So it's time once again for the biggest show of the year, the granddaddy of 'em all, Wrestlemania and this year I'm pretty darn excited. Not just because I'll actually get to watch it with a group of people this year, but because for the first time in quite a while, the WWE had done a really good job in building up most of the matches, giving the show that big-time feeling that it needs. Here's hoping the rest of you are just as excited and if not, perhaps my preview of tonight's show will convince you.
Career vs. Streak: Shawn Michaels vs. The Undertaker
Let it be known that I'll be rooting all the way for Shawn to win this one. I've long been a proponent for keeping the streak alive, but this year is different. I don't want Shawn to retire and let's face it, streaks are meant to be broken. The reality though is that in wrestling a retirement can be reversed, the streak cannot. For that reason, I feel the Dead Man will somehow pull out the victory.
WWE Championship Match: Batista (champ) vs. John Cena
This has actually been a well built feud. You know it's good when I want to see a John Cena match. Part of the strength of this feud is that they've actually made Cena look vulnerable, making you question the outcome. Wrestlemania is all about good prevailing over evil, though so I see Cena winning the title. The only difference this time is that I won't mind seeing him get the win.
World Heavyweight Championship Match: Chris Jericho (champ) vs. Edge
This too has a nice story surrounding it, dating back to last summer. If given time, this could be one hell of an awesome match. I do have some concerns about how healthy Edge is coming off that injury, but if he's ready to go, this one could be an instant classic. Frankly, I like both of these guys so I'll be happy either way. I'll pick Jericho to find a sneaky way to survive, but I won't be surprised by either man winning.
No Holds Barred Match: Bret "the Hitman" Hart vs. Vince McMahon
If you're any kind of wrestling fan, you know the story here. This will not be a mat classic, but certainly could be a fun garbage brawl. I'll pick Bret here as logic dictates the only way that this match should end is by having Vince tap like a little girl while in the Sharpshooter. However, it seems like that moment would be more awesome if it took place in Canada. I don't know how long Bret is committed to doing this though, so I'll say his happy moment comes here.
Money in the Bank Ladder Match
From my perspective, this match has 9 midcarders and Christian. For that reason, he seems like the only logical choice here to get the win. Of course, the purpose of the match is really not about who wins, but how many highspots can they cram into this thing. And with guys like Evan Bourne, Shelton Benjamin, and Kofi Kingston involved, I'm sure those spots will not be in short supply.
Triple H vs. Sheamus
It feels strange seeing HHH in such a low-profile match at the big show. But it's also kind of nice to see him take a back seat for once. I'm not entirely convinced in the drawing power of Sheamus, but he's HHH's buddy in real life, so I'm sure Trips will do everything in his power to make him look strong. For that reason, I'll call Sheamus with the upset victory here.
Triple Threat Match: Randy Orton vs. Ted Dibiase vs. Cody Rhodes
The only real dud on the card. In a match that I'm dubbing the "Megadouches Explode", I really don't care who wins or loses. I've given up faith in them being able to properly build up Dibiase or Rhodes as legitimate threats. For some reason, fans seem to be trying to make Orton a face again, which will likely be a disaster. I'll say Orton gets the win, but really who cares?
Unified Tag Team Championship Match: ShowMiz vs. John Morrison and R-Truth
This is the only match that feels like it's more of a TV type match than a Wrestlemania match. Still, I'm glad they found a way to get these guys on the show. Miz has really developed his persona and wrestling skills and having him team with Show only improves his profile. There's still more to do with that team, while Morrison and R-Truth have only begun teaming for this match. For that reason, I see a fairly easy win coming for ShowMiz.
Rey Mysterio vs. CM Punk
The stip here is that if Rey loses, he has to join Punk's Straight Edge Society. Punk's got one of the best characters going right now and I would hate to see his momentum stalled with a loss here. It could be a lot of fun seeing Rey forced into this group against his will. If Rey wins, that kind of ends this story and does no one any good. For the sake of good storytelling, I'm picking Punk to get the victory.
10-Diva Tag Team Match
Certainly a bathroom break match, but on this loaded card, that's not necessarily a bad thing. I'll pick the face team to win here, not just because it's Wrestlemania but because I find most of the heel divas to be pretty loathsome and worthless. As long as they don't blow too many spots, this will be fine.
And there you have it, a 10 match show along with a lot of the extracurriculars that are associated with Mania (i.e. celebrities, Hall of Famers, etc.) I'm really excited to see how the show will look in Arizona too. All indications are that the stadium's roof will be open, which should create an awesome atmosphere. I hope everyone enjoys the show and reverts back to that 10 year old mark that we all have inside of us.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Saturday, March 27, 2010
The clock expires for 24
Looks like I've got to do yet another TV eulogy this week. News came down yesterday that this would be the final season of 24.
I certainly have mixed feelings on this. Running for eight seasons, the show had a good run. The past few seasons have seen some highs and lows, so to think that the show could continue at the level of quality that we came to expect from the first few seasons is a bit of stretch. Certainly, the structure of the show prevented it from naturally evolving. As cool as the real time gimmick was, it was also a burden that forced the show to become repetitive over time.
Now the question turns to how the show will end. They still have the remainder of this season, plus at least one feature film in the works. I think I and most fans will want to see a happy ending for Jack Bauer. To put him through all the hell that they have these seasons, it would be cruel to kill him off, no matter how more realistic that ending would be. I look forward to seeing it play out and I'm thankful for the entertainment Keifer and the rest of those wacky CTU agents and/or moles have provided me over the past years.
I certainly have mixed feelings on this. Running for eight seasons, the show had a good run. The past few seasons have seen some highs and lows, so to think that the show could continue at the level of quality that we came to expect from the first few seasons is a bit of stretch. Certainly, the structure of the show prevented it from naturally evolving. As cool as the real time gimmick was, it was also a burden that forced the show to become repetitive over time.
Now the question turns to how the show will end. They still have the remainder of this season, plus at least one feature film in the works. I think I and most fans will want to see a happy ending for Jack Bauer. To put him through all the hell that they have these seasons, it would be cruel to kill him off, no matter how more realistic that ending would be. I look forward to seeing it play out and I'm thankful for the entertainment Keifer and the rest of those wacky CTU agents and/or moles have provided me over the past years.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Trailers: heroes vs. villains
Check out the latest pair of trailers to hit the net:
In Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, Michael Cera meets the girl of his dreams, only to find out that he must battle her 7 ex-boyfriends who are all out to kill him. While it doesn't appear Michael Cera is doing anything new in the character department, at least this time he gets to display hyper-kinetic fighting skills while playing it.
I've already shown teasers for Despicable Me, but now we finally get the feature trailer. Don't confuse this with the similar MegaMind, which I also recently featured here on the blog. In that one, Will Ferrell plays the villain who tries to do good, here it is Steve Carrell
In Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, Michael Cera meets the girl of his dreams, only to find out that he must battle her 7 ex-boyfriends who are all out to kill him. While it doesn't appear Michael Cera is doing anything new in the character department, at least this time he gets to display hyper-kinetic fighting skills while playing it.
I've already shown teasers for Despicable Me, but now we finally get the feature trailer. Don't confuse this with the similar MegaMind, which I also recently featured here on the blog. In that one, Will Ferrell plays the villain who tries to do good, here it is Steve Carrell
The balcony is closed
Surprising news today as it was announced that At the Movies, the film criticism show originally started by Siskel and Ebert, will be cancelled. The show had gone through some rough times in recent years. After Roger Ebert left the show due to his medical problems, his current co-host Richard Roeper tried to keep the show alive with a rotating set of guest hosts. Then the show's producers made the suicidal decision to make the show appealing to a younger crowd by hiring Ben Mankewitz and Ben Lyons, who had no business being anywhere near that show. His reviews consisted of a bunch of cliches that you could have easily found simply reading my movie reviews. I thought the show had finally rebounded this past fall when it went back to its roots and brought in legitimate critics, A.O. Scott and Michael Phillips, who were bringing back intellect and class to the program. However, ratings apparently never rebounded and now the show comes to an end after being on the air since 1980.
Personally, even in the face of the Internet and sites like Rotten Tomatoes, I still feel there is room on television for a show of movie reviews. I think two aspects are key in what the show would need to include: 1)two or more individuals who have really great chemistry together that allows them to argue with each other while still exhibiting friendship/camraderie and 2)a show that allows them to actually analyze and investigate what makes a film so great or terrible; sometime more than a two line blurb that somehow boils down the essence of a film. For anyone considering starting a new film review show, I suggest following a model similar to ESPN's Pardon the Interruption. There is a perfect example of how to successfully do a show where you can have argument without it resorting to callous name calling, yet still provides well-rounded analysis of all the topics in sports. Create a show like that, only centered around movies and you should have something that people would be interested in watching.
For more on the cancellation of At the Movies, I suggest you check out Roger Ebert's blog entry, where he basically provides a eulogy for the show and gives his take on the current state of film criticism in today's society.
Personally, even in the face of the Internet and sites like Rotten Tomatoes, I still feel there is room on television for a show of movie reviews. I think two aspects are key in what the show would need to include: 1)two or more individuals who have really great chemistry together that allows them to argue with each other while still exhibiting friendship/camraderie and 2)a show that allows them to actually analyze and investigate what makes a film so great or terrible; sometime more than a two line blurb that somehow boils down the essence of a film. For anyone considering starting a new film review show, I suggest following a model similar to ESPN's Pardon the Interruption. There is a perfect example of how to successfully do a show where you can have argument without it resorting to callous name calling, yet still provides well-rounded analysis of all the topics in sports. Create a show like that, only centered around movies and you should have something that people would be interested in watching.
For more on the cancellation of At the Movies, I suggest you check out Roger Ebert's blog entry, where he basically provides a eulogy for the show and gives his take on the current state of film criticism in today's society.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
NMR: Island castoffs
Here's a pair of films I caught last weekend that have connections to another film I recently saw, Shutter Island.
Mystic River: This one had been floating around in my queue for a while and I finally decided to call it up to the big leagues and give it a watch. Like Shutter Island, Mystic River is a film adaptation of a Dennis Lehane novel. And once again, the Boston, or should I say Baaaahston, influence is heavily felt. At times, the film's story is engrossing. But it's also a frustrating film experience, not just for the uncomfortable story elements, but because it's one of these films that prepares you for one ending so much that you know that won't be the ending and instead something worse will happen in the conclusion. I liked both Tim Robbins and Kevin Bacon's performances in this film, yet its Sean Penn's overt emoting that ends up meriting him the Oscar for some reason. Perhaps most noteworthy for me is that this film marks the first time I've disliked a Laura Linney performance. She's always so spectacular, but here she has a small role and is unlikeable in the small time she's on the screen. You would certainly have to be in the right mood to see this film, but if you find yourself in that situation, you'll probably enjoy the performances and the film. Rating: ***
Cape Fear: I also sought this out since it was another film being directed by Martin Scorsese. Made in 1991, this stars Robert De Niro as Max Cady, a recently paroled rapist who's out to make his defense lawyer's (played by Nick Nolte) life a living hell since he failed to get him an innocent verdict years ago. There are some terrific scenes throughout most of the picture as you watch De Niro's character be so clever in getting under Nolte's skin without doing anything illegal. On the flip side though, I wondered at times how Nolte's character could be so dense and not realize he was playing right into Cady's game. The climax of the film is a bit too long and overwrought, but overall this is a solid thriller and worth a view if you've never seen it before. Rating: ****
Mystic River: This one had been floating around in my queue for a while and I finally decided to call it up to the big leagues and give it a watch. Like Shutter Island, Mystic River is a film adaptation of a Dennis Lehane novel. And once again, the Boston, or should I say Baaaahston, influence is heavily felt. At times, the film's story is engrossing. But it's also a frustrating film experience, not just for the uncomfortable story elements, but because it's one of these films that prepares you for one ending so much that you know that won't be the ending and instead something worse will happen in the conclusion. I liked both Tim Robbins and Kevin Bacon's performances in this film, yet its Sean Penn's overt emoting that ends up meriting him the Oscar for some reason. Perhaps most noteworthy for me is that this film marks the first time I've disliked a Laura Linney performance. She's always so spectacular, but here she has a small role and is unlikeable in the small time she's on the screen. You would certainly have to be in the right mood to see this film, but if you find yourself in that situation, you'll probably enjoy the performances and the film. Rating: ***
Cape Fear: I also sought this out since it was another film being directed by Martin Scorsese. Made in 1991, this stars Robert De Niro as Max Cady, a recently paroled rapist who's out to make his defense lawyer's (played by Nick Nolte) life a living hell since he failed to get him an innocent verdict years ago. There are some terrific scenes throughout most of the picture as you watch De Niro's character be so clever in getting under Nolte's skin without doing anything illegal. On the flip side though, I wondered at times how Nolte's character could be so dense and not realize he was playing right into Cady's game. The climax of the film is a bit too long and overwrought, but overall this is a solid thriller and worth a view if you've never seen it before. Rating: ****
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Monday, March 22, 2010
NMR: District 9
I actually rented this film back in January but just recently realized I never did a review for it on here. This is typically a film I would have skipped, but when it generated such high praise and even Oscar talk (ultimately resulting in a Best Picture nomination), I figured I would give it a try. I can definitely see why it earned the adulations that it did. It is very creative in its storytelling, while also making some poignant remarks about how we treat other human beings. However, some of its creativity began to wear thin on me as the film progresses. It changes narrative styles throughout; sometimes it is shot in a faux-documentary style, other times a straight action thriller. I also wished they would have had a stronger finish. The way the film ended left everything a little too conveniently wide open for a sequel, whereas I would have preferred they concluded on a powerful image that would stick with you well past watching the film. I think on the sheer ingenuity of the film's storyline, it's worth checking out. However, I'm unlikely to watch it again anytime soon. Grade: B
Friday, March 19, 2010
Mind-blowing or mega-disaster?
