaching its conclusion. As has been typical of most Apatow films, this one could have used to lose a few minutes from its runtime.
I would be remiss if I also didn't give everyone a fair warning that this film certainly earned its R rating as there are multiple full frontal shots of Jason Segal in this movie. Are they funny scenes? For the most part, yes. Could I have done without them? Absolutely. You may be best served with having your hand shield your eyes, particularly in the film's opening moments.
If you are looking to laugh, then I whole heartedly recommend this film. You will not be disappointed. And really, this film wouldn't be seen as a disappointment at any level if it didn't have the Apatow name attached to it. Unfortunately at this point, the bar has been set so high that it will be tough to match, let alone surpass it. If you can allow yourself to watch it without making those comparisons, you'll likely do yourself a favor and really enjoy this movie.
One final disclaimer...please make sure you watch through the credits as there is one final scene somewhere in there that is especially funny and includes a cameo from one of my favorite comedic actors. Grade: B
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Deleted scenes from this week's The Office
I enjoyed finally seeing my favorite Dunder Mifflinites back for the first time in 5 months(!!), but I think I actually laughed harder at the stuff in these deleted scenes than I did anything in the episode. If more get posted over on NBC's site, I'll be sure to add them here.
NMR: Double Feature
Greetings from Rochester!! If you're unaware, I'm up here for a conference this weekend. As April continues to be a hectic month for me, it appears the 'double feature' aspect of my Netflix reviews is here to stay for a while. So let's take a look at what I've caught recently in my limited spare time.
The Terminal: This is one of those movies that just kind of slipped through the cracks with me when it initially came out. The fact that a summer movie with Tom Hanks and directed by Steven Spielberg slipped through the cracks, just goes to show you what an awesome crop of movies there was in the summer of '04. Given that this underperformed at the box office indicates I wasn't the only one who let this slide. Now having seen it, I see why it didn't do as well. While it's a pleasant film, it's also kind of meaningless. A simple (albeit unconventional) story that you'll easily forget the next day.
Initially, I thought Hanks' non-descript foreign accent would be grating to hear for an entire movie, but his 'man without a country' grows on you throughout the film and you do want to see him have a happy ending. Most of the other characters are find additions that provide some flavor to the mix, although I felt Hanks' companionship with some of the airport employees could have been developed further. The weak spot is probably Catherine Zeta Jones character, who has no chemistry with Hanks. I felt he actually had more of a connection with Zoe Saldana, who played an airport cop. In the end, there's little to complain about this movie except for the fact that it's utterly forgettable, which should never happen when Hanks and Spielberg team up.
Glengarry Glen Ross: I've heard it argued that this is a classic film that does not get enough recognition. After seeing so many references/parodies of the film (the Alec Baldwin elves skit on SNL, the Gil character on the Simpsons, etc.), I felt I needed to check out the actual movie. This film boasts one of the most impressive casts ever, even if they weren't all big names when the film was made. You have Al Pacino, Jack Lemmon, Kevin Spacey, Ed Harris, Alan Arkin, Alec Baldwin, and Jonathan Pryce. In a word, wow. Netflix rating: ***
So now that I've built it up, how is it. Oh so close to being perfect. On top of that great cast given great performances, it has a unique story about struggling, sleezeball real estate agents who are put into a sales content where the man who sells the least will be fired. There are two flaws that I see with the film, however. At times, the David Mamet dialogue can get a little annoying (rapid fire conversations where no one ever completes a sentence). Also, the ending is a little frustrating. While the events do make sense, I felt there could have been one or two scenes added in, to make it more logical. As it is, the film expects you to fill in too many gaps to figure out how it reached its conclusion. Despite these flaws, this is a powerkeg of a movie filled with tenion and drama that is very entertaining. Check it out if you haven't done so already. Netflix rating: ****
The Terminal: This is one of those movies that just kind of slipped through the cracks with me when it initially came out. The fact that a summer movie with Tom Hanks and directed by Steven Spielberg slipped through the cracks, just goes to show you what an awesome crop of movies there was in the summer of '04. Given that this underperformed at the box office indicates I wasn't the only one who let this slide. Now having seen it, I see why it didn't do as well. While it's a pleasant film, it's also kind of meaningless. A simple (albeit unconventional) story that you'll easily forget the next day.
