This past week I found myself with a good amount of free time. $14.75, two sacks of popcorn, and a full bottle of Visine later I am still shaking my head about the poor decisions I made. There are very few times in life where you start to compare poor decisions made against poor decisions escaped and frankly during Jackass 3D, The Wolfman & The Lovely Bones I started to wonder if I should have considered my alternative options (streaking a tiger’s cage, finally mailing my whole stack of Casper Van Dien fan letters, joining Facebook). Luckily, a forgotten gem by the name of Superman III was patiently awaiting my attention on the DVR and like the hero that it was in 1983, it flew in to save the day. If you have not seen this movie in the twenty-seven years since it came out you owe it to yourself to take a walk down memory lane to a time when computers required keys, non-descript henchmen quickly built overly complicated machines, and Superman got infected with Bad-Superman only to have the ghost of Clark Kent eventually leave the body of Bad-Superman and then kill Bad-Superman somehow leaving just the ghost of Clark Kent.
Plenty of actors have played Superman and, with Hollywood’s current lack of new ideas, plenty more will don the cape and boots in the future (cape and boots would have been my costume for my aforementioned “streak a tiger’s cage” option). I can’t see anyone having the combination of look, sound and charisma that Christopher Reeve brought to the character. I hate to use the same analogy in two consecutive reviews so I won’t say that Reeve was born to play the Superman character. How about if I say he was conceived to play the character. From that point it is all just a crap shoot anyway, isn’t it? I have not looked at my birth certificate in some time (I do recall inspecting it for typographical errors upon birth) but is there a “Reason for Birth” section? If not, there should be. If Matthew and I can ride this blog wave of popularity all the way to Pennsylvania Avenue I think that will be the first thing I review. It may not solve any problems or cure any diseases but think of the fun new born babies will have at cocktail parties in fifty years! And isn’t that the reason we all want to be The President (remember, the children are our future, teach them well and let them lead the way).
But enough about the future, let’s talk about the past. For those of you following this blog, if you are roughly my age then you are part of the last generation to remember a time without computers and cellular telephones. I am not talking about all computers (digital computing dates back to the 1930’s) but about the modern personal computer. Superman III is a hilarious glimpse back at the limitations of early modern computers. Richard Pryor is the comic relief in this film, portraying a computer genius named Gus Gorman. Unhappy with his weekly “donation” to Uncle Sam, Gus hatches a plan to steal the change-remainder (the left over half cents on everyone’s paycheck) from all of his co-workers. Editorial Comment: Now you know where Mike Judge came up with the idea for Office Space.
Being a “computer genius,” Gus pulls off the scheme to perfection and get’s himself about ninety thousand dollars. Unlike Office Space though, the error is quickly noticed by business owner Ross Webster (played by former A-Team regular Robert Vaughn) who instead of punishing Gus asks him to program a government satellite to ruin the Colombian coffee crop. Like all government satellites, there is a terminal in an office in Smallville which is secured by two Fisher-Price keys both of which are unsecured but they have to be turned simultaneously in locks which are outside of arm’s length. This is a great security measure and probably more effective than passwords and encryption (or simply just hiding the keys). Right after I am done with this review I am going to rig up an ignition switch on my Hewlett-Packard, I can’t have some “computer genius” using my laptop to cover his position in Orange Juice futures.
I was kind of hoping when the computer came up that its first line of text would be “would you like to play a game? And then “how about a nice game of chess?” To which Gus would type in “right now let’s play global thermal nuclear war.” Surprisingly, that didn’t happen. Instead the computer just asked Gus what longitude and latitude he would like the satellite to destroy. Of course Gus was not able to destroy the crop as Superman came to the rescue. I can’t imagine that Superman has enough time on his hands to save one country’s seasonal coffee harvest so I will just assume that he owed a favor to Juan Valdez.
Skipping ahead to the middle, after seeing the power of his computer “genius,” Gus decides he wants a little taste of the riches he is helping to produce. Like all good entrepreneurs, Gus has sketched out the world’s first super-computer on a napkin and wants Ross to build this computer using the napkin as a schematic to guide four non-descript henchmen. No problem! The super-computer is easily built by the henchmen and it is also equipped with rockets, a missile and the 8-bit graphics capability of the original Nintendo system.
My favorite part of the computer (beyond the fact that it was powered exclusively by an unprotected Phillips screw) is that it shot out a giant hamster ball to combat its enemies. Now, I don’t know if this feature was part of the original napkin drawing or if it was just a nice henchmen upgrade, but having a fall back plan is always a super-computer must. I am sure our own Army Generals have a manual somewhere that says after you ask questions first and then shoot, if that does not work encase the combatant in a hamster ball. As you may have guessed, the computer shoots the ball at Superman and he becomes encased in it. Normally, I would think that the Man of Steel would not be fazed by such an apparatus. I would have guessed that he would have smiled politely, maybe done a few cool bouncing stunts and then excused himself from the ball using one of his many powers. In this case, Superman seemed to struggle mightily with the ball and even appeared to be having problems breathing.
As we have all seen Superman and Superman II, it seems common knowledge that Superman came from another planet and that he often flew around in space for both leisure and business purposes. So, if he is comfortable traveling and flying in space why would he have any problems breathing in a hamster ball? Does he need oxygen on earth but not in space? Maybe he was just laughing so hard that he couldn’t catch his breath.
Soon after the failed hamster ball defense tactic, the computer became self-aware (I-Robot, Eagle Eye, Terminator, etc.), turned Ross’s sister into a robot using excess network cable, gently threw Ross’s girlfriend against the wall, and fired all of its remaining defenses against Superman including Chia grass, the Snuggie and a glob of Calgon (ancient Chinese secret). If only Gus had been at a restaurant with bigger napkins he could have drawn up additional defense mechanisms including a better disguised “Off” switch!
In the end, Superman defeated the world’s first super-computer whereby setting Microsoft back six months in their production of the world’s second super-computer. And, in an unexpected turn of events, Superman gave Gus a jive handshake and flew him off to a job interview at a coal plant. I have to admit, I did not see that one coming!
So, to wrap this one up, computers have come a long way in the past twenty seven years. Unfortunately, the “home” key is still the most misleading button on the keyboard!
Warren
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Monday, October 4, 2010
Wall Street: Irony never Sleeps
Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps is a movie about irony. There is irony at every turn and in almost every scene of the film. Of course, the film was directed by Oliver Stone so there were also a lot of tears, gratuitous shots of the New York City skyline, long winded monologues and celebrity appearances. The good news is, after a two hour investment I was left with a building block of conversation and the memories of a man I met some seventeen years ago on HBO named Gordon Gekko.
The first Wall Street movie takes me back to a simpler time. In 1987 Wall Street wasn’t focused on credit default swaps, collateralized debt obligations and stock/warrant off-balance sheet research & development. Twenty three years ago Gordon Gekko used a mule-team of insiders and tipsters to manipulate the share prices of vulnerable companies in order to buy them at a discount and sell them off as unit parts. In 1987 Gordon Gekko also used the blossoming technologies of computers and cellular telephones. Too bad Blue Horseshoe loved Blue Star Airlines and Anacott Steel instead of Apple and Microsoft!
This Wall Street sequel is set in 2008 and is an editorial version of the circumstances that led to the market declines, credit crunches, housing bubble burst and bank failures of the past several years. I actually like the way the story was portrayed by Oliver Stone. He used some wind-bag analogies and overly dramatic monologues at both the front and back ends of the film, but the picture he painted in between was both thought provoking and entertaining.
I usually hate it when people make outlandish statements, but as cliché as it sounds, Michael Douglas was born to play Gordon Gekko. He has the style, the look and most importantly the sound of the character. The first third of the film saw Gordon re-building his life after a stay in prison and decrying the twenty first century version of “greed is good.” As I was watching this first third of the film, I couldn’t help but to think to myself that while co-actor Shia LaBeouf (as Jake Moore) seemed to acting his heart out, Michael Douglas just didn’t seem to be selling the part. As Douglas seemed to blandly read the lines he had memorized I started to wonder if his personal pain or family tragedy had spoiled his interest in his craft.
