It's been a while since I bothered with an entry here. So why am I back now? Because I have seen a movie that I just can't help but to scream about.
Balboa.
Sylvester Stallone has truly fashioned a masterpiece film and has sent Rocky to the anals of film lore with a touching, personal and deeply moving film. Like his fictional character Stallone faced an endless series of uphill battles to get this film made and, despite a fizzled career, actually risked quite a bit in this endeavor. He could have wound up a laughing stock, people were pointing and shaking their heads when announced the project was announced without knowing a thing about it. But Stallone has courage and, apparently, integrity. He believed in the film and he believed that Rocky Balboa deserved a closing chapter to a saga everyone in America is familiar with.
It's a fascintating parralel between Balboa and his creator. Stallone faced the same hurdles in getting the original Rocky made. No one believed in him, people laughed, and finally someone offered to buy the script and cast Rocky. Stallone said no. He was dirt poor, he needed the cash, but deep down he knew he was meant to play Rocky. It was his baby and he was so emotionally invested in it that he turned down a significant amount of money to do what was right for his creation.
And now, 3 decades later, he followed the very same path. And I couldn't be happier that he did.
Balboa gives us an aging champion, a guy that was the poster boy for fame and fortune, and shows us a vulnerable, aging side of him that is ugly to think about be beautiful to watch. Reduced to owning a small restaurant and regaling his patrons with the same boxing stories over and over, Balboa is leading a lonely existence in a small, run down apartment. He mourns his lost wife but doesn't seem to miss the lime light or the money. But somehow he knows he isn't finished, there's fight left in him and he doesn't want it to end in a pit of despair and self-pity. That's not how Rocky takes on life.
Beautifully filmed and acted Balboa takes us to places in Rocky's life that go well beyond a cliched love story, well beyond a good vs. evil boxing match, it takes to the darkest spots in an aging mans soul and shows us truly what this guy is made of. It's a story of loss, it's a story of courage and more than that, it's an insighful and moving statement of the human condition. Stallone has written and epic ending to a legendary film franchise and he's more than done it justice.
Being written and directed by Stallone, Balboa is truly one mans vision come to life. Some say rocky is actually Stallone, that he has projected himself that much onto the screen, injected himself directly into the character. Perhaps he has, that would explain that exquisite connection Stallone has to this character, and maybe Rocky is so popular because there's a little of everyone up there. Rocky manages to tap into a part of his soul that we all have but just can't seem to access as readily as Balboa does.
So strong is the story that Stallone doesn't need to invent an evil nemesis. His rival, Mason Dixon, is a youg, cocky and a little misunderstood, but he's not a villian. None the less Balboa manages to create a nice, believable underdog story. All this while examining his complex and fractured relationship with a son that does not seem to have inherited Rocky's world view or tough streak. All this while examining his ongoing relationship with his departed wife, while examining Paulies sad and miserable last days filled with regrets.
Balboa is as fitting an end to this iconic character as could have been written. It's gritty, wonderfully directed and will be a classic. Much like Rocky Balboa after his last fight Stallone can look at his critics, at all those who laughed in his face when he pitched Balboa, and say, "No one's laughing now." Good for you Sly. So long Rocky, we love ya'.
Friday, December 22, 2006
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Religion of Peace
Ah, Islam, the Religion of peace, strikes again. Taking exception to the Pope's reading of someone else's words, not his own words, peaceful Muslims are attacking churches, shooting nuns and burning people in effigy. Can you feel the tolerance and peace of Islam now? No? Smack. Kick. Punch. Now can you feel our peace infidel? If you don't admite we are peaceful, we'll blow you up!
"Seven churches in the West Bank and Gaza were attacked following Benedict's comments."
More tolerance and peace? Isn't it strange how muslims the world over can insult Christians and Jews constantly without touching off fires, explosions, murders and calls for assasinations. And how the left of this country never demands apology from any of the people in the Islamic world that routinely bash Christianity and Judaism, that routinely preech and practice intolerance and that seek to destroy anyone not agreeing with their religion of peace. But let the Pope insult Muslims and watch out, we need apologies, we need grovelling. Why, how dare you accidentally insult the worlds most insulting and intolerant religion. Bash Christianity all you want but don't dare insult Muslims or the liberals will demand apology. Cowards.
I'm tired of the Muslims being offended and protesting something once a week. IF you're Muslim and you didn't like the Pope's speech..tough shit. Get over it. Don't like some cartoons? Tough shit. Stop blowing stuff up and perhaps you'd find more acceptance for the most violent, oops, peaceful, religion of our lifetime. Stop whining Muslims. You bring this on yourselves with your routine intolerance and the endless calls for someone's head.
Attacking churches, shooting nuns, calling for the pope to be tried as a criminal in Turkey, burning things, calling for his death. Very peaceful. Stop trying to fool people and just put it out there: If we don't agree with you, you'll kill people. Stop the whining and the burning of innocent towels (although my stock in Bed, Bath and Beyond does go up everytime they do) and stop the dancing in the streets everytime you shoot someone. The Pope owes no apology for expressing the opinion of someone else in a speech and he need not fear for his safety. IF the Pope called for apologies and beheadings everytime Christianty was slandered by someone in the Muslim world it would be a full time job. Islam may not be the most peaceful religion, but at least it's hypocritical.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Soccer Leagues and Sissifying America
I recently began a stint coaching my sons soccer team and I have discovered that, in this league at least, sports aren't what they used to be.
In Americas on-going effort to feminize everyone and avoid a hurt feeling at any and all costs, youth sports have been reduced to glorified scrimmages where nothing is learned. Once a great place to learn life lessons, the intricacies of a sport and to keep in shape, today's feminized and psycho-babbled sporting endaveors are nearing irrelevancy.
In this league no one is allowed, of course, to keep score. I'm not sure when this trend started but it stinks. I know, you can't encourage, God forbid, competion or instill a sense of wanting to win. That would be horrible. But the real tragedy is this: Sports have an important role in teaching life lessons and as we sissify them in accordance with some psycho-babbling idiots rules we lose that. Kids need to learn how to win. They also need to learn how to lose. Those are important and unavoidable facts of life. You must understand how to win with grace and lose with dignity. You should take satisfaction in giving 100% and falling short. You should respect an opponent that gives their all but doesn't quite get the best of you. You should also know what you did wrong so that you can understand what it takes to get better, to work hard and earn the victory next time out. It's how people improve themselves. But no, now we teach that everyone's a winner so, in conlusion, winning takes no effort. You are, by virtue of setting foot on the field, a winner. Sounds nice doesn't it? Too bad it isn't grounded in realty. Too bad that a player can realize someday much later in life that he never learned the skills he needed to be good at the sport because he never realized he wasn't winning.
This new approach to sports is startling to me. The mother's gather round like a social event and ask me who is bringing snacks next time. Snacks? Do we need snack time during a game now? Why, I wonder, are kids increasingly obese? Well, they aren't allowed to compete, they aren't allowed to experience the thrill of victory, they aren't allowed to experience the sting of defeat so that they can take steps to not experience it again, and they're given snack time during games. Is it any wonder they just meander around the field in a daze not caring? One thing that does not exist in this touchy-feely league is 100% effort.
Here's another great innovation: There are no benches. There are no boundries between parents and players. When I was growing up if you weren't playing you sat on the bench with your team and cheered them on, you stayed involved and invested in the game. In this league when a player isn't in they just wander over to where their parents are sitting and sit in portable lawn chairs eating Cheetos and Teddy Grahams. It's the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen to watch these kids scatter around the field and sit with mom and dad, munching away, rather than sitting together. There is no sense of team.
I was also informed recently that the coaches aren't supposed to coach during the games. What? You can cheer them on, sunbstitute the players, but not correct them. So they aren't supposed to learn anything then? You can't tell them what they did wrong and right? How absurd is this? The feminization of America has stormed onto the soccer fields and reduced them to events where fat kids wander around aimlessly or sit by their parents but they do not compete and they, despite what the mothers think, they do not win. They're just sort of there.
We don't have goalies either. Everyone should score, there needs to be more scoring lest the kid that can't shoot feel badly. God forbid he practices shooting until he's good--clearly that is just asking too much for it might cause hurt feelings. Never mind that some of these kids are interested in being goal keepers and have now had their development stunted by the feminization of soccer. Sorry kid, you can't learn that position, we must preserve peoples feelings first and foremost. If that means that you don't acquire the neccessary skills to succeed at a position that interests you until it's too late, well tough. Go sit with your mom and eat Cheetos like the rest of them.
This approach, this dumbing down of the game, is an abomination and teaches kids that nothing matters. Why practice and get good? Why work hard to improve yourself when everyone scores and everyone wins? What's the point? And what happens when you grow up and discover that yes, sometimes people lose in life. And sometimes they have to improve themselves to see to it that losing doesn't occur often. What of the kids who never have this goal of improvement instilled in them?
This bizarre culture in which everyone is supposed to win has had just the opposite effect. Everyone loses.
In Americas on-going effort to feminize everyone and avoid a hurt feeling at any and all costs, youth sports have been reduced to glorified scrimmages where nothing is learned. Once a great place to learn life lessons, the intricacies of a sport and to keep in shape, today's feminized and psycho-babbled sporting endaveors are nearing irrelevancy.
In this league no one is allowed, of course, to keep score. I'm not sure when this trend started but it stinks. I know, you can't encourage, God forbid, competion or instill a sense of wanting to win. That would be horrible. But the real tragedy is this: Sports have an important role in teaching life lessons and as we sissify them in accordance with some psycho-babbling idiots rules we lose that. Kids need to learn how to win. They also need to learn how to lose. Those are important and unavoidable facts of life. You must understand how to win with grace and lose with dignity. You should take satisfaction in giving 100% and falling short. You should respect an opponent that gives their all but doesn't quite get the best of you. You should also know what you did wrong so that you can understand what it takes to get better, to work hard and earn the victory next time out. It's how people improve themselves. But no, now we teach that everyone's a winner so, in conlusion, winning takes no effort. You are, by virtue of setting foot on the field, a winner. Sounds nice doesn't it? Too bad it isn't grounded in realty. Too bad that a player can realize someday much later in life that he never learned the skills he needed to be good at the sport because he never realized he wasn't winning.
This new approach to sports is startling to me. The mother's gather round like a social event and ask me who is bringing snacks next time. Snacks? Do we need snack time during a game now? Why, I wonder, are kids increasingly obese? Well, they aren't allowed to compete, they aren't allowed to experience the thrill of victory, they aren't allowed to experience the sting of defeat so that they can take steps to not experience it again, and they're given snack time during games. Is it any wonder they just meander around the field in a daze not caring? One thing that does not exist in this touchy-feely league is 100% effort.
Here's another great innovation: There are no benches. There are no boundries between parents and players. When I was growing up if you weren't playing you sat on the bench with your team and cheered them on, you stayed involved and invested in the game. In this league when a player isn't in they just wander over to where their parents are sitting and sit in portable lawn chairs eating Cheetos and Teddy Grahams. It's the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen to watch these kids scatter around the field and sit with mom and dad, munching away, rather than sitting together. There is no sense of team.
I was also informed recently that the coaches aren't supposed to coach during the games. What? You can cheer them on, sunbstitute the players, but not correct them. So they aren't supposed to learn anything then? You can't tell them what they did wrong and right? How absurd is this? The feminization of America has stormed onto the soccer fields and reduced them to events where fat kids wander around aimlessly or sit by their parents but they do not compete and they, despite what the mothers think, they do not win. They're just sort of there.
We don't have goalies either. Everyone should score, there needs to be more scoring lest the kid that can't shoot feel badly. God forbid he practices shooting until he's good--clearly that is just asking too much for it might cause hurt feelings. Never mind that some of these kids are interested in being goal keepers and have now had their development stunted by the feminization of soccer. Sorry kid, you can't learn that position, we must preserve peoples feelings first and foremost. If that means that you don't acquire the neccessary skills to succeed at a position that interests you until it's too late, well tough. Go sit with your mom and eat Cheetos like the rest of them.
This approach, this dumbing down of the game, is an abomination and teaches kids that nothing matters. Why practice and get good? Why work hard to improve yourself when everyone scores and everyone wins? What's the point? And what happens when you grow up and discover that yes, sometimes people lose in life. And sometimes they have to improve themselves to see to it that losing doesn't occur often. What of the kids who never have this goal of improvement instilled in them?
This bizarre culture in which everyone is supposed to win has had just the opposite effect. Everyone loses.
People Have Lost It Totally
Just a few minor, noon-movie related gripe this afternoon. Where to start? How about with one of the most insane and silly ideas to come down the pike in years.
Wayne Pacelle, President of the Humane Society of the United States, has decided that we should now refer to dogs as "Canine Americans." Also, pet ownership laws should be renamed as Animal Guardianship Laws. You see, animals are equalt to humans and to refer to them as being owned is simply unthinkable. Stories like this seem increasingly common lately. When did idiots like Mr. Pacelle get such a loud voice? Isn't the rest of the village supposed to tune out the idiot? Or at point and laugh at him? Canine Americans? Feline Americans? It seems we are led further and further off the deep end by the wackos with a voice every single day.
Wayne Pacelle, President of the Humane Society of the United States, has decided that we should now refer to dogs as "Canine Americans." Also, pet ownership laws should be renamed as Animal Guardianship Laws. You see, animals are equalt to humans and to refer to them as being owned is simply unthinkable. Stories like this seem increasingly common lately. When did idiots like Mr. Pacelle get such a loud voice? Isn't the rest of the village supposed to tune out the idiot? Or at point and laugh at him? Canine Americans? Feline Americans? It seems we are led further and further off the deep end by the wackos with a voice every single day.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Crocodile Tears
The passing of Steve Irwin, the Crocodile Hunter, was a tragic event and the world has lost an incredible person. Irwin, 44, was passionate about what he did and enormously dedicated to his work. Sure children loved him, but people of all ages could learn a little about what it means to give yourself over to something you care about as Irwin did all of his adult life. Most of us would count our blessings if we found a calling we could be that passionate about—and work we could be that proud of doing.
Irwin had a way about him, his smile was infectious and his zest for the animal world irresistible. People say he took chances, and clearly he did, but those same people should remember that Irwin was raised around dangerous animal; to him it was just a way of life and those animals were just as much a part of his world as people. From a young age he cared for them, rescued them, studied them and interacted with them. Was it dangerous? Sure it was. But it came naturally to Irwin and one had the clear sense that for him to stop interacting with nature would have been unthinkable. He passed his zeal for wildlife on to millions of children and had hoped to hand it down to his own—he tried to teach people to understand animals, to be cautious of them certainly, but to at least study them.
The bottom line is the world could use more people as passionate about something as Irwin was. More people with the kind of determination, fearlessness and dedication exemplified by the Crocodile Hunter. Steve Irwin, you will be sorely missed. Here’s hoping that where ever you are all the fantastic mysteries of the animal kingdom have been revealed to you. Enjoy.
