Everyone needs a good laugh every now and then, right? Well I decided to post a couple of vidoes from two of my favorite comedians right now, Dimitri Martin and Zach Galifianakis. Both are really hilarious and if you're a Netflix subscriber, both have DVDs available for you to rent, which I recommend. Enjoy!
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
NMR: Super Size Me
This was a completely engrossing (emphasis on gross, at times) look at the obesity problem in America. This is an issue that has been and continues to be ignored by too many people. Director and star Morgan Spurlock sums it up nicely when one of the people he interviews says that it's come to be acceptable to say to a smoker, "Hey put out that cigarette, you're going to kill yourself", so when will it become acceptable to say, "Hey put down that french fry, you're going to kill yourself". As I watched Spurlock put himself through a 30-day McDiet, there were several times where I felt so sad for the guy and just wanted him to stop eating, and this is coming from someone who enjoys McDonalds.
I had some minor complaints with the film, namely with Spurlock's filmmaking skills. First, he needed to narrate more throughout the film. There were a couple of times where he was travelling to cities for untold reasons. There was also scenes that he filmed Jared from Subway giving a speech to kids, but then he doesn't actually speak to Jared himself. And the people he did speak too sounded like some of the most ignorant rubes found in this country. It would have been nice to get some balance from the ordinary people he talked to on the streets.
These are minor issues and shouldn't take away from the film's core message. And I should point out that he does have some nice touches to his filmmaking style. I really liked the pop art paintings involving McDonalds characters that he used to introduce each "chapter" of the film. And anyone who uses "Rock and Roll McDonalds" by Wesley Willis in their film instantly wins my admiration.
I can't guarantee I'll permanently change my diet after seeing this, but everytime I consider heading to the Golden Arches, I'll definitely be thinking of this film. Netflix rating: *****
I had some minor complaints with the film, namely with Spurlock's filmmaking skills. First, he needed to narrate more throughout the film. There were a couple of times where he was travelling to cities for untold reasons. There was also scenes that he filmed Jared from Subway giving a speech to kids, but then he doesn't actually speak to Jared himself. And the people he did speak too sounded like some of the most ignorant rubes found in this country. It would have been nice to get some balance from the ordinary people he talked to on the streets.
These are minor issues and shouldn't take away from the film's core message. And I should point out that he does have some nice touches to his filmmaking style. I really liked the pop art paintings involving McDonalds characters that he used to introduce each "chapter" of the film. And anyone who uses "Rock and Roll McDonalds" by Wesley Willis in their film instantly wins my admiration.
I can't guarantee I'll permanently change my diet after seeing this, but everytime I consider heading to the Golden Arches, I'll definitely be thinking of this film. Netflix rating: *****
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Claus for concern
Since it's the middle of January, I was really in the mood for a Christmas movie. Actually, I wasn't, but since Fred Claus eluded me before the holiday season, I figured I better check it out now since it's not likely to be around much longer at the budget theater.
Based on the previews, this one certainly had promise. It had a strong cast (perhaps too strong for this film) and a unique premise; examining the left in the shadows brother of Santa Claus. Given these variables, I was surprised to see it only do moderately well at the box office. It certainly wasn't the smash hit that Elf was (a film that I find vastly overrated). With no other major Christmas films released this past season, it puzzled me why this didn't do better; that is until I saw it myself.
The film's primary problem is that it failed to find an appropriate voice. It can't decide if it wants to be a kids movie or adult fare. It also can't determine if it wants to be a true Christmas film or just use that context to tell a more universal story of family and relationships. The end result is a hodgepodge of content that aims to please everyone and ends up pleasing no one.
The main character of Fred Claus (played by Vince Vaughn) has plot points involving his brother Santa, his mother, his on-again off-again girlfriend, and an orphan that he's befriended. Each of them could have worked on their own as the main plot of the movie, but since they're all included, none of them get the proper time devoted to them. On top of all that, you also have a subplot involving an elf pining over one of Santa's female assistants and Kevin Spacey as an efficiency expert trying to shut down Santa's workshop. Needless to say, the writer of the film needed to ask Santa for some Ritalin this Christmas.
Vince Vaughn is his typical self in this movie providing plenty of rapid-fire lines full of hilarity. Despite being the guy I've come to enjoy in so many other films, this one doesn't hold up. I think Vaughn is at his best when he has someone of equal comedic talent to work off of him. In his better films, he has guys like Owen Wilson, Will Ferrell and Ben Stiller to play off of. No offense to Paul Giammati, who is a fine actor, but he can't match wits with Vaughn like those other guys do. The same held true for Vaughn in the awful, The Break-Up, where the best he had to work with was Jennifer Aniston.
As previously mentioned, this film has a pretty strong cast including Kevin Spacey, Paul Giammati, Rachel Weisz, Kathy Bates, Elizabeth Banks, Ludacris, and John Michael Higgins. Each do an admirable job with the role they have, but given the film's content, I was wondering what many of them were doing here. They must have wanted an extra paycheck in case this strike goes on for too long, because most of them should be in better pictures than this.
The film certainly has its moments. As mentioned before, Vaughn is always good for a handful of laughs based on his delivery alone. I also enjoyed the subplot involving John Michael Higgins playing the head elf (which involved some weird visual effects) pining over Elizabeth Banks' charcter. It's never explained why a normal human being is working at the North Pole with Santa and his elves, but since in meant seeing her in skimpy santa outfits, I didn't really care. There is also a funny scene where Fred attends a Siblings Anonymous meeting that involves some good cameos of famous "in the shadows" brothers.
If this had been a non-holiday film, I may have reviewed it a bit more harshly. But since it's a Christmas movie, I see it as being tolerable enough to be watched/enjoyed once a year. This one will not go down in the annals of classic Christmas films, but when it comes time for it to show up on some basic cable channel, I'll probably stop and watch it again. For those reading this, there's probably no need to seek this out at the moment. If you're a sucker for holiday movies however, you may want to rent it come next Christmas. It's the film equivalent of receiving a sweater; It's not as bad as a lump of coal, but certainly not the most appealing gift you could get either. Grade: C+
Based on the previews, this one certainly had promise. It had a strong cast (perhaps too strong for this film) and a unique premise; examining the left in the shadows brother of Santa Claus. Given these variables, I was surprised to see it only do moderately well at the box office. It certainly wasn't the smash hit that Elf was (a film that I find vastly overrated). With no other major Christmas films released this past season, it puzzled me why this didn't do better; that is until I saw it myself.