Here's the teaser trailer for Dreamworks' latest computer animated feature, Megamind, that boasts quite the all star cast.
Real recognizing real
I finally got a chance to see a movie in the theater again last weekend and with slim pickings for me, I opted for Martin Scorcese's Shutter Island. I've had my eye on this movie for a while, since it was originally supposed to be released last October. My suspicion is that the studio felt the combination of Scorcese and Leonardo DiCaprio gave this film a legitimate shot at contending for some Oscars. However, once they saw the film they felt it would get ignored and opted to push it back to save everyone involved from embarassment.
That reasoning makes it sound like this is a bad film, which it's not. It does, however, have the tough burden of being a Martin Scorcese film. When you're called the greatest living director, your films tend to be viewed from a skewed perspective. While this is a decent film, it pales in comparison to some of Marty's past work.
The fact that it is merely a popcorn film rather than a cinematic masterpiece is a bit surprising considering the source material. Shutter Island is based on a novel of the same name by Dennis Lehane. Lehane's previous books that were turned into films, Mystic River and Gone Baby Gone, each earned high praise, even though they were directed by a couple of guys more noted for their acting than their direction. So for Scorcese to not to turn this into a gem is a disappointment.
Instead of dwelling on Scorcese, however, let's focus on what happens in this film. The premise here is Leonardo Dicaprio is a Boston marshall who has just teamed up with a cop played by Mark Ruffalo to investigate the disappearance of female mental patient from a psych ward located on the titular island. Given the security of the facility and where she was last seen, her escape seems highly improbable. The mystery quickly shifts away from this missing female and more onto what exactly is going on at this mental hospital.
Those watching will be quick to determine that not everything they are seeing is real. So like most, I begun to try and figure out what the twist/resolution to this story would be. Without giving it away, I guessed what it was fairly correctly at an early point in the film. This proved to be a frustrating experience as I then had to sit through several dialougue-heavy scenes that never really amount to anything, regardless of if you've solved the twist or not. It's a shame too that these scenes feel like such a waste though, considering they typically featured quality acting from the like of Ben Kingsley, Patricia Clarkson, Jackie Earle Haley, as well as DiCaprio and Ruffalo.
Interspersed throughout the film are also scenes involving Dicaprio's character having dreams/hallucinations/flashbacks to his life as a solidier in World War II and with his now deceased wife. Those with his wife (played by Michelle Williams) are hauntingly beautiful, yet the war sequences come off too crass and gruesome. I would have rather that aspect of the story be eliminated altogether because they really have no major significance on the outcome of the story. While these scenes are a mixed bag, I will credit Scorcese for the mood he creates in all the scenes taking place at the psych ward. The general spooky nature of this facility combined with the severe storm that hits the area during the film create a wonderful atmosphere.
Going back to the film's twist, though, whether or not you figure it out, you're likely to still be thinking about it long after the film is over. There is an ambiguity to the resolution of the story that makes you question what you just witnessed. You'll likely enjoy discussing with anyone else who has seen the film the implications of the final scenes. Often, an ambiguous ending can leave me, and many others feeling frustrated. However, this film's conclusion offers a different kind of conclusion. Its ambiguity doesn't lie in what will happened, but rather with what happened leading to this point. I'm sorry if that's not clear, but explaining it any further would ruin the film for those that haven't seen it yet.
Shutter Island can be a frustrating film at times. There are a lot of dead spots along the way, some of which never get satisfying payoffs. However, if you stick with it, the film's conclusion will offer you plenty to mull over. Based on the strength of the finish and the fine acting performances, I say there's enough here to recommend it. I enjoyed it enough, but it's nothing I'm crazy about (get it? crazy...psych ward, anybody?) Grade: B-
That reasoning makes it sound like this is a bad film, which it's not. It does, however, have the tough burden of being a Martin Scorcese film. When you're called the greatest living director, your films tend to be viewed from a skewed perspective. While this is a decent film, it pales in comparison to some of Marty's past work.
The fact that it is merely a popcorn film rather than a cinematic masterpiece is a bit surprising considering the source material. Shutter Island is based on a novel of the same name by Dennis Lehane. Lehane's previous books that were turned into films, Mystic River and Gone Baby Gone, each earned high praise, even though they were directed by a couple of guys more noted for their acting than their direction. So for Scorcese to not to turn this into a gem is a disappointment.
Instead of dwelling on Scorcese, however, let's focus on what happens in this film. The premise here is Leonardo Dicaprio is a Boston marshall who has just teamed up with a cop played by Mark Ruffalo to investigate the disappearance of female mental patient from a psych ward located on the titular island. Given the security of the facility and where she was last seen, her escape seems highly improbable. The mystery quickly shifts away from this missing female and more onto what exactly is going on at this mental hospital.
Those watching will be quick to determine that not everything they are seeing is real. So like most, I begun to try and figure out what the twist/resolution to this story would be. Without giving it away, I guessed what it was fairly correctly at an early point in the film. This proved to be a frustrating experience as I then had to sit through several dialougue-heavy scenes that never really amount to anything, regardless of if you've solved the twist or not. It's a shame too that these scenes feel like such a waste though, considering they typically featured quality acting from the like of Ben Kingsley, Patricia Clarkson, Jackie Earle Haley, as well as DiCaprio and Ruffalo.
Interspersed throughout the film are also scenes involving Dicaprio's character having dreams/hallucinations/flashbacks to his life as a solidier in World War II and with his now deceased wife. Those with his wife (played by Michelle Williams) are hauntingly beautiful, yet the war sequences come off too crass and gruesome. I would have rather that aspect of the story be eliminated altogether because they really have no major significance on the outcome of the story. While these scenes are a mixed bag, I will credit Scorcese for the mood he creates in all the scenes taking place at the psych ward. The general spooky nature of this facility combined with the severe storm that hits the area during the film create a wonderful atmosphere.
Going back to the film's twist, though, whether or not you figure it out, you're likely to still be thinking about it long after the film is over. There is an ambiguity to the resolution of the story that makes you question what you just witnessed. You'll likely enjoy discussing with anyone else who has seen the film the implications of the final scenes. Often, an ambiguous ending can leave me, and many others feeling frustrated. However, this film's conclusion offers a different kind of conclusion. Its ambiguity doesn't lie in what will happened, but rather with what happened leading to this point. I'm sorry if that's not clear, but explaining it any further would ruin the film for those that haven't seen it yet.
Shutter Island can be a frustrating film at times. There are a lot of dead spots along the way, some of which never get satisfying payoffs. However, if you stick with it, the film's conclusion will offer you plenty to mull over. Based on the strength of the finish and the fine acting performances, I say there's enough here to recommend it. I enjoyed it enough, but it's nothing I'm crazy about (get it? crazy...psych ward, anybody?) Grade: B-
Monday, March 15, 2010
NBC Thursday sitcom comings and goings
Some big casting news from some of my favorite Thursday sitcoms:
First, there are some big changes coming to Parks and Recreation. In terms of additions, news broke last week that both Adam Scott and Rob Lowe would be coming onto the show for brief stints starting later this season. Both of these guys can be very funny and I believe will fit seemlessly into the show. Parks and Rec. is also losing a cast member. Over the weekend, it was announced that Paul Schneider, who plays Mark Brandanowitz, would be leaving the show at the end of the season to pursue a film career. You can read executive producer, Mike Schur's thoughts on this move here. Personally Schneider's character is the weak link on that show, so to see him leave is no great loss. It just allows for more time and focus on the characters that I actually enjoy.
Over on The Office, they have some casting news of their own. EW is reporting that Amy Pietz (Caroline in the City, Aliens in America) has been hired on for a multi-episode stint for later this season. The report offers no details on what her role will be, but many are speculating that she might be a new love interest for Michael. If any new details come to light on this, I'll be sure to share them with you here.
First, there are some big changes coming to Parks and Recreation. In terms of additions, news broke last week that both Adam Scott and Rob Lowe would be coming onto the show for brief stints starting later this season. Both of these guys can be very funny and I believe will fit seemlessly into the show. Parks and Rec. is also losing a cast member. Over the weekend, it was announced that Paul Schneider, who plays Mark Brandanowitz, would be leaving the show at the end of the season to pursue a film career. You can read executive producer, Mike Schur's thoughts on this move here. Personally Schneider's character is the weak link on that show, so to see him leave is no great loss. It just allows for more time and focus on the characters that I actually enjoy.
Over on The Office, they have some casting news of their own. EW is reporting that Amy Pietz (Caroline in the City, Aliens in America) has been hired on for a multi-episode stint for later this season. The report offers no details on what her role will be, but many are speculating that she might be a new love interest for Michael. If any new details come to light on this, I'll be sure to share them with you here.
NMR: Capitalism: A Love Story
Right-wingers beware! It's Michael Moore again. Yes, this is his latest documentary dealing this time with our current financial crises. Once again he's on a crusade to correct the wrongs in our country, yet I felt this time he pulled his punches. The film features a lot of his trademarks (the incorporation of old media footage, ambushing executives at their place of business, hard luck stories, etc.), yet most of them did not strike the nerve as effectively as they have in his previous films. Perhaps he feels beaten down by all of this or perhaps this is just too complex of a problem to address in a two hour film. Regardless, the end result just isn't as impactful as I felt it should have been given the gravity of this situation. I believe what I found most frustrating is the lack or answers or explanations to all of the problems he points out. For instance, he discusses the terrible 'Dead Peasants' policy that allows certain corporations to profit from the deaths of their employees. Moore clearly illustrates how such a practice should never have been put into play, yet we get no sense as to why it was allowed to happen, other than greed. That wasn't a good enough answer for me, yet I realize that there may be no better reason out there. At the end, he makes a plea for all of us to 'do something', yet he paints a world in his film that makes you wonder if we ever can. Despite his optimism that change is coming with the Obama era, real world events suggests that things may continue to stay the same for a long time. Overall, the film was good enough to keep me engaged, but certainly not as strong as some of his past work and is only recommended to those that really enjoy his work and/or this subject. Grade: B-
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Monday, March 8, 2010
NMR: 2012
2012 might as well have been called 'disaster smorgsbord'. It basically takes elements from all the classic disaster films (Earthquake, Posideon Adventure, Towering Inferno, The Day After Tomorrow) and throws them all in here, yet fails to capture any of the charm that those films had. Now at times, the visual effects are cool, but there is nothing there to support them. The film centers around John Cusack and his family as they try to avoid death and get on one of the arks the government has been created to save as many people as possible. The problem is that I found none of the characters overly engaging or likeable, so I had no rooting interest in whether or not they lived. A lot of the film's problems would not have seemed that bad had it not been for the fact that the movie is over two and half hours long!!! I hope the real end of days (if it actually happens) goes a lot quicker. There are certainly other films which can provide you with better eye candy, so I don't see any reason why you should bother with this one. Grade: D+
Iron sharpens iron
In case you didn't stay up late to watch Jimmy Kimmel's post-Oscar special (and I don't blame you if you didn't) then you missed the debut of the new Iron Man 2 trailer. If that's the case, then here it is for you to enjoy.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
NMR: The Invention of Lying
Despite not being enamored with Ghost Town, Ricky Gervais' first attempt at an American film, I decided to give him another chance with his latest comedy that came out last fall. In general, this is a stronger effort. The premise here is that everyone tells the truth until Gervais' character becomes the first person to lie. This produces a very funny first half of the film whether we see everyone being brutally honest with each other. As the film progresses however, it falls into all too familiar romantic comedy territory as Gervais uses his new found knowledge to help him win over Jennifer Garner. The film also delves into some deep religious issues that produces some funny moments, but also annoyed me since I am religious and it's clear the film tries to make a mockery of it. I think there's enough funny material to make it worth a rental, but it's by no means a great film. Grade: B-
Lost and found
Here's a couple of interesting Lost-related items that I recently stumbled upon while surfing the interwebs...