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Cultist Tom Cruise Given the Boot
Tom Cruise's antics have finally cost him and it has become increasingly clear just how badly his image has been mangled. Paramount Pictures dumped Cruise, despite his string of 7 straight 100 million dollar movies, because they believe the actors craziness has cost the studio ticket sales. It's an amazing example of what negative publicity can do when left unchecked.
Cruise is a member of a cult, Scientology, and has been on display publicy espousing their virtues and acting the madman for quite some time. And Katie Holmes and her bizarre indoctrination into the cult has only hurt him more.
Consider that Cruise is no spring chicken anymore. Kids heading for college this fall don't remember him from his prime. To them he's just some old guy. This last period in his career was his chance to connect with the younger audience and establish himself again-instread he just went insane, touted the virtues of a cult, made it appear as though Katie Holmes was brainwashed and zombified and cost himself an entire demographic.
I really don't think Cruise has the presence of mind to know how badly his image has suffered. It's bordering on irreperable. For those of us that remember Risky Business, All The Right Moves, The Firm and all the other movies that made him famous in his 20's it's kind of sad. But imagine how it looks to the audience that doesn't remember what he used to be like. Now imagine how hard it would be to try establishing that kind of image all all over again. In the current climate. Forget it. Cruise is done.
While we're on the subject of Tom Cruise, I think the one thing that no one in the media seems to mention in conjunction with his string of 100 million dollar movies is that his movies also have the biggest budgets. What we need to know is how much the studio profited, not just how much the film grossed, if we are to really judge Cruise's ability to make studio executives rich. If a movie costs, as MI: III did, 150 million to make, add to that a 40 or 50 million dollar marketing budget, what good does it do a studio to rake in 210 million? And if Cruise wasn't a nutty cultist could the film have made much more?
I speculated a while back, before MI: III semi-bombed, that his career was going to unravel. Seems like it's just beginning.
Cruise is a member of a cult, Scientology, and has been on display publicy espousing their virtues and acting the madman for quite some time. And Katie Holmes and her bizarre indoctrination into the cult has only hurt him more.
Consider that Cruise is no spring chicken anymore. Kids heading for college this fall don't remember him from his prime. To them he's just some old guy. This last period in his career was his chance to connect with the younger audience and establish himself again-instread he just went insane, touted the virtues of a cult, made it appear as though Katie Holmes was brainwashed and zombified and cost himself an entire demographic.
I really don't think Cruise has the presence of mind to know how badly his image has suffered. It's bordering on irreperable. For those of us that remember Risky Business, All The Right Moves, The Firm and all the other movies that made him famous in his 20's it's kind of sad. But imagine how it looks to the audience that doesn't remember what he used to be like. Now imagine how hard it would be to try establishing that kind of image all all over again. In the current climate. Forget it. Cruise is done.
While we're on the subject of Tom Cruise, I think the one thing that no one in the media seems to mention in conjunction with his string of 100 million dollar movies is that his movies also have the biggest budgets. What we need to know is how much the studio profited, not just how much the film grossed, if we are to really judge Cruise's ability to make studio executives rich. If a movie costs, as MI: III did, 150 million to make, add to that a 40 or 50 million dollar marketing budget, what good does it do a studio to rake in 210 million? And if Cruise wasn't a nutty cultist could the film have made much more?
I speculated a while back, before MI: III semi-bombed, that his career was going to unravel. Seems like it's just beginning.
Monday, August 21, 2006
Miami Vice and The Descent Capsule Review
Some quick, capsule style reviews from movies I’ve seen recently. I have been running short on time as far as the blogging goes. Hopefully I can get back into it soon enough.
The descent:
This one is simple enough to explain. Go see it. I don’t want to talk too much about it because I went into the movie fairly ignorant of it’s plot and I believe I enjoyed more than I would have had I known what was coming.
The movie is a lot of fun and it likes to surprise you. Let it. Unlike a lot of movies that try to throw you for a loop and fail, Descent actually does a terrific job of keeping you off balance and shocking you. There’s a few twists, a few jump-out-of-your-seat moments and a lot of fun. The writers took the time to set the premise up nicely and it was a fairly brave act. The movie sort of plods along for a while, like as boxer pretending to be slow and stupid, and then POW! Right when it has lulled you to sleep it smacks you in the mouth. The acting is good, the direction is actually pretty interesting with some clever shots and the pacing is absolutely brilliant. I’ve never seen a movie better paced than this, it was perfect. The thing is, had the pacing and the direction not been tight it would have bombed miserably. The Descent is really lightning in a bottle that way. An incompetent director or some shoddy camera work would have made this thing unbearable, instead it was truly awesome.
Miami Vice:
If you’re a fan of the TV series, or an eighties guy like me hungry for some nostalgia, skip it. This movie has none of the cache that the show had, none of the chemistry between the characters, no hip feel to it at all really. They even eschewed some of the great Phil Collins 80’s music in favor of unrecognizable crap.
Jamie Foxx overacted his way into oblivion and Collin Farell actually turned in a very good performance. Both of them were just a bit to somber and serious throughout and for some reason you always got the feeling that they just didn’t like each other very much.
Director Michael Mann showed flashes of his 80’s brilliance, picking some absolutely beautiful Miami acreage to film. He has an amazing knack for capturing the essence of a place that’s hard to explain. The soft colors of the early morning when the harsh neon is still viewable but waning, the late aerial shots of city hemmed in by ocean, the gorgeous late night cityscape; all of that is typical Mann and easy to take for granted. However, no one else does it like Mann. If all I showed you was a quick scene of a man and woman on a roof talking, with the soft light of dawn and the glow of a city behind them, you would instantly think Michael Mann, Miami Vice. It’s almost inexplicable and intangible how he does it—it’s also quite brilliant.
After that the plot becomes over complicated, the love interests too predictable and the relationship between Sonny and Crockett way under developed.
Don’t get me wrong, Miami Vice is enjoyable and has a nice, gritty feel to it. The action is good, Collin Farrel is perfect for it. If it wasn’t called Miami Vice I would be much more excited than I am about it. Unfortunately they set the bar high by announcing a Miami Vice movie and then delivered a product where there was little or no effort to emulate the original. A lot of the fun, trend-setting appeal is missing.
If you didn’t love the show or aren’t familiar with it, you’ll enjoy the movie. I did. But I had to realize early-on that I wasn’t going to be treated to anything Miami Vice like and deal with it.
The descent:
This one is simple enough to explain. Go see it. I don’t want to talk too much about it because I went into the movie fairly ignorant of it’s plot and I believe I enjoyed more than I would have had I known what was coming.
The movie is a lot of fun and it likes to surprise you. Let it. Unlike a lot of movies that try to throw you for a loop and fail, Descent actually does a terrific job of keeping you off balance and shocking you. There’s a few twists, a few jump-out-of-your-seat moments and a lot of fun. The writers took the time to set the premise up nicely and it was a fairly brave act. The movie sort of plods along for a while, like as boxer pretending to be slow and stupid, and then POW! Right when it has lulled you to sleep it smacks you in the mouth. The acting is good, the direction is actually pretty interesting with some clever shots and the pacing is absolutely brilliant. I’ve never seen a movie better paced than this, it was perfect. The thing is, had the pacing and the direction not been tight it would have bombed miserably. The Descent is really lightning in a bottle that way. An incompetent director or some shoddy camera work would have made this thing unbearable, instead it was truly awesome.
Miami Vice:
If you’re a fan of the TV series, or an eighties guy like me hungry for some nostalgia, skip it. This movie has none of the cache that the show had, none of the chemistry between the characters, no hip feel to it at all really. They even eschewed some of the great Phil Collins 80’s music in favor of unrecognizable crap.
Jamie Foxx overacted his way into oblivion and Collin Farell actually turned in a very good performance. Both of them were just a bit to somber and serious throughout and for some reason you always got the feeling that they just didn’t like each other very much.
Director Michael Mann showed flashes of his 80’s brilliance, picking some absolutely beautiful Miami acreage to film. He has an amazing knack for capturing the essence of a place that’s hard to explain. The soft colors of the early morning when the harsh neon is still viewable but waning, the late aerial shots of city hemmed in by ocean, the gorgeous late night cityscape; all of that is typical Mann and easy to take for granted. However, no one else does it like Mann. If all I showed you was a quick scene of a man and woman on a roof talking, with the soft light of dawn and the glow of a city behind them, you would instantly think Michael Mann, Miami Vice. It’s almost inexplicable and intangible how he does it—it’s also quite brilliant.
After that the plot becomes over complicated, the love interests too predictable and the relationship between Sonny and Crockett way under developed.
Don’t get me wrong, Miami Vice is enjoyable and has a nice, gritty feel to it. The action is good, Collin Farrel is perfect for it. If it wasn’t called Miami Vice I would be much more excited than I am about it. Unfortunately they set the bar high by announcing a Miami Vice movie and then delivered a product where there was little or no effort to emulate the original. A lot of the fun, trend-setting appeal is missing.
If you didn’t love the show or aren’t familiar with it, you’ll enjoy the movie. I did. But I had to realize early-on that I wasn’t going to be treated to anything Miami Vice like and deal with it.
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Clerks 2
This one was written quickly, 10 minutes at lunch. My home computer crapped out so any updating I do will have to be done from work. This movie was so funny though, I had to get a review up here. Yes, it's likely full of typos and punctuation mistakes. So what's new? Here it is:
Clerks 2 is destined to join it’s predecessor among the ranks of wildly popular cult classics. Kevin Smith took his sweet time continuing the adventures of Dante and Randall but it was well worth it. The zany life observations, hysterical Jay and Silent Bob routines and general slacker motife are well polished and seem new all over again.
In Clerks 2 Dante find the Quick Stop burning to the ground one morning, forcing him to abandon the dead end job that has held him back for years and wore away what little self esteem he had. Of course, he immediately migrates to another dead end job as a fry cook at a McDonaldsesque franchise called MOOBYS where he is joined by fellow slacker Randall. Hysterically, Jay and Silent Bob take up counsel on the wall outside just as they had perched for years outside the Quick Stop.
In short order we find that Dante is engaged and moving away, all the while having second thoughts about an affair he had with Becky, played by Rosario Dawson. His love life is a microcosm of his life in general as Dante never knows what he wants or what he should do. He lasted 15 years as a clerk at a convenience store because he didn’t know what he wanted to do and here he’s torn between two women, one of whom wants a commitment, and he just can’t make up his mind.
Dante is an interesting character. He’s not lazy in the traditional sense; he’s a hard worker, comes in on his days off, cares about the company and is generally absurdly dedicated to a pithy, meaningless job (like a certain ex-restaurant manager I know). Dante’s problem is he’s intellectually lazy. He wanders through life with no direction and makes no meaningful attempt to orient himself. He doesn’t know what he wants to do and he doesn’t want to think about it. He’s depressed about where he is in life and reluctant to even think about it. It’s a vicious circle.
Perhaps the most interesting thing is that most of us, if we really think about it, have feared at one time or another that we would wind up just like him. Each of us has faced the same life choices Dante does, some of us got caught in a rut for a while trying to make them. When you see Dante you might find him familiar. Chances are you know or knew someone just like him. Chances are even better that you wipe your brow, sigh and think “Phew, I’m glad I pulled myself out of that rut/dead end job. That could’ve been me up there.”
Now Randall, on the other hand, is really just a loser. As amusing as he is he can also irritate. Not nearly as smart as he thinks he is Randall is not only directionless but lazy to boot. He follows Dante around waiting for him to become inspired and succeed, hopefully bringing Randall along for the ride. He sits perched in one dead end place after another hoping to ride Dante’s coat tails. Why he would choose to hitch his cart to the most indecisive lost soul he could is unknowable.
As Dante struggles with his woman troubles, Jay and Silent Bob peddle dope outside and Randall struggles with the thought that his friend/leader is moving out of state, a lot of hilarious stuff happens. Clerks 2 is nothing short of hysterical.
For some reason the fact that Brian O’Halloran and Jeff Anderson can’t really act only adds to the film. It seems a little more real somehow. These characters could easily have become pretentious losers if they felt at all put on but O’Halloran and Anderson seem to bring them to life. Dante and Randall are more than likely the only two characters in the history of film that these two could play convincingly. The convergence of Kevin Smith’s razor sharp wit and these actors is truly lightning in a bottle.
At the end of the day Clerk 2 is funny, satirical and absolutely a winner. You’ll get up and thank God your not Dante but you’ll sure be glad someone is.
Clerks 2
Clerks 2 is destined to join it’s predecessor among the ranks of wildly popular cult classics. Kevin Smith took his sweet time continuing the adventures of Dante and Randall but it was well worth it. The zany life observations, hysterical Jay and Silent Bob routines and general slacker motife are well polished and seem new all over again.
In Clerks 2 Dante find the Quick Stop burning to the ground one morning, forcing him to abandon the dead end job that has held him back for years and wore away what little self esteem he had. Of course, he immediately migrates to another dead end job as a fry cook at a McDonaldsesque franchise called MOOBYS where he is joined by fellow slacker Randall. Hysterically, Jay and Silent Bob take up counsel on the wall outside just as they had perched for years outside the Quick Stop.
In short order we find that Dante is engaged and moving away, all the while having second thoughts about an affair he had with Becky, played by Rosario Dawson. His love life is a microcosm of his life in general as Dante never knows what he wants or what he should do. He lasted 15 years as a clerk at a convenience store because he didn’t know what he wanted to do and here he’s torn between two women, one of whom wants a commitment, and he just can’t make up his mind.
Dante is an interesting character. He’s not lazy in the traditional sense; he’s a hard worker, comes in on his days off, cares about the company and is generally absurdly dedicated to a pithy, meaningless job (like a certain ex-restaurant manager I know). Dante’s problem is he’s intellectually lazy. He wanders through life with no direction and makes no meaningful attempt to orient himself. He doesn’t know what he wants to do and he doesn’t want to think about it. He’s depressed about where he is in life and reluctant to even think about it. It’s a vicious circle.
Perhaps the most interesting thing is that most of us, if we really think about it, have feared at one time or another that we would wind up just like him. Each of us has faced the same life choices Dante does, some of us got caught in a rut for a while trying to make them. When you see Dante you might find him familiar. Chances are you know or knew someone just like him. Chances are even better that you wipe your brow, sigh and think “Phew, I’m glad I pulled myself out of that rut/dead end job. That could’ve been me up there.”
Now Randall, on the other hand, is really just a loser. As amusing as he is he can also irritate. Not nearly as smart as he thinks he is Randall is not only directionless but lazy to boot. He follows Dante around waiting for him to become inspired and succeed, hopefully bringing Randall along for the ride. He sits perched in one dead end place after another hoping to ride Dante’s coat tails. Why he would choose to hitch his cart to the most indecisive lost soul he could is unknowable.
As Dante struggles with his woman troubles, Jay and Silent Bob peddle dope outside and Randall struggles with the thought that his friend/leader is moving out of state, a lot of hilarious stuff happens. Clerks 2 is nothing short of hysterical.