The film's primary problem is that it failed to find an appropriate voice. It can't decide if it wants to be a kids movie or adult fare. It also can't determine if it wants to be a true Christmas film or just use that context to tell a more universal story of family and relationships. The end result is a hodgepodge of content that aims to please everyone and ends up pleasing no one.
The main character of Fred Claus (played by Vince Vaughn) has plot points involving his brother Santa, his mother, his on-again off-again girlfriend, and an orphan that he's befriended. Each of them could have worked on their own as the main plot of the movie, but since they're all included, none of them get the proper time devoted to them. On top of all that, you also have a subplot involving an elf pining over one of Santa's female assistants and Kevin Spacey as an efficiency expert trying to shut down Santa's workshop. Needless to say, the writer of the film needed to ask Santa for some Ritalin this Christmas.
Vince Vaughn is his typical self in this movie providing plenty of rapid-fire lines full of hilarity. Despite being the guy I've come to enjoy in so many other films, this one doesn't hold up. I think Vaughn is at his best when he has someone of equal comedic talent to work off of him. In his better films, he has guys like Owen Wilson, Will Ferrell and Ben Stiller to play off of. No offense to Paul Giammati, who is a fine actor, but he can't match wits with Vaughn like those other guys do. The same held true for Vaughn in the awful, The Break-Up, where the best he had to work with was Jennifer Aniston.
As previously mentioned, this film has a pretty strong cast including Kevin Spacey, Paul Giammati, Rachel Weisz, Kathy Bates, Elizabeth Banks, Ludacris, and John Michael Higgins. Each do an admirable job with the role they have, but given the film's content, I was wondering what many of them were doing here. They must have wanted an extra paycheck in case this strike goes on for too long, because most of them should be in better pictures than this.
The film certainly has its moments. As mentioned before, Vaughn is always good for a handful of laughs based on his delivery alone. I also enjoyed the subplot involving John Michael Higgins playing the head elf (which involved some weird visual effects) pining over Elizabeth Banks' charcter. It's never explained why a normal human being is working at the North Pole with Santa and his elves, but since in meant seeing her in skimpy santa outfits, I didn't really care. There is also a funny scene where Fred attends a Siblings Anonymous meeting that involves some good cameos of famous "in the shadows" brothers.
If this had been a non-holiday film, I may have reviewed it a bit more harshly. But since it's a Christmas movie, I see it as being tolerable enough to be watched/enjoyed once a year. This one will not go down in the annals of classic Christmas films, but when it comes time for it to show up on some basic cable channel, I'll probably stop and watch it again. For those reading this, there's probably no need to seek this out at the moment. If you're a sucker for holiday movies however, you may want to rent it come next Christmas. It's the film equivalent of receiving a sweater; It's not as bad as a lump of coal, but certainly not the most appealing gift you could get either. Grade: C+
Sunday, January 13, 2008
NMR: Fight Club
I've been a big fan of David Fincher's work, most recently with his superb Zodiac (which now has a 2 disc deluxe edition available on DVD). So I was surprised to realize that one of his earlier films, Fight Club had eluded me until now. This movie starts off real strong. Edward Norton's insomniac narrator quickly draws you in as you try to figure out what this guy's deal is. Early on, there are also some neat meta-references to the filmmaking industry (like including subliminal images and then talking about it as well). It was these small touches which really gave the film character and made it real creative.
Sadly, the inspiration found in the first third of the film vanishes for the sake of gratuitous violence in the later parts of the film. As the fight clubs grow in number and popularity, the film begins to lose focus and really drags on for me. I was already tapping out before the climax of the film.
Now I will confess that I already knew the film's major twist before watching it. However, being spoiled about it did not really affect my opinion of the film. By the time the twist is revealed I wouldn't have cared because I was too worn out by all the film's gruesome scenes.
I've read a handful of reviews and heard a few different interpretations on what the film's message is. I'm not sure if any of them are right, because I feel the film fails to do a good job of making any coherent message. For this film, Fincher got too caught up in all the blood and gore to make sure the film's narrative was apparent. I'm glad to see that he's grown as a director and scaled back on the gross-out factor. For it's brief moments of inspiration, I'll give it a mild recommendation, but really this one went downhill fast. Netflix rating: ***
Sadly, the inspiration found in the first third of the film vanishes for the sake of gratuitous violence in the later parts of the film. As the fight clubs grow in number and popularity, the film begins to lose focus and really drags on for me. I was already tapping out before the climax of the film.
Now I will confess that I already knew the film's major twist before watching it. However, being spoiled about it did not really affect my opinion of the film. By the time the twist is revealed I wouldn't have cared because I was too worn out by all the film's gruesome scenes.
I've read a handful of reviews and heard a few different interpretations on what the film's message is. I'm not sure if any of them are right, because I feel the film fails to do a good job of making any coherent message. For this film, Fincher got too caught up in all the blood and gore to make sure the film's narrative was apparent. I'm glad to see that he's grown as a director and scaled back on the gross-out factor. For it's brief moments of inspiration, I'll give it a mild recommendation, but really this one went downhill fast. Netflix rating: ***
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Some Cleveland sports developments
Today marked the end of an era as the Indians will no longer be playing in Jacobs Field. Instead, they'll now be playing in the newly named, Progressive Field.
I can't tell you how much it pains me to see another sports venue get stamped with a corporate name. It's just so wrong on so many levels. That building will always be "The Jake" to me. But as much as I hate the change, as long as the Tribe plays well, it won't matter too much what name is on the outside of the stadium.
In other news, the Browns fired their defensive coordinator today. It may seem odd that a 10 win team would fire a coordinator, but considering that the Browns were still one of the worst teams defensively, I say it's justified. Let's hope that they bring someone decent in who can maximize the talent that we have. We can also hope that with all that cap money that the Browns have that we can maybe get someone to help out that defense here in the offseason.
I can't tell you how much it pains me to see another sports venue get stamped with a corporate name. It's just so wrong on so many levels. That building will always be "The Jake" to me. But as much as I hate the change, as long as the Tribe plays well, it won't matter too much what name is on the outside of the stadium.