First, a really cool image from a site called Simpsons Punx, where someone has Simpson-ized the Lost cast:
Then there's this video from the "Where do they find these things" file. It's a prison training video staring a very young Michael Emerson (aka Ben Linus). It's clear that he hasn't quite honed his skills of persuasion yet, but it's fascinating to watch all the same.
Finally, I just wanted to add my two cents on the most recent episode. Man, what an intense finish there. It seems like the war that's been teased for a while is finally starting to come to a head. Right now I would not want to mess with Flocke (aka the Locke Ness Monster). The other thing that I think we're beginning to see is that this Flash Sideways world may be part of the stakes of this war. Depending on which side wins, the Sideways world may or may not become the reality for our castaways. I'm really digging seeing all of these former faces pop up, even when they are scumbags like Keamy. I cannot believe we only have 12 more episodes left. It's going by way too quick, but I'm certainly enjoying every minute of it.
First, a really cool image from a site called Simpsons Punx, where someone has Simpson-ized the Lost cast:
Then there's this video from the "Where do they find these things" file. It's a prison training video staring a very young Michael Emerson (aka Ben Linus). It's clear that he hasn't quite honed his skills of persuasion yet, but it's fascinating to watch all the same.
Finally, I just wanted to add my two cents on the most recent episode. Man, what an intense finish there. It seems like the war that's been teased for a while is finally starting to come to a head. Right now I would not want to mess with Flocke (aka the Locke Ness Monster). The other thing that I think we're beginning to see is that this Flash Sideways world may be part of the stakes of this war. Depending on which side wins, the Sideways world may or may not become the reality for our castaways. I'm really digging seeing all of these former faces pop up, even when they are scumbags like Keamy. I cannot believe we only have 12 more episodes left. It's going by way too quick, but I'm certainly enjoying every minute of it.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Skits incredible
So I was all set to post a couple of videos from this past week's SNL, because for the first time in a while I thought the show was really funny. Then, I come across a video today from Funnyordie.com, which blows it out of the water. Check out this impressive collection of talent, as former SNL members reunite in this political skit:
I've also included the SNL skits here, since they still made me laugh, even if they don't have the comedic talent that the above film has.
I've also included the SNL skits here, since they still made me laugh, even if they don't have the comedic talent that the above film has.
NMR: Who's hungry?
Here are a pair of food and drink documentaries that I recently caught through Netflix's Instant Viewing:
Food Inc.: This is yet another documentary that attempts to expose the harsh realities of how our food is prepared. What makes this one a step above most is that it doesn't resort to gross-out visuals of animal cruelty to get its point across. Instead, it delivers a well-reasoned argument that everyone should pay attention to. Sadly, they also point out how helpless the public is in trying to get any of these practices changed or stopped. This documentary is actually up for an Oscar this year and I wouldn't be surprised if it ended up winning. At times, the subject matter can be a little difficult to swallow (no pun intended), but it's a well made film worth checking out. Rating: ****
Beer Wars: Here, the focus is on the smaller craft beers and their struggle to compete against the big giants (Bud, Miller, and Coors). As someone who enjoys tipping one back from time to time, the subject matter certainly engaged me. I was also surprised to see how many of the beers referenced in the film I knew and/or have drank. Despite the engaging topic, the film has two major negatives against it. First, it's apparent the woman who made the film is more knowledgable about beer than she is about making films. The film just came off looking amateurish at times. The other problem is that it heavily focused on the founder of Dogfish Head beer and I've never enjoyed any of their brews. It made me tough to sympathize or root for him as he told his story. Still, if you're at all interested in beer, this is a short little film that will likely hold your attention, even if it doesn't necessarily tell you anything that you didn't already know. Rating: ***
Food Inc.: This is yet another documentary that attempts to expose the harsh realities of how our food is prepared. What makes this one a step above most is that it doesn't resort to gross-out visuals of animal cruelty to get its point across. Instead, it delivers a well-reasoned argument that everyone should pay attention to. Sadly, they also point out how helpless the public is in trying to get any of these practices changed or stopped. This documentary is actually up for an Oscar this year and I wouldn't be surprised if it ended up winning. At times, the subject matter can be a little difficult to swallow (no pun intended), but it's a well made film worth checking out. Rating: ****
Beer Wars: Here, the focus is on the smaller craft beers and their struggle to compete against the big giants (Bud, Miller, and Coors). As someone who enjoys tipping one back from time to time, the subject matter certainly engaged me. I was also surprised to see how many of the beers referenced in the film I knew and/or have drank. Despite the engaging topic, the film has two major negatives against it. First, it's apparent the woman who made the film is more knowledgable about beer than she is about making films. The film just came off looking amateurish at times. The other problem is that it heavily focused on the founder of Dogfish Head beer and I've never enjoyed any of their brews. It made me tough to sympathize or root for him as he told his story. Still, if you're at all interested in beer, this is a short little film that will likely hold your attention, even if it doesn't necessarily tell you anything that you didn't already know. Rating: ***
More great moments in television news
Apparently Aussie newscasters can be just as clueless as the ones in the U.S.
Friday, February 26, 2010
NMR: Whiteout
What could have been a cool mystery thriller turned out to be one moronic movie. Based on a graphic novel, the film stars Kate Beckinsale as a marshal in Antarctica who has to deal with the first murder ever on the continent. You would think that the artic setting would provide a cool backdrop for the film, but here it's merely used to create cinematic shortcuts. In the film's climatic battle between Beckinsale and the killer, it's impossible to see who's doing what because there's snow blowing everywhere and the two individuals are completely bundled up in winter clothes. While you can't see the action, you certainly can see the plot twists coming a mile away. I was calling them out loud way before they occured as I watched this film. I've never read the source material for this movie, but I have to believe it's way better than what was served up here. Then again, maybe I'm so sick of snow in real life I had a bias against this film from the start (Somehow I don't think that is the case though). Grade: C-
Italians in space
News hit this week that Nintendo is moving forward with a sequel to their hugely popular Super Mario Galaxy game, titled appropriately enough, Super Mario Galaxy 2. Below you can check out the first trailer for the game. It looks like a whole lot more of the same (only with Yoshi this time), but that's not necessarily a bad thing in this case, considering how good the first game was. I can't help but be a little dismayed that they've chosen to do this instead of a new Mario Party game, but I guess I'll just have to remain patient for that title.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
NMR: Four Christmases
I won't waste too much time on a review for this one because it was pretty dreadful. The idea of a couple having to endure four seperate Christmases with various relatives could have worked, but the film had such a negative tone that it was a complete put-off. I didn't buy into Vince Vaughn and Reese Witherspoon as a couple who detested spending time with relatives. I also thought it was a stretch for us to believe that there were all of these secrets about the two protagonists that they didn't know about each other until they encountered their relatives. The mean streak of the film, the lack of decent jokes and the absence of anything truly Christmas-y about it (they could have just called it Four Thanksgivings) made this one a dud all around. A definite recommend to skip here. Rating: **
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Adios crapola
I'm a little late on sharing this with all of you, but I still wanted to tell everyone my great news: Last Saturday, I finally got a new car!! After dealing with that piece of shit Toyota Corolla for the past nine years (the thing never ran well despite me only putting 69,000 miles on it), I finally had enough and decided to get something new. I was fortunate to find a great deal on a 2010 Honda Accord. It may not be ultra high-end car, but to me I'm not driving in the life of luxury. An image of my new wheels is below.
Delusions of grandeur
Every year it always seems like there is two films which seem exactly alike (Volcano/Dante's Peak, Deep Impact/Armageddon, etc.). Well this year it appear the theme is people playing superheroes without any powers. Below are the trailers Kick-Ass and Defendor, respectively. Both play with elements that interest me, but if I had to choose, I think Defendor's trailer has me more interested in seeing it than Kick-Ass. What's your take?
Friday, February 19, 2010
NMR: Drawing power
Here's a pair of recent animated films I've been able to catch:
Family Guy presents: Something, Something, Something Dark Side: After Family Guy's success at lampooning Star Wars with Blue Harvest, they decided to go another round, this time taking on The Empire Strikes Back. Your appreciation of this will depend solely on whether or not you enjoy the series in general. For fans of Family Guy, there's once again plenty here to laugh at. The fact that this was put on DVD instead of TV also gave them the freedom to be even more crass, but they don't go overboard. It was fun seeing who they chose to play the film's characters (Some were inspired like the Giant Chicken playing Boba Fett, but some fell flat like the rarely seen Carl playing Yoda). Most of the jokes work and some are downright brilliant (like Brian/Chewbacca's commentary on Mort/Lando wearing Han's clothes at the end of the film). A definite must for FG fans and a complete pass for everyone else. Rating: *****
Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs: Based on a 30 page children's book, this computer animated film ends up biting off more than it can chew. While the basic premise is a lot of fun, the film ends up focusing too much on spectacle and not enough on character development. Perhaps I'm being a bit too harsh on a film that's aimed at kids, but I would have preferred had they spent more time allowing us to get to know the characters and less on an elaborate rescue mission once the machine that's causing food to rain from the sky goes haywire. What works in this film is the voice acting which includes a nice mix of comedic talent (Bill Hader and Anna Faris play the leads) along with some veteran actors (like James Caan) to give the film some credibility. I found myself laughing quite a bit (for some reason I really enjoyed the Baby Brent character, voiced by Andy Samberg). In the end, however, this is another film which shows why Pixar's films are head and shoulders above everyone else in this genre. Kids will no doubt love this film. For everyone else, you can probably give it a pass. Grade: C+
Family Guy presents: Something, Something, Something Dark Side: After Family Guy's success at lampooning Star Wars with Blue Harvest, they decided to go another round, this time taking on The Empire Strikes Back. Your appreciation of this will depend solely on whether or not you enjoy the series in general. For fans of Family Guy, there's once again plenty here to laugh at. The fact that this was put on DVD instead of TV also gave them the freedom to be even more crass, but they don't go overboard. It was fun seeing who they chose to play the film's characters (Some were inspired like the Giant Chicken playing Boba Fett, but some fell flat like the rarely seen Carl playing Yoda). Most of the jokes work and some are downright brilliant (like Brian/Chewbacca's commentary on Mort/Lando wearing Han's clothes at the end of the film). A definite must for FG fans and a complete pass for everyone else. Rating: *****
Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs: Based on a 30 page children's book, this computer animated film ends up biting off more than it can chew. While the basic premise is a lot of fun, the film ends up focusing too much on spectacle and not enough on character development. Perhaps I'm being a bit too harsh on a film that's aimed at kids, but I would have preferred had they spent more time allowing us to get to know the characters and less on an elaborate rescue mission once the machine that's causing food to rain from the sky goes haywire. What works in this film is the voice acting which includes a nice mix of comedic talent (Bill Hader and Anna Faris play the leads) along with some veteran actors (like James Caan) to give the film some credibility. I found myself laughing quite a bit (for some reason I really enjoyed the Baby Brent character, voiced by Andy Samberg). In the end, however, this is another film which shows why Pixar's films are head and shoulders above everyone else in this genre. Kids will no doubt love this film. For everyone else, you can probably give it a pass. Grade: C+
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Friday, February 12, 2010
Who will survive? Apparently not the Survivor Series
Here's a quote from Vince McMahon yesterday regarding the Survivor Series, one of the original big four PPVs created back in 1987.