For some reason the fact that Brian O’Halloran and Jeff Anderson can’t really act only adds to the film. It seems a little more real somehow. These characters could easily have become pretentious losers if they felt at all put on but O’Halloran and Anderson seem to bring them to life. Dante and Randall are more than likely the only two characters in the history of film that these two could play convincingly. The convergence of Kevin Smith’s razor sharp wit and these actors is truly lightning in a bottle.
At the end of the day Clerk 2 is funny, satirical and absolutely a winner. You’ll get up and thank God your not Dante but you’ll sure be glad someone is.
Monday, July 24, 2006
Sony Outlets in Woodbury
OK, this might not be exactly movie related. It’s a stretch. What follows are some observations based on my quest to obtain a great surround sound system at a reasonable price.
The Store: The Sony Outlet In Woodbury, NY
The Product: A Sony HTIB Unit. 6.1 channel, 815 watts, 5 DVD changer and subwoofer and amplifier.
Before I get to the Sony store and this particular product, some comments on the outlets themselves.
There is an Applebees restaurant to sit down, have a beer and some food, and think about which store to stroll through next. Having eaten there twice in the past month I can only ask why? My recent experiences there confirmed for me what I always believed: Applebees is the worst of the worst when it comes to chain restaurants. I have never, ever, had a decent experience there. This food is not even edible. It’s a great mystery to me how this chain has thrived as it’s the worst crap on a plate you can imagine. The sandwich served to my fiancée should be a criminal offense. It looked like a baby threw up in a stale roll.
Well, at least the service is consistently bad. Oh, but the did invent the riblet. A handy little piece of meat that you might believe to be boneless ribs. Aha! They have found a way to cleverly conceal a little shard of bone like a guitar pick in each piece. That’s right, instead of the inconvenience of having to hold onto a bone and eat you can now pop that little sucker right in your mouth and pray you don’t choke to death. Brilliant!
Now for Sony. The outlets claim they sell refurbished goods for discount prices. Refurbished, their sales staff helpfully points out, can mean something as simple as this: the box was badly damaged and the item had to be repackaged, thus inspected again and labeled refurbished. According to the SONY website, it can also mean an item was returned with original packaging as defective and was inspected/repaired and labeled refurbished. Most returns don’t involve defects so it’s a circuitous route to “repackaged.”
So with this definition in mind I purchased a fairly expensive system and gave it to my fiancée for her birthday. To my surprise the unit looked as though it had fallen off a moving truck and was thrown into a box for me. The amplifier was dented, some of the speakers ripped and scratched. Sounds like a little more than repackaging. Unless by “damaged packaging” they meant someone parked a car on the box and ripped it. However, the unti still performed very well and sounded great, it just looked like Hell. It’s not like this was some 50 dollar purchase where I expected some wear and tear either.
So, back I go to the outlets, a 2 hour drive. I explain to the manager that it’s unacceptable to have this happen. That I had to drive 2 hours to replace this “miserable squashed thing” (movie reference there). Well, there’s only one unit like the one I purchased left, and it’s the display model. Upon letting him know how I felt about that idea, he was persuaded to upgrade me to the next unit and make it a brand new one. I should say, to be fair, that he was polite and courteous the entire time and seemed genuinely interested in making me a happy customer.
So I ask, is the DVD player the same in this model? Yes, he says. Same 5 DVD changer. And the amplifier is more powerful! And it’s got another speaker! So I get home and unpack it. Guess what? It’s not the same DVD player. It’s got an extra speaker and yet the center channel speaker is much smaller than the one I returned. My brother tells me smaller is better now with surround sound and some of my own research seems to back that up, so perhaps that is an upgrade. We’ll see when I hear it. However, I loved that other DVD player. Why say it’s the same model when it isn’t? How hard is this?
Look, this isn’t rocket science. You sold me a battered unit that some Iraqi might find cutting edge and sleek but I just found it to be dented and scratched. You should fall all over yourself to make this right. Be a little embarrassed maybe. When I ask if the DVD player is the same, do you think it might be because I liked the other one? Do you think you should check to make sure? I’m going to finish hooking the unit up tonight. If this does not perform appreciably better than the last one, someone at the Sony outlet is going to have a long phone call tomorrow morning. I see no reasonable excuse for this nonsense.
Now, to the outlets. The stores themselves are cool to walk through, some prices were pretty great, others not so much. Take care what you buy, the word “outlet” on the door does not guarantee a great deal.
What’s more, people shopping there from the city and from a seeming slew of other countries, seem to feel as though ramming into people is an expected behavior in polite society. If you see someone waling your direction and they obviously have no room to maneuver, the thing to do is ram right into them. Because they should have, you know, thrown themselves into the shrubbery to get out of your way. However, if you inadvertently back up and nudge someone, they will shoot daggers at you as though you just insulted their mothers.
Take a good long look, while your there, at the women’s shoe stores. Particularly the Nine West outlet. Then tell me men are slobs. It looks like a Hurricane made of shoes stopped spinning in the middle of the store leaving pumps, heels and something called “sling backs” to fall wherever they felt like it. There’s open boxes, ripped boxes, socks, abandoned mismatched shoes and and the like everywhere. These women got so excited about the shoe prices they couldn’t try them on fast enough. You have to literally kick the shoes from your path as you walk. Hopefully you will not bump into someone while falling over the mound of shoes as this would be a grave offense indeed.
Friday, July 07, 2006
Superman Returns
Superman Returns is a substandard superhero film that fails to capture any of the spark or fun of the original 1978 Superman. Fueled by Christopher Reeves perfectly capturing the essence of the comic and by Margot Kidder brining a zest, snappy Lois Lane to life, the original Superman easily outshines this lifeless hulk of a film.
Bryan Singer’s version of Superman is sullen and brooding at times, he seems depressed and is constantly in a state of reflection. It’s as though Singer confused him with the darker Batman character. Played by Brandon Routh the character fails to come to life and offers zero chemistry with the equally ho-hum Lois Lane played by Kate Bosworth.
Routh has little screen presence and, in fairness to the newcomer, is offered very little to work with. The dialogue is virtually non-existent and all his moods are dark ones. He is called upon to look sad, speak little and do great blue screen work. Clark Kent is virtually forgotten in this film and the movie completely ignores the fun that the Kent character brought to the Lois Lane relationship.
As for Bosworth, all I can say is that she appears to have phoned in this performance. The Margot Kidder Lois Lane was tough in a sassy sort of way, she was funny and capable of working herself into a lather. The Bosworth version is more hard-as-nails and listless than anything.
Singer gives Lois and Superman a child for reasons that never really become clear. The child is from their prior relationship and Lane’s current fiancée, Richard White, believe the boy to be his. The problem is the film does nothing with the kid. He stares off into space a lot, seems rather sickly for some unknown reason, and utters the occasional sentence. He’s not really a plot device of any kind and does little to further the story.
Also sinking this film is the fact that it’s plain old anti-climatic. Kevin Spacey plays Lex Luthor in a performance that seems without passion or wit. He’s not bumbling like some previous incarnations of Luthor nor is he particularly sarcastic or witty. He’s just sort of mean and pathological. He beats the stuffing out of Superman in what I believed would be the start of a brilliant battle but it just sort of fizzles out.
In the end Superman returns is an underwhelming film that captures none of the essence of joy of the character or the previous films. Yes, there is a spectacular plane rescue that’s visually stunning but practically offers no suspense or tension. Much like the film that is way too long, poorly paced and just plain lifeless. If you want a superhero movie that offers passionate acting, excitement and characters that seem genuine to us, rent Batman Begins and watch it again. If your Bryan Singer or Brandon Routh rent the original Superman and watch the pros at work.
Bryan Singer’s version of Superman is sullen and brooding at times, he seems depressed and is constantly in a state of reflection. It’s as though Singer confused him with the darker Batman character. Played by Brandon Routh the character fails to come to life and offers zero chemistry with the equally ho-hum Lois Lane played by Kate Bosworth.
Routh has little screen presence and, in fairness to the newcomer, is offered very little to work with. The dialogue is virtually non-existent and all his moods are dark ones. He is called upon to look sad, speak little and do great blue screen work. Clark Kent is virtually forgotten in this film and the movie completely ignores the fun that the Kent character brought to the Lois Lane relationship.
As for Bosworth, all I can say is that she appears to have phoned in this performance. The Margot Kidder Lois Lane was tough in a sassy sort of way, she was funny and capable of working herself into a lather. The Bosworth version is more hard-as-nails and listless than anything.
Singer gives Lois and Superman a child for reasons that never really become clear. The child is from their prior relationship and Lane’s current fiancée, Richard White, believe the boy to be his. The problem is the film does nothing with the kid. He stares off into space a lot, seems rather sickly for some unknown reason, and utters the occasional sentence. He’s not really a plot device of any kind and does little to further the story.
Also sinking this film is the fact that it’s plain old anti-climatic. Kevin Spacey plays Lex Luthor in a performance that seems without passion or wit. He’s not bumbling like some previous incarnations of Luthor nor is he particularly sarcastic or witty. He’s just sort of mean and pathological. He beats the stuffing out of Superman in what I believed would be the start of a brilliant battle but it just sort of fizzles out.
In the end Superman returns is an underwhelming film that captures none of the essence of joy of the character or the previous films. Yes, there is a spectacular plane rescue that’s visually stunning but practically offers no suspense or tension. Much like the film that is way too long, poorly paced and just plain lifeless. If you want a superhero movie that offers passionate acting, excitement and characters that seem genuine to us, rent Batman Begins and watch it again. If your Bryan Singer or Brandon Routh rent the original Superman and watch the pros at work.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Harry Potter
According to a story featured on Fox News, author J.K. Rowling has announced that two characters will die in the final book of the beloved Harry Potter series.
Rowling indicated that the key characters would be targets when she said in an interview: “We are dealing with pure evil here. They don't target extras do they? They go for the main characters.”
Amazingly, Rowling claims to have written the final chapter of the entire series in 1990, and has kept it under wraps ever since. She also revealed that there have been a few minor modifications to what she originally wrote but, for the most part, the series will wrap the way she envisioned it 16 years ago.
Harry Potter is not exempt from the list of characters that should be watching their back. The author, whose net worth was recently estimated at more than a billion dollars, spoke about not leaving a legacy character alive because the series should end forever with book 7.
Rowling expressed concern that someday a sequel that wasn’t authorized or written by her could be penned by someone else, after her death.
It’s an interesting perspective that I’ve never heard an author admit to. She would rather kill Harry Potter for good rather than risk the tarnishing of her cherished franchise at the hands of some hack looking to make a quick million 15 years from now. And you know what? I completely understand that.
No one can create the kinds of characters with the devoted following that Rowling has without being truly in love with the project. I know all the stories about Rowling being destitute and rising from the doles of public assistance on the heels of Harry Potter mania, but she didn’t do this entirely for money. Rowling lived this series, she loved it. She crafted it with passion and the kind of imagination that is really once in a lifetime.
It’s a little refreshing to see that Rowling has some respect for the franchise and for her talent that goes beyond its ability to be a cash cow. She has created a world and several amazing characters that captured the imagination of people on a global scale. She gave millions of children the desire to read, to write and, perhaps most importantly, to imagine.
It’s so rare to see a writer with that kind of power, with a character and world so completely engrossing, that it’s not even once in a lifetime—it’s truly magical. The Harry Potter series will be around hundreds of years from now, perhaps beyond. Kids that aren’t even born yet will lose themselves in the Hogwart’s Academy and the tale of Harry Potter.
So amazingly gifted is Rowling that adults, English students, English professors and “grown-up” people everywhere have taken up these books and devoured them. It’s a skillfully crafted world that you can’t help but lose yourself in. There’s something delightfully childish in her books, and yet something sinister. In some way she manages to allow us to enter the Harry Potter universe but without feeling childish. She has made adults open up their imaginations in a way they probably haven’t since they themselves were kids. Rowling has brought out that part of childhood where innocence still exists, but it’s being rubbed away. Where adulthood is just around the corner and yet the allure of being a child still pulls at you. Rowling's universe gives adults a taste of child-like wonder again, and it gives kids a whiff of adulthood and dark troubles. The very things that fascinate each of them.
It’s good to see that the public appreciates Harry Potter, and that feeling is reciprocated by Rowling. Every adult who has enjoyed her work should realize that this is the rarest of talents. We will not see the likes of J.K. Rowling ever again in this century. Unless, of course, we have a rememberall!
Rowling indicated that the key characters would be targets when she said in an interview: “We are dealing with pure evil here. They don't target extras do they? They go for the main characters.”
Amazingly, Rowling claims to have written the final chapter of the entire series in 1990, and has kept it under wraps ever since. She also revealed that there have been a few minor modifications to what she originally wrote but, for the most part, the series will wrap the way she envisioned it 16 years ago.
Harry Potter is not exempt from the list of characters that should be watching their back. The author, whose net worth was recently estimated at more than a billion dollars, spoke about not leaving a legacy character alive because the series should end forever with book 7.
Rowling expressed concern that someday a sequel that wasn’t authorized or written by her could be penned by someone else, after her death.
It’s an interesting perspective that I’ve never heard an author admit to. She would rather kill Harry Potter for good rather than risk the tarnishing of her cherished franchise at the hands of some hack looking to make a quick million 15 years from now. And you know what? I completely understand that.
No one can create the kinds of characters with the devoted following that Rowling has without being truly in love with the project. I know all the stories about Rowling being destitute and rising from the doles of public assistance on the heels of Harry Potter mania, but she didn’t do this entirely for money. Rowling lived this series, she loved it. She crafted it with passion and the kind of imagination that is really once in a lifetime.
It’s a little refreshing to see that Rowling has some respect for the franchise and for her talent that goes beyond its ability to be a cash cow. She has created a world and several amazing characters that captured the imagination of people on a global scale. She gave millions of children the desire to read, to write and, perhaps most importantly, to imagine.
It’s so rare to see a writer with that kind of power, with a character and world so completely engrossing, that it’s not even once in a lifetime—it’s truly magical. The Harry Potter series will be around hundreds of years from now, perhaps beyond. Kids that aren’t even born yet will lose themselves in the Hogwart’s Academy and the tale of Harry Potter.
So amazingly gifted is Rowling that adults, English students, English professors and “grown-up” people everywhere have taken up these books and devoured them. It’s a skillfully crafted world that you can’t help but lose yourself in. There’s something delightfully childish in her books, and yet something sinister. In some way she manages to allow us to enter the Harry Potter universe but without feeling childish. She has made adults open up their imaginations in a way they probably haven’t since they themselves were kids. Rowling has brought out that part of childhood where innocence still exists, but it’s being rubbed away. Where adulthood is just around the corner and yet the allure of being a child still pulls at you. Rowling's universe gives adults a taste of child-like wonder again, and it gives kids a whiff of adulthood and dark troubles. The very things that fascinate each of them.
It’s good to see that the public appreciates Harry Potter, and that feeling is reciprocated by Rowling. Every adult who has enjoyed her work should realize that this is the rarest of talents. We will not see the likes of J.K. Rowling ever again in this century. Unless, of course, we have a rememberall!