Initially, I thought Hanks' non-descript foreign accent would be grating to hear for an entire movie, but his 'man without a country' grows on you throughout the film and you do want to see him have a happy ending. Most of the other characters are find additions that provide some flavor to the mix, although I felt Hanks' companionship with some of the airport employees could have been developed further. The weak spot is probably Catherine Zeta Jones character, who has no chemistry with Hanks. I felt he actually had more of a connection with Zoe Saldana, who played an airport cop. In the end, there's little to complain about this movie except for the fact that it's utterly forgettable, which should never happen when Hanks and Spielberg team up.
Glengarry Glen Ross: I've heard it argued that this is a classic film that does not get enough recognition. After seeing so many references/parodies of the film (the Alec Baldwin elves skit on SNL, the Gil character on the Simpsons, etc.), I felt I needed to check out the actual movie. This film boasts one of the most impressive casts ever, even if they weren't all big names when the film was made. You have Al Pacino, Jack Lemmon, Kevin Spacey, Ed Harris, Alan Arkin, Alec Baldwin, and Jonathan Pryce. In a word, wow. Netflix rating: ***
So now that I've built it up, how is it. Oh so close to being perfect. On top of that great cast given great performances, it has a unique story about struggling, sleezeball real estate agents who are put into a sales content where the man who sells the least will be fired. There are two flaws that I see with the film, however. At times, the David Mamet dialogue can get a little annoying (rapid fire conversations where no one ever completes a sentence). Also, the ending is a little frustrating. While the events do make sense, I felt there could have been one or two scenes added in, to make it more logical. As it is, the film expects you to fill in too many gaps to figure out how it reached its conclusion. Despite these flaws, this is a powerkeg of a movie filled with tenion and drama that is very entertaining. Check it out if you haven't done so already. Netflix rating: ****
Monday, April 7, 2008
Indians Week in Review (Week 1)
I would prefer something better than a 3-3 record to start the season, but hey, at least we're not the Tigers at 0-6 (Ouch!).
It's tough to truly assess our performance since we only had our true lineup for one game. Victor Martinez's injury on opening day seemingly put our offense into a funk as we had back-to-back games where our guys had 10 strikeouts. Victor is set to return to the lineup tonight, so let's hope that sets everything back in order and allows us to start producing runs again because we won't get as lucky as we did yesterday in winning with only two runs.
From the pitching side, it was another mixed bag. Fausto, Westbrook and (surprisingly) Cliff Lee all had strong outings. Byrd, however, was very erratic on Friday, which is atypical of him. My guess is that it was a one time thing and he'll be back to his normal stuff in his next start. And then there's C.C. who had two lackluster starts. I know he's got the goods, so he better start showing them soon. Then again, if he keeps pitching this way, his asking price may plummet and we may actually be able to resign him next season.
This week we've got the Angels for a three game set in LA and then back home for another series with the A's starting on Friday. The Angels are facing injury problems and the A's aren't very good (despite just taking two out of three from us). If we get back on track, we should have a very good week. Until next week, let's go Tribe!
It's tough to truly assess our performance since we only had our true lineup for one game. Victor Martinez's injury on opening day seemingly put our offense into a funk as we had back-to-back games where our guys had 10 strikeouts. Victor is set to return to the lineup tonight, so let's hope that sets everything back in order and allows us to start producing runs again because we won't get as lucky as we did yesterday in winning with only two runs.
From the pitching side, it was another mixed bag. Fausto, Westbrook and (surprisingly) Cliff Lee all had strong outings. Byrd, however, was very erratic on Friday, which is atypical of him. My guess is that it was a one time thing and he'll be back to his normal stuff in his next start. And then there's C.C. who had two lackluster starts. I know he's got the goods, so he better start showing them soon. Then again, if he keeps pitching this way, his asking price may plummet and we may actually be able to resign him next season.
This week we've got the Angels for a three game set in LA and then back home for another series with the A's starting on Friday. The Angels are facing injury problems and the A's aren't very good (despite just taking two out of three from us). If we get back on track, we should have a very good week. Until next week, let's go Tribe!
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Never to early to start thinking about Fall TV
In an unprecedented move, NBC made its upfront presentation last week. Typicaly, networks unveil their fall lineups during the first week in May, but because of the craziness that the strike brought about, things aren't normal this year. NBC's big thing this year is their whole "52-week programming plan" where they intend to have original content being shown all year round. Below, I'll list the important points from their schedule, but if you want to learn more you can read about everything they announced here.