In other news, the Browns fired their defensive coordinator today. It may seem odd that a 10 win team would fire a coordinator, but considering that the Browns were still one of the worst teams defensively, I say it's justified. Let's hope that they bring someone decent in who can maximize the talent that we have. We can also hope that with all that cap money that the Browns have that we can maybe get someone to help out that defense here in the offseason.
NMR: No End in Sight
As I was waiting for my next disc to arrive, I watched this through Netflix's online service. I had heard high praise for this documentary after it had been released this past summer, so I thought, given that we're in the thick of primary season, I would check this out. If you're not familiar with the film, it goes into great detail the reasons why the Iraq war has become such a disaster.
The arguments made by the filmmaker are very compelling. Watching it, you feel as if you're listening to a prosecutor make his arguments in a case against the Bush administration. This strategy, while sound and at times sobering, did not make for the most watchable film. As I heard how things unfolded, I shook my head in disbelief, yet after a while I wanted there to be something more. I'm not saying that I was looking for the Michael Moore approach of trying to infuse pop culture references into a serious subject, but there needed to be something here to make the film more engrossing. Listening to how those in charge made one mistake after another wears the audience down.
By the end of the film you want some kind of closure to all of this, but it never comes. Perhaps I should have expected it with a title like No End in Sight. However, after finished watching it, I felt like saying, 'so what?'. Nothing about the film is very revealing, if you follow the news on a daily basis. All this does is simplify the past four years into a 90 minute capsule. If you like hearing what idiots the Bush admistration are, go ahead and check this out, otherwise, just go read a newspaper. Netflix rating: ***
The arguments made by the filmmaker are very compelling. Watching it, you feel as if you're listening to a prosecutor make his arguments in a case against the Bush administration. This strategy, while sound and at times sobering, did not make for the most watchable film. As I heard how things unfolded, I shook my head in disbelief, yet after a while I wanted there to be something more. I'm not saying that I was looking for the Michael Moore approach of trying to infuse pop culture references into a serious subject, but there needed to be something here to make the film more engrossing. Listening to how those in charge made one mistake after another wears the audience down.
By the end of the film you want some kind of closure to all of this, but it never comes. Perhaps I should have expected it with a title like No End in Sight. However, after finished watching it, I felt like saying, 'so what?'. Nothing about the film is very revealing, if you follow the news on a daily basis. All this does is simplify the past four years into a 90 minute capsule. If you like hearing what idiots the Bush admistration are, go ahead and check this out, otherwise, just go read a newspaper. Netflix rating: ***
Update on 'Bond 22'
This news is a few days old, but I still wanted to post it anyways. As filming begins for the new James Bond film (still doesn't have a title yet), we're getting word of some of the new cast members. Returning from Casino Royale is of course, Daniel Craig and Judy Dench as M. Also the Felix Lighter and Mathis characters will be back as well played by the same actors.
In addition to the returning members, we have two Bond girls, played by relative unknowns:
Gemma Arterton
Olga Kurylenko
The primary villain for the film has also been cast and will be played by Mathieu Amalric, who is currently in The Diving Bell and the Butterfly and was also in Munich.
As soon as the title for this film is released, I'll be sure to post it up on here.
In addition to the returning members, we have two Bond girls, played by relative unknowns:
Gemma Arterton
Olga Kurylenko
The primary villain for the film has also been cast and will be played by Mathieu Amalric, who is currently in The Diving Bell and the Butterfly and was also in Munich.
As soon as the title for this film is released, I'll be sure to post it up on here.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Strike Watch
Here are some recent news and notes about television that are strike related.
- Of course, the biggest news is that the Golden Globes show has been cancelled. As of right now, here's what NBC plans to air. At 8pm, a news special highlighting the performances of the nominees. At 9pm, a special press conference will air where the winners of the Golden Globes will be announced. At 10pm, an Access Hollywood like show covering all of the celebrities at parties. Apparently, the WGA won't let them go to the actual awards show, but has no problem with them still having parties.
On one hand, this idea is somewhat appealing because I get tired of the bloated awards shows filled with humorless banter, frivolous video packages, tiresome speeches, and annoying musical numbers. However, the actions of the WGA to prove a point in this strike has become equally annoying. It's clear that whenever this gets resolved no one is going to come out of it a winner, so lets just end this thing right now.
- In order to fill some airtime, CBS has officially announced that it will air the first season of Showtime's critically acclaimed series, Dexter. Episodes will air on Sundays starting on Feb. 17. No word on how long the episodes will be given how much CBS will likely have to edit out to make the show appropriate for network television. Looks like I won't have to Netflix that one after all.
- Starting Feb. 28, Reaper will be moving to Thursday nights at 9. That's bad news for fans of this show and Lost since they'll now be airing head to head. However, Reaper doesn't have too many new episodes left, so it shouldn't be a problem for very long.
- On Jan. 24, which is a Thursday, NBC will air two new episodes of Chuck. One will air at 8pm and the other at 10pm. With so few precious episodes of our shows left, I have no idea why they are burning two of them on one night, but that's the TV biz for ya.
- And if you're interested to see how the late night talk show hosts are coping with being back without their writers, check out this hilarious video from a recent Conan O'Brien:
- Of course, the biggest news is that the Golden Globes show has been cancelled. As of right now, here's what NBC plans to air. At 8pm, a news special highlighting the performances of the nominees. At 9pm, a special press conference will air where the winners of the Golden Globes will be announced. At 10pm, an Access Hollywood like show covering all of the celebrities at parties. Apparently, the WGA won't let them go to the actual awards show, but has no problem with them still having parties.
On one hand, this idea is somewhat appealing because I get tired of the bloated awards shows filled with humorless banter, frivolous video packages, tiresome speeches, and annoying musical numbers. However, the actions of the WGA to prove a point in this strike has become equally annoying. It's clear that whenever this gets resolved no one is going to come out of it a winner, so lets just end this thing right now.
- In order to fill some airtime, CBS has officially announced that it will air the first season of Showtime's critically acclaimed series, Dexter. Episodes will air on Sundays starting on Feb. 17. No word on how long the episodes will be given how much CBS will likely have to edit out to make the show appropriate for network television. Looks like I won't have to Netflix that one after all.
- Starting Feb. 28, Reaper will be moving to Thursday nights at 9. That's bad news for fans of this show and Lost since they'll now be airing head to head. However, Reaper doesn't have too many new episodes left, so it shouldn't be a problem for very long.