In the aforementioned first third of the film, the first ironic theme occurred when Gordon Gekko was shown smoking his trademark giant cigars. Still a symbol of the old-boys network and backroom dealings on “The Street,” Gekko smoked his stogies like they were an oval office intern. Of course, the irony of seeing Gekko inhale and exhale that poison lies in Michael Douglas’ current battle with throat cancer. While I understand the symbolism and importance of the cigar to the character I have to wonder if either Oliver Stone or Douglas should have used the edit room to remove the smoking reference. To those readers who might say that Douglas’ cancer was caused by “stress” or “alcohol” I urge you to reconsider the possibility that those were the exclusive causes of the disease.
The first third of Wall Street also introduced us to the daughter of Gordon Gekko, Winnie, played by British actress Carey Mulligan. I realize this may be a sensitive subject, and I will be the first to admit that I am no object of desire, but Mulligan seems like a rough combination of minimal beauty and average acting ability. There are certain rolls where the story calls for a specific look (Monster is a great example) but I just didn’t buy Winnie as the daughter of Gordon Gekko. Oliver Stone could have used the look of Winnie to represent her rebellion against her father, but I just could not picture a “Just One of the Guys” transformation of Carey Mulligan into an object of desire. On a side note, does anyone else remember how the media used to always portray Sinead O’Conner as a model quality beauty who shaved her head? That was another situation where I had a hard time picturing the possibilities.
At any rate, the only real value of the Winnie character was some Hilary Swank-ish crying. As you may recall from my review of P.S. I Love You, Hilary completed a marathon exiting of tears to the tune of around two hours and fifteen minutes. While Winnie did not break that record, there was still a lot of tears! Not only tears, but Winnie had the quivering lip cry. I have no idea what Mulligan was thinking about to send out both nickel size tears and the lip quiver but I think the last line of the film should have been:
“No animals were injured during filming, however Bambi was slaughtered over and over in the mind of Carey Mulligan. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.”
The second-third of the Wall Street film saw the meat of the plot unfold and the introduction of Bretton James, played by Josh Brolin. Brolin, famous for his first acting roll in Goonies and for beating his wife (allegedly), has become quite the go-to actor in the past several years. Oliver Stone dropped in ironic theme number two with the casting of Brolin as financial heavyweight (and original Gekko whistle blower) & Wall Street power broker James. The irony, of course, lies in the face of Brolin as a co-conspirator in the financial meltdown and government bailout. The same face used to portray that meltdown is also cinematically tied to George W. Bush, whom Brolin portrayed in 2008’s W.
The third ironic theme came from the only question I wanted answered from the first Wall Street film. When I originally saw the trailer for this new Wall Street I was confused by the introduction of a daughter for Gordon Gekko. Gekko was portrayed as having a son in the first installment but there was never a daughter. I was very curious as to how Oliver Stone was going to explain this one and to be honest I was fearful of a Mummy style switcheroo where Rachel Weisz becomes Maria Bello without any further explanation. Stone not only handled the answer in a smart way, he also brought the real life of Michael Douglas back to the forefront by having Gekko’s son die of drug use despite his best efforts for help. I can only imagine the pain and embarrassment that Douglas has felt with the drug problems of his son that ultimately landed him in prison.
The final third of Wall Street brought the spine tingling moment I had been secretly hoping for but not expecting. Even if for just a few screen moments, Douglas brought out Gordon Gekko in all of his scheming and conniving glory. The moment Gekko was back, the whole story tied itself together along with the brilliant performance of Douglas. While I was feeling sorry for him as he seemed to be robotically and uninspiring reading his lines, he was simply acting as a character who himself was acting.
While the final couple of minutes and ultimate conclusion of the film did not live up to the story that had been painted, I am going to refrain from criticizing it. As with most Hollywood films, there is a need to finish things up with a big red bow and happy ending. Oliver Stone went out of his way in the last 45 seconds of the film to make sure that everyone in the film received some sort of validation, justice or comfort. The true story that Wall Street mirrors had no real winners, so why not leave us all with something to look forward to. It was as if Stone was reminding all of us that it is "Morning in America."
So, to wrap this one up, let me just say that this Blue Horseshoe loves Magellan Midstream Partners LP. It’s a solid, dividend paying stock that you should consider.
Warren
The first Wall Street movie takes me back to a simpler time. In 1987 Wall Street wasn’t focused on credit default swaps, collateralized debt obligations and stock/warrant off-balance sheet research & development. Twenty three years ago Gordon Gekko used a mule-team of insiders and tipsters to manipulate the share prices of vulnerable companies in order to buy them at a discount and sell them off as unit parts. In 1987 Gordon Gekko also used the blossoming technologies of computers and cellular telephones. Too bad Blue Horseshoe loved Blue Star Airlines and Anacott Steel instead of Apple and Microsoft!
This Wall Street sequel is set in 2008 and is an editorial version of the circumstances that led to the market declines, credit crunches, housing bubble burst and bank failures of the past several years. I actually like the way the story was portrayed by Oliver Stone. He used some wind-bag analogies and overly dramatic monologues at both the front and back ends of the film, but the picture he painted in between was both thought provoking and entertaining.
I usually hate it when people make outlandish statements, but as cliché as it sounds, Michael Douglas was born to play Gordon Gekko. He has the style, the look and most importantly the sound of the character. The first third of the film saw Gordon re-building his life after a stay in prison and decrying the twenty first century version of “greed is good.” As I was watching this first third of the film, I couldn’t help but to think to myself that while co-actor Shia LaBeouf (as Jake Moore) seemed to acting his heart out, Michael Douglas just didn’t seem to be selling the part. As Douglas seemed to blandly read the lines he had memorized I started to wonder if his personal pain or family tragedy had spoiled his interest in his craft.
In the aforementioned first third of the film, the first ironic theme occurred when Gordon Gekko was shown smoking his trademark giant cigars. Still a symbol of the old-boys network and backroom dealings on “The Street,” Gekko smoked his stogies like they were an oval office intern. Of course, the irony of seeing Gekko inhale and exhale that poison lies in Michael Douglas’ current battle with throat cancer. While I understand the symbolism and importance of the cigar to the character I have to wonder if either Oliver Stone or Douglas should have used the edit room to remove the smoking reference. To those readers who might say that Douglas’ cancer was caused by “stress” or “alcohol” I urge you to reconsider the possibility that those were the exclusive causes of the disease.
The first third of Wall Street also introduced us to the daughter of Gordon Gekko, Winnie, played by British actress Carey Mulligan. I realize this may be a sensitive subject, and I will be the first to admit that I am no object of desire, but Mulligan seems like a rough combination of minimal beauty and average acting ability. There are certain rolls where the story calls for a specific look (Monster is a great example) but I just didn’t buy Winnie as the daughter of Gordon Gekko. Oliver Stone could have used the look of Winnie to represent her rebellion against her father, but I just could not picture a “Just One of the Guys” transformation of Carey Mulligan into an object of desire. On a side note, does anyone else remember how the media used to always portray Sinead O’Conner as a model quality beauty who shaved her head? That was another situation where I had a hard time picturing the possibilities.
At any rate, the only real value of the Winnie character was some Hilary Swank-ish crying. As you may recall from my review of P.S. I Love You, Hilary completed a marathon exiting of tears to the tune of around two hours and fifteen minutes. While Winnie did not break that record, there was still a lot of tears! Not only tears, but Winnie had the quivering lip cry. I have no idea what Mulligan was thinking about to send out both nickel size tears and the lip quiver but I think the last line of the film should have been:
“No animals were injured during filming, however Bambi was slaughtered over and over in the mind of Carey Mulligan. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.”