- Chuck and Heroes will each begin the fall season with 13 straight new episodes and will remain in their previous timeslots (Mondays at 8 and 9pm).
- The planned Heroes: Origins has been scrapped.
- SNL will have three live half-hour specials on Thursday nights that will be particularly focused on the upcoming presidential election.
- The coveted post Super Bowl spot will go to The Office AND the upcoming spinoff to The Office.
- No word yet as to who or what The Office spinoff will be about, but it will air after The Office on Thursdays starting in January.
- Knight Rider will become a weekly series in the fall airing Wednesdays at 8.
- They have 7 new drams that will debut at some point over the next year including ones about Robinson Crusoe and Merlin.
- Season 2 of American Gladiators is schedule for Summer '09.
- Chuck and Heroes will each begin the fall season with 13 straight new episodes and will remain in their previous timeslots (Mondays at 8 and 9pm).
- The planned Heroes: Origins has been scrapped.
- SNL will have three live half-hour specials on Thursday nights that will be particularly focused on the upcoming presidential election.
- The coveted post Super Bowl spot will go to The Office AND the upcoming spinoff to The Office.
- No word yet as to who or what The Office spinoff will be about, but it will air after The Office on Thursdays starting in January.
- Knight Rider will become a weekly series in the fall airing Wednesdays at 8.
- They have 7 new drams that will debut at some point over the next year including ones about Robinson Crusoe and Merlin.
- Season 2 of American Gladiators is schedule for Summer '09.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
How to win a million dollars in under 10 seconds
I really need to head out to California for a taping if that's all it takes to win.
Friday, March 28, 2008
It's time for 'Mania baby!
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:
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:
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+
Monday, February 25, 2008
NMR: The Machinist
This was another Christian Bale flick that I decided to check out since I've become such a fan of his. Unfortunately, I cannot heap on the amount of praise that I usually do for his films. This film is notable however for establishing Bale as truly the most masochistic actor out there today. If you're unfamiliar with this film, Bale lost a significant amount of weight to play Trevor Resnik, a man who hasn't slept in a year. Bale is so emaciated in the film, it is often too difficult to look at the screen. As much credit as I give Bale for committing himself to the role and doing a good job at portraying this tortured soul, it made me too uncomfortable for me to truly appreciate it.
Ultimately, that feeling of unease is what causes me to give this film a less than favorable review. However, it should be noted that even if Bale's appearance wasn't a factor, I still found the film to be flawed. It tries to do something creative in the lines of Memento by leaving the audience as much in the dark as the title character about what has actually happened, but I just don't think it's fully achieved what it set out to do. There is a lot of good in this film, but given how difficult it was to watch, I can't rate it very high. Unless you want to be squemish for an hour and a half, I probably wouldn't recommend this film to you. Netflix rating: **
Ultimately, that feeling of unease is what causes me to give this film a less than favorable review. However, it should be noted that even if Bale's appearance wasn't a factor, I still found the film to be flawed. It tries to do something creative in the lines of Memento by leaving the audience as much in the dark as the title character about what has actually happened, but I just don't think it's fully achieved what it set out to do. There is a lot of good in this film, but given how difficult it was to watch, I can't rate it very high. Unless you want to be squemish for an hour and a half, I probably wouldn't recommend this film to you. Netflix rating: **
Sunday, February 24, 2008
The big night is upon us!
OK, so it's Oscar night and for the first time in quite a while the show has some intrique for me. This year there are no front-runners and most of the big nominess are films that I'll be fine with winning. Usually these awards are a foregone conclusion or given to films I can't stand (i.e. The English Patient, Chicago). I really have no idea who will win, so it should be fun to watch. Here now are my fearless picks for the winners in the major categories, but I have no confidence in them whatsoever:
Best Picture:
No Country for Old Men
Best Actor:
George Clooney
Best Actress:
Julie Christie
Best Supporting Actor:
Javier Bardem
Best Supporting Actress:
Cate Blanchett
Best Director:
Joel and Ethan Coen
Best Original Screenplay:
Juno
Best Adapted Screenplay:
No Country for Old Men
Best Animated Film:
Ratatouille
Best Picture:
No Country for Old Men
Best Actor:
George Clooney
Best Actress:
Julie Christie
Best Supporting Actor:
Javier Bardem
Best Supporting Actress:
Cate Blanchett
Best Director:
Joel and Ethan Coen
Best Original Screenplay:
Juno
Best Adapted Screenplay:
No Country for Old Men
Best Animated Film:
Ratatouille
Litagation Sensation
I almost didn't make it, but I just managed to see at least one Best Picture nominee before the big awards show. If I was a betting man, I would have figured it would have been Juno, but since I haven't found anyone willing to go see it with me yet, I had to settle for catching the only one that's made it to the budget theater yet; Michael Clayton.