- On Jan. 24, which is a Thursday, NBC will air two new episodes of Chuck. One will air at 8pm and the other at 10pm. With so few precious episodes of our shows left, I have no idea why they are burning two of them on one night, but that's the TV biz for ya.
- And if you're interested to see how the late night talk show hosts are coping with being back without their writers, check out this hilarious video from a recent Conan O'Brien:
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Netflix Mini Review (NMR): Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Thanks to my brother, I got a Netflix subscription for Christmas. My queue is all loaded up and I'll be watching a lot of movies over the next few months that for one reason or another slipped through the cracks when they first came out. These will be shorter reviews than I typically do for first run movies because if they were as long as those, I'd never get any work done. So without further ado is the first review for Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.
I had a real difficult time getting into this one. Partially because I was tired and partially because the narrative is really hard to follow. Now I'm not some dim-bulb who finds Back to the Future complex, so for me to say the movie was hard to follow, you know that this is one involved movie. However, I'm glad I stuck with it, because once you really grasp what's going on, it is a fun ride. Seeing Jim Carrey at war with his own mind is fun and really unique. For most of the film, I had no clue how this was going to get resolved. The film is also filled with a great supporting cast including Tom Wilkinson, Elijah Wood, Kirsten Dunst, and Mark Ruffalo (who I usually don't care for). I must say, though, that I thought the best performance came from Kate Winslet. I haven't seen too much else from her to compare this to her other films, but I thought she was superb in this. I found her completely engaging and understood why Jim Carrey's character would be attracted to her, yet also find having a relationship with her difficult.
I will say that I was slightly disappointed in the ending though. Not so much for the events that took place, but for what I ulimately got out of the film. For as creative as this film is, it ends up being another film about a couple who needs to communicate better to realize they belong together. They are not breaking any grounds with that idea. I would have liked if they had more to say about the power of the mind or perhaps even about fate. These ideas certainly are touched upon in the film, but aren't fully realized. Maybe with successive viewings I could find those ideas to be stronger, but for now I found them to be lacking. Whether I'm looking for deeper meaning or not, I think this one deserves repeated viewing just so I can go back and understand better what was going on throughout the movie. Unfortunately, because I want to maximize the number of movies I see through Netflix, a repeat viewing of this will have to wait for another day. Netflix rating: ****
I had a real difficult time getting into this one. Partially because I was tired and partially because the narrative is really hard to follow. Now I'm not some dim-bulb who finds Back to the Future complex, so for me to say the movie was hard to follow, you know that this is one involved movie. However, I'm glad I stuck with it, because once you really grasp what's going on, it is a fun ride. Seeing Jim Carrey at war with his own mind is fun and really unique. For most of the film, I had no clue how this was going to get resolved. The film is also filled with a great supporting cast including Tom Wilkinson, Elijah Wood, Kirsten Dunst, and Mark Ruffalo (who I usually don't care for). I must say, though, that I thought the best performance came from Kate Winslet. I haven't seen too much else from her to compare this to her other films, but I thought she was superb in this. I found her completely engaging and understood why Jim Carrey's character would be attracted to her, yet also find having a relationship with her difficult.
I will say that I was slightly disappointed in the ending though. Not so much for the events that took place, but for what I ulimately got out of the film. For as creative as this film is, it ends up being another film about a couple who needs to communicate better to realize they belong together. They are not breaking any grounds with that idea. I would have liked if they had more to say about the power of the mind or perhaps even about fate. These ideas certainly are touched upon in the film, but aren't fully realized. Maybe with successive viewings I could find those ideas to be stronger, but for now I found them to be lacking. Whether I'm looking for deeper meaning or not, I think this one deserves repeated viewing just so I can go back and understand better what was going on throughout the movie. Unfortunately, because I want to maximize the number of movies I see through Netflix, a repeat viewing of this will have to wait for another day. Netflix rating: ****
Monday, January 7, 2008
Gladiators ready? Nope!
So I caught the premiere of the new American Gladiators and was less than encouraged by what I saw. Clearly, the powers that be brought the show back figuring that there were plenty of fans of the original version, yet they abandonded many of the show's aspects that made it enjoyable. First of all, they got rid of the memorable theme music. Bad move right away. They've also virtually done away with the commentating during the events. Hosts Hulk Hogan and Laila Ali only do cheesy pre and postmatch interviews. There is some lame voice over guy who speaks during the action, but his lines consist of bad puns rather than any sort of insightful commentary. Finally, I know it was unlikely but I missed referee Larry Thompson. Interestingly enough, however, I believe the new referee is the guy who played the referee in the Dodgeball movie.
There are also several other new additions which are unwelcome. Most glaring is the excessive time spent on the contestants' personal lives. I don't care if they're a single mother of three or a down on his luck firefighter. The only thing that matters is how well they do in the competition. Their efforts in the games should tell a sufficient story about them. Another annoying thing is the egregious use of instant replay. I don't need to see someone fall from the joust podium five different ways. Between these and the endless amount of pointless interviews, the show feels very bloated. They could easily cut away most of that and have time for another event (they only participate in four before the eliminator right now).
The new version did have a few positives however. The new crop of gladiators seems decent and I like how they've done more to make them distinctive (ie a gladiator with frizzy hair and a beard called Wolf) rather than just "Meathead Gladiator #1" or "Lesbian Gladiator #2). They also added a few new games which all seem decent and sufficiently difficult. I even enjoyed how they added songs in defeat like "Another One Bites the Dust", although I think it should be reserved only for when the gladiator is defeated. Finally, I'll say that the eliminator is badass. It's much longer than any previous version and is a true test of endurance. My only complaint about it is that it is so long and difficult that the time penalty given to the second place contestant heading into the eliminator is rendered moot. As seen a couple of times last night, even a big head start, like 15 seconds, can easily be made up. With this being the case, it makes the contests before the eliminator somewhat pointless.
Given that this was the initial episode, hopefully some changes can and will be made. However, based on what I saw last night, this new version will be on a short leash with me. If no significant changes are made, I may just go back to the 90s version on ESPN Classic.