This comes after PPV buyrates for the fourth quarter were revealed showing that the Survivor Series had less buys this year in comparison to the previous year, while all the other off month shows that had changed to those gimmick PPVs (Bragging Rights, Hell in a Cell, etc.) had gone up.
This is depressing for several reasons. First, I hate to see the end of one of the big four, especially that show since I loved the original concept for the show. While it hasn't been booked very well in recent years, I still believe the concept could work. Second, that buyrate data is not only disappointing, but I believe misleading. A show featuring multiple Hell in a Cell matches sounds appealing, but was terrible in its execution. Plus there was two PPVs in October, people could have been tapped out financially, resulting in many people not buying the Survivor Series in November. This is just a bad business move all around and indicates the WWE is heading in the absolute wrong direction with how to present PPV shows.
We think that Survivor Series is obsolete, as far as that title is concerned. It was something that worked many, many years ago, in terms of a creative standpoint, various teams competing. That really is not advantageous as the consumer now looks as what actually they are buying. And it's such a broad ... Survivor Series yes, many years ago, was one of the original four pay-per-views, but it's outlasted its usage and it is one of the things in terms of rebranding, this year and going forward, that will be rebranded. No longer will we have that title, Survivor Series.
This comes after PPV buyrates for the fourth quarter were revealed showing that the Survivor Series had less buys this year in comparison to the previous year, while all the other off month shows that had changed to those gimmick PPVs (Bragging Rights, Hell in a Cell, etc.) had gone up.
This is depressing for several reasons. First, I hate to see the end of one of the big four, especially that show since I loved the original concept for the show. While it hasn't been booked very well in recent years, I still believe the concept could work. Second, that buyrate data is not only disappointing, but I believe misleading. A show featuring multiple Hell in a Cell matches sounds appealing, but was terrible in its execution. Plus there was two PPVs in October, people could have been tapped out financially, resulting in many people not buying the Survivor Series in November. This is just a bad business move all around and indicates the WWE is heading in the absolute wrong direction with how to present PPV shows.
Play together, break alone
Here's the latest trailer for Pixar's highly anticipated sequel, Toy Story 3.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
NMR: The Hurt Locker
I typically don't go for the war films, but considering this is the movie that everyone seems to think has the best chance of beating Avatar at this year's Oscars, I figured I would see what all the hubbub was about.
The film centers primarily around a group of U.S. soldiers in Iraq who are responsible for finding bombs and disarming them. Naturally, this provides the film with several tense moments. And a lot of credit goes to Kathryn Bigelow for creating a wonderful sense of anxiety in these moments. She gives each scene a sense of realism without overdoing it on the melodrama. I would have absolutely no problem with her winning for Best Director (which would be unique because a) a woman has never won that award before and b) her ex-husband is James Cameron).
Another refreshing aspect of this film is that it takes a very apolitical stance. This isn't some conservative propaganda film nor is it filled with a bunch of liberal sermonizing. It's an honest look at the tremendous dangers that our soldiers still face while fighting overseas. For that reason, I enjoyed this film a lot better than some of the other recent movies that have dealt with this subject.
However, I cannot completely endorse this film for the simple fact that the environment that this film takes place in is so foreign and unengaging to me. I cannot understand why anyone would put themselves at risk like that, nor can I fathom why anyone would prefer living like that than at home with a family, which we see in the lead character, William James (played by Jeremy Renner). I felt uncomfortable and sad throughout most of the film.
I applaud the craftsmanship of the film, but I can safely say that I'll never watch it again. If you're enjoy checking out each year's Best Picture contenders, then I would certainly suggest you seek this one out. However, if you typically don't care for films about the Iraq War, then I doubt you'll want to see this one either. Grade: B
The film centers primarily around a group of U.S. soldiers in Iraq who are responsible for finding bombs and disarming them. Naturally, this provides the film with several tense moments. And a lot of credit goes to Kathryn Bigelow for creating a wonderful sense of anxiety in these moments. She gives each scene a sense of realism without overdoing it on the melodrama. I would have absolutely no problem with her winning for Best Director (which would be unique because a) a woman has never won that award before and b) her ex-husband is James Cameron).
Another refreshing aspect of this film is that it takes a very apolitical stance. This isn't some conservative propaganda film nor is it filled with a bunch of liberal sermonizing. It's an honest look at the tremendous dangers that our soldiers still face while fighting overseas. For that reason, I enjoyed this film a lot better than some of the other recent movies that have dealt with this subject.
However, I cannot completely endorse this film for the simple fact that the environment that this film takes place in is so foreign and unengaging to me. I cannot understand why anyone would put themselves at risk like that, nor can I fathom why anyone would prefer living like that than at home with a family, which we see in the lead character, William James (played by Jeremy Renner). I felt uncomfortable and sad throughout most of the film.
I applaud the craftsmanship of the film, but I can safely say that I'll never watch it again. If you're enjoy checking out each year's Best Picture contenders, then I would certainly suggest you seek this one out. However, if you typically don't care for films about the Iraq War, then I doubt you'll want to see this one either. Grade: B
Tech wars
I don't know if this will be for everyone, but I found it interesting and wanted to share it. It's a student made video that attempts to parody The Office while commenting on how instructors use (or don't use) technology in their classroom. I think the video only moderately succeeds at being a parody and social commentary, but it does provoke some good debate on the topic; a topic that I'm thoroughly interested in. Feel free to share your own thoughts on it as well.
Monday, February 8, 2010
NMR: When good comics go bad
Here's a pair of films featuring a couple of funny guys trying to do some serious business.
Big Fan: This film stars Patton Oswalt (The King of Queens) as a huge New York Giants fan, who has a chance encounter with his favorite player and ends up getting assaulted by him. Being the huge Giants fan that he is, he refuses to press charges in fear of hurting the team. This is billed as a dark comedy, but I failed to really see the humor in any of it. This is a bleak, albeit fairly realistic examination into the level of fanaticism displayed by certain people. I thought the acting was solid here, but the story was fairly empty. I would have preferred an exploration of this issue beyond the protagonists' perspective, but we never get it. It tries so hard to give a tragically ironic finish, yet it lands more with a dull thud than with any reverberance. Grade: C
Taking Woodstock: Here we have Demitri Martin (who you should definitely see in his weekly show on Comedy Central) playing a dramatic role in Ang Lee's drama about the organization of Woodstock. I didn't think it was possible, but somehow a film about Woodstock was made without featuring one performance. Instead, we get a lot of broad, unfunny characters running in and out of the film without any true insight as to why they're being included here. The only one that receives any depth is Martin's character, but I found him to be completely unengaging. Eugene Levy brightens things up but he disappears far too quickly from the film. This felt like I was on one bad trip and I was just waiting for the buzz to wear off. Definite recommendation to avoid. Grade: D+
Big Fan: This film stars Patton Oswalt (The King of Queens) as a huge New York Giants fan, who has a chance encounter with his favorite player and ends up getting assaulted by him. Being the huge Giants fan that he is, he refuses to press charges in fear of hurting the team. This is billed as a dark comedy, but I failed to really see the humor in any of it. This is a bleak, albeit fairly realistic examination into the level of fanaticism displayed by certain people. I thought the acting was solid here, but the story was fairly empty. I would have preferred an exploration of this issue beyond the protagonists' perspective, but we never get it. It tries so hard to give a tragically ironic finish, yet it lands more with a dull thud than with any reverberance. Grade: C
Taking Woodstock: Here we have Demitri Martin (who you should definitely see in his weekly show on Comedy Central) playing a dramatic role in Ang Lee's drama about the organization of Woodstock. I didn't think it was possible, but somehow a film about Woodstock was made without featuring one performance. Instead, we get a lot of broad, unfunny characters running in and out of the film without any true insight as to why they're being included here. The only one that receives any depth is Martin's character, but I found him to be completely unengaging. Eugene Levy brightens things up but he disappears far too quickly from the film. This felt like I was on one bad trip and I was just waiting for the buzz to wear off. Definite recommendation to avoid. Grade: D+
My two ads
Without a horse in the race for this year's Super Bowl (as is usually the case, thank you very much Cleveland Browns), I didn't really care too much about the game. That left me with the Super Bowl ads, which this year I thought were fairly disappointing. Not a lot jumped out at me as being particularly memorable. However there were a couple of bright spots...
Chevy Chase seems to be everywhere these days, but it was nice to see him reprising one of his classic roles, Clark Griswold in this ad for homeaway.com
There's actually an extended version of the commercial, a mini-movie of sorts, which you can also check out here.
However, my favorite spot came early in the night with this Snickers ad featuring Betty White. Even at her advanced age, she can still go and be just as hilarious as any of today's funny ladies.
By the way, if you're interested, there's currently a petition floating around Facebook trying to get Betty White to be a host on SNL. I think this is a fantastic idea, so add your name to the list and let's hope it comes to fruition!
Chevy Chase seems to be everywhere these days, but it was nice to see him reprising one of his classic roles, Clark Griswold in this ad for homeaway.com
There's actually an extended version of the commercial, a mini-movie of sorts, which you can also check out here.
However, my favorite spot came early in the night with this Snickers ad featuring Betty White. Even at her advanced age, she can still go and be just as hilarious as any of today's funny ladies.
By the way, if you're interested, there's currently a petition floating around Facebook trying to get Betty White to be a host on SNL. I think this is a fantastic idea, so add your name to the list and let's hope it comes to fruition!
Sunday, February 7, 2010
NMR: Surrogates
Hopefully the movies reviews are going to keep coming in at a regular pace. If you're unfamiliar with this movie, it was a sci-fi flick starring Bruce Willis that came out last fall. Based on the trailers it appeared to be a mix of The Matrix and I, Robot. While that was true from a plot perspective, this movie fails to reach any of the intellectual highs that those films had.
The story centers around most people using robots to do their daily functions while everyone controls them from the comforts of their own home. When a cop (played by Bruce Willis wearing a variety of laughable wigs) discovers that someone can be killed as a result of their surrogate robot being destroyed, he investigates who's behind it before the entire population is put in danger.
The film initiates a lot of interesting questions, both technological and philosophical, but never really explores them. At under 90 minutes, the film barely has enough time to get any action in, let alone delve into the significance of the world it has created. The film does provide some comic relief, however it appears to be more of the unintentional kind. Most of it comes from Ving Rhames playing a radical leader who's trying to end the usage of surrogates. Despite wearing dreadlocked hair and a bushy beard, it's still clear it is Rhames, which makes it difficult to take anything the character says seriously.
Surrogates is a fun diversion, but nothing more. It wouldn't have been worth a recommendation in theaters, but is harmless enough to be enjoyed on the small screen. If you enjoy Willis or the sci-fi genre, this is probably worht a rental. Grade: C+
The story centers around most people using robots to do their daily functions while everyone controls them from the comforts of their own home. When a cop (played by Bruce Willis wearing a variety of laughable wigs) discovers that someone can be killed as a result of their surrogate robot being destroyed, he investigates who's behind it before the entire population is put in danger.
The film initiates a lot of interesting questions, both technological and philosophical, but never really explores them. At under 90 minutes, the film barely has enough time to get any action in, let alone delve into the significance of the world it has created. The film does provide some comic relief, however it appears to be more of the unintentional kind. Most of it comes from Ving Rhames playing a radical leader who's trying to end the usage of surrogates. Despite wearing dreadlocked hair and a bushy beard, it's still clear it is Rhames, which makes it difficult to take anything the character says seriously.
Surrogates is a fun diversion, but nothing more. It wouldn't have been worth a recommendation in theaters, but is harmless enough to be enjoyed on the small screen. If you enjoy Willis or the sci-fi genre, this is probably worht a rental. Grade: C+
Speaking of Bruce Willis...
Here's a new trailer for his upcoming film Cop Out, co-starring Tracy Morgan. This one is a red band trailer and whole hell of lot funnier than the original one that was released. Check it out for yourself:
Saturday, February 6, 2010
NMR: Zombieland
I have so many other movie review yet to do, but I just saw this one and figured I would do a quick write-up for it instead since it's still fresh in my head. As most probably now, the zombie genre is not one that I'm particularly fond of. Yet, for whatever reason, the trailer for this film really captured my attention, so I thought I would give it a try. Turns out my instincts were right as this is a very fun film.