Settling for this film though is no burden as this was a superb film that is easily worthy of it's nomination. It's an intense legal thriller that had me riveted from start until finish. Even if you have a good idea of how the film will end, the film is so intricate that you'll want to see how they handle all of the small details that make up the story.
This film was written and directed by Tony Gilroy. This is actually Gilroy's first stab at directing and he hits a home run on his initial attempt. He's not overly stylistic and he doesn't go for any outside-of-the-box techniques, he just puts together a strong, cohesive film. Gilroy also wrote the screenplay for The Bourne Ultimatum, so I'm glad to see that at least one of his films got recognized by the Oscars.
Of course, it goes without saying that a lot of the film's merit is based upon the terrific acting jobs found throughout. We'll start with George Clooney who is really good in the title role. Many people complain that he's just playing himself, but I detect small nuances in his performance that allows me to seperate the actor from the character. You can really feel the weight of the world on his shoulders as he has to deal with a number of problems both personally and professionally.
As good as Clooney is, however, Tom Wilkenson is the one who truly shines in this film. Playing manic depressive lawyer Arthur Edens, Wilkenson takes command of the screen every time he is on and leaves you wondering what this guy is all about. I had ridiculed Wilkenson in the past for his bombastic performance in In The Bedroom, a film that the Academy loved and no one saw. However, after seeing his work in Batman Begins and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, I've really begun to be impressed with his work and look forward to seeing more films with him in the future. But back to this film, enough can't be said for how good he is. The film begins with a monologue by his character, that immediately hooks you into the story.
Tilda Swinton, playing the slimy lawyer for the corrupt UNorth corporation also does a fine job as an exec who is in way over their head. As much as I liked her performance, however, I actually thought her role could have been fleshed out a bit more. She does well with what she has, but I really think that we could have seen a whole lot more from the character and her struggles in this situation.
One of the things that I think works so well for this movie is that it doesn't waste a lot of time with exposition. They make you work to understand what's going on and the motivations behind each character's actions. So many films today feel like they have to drop an anvil on your head so that you don't fall behind with the story. Because this film opts not to do that, it gives the story a more realistic feel. Let's be honest, two people plotting to kill someone don't take ten minutes explaining to each other why they're going to do that, so why should we see it in a film. Those that are too slow to follow along may not care for this movie, but if you appreciate when a film doesn't take you for an idiot, then you'll enjoy this film.
I think the best proof I have to show you how well this film captivated its audience is by explaining the scenario that occured as the film ended. Without giving anything away, the credits begin to role while there is still action on the screen. This final scene involves no dialogue and is rather simplistic; however no one in the theater left their seat. Some may have been waiting to see if something else would happen, while others were probably still trying to process everything that had taken place. But the bottom line is that there was no rush to the exits, despite the fact that the credits were beginning. A truly impressive feat, especially from the usually less than sophisticated budget theater crowd.
I enjoyed this film so much that I already went out and picked it up on DVD. It not only has a good story and fine acting, but there was so much going on that I feel a repeat viewing will only enhance my enjoyment of the film. Given how everything has gone down this awards season, I don't think this film has enough momentum to win Best Picture, but that's ok. Whether it wins or not, should not deter you from making an effort to watch it at some point in the future. This is a great legal thriller filled with intrique and suspense and it doesn't dumb things down for the lowest common denominator. What more could you ask for? Grade: A
Settling for this film though is no burden as this was a superb film that is easily worthy of it's nomination. It's an intense legal thriller that had me riveted from start until finish. Even if you have a good idea of how the film will end, the film is so intricate that you'll want to see how they handle all of the small details that make up the story.