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
The Great Buck Howard
Here's an upcoming movie that looks interesting. The Great Buck Howard is the story of an aging and declining illusionist who is seeking to invigorate his career with the addition of a young protege. John Malkovich will be playing Buck Howard and in an interesting move, Collin Hanks will play his assistant while Tom Hanks plays his father, who strongly dissaproves of his career choice. The movie is written and directed by Sean McGinly (Two Days).
Filming is loosely scheduled to begin next month and the release date is still unkown.
Filming is loosely scheduled to begin next month and the release date is still unkown.
New In Theaters
Opening this week in theaters and the official "See It Or Don't See It" reccomendation from MovieMojo:
The Lake House--Starring Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock. Keanu Reeves, who borders on a wooden, stiff performance even during his action roles, takes on a low-key remake of the Sout Korean film Siworae. Bullock who, even at 40, is always cute and charming might provide some giggles. Over all the time travelling, star crossed lovers plot is going to wear thin quickly and Reeves isn't compelling enough to save dry material. It's my understanding the South Korean version was more sci-fi, less love story. MovieMojo says avoid this like an abandoned Muslim's briefcase in the airport
The Lake House--Starring Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock. Keanu Reeves, who borders on a wooden, stiff performance even during his action roles, takes on a low-key remake of the Sout Korean film Siworae. Bullock who, even at 40, is always cute and charming might provide some giggles. Over all the time travelling, star crossed lovers plot is going to wear thin quickly and Reeves isn't compelling enough to save dry material. It's my understanding the South Korean version was more sci-fi, less love story. MovieMojo says avoid this like an abandoned Muslim's briefcase in the airport
Nacho Libre--Starring Black and directed by Jared Hess. Hess is returning to the silly comedy genre fresh from his success with Napolean Dynamite. MovieMojo has a strict "Be careful with Jack Black Films" policy, but the involvement of Hess makes this interesting. As does the concept of a priest moonlighting in the professional wrestling circuit. If Black is under control a little it might be fun. MovieMojo says wait a week, get some word-of-mouth feedback, and then decide.
The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift--Paul Walker does not return to the franchise that showcased his horrible acting and infuriating, silly smile that makes accentuates his dim wittedness. There's really nothing to say here unless you're either 10 or labatomized. MovieMojo says avoid this. Don't even rent it. If you do rent it, don't ever vote again.
Garfield: A Tale of Two Kitties--Starring Jennifer Love Hewitt and Breckin Meyer. Bill Murray returns as the obese cat. Rosie O'Donel returns as a fat woman with a football players haircut. But that's another film entirely. This time Garfield goes overseas and is confusedd with another fat cat, resulting in his ascension to ruler of a castle. Much like the film cars, you should know what to expect here. The kids are going to love, there will be enough to make the adults snicker a little, and Jennifer Love Hewitt is in it. MovieMojo has a strict "Go see it if Hewitt is in it" policy. MovieMojo says, if you have kids, take 'em. If you ever found Bill Murray funny by himself, get a cat scan. Get it? Cat scan?
Daryl Hannah
A little Hollywood tidbit here. According to Fox News Daryl Hannah was arrested, along with dozens of other protestors, in Los Angeles yesterday afternoon. The star of Splash, Grump Old Men, Roxanne and very little else, was protesting the development of a warehouse on privately owned land that currently serves as a community garden. Also participating in the deomonstration was, who else, Danny Glover; there's an ex-celebrity that never met a cause he didn't like.
The landowner claims that the "gardeners" began squatting on the land 14 years ago and that he's been more than kind in letting them stay that long. However, he is paying $30,000 a month in mortgage and other fees and decided it's time to develop the property. He also claims that rather than be grateful the squatters have sued him, called his home and harrased him and picketed him. I think he put it best when he said,"After 14 years of free land use I think you say thank you."
While some protestors chained themselves to concrete filled barrels Hannah instead chose to go back among her own kind and climbed up a walnut tree. It's too easy isn't it? There's just too much to say, so please insert your own joke about a Hollywood nut hanging out in a nut tree.
The fire department had to use a bucket to elevate officers who subsequently took the has-been actress into custody.
Isn't it nice that Danny Glover and Daryl Hannah believe they should be able to tell people what to do with their own land? Good thing their not arrogant. I wonder if either of these nuts offered to compensate Mr. Horowitz for his $30,000 a month expenditure? Wouldn't that have been easier than climbing a nut tree? Who can afford to lose that money more, a few ex-celebrities or some private land owner?
And who will compensate the poor LA Police Officers who spent an afternoon trying to determine which were the actual nuts and which were the celebrities? I believe the took 200 walnuts into custody in the hopes that 2 of them were Hannah and Glover.
Chuck Norris Is Still Awesome
Check out these hysterical facts about Chuck Norris from the awesome Chucknorrisfacts.com website. Head on over there and read them all.
- When the Boogeyman goes to sleep every night, he checks his closet for Chuck Norris.
- Chuck Norris doesn't read books. He stares them down until he gets the information he wants.
- There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.
- Outer space exists because it's afraid to be on the same planet with Chuck Norris.
- Chuck Norris does not sleep. He waits.
- Chuck Norris is currently suing NBC, claiming Law and Order are trademarked names for his left and right legs.
- Chuck Norris is the reason why Waldo is hiding.
- Chuck Norris counted to infinity - twice.
- There is no chin behind Chuck Norris’ beard. There is only another fist.
- When Chuck Norris does a pushup, he isn’t lifting himself up, he’s pushing the Earth down.
- Chuck Norris is so fast, he can run around the world and punch himself in the back of the head.
- Chuck Norris’ hand is the only hand that can beat a Royal Flush.
- There is no such thing as global warming. Chuck Norris was cold, so he turned the sun up.
- Chuck Norris can lead a horse to water AND make it drink.
- Chuck Norris doesn’t wear a watch, HE decides what time it is.
- Chuck Norris gave Mona Lisa that smile.
- Chuck Norris can slam a revolving door.
- Chuck Norris does not get frostbite. Chuck Norris bites frost
- Remember the Soviet Union? They decided to quit after watching a DeltaForce marathon on Satellite TV.
- Contrary to popular belief, America is not a democracy, it is a Chucktatorship.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Cars
I love reading reviews that claim cars has a weak storyline. It's just hysterical to me.
"Visually appealing, but weak story line," read one.
"Stunning Pixar animation, short on plot," read another.
Give me a break. It's a cartoon about talking cars for crying out loud. The animation is terrific and the movie has some genuinely funny moments, what more did you expect?
Cars is the story of Lightning McQueen, a hot shot young race car competing for the Piston Cup championship. He feels that he has nothing to learn from his elders, fails to appreciate those around him and proudly proclaims that he can do everything on his own. He ridicules his pit crew and laughs at the older race cars resulting in his being friendless and cocky.
McQueen gets lost enroute to the race and finds himself in Radiator Springs, a small town that's experiencing a depression of sorts. McQueen, played by Owen Wilson, embarks on a journey that teaches him the meaning of friendship and that some things in life are more important than trophies. Is it a complicated plot? No, it's inteded for children.Is it amusing? Yes. Visually interesting? Yes.
We're treated to Paul Newman, playing an old retired race care named Doc Hudson, Tony Shalhoub playing Luigi, and more.
There's not a terrific amount to say about the movie other than that it was fun, the actors were terrific and sounded as though they had a good time doing it, and the animation was spectacular.
Pixar studios spoiled us with Toy Story, sure, but this movie was no dud. Kids are going to love this movie and adults will find enough in it to keep them interested. Don't listen to some pompous critic tell you the story was under developed. That would be like opening a jar of baby food and complaining it was bland. If it's available in your area, go see it at the drive-in. That's what I did and it was a blast, this movie is just made for that unique outdoor viewing. If there's a drive-in where you live, take advantage.
"Visually appealing, but weak story line," read one.
"Stunning Pixar animation, short on plot," read another.
Give me a break. It's a cartoon about talking cars for crying out loud. The animation is terrific and the movie has some genuinely funny moments, what more did you expect?
Cars is the story of Lightning McQueen, a hot shot young race car competing for the Piston Cup championship. He feels that he has nothing to learn from his elders, fails to appreciate those around him and proudly proclaims that he can do everything on his own. He ridicules his pit crew and laughs at the older race cars resulting in his being friendless and cocky.
McQueen gets lost enroute to the race and finds himself in Radiator Springs, a small town that's experiencing a depression of sorts. McQueen, played by Owen Wilson, embarks on a journey that teaches him the meaning of friendship and that some things in life are more important than trophies. Is it a complicated plot? No, it's inteded for children.Is it amusing? Yes. Visually interesting? Yes.
We're treated to Paul Newman, playing an old retired race care named Doc Hudson, Tony Shalhoub playing Luigi, and more.
There's not a terrific amount to say about the movie other than that it was fun, the actors were terrific and sounded as though they had a good time doing it, and the animation was spectacular.
Pixar studios spoiled us with Toy Story, sure, but this movie was no dud. Kids are going to love this movie and adults will find enough in it to keep them interested. Don't listen to some pompous critic tell you the story was under developed. That would be like opening a jar of baby food and complaining it was bland. If it's available in your area, go see it at the drive-in. That's what I did and it was a blast, this movie is just made for that unique outdoor viewing. If there's a drive-in where you live, take advantage.
Monday, June 12, 2006
The Break-Up
The Break-Up has enough insights into a relationship, and into human behavior in general, that everyone will identify with aspects of the main characters. The fact that it is a little clumsy or heavy-handed at times doesn’t so much distract as it does show promise; the writing behind the movie showed cleverness and wit and great sense of who people are. It’s a novice effort from two young writers, and it shows in parts, but when the skills are polished and they have found a better way to film the human aspects of a story I think they’ll achieve much greater things.
Vince Vaughn saves this movie and the producers knew it. The material here is weak enough that anyone else would have withered miserably trying to pull it off. Jennifer Aniston’s gift isn’t so much who she is but who she isn’t. She isn’t the actress that tries to steal scenes or wants to pull off all the jokes on her own. She clearly understands her role is to play the part with some heart and to respond to, or be the butt of, Vince Vaughn’s jokes. This is the second time Anniston played a supporting role to one of the funniest men in film, pulling it off easily with Ben Stiller in Along Came Polly. It’s disappointing to see critics overlook or dismiss Anniston as these roles are much more difficult than she gets credit for.
OK, Anniston is gorgeous and there’s always that in her favor, but there is more to her. Her performance is convincing when the movie moves from absurdly funny to sad and disturbing. The heartbroken Anniston is upsetting and we want nothing more than to see someone cheer her up. It’s amazing how much talent it takes, and how little ego, to be the one always reacting to the joke rather than making it. Jackie Gleason always said the he marveled at Art Carney’s ability to crack a joke, but Gleason understood that his gift lay in reacting to the other characters and that’s what he did. Anniston seems to get that too and after this film she should get her due.
The story pits Gary (Vaughn) and Brooke (Anniston) in an escalating war in which each of them tries to make the other jealous and convince them that yes, thank you, I’m getting along just fine without you.
The problem, predictably, is that back and forth spirals out of control and moves from the realm of harmless and funny and into hurtful and damaging. Poor advice from their friends coupled with a false sense of security concerning their own relationship leads to situation that seemingly can’t be reversed.
It begins with Brooke believing that Gary does not appreciate her or the efforts it takes to clean up after him and deal with his sports and video game obsession. Gary, on the other hand, feels like Brooke’s inability to understand how badly he needs a pool table is a serious problem.
The reason this movie can involve the audience at all is because both characters are likeable and we want to see them happy. It’s clear that neither one of them wants the break-up to happen and there’s plenty of moments were you know that one conversation, one word, or one apology could put a stop to the whole mess. It’s like rooting for a terrible sports team, you know they’re going to lose, you want to just leap through the screen and do it for them because from an objective distance their mistakes are so clear to see, but in the end all you can do is look away as things get worse.
Brooke continues to follow the bad advice from her friends and from her eccentric boss, played by a shriveled Judy Davis who looks as though she should be auditioning for a role next to the other dead people in the waiting room of Beetle Juice.
Gary takes his sweet time doing some soul searching before a tirade from his brother, played by the extremely talented Vincent D’Onforio, and a long overdue heart to heart from his best friend convinces him there may be something to the accusation that he’s thoughtless and selfish.
Brookes strategy of parading men in front of him to make him jealous succeeds in making him angry and convincing him it really is over while in real life, any rationale man could have seen right through the ploy and realized he should just take her back.
The main problem in this movie is that for the Break-Up to occur the main characters, funny as they are, have to be clueless. They have to blindly follow shoddy advice, they have to ignore the overt hints they throw at each other and skillfully avoid having the one conversation that could have straightened it out.
Interestingly, the same things that are problematic also add to the intrigue. Because we’ve all known that couple that should have been a perfect fit but for some reason, they just weren’t. In the Break-Up we want each person to change enough to make this work because on paper it would be a great match but in practice, they’re completely dysfunctional. So you’re left to root for them to be happy, just not together. In that way we share the sad realization that with them and come to understand this relationship is hopelessly broken and it needs to end for the betterment of them both.
In the end it’s a very funny film that has so much more to say about people and relationships than it actually does. It falls just short of being insightful, just short of being moving and leaves you wondering just what was missing; what it does accomplish is making you laugh and making you empathize. And for two young writers that I expect we’ll see more of it could have done a lot worse.
Vince Vaughn saves this movie and the producers knew it. The material here is weak enough that anyone else would have withered miserably trying to pull it off. Jennifer Aniston’s gift isn’t so much who she is but who she isn’t. She isn’t the actress that tries to steal scenes or wants to pull off all the jokes on her own. She clearly understands her role is to play the part with some heart and to respond to, or be the butt of, Vince Vaughn’s jokes. This is the second time Anniston played a supporting role to one of the funniest men in film, pulling it off easily with Ben Stiller in Along Came Polly. It’s disappointing to see critics overlook or dismiss Anniston as these roles are much more difficult than she gets credit for.
OK, Anniston is gorgeous and there’s always that in her favor, but there is more to her. Her performance is convincing when the movie moves from absurdly funny to sad and disturbing. The heartbroken Anniston is upsetting and we want nothing more than to see someone cheer her up. It’s amazing how much talent it takes, and how little ego, to be the one always reacting to the joke rather than making it. Jackie Gleason always said the he marveled at Art Carney’s ability to crack a joke, but Gleason understood that his gift lay in reacting to the other characters and that’s what he did. Anniston seems to get that too and after this film she should get her due.
The story pits Gary (Vaughn) and Brooke (Anniston) in an escalating war in which each of them tries to make the other jealous and convince them that yes, thank you, I’m getting along just fine without you.
The problem, predictably, is that back and forth spirals out of control and moves from the realm of harmless and funny and into hurtful and damaging. Poor advice from their friends coupled with a false sense of security concerning their own relationship leads to situation that seemingly can’t be reversed.
It begins with Brooke believing that Gary does not appreciate her or the efforts it takes to clean up after him and deal with his sports and video game obsession. Gary, on the other hand, feels like Brooke’s inability to understand how badly he needs a pool table is a serious problem.