The second-third of the Wall Street film saw the meat of the plot unfold and the introduction of Bretton James, played by Josh Brolin. Brolin, famous for his first acting roll in Goonies and for beating his wife (allegedly), has become quite the go-to actor in the past several years. Oliver Stone dropped in ironic theme number two with the casting of Brolin as financial heavyweight (and original Gekko whistle blower) & Wall Street power broker James. The irony, of course, lies in the face of Brolin as a co-conspirator in the financial meltdown and government bailout. The same face used to portray that meltdown is also cinematically tied to George W. Bush, whom Brolin portrayed in 2008’s W.
The third ironic theme came from the only question I wanted answered from the first Wall Street film. When I originally saw the trailer for this new Wall Street I was confused by the introduction of a daughter for Gordon Gekko. Gekko was portrayed as having a son in the first installment but there was never a daughter. I was very curious as to how Oliver Stone was going to explain this one and to be honest I was fearful of a Mummy style switcheroo where Rachel Weisz becomes Maria Bello without any further explanation. Stone not only handled the answer in a smart way, he also brought the real life of Michael Douglas back to the forefront by having Gekko’s son die of drug use despite his best efforts for help. I can only imagine the pain and embarrassment that Douglas has felt with the drug problems of his son that ultimately landed him in prison.
The final third of Wall Street brought the spine tingling moment I had been secretly hoping for but not expecting. Even if for just a few screen moments, Douglas brought out Gordon Gekko in all of his scheming and conniving glory. The moment Gekko was back, the whole story tied itself together along with the brilliant performance of Douglas. While I was feeling sorry for him as he seemed to be robotically and uninspiring reading his lines, he was simply acting as a character who himself was acting.
While the final couple of minutes and ultimate conclusion of the film did not live up to the story that had been painted, I am going to refrain from criticizing it. As with most Hollywood films, there is a need to finish things up with a big red bow and happy ending. Oliver Stone went out of his way in the last 45 seconds of the film to make sure that everyone in the film received some sort of validation, justice or comfort. The true story that Wall Street mirrors had no real winners, so why not leave us all with something to look forward to. It was as if Stone was reminding all of us that it is "Morning in America."
So, to wrap this one up, let me just say that this Blue Horseshoe loves Magellan Midstream Partners LP. It’s a solid, dividend paying stock that you should consider.
Warren
Friday, August 27, 2010
The Expendables, the Musical!
Sorry for the delay in posting a new movie review. I have watched several movies lately but they have mostly been mediocre (at best) and not really worthy of your precious reading time. A few examples of movies you can probably avoid (or at least wait until they are on free television) are Dinner for Schmucks, The Other Guys & Date Night. I will reserve the right to write a few words about a couple of movies I did actually find interesting including Cyrus, The Book of Eli and most surprisingly Clash of the Titans. Clash was actually a very entertaining movie and I personally thought the Maria Carey-like (Mimi to me) glow given to Liam Neeson as Zeus was pretty terrific. Neeson made Zeus look like a back-up singer for Neil Diamond and that is how I like to think of my Greek mythology!
For now, Clash will have to wait until another day. We have some expendables to discuss. I have to admit I was somewhat surprised when I realized that The Expendables was an action adventure film. I just assumed that it was an accounting how-to picture that would answer Schedule A questions and discuss the legality of off-shore tax shelters.
As it turns out, the expendables are a group of mercenary middle aged tough guys who ride motorcycles, tattoo each other, and overthrow tyrannical dictators. The film is written, directed and stars Sylvester Stallone as the eldest statesman mercenary who leads his band of merry men into difficult combat situations all over the globe. His merry men are all of your favorite action stars of the past two decades including Jet Li, Jason Statham, Dolph Lundgren, Mickey Rourke, Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger.
This film also had several fringe characters (Willis and Arnold were just cameos) including Terry Crews and the always terrible Randy Couture. If you don’t know the name Randy Couture he is a cage fighter who has terrible cauliflower ear and previously starred in the straight-to-video Scorpion King 2. Not only is he a terrible actor, Randy also mixes in way too many body slams in his hand-to-hand combat scenes. I don’t want to singly fault Randy for the abundance of body slams (I realize there are stunt coordinators and a seasoned Director also at fault) but as a professional fighter he should know better. I will freely admit that I have been in only a few fights (mostly during Justin Bieber concerts) but I have never seen the body slam as either a functional or debilitating offensive maneuver. Picking a dude up for a body slam is both physically awkward and also requires the assistance of your opponent.
As you are reading this step out of your cubical (or office for those of you so lucky) and the next guy to walk by put one arm between his legs, the opposite hand on his shoulder and try to pick him up. I can almost guarantee that you are not going to be successful. I say “almost guarantee” because I don’t know where all of you work (if you work at an anorexic hospital or midget talent agency you might have slightly different results), but even if you are able to hoist your co-worker up for a body slam, go ahead and throw him down to the ground to check his reaction. The most common reaction has to be a combination of surprise and bewilderment. You might hear the following: “you just body slammed me! Why?”
I guess the lesson here is, follow up your jump punch attempt with a body slam. If I can keep this blog going I might be able to choreograph a full fight sequence using only the most absurd and least damaging maneuvers ever attempted. In my mind the sequence can only be captured in super slow motion, in a pounding rain, with Charlotte Church singing in the background.
Beyond the unusual number of body slams utilized in the fight sequences of this film there is also a dizzying array of explosions, float plane flights, Mickey Rourke tears, and hand held guns that blow the bad guys in half.
The float plane was actually a cool piece of movie nostalgia. I especially liked the scene where the pilot of the plane (Stallone) just flips a switch below the term “auto-pilot” which looked like it was pasted on the control panel with a label maker. Too bad he couldn’t have picked up a rotary phone to call to the back of the plane to ask Jet Li to “give me more power.” I guess if the request for more power went unanswered Stallone could have always tapped out S.O.S. on the vibroplex.
There was one rather peculiar scene involving the float plane where the plane dumped some excess fuel from a wing onto a dock and then Jason Statham ignited the fuel from the plane causing the dock to explode. It was definitely a cool scene and a great explosion but why did the gas stop burning once it blew up the dock? The wing of the float plane was clearly still emitting fuel when the explosion occurred so wouldn’t the flame follow the fuel and ultimately blow up the wing of the plane? I would hate to think that something I saw in Die Hard 2 (Die Harder) was not true. Didn’t McClane blow up General Esperanza’s plane by igniting the fuel leak from the plane’s wing?
Speaking of explosions, there was also an interesting scene at General Garza’s compound where a moat surrounding the main house was ignited and created a huge explosion and a strong enough burn to eventually engulf & kill “Stunning” Steve Austin. When I saw this I was really impressed. I mean it was another huge explosion and then a continued strong burn that the characters had to jump over and it really lit up the screen. But then I started thinking, why would you have a gasoline moat around your house? This just seems like a terrible idea! Forget the pungent odor that you would have in surround-smell every morning (all day for that matter), what about just the danger! If you are a drug pushing dictator you have to live a certain way. You need fire effects around your pool, you have to smoke unreasonably large cigars, you need to randomly fire large guns, and you have to celebrate every mid-level holiday with a fireworks show. Putting a gasoline moat around your house really cramps the style of the twenty-first century dictator.
Another thing that can really cramp the style of a dictator is the lack of a compound security system. Why were Stallone and his men able to freely move about the compound to rescue Sandra and set all of their bombs without anyone noticing? I mean, this island was supposed to be just a few miles into the Gulf of Mexico. If there isn’t a Costco on the island I am sure they can overnight a few security cameras from the New Orleans store! For crap sakes there are three security cameras at my office and no one here has ever carried a bill larger than a ten in their wallet. If you are a dictator and control the drug trade you need to pony up the $599 and buy a security system.