This film was written and directed by Tony Gilroy. This is actually Gilroy's first stab at directing and he hits a home run on his initial attempt. He's not overly stylistic and he doesn't go for any outside-of-the-box techniques, he just puts together a strong, cohesive film. Gilroy also wrote the screenplay for The Bourne Ultimatum, so I'm glad to see that at least one of his films got recognized by the Oscars.
Of course, it goes without saying that a lot of the film's merit is based upon the terrific acting jobs found throughout. We'll start with George Clooney who is really good in the title role. Many people complain that he's just playing himself, but I detect small nuances in his performance that allows me to seperate the actor from the character. You can really feel the weight of the world on his shoulders as he has to deal with a number of problems both personally and professionally.
As good as Clooney is, however, Tom Wilkenson is the one who truly shines in this film. Playing manic depressive lawyer Arthur Edens, Wilkenson takes command of the screen every time he is on and leaves you wondering what this guy is all about. I had ridiculed Wilkenson in the past for his bombastic performance in In The Bedroom, a film that the Academy loved and no one saw. However, after seeing his work in Batman Begins and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, I've really begun to be impressed with his work and look forward to seeing more films with him in the future. But back to this film, enough can't be said for how good he is. The film begins with a monologue by his character, that immediately hooks you into the story.
Tilda Swinton, playing the slimy lawyer for the corrupt UNorth corporation also does a fine job as an exec who is in way over their head. As much as I liked her performance, however, I actually thought her role could have been fleshed out a bit more. She does well with what she has, but I really think that we could have seen a whole lot more from the character and her struggles in this situation.
One of the things that I think works so well for this movie is that it doesn't waste a lot of time with exposition. They make you work to understand what's going on and the motivations behind each character's actions. So many films today feel like they have to drop an anvil on your head so that you don't fall behind with the story. Because this film opts not to do that, it gives the story a more realistic feel. Let's be honest, two people plotting to kill someone don't take ten minutes explaining to each other why they're going to do that, so why should we see it in a film. Those that are too slow to follow along may not care for this movie, but if you appreciate when a film doesn't take you for an idiot, then you'll enjoy this film.
I think the best proof I have to show you how well this film captivated its audience is by explaining the scenario that occured as the film ended. Without giving anything away, the credits begin to role while there is still action on the screen. This final scene involves no dialogue and is rather simplistic; however no one in the theater left their seat. Some may have been waiting to see if something else would happen, while others were probably still trying to process everything that had taken place. But the bottom line is that there was no rush to the exits, despite the fact that the credits were beginning. A truly impressive feat, especially from the usually less than sophisticated budget theater crowd.
I enjoyed this film so much that I already went out and picked it up on DVD. It not only has a good story and fine acting, but there was so much going on that I feel a repeat viewing will only enhance my enjoyment of the film. Given how everything has gone down this awards season, I don't think this film has enough momentum to win Best Picture, but that's ok. Whether it wins or not, should not deter you from making an effort to watch it at some point in the future. This is a great legal thriller filled with intrique and suspense and it doesn't dumb things down for the lowest common denominator. What more could you ask for? Grade: A
Saturday, February 23, 2008
The next time you see me, I may weigh 300 lbs.
For those of you who have visited me before, you'll know that my apartment shares the same space with a strip of stores. There a grocery store, video store, dry cleaners, etc. Well recently, they tore out a bunch of the parking spaces from this shopping area and they were building something new, which of course piqued my curiousity. As the building started to get erected, it looked like it was going to be a gas station. Not very exciting, but I was at least excited about the possibility of not having to go far to get gas.
However, I learned yesterday that I was wrong. Instead of a gas station going in there, they are putting in a Sonic restaurant. This is the first one of this chain in this area as far as I can tell. Now I have never been to a Sonic before, but based on their awesome commercials, which make everything look amazing and from high recommendations from friends who have actually been to one, I cannot wait to try it out. If it's as good as it looks, I could be in trouble. I may have to start doing laps around my complex before running over there, just so I can keep my already amazing physique.
But as excited as I am for its arrival, I hope it doesn't open for another month or so because I gave up all fast food for Lent. I feel like Beau Bridges in Airplane..."Looks like I picked the wrong time to give up fast food".
If anyone has any recommendations for what I should get from there, please let me know!
However, I learned yesterday that I was wrong. Instead of a gas station going in there, they are putting in a Sonic restaurant. This is the first one of this chain in this area as far as I can tell. Now I have never been to a Sonic before, but based on their awesome commercials, which make everything look amazing and from high recommendations from friends who have actually been to one, I cannot wait to try it out. If it's as good as it looks, I could be in trouble. I may have to start doing laps around my complex before running over there, just so I can keep my already amazing physique.