The premise is simple enough, Woody Harrelson and Jesse Eisenberg are two of the few remaining humans left on a planet inhabited by zombies. On their way to seeking sanctuary from the flesh craving monsters, they come across a pair of sisters (played by Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin) and team up as they head to an amusement park that they believe is zombie-free.
While the main characters are engaging and funny, the real delight of this film comes from a cameo by a well-known actor. The surprise is too good to reveal here, so I'll keep mum. Just trust me that this person's appearance is worth the price of admission alone.
Oddly enough, my largest complaint about the film is that it had a few too many dead spots, which certainly isn't good when the film is only an hour and half long. I was expecting a more consistent level of thrills and scares. Instead, the film moseys along and takes time to ponder the meaning of life in between blowing off the heads of the living dead. Even with the lulls, the films has enough to easily make me recommend it for a rental. I'm also hopeful that a sequel will be in the works that will up the ante from this one. Grade: B
The premise is simple enough, Woody Harrelson and Jesse Eisenberg are two of the few remaining humans left on a planet inhabited by zombies. On their way to seeking sanctuary from the flesh craving monsters, they come across a pair of sisters (played by Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin) and team up as they head to an amusement park that they believe is zombie-free.
While the main characters are engaging and funny, the real delight of this film comes from a cameo by a well-known actor. The surprise is too good to reveal here, so I'll keep mum. Just trust me that this person's appearance is worth the price of admission alone.
Oddly enough, my largest complaint about the film is that it had a few too many dead spots, which certainly isn't good when the film is only an hour and half long. I was expecting a more consistent level of thrills and scares. Instead, the film moseys along and takes time to ponder the meaning of life in between blowing off the heads of the living dead. Even with the lulls, the films has enough to easily make me recommend it for a rental. I'm also hopeful that a sequel will be in the works that will up the ante from this one. Grade: B
Friday, February 5, 2010
The island is not done with us yet
So Lost finally made it's big return this past week and, not surprisingly, I'm just as confused as ever, but in a good way. The two hour premiere packed a whole lot in it that will probably take a couple more viewings for me to figure it all out. We certainly got a fair share of answers (What happened to Cindy and the kids, the Man in Black is also Smokey, what was in the guitar case), but also a new slew of questions(What did Juliet mean by 'it worked', how did Sayid survive, what the hell is going on with these 'flash sideways'). It was also cool to see so many past characters return (Leslie Arzt, Boone, the marshal, Frogurt!)
I could spend days discussing everything, but I did want to give a special shout out to Terry O'Quinn, who is doing some of his best acting work recently. Portraying the menacing Man in Black, while also displaying the kind, vulnerable Locke in these flash sideways has been quite impressive.
Lastly, check out this video showing the opening scene from season 1 side by side with the way the season opened this year. There are some key differences between the two that I'm sure everyone will be deciphering from now until the series ends in a couple of months.
I could spend days discussing everything, but I did want to give a special shout out to Terry O'Quinn, who is doing some of his best acting work recently. Portraying the menacing Man in Black, while also displaying the kind, vulnerable Locke in these flash sideways has been quite impressive.
Lastly, check out this video showing the opening scene from season 1 side by side with the way the season opened this year. There are some key differences between the two that I'm sure everyone will be deciphering from now until the series ends in a couple of months.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...Bzzzz!
Yes, it time once again for perhaps my favorite pay per view of the year, the Royal Rumble. This year seems to have a more wide open field with regard to the potential winner, so I'm definitely intriqued. And if you need any more convincing as to why this match is so awesome, here's this year's new promo video counting down the ways.
Winter warmers
Some quick thoughts on the return of a few of my favorite shows:
Chuck: I've been very pleased with how they are handling Chuck's new abilities. But what pleases me even more is the success it's having in the ratings thus far. The show has done a nice job of staying true to its roots, while still expanding. The additions of Brandon Routh and Kristen Kreuk has been handled well so far and I look forward to seeing how they'll play into the whole scheme of things as the season progresses. Overall this show has one of the most likeable casts around and you should be doing yourself a favor and checking out this show if you haven't already. Grade: A-
24: As the clock ticks again, I find myself a bit frustrated. It seems that they have some decent elements in play here: Jack looking to get out of the world saving game, the suave Middle Eastern leader with mysterious agendas, Renee turning more into Jack with each passing minute, Freddie Prinze Jr. trying to be a badass, etc. Yet after five episodes, not a whole lot has happened yet. I'll forgive the slow start if they are able to kick things into high gear as the day goes on, but right now I'm beginning to get concerned that this season is looking more like the terrible season 6 rather than their successful rebound season last year. Only time will tell...pun intended. Grade: C+
And don't forget, we still have more TV returning in the upcoming month as Lost (Feb. 2), Important Things with Dimitri Martin (Feb. 4) and Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains (Feb. 11) all kick off their new seasons shortly.
Chuck: I've been very pleased with how they are handling Chuck's new abilities. But what pleases me even more is the success it's having in the ratings thus far. The show has done a nice job of staying true to its roots, while still expanding. The additions of Brandon Routh and Kristen Kreuk has been handled well so far and I look forward to seeing how they'll play into the whole scheme of things as the season progresses. Overall this show has one of the most likeable casts around and you should be doing yourself a favor and checking out this show if you haven't already. Grade: A-
24: As the clock ticks again, I find myself a bit frustrated. It seems that they have some decent elements in play here: Jack looking to get out of the world saving game, the suave Middle Eastern leader with mysterious agendas, Renee turning more into Jack with each passing minute, Freddie Prinze Jr. trying to be a badass, etc. Yet after five episodes, not a whole lot has happened yet. I'll forgive the slow start if they are able to kick things into high gear as the day goes on, but right now I'm beginning to get concerned that this season is looking more like the terrible season 6 rather than their successful rebound season last year. Only time will tell...pun intended. Grade: C+
And don't forget, we still have more TV returning in the upcoming month as Lost (Feb. 2), Important Things with Dimitri Martin (Feb. 4) and Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains (Feb. 11) all kick off their new seasons shortly.
So long Coco
So I know I'm chiming in on this way late, but I obviously wanted to comment on the whole Leno/Conan debacle. Certainly everyone came out a loser in this situation. Conan got a raw deal, however, I can't say that I was overly thrilled with his Tonight Show. Conan felt completely out of place in L.A. So let's hope that he moves back to NY with whatever new show he decides to do. As for Leno, he comes off like the petulant brat who constantly needs to be coddled. Seeing NBC continue to cater to his unfunny ass is wholly depressing. Which brings me to NBC and their bungling of this situation. You'd like to think that hopefully they've learned their lesson after this, but given that they committed similar mistakes when Leno first took over the Tonight. I could continue ranting about this, but I think I'll let this video do a better job of summing up the situation. It appears that Conan has some powerful fans.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Mystery Men
This review for Sherlock Holmes is long overdue since I saw this film over Christmas break. Luckily, I enjoyed the film enough that a lot of it remains fresh in my head.
As you probably recall, I had at the beginning of last year put this high on my must-see list for '09. I've always been a fan of mysteries, and while I've never read any of Arthur Conan Doyle's books, I felt knowledgeable enough about the Holmes series to know this would be right up my alley. The fact that they chose Robert Downey Jr., hot off of Iron Man and Tropic Thunder, to play the super sleuth was just the cherry on top.
Downey, of course, is brilliant once again here. He immediately immerses himself into the character and really looks like he's having fun playing the intelligent, yet stand-offish Holmes. However, this portrayal would not have worked as well unless he had a proper Watson to play off of. Thankfully, Jude Law was up to the task and has great chemistry with Downey. Their love/hate relationship provides some of the film's best moments.
As many people probably picked up on, their relationship is very similar to the one you see between TV's House and Wilson. These two characters know each other so well, which allows each of them to perform better at their job, even if it means they torment each other in the process. The comparison to House shouldn't surprise anyone as the creators of House molded their character the show off of the original Sherlock Holmes character. Certainly, if you're a fan of the medical mystery show, you will appreciate the banter that's exhibited between the two leads in this movie.
While the film packs plenty of comedy, it also has its fair share of action as well. Certainly one of the biggest concerns people had before the film opened was seeing clips of Holmes involved in some bare knuckle boxing fight scenes. While it seemed a bit out of character, I felt within the film's central story it worked really well. What is nice about these fighting scenes is how we see Holmes dissect the fight to know exactly where to attack his opponent in order to win every time. Watching these scenes was akin to watching a technical wrestler in WWE pick apart his opponent. I always love when people display intelligence in a fight rather than just put on a display of senseless brutality.
As for the film's central mystery, it can be certainly be confusing at times as it centers around black magic, resurrections, and secret societies. While some may get annoyed at feeling lost while trying to follow along, I certainly appreciated the vagueries. The one thing I hate is when I can figure out how a movie will play out within the first twenty minutes. And for those who are patient with the story, they are rewarded as Holmes is of course able to figure everything out and then explain it to us so that it all makes sense.
The one fault I had with the film was the underutilization of Rachel McAdams' character. She plays Irene Adler, a thief/former love interest of Holmes, who's the only person who can seemingly match wits with him. In the time she is on the screen she is riveting, but her scenes are too far and few in between. Given the way the film played out, I'm hoping that she might return of future films. And speaking of which, I also tip my hat to this film for laying the groundwork for a sequel. Without giving too much away, the film does a nice job establishing a central story for the next film if they choose to make it. Based on the financial performance of this one, I'd say that is almost a certainty now.
Now as I said at the top, I'm an admitted mystery fan, so maybe this film worked for me more than it will for others, but from my point of view, this was completely satisfying. Even my initial concerns over the fact that the film was directed by Guy Ritchie were unfounded. He delivers a fast-paced, action-filled film that also has plenty of funny moments. If you've already seen Avatar twelve times and are ready for an alternative, still seek this out at the theaters. Otherwise, make sure you check it out once it comes out on DVD. There's no mystery about this one, it's a winner. Grade: A-
As you probably recall, I had at the beginning of last year put this high on my must-see list for '09. I've always been a fan of mysteries, and while I've never read any of Arthur Conan Doyle's books, I felt knowledgeable enough about the Holmes series to know this would be right up my alley. The fact that they chose Robert Downey Jr., hot off of Iron Man and Tropic Thunder, to play the super sleuth was just the cherry on top.
Downey, of course, is brilliant once again here. He immediately immerses himself into the character and really looks like he's having fun playing the intelligent, yet stand-offish Holmes. However, this portrayal would not have worked as well unless he had a proper Watson to play off of. Thankfully, Jude Law was up to the task and has great chemistry with Downey. Their love/hate relationship provides some of the film's best moments.
As many people probably picked up on, their relationship is very similar to the one you see between TV's House and Wilson. These two characters know each other so well, which allows each of them to perform better at their job, even if it means they torment each other in the process. The comparison to House shouldn't surprise anyone as the creators of House molded their character the show off of the original Sherlock Holmes character. Certainly, if you're a fan of the medical mystery show, you will appreciate the banter that's exhibited between the two leads in this movie.
While the film packs plenty of comedy, it also has its fair share of action as well. Certainly one of the biggest concerns people had before the film opened was seeing clips of Holmes involved in some bare knuckle boxing fight scenes. While it seemed a bit out of character, I felt within the film's central story it worked really well. What is nice about these fighting scenes is how we see Holmes dissect the fight to know exactly where to attack his opponent in order to win every time. Watching these scenes was akin to watching a technical wrestler in WWE pick apart his opponent. I always love when people display intelligence in a fight rather than just put on a display of senseless brutality.
As for the film's central mystery, it can be certainly be confusing at times as it centers around black magic, resurrections, and secret societies. While some may get annoyed at feeling lost while trying to follow along, I certainly appreciated the vagueries. The one thing I hate is when I can figure out how a movie will play out within the first twenty minutes. And for those who are patient with the story, they are rewarded as Holmes is of course able to figure everything out and then explain it to us so that it all makes sense.
The one fault I had with the film was the underutilization of Rachel McAdams' character. She plays Irene Adler, a thief/former love interest of Holmes, who's the only person who can seemingly match wits with him. In the time she is on the screen she is riveting, but her scenes are too far and few in between. Given the way the film played out, I'm hoping that she might return of future films. And speaking of which, I also tip my hat to this film for laying the groundwork for a sequel. Without giving too much away, the film does a nice job establishing a central story for the next film if they choose to make it. Based on the financial performance of this one, I'd say that is almost a certainty now.