So, to wrap this one up I would like to give a shout out to my lovely wife who came up with the line of the day when watching The Expendables. Dolph Lundgren’s character in this film goes from good guy to bad guy and back to good guy. In the period between bad guy and good guy he gets shot by Stallone and in a suspense building scene pulls Stallone close to whisper something into his ear (the audience is not privy to the whispered comment). My wife didn’t miss a beat when she noted that Dolph probably whispered “I must break you.”
Warren
For now, Clash will have to wait until another day. We have some expendables to discuss. I have to admit I was somewhat surprised when I realized that The Expendables was an action adventure film. I just assumed that it was an accounting how-to picture that would answer Schedule A questions and discuss the legality of off-shore tax shelters.
As it turns out, the expendables are a group of mercenary middle aged tough guys who ride motorcycles, tattoo each other, and overthrow tyrannical dictators. The film is written, directed and stars Sylvester Stallone as the eldest statesman mercenary who leads his band of merry men into difficult combat situations all over the globe. His merry men are all of your favorite action stars of the past two decades including Jet Li, Jason Statham, Dolph Lundgren, Mickey Rourke, Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger.
This film also had several fringe characters (Willis and Arnold were just cameos) including Terry Crews and the always terrible Randy Couture. If you don’t know the name Randy Couture he is a cage fighter who has terrible cauliflower ear and previously starred in the straight-to-video Scorpion King 2. Not only is he a terrible actor, Randy also mixes in way too many body slams in his hand-to-hand combat scenes. I don’t want to singly fault Randy for the abundance of body slams (I realize there are stunt coordinators and a seasoned Director also at fault) but as a professional fighter he should know better. I will freely admit that I have been in only a few fights (mostly during Justin Bieber concerts) but I have never seen the body slam as either a functional or debilitating offensive maneuver. Picking a dude up for a body slam is both physically awkward and also requires the assistance of your opponent.
As you are reading this step out of your cubical (or office for those of you so lucky) and the next guy to walk by put one arm between his legs, the opposite hand on his shoulder and try to pick him up. I can almost guarantee that you are not going to be successful. I say “almost guarantee” because I don’t know where all of you work (if you work at an anorexic hospital or midget talent agency you might have slightly different results), but even if you are able to hoist your co-worker up for a body slam, go ahead and throw him down to the ground to check his reaction. The most common reaction has to be a combination of surprise and bewilderment. You might hear the following: “you just body slammed me! Why?”
I guess the lesson here is, follow up your jump punch attempt with a body slam. If I can keep this blog going I might be able to choreograph a full fight sequence using only the most absurd and least damaging maneuvers ever attempted. In my mind the sequence can only be captured in super slow motion, in a pounding rain, with Charlotte Church singing in the background.
Beyond the unusual number of body slams utilized in the fight sequences of this film there is also a dizzying array of explosions, float plane flights, Mickey Rourke tears, and hand held guns that blow the bad guys in half.
The float plane was actually a cool piece of movie nostalgia. I especially liked the scene where the pilot of the plane (Stallone) just flips a switch below the term “auto-pilot” which looked like it was pasted on the control panel with a label maker. Too bad he couldn’t have picked up a rotary phone to call to the back of the plane to ask Jet Li to “give me more power.” I guess if the request for more power went unanswered Stallone could have always tapped out S.O.S. on the vibroplex.
There was one rather peculiar scene involving the float plane where the plane dumped some excess fuel from a wing onto a dock and then Jason Statham ignited the fuel from the plane causing the dock to explode. It was definitely a cool scene and a great explosion but why did the gas stop burning once it blew up the dock? The wing of the float plane was clearly still emitting fuel when the explosion occurred so wouldn’t the flame follow the fuel and ultimately blow up the wing of the plane? I would hate to think that something I saw in Die Hard 2 (Die Harder) was not true. Didn’t McClane blow up General Esperanza’s plane by igniting the fuel leak from the plane’s wing?
Speaking of explosions, there was also an interesting scene at General Garza’s compound where a moat surrounding the main house was ignited and created a huge explosion and a strong enough burn to eventually engulf & kill “Stunning” Steve Austin. When I saw this I was really impressed. I mean it was another huge explosion and then a continued strong burn that the characters had to jump over and it really lit up the screen. But then I started thinking, why would you have a gasoline moat around your house? This just seems like a terrible idea! Forget the pungent odor that you would have in surround-smell every morning (all day for that matter), what about just the danger! If you are a drug pushing dictator you have to live a certain way. You need fire effects around your pool, you have to smoke unreasonably large cigars, you need to randomly fire large guns, and you have to celebrate every mid-level holiday with a fireworks show. Putting a gasoline moat around your house really cramps the style of the twenty-first century dictator.
Another thing that can really cramp the style of a dictator is the lack of a compound security system. Why were Stallone and his men able to freely move about the compound to rescue Sandra and set all of their bombs without anyone noticing? I mean, this island was supposed to be just a few miles into the Gulf of Mexico. If there isn’t a Costco on the island I am sure they can overnight a few security cameras from the New Orleans store! For crap sakes there are three security cameras at my office and no one here has ever carried a bill larger than a ten in their wallet. If you are a dictator and control the drug trade you need to pony up the $599 and buy a security system.
So, to wrap this one up I would like to give a shout out to my lovely wife who came up with the line of the day when watching The Expendables. Dolph Lundgren’s character in this film goes from good guy to bad guy and back to good guy. In the period between bad guy and good guy he gets shot by Stallone and in a suspense building scene pulls Stallone close to whisper something into his ear (the audience is not privy to the whispered comment). My wife didn’t miss a beat when she noted that Dolph probably whispered “I must break you.”
Warren
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Did Matthew Kill Kenny?
I just finished watching the 12th season of “South Park”. Over the years I kind of lost interest in the series. Trey Parker and Matt Stone go to some deranged places and it was getting to the point where they were trying too hard to be offensive and they forgot that they were being broadcast on a channel called Comedy Central. The Comedy was no longer Central. They were editorialists, much as they always have been, but they were bitchy and unctuous.
Well in the 12th season they return to form. But in a matured form. I don’t mean to say that their humor is mature. Fart jokes still predominate. But they have matured as artists and satirists. In the 12th season, Parker and Stone remember why their show became a cultural milestone. For this season the show has a definite existential bent.
The season contains many episodes which the intelligentsia will consider classics, as soon as the intelligentsia discovers Comedy Central. The season starts with “Tonsil Trouble.” Cartman gets his tonsils out, but gets infected with AIDS as a consequence of the surgery. Any fans of the show will immediately get the irony. Eric Cartman isn’t simply a homophobe; he is the ultimate racist, misanthrope. Kyle Broslofski thinks it’s funny and laughs. So Cartman sneaks into Kyle’s room at night and medicine drops blood into his mouth – infecting him with AIDS. Hilarity ensues involving Magic Johnson and the lesson of the episode is that extraordinarily large amounts of money cure AIDS. There’s a life truism for you. Money cures all problems.
The first episode of the season echoes what has been done before and essentially presages what is to come for the rest of the season. That is to say, the humor will be infantile. Preposterous events will occur and the protagonists will act selfishly always. In fact in episode 7, “Super Fun Time,” Eric espouses exactly that philosophy to Butters. “Life goes by pretty fast and if you don’t stop to smell the flowers some time and do what you want to do all the time, you will miss it.” So the show doesn’t break ground in its approach or its premise. The revelation comes in the gems of shows or lines which happen throughout the season.
My favorite existential moment happens in the second episode, “Britney’s New Look.” I don’t intend to recap every episode here and, in fact, in order to motivate the reader of this blog to watch some of the season for himself, I’ll try not to recap any more episodes. Suffice to say that, “Britney’s New Look,” is a condemnation (yet also an explanation and justification, not exactly humorously, but somehow almost believable) of the culture of elevating preteens to celebrity status and then watching, almost wishing for, them to fall. And the final scene, viewed two years after it was broadcast, is agonizingly prescient.