The reason this movie can involve the audience at all is because both characters are likeable and we want to see them happy. It’s clear that neither one of them wants the break-up to happen and there’s plenty of moments were you know that one conversation, one word, or one apology could put a stop to the whole mess. It’s like rooting for a terrible sports team, you know they’re going to lose, you want to just leap through the screen and do it for them because from an objective distance their mistakes are so clear to see, but in the end all you can do is look away as things get worse.
Brooke continues to follow the bad advice from her friends and from her eccentric boss, played by a shriveled Judy Davis who looks as though she should be auditioning for a role next to the other dead people in the waiting room of Beetle Juice.
Gary takes his sweet time doing some soul searching before a tirade from his brother, played by the extremely talented Vincent D’Onforio, and a long overdue heart to heart from his best friend convinces him there may be something to the accusation that he’s thoughtless and selfish.
Brookes strategy of parading men in front of him to make him jealous succeeds in making him angry and convincing him it really is over while in real life, any rationale man could have seen right through the ploy and realized he should just take her back.
The main problem in this movie is that for the Break-Up to occur the main characters, funny as they are, have to be clueless. They have to blindly follow shoddy advice, they have to ignore the overt hints they throw at each other and skillfully avoid having the one conversation that could have straightened it out.
Interestingly, the same things that are problematic also add to the intrigue. Because we’ve all known that couple that should have been a perfect fit but for some reason, they just weren’t. In the Break-Up we want each person to change enough to make this work because on paper it would be a great match but in practice, they’re completely dysfunctional. So you’re left to root for them to be happy, just not together. In that way we share the sad realization that with them and come to understand this relationship is hopelessly broken and it needs to end for the betterment of them both.
In the end it’s a very funny film that has so much more to say about people and relationships than it actually does. It falls just short of being insightful, just short of being moving and leaves you wondering just what was missing; what it does accomplish is making you laugh and making you empathize. And for two young writers that I expect we’ll see more of it could have done a lot worse.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Why Movie Marketers Have It Wrong
One more word on the Weather Man--and this applies to a number of films recently: The marketing is what failed this film. Every ad or promo I saw made this movie out to be a whimsical comedy of sorts and downplayed the wonderful dramatic moments and moral dilemas that were key elements in the film. It was advertised much like the Family Stone which, as most of us know, was misrepresented as comedy but turned out to be reprehensible drivel and blunt modern day political correctness lessons. I have 2 problems with marketing a movie like this:
1. Doing this naturally assumes that there is no audience to be found for intellectual and dramatic films. It makes it seem as though a movie that was moving and intelligent could never succeed and so the audience must be tricked into thinking it's just funny fluff. Otherwise, they'll never watch it! That's rubbish. There are plenty of movie goers out there that appreciate an intellectual movie that inspires thought and not just mindless laughter. Movies are supposed to have something to say, there supposed to provoke introspection and conversation. Not all of us are looking for a feature length sitcom.
2. As a result of number one, audiences are dissapointed and the movie suffers bad word of mouth. This should be obvious to these genius marketers but somehow they continue doing it. Audiences buy a ticket for something like the Weather Man, which they think is a whimsical comedy, and instead see something much more in line with a dramatic and somewhat depressing film that they were not in the mood for. They then tell all their friends that is sucked. They feel cheated and ripped off. Why? Because it wasn't a laugh riot. I wonder what Gore Verbinski would say if asked to comment on that advertising effort for that film? Might he say that the movie wasn't supposed to be entirely a comedy? That the film was missrepresented?
It's a cheap tactic to fill as many seats as possible in the opening weekend and it ignores the fact that word of mouth will kill it in a week. It's unfortunate becase quality films like this one are lost and discarded when they don't deserve to be while disgraceful garbage like the Family Stone gets way more attention than it should.
Memo to Hollywood: Just be honest with us. Tell us what the movie is about and what it is. So you miss out on a few tickets from the 20 and under crowd. You have to realize that there is an audience for smart, intellectual and moving films! Any other approach is simply insulting.
1. Doing this naturally assumes that there is no audience to be found for intellectual and dramatic films. It makes it seem as though a movie that was moving and intelligent could never succeed and so the audience must be tricked into thinking it's just funny fluff. Otherwise, they'll never watch it! That's rubbish. There are plenty of movie goers out there that appreciate an intellectual movie that inspires thought and not just mindless laughter. Movies are supposed to have something to say, there supposed to provoke introspection and conversation. Not all of us are looking for a feature length sitcom.
2. As a result of number one, audiences are dissapointed and the movie suffers bad word of mouth. This should be obvious to these genius marketers but somehow they continue doing it. Audiences buy a ticket for something like the Weather Man, which they think is a whimsical comedy, and instead see something much more in line with a dramatic and somewhat depressing film that they were not in the mood for. They then tell all their friends that is sucked. They feel cheated and ripped off. Why? Because it wasn't a laugh riot. I wonder what Gore Verbinski would say if asked to comment on that advertising effort for that film? Might he say that the movie wasn't supposed to be entirely a comedy? That the film was missrepresented?
It's a cheap tactic to fill as many seats as possible in the opening weekend and it ignores the fact that word of mouth will kill it in a week. It's unfortunate becase quality films like this one are lost and discarded when they don't deserve to be while disgraceful garbage like the Family Stone gets way more attention than it should.
Memo to Hollywood: Just be honest with us. Tell us what the movie is about and what it is. So you miss out on a few tickets from the 20 and under crowd. You have to realize that there is an audience for smart, intellectual and moving films! Any other approach is simply insulting.
The Weather Man
Recently, I took the time to view The Weather Man, a movie that has looked intriguing to me for quite a while. It’s a pretty large departure from director Gore Verbinskis usual fare but features just the kind of quirky character that Nicolas Cage was born to play; the combination of the two was unusual, to say the least.
Verbinski is best known for his Pirates of the Caribbean movies making this film, full of complex characters, raw emotion and difficult dialogue, something you wouldn’t think suited to his talents.
In the film Cage play David Spritz, a local TV weather man with a ruined marriage, a strained relationship with his children, a father in whose shadow it’s impossible to thrive and, in general, very bad luck.
Spritz bumbles his way through life, convinced his father can’t possible respect or be proud of him and not ever very sure if life has conspired against him or if he’s just a big screw up making his own troubles. Cage has mastered the art of staring thoughtfully into space, giving us the sympathetic and introspective character that doesn’t ever bore us or make us think he should stop whining. It’s a tough piece of acting and Cage is excellent in the film.
When Sptitz finds out that his father is not well, he embarks on a personal quest to make him proud. He figures that with some hard work he can live up to his fathers expectations by repairing his obviously (to everyone but him) irreparable marriage, establishing a closer bond with his children and succeeding at work.
And he needs to do all this while random passersby throw milkshakes and tacos at the weather man, while inexplicable bad luck plagues him and his inner turmoil continues trying to simmer to the surface and break out. It’s a noble undertaking indeed.
His father, Robert Spritzel (Spritz has shortened his last name on the advice of a TV marketing expert) is played by Michael Caine with his usual excellence. Robert is everything his son is not. He is together, well organized, goal oriented, successful, patient and wise.
The most interesting moments in the film come when Spritz tries, in a ham handed way, to emulate the wisdom of his father and struggles to impart some life lessons to his children. The trouble is it’s not a way of life for him, trying to be wise is just a mood, trying to teach his children valuable lessons just a passing fancy undertook for personal redemption.
For example, Spritz tries taking his overweight daughter ice skating and, of course, she falls and hurts her leg. In that moment the intellectually clumsy Spritz decided it’s time to teach the value of never giving up and makes her finish the race. Rather than imparting this lesson in a meaningful way we are dismayed to discover that she has suffered a severe knee injury and his insistence on making her race was more inadvertent cruelty than sage advice.
Spritz’s ex-wife, Noreen, played by Hope Davis, is forever at odds with seeing Cage for the man he so desperately wants to be rather than who he is. You get the sense that she thought she was marrying someone like his father and was rather surprised to find she had gotten a stripped down version.
Some of the shots that Verbinski gives us are inspired. They don’t just tend to supplement the movies mood but go the extra step and create it. It’s the difference between a creative shot of autumn leaves clumsily implying depression and a director, like Verbinski, who can create the sense of being depressed by finding the right elements in any given setting. He’s creative and interesting, often giving us a sense of isolation as it relates to Spritz that is incredibly powerful.
The characters here require thinking, something that modern audiences and critics don’t seem to care for. They don’t just open their mouths and explain themselves. Their real and subtle and you have to figure them out through their actions, both large and small, and in the things the imply. Especially in Spritz’s case as what he doesn’t say is often as important as what he does.
Robert Spritzel knows his son is in pain. He knows that he is a hugely successful writer and his son just doesn’t have it in him. But for all his wisdom we get the sense that he’s at a loss as to how to help. We come to understand that the elder Spritzel has given up any meaningful effort to mold and shape his son and has instead focused his efforts on saving and healing his grandchildren and sons ex-wife.
The film creates a sense of empathy that is so unique in film today that when we see Spritz through his own his eyes it’s truly depressing; we find ourselves not asking What will he do next? but What would I do next?
If had had one minor complaint with the movie it’s that some of the dialogue is pretty unrealistic and contrived. Hope Davis delivers a few lines that just make you want to wince, but she’s game enough that she comes as close to pulling them off as is possible.
As much as I liked Cage in this film the small difference that existed between brilliance and excellence was a tad too much Forest Gump. Any man as introspective and as aware of his own short comings as Sprtiz has enough intellectual activity going on that he isn’t bumbling along. Sure, he lacks focus and discipline, of course he looks to the sky when yet another bit of bad luck is foisted upon him, but he isn’t just meandering around stupidly and stepping in open manholes. Cage gives us sorrow and rage, he gives us some sense of being beaten not by life but by a maddening inability to “buckle down” and follow through. He lets us know how it feels to truly understand what wisdom is but to also understand that he can never attain it.
All in all this is a terrific film that should not be overlooked. It has a terrific cast and a brilliant director, it’s well worth viewing.
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Poseidon Sinks
It’s amazing that a movie centered around the Deep Blue Sea could be so…well, shallow. The remake of the 1979 films leaves out much of what made the original work, instead focusing more on random action sequences and far less on character development.
In fact, most of the characters have been toyed with to the extent that they are no longer recognizable and what we know about them is so trivial they’re just stick figures to us; empty shirts and skirts waiting for a bulk head to smash into them or a roaring fire to engulf them.
I don’t know that I have ever seen character development so clumsy and heavy handed. The movie treats it like a nuisance and tries to get it all out the way quickly and be done with it. I can almost hear the writer saying:
“I need people to dislike Lucky Larry (Kevin Dillon), I guess I’ll have him say something obnoxious. There, done with that.”
Dylan Johns and Maggie James, played by Josh Lucas and Jacinda Barrett, needed to be a love interest. So we see them meet, exchange painfully trite pickup lines, gaze at each other once or twice, and that’s it. That’s the extent of the bonding we see yet they act as though a true and time tested love has taken hold and we somehow missed it. They are literally flirting one minute and a loving couple the next, with no in-between. It’s absurd.
Kurt Russell plays Robert Ramsey. What do we know about him? Well, it’s mentioned he used to be a fireman and the Mayor of NYC. Writer Marc Protesevich proves that he loves his daughter and is a tad over protective by showing us Ramsey asking his daughter Jennifer (Emmily Rossum) to button the top button on her shirt. There, done with that! Now we all know exactly who this guy is and can get on with the business of people falling and burning.
Richard Dreyfuss, playing the obligatory, found-in-every-movie gay character, even though such a character did not exist in the original, suffers a breakup with his significant other and turns suicidal. How do we know this? We see him start to climb over a railing and prepare to leap into the water. There. Done with that character! That’s enough, don’t need to know anymore about him. Or why he changed his mind and spent the rest of the movie in a valiant struggle to survive. Oh well, throw a fat lady into a chandelier, that’s what people came to see!
So flawed is this entire film that not only are the characters paper thin, they’re just unbelievable. Josh Lucas is a gambler and spends a lot of time on cruise ships. Somehow, that makes him able to read complex maps and charts about the boat, understand how pressure hatches in bulk heads work and know exactly where there are people size openings near the propeller shafts. He never gets lost, knows all the stairwells and hatches and all the inner-working of every button and console. The Captain, on the other hand, seemed to believe that the windows in a giant ballroom would stand up to the pressures of being underwater and was shocked when they broke. I guess he should have asked the poker player if his assumption was accurate. The Captain seemed to be involved in some sort of implied relationship with the nightclub singer (from the Black Eyed Peas), but to what extent and for how long, we don’t know. And by that point don’t even care.
The premise of the movie is simple enough. A giant “rogue” wave hits the boat and turns it upside down, leaving the survivors 2 options: Follow the former mayor and the poker player on a journey to the bottom of the boat in search of escape or, stay with the Captain in the ballroom and wait for death.
So Ramsey, his daughter Jennifer and her fiancé, Dylan Johns the card shark, the state mandated gay character who serves no real purpose and a random busboy whose only backstory is that he smuggled some girl aboard for some vague reason involving a dying brother in a hospital, all head towards the bottom of the ship.
Oddly, the suicidal gay character played by Dreyfuss is immediately put in a situation where he must choose to live by sacrificing another and doesn’t hesitate for a second to kick the unnamed busboy down an elevator shaft. No tears are shed and it’s never mentioned again. But later, some character we barely know and don’t really care about comes to a bad end and they all stand around crying hysterically like they’ve known her all their lives. The thousands of deaths all around them, the throwing of a Mexican busboy down an elevator shaft, that was nothing. They were unfazed. But the death of some random person they barely know? Well, that just tears them to pieces.
I wanted to like this movie, I really did. But they changed everything about it and the result is just awful. Do you know what made the first movie work, dumb Hollywood executive? The characters.
Belle and Manny Rossen, played by Shelly Winters and Jack Albertson, had a story to tell and we cared about it. They were an older couple, still madly in love, imagining one without the other was painful. They had been through so much together; had even survived the Holocaust together. You really had to pull for either both of them to make it or neither one, so close were they.
Did the remake offer us this kind of compelling character? Oh no, we have to have the politically correct bullshit characters. A happily married and devoted couple?
No way.
They have to be turned into a single mother and some card shark that picked her up in the bar. There’s the real story for the year 2006. Single mothers and gays must have a place because no one wants to hear about devoted people that have been together for 40 years. How quaint a notion.
In the original Gene Hackman was a caring but tough priest that helped people survive and have faith. He’s history, no one likes priests anymore.
Replace him with…let’s see…hmmm….A whiny, suicidal gay guy! That’s far more compelling than a priest suffering a crisis of faith, finding his inner strength and the leader within.
This movie can’t stand on special effects alone because we’ve seen all this before, especially the sinking ship visuals which were simply straight from Titanic. It can’t stand on action alone because the action isn’t all that great.
It can’t stand on strong characters because they took great pains to remove all the characters from the original and replace them with empty, vacuous symbols of political correctness.