Now as I said at the top, I'm an admitted mystery fan, so maybe this film worked for me more than it will for others, but from my point of view, this was completely satisfying. Even my initial concerns over the fact that the film was directed by Guy Ritchie were unfounded. He delivers a fast-paced, action-filled film that also has plenty of funny moments. If you've already seen Avatar twelve times and are ready for an alternative, still seek this out at the theaters. Otherwise, make sure you check it out once it comes out on DVD. There's no mystery about this one, it's a winner. Grade: A-
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Sunday, January 10, 2010
RIP Ludvig Borga
Former WWE wrestler Tony Halme (aka Ludvig Borga) dead at age 47
While he never really made much of a presence in the WWF, this is undoubtably a huge blow to the country of Finland. I can't believe we're only a few weeks into the new year and we already have yet another wrestler under 50 passing away. When is this trend going to stop?
While he never really made much of a presence in the WWF, this is undoubtably a huge blow to the country of Finland. I can't believe we're only a few weeks into the new year and we already have yet another wrestler under 50 passing away. When is this trend going to stop?
NMR: Errors in judgment
Here's a pair of movies I caught recently through Netflix that not only feature main characters making questionable decisions in their lives, but also represent two cases where I incorrectly predicted the quality of the films.
Extract: This movie just kind of sits there and doesn't offer much of anything. There are a few laughs, but when you boast a cast with the likes of Jason Bateman, Mila Kunis, JK Simmons, Ben Affleck, and Kristin Wiig, you expect it to be a whole lot more funny. Director Mike Judge (King of the Hill, Office Space) has always been good on depicting varying levels of stupidity in his characters. While most of the characters exhibit stupidity here, I didn't find myself amused by their cluelessness like I have with some of his other stuff. A major disappointment here and not worth a rental unless you work in a factory and can perhaps appreciate better that environment being represented here. Rating: **
Sunshine Cleaning: Here, the opposite effect occured, as I was initially skeptical of how good this movie would be. It seemed to have all the makings for an annoying indie film. Quirky town, down-on-their-luck characters, dyfunctional families, etc. However, this one managed to avoid the cliches and deliver a strong, albeit small film. Amy Adams and Emily Blunt star as a pair of sisters, who decide to go into business for themselves as crime scene cleaners. This new employment opportunity provides them with a new outlook on life and allows their family to grow stronger as a result. Along for the ride is Alan Arkin, terrific as always, as the girls' father. Despite Arkin's presence and the word 'sunshine' in the title this nothing like Little Miss Sunshine, which was so nauseating in its attempt to be edgy and cool. This is a simple, yet engaging story that makes you want to see more of these characters even after the film ends. Don't dismiss it like I did and give this one a watch. Rating: *****
Extract: This movie just kind of sits there and doesn't offer much of anything. There are a few laughs, but when you boast a cast with the likes of Jason Bateman, Mila Kunis, JK Simmons, Ben Affleck, and Kristin Wiig, you expect it to be a whole lot more funny. Director Mike Judge (King of the Hill, Office Space) has always been good on depicting varying levels of stupidity in his characters. While most of the characters exhibit stupidity here, I didn't find myself amused by their cluelessness like I have with some of his other stuff. A major disappointment here and not worth a rental unless you work in a factory and can perhaps appreciate better that environment being represented here. Rating: **
Sunshine Cleaning: Here, the opposite effect occured, as I was initially skeptical of how good this movie would be. It seemed to have all the makings for an annoying indie film. Quirky town, down-on-their-luck characters, dyfunctional families, etc. However, this one managed to avoid the cliches and deliver a strong, albeit small film. Amy Adams and Emily Blunt star as a pair of sisters, who decide to go into business for themselves as crime scene cleaners. This new employment opportunity provides them with a new outlook on life and allows their family to grow stronger as a result. Along for the ride is Alan Arkin, terrific as always, as the girls' father. Despite Arkin's presence and the word 'sunshine' in the title this nothing like Little Miss Sunshine, which was so nauseating in its attempt to be edgy and cool. This is a simple, yet engaging story that makes you want to see more of these characters even after the film ends. Don't dismiss it like I did and give this one a watch. Rating: *****
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains cast
Here's the list of the 20 competitors for the upcoming season of Survivor consisting of former castaways along with my analysis on the choices and their odds of winning:
Heroes
Rupert Boneham (Previous seasons: Pearl Islands, All-Stars) Rupert's always been a good guy, but perhaps too nice to win this game. We've seen him come close in his previous two outings. I just don't know if he's gained that killer edge to put him over the top.
James Clement (Previous seasons: China, Micronesia) I'm a little surprised he was brought back for a third time. He's obviously got superior physical strength, but I just don't see him playing the social game well enough to make it far.
Colby Donaldson (Previous seasons: The Australian Outback, All-Stars) One of the few returning castaways from an early season. Colby was a strong player back in the day, but we've seen a lot better contestants both physically and socially come along since then. It's hard to believe, but he may be an underdog considering some of the large personalities on both tribes.
Cirie Fields (Previous seasons: Panama, Micronesia) I don't know why they keep bringing her back. I've never been fond of her or her gameplay. She seems to always do well, but I can't understand why. Let's hope the same doesn't hold true this time around.
Amanda Kimmell (Previous seasons: China, Micronesia) Here's a unique case. This is Amanda's third time and she still has never been voted off once. She also has never won. Something's gotta give this time. If she makes it to the finals, lets hope she's finally figured out how to properly win over the jury. If I had to guess though, my bet is on her finally seeing her torch snuffed out.
Jessica “Sugar” Kiper (Previous season: Gabon) I had concerns that Sugar would be real irritating when I first saw her. Then she ended up getting crapped on by everyone around her, making her extremely sympathetic. It remains to see whether that will hold true again this time around. She may be a bit too naive to win it all.
Stephenie LaGrossa (Previous seasons: Palau, Guatemala) I really liked Stephanie in her first go round and then she became somewhat unpleasant in Guatamala. In neither case did she win. Win or lose, I hope we see the likeable Stephanie reemerge this season.
James “J.T.” Thomas (Previous season: Tocantins) An obvious strong player who was instantly likeable as well. They may make him an instant target, since they may want to eliminate the previous winners early. If he hangs on to the merge, he's got a good chance of making it all the way.
Tom Westman (Previous season: Palau) Tom just bulldozed through the competition in Palau, but I have a feeling he may have a more difficult time here. He's one of the oldest competitors, so I'll be watching to see if he can still hang with the big boys or if he'll just become the grumpy old man.
Candice Woodcock (Previous season: Cook Islands) Here's the first big 'huh' of the game. I had to go back and look at who this was. Even after seeing her picture, she still didn't strike me as anyone I wanted to see again, nor did I feel she's worthy of being a hero. I worry, just like with Amber during the All Star season, someone unworthy of being included in the cast will end up winning this thing because everyone else is so concerned with eliminating the big names.
Villains
Tyson Apostol (Previous season: Tocantins) Tyson was kind of outshone by other larger personalities on his own season, so I wonder if he'll be able to make himself known here or if he'll just fade into the woodwork. I don't think he has the same level of savvy as some of his teammates to survive past the merge.
Randy Bailey (Previous season: Gabon) I had high hopes for him being a standout personality during his season, but he kept to himself more than I would have liked. Despite his gruff demeanor, I actually liked Randy and hope he does well here.
Sandra Diaz-Twine (Previous season: Pearl Islands) I could have done without her being brought back. She was an undeserving winner back in Pearl Islands, so I would hate to see here go far again. I have a feeling that with so many strong men on this team, she'll go quickly.
Danielle DiLorenzo (Previous season: Panama) Basically the same comments I had about Candace apply doubly here. A major 'who???' factor here. I have to believe she only got in because they couldn't get Richard Hatch out of jail in enough time and they figured they'd rather see her naked than him. I pray to go she doesn't win either.
Russell Hantz (Previous season: Samoa) I really want him to do well after getting snubbed last season. This guy is amazing at game play. On the plus side, since this season was filmed right after Samoa, none of the other castaways should know much about him. However, the fact that he was so upset about losing last season makes me think he didn't go far this time around. Let's hope that's not the case.
Jerri Manthey (Previous seasons: Australian Outback, All-Stars) I'm not crazy about Jerri, but she's likely to make for good TV. It sounds like she's decided to embrace her inner bitch this time, which will be more tolerable than her trying to act nice and still coming off like a bitch. My guess is she's too unlikeable to win, but stranger things have happened.
“Boston” Rob Mariano (Previous seasons: Marquesas, All-Stars) Boston Rob irritated me both times he was on Survivor, but then I found him to be quite fun when he did the Amazing Race. Hopefully, he'll be more entertaining than annoying. He's proven to be pretty successful, but I wonder if he still has enough new tricks up his sleeve to maintain his dominance.
Parvati Shallow (Previous seasons: Cook Islands, Micronesia) I still can't believe she managed to pull off the victory in fans vs. favorites. I don't consider her to be a smart player, but we've seen that isn't always necessary to pick up a victory in this game. I have a feeling she'll find it's more difficult for her this time now that's she's already won.
“Coach” Benjamin Wade (Previous season: Tocantins) I'm really looking forward to seeing what the Dragon Slayer will do this time around. Some people who were outspoken in their previous seasons try going the opposite way if they play the game again, but somehow I don't see him doing that. If he becomes too intolerable, he'll get a quick boot. But finding that right alliance may allow him to coast to the finals.
Courtney Yates (Previous season: China) She was so mean and nasty, I can easily see why she was brought back on the villains side. However, I've gotten to see her doing some stuff on Entertainment Weekly with their Survivor reporter, Dalton Ross, and she's pretty hilarious on there. Oddly enough, I might be rooting for her this time around.
And now here's a video previewing the upcoming season that aired during last night's People's Choice Awards:
Heroes
Rupert Boneham (Previous seasons: Pearl Islands, All-Stars) Rupert's always been a good guy, but perhaps too nice to win this game. We've seen him come close in his previous two outings. I just don't know if he's gained that killer edge to put him over the top.
James Clement (Previous seasons: China, Micronesia) I'm a little surprised he was brought back for a third time. He's obviously got superior physical strength, but I just don't see him playing the social game well enough to make it far.
Colby Donaldson (Previous seasons: The Australian Outback, All-Stars) One of the few returning castaways from an early season. Colby was a strong player back in the day, but we've seen a lot better contestants both physically and socially come along since then. It's hard to believe, but he may be an underdog considering some of the large personalities on both tribes.
Cirie Fields (Previous seasons: Panama, Micronesia) I don't know why they keep bringing her back. I've never been fond of her or her gameplay. She seems to always do well, but I can't understand why. Let's hope the same doesn't hold true this time around.
Amanda Kimmell (Previous seasons: China, Micronesia) Here's a unique case. This is Amanda's third time and she still has never been voted off once. She also has never won. Something's gotta give this time. If she makes it to the finals, lets hope she's finally figured out how to properly win over the jury. If I had to guess though, my bet is on her finally seeing her torch snuffed out.
Jessica “Sugar” Kiper (Previous season: Gabon) I had concerns that Sugar would be real irritating when I first saw her. Then she ended up getting crapped on by everyone around her, making her extremely sympathetic. It remains to see whether that will hold true again this time around. She may be a bit too naive to win it all.
Stephenie LaGrossa (Previous seasons: Palau, Guatemala) I really liked Stephanie in her first go round and then she became somewhat unpleasant in Guatamala. In neither case did she win. Win or lose, I hope we see the likeable Stephanie reemerge this season.
James “J.T.” Thomas (Previous season: Tocantins) An obvious strong player who was instantly likeable as well. They may make him an instant target, since they may want to eliminate the previous winners early. If he hangs on to the merge, he's got a good chance of making it all the way.
Tom Westman (Previous season: Palau) Tom just bulldozed through the competition in Palau, but I have a feeling he may have a more difficult time here. He's one of the oldest competitors, so I'll be watching to see if he can still hang with the big boys or if he'll just become the grumpy old man.