In all long running series there has to be character development as well. And for me the episode which stands out is episode 9, “The Breast Cancer Show.” This episode legitimately is very educational. If you read certain parts of the script, you would think you were reading a PSA about breast cancer and testimonials about surviving breast cancer. Those portions of the script could stand as great Lifetime television. But this isn’t Lifetime. The joy of this episode is watching Wendy Testurburger kick Cartman’s ass. The leadup to the ass kicking is hilarious as Cartman reveals what a poser he is. The restraint, and the reasons for that restraint, with which Wendy holds back her anger builds tension. The Principal’s counsel to Wendy on how she should handle the situation that she is in provides a turning point towards resolution. And the unbinding of all that dramatic tension is released in a scene of pure, raw, animal aggression not equaled, on any TV show, since season 5’s “Cripple Fight.” Truly a fight scene that should go down in the annals of history as one of the best.
Of course, in any South Park season there must be unfounded, goofy, silliness. Well. Okay. The entire show is goofy. But there are peaks in any season. And Butters, as usual, provides the peak. In episode 8, “The China Probrem (not a misspelling on my part),” Cartman convinces Butters that the Chinese will invade and take over America. A more racist and offensive episode you will never find. It is hilarious. Really no life lesson here. Just f’en hilarious.
And here I must interject and say that I watched these episodes without all of the bleeping going on. South Park is far funnier with no censoring sound effects. I never realized exactly how much they cursed or how varied the curses were. The conversation flows much better when the bleeps are turned off. The conversations sound more authentic. Therein my appeal for adult programming to be allowed to be broadcast as it was intended. Not that this appeal will come to much.
So finally a note on the rest of the season. There are good episodes in this season which I haven’t mentioned yet. Heavy Metal fans (the movie) will enjoy episode 3, “Major Boobage.” If you remember the movie, the title gives away what the episode is about. Politicos will debate the ethos expressed in episode 12, “About Last Night,” for some time. That episode follows the events the night after Obama won the presidency. Anyone who knows school age children will be able to identify with episodes 13 and 14, “Elementary School Musical,” and “The Ungroundable.” Parker and Stone have to beat up on Canada. They do so in episode 4, “Canada on Strike.” And further exposition on the main characters is done in episodes 5, “Eek a Penis!”, wherein a penis growing out of the back of a mouse pauses for a minute on a fence to sing a love song to the moon (not the exposition I was referring to, just a thought provoking scene), and the dual episodes 10 and 11, “Pandemic” and “Pandemic 2: The Startling.” It is in the second part of this story arc that Craig Tucker, a new character, reveals the essential nature of the four main protagonists (Stan, Kyle, Cartman, Kenny) by rebelling against it after they drag him on one of their adventures. But in the end, the life lesson is that possibly we all should embrace their philosophy of life.
And possibly we should.
Matthew
Well in the 12th season they return to form. But in a matured form. I don’t mean to say that their humor is mature. Fart jokes still predominate. But they have matured as artists and satirists. In the 12th season, Parker and Stone remember why their show became a cultural milestone. For this season the show has a definite existential bent.
The season contains many episodes which the intelligentsia will consider classics, as soon as the intelligentsia discovers Comedy Central. The season starts with “Tonsil Trouble.” Cartman gets his tonsils out, but gets infected with AIDS as a consequence of the surgery. Any fans of the show will immediately get the irony. Eric Cartman isn’t simply a homophobe; he is the ultimate racist, misanthrope. Kyle Broslofski thinks it’s funny and laughs. So Cartman sneaks into Kyle’s room at night and medicine drops blood into his mouth – infecting him with AIDS. Hilarity ensues involving Magic Johnson and the lesson of the episode is that extraordinarily large amounts of money cure AIDS. There’s a life truism for you. Money cures all problems.
The first episode of the season echoes what has been done before and essentially presages what is to come for the rest of the season. That is to say, the humor will be infantile. Preposterous events will occur and the protagonists will act selfishly always. In fact in episode 7, “Super Fun Time,” Eric espouses exactly that philosophy to Butters. “Life goes by pretty fast and if you don’t stop to smell the flowers some time and do what you want to do all the time, you will miss it.” So the show doesn’t break ground in its approach or its premise. The revelation comes in the gems of shows or lines which happen throughout the season.
My favorite existential moment happens in the second episode, “Britney’s New Look.” I don’t intend to recap every episode here and, in fact, in order to motivate the reader of this blog to watch some of the season for himself, I’ll try not to recap any more episodes. Suffice to say that, “Britney’s New Look,” is a condemnation (yet also an explanation and justification, not exactly humorously, but somehow almost believable) of the culture of elevating preteens to celebrity status and then watching, almost wishing for, them to fall. And the final scene, viewed two years after it was broadcast, is agonizingly prescient.
In all long running series there has to be character development as well. And for me the episode which stands out is episode 9, “The Breast Cancer Show.” This episode legitimately is very educational. If you read certain parts of the script, you would think you were reading a PSA about breast cancer and testimonials about surviving breast cancer. Those portions of the script could stand as great Lifetime television. But this isn’t Lifetime. The joy of this episode is watching Wendy Testurburger kick Cartman’s ass. The leadup to the ass kicking is hilarious as Cartman reveals what a poser he is. The restraint, and the reasons for that restraint, with which Wendy holds back her anger builds tension. The Principal’s counsel to Wendy on how she should handle the situation that she is in provides a turning point towards resolution. And the unbinding of all that dramatic tension is released in a scene of pure, raw, animal aggression not equaled, on any TV show, since season 5’s “Cripple Fight.” Truly a fight scene that should go down in the annals of history as one of the best.
Of course, in any South Park season there must be unfounded, goofy, silliness. Well. Okay. The entire show is goofy. But there are peaks in any season. And Butters, as usual, provides the peak. In episode 8, “The China Probrem (not a misspelling on my part),” Cartman convinces Butters that the Chinese will invade and take over America. A more racist and offensive episode you will never find. It is hilarious. Really no life lesson here. Just f’en hilarious.
And here I must interject and say that I watched these episodes without all of the bleeping going on. South Park is far funnier with no censoring sound effects. I never realized exactly how much they cursed or how varied the curses were. The conversation flows much better when the bleeps are turned off. The conversations sound more authentic. Therein my appeal for adult programming to be allowed to be broadcast as it was intended. Not that this appeal will come to much.
So finally a note on the rest of the season. There are good episodes in this season which I haven’t mentioned yet. Heavy Metal fans (the movie) will enjoy episode 3, “Major Boobage.” If you remember the movie, the title gives away what the episode is about. Politicos will debate the ethos expressed in episode 12, “About Last Night,” for some time. That episode follows the events the night after Obama won the presidency. Anyone who knows school age children will be able to identify with episodes 13 and 14, “Elementary School Musical,” and “The Ungroundable.” Parker and Stone have to beat up on Canada. They do so in episode 4, “Canada on Strike.” And further exposition on the main characters is done in episodes 5, “Eek a Penis!”, wherein a penis growing out of the back of a mouse pauses for a minute on a fence to sing a love song to the moon (not the exposition I was referring to, just a thought provoking scene), and the dual episodes 10 and 11, “Pandemic” and “Pandemic 2: The Startling.” It is in the second part of this story arc that Craig Tucker, a new character, reveals the essential nature of the four main protagonists (Stan, Kyle, Cartman, Kenny) by rebelling against it after they drag him on one of their adventures. But in the end, the life lesson is that possibly we all should embrace their philosophy of life.
And possibly we should.
Matthew
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Holy Shrek!