There are also several other new additions which are unwelcome. Most glaring is the excessive time spent on the contestants' personal lives. I don't care if they're a single mother of three or a down on his luck firefighter. The only thing that matters is how well they do in the competition. Their efforts in the games should tell a sufficient story about them. Another annoying thing is the egregious use of instant replay. I don't need to see someone fall from the joust podium five different ways. Between these and the endless amount of pointless interviews, the show feels very bloated. They could easily cut away most of that and have time for another event (they only participate in four before the eliminator right now).
The new version did have a few positives however. The new crop of gladiators seems decent and I like how they've done more to make them distinctive (ie a gladiator with frizzy hair and a beard called Wolf) rather than just "Meathead Gladiator #1" or "Lesbian Gladiator #2). They also added a few new games which all seem decent and sufficiently difficult. I even enjoyed how they added songs in defeat like "Another One Bites the Dust", although I think it should be reserved only for when the gladiator is defeated. Finally, I'll say that the eliminator is badass. It's much longer than any previous version and is a true test of endurance. My only complaint about it is that it is so long and difficult that the time penalty given to the second place contestant heading into the eliminator is rendered moot. As seen a couple of times last night, even a big head start, like 15 seconds, can easily be made up. With this being the case, it makes the contests before the eliminator somewhat pointless.
Given that this was the initial episode, hopefully some changes can and will be made. However, based on what I saw last night, this new version will be on a short leash with me. If no significant changes are made, I may just go back to the 90s version on ESPN Classic.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
"Favorites" for Survivor:Micronesia announced
An interesting group of 10 alumni have been chosen for the upcoming fans vs. favorites edition of Survivor. Here they are and the original season they were on:
Johnny Fairplay - Pearl Islands
Eliza Orlins - Vanuatu
Ami Cusack - Vanuatu
Cirie Fields - Panama
Ozzy Lusth - Cook Islands
Jonathan Penner - Cook Islands
Parvati Shallow - Cook Islands
Yau Man Chan - Fiji
Amanda Kimmel - China
James Clement - China
I'm not sure if these are the most worthy people to be chosen or ones that the 'fans' will take pleasure in defeating. However, there are some potentially good redemption stories amongst these all stars. Both James and Amanda could have easily won this past season, but blew it; so it will be interesting to see if they correct their mistakes this time. Yau Man's trusting nature screwed him in Fiji, so we'll see how he changes his game. Ozzy is likely to remain a strong challenge player, but will that be enough to have him win. And then there's wild card Fairplay. Certainly everyone will be keen to his cheating ways, so it should be interesting to see how he'll try to pull the wool over their eyes again. I certainly would have loved to see people from the Palau (like Tom or Ian) or Guatemala (like Judd, Rafe or Danni) rather than the annoying women of Vanuatu, but I know that at least in one case (Tom from Palau) that they were invited, but turned it down.
Despite what we may think of the choices, I have no doubt it'll still be a very entertaining season. We can all watch it unfold when Survivor returns on Feb. 7.
Johnny Fairplay - Pearl Islands
Eliza Orlins - Vanuatu
Ami Cusack - Vanuatu
Cirie Fields - Panama
Ozzy Lusth - Cook Islands
Jonathan Penner - Cook Islands
Parvati Shallow - Cook Islands
Yau Man Chan - Fiji
Amanda Kimmel - China
James Clement - China
I'm not sure if these are the most worthy people to be chosen or ones that the 'fans' will take pleasure in defeating. However, there are some potentially good redemption stories amongst these all stars. Both James and Amanda could have easily won this past season, but blew it; so it will be interesting to see if they correct their mistakes this time. Yau Man's trusting nature screwed him in Fiji, so we'll see how he changes his game. Ozzy is likely to remain a strong challenge player, but will that be enough to have him win. And then there's wild card Fairplay. Certainly everyone will be keen to his cheating ways, so it should be interesting to see how he'll try to pull the wool over their eyes again. I certainly would have loved to see people from the Palau (like Tom or Ian) or Guatemala (like Judd, Rafe or Danni) rather than the annoying women of Vanuatu, but I know that at least in one case (Tom from Palau) that they were invited, but turned it down.
Despite what we may think of the choices, I have no doubt it'll still be a very entertaining season. We can all watch it unfold when Survivor returns on Feb. 7.
Good, but not quite Legend...wait for it...ary
Got to squeeze in one more movie before I begin my way back down to Raleigh and saw I Am Legend.
Whether fair or not, I have a tendency to compare new films with ones I have previously seen. The first one that came to mind when watching this was Cast Away. Like Tom Hanks in that film, Will Smith gives a tour de force performance by himself here. It's not easy to play off nothing but inanimate objects, but Smith does it nicely. It's hard to believe the "Fresh Prince" would ever be considered a legitimate actor, but over the past few years he's really exhibited some excellent acting chops. The film does a great job of displaying his isolation and you really feel the anguish he's in as a result of this situation.
Another film that I was reminded of was War of the Worlds. This was mostly because of the few flashback scenes that showed people trying to leave the infected area of New York. What I noticed in the comparison between the two films was that this one in just a few scenes did a better job of showing mass panic related to a worldwide catastrophe. This film succeeded in showing the pain everyone was in as a result of the situation, while WotW was primarily another egostroke picture for Tom Cruise.
But the film that I think is most comparable to this one was Signs. What's interesting is that they took two different approaches to the same idea. In Signs the goal seemed to be to bludgeoning us over with theme and making sure we understood the main character's motivations. The creatures in that film were secondary. On the other hand, I felt that I Am Legend spent too much time with its Dark Seeker creatures. At times, the film came dangerously close to being a simple, cheesy horror flick.
While I have not read Matheson's short story that the film was based on, but my instinct says that it was a bit more complex and cerebral than the film made it out to be. There are some obvious themes of science vs. faith touched upon in the film, yet they are not given the adequate time to make them feel worthwhile. It seems to me that if you're content with being a simple thriller than they shouldn't even bother with those ideas to begin with. Ideally, though I'd like to see a film that would find a good balance between I Am Legend and Signs.
There are several aspects of the film that I liked, but also felt they could have used expansion. For instance, I would have loved to see more of Robert Neville's life in isolation. The scenes we got were very poignant and deserved more time. I also believed that more flashback scenes would have been helpful. Seeing more about how the virus developed and how those involved with it dealt with it, would have provided more impact to the film's final scenes.
Without giving too much away, when Neville begins to question whether there are other survivors or not, we're not given enough to understand why Neville holds such beliefs. It is these motivations which ultimately lead to Neville's major heroic act, yet it does not pack the emotional punch that it deserves because of that lack of a backstory.