Candice Woodcock (Previous season: Cook Islands) Here's the first big 'huh' of the game. I had to go back and look at who this was. Even after seeing her picture, she still didn't strike me as anyone I wanted to see again, nor did I feel she's worthy of being a hero. I worry, just like with Amber during the All Star season, someone unworthy of being included in the cast will end up winning this thing because everyone else is so concerned with eliminating the big names.
Villains
Tyson Apostol (Previous season: Tocantins) Tyson was kind of outshone by other larger personalities on his own season, so I wonder if he'll be able to make himself known here or if he'll just fade into the woodwork. I don't think he has the same level of savvy as some of his teammates to survive past the merge.
Randy Bailey (Previous season: Gabon) I had high hopes for him being a standout personality during his season, but he kept to himself more than I would have liked. Despite his gruff demeanor, I actually liked Randy and hope he does well here.
Sandra Diaz-Twine (Previous season: Pearl Islands) I could have done without her being brought back. She was an undeserving winner back in Pearl Islands, so I would hate to see here go far again. I have a feeling that with so many strong men on this team, she'll go quickly.
Danielle DiLorenzo (Previous season: Panama) Basically the same comments I had about Candace apply doubly here. A major 'who???' factor here. I have to believe she only got in because they couldn't get Richard Hatch out of jail in enough time and they figured they'd rather see her naked than him. I pray to go she doesn't win either.
Russell Hantz (Previous season: Samoa) I really want him to do well after getting snubbed last season. This guy is amazing at game play. On the plus side, since this season was filmed right after Samoa, none of the other castaways should know much about him. However, the fact that he was so upset about losing last season makes me think he didn't go far this time around. Let's hope that's not the case.
Jerri Manthey (Previous seasons: Australian Outback, All-Stars) I'm not crazy about Jerri, but she's likely to make for good TV. It sounds like she's decided to embrace her inner bitch this time, which will be more tolerable than her trying to act nice and still coming off like a bitch. My guess is she's too unlikeable to win, but stranger things have happened.
“Boston” Rob Mariano (Previous seasons: Marquesas, All-Stars) Boston Rob irritated me both times he was on Survivor, but then I found him to be quite fun when he did the Amazing Race. Hopefully, he'll be more entertaining than annoying. He's proven to be pretty successful, but I wonder if he still has enough new tricks up his sleeve to maintain his dominance.
Parvati Shallow (Previous seasons: Cook Islands, Micronesia) I still can't believe she managed to pull off the victory in fans vs. favorites. I don't consider her to be a smart player, but we've seen that isn't always necessary to pick up a victory in this game. I have a feeling she'll find it's more difficult for her this time now that's she's already won.
“Coach” Benjamin Wade (Previous season: Tocantins) I'm really looking forward to seeing what the Dragon Slayer will do this time around. Some people who were outspoken in their previous seasons try going the opposite way if they play the game again, but somehow I don't see him doing that. If he becomes too intolerable, he'll get a quick boot. But finding that right alliance may allow him to coast to the finals.
Courtney Yates (Previous season: China) She was so mean and nasty, I can easily see why she was brought back on the villains side. However, I've gotten to see her doing some stuff on Entertainment Weekly with their Survivor reporter, Dalton Ross, and she's pretty hilarious on there. Oddly enough, I might be rooting for her this time around.
And now here's a video previewing the upcoming season that aired during last night's People's Choice Awards:
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Spidey 4 gets tangled up
From EW.com
Sony has decided to push back the start of production on Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man 4, a Sony source confirms to Variety. (The news was first reported by Deadline Hollywood.) The film, starring Tobey Maguire and directed by Sam Raimi, was to have begun shooting in February. The studio does not yet know when the film will get rolling, according to the reports. Last month, Raimi and co. hit the pause button on pre-production in order to do further work on the script. It is now unliklely that Spidey 4 will meet its announced May 6, 2011 release date.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Eat, Drink, and Be Suspicious
Some curious new promos photos for the upcoming final season of Lost have just surfaced. Call them images from 'The Lost Supper'. Check them out and analyze their meaning(s) below.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Happy New Year!!
I just wanted to send the best of wishes to everyone in this new year and decade. Thanks to all who have been reading this blog. I know I've had a glut of posts in the past few days, but I was working hard to match the number of posts I had this year to last year. I didn't want to seem like I've been slacking. Here's hoping I won't until the last minute to match this year's total again next year.
Anyways, I hope everyone is safe tonight and continues to prosper in 2010!
2010 movie preview (#6-1)
#6 Robin Hood (May 14)
Plot: The story of an archer in the army of Richard Coeur de Lion who fights against the Norman invaders and becomes the legendary hero known as Robin Hood.
Personal opinion: Robin Hood films have never particularly interested me before, but when you say that Russell Crowe and director Ridley Scott are attached, suddenly you've got my attention. The first trailer has been released and it looks like we can expect the same thrilling action from these two like they gave us in Gladiator.
#5 Dinner For Schmucks (July 23)
Plot: An extraordinarily stupid man possesses the ability to ruin the life of anyone who spends more than a few minutes in his company.
Personal opinion If you thought Due Date had an embarassment of riches when it came to comedic talent, you haven't seen anything yet. The cast here includes Steve Carell, Paul Rudd, and Zach Galifinakis and it's being directed by Jay Roach (Austin Powers, Meet the Parents). This seems like a can't miss. The only thing that concerns me is that the film is a remake of a French comedy and let's face it, the French aren't known for great humor. There's no trailer yet, so only time will tell whether or not Roach and co. will be able to successfully translate this for American audiences.
#4 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1 (November 19)
Plot: Voldemort's power is growing stronger. He now has control over the Ministry of Magic and Hogwarts. Harry, Ron, and Hermione decide to finish Dumbledore's work and find the rest of the Horcruxes to defeat the Dark Lord. But little hope remains for them, so everything they do must go as planned.
Personal opinion: You know the story here. By now, either you're ready for this or not. For fans, everyone is eager to see not only this next installment, but where the producers are going to choose to end it. I still have no clue of a good spot, so I'm very interested to see what they choose. Regardless, this is a big deal and should set us up nicely for part 2 coming summer 2011.
#3 Toy Story 3 (June 18)
Plot: Woody, Buzz, and the rest of their toy-box friends are dumped in a day-care center after their owner, Andy, departs for college.
Personal opinion: Despite being some of their ealiest efforts, the first two Toy Story films remain two of Pixar's strongest efforts. I absolutely love these film (so much so that I've actually written a paper on them). Based on the premise and the initial trailer, this once again seems like an absolute can't miss here. The only thing that could potentially ruin this is the 10 year lapse between films. However, knowing Pixar, I'm sure it will seem as if the second one had just been released last year.
#2 Iron Man 2 (May 7)
Plot: With the world now aware of his dual life as the armored superhero Iron Man, billionaire inventor Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) faces pressure from the government, the press, and the public to share his technology with the military. Unwilling to let go of his invention, Stark, along with Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), and James "Rhodey" Rhodes (Don Cheadle) at his side, must forge new alliances -- and confront powerful enemies.
Personal opinion: High expectations here after everyone fell in love with the first one and Robert Downey Jr.'s performance. Most of the comic book sequels have managed to build on their original film, so let's hope the same holds true for this one. I liked the teaser trailer, but like most initial ones, it didn't give us a true sense of what the story will be. What we do know is that they have brought on Mickey Rourke, which was an inspired move. The big question mark is if people will accept Don Cheadle taking over for Terrance Howards as Rhodes.
#1 Inception (July 16)
Plot: A CEO-type becomes involved in a blackmailing scandal.
Personal opinion: Despite two trailers already being released for this, no one still really knows what this film is about. For me, it doesn't really matter. When I heard 'directed by Christopher Nolan', I was already sold. In my opinion, Nolan has yet to make a dud and I don't anticipate him to make one here. This movie looks all sorts of mind-blowing crazy. It's also boasting a strong cast and looks visually stunning. You better believe I'll be there seeing this on opening night!
Plot: The story of an archer in the army of Richard Coeur de Lion who fights against the Norman invaders and becomes the legendary hero known as Robin Hood.
Personal opinion: Robin Hood films have never particularly interested me before, but when you say that Russell Crowe and director Ridley Scott are attached, suddenly you've got my attention. The first trailer has been released and it looks like we can expect the same thrilling action from these two like they gave us in Gladiator.
#5 Dinner For Schmucks (July 23)
Plot: An extraordinarily stupid man possesses the ability to ruin the life of anyone who spends more than a few minutes in his company.
Personal opinion If you thought Due Date had an embarassment of riches when it came to comedic talent, you haven't seen anything yet. The cast here includes Steve Carell, Paul Rudd, and Zach Galifinakis and it's being directed by Jay Roach (Austin Powers, Meet the Parents). This seems like a can't miss. The only thing that concerns me is that the film is a remake of a French comedy and let's face it, the French aren't known for great humor. There's no trailer yet, so only time will tell whether or not Roach and co. will be able to successfully translate this for American audiences.
#4 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1 (November 19)
Plot: Voldemort's power is growing stronger. He now has control over the Ministry of Magic and Hogwarts. Harry, Ron, and Hermione decide to finish Dumbledore's work and find the rest of the Horcruxes to defeat the Dark Lord. But little hope remains for them, so everything they do must go as planned.
Personal opinion: You know the story here. By now, either you're ready for this or not. For fans, everyone is eager to see not only this next installment, but where the producers are going to choose to end it. I still have no clue of a good spot, so I'm very interested to see what they choose. Regardless, this is a big deal and should set us up nicely for part 2 coming summer 2011.
#3 Toy Story 3 (June 18)
Plot: Woody, Buzz, and the rest of their toy-box friends are dumped in a day-care center after their owner, Andy, departs for college.
Personal opinion: Despite being some of their ealiest efforts, the first two Toy Story films remain two of Pixar's strongest efforts. I absolutely love these film (so much so that I've actually written a paper on them). Based on the premise and the initial trailer, this once again seems like an absolute can't miss here. The only thing that could potentially ruin this is the 10 year lapse between films. However, knowing Pixar, I'm sure it will seem as if the second one had just been released last year.
#2 Iron Man 2 (May 7)
Plot: With the world now aware of his dual life as the armored superhero Iron Man, billionaire inventor Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) faces pressure from the government, the press, and the public to share his technology with the military. Unwilling to let go of his invention, Stark, along with Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), and James "Rhodey" Rhodes (Don Cheadle) at his side, must forge new alliances -- and confront powerful enemies.
Personal opinion: High expectations here after everyone fell in love with the first one and Robert Downey Jr.'s performance. Most of the comic book sequels have managed to build on their original film, so let's hope the same holds true for this one. I liked the teaser trailer, but like most initial ones, it didn't give us a true sense of what the story will be. What we do know is that they have brought on Mickey Rourke, which was an inspired move. The big question mark is if people will accept Don Cheadle taking over for Terrance Howards as Rhodes.
#1 Inception (July 16)
Plot: A CEO-type becomes involved in a blackmailing scandal.
Personal opinion: Despite two trailers already being released for this, no one still really knows what this film is about. For me, it doesn't really matter. When I heard 'directed by Christopher Nolan', I was already sold. In my opinion, Nolan has yet to make a dud and I don't anticipate him to make one here. This movie looks all sorts of mind-blowing crazy. It's also boasting a strong cast and looks visually stunning. You better believe I'll be there seeing this on opening night!
A history of violence
My final movie review of 2009 ends up being one of the most unique movie experiences I've had in a while; watching Quentin Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds. I believe this was my first time actually seeing a Tarantino film (I know, I know, don't shoot me) so I didn't know quite what to expect when I saw this.
What I saw was a bloody, intense, sometimes humorous film that was anything but factual. Many probably already know this, but if you're unaware, please do not think that this is meant to be in any way historically accurate. While many of the 'main players' from World War II are used here, their fates are completely altered. That doesn't really detract from the film, but I felt it needed to said as a public service so no one confuses this for actual history.
That's not to say that Tarantino is not a history buff; it's just that his love of history falls in a particular area; film. Throughout this movie, you can see his love for the history of film. While it's most obvious in the fact that he centers his plot around people trying to assassinate Hitler while he's attending a Nazi propaganda film, there are other smaller moments that only true film buffs can appreciate. Some of them are direct nods to past films, others references are more in the stylistic choices he makes as a director. All of these references enhance the film without becoming overly meta.