For those of you that don’t regularly frequent the American Movie Theaters (AMC), I recently found out that during the summer of 2010 they are offering half price tickets to all weekday movies. This offer, combined with free popcorn Wednesdays, made my recent trip to the theater a value driven decision. Of course, it should be noted that half price for a movie ticket is still $5.50. And a free popcorn bag gets you almost about enough kernels to make a respectable mess on the theater floor. So, $11 seems like a reasonable price for a date night. But wait, there’s more! For whatever reason, a movie in 3D costs $8.25. Assuming this is the half price cost of the ticket I guess weekend moviegoers pay $16.50 for the privilege of watching animation come to life.
As you have probably read from my previous review of Avatar I like the idea of 3D movies. Maybe I should say “I liked” the idea of 3D movies because this is just getting out of hand. Not every movie needs to be in 3D. When a movie is specifically filmed in that format it can be an immersive and fun experience. When a movie is retro-fit to the format it is just overpriced. The Readers Digest version of retrofit 3D is that the original print of the film is overlaid by a second print of the film. The glasses have two different lenses which then provide a unique view of the film for each eye. When your two eyes have a different view of the same subject it creates the illusion of depth.
While a retrofit 3D print of a movie uses the same print laid on top of itself, a movie filmed for 3D actually uses two cameras to shoot a scene from slightly different perspectives. As you can imagine, this is both costly and time consuming. My guess would be that the actors would have a period of adjustment like they are reading the news and never quite sure which camera to look at. I am sure that a short acting lesson from Ron Burgundy would make even the most seasoned actor more comfortable in front of the 3D cameras.
So now that we know how much I paid, what I ate, and how the magic of 3D is created, let’s roll the opening credits to Shrek Forever After. Shrek is an animated second cousin to The Hulk. Actually though, Fiona (Shrek’s wife) may also be related to the Hulk. If you think about it, both characters are normal bipeds that change from a socially accepted state into a green oversized cartoon. Anyway, Shrek has appeared in three previous movies, he has done some print work and I think he also had a Christmas special. If the money isn’t right, Shrek won’t get off the couch, so this is supposedly his last movie. What a way to go out!
The basic premise of this fourth Shrek film is that Shrek has no job. Ok, that is not the premise but other than Snow White are there any animated movies where the characters actually have jobs?
The real premise of the film is that Shrek has settled into a life much like that of Bill Murray in Groundhog Day. He has to deal with the same crying kids, screaming friends and overzealous tourists every day. So, in a sort of mid-green crisis he decides that he longs for the freedom to terrorize townspeople, fart, mud wrestle and skip to the soothing sounds of ABBA (these are the same reasons Matthew moved to San Francisco). In order to fulfill this desire Shrek has to make a deal with tiny magician Rumpelstiltskin (too bad Doug Henning wasn’t available) whereby exchanging a meaningless day in his childhood for a day in an alternate universe.
At this point, I was enjoying the movie and thinking that I could go along with this ruse as long as the writer remembers the principals we learned from Doc Brown. I will admit that everything I know about time travel I learned from Back to the Future. So what? Where did you get your knowledge of time travel? Emmett L. Brown is a Doctor.
When Shrek completes the deal with Rumpelstiltskin he is magically transported into a world where no one knows him, everyone is afraid of him and Rumpelstiltskin is the King of Far Far Away. Whoops! As it turns out, Rumpelstiltskin is an ENRON executive and the meaningless day in Shrek’s childhood turned out to be the day of his birth. So, Shrek was never born and thus he never saved Fiona and Rumpelstiltskin became King (there are some other important details in there that I am leaving out but I am reviewing the movie not summarizing it).
This may work for children (presumably the target audience for the film) but it doesn’t work for me! Assuming that Rumpelstiltskin took away the day of Shrek’s birth how can it be that he was not born? Shrek’s mother (the Jolly Green Giant’s sister?) was still pregnant with him for 9 months; did that just go away on the actual birth day? Did Rumpelstiltskin murder the baby Shrek? Let’s dissect the question in this manner – if Rumpelstiltskin had taken a different day from Shrek’s childhood wouldn’t Shrek have existed the day before and the day after? “I will take 21st Century Animated Philosophy for $2000 Alex.”
Moving past the pontification portion of the review, the film rumbled along with Shrek being forced to evade capture, find Fiona and make her fall in love with him all over again to save his future while also saving the alternate universe of Far Far Away.
Hold your breath...keep holding it...ten more seconds...you are getting close...three...two...almost there...one...
Shrek saved his future and Far Far Away. Thank goodness!
While the adventure was adventurous and the effects were special, the ending was a poke directly into the eye of the space time continuum. Shrek made the day trading deal with Rumpelstiltskin after losing his cool at his children’s birthday party and running away through the woods. When Shrek and Fiona kissed in the alternate universe, whereby voiding the day trading contract and saving both the actual present and an alternate present, he was transported from the alternate present to the actual past. Confused? So was I!
The film comes to a conclusion by sending Shrek back to the period during the birthday party so that he could tell Fiona he loves her and not embarrass himself in front of his children. Interestingly, Shrek arrives at the party in a spiritual sense with full knowledge of his adventures in the alternate universe. A quick pan shot outside of the party site showed Rumpelstiltskin who appeared to have no knowledge of his adventures in the alternate universe.
If Shrek arrived at the party in a spiritual sense (meaning his body was already there at the party the moment his alternate universe adventures ended) then he must have also left the magical deal site in the same sense. You couldn’t send the physical Shrek into the alternate universe but bring back only the spiritual Shrek.
Are you following me on this one? If Shrek did not physically leave the magical deal site but then spiritually returned to the birthday party prior to when he made the deal at the magical deal site...there are now two Shreks!
I am going to wrap this one up the only way possible:
“Great Scott!”
Warren
As you have probably read from my previous review of Avatar I like the idea of 3D movies. Maybe I should say “I liked” the idea of 3D movies because this is just getting out of hand. Not every movie needs to be in 3D. When a movie is specifically filmed in that format it can be an immersive and fun experience. When a movie is retro-fit to the format it is just overpriced. The Readers Digest version of retrofit 3D is that the original print of the film is overlaid by a second print of the film. The glasses have two different lenses which then provide a unique view of the film for each eye. When your two eyes have a different view of the same subject it creates the illusion of depth.
While a retrofit 3D print of a movie uses the same print laid on top of itself, a movie filmed for 3D actually uses two cameras to shoot a scene from slightly different perspectives. As you can imagine, this is both costly and time consuming. My guess would be that the actors would have a period of adjustment like they are reading the news and never quite sure which camera to look at. I am sure that a short acting lesson from Ron Burgundy would make even the most seasoned actor more comfortable in front of the 3D cameras.
So now that we know how much I paid, what I ate, and how the magic of 3D is created, let’s roll the opening credits to Shrek Forever After. Shrek is an animated second cousin to The Hulk. Actually though, Fiona (Shrek’s wife) may also be related to the Hulk. If you think about it, both characters are normal bipeds that change from a socially accepted state into a green oversized cartoon. Anyway, Shrek has appeared in three previous movies, he has done some print work and I think he also had a Christmas special. If the money isn’t right, Shrek won’t get off the couch, so this is supposedly his last movie. What a way to go out!
The basic premise of this fourth Shrek film is that Shrek has no job. Ok, that is not the premise but other than Snow White are there any animated movies where the characters actually have jobs?
The real premise of the film is that Shrek has settled into a life much like that of Bill Murray in Groundhog Day. He has to deal with the same crying kids, screaming friends and overzealous tourists every day. So, in a sort of mid-green crisis he decides that he longs for the freedom to terrorize townspeople, fart, mud wrestle and skip to the soothing sounds of ABBA (these are the same reasons Matthew moved to San Francisco). In order to fulfill this desire Shrek has to make a deal with tiny magician Rumpelstiltskin (too bad Doug Henning wasn’t available) whereby exchanging a meaningless day in his childhood for a day in an alternate universe.