But as excited as I am for its arrival, I hope it doesn't open for another month or so because I gave up all fast food for Lent. I feel like Beau Bridges in Airplane..."Looks like I picked the wrong time to give up fast food".
If anyone has any recommendations for what I should get from there, please let me know!
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
NMR: The Ex
In a word, terrible. I had known that the reviews were bad and it had tanked at the box office, but I still ended up renting this because I love Jason Bateman and it had a variety of other funny people in it. I figured, how bad could it really be. Well I found out the hard way. They had a decent, albeit familiar premise. Zach Braff and Amanda Peet are newlyweds, who move back to Ohio. Braff takes a job at his father-in-law's company and meets an old friend of Peet's, Chip (Bateman). Everyone loves Chip, but Braff thinks he's evil, a liar, and still lusting after his wife.
Instead of doing anything fresh, the films provides some expected gags. The story just meanders all over the place and throws in a lot of unnecessary subplots. Worst of all is that Braff's character isn't likeable in the least, so you have no interest in seeing him succeeding in exposing Chip for who he really is. Bateman has moments of brillance as Chip, but ultimately gets buried amongst the dreck that surrounds him. Perhaps the most disappointing aspect here is that this film marked the return of funnyman Charles Grodin to film and they do nothing with him. It's a shame he couldn't have come back in a better film than this. This movie goes right up there with The Brothers Solomon as an epic waste of true comedic talent. Netflix rating: *
Instead of doing anything fresh, the films provides some expected gags. The story just meanders all over the place and throws in a lot of unnecessary subplots. Worst of all is that Braff's character isn't likeable in the least, so you have no interest in seeing him succeeding in exposing Chip for who he really is. Bateman has moments of brillance as Chip, but ultimately gets buried amongst the dreck that surrounds him. Perhaps the most disappointing aspect here is that this film marked the return of funnyman Charles Grodin to film and they do nothing with him. It's a shame he couldn't have come back in a better film than this. This movie goes right up there with The Brothers Solomon as an epic waste of true comedic talent. Netflix rating: *
RIP HD DVD
Toshiba quits HD DVD 'format war
Since I have yet to buy any high def. technology, this comes as good news to me as I don't have to worry about buying the losing product. It sucks for those that have already bought HD DVD players though. I guess Blu-Ray's victory is a nice retribution for Sony after their failure with Betamax.
Since I have yet to buy any high def. technology, this comes as good news to me as I don't have to worry about buying the losing product. It sucks for those that have already bought HD DVD players though. I guess Blu-Ray's victory is a nice retribution for Sony after their failure with Betamax.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
A Mistery of Violence
The second film adaptation of a Stephen King work for 2007 finally made its way to the budget theater. Frankly, I'm surprised it took this long considering it underperformed at the box office last November.
My initial reaction coming out of the film was that I enjoyed it, but I felt that what I enjoyed about it probably had more to do with King's story than with anything the film actually did. However, in investigating the differences between the film and the novella, I learned that the film decided to radically change the ending; more on that in a bit.
The premise is that a mysterious fog has rolled into a small Maine town trapping many of its citizens in a supermarket. Opinions as to what the mist is and what dangers it poses varies amongst the various townspeople. As we learn what's in the mist, the thrills and chills really get amped up. It then becomes a story of survival for all those trapped.
Most of the actors have a lot of fun with their roles and make the most of their screen time. Andre Braugher is good as a skeptical big city lawyer. I really like Toby Jones (who played Capote in that other film about his life), who plays Ollie, the supermarket's assistant manager. Marcia Gay Harden is the one who truly shines here, however, as the religious nutcase who believes the mist is a sign of the end of days.
The one anomolous acting performance, unfortunately comes from the film's lead, Thomas Jane. He plays David Drayton and leads the efforts to save everyone from whatever is out there. The film uses Drayton's relationship with his son as one of the core emotional cruxes, but I personally didn't feel that connection. For too much of the film, Drayton's action are seemingly motivated to prove that he's right moreso than to rescue his son from these potential perils. Despite that, there are several emotional scenes where Drayton is seen crying. Jane's efforts to emote though come off forced and unintentionally funny.