Since the film decides to focus more on the monsters than character development, it should be credited for delivering some legitimate scares. There are several scenes which literally made me jump in my seat. Just thinking about living in a world like that gives me chills. And I don't think I'll ever listen to Bob Marley's 'Three Little Birds' the same way again. The bottom line here is that if you are looking for a good thriller, than this is a really good film to go check out.
In the end, the film is quality entertainment, but it may not be exactly what you expect. I believe based on the sufficient thrills and chills and the exceptional performance by Will Smith, I can give this an easy recommendation. I expect that when I'm looking for decent popcorn fare, I won't have a problem watching this again. If I desire something that require me to think more, however, I may opt for something else. Grade: B
Whether fair or not, I have a tendency to compare new films with ones I have previously seen. The first one that came to mind when watching this was Cast Away. Like Tom Hanks in that film, Will Smith gives a tour de force performance by himself here. It's not easy to play off nothing but inanimate objects, but Smith does it nicely. It's hard to believe the "Fresh Prince" would ever be considered a legitimate actor, but over the past few years he's really exhibited some excellent acting chops. The film does a great job of displaying his isolation and you really feel the anguish he's in as a result of this situation.
Another film that I was reminded of was War of the Worlds. This was mostly because of the few flashback scenes that showed people trying to leave the infected area of New York. What I noticed in the comparison between the two films was that this one in just a few scenes did a better job of showing mass panic related to a worldwide catastrophe. This film succeeded in showing the pain everyone was in as a result of the situation, while WotW was primarily another egostroke picture for Tom Cruise.
But the film that I think is most comparable to this one was Signs. What's interesting is that they took two different approaches to the same idea. In Signs the goal seemed to be to bludgeoning us over with theme and making sure we understood the main character's motivations. The creatures in that film were secondary. On the other hand, I felt that I Am Legend spent too much time with its Dark Seeker creatures. At times, the film came dangerously close to being a simple, cheesy horror flick.
While I have not read Matheson's short story that the film was based on, but my instinct says that it was a bit more complex and cerebral than the film made it out to be. There are some obvious themes of science vs. faith touched upon in the film, yet they are not given the adequate time to make them feel worthwhile. It seems to me that if you're content with being a simple thriller than they shouldn't even bother with those ideas to begin with. Ideally, though I'd like to see a film that would find a good balance between I Am Legend and Signs.
There are several aspects of the film that I liked, but also felt they could have used expansion. For instance, I would have loved to see more of Robert Neville's life in isolation. The scenes we got were very poignant and deserved more time. I also believed that more flashback scenes would have been helpful. Seeing more about how the virus developed and how those involved with it dealt with it, would have provided more impact to the film's final scenes.
Without giving too much away, when Neville begins to question whether there are other survivors or not, we're not given enough to understand why Neville holds such beliefs. It is these motivations which ultimately lead to Neville's major heroic act, yet it does not pack the emotional punch that it deserves because of that lack of a backstory.
Since the film decides to focus more on the monsters than character development, it should be credited for delivering some legitimate scares. There are several scenes which literally made me jump in my seat. Just thinking about living in a world like that gives me chills. And I don't think I'll ever listen to Bob Marley's 'Three Little Birds' the same way again. The bottom line here is that if you are looking for a good thriller, than this is a really good film to go check out.
In the end, the film is quality entertainment, but it may not be exactly what you expect. I believe based on the sufficient thrills and chills and the exceptional performance by Will Smith, I can give this an easy recommendation. I expect that when I'm looking for decent popcorn fare, I won't have a problem watching this again. If I desire something that require me to think more, however, I may opt for something else. Grade: B
Monday, December 31, 2007
Oh thank heaven, it's the end of 2007
Sorry for the lack of posts this month. Here's hoping for more time to post stuff in 2008. Then again, with my dissertation looming, I'm not sure if that will happen. But that's why we celebrate the new year, to establish unrealistic goals for ourselves.
Anyway, here's hoping everyone has a great 2008! Happy New Year!!
Browns bummer
The magical year in Cleveland sports came to an unfortunate end yesterday as the Browns missed out on the playoffs thanks to the Titans defeating the Colts. Granted it's the Browns' fault for not winning last week, but it still hurts to have to watch another team determine your team's fate. This is pretty much the definition of a bittersweet season as the Browns far exceeded everyone's expectations and we should be happy with that, but you hate being the only double digit winning team not to make the playoffs.
Now as we head into the offseason, the team faces a lot of big questions; namely what to do at the quarterback position. If they can resign Derek Anderson, it seems like he should remain the starter. Then again, his performance in that important game against Cincinnati makes me wonder if he's got what it takes to win the big one.
Even though the Browns won't make the playoffs, I can take solace in the fact that spring training is only a month and half away. Seeing the Tribe in Florida will eliminate those winter blahs right away.
Now as we head into the offseason, the team faces a lot of big questions; namely what to do at the quarterback position. If they can resign Derek Anderson, it seems like he should remain the starter. Then again, his performance in that important game against Cincinnati makes me wonder if he's got what it takes to win the big one.
Even though the Browns won't make the playoffs, I can take solace in the fact that spring training is only a month and half away. Seeing the Tribe in Florida will eliminate those winter blahs right away.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
All That's Gold Isn't New Again
With a free afternoon, I went with my sister to see National Treasure: Book of Secrets. I saw the first film in theaters and enjoyed it, while my sister only saw it for the first time a few weeks ago on TV. Interestingly enough, we both left this movie with a similar opinion; the film is pretty comparable to the original, but that isn't necessarily a glowing review.
What worked in the first one, remains in Book of Secrets. Namely, the escapism the film provides in proposing wild ideas of treasure and conspiracies and then letting the heroes struggle with bad guys to prove it's true. Nicholas Cage, once again playing Ben Gates, works as the treasure hunter who always has the answer to the puzzles that have been unsolved for centuries. Justin Bartha, as Gates' sidekick, Riley, once again provides most of the decent one liners.
Since we're dealing with a sequel, that means the addition of new cast members. Dame Helen Mirren (who must have accidentally stumbled onto the set of this Bruckheimer film) is along this time as Gates' mother. Her scenes with Ben's dad (played by Jon Voigt) are a lot of fun and provide some freshness to the film.