At this point, I was enjoying the movie and thinking that I could go along with this ruse as long as the writer remembers the principals we learned from Doc Brown. I will admit that everything I know about time travel I learned from Back to the Future. So what? Where did you get your knowledge of time travel? Emmett L. Brown is a Doctor.
When Shrek completes the deal with Rumpelstiltskin he is magically transported into a world where no one knows him, everyone is afraid of him and Rumpelstiltskin is the King of Far Far Away. Whoops! As it turns out, Rumpelstiltskin is an ENRON executive and the meaningless day in Shrek’s childhood turned out to be the day of his birth. So, Shrek was never born and thus he never saved Fiona and Rumpelstiltskin became King (there are some other important details in there that I am leaving out but I am reviewing the movie not summarizing it).
This may work for children (presumably the target audience for the film) but it doesn’t work for me! Assuming that Rumpelstiltskin took away the day of Shrek’s birth how can it be that he was not born? Shrek’s mother (the Jolly Green Giant’s sister?) was still pregnant with him for 9 months; did that just go away on the actual birth day? Did Rumpelstiltskin murder the baby Shrek? Let’s dissect the question in this manner – if Rumpelstiltskin had taken a different day from Shrek’s childhood wouldn’t Shrek have existed the day before and the day after? “I will take 21st Century Animated Philosophy for $2000 Alex.”
Moving past the pontification portion of the review, the film rumbled along with Shrek being forced to evade capture, find Fiona and make her fall in love with him all over again to save his future while also saving the alternate universe of Far Far Away.
Hold your breath...keep holding it...ten more seconds...you are getting close...three...two...almost there...one...
Shrek saved his future and Far Far Away. Thank goodness!
While the adventure was adventurous and the effects were special, the ending was a poke directly into the eye of the space time continuum. Shrek made the day trading deal with Rumpelstiltskin after losing his cool at his children’s birthday party and running away through the woods. When Shrek and Fiona kissed in the alternate universe, whereby voiding the day trading contract and saving both the actual present and an alternate present, he was transported from the alternate present to the actual past. Confused? So was I!
The film comes to a conclusion by sending Shrek back to the period during the birthday party so that he could tell Fiona he loves her and not embarrass himself in front of his children. Interestingly, Shrek arrives at the party in a spiritual sense with full knowledge of his adventures in the alternate universe. A quick pan shot outside of the party site showed Rumpelstiltskin who appeared to have no knowledge of his adventures in the alternate universe.
If Shrek arrived at the party in a spiritual sense (meaning his body was already there at the party the moment his alternate universe adventures ended) then he must have also left the magical deal site in the same sense. You couldn’t send the physical Shrek into the alternate universe but bring back only the spiritual Shrek.
Are you following me on this one? If Shrek did not physically leave the magical deal site but then spiritually returned to the birthday party prior to when he made the deal at the magical deal site...there are now two Shreks!
I am going to wrap this one up the only way possible:
“Great Scott!”
Warren
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
All Aboard - Matthew's Meat Train
All right. I just finished watching “The Midnight Meat Train” and it is just as godawful stupid as I thought it would be. I actually had high hopes for this movie. I watched the special features before I watched the movie, something I very rarely do because watching the special features usually leads to discovering some plot twist which will surely ruin my otherwise enjoyment of the movie. But since I am not a fan of the genre and didn’t suspect that there could be any revelatory plot disclosure, I watched the special features first.
I watched the feature entitled “Clive Barker, Man Behind the Myth.” I had heard of Clive Barker certainly, but really didn’t have any idea what kind of man he was. He initially seemed to be an interesting, well read, intelligent man. The feature was done in an interview style with occasional cutaways to discuss and display some of his movies. He waxed rhapsodic about his theory of the horror genre and tried to intellectualize what he did. He then discussed “The Midnight Meat Train” in specific, explaining its hidden meaning and import. I bought it. I started to get excited about seeing the film and dissecting its themes for myself. The feature went on to explain that Clive is actually a very accomplished and complex individual. He wrote many in depth, intense, cerebral horror stories. He has brought many of those stories to film, and that is where he garnered his fame. But he is also a painter. And that is his release for all those macabre thoughts that cloud his mind. So they showed some of his paintings. Fairly infantile. Which portends how the film would play as well, but more on that in a minute. So this dark intellect goes about trying to tie fantasy and reality together just enough to allow plausibility, yet still bring chills to the viewers of his work. You know he’s gay. Those two sentences don’t really go together, but they are both true. Anyway that’s what I got out of the Man and/or Myth feature.
So on to the movie. So the deal is that Leon is a struggling photographer. He and his girlfriend live in an unnamed city which has a metro, subway, underground, whatever you want to call it. They are both poor but in love. The girlfriend works as a waitress at a dive and has such hopes for her boyfriend she doesn’t mind that he doesn’t make much money. One day she finally gets one of their friends to give Leon an introduction to this art gallery owner, Susan Hoff played by Brooke Shields. Wait. Brooke Shields? Well she had to find something to do now that “Lipstick Jungle” is off the air. Brookey-babe pushes our young protagonist to delve the recesses of his soul, be a true artist and go take really cutting edge photographs. So he heads to the subway.
There he happens upon some young punks harassing a model. He takes pictures of them and then frightens them off. Yea, a wimpy little white boy with a camera, by himself, scatters three young black hoods in the subway. This will not be the end of the illogical happenings. He takes the pictures to Susan/Brooke. She encourages him to do more. And we are off.
Leon, with the encouragement of his girlfriend, goes prowling the streets at night taking more pictures as he goes. And since he had so much success with subway pictures he has to head down there of course. The previous plot development has been interspersed with vignettes of Vinnie Jones (you may know him from the Guy Ritchie English thug pictures like “Snatch” and “Lock, Stock, and Three Smoking Barrels”) playing the part of Mahogany (that’s really the characters name) galumphing around the subway cars sneaking up on people, whacking them on their heads with a great big shiny mallet, and carving them up. He then removes their clothes, teeth and fingernails. Then he hangs them by their feet on the top handrails on the subway car. When he is finished he heads home and scrapes pustules off his chest. Don’t ask me about that last part; it was never explained.
You know what happens next. Leon happens to run into Mahogany and takes some pictures of him doing his deeds. Mahogany eventually catches up with Leon. He doesn’t kill him, oh no. He takes his camera, strips him naked, tattoos his chest and leaves him to wake up in the basement of a slaughterhouse. Leon must get his camera back. Apparently the tattoo is making him a little crazy. His girlfriend tries to help. She and the aforementioned friend go to Mahogany’s apartment. The aforementioned friend gets caught, and clobbered and cut up and hung up eventually in the subway car. The girlfriend, (because she is cute?) gets away, screaming like a banshee.
SPOILER ALERT: So we head towards the finale in the subway. Leon's girlfriend goes down into the subway looking for her friend. Leon goes into the subway looking for Mahogany. Mahogany goes down into the subway, because that is what he does. They all meet up in a subway car. Much blood splattering. Grunting from Leon. Grimacing from Mahogany. And banshee wails from Maya.
The girlfriend’s name is Maya. I should have included that fact earlier, not that it matters. It just would have been polite to refer to her by her name.
Mahogany is eventually pushed off the moving train. And the subway car stops at the final stop, a dark and foreboding place. The subway conductor (you didn’t think subway trains had conductors, did you? Or at least you thought that the conductor would stay oblivious to all that hubbub behind him in the train.) comes out and asks Leon and Maya to please step away from the meat. Ah ha.
The point of all this - seriously don’t read further, if you don’t want the plot spoiled for you - Reptilian humanoids climb aboard the train and eat the meat that Mahogany has prepared for them.
Mahogany shows up again, looking a little scraped up. He and Leon fight. Leon kills Mahogany. The conductor kills Maya. Leon becomes the new Midnight Meat Train provider. I guess that was the point of his tattoo. Maybe it will get scabby and form pustules eventually, I don’t know.