Speaking of things that came off more hokey than real, I was somewhat unimpressed with the film's visual effects. Without giving too much away, there are scenes that involve some monsters. Some of the smaller creatures look pretty cool and creepy, but the larger creatures have a definite B-movie feel to them.
For me, the film was at its best when it was dealing with human relationships and how people deal with scary situations. When faced with unknowns like these people are, we begin to see who the true monsters are. As the townspeople in the supermarket become divided, the film's energy really picks up. I would have gladly sacrificed one scary monster scene for some more interpersonal communication.
As much as I enjoyed those interaction, the film's cheese factor still had me leaning towards a thumbs down on this movie for most of the way, until the end came. While far from optimistic, The Mist has one of the gutsiest endings for a film that I've seen in a long time. I'm sure many did and will hate it, but I really appreciated it for being so unconventional. If I had any gripes about the finish, it would be that it could have used a little bit more explanation for why the events unfolded as they did. But I can certainly understand why the filmmakers opted not to do that. In many cases, some things are better left unsaid.
The Mist is by no means perfect, but there is a lot there for different audiences. The film does succeed in providing a number of genuinely scare moments, while will please the thrill seekers. It also provides enough interpersonal communication to appeal to a more cerebral crowd. And if you're a person that loves to debate about films after you've watched one, well then this one has an ending that will spark plenty of discussion. In the battle of the Stephen King films for 2007, I'll give this one the slight nod over 1408. However, both are decent and worthy of a rental. Grade:B+
My initial reaction coming out of the film was that I enjoyed it, but I felt that what I enjoyed about it probably had more to do with King's story than with anything the film actually did. However, in investigating the differences between the film and the novella, I learned that the film decided to radically change the ending; more on that in a bit.
The premise is that a mysterious fog has rolled into a small Maine town trapping many of its citizens in a supermarket. Opinions as to what the mist is and what dangers it poses varies amongst the various townspeople. As we learn what's in the mist, the thrills and chills really get amped up. It then becomes a story of survival for all those trapped.
Most of the actors have a lot of fun with their roles and make the most of their screen time. Andre Braugher is good as a skeptical big city lawyer. I really like Toby Jones (who played Capote in that other film about his life), who plays Ollie, the supermarket's assistant manager. Marcia Gay Harden is the one who truly shines here, however, as the religious nutcase who believes the mist is a sign of the end of days.
The one anomolous acting performance, unfortunately comes from the film's lead, Thomas Jane. He plays David Drayton and leads the efforts to save everyone from whatever is out there. The film uses Drayton's relationship with his son as one of the core emotional cruxes, but I personally didn't feel that connection. For too much of the film, Drayton's action are seemingly motivated to prove that he's right moreso than to rescue his son from these potential perils. Despite that, there are several emotional scenes where Drayton is seen crying. Jane's efforts to emote though come off forced and unintentionally funny.
Speaking of things that came off more hokey than real, I was somewhat unimpressed with the film's visual effects. Without giving too much away, there are scenes that involve some monsters. Some of the smaller creatures look pretty cool and creepy, but the larger creatures have a definite B-movie feel to them.
For me, the film was at its best when it was dealing with human relationships and how people deal with scary situations. When faced with unknowns like these people are, we begin to see who the true monsters are. As the townspeople in the supermarket become divided, the film's energy really picks up. I would have gladly sacrificed one scary monster scene for some more interpersonal communication.
As much as I enjoyed those interaction, the film's cheese factor still had me leaning towards a thumbs down on this movie for most of the way, until the end came. While far from optimistic, The Mist has one of the gutsiest endings for a film that I've seen in a long time. I'm sure many did and will hate it, but I really appreciated it for being so unconventional. If I had any gripes about the finish, it would be that it could have used a little bit more explanation for why the events unfolded as they did. But I can certainly understand why the filmmakers opted not to do that. In many cases, some things are better left unsaid.
The Mist is by no means perfect, but there is a lot there for different audiences. The film does succeed in providing a number of genuinely scare moments, while will please the thrill seekers. It also provides enough interpersonal communication to appeal to a more cerebral crowd. And if you're a person that loves to debate about films after you've watched one, well then this one has an ending that will spark plenty of discussion. In the battle of the Stephen King films for 2007, I'll give this one the slight nod over 1408. However, both are decent and worthy of a rental. Grade:B+
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)