Know what that leaves you with? Nothing. This movie has nothing going for it, zero, nadda, nothing.
Take a lifeboat from the theater, shoot a flair and await rescue, pray for a bulkhead to the face, but don’t sit all the way through this thing. It gets my early vote for worst movie of the year and it’s hands down the most poorly written I have seen in some time.
For the record, Mark Protosevich, you should be ashamed at what you did here. It’s atrocious work and as far as I am concerned it should be the last piece of crap you’re allowed to make.
In fact, most of the characters have been toyed with to the extent that they are no longer recognizable and what we know about them is so trivial they’re just stick figures to us; empty shirts and skirts waiting for a bulk head to smash into them or a roaring fire to engulf them.
I don’t know that I have ever seen character development so clumsy and heavy handed. The movie treats it like a nuisance and tries to get it all out the way quickly and be done with it. I can almost hear the writer saying:
“I need people to dislike Lucky Larry (Kevin Dillon), I guess I’ll have him say something obnoxious. There, done with that.”
Dylan Johns and Maggie James, played by Josh Lucas and Jacinda Barrett, needed to be a love interest. So we see them meet, exchange painfully trite pickup lines, gaze at each other once or twice, and that’s it. That’s the extent of the bonding we see yet they act as though a true and time tested love has taken hold and we somehow missed it. They are literally flirting one minute and a loving couple the next, with no in-between. It’s absurd.
Kurt Russell plays Robert Ramsey. What do we know about him? Well, it’s mentioned he used to be a fireman and the Mayor of NYC. Writer Marc Protesevich proves that he loves his daughter and is a tad over protective by showing us Ramsey asking his daughter Jennifer (Emmily Rossum) to button the top button on her shirt. There, done with that! Now we all know exactly who this guy is and can get on with the business of people falling and burning.
Richard Dreyfuss, playing the obligatory, found-in-every-movie gay character, even though such a character did not exist in the original, suffers a breakup with his significant other and turns suicidal. How do we know this? We see him start to climb over a railing and prepare to leap into the water. There. Done with that character! That’s enough, don’t need to know anymore about him. Or why he changed his mind and spent the rest of the movie in a valiant struggle to survive. Oh well, throw a fat lady into a chandelier, that’s what people came to see!
So flawed is this entire film that not only are the characters paper thin, they’re just unbelievable. Josh Lucas is a gambler and spends a lot of time on cruise ships. Somehow, that makes him able to read complex maps and charts about the boat, understand how pressure hatches in bulk heads work and know exactly where there are people size openings near the propeller shafts. He never gets lost, knows all the stairwells and hatches and all the inner-working of every button and console. The Captain, on the other hand, seemed to believe that the windows in a giant ballroom would stand up to the pressures of being underwater and was shocked when they broke. I guess he should have asked the poker player if his assumption was accurate. The Captain seemed to be involved in some sort of implied relationship with the nightclub singer (from the Black Eyed Peas), but to what extent and for how long, we don’t know. And by that point don’t even care.
The premise of the movie is simple enough. A giant “rogue” wave hits the boat and turns it upside down, leaving the survivors 2 options: Follow the former mayor and the poker player on a journey to the bottom of the boat in search of escape or, stay with the Captain in the ballroom and wait for death.
So Ramsey, his daughter Jennifer and her fiancé, Dylan Johns the card shark, the state mandated gay character who serves no real purpose and a random busboy whose only backstory is that he smuggled some girl aboard for some vague reason involving a dying brother in a hospital, all head towards the bottom of the ship.
Oddly, the suicidal gay character played by Dreyfuss is immediately put in a situation where he must choose to live by sacrificing another and doesn’t hesitate for a second to kick the unnamed busboy down an elevator shaft. No tears are shed and it’s never mentioned again. But later, some character we barely know and don’t really care about comes to a bad end and they all stand around crying hysterically like they’ve known her all their lives. The thousands of deaths all around them, the throwing of a Mexican busboy down an elevator shaft, that was nothing. They were unfazed. But the death of some random person they barely know? Well, that just tears them to pieces.
I wanted to like this movie, I really did. But they changed everything about it and the result is just awful. Do you know what made the first movie work, dumb Hollywood executive? The characters.
Belle and Manny Rossen, played by Shelly Winters and Jack Albertson, had a story to tell and we cared about it. They were an older couple, still madly in love, imagining one without the other was painful. They had been through so much together; had even survived the Holocaust together. You really had to pull for either both of them to make it or neither one, so close were they.
Did the remake offer us this kind of compelling character? Oh no, we have to have the politically correct bullshit characters. A happily married and devoted couple?
No way.
They have to be turned into a single mother and some card shark that picked her up in the bar. There’s the real story for the year 2006. Single mothers and gays must have a place because no one wants to hear about devoted people that have been together for 40 years. How quaint a notion.
In the original Gene Hackman was a caring but tough priest that helped people survive and have faith. He’s history, no one likes priests anymore.
Replace him with…let’s see…hmmm….A whiny, suicidal gay guy! That’s far more compelling than a priest suffering a crisis of faith, finding his inner strength and the leader within.
This movie can’t stand on special effects alone because we’ve seen all this before, especially the sinking ship visuals which were simply straight from Titanic. It can’t stand on action alone because the action isn’t all that great.
It can’t stand on strong characters because they took great pains to remove all the characters from the original and replace them with empty, vacuous symbols of political correctness.
Know what that leaves you with? Nothing. This movie has nothing going for it, zero, nadda, nothing.
Take a lifeboat from the theater, shoot a flair and await rescue, pray for a bulkhead to the face, but don’t sit all the way through this thing. It gets my early vote for worst movie of the year and it’s hands down the most poorly written I have seen in some time.
For the record, Mark Protosevich, you should be ashamed at what you did here. It’s atrocious work and as far as I am concerned it should be the last piece of crap you’re allowed to make.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
This Career Will Self Destruct in 3 Films....
So it would appear that belonging to a cult and acting like a deranged escapee from the mental ward can impact your ability to fill theater seats. In some ways, I suppose, it’s nice to know that people still have some standards. In another sense it’s nostalgically sad to see the guy I remember singing “Old Time Rock ‘N Roll" in his underwear flaming out in such tragic fashion. One gets the sense that Tom Cruise is entering the final phase of what will be an embarrassing and dramatic downfall. Gone is the fun and spunky young guy from Risky Business and here to stay is the brain washed, cult loving lunatic that is at times pompous and at others simply maniacal.
Mission: Impossible 3 has so far performed far below industry expectations and is showing no signs of being the blockbuster it’s $150 million dollar budget would demand it be. Opening weekend numbers, originally estimated over $48 million, were revised downward on Monday to $47 million in actual sales. Monday’s performance at the box office was an alarming $3.5 million, down a whopping 72 percent from it’s opening numbers. That’s a drop of near historic proportions. In comparison, Spiderman 2 dropped only 57% from its opening weekend to its first Monday and Batman Begins dropped only 26%. To truly be a success Mission: Impossible 3 would have had to outperform both.
What’s truly unfortunate is that tied to Cruise’s antics at the worst moments of their careers are Phillip Seymour Hoffman, fresh from an Academy Award, and writer of the hit show Lost, J. J. Abrams. Abrams is also responsible for a little known film with a cultish following called Joy Ride, created the show Felicity and wrote the screenplay for Armageddon and Regarding Henry.
Now, the movie really isn’t that bad. Legendary and large film critic Roger Ebert said it had a “been there done that” feel to it, and he’s right. However, with really no alternatives in the box office the film is a fun ride. Hoffman’s performance, in my opinion, has been a little over-hyped, he’s not really given that many chances to shine as he’s off screen as much as on it, but he’s still excellent. Cruise is good but he is certainly lacking something.
Quick, who’s Ethan Hunt? Right.
What Cruise has failed to do is transform this character into one we really clamor to see more of. Everyone wanted to see where Harrison Ford could take Indiana Jones, what Sean Connery would make out of James Bond, so they continued on to be great franchises. In fact, just about every actor that has played James Bond has turned him into something interesting and curious. Cruise has not had that kind of relationship with his character; instead we go to see stunts, shootouts, car chases, CGI, but not the character. Even action movies, dependent as they are on explosions, must center around compelling characters to survive into 2 or 3 movies. To be fair the writers share the blame, but Cruise hasn’t given Hunt that special spark that begs for more development. Mission Impossible would be just as interesting if the next film featured a different character and a different actor—they’re completely replaceable and that’s the death knell for any action franchise.
The only new element in this installment is the question of whether Hunt can be married, lead a normal life and have a wife forever in the dark as to his real persona. The problem: That’s nothing new, James Bond addressed that issue many, many times and countless action and cop flicks have used that weak premise as a springboard for getting the character “back in action” one more time. And of course, the new bride to be is put in great peril by the characters choice of careers. That’s a given. And boring. It’s the kind of movie Mr. And Mrs. Smith was created to make fun of.
The appeal to the film is really an adolescent one. It’s the Cody Banks factor that Mr. and Mrs. Smith exaggerated and satirized. It’s the teenager in all of us that wants to be something spectacular that draws men to this kind of premise. Maybe it’s a guy thing but we can relate to a Cody Banks who lives an exciting double life and Oh! Won’t his classmates be impressed when they find out who he really is. It’s the guy in all of us that wants to turn to a beautiful woman like Keri Russel and say “I don’t really count traffic patterns or balance spreadsheets all day. I carry a gun, blow up buildings and play round in international espionage.” It’s trying to imagine being, like Brad Pitt in Mr. And Mrs. Smith, or Frankie Munoz in Cody Banks, so cool and confident that you could actually not boast about being a super agent and could be content letting people think you’re mundane when you aren’t.
You might not admit this guys, but this movie is for all of you that day dream on the way to work in the morning when the latest and greatest rock band is on the radio, you transform yourselves into the drummer or lead singer and see the crowd roaring before you and the pyrotechnics booming behind you. And then you pull into the parking garage and go about the business of counting paper clips all day. Remember when you were young and you closed your eyes and saw yourself throwing that last second touchdown in the Super Bowl? You were Joe Montana for a minute there. This movie is aimed at you, so you can fantasize about turning to your girlfriend and telling her you’re not an average joe, you’re dangerous and exciting.
It’s a primal adolescent appeal—unfortunately this film doesn’t do anything different with that. It recycles the same cliché and leaves it so it’s more an excuse to get Tom Cruise to leap from a building than it is an integral part of the plot. The Cody Banks factor can only go so far.
If you want some cool stunts and some mindless action, take this ride, it’s still fun. If you were hoping that the biggest new gadget wouldn’t be yet another latex mask and you still want to daydream yourself into a secret agent, and there’s nothing wrong with that, find something else. The next few weeks will give you plenty of alternatives and by summers end Mission: Impossible 3 will be that big disappointment that no one remembers.
It Waits Coming To DVD--See The Official Press Release
Production photo from It Waits, courtesy of Anchor Bay Entertainment.
March 13, 2006
“It Lurks, It Prowls…”
IDT Entertainment's
Anchor Bay Entertainment Unleashes
“It Waits”
On DVD May 23
TROY , MI – Anchor Bay Entertainment, an IDT Entertainment Company, presents the terrifying story of a dark legend come to life seeking vengeance on mankind. From acclaimed writer/producer Stephen J. Cannell (“A Team”, “Hunter”, “Profit”, “ 21 Jump Street ”) comes… It Waits! Premiering on DVD May 23 rd , 2006 , consumers won't have to wait any longer to thrill at the extensive bonus features including behind-the-scenes footage and interviews of the cast and writers, in addition to a feature-length audio commentary. SRP is $19.98 and pre-book date is April 12.
Written by Cannell, Thomas E. Szollosi (“Mythquest”) and Richard Chris tian Matheson ( Masters of Horror ) and directed by Steven R. Monroe ( House of 9 ), It Waits focuses on a tale taken from Native American folklore of a lost Human Being whose vicious resentments fueled an anger so fierce that its soul was banished from the world of the living. What happens when this malevolent spirit returns – can anyone stop its relentless and destructive powers?
After her best friend is killed in an auto accident in which she was the driver, Forest Ranger Danielle St. Clair (Cerina Vincent – “CSI”, Not Another Teen Movie ) moves into a secluded watchtower in the mountains to bury herself in her work, unaware that something else is buried in the forest. A spirit of the underworld – a victim of its own evil bitterness long entombed in a cave. For a chance to escape and exact its bloody revenge, it waits…
And when accidentally released, the peaceful forest becomes a killing ground. Only Danielle and her fiancé Justin (Dominic Zamprogna, “Battlestar Galactica”) are left to stand up against this ancient nightmare.
Value-added supplements on the It Waits DVD include:
Widescreen Presentation (1.77:1), enhanced for 16x9 TVs
Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound
“Blood On The Pines” Behind-The-Scenes Featurette
Feature-length audio commentary with director Steven R. Monroe and star Cerina Vincent
Trailers
Stephen J. Cannell Productions, Inc. owns the worldwide distribution rights to more than 1,000 hours of Cannell produced series and TV movies. DVD releases from the company's broadcast hits include “Hunter Season One & Two,” “The Greatest American Hero Seasons One, Two & Three,” “The Commish Season Three” and “Silk Stalkings Season Four.” For more information on Stephen J. Cannell, visit www.cannell.com .
Anchor Bay Entertainment is a recognized name in home entertainment. The company offers an expansive selection of award-winning, notable theatrical films including “Time Bandits” and “Halloween,” classic television programming such as “Roseanne,” “3 rd Rock from the Sun,” “Three's Company,” “Highlander” and much of the Stephen J. Cannell library, traditional children's fare featuring the ever-popular Thomas & Friends collection and Mister Rogers Neighborhood, the impressive Manga anime line and chart-topping fitness titles including the "Crunch" and "For Dummies" series. Anchor Bay Entertainment is aggressively developing a wide range of original programs and concepts in addition to licensing existing brands and films.
Anchor Bay Entertainment is a subsidiary of IDT Entertainment. IDT Entertainment is a vertically integrated entertainment company that develops, produces, and distributes proprietary and licensed entertainment content.
###
Thursday, May 04, 2006
Jack Black
Jack Black, alternating between hysterical and just not funny, is a classic case of a man that should pick his movies with a little more care. Try as I might, I just can't bring myself to look forward to Nacho Libre. Sorry, it just looks dumb. It reminds me of Adam Sandlers younger years where his movies struck me as unscripted chances for him to act like a dolt for 2 hours. However, when put into a movie that offered him some guidance and reigned him in, Sandler's genuinely funny.
Same with Black. I think he could be very funny and, if King Kong is a good example, perhaps even play a decent, well developed character that isn't all goofy antics.
I see that after Libre Black has been filming something called "Tenacious D: In The Pick Of Destiny."
The plot? 2 idiots form a band called Tenacious D and want to make the best band ever. How will they accomplish this? By subjecting us to a road trip in search of a magical guitar pick located in a rock museum 300 miles away. Why he signed on for this I have no idea. A little more discrimination and a little less School of Rock could really help him. Think Orange County!