I mention freshness because this film delivers a lot more of the same. In essence, the film is a simple "find clue, decipher clue, get chased, repeat" formula. Sadly, this time around there was more of a focus on the chase aspect, which left less time to decipher clues. While in the original, the main characters actually struggled at times to understand the clues, in this one the answers came a little too quickly. Considering that the treasure they were seeking was supposedly so grand (it ends up paling in comparison to the one they found in the first film), the clues used to conceal its location didn't seen that difficult.
The fact that this sequel breeds a strong sense of familiarity wouldn't be that bad if not for the few things that they opted to do differently. Given that the plot was the same basic idea, they tried to flesh out the main characters more. For instance, we learn at the beginning of the film that Ben and girlfriend Abigail (Diane Kruger) are having relationship issues. Their bickering and eventual reunion are an unnecessary diversion in the film. They also include a few scenes to imply that Riley is unhappy with his sidekick status. These add nothing to the film and only slow things down. People come to see these films because they like a good treasure hunt, not because they have any emotional investment into what happens to these particular characters. In fact, with all due respect to Diane Kruger, the National Treasure franchise may have been better off taking an approach like the Bond films or Clive Cussler's Dirk Pitt novels where the focus is on the action and the hot girls are interchangeable.
Since they seemed concerned with developing characters, I would have liked for them to do more with Ed Harris', who plays the film's antagonist. The film never takes the time to have us understand his motivations. If it's to simply find the treasure, why does he involve the Gates family? If it's to ruin the Gates' family name, then why give Ben such a great opportunity to discover the truth? The underdevelopment of Harris' character is connected with the films flaw of properly explaining the connection between the Lincoln assaination and a hidden Native American city of gold.
The flaws of the film, great as they may be, as easily to overlook, however, because the film remains a fun ride. Seeing Ben and company globetrotting while trying to uncover secrets of our nation's past makes for an entertaining couple of hours. The film does not bring anything new to the table, but then again, not all movies should. This is an easy must-see for those who enjoyed the first film. And for those that haven't, this is still probably your best bet for decent popcorn fare at the cinema right now. Enjoy going on another treasure hunt, just don't be surprised if the map looks awfully familiar. Grade: B-
What worked in the first one, remains in Book of Secrets. Namely, the escapism the film provides in proposing wild ideas of treasure and conspiracies and then letting the heroes struggle with bad guys to prove it's true. Nicholas Cage, once again playing Ben Gates, works as the treasure hunter who always has the answer to the puzzles that have been unsolved for centuries. Justin Bartha, as Gates' sidekick, Riley, once again provides most of the decent one liners.
Since we're dealing with a sequel, that means the addition of new cast members. Dame Helen Mirren (who must have accidentally stumbled onto the set of this Bruckheimer film) is along this time as Gates' mother. Her scenes with Ben's dad (played by Jon Voigt) are a lot of fun and provide some freshness to the film.
I mention freshness because this film delivers a lot more of the same. In essence, the film is a simple "find clue, decipher clue, get chased, repeat" formula. Sadly, this time around there was more of a focus on the chase aspect, which left less time to decipher clues. While in the original, the main characters actually struggled at times to understand the clues, in this one the answers came a little too quickly. Considering that the treasure they were seeking was supposedly so grand (it ends up paling in comparison to the one they found in the first film), the clues used to conceal its location didn't seen that difficult.
The fact that this sequel breeds a strong sense of familiarity wouldn't be that bad if not for the few things that they opted to do differently. Given that the plot was the same basic idea, they tried to flesh out the main characters more. For instance, we learn at the beginning of the film that Ben and girlfriend Abigail (Diane Kruger) are having relationship issues. Their bickering and eventual reunion are an unnecessary diversion in the film. They also include a few scenes to imply that Riley is unhappy with his sidekick status. These add nothing to the film and only slow things down. People come to see these films because they like a good treasure hunt, not because they have any emotional investment into what happens to these particular characters. In fact, with all due respect to Diane Kruger, the National Treasure franchise may have been better off taking an approach like the Bond films or Clive Cussler's Dirk Pitt novels where the focus is on the action and the hot girls are interchangeable.
Since they seemed concerned with developing characters, I would have liked for them to do more with Ed Harris', who plays the film's antagonist. The film never takes the time to have us understand his motivations. If it's to simply find the treasure, why does he involve the Gates family? If it's to ruin the Gates' family name, then why give Ben such a great opportunity to discover the truth? The underdevelopment of Harris' character is connected with the films flaw of properly explaining the connection between the Lincoln assaination and a hidden Native American city of gold.
The flaws of the film, great as they may be, as easily to overlook, however, because the film remains a fun ride. Seeing Ben and company globetrotting while trying to uncover secrets of our nation's past makes for an entertaining couple of hours. The film does not bring anything new to the table, but then again, not all movies should. This is an easy must-see for those who enjoyed the first film. And for those that haven't, this is still probably your best bet for decent popcorn fare at the cinema right now. Enjoy going on another treasure hunt, just don't be surprised if the map looks awfully familiar. Grade: B-
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Merry Christmas
I probably won't be on my computer over the next few days, so I just wanted to send warm holiday wishes to all of my readers out there. I hope Santa is kind to all of you. If you in the Ohio area, I look forward to getting a chance to seeing you over this holiday break. And if I don't, I hope you get a chance to enjoy the time off.
As for me, I got my Christmas present early this year as I just receivied notice that one of my papers has been accepted at the Kern Conference on Visual Rhetoric. The conference will be in Rochester, NY next April. I submitted this paper individually instead of as a panel, so its acceptance is even a greater honor. You don't understand how pumped I am over that news.
Anyways, enjoy the holidays and be safe!!
As for me, I got my Christmas present early this year as I just receivied notice that one of my papers has been accepted at the Kern Conference on Visual Rhetoric. The conference will be in Rochester, NY next April. I submitted this paper individually instead of as a panel, so its acceptance is even a greater honor. You don't understand how pumped I am over that news.
Anyways, enjoy the holidays and be safe!!
Saturday, December 15, 2007
This week in frivolous lawsuits...
Case #1: Woman sues The Price is Right - Apparently, the car this woman won on TPIR in 2004 turned out to be a lemon. Why she is suing the game show when it's the dealer's responsibiilty to give her a new car is beyond me.