Not only does Tarantino's style pay homage to films of a previous era, it also provides the film with a sustained level of intensity. There are several scenes in this film where you are completely on edge realizing that there are so many combustible elements that something graphic or extreme could happen at any second. Tarantino does a wonderful job of building up these scenes to their boiling point as the audience watches with dread (but a good kind of dread, if that makes sense), unsure of what will happen. This is where not adhering to history works for the film, because you have no real sense of who will end up dead or alive.
One man who singlehandedly creates suspense everytime he was on camera was Christoph Waltz, who plays Nazi officer Hans Landa. Nicknamed 'The Jew Hunter', he's the only Nazi portrayed with any sort of intelligence in the film. Every time he is on screen, you get a knot in your stomach, unsure of what sort of pain and agony he's going to unleash on those around him. He has been generating Oscar buzz for his performance and deservedly so. He will go down in film history as one of those great villains that you love to hate and hate to love.
There are two basic plotlines in the film that end up intersecting as the film progresses. One involves a Jewish girl named Shoshana, who has managed to avoid capture and now lives in France as a theater owner. Her theater has been chosen to host the Nazi propaganda film and she sees it as her opportunity to assassinate Hitler. Meanwhile, there is also the titular Basterds, a group of American, mostly Jewish soldiers, led by Brad Pitt, who are out to collect as many Nazi scalps as possible. Soon, they too see Hitler's appearance at the theater as the prime opportunity to take him out. In telling this story, Tarantino opted for a five chapter structure. Using this method, he basically creates five extended scenes. It may seem a bit basic, but Tarantino utilizes this method to the fullest.
After watching this film, however, I was troubled by one major question; what was the point of this? I usually enjoy deconstructing films in order to identify their themes or messages. With this movie, I was having difficulty doing that. Yes, you could interpret the film in a variety of ways - it's an attempt to destroy the Nazi mystique, or it's an attempt to illuminate that Americans are no different than Germans in our savage violence. But none of these themes seem strong enough or at least they don't seem to be the ideas Tarantino wants us to take away from this film. The most likely option may be the most troubling one of all, in that he has no central thesis with this film. He simply created a cowboy Western film only had it set during World War II. For me, it somewhat cheapens the experience and for others only gives them another example of 'new violence' that is so over the top it loses all of its meaning and significance.
Even if Tarantino had no intended message with this film, I encourage those that do see it to hold a dialogue about it afterwards so that these captivating moments that he provides can be unpacked in a way that's useful to us all. Given that this film now seems to be a lock for a Best Picture nomination at this year's Oscars, I'm hopeful that more people will go out and see it so that it can be explored further. I think this is an expertly made film, but one that will leave you feeling dirty unless you take the steps to (figuratively) wash the blood off your hands. If we don't explore films like this further, than we become the bastards. Grade: B+
What I saw was a bloody, intense, sometimes humorous film that was anything but factual. Many probably already know this, but if you're unaware, please do not think that this is meant to be in any way historically accurate. While many of the 'main players' from World War II are used here, their fates are completely altered. That doesn't really detract from the film, but I felt it needed to said as a public service so no one confuses this for actual history.
That's not to say that Tarantino is not a history buff; it's just that his love of history falls in a particular area; film. Throughout this movie, you can see his love for the history of film. While it's most obvious in the fact that he centers his plot around people trying to assassinate Hitler while he's attending a Nazi propaganda film, there are other smaller moments that only true film buffs can appreciate. Some of them are direct nods to past films, others references are more in the stylistic choices he makes as a director. All of these references enhance the film without becoming overly meta.
Not only does Tarantino's style pay homage to films of a previous era, it also provides the film with a sustained level of intensity. There are several scenes in this film where you are completely on edge realizing that there are so many combustible elements that something graphic or extreme could happen at any second. Tarantino does a wonderful job of building up these scenes to their boiling point as the audience watches with dread (but a good kind of dread, if that makes sense), unsure of what will happen. This is where not adhering to history works for the film, because you have no real sense of who will end up dead or alive.
One man who singlehandedly creates suspense everytime he was on camera was Christoph Waltz, who plays Nazi officer Hans Landa. Nicknamed 'The Jew Hunter', he's the only Nazi portrayed with any sort of intelligence in the film. Every time he is on screen, you get a knot in your stomach, unsure of what sort of pain and agony he's going to unleash on those around him. He has been generating Oscar buzz for his performance and deservedly so. He will go down in film history as one of those great villains that you love to hate and hate to love.
There are two basic plotlines in the film that end up intersecting as the film progresses. One involves a Jewish girl named Shoshana, who has managed to avoid capture and now lives in France as a theater owner. Her theater has been chosen to host the Nazi propaganda film and she sees it as her opportunity to assassinate Hitler. Meanwhile, there is also the titular Basterds, a group of American, mostly Jewish soldiers, led by Brad Pitt, who are out to collect as many Nazi scalps as possible. Soon, they too see Hitler's appearance at the theater as the prime opportunity to take him out. In telling this story, Tarantino opted for a five chapter structure. Using this method, he basically creates five extended scenes. It may seem a bit basic, but Tarantino utilizes this method to the fullest.
After watching this film, however, I was troubled by one major question; what was the point of this? I usually enjoy deconstructing films in order to identify their themes or messages. With this movie, I was having difficulty doing that. Yes, you could interpret the film in a variety of ways - it's an attempt to destroy the Nazi mystique, or it's an attempt to illuminate that Americans are no different than Germans in our savage violence. But none of these themes seem strong enough or at least they don't seem to be the ideas Tarantino wants us to take away from this film. The most likely option may be the most troubling one of all, in that he has no central thesis with this film. He simply created a cowboy Western film only had it set during World War II. For me, it somewhat cheapens the experience and for others only gives them another example of 'new violence' that is so over the top it loses all of its meaning and significance.
Even if Tarantino had no intended message with this film, I encourage those that do see it to hold a dialogue about it afterwards so that these captivating moments that he provides can be unpacked in a way that's useful to us all. Given that this film now seems to be a lock for a Best Picture nomination at this year's Oscars, I'm hopeful that more people will go out and see it so that it can be explored further. I think this is an expertly made film, but one that will leave you feeling dirty unless you take the steps to (figuratively) wash the blood off your hands. If we don't explore films like this further, than we become the bastards. Grade: B+
PPVs of the decade (Part 2)
July - Vengeance 2003: Not a lot of strong choices here. However, this one had a really excellent tag match between The World's Greatest Tag Team and Mysterio/Kidman, the emergence of John Cena as a main event player as he took on The Undertaker (a match we may finally see again this Wrestlemania), an entertaining bar room brawl that featured Doink, Brother Love, and the Easter Bunny, and a solid triple threat main event that involved Brock Lesnar, Kurt Angle, and the Big Show.
August - Summerslam 2002: There were some good choices here. I could have picked 2006 for the fun DX/McMahons and Edge/Cena matches. I also liked 2000 for the first TLC match. However, I opted for 2002 since it had the most complete package. You had a hot opener between Angle and Mysterio, the momentous return of Shawn Michaels as he took on HHH in a street fight and ending with the beginning of the Brock Lesnar era as he defeated the Rock in an entertaining main event.
September - Unforgiven 2006: Of the second half of the year, this was the easiest month to pick. This show stood out from all of the other Unforgivens in a big way, thanks to three big matches. You had a really excellent TLC main event between Cena and Edge (despite the fact that Edge lost). A bloody brawl between DX and the McMahons/Big Show. Finally, you had one of the best retirements ever as Trish Stratus defeated her longtime rival, Lita, to win the Women's Championship for an unprecedented seventh time. A thoroughly entertaining and satisfying show, which was a rarity for the second half of this decade.
October - No Mercy 2002: Slim pickings here, but I went with the 2002 show since it had some notable moments. First, you had The Undertaker bleeding like a stuck pig in order to get Brock Lesnar over in their Hell in a Cell match. You also had the brief retirement of the Intercontinental Championship occur as Triple H had beaten Kane to merge the title with the World Heavyweight Championship. Finally, this show had one of the best matches of the decade as Chris Benoit and Kurt Angle took on Edge and Rey Mysterio for the new Smackdown tag team titles. Not only was the match a classic, it also signified the beginning of the 'Smackdown Six' era.
November - Survivor Series 2009: Perhaps an unconventional choice, but I've actually been disappointed with the treatment this show has gotten in recent years. Nothing can match the classic Survivor Series matches of the 80s and 90s. Anyways, this year's show was extremely enjoyable. You had two entertaining triple threat matches as your main events. Then the Survivor Series style matches actually had some significance as it featured the future of the company (Kofi Kingston, The Miz, Shaemus, and Drew McIntyre) picking up big wins in their respective matches. This show may prove to be a pivotal turning point in the company within a few years' time.
December - Armageddon 2007: Wow, not a lot to choose from here at all. What was I supposed to pick? The December to Dismember show? The 2005 Armageddon show, in which Tim White supposedly killed himself? A lot of dreck to end the year. I went with 2007, primarily for the great match between HHH and Jeff Hardy that finally allowed Hardy to burst through the glass ceiling. It also had solid matches involving Edge/Batista/Taker and HBK/Kennedy. Not a perfect show by any means, but the best from a lousy bunch.
So there you have it. The seemingly best of the best, although I'm sure many of you may disagree. I think we can all agree that the first half of the decade was a lot stronger than the second half. And we can all hope that things continue to improve for the company as they head into another new decade.
August - Summerslam 2002: There were some good choices here. I could have picked 2006 for the fun DX/McMahons and Edge/Cena matches. I also liked 2000 for the first TLC match. However, I opted for 2002 since it had the most complete package. You had a hot opener between Angle and Mysterio, the momentous return of Shawn Michaels as he took on HHH in a street fight and ending with the beginning of the Brock Lesnar era as he defeated the Rock in an entertaining main event.
September - Unforgiven 2006: Of the second half of the year, this was the easiest month to pick. This show stood out from all of the other Unforgivens in a big way, thanks to three big matches. You had a really excellent TLC main event between Cena and Edge (despite the fact that Edge lost). A bloody brawl between DX and the McMahons/Big Show. Finally, you had one of the best retirements ever as Trish Stratus defeated her longtime rival, Lita, to win the Women's Championship for an unprecedented seventh time. A thoroughly entertaining and satisfying show, which was a rarity for the second half of this decade.
October - No Mercy 2002: Slim pickings here, but I went with the 2002 show since it had some notable moments. First, you had The Undertaker bleeding like a stuck pig in order to get Brock Lesnar over in their Hell in a Cell match. You also had the brief retirement of the Intercontinental Championship occur as Triple H had beaten Kane to merge the title with the World Heavyweight Championship. Finally, this show had one of the best matches of the decade as Chris Benoit and Kurt Angle took on Edge and Rey Mysterio for the new Smackdown tag team titles. Not only was the match a classic, it also signified the beginning of the 'Smackdown Six' era.
November - Survivor Series 2009: Perhaps an unconventional choice, but I've actually been disappointed with the treatment this show has gotten in recent years. Nothing can match the classic Survivor Series matches of the 80s and 90s. Anyways, this year's show was extremely enjoyable. You had two entertaining triple threat matches as your main events. Then the Survivor Series style matches actually had some significance as it featured the future of the company (Kofi Kingston, The Miz, Shaemus, and Drew McIntyre) picking up big wins in their respective matches. This show may prove to be a pivotal turning point in the company within a few years' time.
December - Armageddon 2007: Wow, not a lot to choose from here at all. What was I supposed to pick? The December to Dismember show? The 2005 Armageddon show, in which Tim White supposedly killed himself? A lot of dreck to end the year. I went with 2007, primarily for the great match between HHH and Jeff Hardy that finally allowed Hardy to burst through the glass ceiling. It also had solid matches involving Edge/Batista/Taker and HBK/Kennedy. Not a perfect show by any means, but the best from a lousy bunch.
So there you have it. The seemingly best of the best, although I'm sure many of you may disagree. I think we can all agree that the first half of the decade was a lot stronger than the second half. And we can all hope that things continue to improve for the company as they head into another new decade.
Holiday traffic hint
As everyone heads out onto the roads this holiday season, the DOT has come out with some helpful 'advice' in case you get stuck in traffic.
Tired Of Traffic? A New DOT Report Urges Drivers: 'Honk'
Tired Of Traffic? A New DOT Report Urges Drivers: 'Honk'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)