Although I did spot a rumor on the awesome Aint It Cool News site that said Black was in talks to star in a move that sounds terrific. In the film Black's best friend would own a video store whose only customer was a senile old lady. Somehow Black's head becomes magnatized and he destroys all the movies in the store. So, he and his pal set out to remake the classic movies and hope that the old lady wont notice. Among the movies we get to see them remake will be, supposedly, Back to the Future and Jaws. This could be awesome, I can't wait to read more about it.
In my view Jack Black is at a critical stage in his career. A few horrible flops and he'll vanish. A few well chosen comedies that appeal to the over 12 set and I think he could just sky rocket. I think he has potential so lets hope Nacho Libre isn't the end of the line for him.
Same with Black. I think he could be very funny and, if King Kong is a good example, perhaps even play a decent, well developed character that isn't all goofy antics.
I see that after Libre Black has been filming something called "Tenacious D: In The Pick Of Destiny."
The plot? 2 idiots form a band called Tenacious D and want to make the best band ever. How will they accomplish this? By subjecting us to a road trip in search of a magical guitar pick located in a rock museum 300 miles away. Why he signed on for this I have no idea. A little more discrimination and a little less School of Rock could really help him. Think Orange County!
Although I did spot a rumor on the awesome Aint It Cool News site that said Black was in talks to star in a move that sounds terrific. In the film Black's best friend would own a video store whose only customer was a senile old lady. Somehow Black's head becomes magnatized and he destroys all the movies in the store. So, he and his pal set out to remake the classic movies and hope that the old lady wont notice. Among the movies we get to see them remake will be, supposedly, Back to the Future and Jaws. This could be awesome, I can't wait to read more about it.
In my view Jack Black is at a critical stage in his career. A few horrible flops and he'll vanish. A few well chosen comedies that appeal to the over 12 set and I think he could just sky rocket. I think he has potential so lets hope Nacho Libre isn't the end of the line for him.
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
More Failed Energy Policies
If we needed more proof that the average voter is a complete moron a poll released by Fox News today confirmed the theory: The average citizen is prone to being swayed by rhetoric and blindingly dumb.
The poll stated:
Most people agree our economy is strong and getting stronger
Most people agree high gas prices are their number one concern
By a two-to-one margin those polled trust the Democrats more to deal with the problem.
Pardon me? The Democrats are the problem. What did the Democrats do today? They blocked a bill that would have eased restrictions and made building a refinery easier, thereby enticing more companies to get into the refining business. Great job, no wonder people trust the liberals. After all, they’re only behind most of the failed energy policies from the last 20 years that got us here.
Justifying the ridiculous decision Rep. Rick Boucer, D-Va., said "The real reason we have a refinery shortage is the companies that own refineries are profiting enormously from the ... refinery bottlenecks," said Boucher.
Really, Mr. Boucher. It isn’t because ¼ of the cost of building a new refinery is dedicated to filling out forms generated by the government? Of course not. What bill did he vote for? A bill authorizing fines of up to 150 million dollars for any company caught price gouging.
Of course, since it’s nearly unanimous among economic experts that no gouging is occurring, it’s totally useless. But it sounds great doesn’t it? Build more refineries, no way, say the Democrats. Posture and puff over non-existent price gouging and call for fines that will never be levied, that’s the way to fix the high gas prices!
Still no word on why the oil companies are making 8 to 12 cents a gallon on gasoline while the government is making 20 cents per gallon. What a surprise. Does 8 cents a gallon sound like gouging?
I might also wish to know where all that oil is that we we’re going to steal from Iraq. As the liberals have so often proclaimed, this war was not about removing a murderous madman from power, it was about stealing the oil. So, where is it? Why are prices hitting record highs with all this stolen oil being brought in from Baghdad? It couldn’t be the liberals were lying could it? Unheard of.
Just ask Rick Boucher whose party created a shortage of refineries that he now blames the refining companies for. I’m certain that all refining companies enjoyed the cost prohibitive, time consuming and paranoid environmental regulations that make it impossible for them to open more plants.
Just think of the logic here. The Democrats make it impossible to open a refinery and then blame the refining companies for a shortage of plants. It’s brilliant!
And the average idiot insists these lying windbags are the answer to our problems. They also said:
They’re wrong so often it’s amazing.
The poll stated:
Most people agree our economy is strong and getting stronger
Most people agree high gas prices are their number one concern
By a two-to-one margin those polled trust the Democrats more to deal with the problem.
Pardon me? The Democrats are the problem. What did the Democrats do today? They blocked a bill that would have eased restrictions and made building a refinery easier, thereby enticing more companies to get into the refining business. Great job, no wonder people trust the liberals. After all, they’re only behind most of the failed energy policies from the last 20 years that got us here.
Justifying the ridiculous decision Rep. Rick Boucer, D-Va., said "The real reason we have a refinery shortage is the companies that own refineries are profiting enormously from the ... refinery bottlenecks," said Boucher.
Really, Mr. Boucher. It isn’t because ¼ of the cost of building a new refinery is dedicated to filling out forms generated by the government? Of course not. What bill did he vote for? A bill authorizing fines of up to 150 million dollars for any company caught price gouging.
Of course, since it’s nearly unanimous among economic experts that no gouging is occurring, it’s totally useless. But it sounds great doesn’t it? Build more refineries, no way, say the Democrats. Posture and puff over non-existent price gouging and call for fines that will never be levied, that’s the way to fix the high gas prices!
Still no word on why the oil companies are making 8 to 12 cents a gallon on gasoline while the government is making 20 cents per gallon. What a surprise. Does 8 cents a gallon sound like gouging?
I might also wish to know where all that oil is that we we’re going to steal from Iraq. As the liberals have so often proclaimed, this war was not about removing a murderous madman from power, it was about stealing the oil. So, where is it? Why are prices hitting record highs with all this stolen oil being brought in from Baghdad? It couldn’t be the liberals were lying could it? Unheard of.
Just ask Rick Boucher whose party created a shortage of refineries that he now blames the refining companies for. I’m certain that all refining companies enjoyed the cost prohibitive, time consuming and paranoid environmental regulations that make it impossible for them to open more plants.
Just think of the logic here. The Democrats make it impossible to open a refinery and then blame the refining companies for a shortage of plants. It’s brilliant!
And the average idiot insists these lying windbags are the answer to our problems. They also said:
Bush’s tax cuts would cripple the economy that is now chugging along
Bush would steal oil from Iran, paid for in blood--now there’s an energy crisis
Allowing Iraq to ignore UN sanctions would not harm long term foreign policy. The result: Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad last week said “..they will pass some useless and meaningless resolutions,” when responding to sanctions proposed by the US and Britian as a result of Iran’s defiance on nuclear policy.
They’re wrong so often it’s amazing.
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Explaining The List
Some of you have asked what that entry titled "The List" was. I guess it seemed a little out of place.
While I am not a writer, nor do I pretend to be, from time to time a concept or character gets in my head and pesters me until I do something with it. For whatever reason this little man with such a bleak world view and the belief that his only purpose was to fill the parlor at his own funeral just wouldn't go away until I wrote him down.
Most often, I keep those little nuggets to myself. However, I couldn't think of a way to use him in a longer story that would please me, he seemed too interesting to make him into a secondary character and finally, after weeks of wondering what do with it, I just him let him speak.
I'm not claiming that it's good, it just is what it is. It might happen again, who knows; it's a pretty rare occurence for me but not unheard of. I have plenty of little half-finished stories and character ideas laying around. None of them will see the light of day. For that, I guess this smarmy little fellow should be grateful, he has made it out of my laptop where so many of his brethren languish, waiting for the moment I hit the delete button and banish them for all time.
I also must mention that somehow, don't ask me how, I inadvertantly used the names of my in-laws in that piece. Some might say that was subliminal, I say it was coincidence! If you ever looked at the other things I have written over the years you'd find that the names Cheryl and John are just the ones that always come to me for some reason. Like place holders until I find more creative names. Also commonly found in my little stories: Michelle, Tony, Rebecca, Frank, Louis and Roger. Just plain old, right on the tip of my tongue names. I generally replace them with something more unique or catchy at a later date.
But, now that I think about it, there is a Stephen King story lurking in here somewhere. A man uses the same names over and over for years in his writing, replacing the names with something fresher before the world sees them. And then, he meets a girl whose parents are named the same as his characters. Hmmm. King used to dabble the theory of writings having alternate egos, of their work meshing somehow with their real life. He once had his alter-ego/pen name come to life and fight with the "real" author over who belonged here. There must be a King story in this, someone get this to Mr. King ASAP. I would love to see where he could take it.
While I am not a writer, nor do I pretend to be, from time to time a concept or character gets in my head and pesters me until I do something with it. For whatever reason this little man with such a bleak world view and the belief that his only purpose was to fill the parlor at his own funeral just wouldn't go away until I wrote him down.
Most often, I keep those little nuggets to myself. However, I couldn't think of a way to use him in a longer story that would please me, he seemed too interesting to make him into a secondary character and finally, after weeks of wondering what do with it, I just him let him speak.
I'm not claiming that it's good, it just is what it is. It might happen again, who knows; it's a pretty rare occurence for me but not unheard of. I have plenty of little half-finished stories and character ideas laying around. None of them will see the light of day. For that, I guess this smarmy little fellow should be grateful, he has made it out of my laptop where so many of his brethren languish, waiting for the moment I hit the delete button and banish them for all time.
I also must mention that somehow, don't ask me how, I inadvertantly used the names of my in-laws in that piece. Some might say that was subliminal, I say it was coincidence! If you ever looked at the other things I have written over the years you'd find that the names Cheryl and John are just the ones that always come to me for some reason. Like place holders until I find more creative names. Also commonly found in my little stories: Michelle, Tony, Rebecca, Frank, Louis and Roger. Just plain old, right on the tip of my tongue names. I generally replace them with something more unique or catchy at a later date.
But, now that I think about it, there is a Stephen King story lurking in here somewhere. A man uses the same names over and over for years in his writing, replacing the names with something fresher before the world sees them. And then, he meets a girl whose parents are named the same as his characters. Hmmm. King used to dabble the theory of writings having alternate egos, of their work meshing somehow with their real life. He once had his alter-ego/pen name come to life and fight with the "real" author over who belonged here. There must be a King story in this, someone get this to Mr. King ASAP. I would love to see where he could take it.
Denzel Washington's Son Officially in NFL
John David Washington, son of Denzel Washington, signed a free agent contract with the St. Louis Rams a day after the draft came and went while Washingtons phone was silent.
Still, this is a far better ending than any of the players in his fathers movie Remember the Titans got.
Washington will have his work cut out for him. Likely he will be training camp fodder and the veterans and more "important" players will beat on him for a few months. If he survives that he could hope to catch on as a special teams player and from there, while it rarely happens, he could work his way onto the regular roster. The Rams love running backs, if Washington gets a chance you never know.
Love Hewitt and The Bears--What Could Be Better?
I love the Chicago Bears. I love movies. Also, while nowhere near as charming and pretty and nice as my fiance and her mother, both of whom read this post, Jennifer Love Hewitt is considered by some..ahem..to be attractive.
So imagine my surprise to find a picture of this talented actress sprawled out on the big orange "C" in the middle of Soldiers Field! Could there be a better combination than Love Hewitt and the Bears? A better picture? Nope. This, ladies and gentleman, is art.
Memoirs of a Geisha
Memoirs of a Geisha is a beautiful movie featuring some of the best cinematography to come along in quite some time. Only a skilled director can properly complement the scenery and not overwhelm or underutilize it; Rob Marshall, fresh from his success with Chicago, is the perfect fit. The characters find themselves in scenes looking just like a brilliant, once-in-a-lifetime moment was just captured by happenstance. There’s an ease to it all that lends to the beauty of this film. It’s a movie with grace and dignity.
Ziyi Zhang plays Sayuri, a young woman that has been sold by her ailing and poverty stricken parents into the world of the Geisha and separated from the only family she has left, her sister Nobu. Sayuri is distracted and frightened and unable to put everything aside long enough to fit into this new world and soon finds herself relegated to a servant, not allowed to continue her Geisha training.
A word of caution: Some of this talented cast speaks English that is less than polished. If you don’t pay attention there will be dialogue from Zhang and others that seems unintelligible.
But then, in a “kindness of strangers” sort of moment, along comes Ken Watanabe playing the Chairman. He shows young Sayuri kindness and sympathy and makes her understand that the world isn’t only a cruel place. Sayuri has an epiphany and realizes that playing along in the cold, often cruel world of the Geisha can be a means to an end; being successful in the role of the Geisha can mean entry into another world—a world of rich men and fancy parties, a place where she can be at someone’s side rather than under their thumb.
The movie gives a look at a fascinating culture where kindness and honor seem to reside harmoniously with cruelty and greed. Young, pretty Geisha sabotage and ridicule new comers to the world, old women purchase young girls like a commodity and make them work of this “debt” until they’re profitable—Geisha quickly learn that love, marriage and family are forbidden in this new world of theirs. And yet, there’s the Chairman and his unwavering kindness, a tutor in the Geisha house that takes Sayuri under her wing, pities her and takes a real joy in her successes.
Watching the films characters move from one heartbreaking situation to another kept me wondering when they would just break, give up—give themselves over to cruel actions and a world view that no longer allowed for compassion. When would they begin to feel like the world had tossed them into the trash and give up their dreams of freedom and happiness. It’s the best kind of story about the human spirit because it’s believable—there’s nothing superhuman in Sayuri’s endurance of the world, just remarkable.
Ken Watanabe, most recently from Batman Begins, The Last Samurai and the upcoming Clint Eastwood epic Flags Of Our Fathers, is fantastic as the Chairman; Ziyi Zhang and Watanabe turn in absolutely stellar performances here. Zhang shows us an innocent, wide-eyed character that, unlike the stereotype, never completely has it beaten out of her. The way Zhang plays it, the innocence and keeping a positive outlook in her fellow man becomes hard, it has to be forced, but she fights to hang onto it to whatever extent she can. She wants to think the best of people, she wants to think that fate will deliver her where she deserves to be, she wants to retain a little naiveté…and she does, though it no longer comes naturally.
It’s hard to say enough about the cinematography featured in this movie. It was absolutely gorgeous and yet so subtle that it never took over the shot. Simply amazing. There’s a moment where Zhang is standing, in full Geisha dress, under a blossoming plum tree and she looks so perfect there. It would be so easy for that scene to look staged an unnatural; instead it looks like Zhang has briefly recaptured her youth and innocence and nature itself is in agreement with her, showering her with tender pink flowers while the man she secretly loves looks on. It’s a great moment in it’s subtlety and in those 30 seconds the scene, and Zhangs wonderful acting, manage to convey so much character information it’s astounding.
It is now obvious to me that this film, Cinderella Man and Walk The Line were all better, far better, than Crash, the eventual Oscar Winner.
The Academy is now as irrelevant and impotent as the UN. No movie lover can see all of these films and come to any conclusion other than: Political Correctness won the day and three brilliant movies were ripped off.