Case #2: Couple claims Heroes ripped them off - Apparently, this husband and wife team claim that they came up with the whole 'artist who can paint the future' concept. Don't worry though, the judge has already thrown this case out.
Case #3: Bodybuilder slaps Conan O'Brien with lawsuit - Apparently, a former Mr. Olympia competitor is upset because of a joke Conan did where he used the bodybuilder's image in a a fake Christmas card depicting Clay Aiken saying "All I want this year is a White Christmas...and a black bodybuilder". If I was the bodybuilder, I would have been thrilled Conan didn't make any meathead or small testicle jokes.
So which is lawsuit is the most ridiculous???
Case #2: Couple claims Heroes ripped them off - Apparently, this husband and wife team claim that they came up with the whole 'artist who can paint the future' concept. Don't worry though, the judge has already thrown this case out.
Case #3: Bodybuilder slaps Conan O'Brien with lawsuit - Apparently, a former Mr. Olympia competitor is upset because of a joke Conan did where he used the bodybuilder's image in a a fake Christmas card depicting Clay Aiken saying "All I want this year is a White Christmas...and a black bodybuilder". If I was the bodybuilder, I would have been thrilled Conan didn't make any meathead or small testicle jokes.
So which is lawsuit is the most ridiculous???
Friday, December 14, 2007
A whole lotta noise
After a disasterous week, school-wise (which still isn't over unfortunately) I needed to take a break, so I caught a late show at the budget theater and saw Shoot 'Em Up. In one way, it was probably an excellent movie at this point, because the film was anything but cerebral.
I knew going in that the drawing point of this movie was the unapologetic shootout scenes. And for the most part, they delivered. This movie is chock full of ridiculous gunplay and violence. On top of that, they are all done in a highly stylized manner that is not seen in most films. As impressive as they are, they can only take the movie so far. Anybody can sit in their basement thinking up unique ways to shoot at people while defying the laws of physics. But if you have nothing to hold those scenes together with, then they are wasted. In the case of this movie, what connects those action scenes together is a bunch of eye-rolling coincidences that are supposed to be considered plot points.
If you don't know at this point, the "premise" of the film is that Clive Owen plays a mysterious man, named Mr. Smith, who happens to run into a pregnant woman who is being hunted by hitman. The woman is killed, but not before giving birth to a boy, who Clive Owen decides he must protect while taking out the mother's killers. The rest of the movie then is a bunch of *surprise* shoot em up scenes between Smith and the bad guys. Oh yeah, and he finds Monica Bellucci, playing a hooker, along the way and has her help him watch the baby.
The reason why the bad guys - led by Paul Giamatti, doing his best to ham it up - want the baby dead is utterly preposterous, but I suppose it doesn't matter in a movie like this. Although it really should considering that we're watching Smith go to these extreme lengths to save it.
I'm not surprised that this movie did poorly at the box office. I cannot imagine any woman who would want to see this movie. They would all be horrified at all of the scenes in which the baby is in harm's way while Smith and the bad guys shoot it out. You would think that you would get desensitized to it after a while, but with the way they continue to amp up the violence throughout the movie that each scene is just as jarring as the first.
This movie reminded me in a lot of ways to another violently graphic film this year, Smokin' Aces. Both films gave off the appearance that they had a unique story surrounded by even more unique violence. But in each case, they were more content with firing off their weapons then having anything to say. Unlike the wounds of the victims of this movies, the story remains skin deep.
If you're in the mood for blood lust, this movie will easily satisfy your appetite. For anyone looking for a more fulfilling experience, you're better off looking elsewhere. Shoot Em Up is nothing more than a showcase for boys and their toys. Consider this one a major disappointment. Grade: C-
I knew going in that the drawing point of this movie was the unapologetic shootout scenes. And for the most part, they delivered. This movie is chock full of ridiculous gunplay and violence. On top of that, they are all done in a highly stylized manner that is not seen in most films. As impressive as they are, they can only take the movie so far. Anybody can sit in their basement thinking up unique ways to shoot at people while defying the laws of physics. But if you have nothing to hold those scenes together with, then they are wasted. In the case of this movie, what connects those action scenes together is a bunch of eye-rolling coincidences that are supposed to be considered plot points.
If you don't know at this point, the "premise" of the film is that Clive Owen plays a mysterious man, named Mr. Smith, who happens to run into a pregnant woman who is being hunted by hitman. The woman is killed, but not before giving birth to a boy, who Clive Owen decides he must protect while taking out the mother's killers. The rest of the movie then is a bunch of *surprise* shoot em up scenes between Smith and the bad guys. Oh yeah, and he finds Monica Bellucci, playing a hooker, along the way and has her help him watch the baby.
The reason why the bad guys - led by Paul Giamatti, doing his best to ham it up - want the baby dead is utterly preposterous, but I suppose it doesn't matter in a movie like this. Although it really should considering that we're watching Smith go to these extreme lengths to save it.
I'm not surprised that this movie did poorly at the box office. I cannot imagine any woman who would want to see this movie. They would all be horrified at all of the scenes in which the baby is in harm's way while Smith and the bad guys shoot it out. You would think that you would get desensitized to it after a while, but with the way they continue to amp up the violence throughout the movie that each scene is just as jarring as the first.
This movie reminded me in a lot of ways to another violently graphic film this year, Smokin' Aces. Both films gave off the appearance that they had a unique story surrounded by even more unique violence. But in each case, they were more content with firing off their weapons then having anything to say. Unlike the wounds of the victims of this movies, the story remains skin deep.
If you're in the mood for blood lust, this movie will easily satisfy your appetite. For anyone looking for a more fulfilling experience, you're better off looking elsewhere. Shoot Em Up is nothing more than a showcase for boys and their toys. Consider this one a major disappointment. Grade: C-
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Lost Season 4 trailer
If I didn't have these damn papers to write, I would spend time breaking down each scene frame by frame. But since I have to be a "good student", I'll leave that up to the rest of you.
Enjoy!
Friday, December 7, 2007
Will Ferrell is a basketball player
Here's the trailer for Will's latest comedy, Semi-Pro:
The trailer had its moments and I'm likely to go see it, but after watching it, I couldn't help but be reminded of this clip from South Park:
The trailer had its moments and I'm likely to go see it, but after watching it, I couldn't help but be reminded of this clip from South Park:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)