Memoirs of a Geisha was one of the best films I saw last year, clearly a top five entry. If you haven’t seen it, please do.
Thursday, April 27, 2006
And The Witch Hunt is On
As a Republican I am ashamed to see my party participating in the witch hunt that is investigating what is ominously called "Big Oil."
A senate committee today announced an investigation into the taxes paid by Exxon Mobil. They have requested IRS records, the first time they have done so since Enron. Led by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, the committee is making sure Exxon did not take a "...speedpass by the tax man."
In other words, Exxon made a huge profit, gasonline prices are through the roof....hey! "Did we get paid as well? Better find out!"
See, it's not 30 years of failed energy policy, it's not a refusal to drill anywhere in America, it's those evil corporations. It's not because 1/4 of the price that goes into building a refinery is caused by man hours spent filling out EPA and other governmental forms and meeting about regulations. Think about that. 1/4 of the price for building a refinery is spent on filling out paperwork generated by the government. Wonder why none are being built?
Bill Clinton should be made to go to Alaska with a pick and a shovel (nope, no interns) and dig until I stop paying 3.00 a gallon for gas. Dick Durbin should join him. The clown who recently said we need the gas tax to build roads. These liberals would never own up to having enough of our money. I love it. They could never do with a single penny less.
Eliminate the gas tax and we can't build roads and bridges? Pardon me, isn't building infrastructure one of the principal responsibilities of a government Dick? Shouldn't that be the first thing that gets done, along with National Defense and Border Protection (nice job on that, by the way)? Are you really going to imply that without the gas tax the government could not fulfill it's most basic obligation, Dick?
If that's the theory, where is the rest of our tax moeny being squandered? You certainly have not protected our borders, you are against the war, Mr. Durbin, so spending on National Security is out, that leaves infrastructure which, you say, you could not provide without an extra tax. In fact, you're liberal colleagues have voted TWICE in the last decade to raise the federal gas tax. Are we building more roads? Better roads? Roads that float? What?
Does anyone really believe we dedicate that money to infrastructure?
In NY Hillary "Fat Ankles" Clinton is now claiming we're one terrorist act or natural disaster away from seeing 100 dollars a barrel. Considering that her husband weakened the military and emboldened terrorists everywhere (while still managing to call on the military more than any sitting president since WW 2), vetoed drilling in Alaska and allowed EPA regulations to be passed that doubled the cost of building refineries I wonder who she is blaming? Buh of course. Bush did it. And, any more natural disasters or terrorist attacks will be his fault as well.
Please. The finger pointing goes on and on and we continue to pay for it. If you're currently holding an office in Congress you have a very short time to prove you are competent. I do believe people peeople are ready for change, we've had. You could always get a job building roads I guess. I understand that a Government job.
A senate committee today announced an investigation into the taxes paid by Exxon Mobil. They have requested IRS records, the first time they have done so since Enron. Led by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, the committee is making sure Exxon did not take a "...speedpass by the tax man."
In other words, Exxon made a huge profit, gasonline prices are through the roof....hey! "Did we get paid as well? Better find out!"
See, it's not 30 years of failed energy policy, it's not a refusal to drill anywhere in America, it's those evil corporations. It's not because 1/4 of the price that goes into building a refinery is caused by man hours spent filling out EPA and other governmental forms and meeting about regulations. Think about that. 1/4 of the price for building a refinery is spent on filling out paperwork generated by the government. Wonder why none are being built?
Bill Clinton should be made to go to Alaska with a pick and a shovel (nope, no interns) and dig until I stop paying 3.00 a gallon for gas. Dick Durbin should join him. The clown who recently said we need the gas tax to build roads. These liberals would never own up to having enough of our money. I love it. They could never do with a single penny less.
Eliminate the gas tax and we can't build roads and bridges? Pardon me, isn't building infrastructure one of the principal responsibilities of a government Dick? Shouldn't that be the first thing that gets done, along with National Defense and Border Protection (nice job on that, by the way)? Are you really going to imply that without the gas tax the government could not fulfill it's most basic obligation, Dick?
If that's the theory, where is the rest of our tax moeny being squandered? You certainly have not protected our borders, you are against the war, Mr. Durbin, so spending on National Security is out, that leaves infrastructure which, you say, you could not provide without an extra tax. In fact, you're liberal colleagues have voted TWICE in the last decade to raise the federal gas tax. Are we building more roads? Better roads? Roads that float? What?
Does anyone really believe we dedicate that money to infrastructure?
In NY Hillary "Fat Ankles" Clinton is now claiming we're one terrorist act or natural disaster away from seeing 100 dollars a barrel. Considering that her husband weakened the military and emboldened terrorists everywhere (while still managing to call on the military more than any sitting president since WW 2), vetoed drilling in Alaska and allowed EPA regulations to be passed that doubled the cost of building refineries I wonder who she is blaming? Buh of course. Bush did it. And, any more natural disasters or terrorist attacks will be his fault as well.
Please. The finger pointing goes on and on and we continue to pay for it. If you're currently holding an office in Congress you have a very short time to prove you are competent. I do believe people peeople are ready for change, we've had. You could always get a job building roads I guess. I understand that a Government job.
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
NYS Gas Tax--Again
The NYS tax on gasoline has now risen to 62.9 cents a gallon.
How can this be? Simple, unlike any other state in the Union NY taxes gas by the DOLLAR and not the gallon. So, as gasoline prices rise, so do the associated taxes.
Congratulations to the retarded electorate that saddled us with Chuck Schummer and Hillary “Fat Ankles” Clinton.
Congratulations also to NYS for continuing to have the most expensive, intrusive, restrictive, overly regulatory and fiscally irresponsible government in the United States.
If you’re a young college student in a SUNY school, NYU, Sienna or anywhere else in NY do yourself a favor: Graduate, pack up everything you own and move. You’ll thank me later.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Gas Prices
Pardon the brief interruption of my usual movie talk and light hearted banter. Today, I am going to be a little more political than usual and I might even rant a bit. The topic: Gas prices and the Government.
Watching the politicians buzzing around Capitol Hill this past week has been alternately funny and disgusting. The finger pointing and lying has reached heights not seen since Bill Clinton was in office. Various Senators, including Kennedy and Frist, are acting as though this whole oil price quagmire is a big mystery—as though it came out of the blue. The disingenuous hand-wringing in Congress has led them to no real solutions but has brought them ever closer to a scapegoat: Big oil, especially Exxon Mobil.
While our representatives in Congress continue to collect heavy taxes on a product--all the while telling us how much they sympathize with the plight of the everyday man trying to buy gas--Exxon Mobil has been absolutely brutalized in the press and on the House floor.
Fact: Exxon Mobil makes 8-11 cents per gallon of gasoline sold.
Fact: The US Government makes in the neighborhood of .40 cents per gallon.
Fact: Add to that State taxes and the total tax is .47-.68 cents per gallon
That’s right, the US Government makes more money on a gallon of gasoline than big oil does. Add to this the additional 12-24 cents that the vampires in State Government are collecting and it boils down to this: Politicians that are persecuting Exxon and Big Oil are actually in your pocket for more money each and every time you gas up. The same bloodsuckers who claim they care deeply about the price you pay at the pump have refused to explore the option of reducing the tax they collect on it. That will be the very last thing option, believe me, reducing taxes is just not something that’s in their blood if they can help it.
What’s worse is that the path we have taken to get to this point is clear and chartable. You can blame militant environmentalists, Congress, Bill Clinton, your state Governor and more. Consider:
And what is the biggest idea, do you suppose, to have come from all this Congressional pseudo-sympathizing? Why, a new tax of course! Leave it to this gang of incompetents to find a way to make some more cash in the midst of this crisis by proposing a new tax that is nothing short of a communist idea. An “Excessive Profit Tax” is their big idea. Force Big Oil to either make less per gallon of gas or pay a huge tax on their profits. Brilliant. How is this going to lower gasoline prices? I suppose the thinking is that Big Oil will take the smaller profit margin just to spite the government and not pay the tax. Some choice given that profit margins on gasoline sales are already among the lowest in any industry.
Don’t listen to the lies Congress spouts about Big Oil, Exxon Mobil is not to blame for this mess. Write your representative and tell them it’s way past time to take the tax off gasoline. Tell them to drill in Alaska, tell them to lighten the absurd environmental restrictions that make it prohibitive to build new refineries. If you live in NY write to Vampire Pataki, the one who just vetoed property tax rebates while boasting about a budget surplus, and tell him to knock it off with the taxes.
Ask them to come up with any other solution to this problem. One that does not involve communist like profit taxes, one that does not penalize a company for simply being successful, one that actually helps.
More than that, ask yourselves what kind of elected official would pretend to sympathize with your plight while refusing to stop levying a tax on the very product you need to live and work. What kind of governor, a la NY, would veto tax rebates and remain mum on the gas problem at the same time? Remember this when Pataki decides to run for President under the guise of being a Republican because that, my friends, is in name only.
It’s way past time that Congress and State Legislatures were told to get their greedy hands out of our wallets. There’s a reason why their arrogance leads people like Joe Bruno to state that he would love to find a way to get some tax revenue on Internet purchases while his constituents are paying 3 bucks or more for a gallon of gas.
It’s our fault, really. We’ve allowed them to grow arrogant and complacent. We’ve done little or nothing to tell them we’ve had about enough. We’ve done nothing to tell them that cutting taxes should not be some last resort “Hope we don’t have to do it” option. We’ve done nothing to tell them that coming up with new and interesting taxes is out of the question.
I live in a State where a “Republican” governor has presided over large increases in nearly every fine or fee associated with Motor Vehicle—even coming up with some new fines. Where property tax and child tax credits are vetoed—all while in the midst of a budget surplus! Fiscal irresponsibility, lying and finger pointing have become the only skills these people have because we’ve let them get away with it.
And finally, try and remember that despite what the liberal media tells us, the news isn’t all bad: One of the causes of this fuel crunch is a humming and steadily improving economy. The solutions to the problem are attainable and plain as day—the only obstacle seems to be the unbridled greed in Washington and the instinctual “Blame someone, anyone” reaction that Congressmen get when faced with a problem. If we can eliminate the knee-jerk reactions (the first being to tax someone, the second to blame someone) we can find an answer here.
Watching the politicians buzzing around Capitol Hill this past week has been alternately funny and disgusting. The finger pointing and lying has reached heights not seen since Bill Clinton was in office. Various Senators, including Kennedy and Frist, are acting as though this whole oil price quagmire is a big mystery—as though it came out of the blue. The disingenuous hand-wringing in Congress has led them to no real solutions but has brought them ever closer to a scapegoat: Big oil, especially Exxon Mobil.
While our representatives in Congress continue to collect heavy taxes on a product--all the while telling us how much they sympathize with the plight of the everyday man trying to buy gas--Exxon Mobil has been absolutely brutalized in the press and on the House floor.
Fact: Exxon Mobil makes 8-11 cents per gallon of gasoline sold.
Fact: The US Government makes in the neighborhood of .40 cents per gallon.
Fact: Add to that State taxes and the total tax is .47-.68 cents per gallon
That’s right, the US Government makes more money on a gallon of gasoline than big oil does. Add to this the additional 12-24 cents that the vampires in State Government are collecting and it boils down to this: Politicians that are persecuting Exxon and Big Oil are actually in your pocket for more money each and every time you gas up. The same bloodsuckers who claim they care deeply about the price you pay at the pump have refused to explore the option of reducing the tax they collect on it. That will be the very last thing option, believe me, reducing taxes is just not something that’s in their blood if they can help it.
What’s worse is that the path we have taken to get to this point is clear and chartable. You can blame militant environmentalists, Congress, Bill Clinton, your state Governor and more. Consider:
- We have not built a refinery in the country in 30 years
- We are not allowed to drill anywhere in the 48 states for this precious resource
- Congress approved drilling in ANWR when Bill Clinton was in office—he vetoed it
- Congress will not approve the same drilling today—the proposed exploration in thisAlaskan Refuge would be done in less than 1/10 of 1% of the reserve
- Environmentalist initiatives to add and subsequently remove all manner of additives to gasoline are directly responsible for the shortage experienced on the East Coast in the last week
- In New York, where we have a Republican Governor that believes himself to be a Democrat, we pay roughly .62 cents per gallon in taxes.
And what is the biggest idea, do you suppose, to have come from all this Congressional pseudo-sympathizing? Why, a new tax of course! Leave it to this gang of incompetents to find a way to make some more cash in the midst of this crisis by proposing a new tax that is nothing short of a communist idea. An “Excessive Profit Tax” is their big idea. Force Big Oil to either make less per gallon of gas or pay a huge tax on their profits. Brilliant. How is this going to lower gasoline prices? I suppose the thinking is that Big Oil will take the smaller profit margin just to spite the government and not pay the tax. Some choice given that profit margins on gasoline sales are already among the lowest in any industry.
Don’t listen to the lies Congress spouts about Big Oil, Exxon Mobil is not to blame for this mess. Write your representative and tell them it’s way past time to take the tax off gasoline. Tell them to drill in Alaska, tell them to lighten the absurd environmental restrictions that make it prohibitive to build new refineries. If you live in NY write to Vampire Pataki, the one who just vetoed property tax rebates while boasting about a budget surplus, and tell him to knock it off with the taxes.
Ask them to come up with any other solution to this problem. One that does not involve communist like profit taxes, one that does not penalize a company for simply being successful, one that actually helps.
More than that, ask yourselves what kind of elected official would pretend to sympathize with your plight while refusing to stop levying a tax on the very product you need to live and work. What kind of governor, a la NY, would veto tax rebates and remain mum on the gas problem at the same time? Remember this when Pataki decides to run for President under the guise of being a Republican because that, my friends, is in name only.
It’s way past time that Congress and State Legislatures were told to get their greedy hands out of our wallets. There’s a reason why their arrogance leads people like Joe Bruno to state that he would love to find a way to get some tax revenue on Internet purchases while his constituents are paying 3 bucks or more for a gallon of gas.
It’s our fault, really. We’ve allowed them to grow arrogant and complacent. We’ve done little or nothing to tell them we’ve had about enough. We’ve done nothing to tell them that cutting taxes should not be some last resort “Hope we don’t have to do it” option. We’ve done nothing to tell them that coming up with new and interesting taxes is out of the question.
I live in a State where a “Republican” governor has presided over large increases in nearly every fine or fee associated with Motor Vehicle—even coming up with some new fines. Where property tax and child tax credits are vetoed—all while in the midst of a budget surplus! Fiscal irresponsibility, lying and finger pointing have become the only skills these people have because we’ve let them get away with it.
And finally, try and remember that despite what the liberal media tells us, the news isn’t all bad: One of the causes of this fuel crunch is a humming and steadily improving economy. The solutions to the problem are attainable and plain as day—the only obstacle seems to be the unbridled greed in Washington and the instinctual “Blame someone, anyone” reaction that Congressmen get when faced with a problem. If we can eliminate the knee-jerk reactions (the first being to tax someone, the second to blame someone) we can find an answer here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)