Okay so I didn’t like the movie. It, like all movies in the horror genre, is stupid. Other genres have stupid movies as well, but I don’t go out and watch them either. So beyond the fact that the plot is implausible, what bothered me was that everyone acted like an idiot. Why would you go into a killer’s apartment? Why, if you did go, would you not have one of you stand guard at the door to warn the other person that a large brute with a big shiny mallet was bearing down on them? Ugh, so many plot incongruities even to mention. I will say this, the idea of the story is good; the plot was just poorly executed.
And one final note and I have harped on this before. So in this move it is okay to show a subway rider being hammered in the back of the head so hard that his eyes bulge out and fly out of his head, roll on the subway floor to be eventually slipped on by another victim. Yes show all of that in perfect gory detail. Close ups, slow motion, blood everywhere. But in another scene where Leon is taking seductive photographs of his girlfriend, no good angles, everything obscured by corners or clothes or hands. Nudity bad. Blood, pus, gore okay. Sheesh, this culture.
Matthew
I watched the feature entitled “Clive Barker, Man Behind the Myth.” I had heard of Clive Barker certainly, but really didn’t have any idea what kind of man he was. He initially seemed to be an interesting, well read, intelligent man. The feature was done in an interview style with occasional cutaways to discuss and display some of his movies. He waxed rhapsodic about his theory of the horror genre and tried to intellectualize what he did. He then discussed “The Midnight Meat Train” in specific, explaining its hidden meaning and import. I bought it. I started to get excited about seeing the film and dissecting its themes for myself. The feature went on to explain that Clive is actually a very accomplished and complex individual. He wrote many in depth, intense, cerebral horror stories. He has brought many of those stories to film, and that is where he garnered his fame. But he is also a painter. And that is his release for all those macabre thoughts that cloud his mind. So they showed some of his paintings. Fairly infantile. Which portends how the film would play as well, but more on that in a minute. So this dark intellect goes about trying to tie fantasy and reality together just enough to allow plausibility, yet still bring chills to the viewers of his work. You know he’s gay. Those two sentences don’t really go together, but they are both true. Anyway that’s what I got out of the Man and/or Myth feature.
So on to the movie. So the deal is that Leon is a struggling photographer. He and his girlfriend live in an unnamed city which has a metro, subway, underground, whatever you want to call it. They are both poor but in love. The girlfriend works as a waitress at a dive and has such hopes for her boyfriend she doesn’t mind that he doesn’t make much money. One day she finally gets one of their friends to give Leon an introduction to this art gallery owner, Susan Hoff played by Brooke Shields. Wait. Brooke Shields? Well she had to find something to do now that “Lipstick Jungle” is off the air. Brookey-babe pushes our young protagonist to delve the recesses of his soul, be a true artist and go take really cutting edge photographs. So he heads to the subway.
There he happens upon some young punks harassing a model. He takes pictures of them and then frightens them off. Yea, a wimpy little white boy with a camera, by himself, scatters three young black hoods in the subway. This will not be the end of the illogical happenings. He takes the pictures to Susan/Brooke. She encourages him to do more. And we are off.
Leon, with the encouragement of his girlfriend, goes prowling the streets at night taking more pictures as he goes. And since he had so much success with subway pictures he has to head down there of course. The previous plot development has been interspersed with vignettes of Vinnie Jones (you may know him from the Guy Ritchie English thug pictures like “Snatch” and “Lock, Stock, and Three Smoking Barrels”) playing the part of Mahogany (that’s really the characters name) galumphing around the subway cars sneaking up on people, whacking them on their heads with a great big shiny mallet, and carving them up. He then removes their clothes, teeth and fingernails. Then he hangs them by their feet on the top handrails on the subway car. When he is finished he heads home and scrapes pustules off his chest. Don’t ask me about that last part; it was never explained.
You know what happens next. Leon happens to run into Mahogany and takes some pictures of him doing his deeds. Mahogany eventually catches up with Leon. He doesn’t kill him, oh no. He takes his camera, strips him naked, tattoos his chest and leaves him to wake up in the basement of a slaughterhouse. Leon must get his camera back. Apparently the tattoo is making him a little crazy. His girlfriend tries to help. She and the aforementioned friend go to Mahogany’s apartment. The aforementioned friend gets caught, and clobbered and cut up and hung up eventually in the subway car. The girlfriend, (because she is cute?) gets away, screaming like a banshee.
SPOILER ALERT: So we head towards the finale in the subway. Leon's girlfriend goes down into the subway looking for her friend. Leon goes into the subway looking for Mahogany. Mahogany goes down into the subway, because that is what he does. They all meet up in a subway car. Much blood splattering. Grunting from Leon. Grimacing from Mahogany. And banshee wails from Maya.
The girlfriend’s name is Maya. I should have included that fact earlier, not that it matters. It just would have been polite to refer to her by her name.
Mahogany is eventually pushed off the moving train. And the subway car stops at the final stop, a dark and foreboding place. The subway conductor (you didn’t think subway trains had conductors, did you? Or at least you thought that the conductor would stay oblivious to all that hubbub behind him in the train.) comes out and asks Leon and Maya to please step away from the meat. Ah ha.
The point of all this - seriously don’t read further, if you don’t want the plot spoiled for you - Reptilian humanoids climb aboard the train and eat the meat that Mahogany has prepared for them.
Mahogany shows up again, looking a little scraped up. He and Leon fight. Leon kills Mahogany. The conductor kills Maya. Leon becomes the new Midnight Meat Train provider. I guess that was the point of his tattoo. Maybe it will get scabby and form pustules eventually, I don’t know.
Okay so I didn’t like the movie. It, like all movies in the horror genre, is stupid. Other genres have stupid movies as well, but I don’t go out and watch them either. So beyond the fact that the plot is implausible, what bothered me was that everyone acted like an idiot. Why would you go into a killer’s apartment? Why, if you did go, would you not have one of you stand guard at the door to warn the other person that a large brute with a big shiny mallet was bearing down on them? Ugh, so many plot incongruities even to mention. I will say this, the idea of the story is good; the plot was just poorly executed.
And one final note and I have harped on this before. So in this move it is okay to show a subway rider being hammered in the back of the head so hard that his eyes bulge out and fly out of his head, roll on the subway floor to be eventually slipped on by another victim. Yes show all of that in perfect gory detail. Close ups, slow motion, blood everywhere. But in another scene where Leon is taking seductive photographs of his girlfriend, no good angles, everything obscured by corners or clothes or hands. Nudity bad. Blood, pus, gore okay. Sheesh, this culture.
Matthew
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Where did I Park my Spaceship?
By popular request, I recently viewed the film District 9. I remember when this film originally was being advertised (and then opening) that there seemed to be some confusion as to the involvement of Peter Jackson on this project. If memory serves, it was originally packaged as either From Peter Jackson or Peter Jackson Presents which led me to believe that he was directing the film. It turned out, of course, that Jackson was just a producer of the film and that money was just about the end of his involvement rope. Never the less, I actually liked this film and though there were some quirky plot points I thought it moved along just fine and had a powerful message.
District 9 is an Alien chase picture set in Johannesburg, South Africa. I knew that the picture was set up to be a side door explanation of Apartheid but I was not prepared for the personal reflection that the story would require. I especially enjoyed the film scenery because I was a visitor to Johannesburg a couple of years ago.
After flying into Johannesburg International Airport (it was a jumping off point for a safari trip to Botswana) I was whisked off to a hotel for a single night. The route to the hotel had me driving by settlements that looked eerily like the shanty town that was District 9. It was very hard for me to reconcile that people still lived in these kinds of shacks, largely without basic services, not only in this day and age but also in such an important city. I remember the bus driver commenting that the Government was trying to figure out what to do with the folks living in these settlements as the pressure of hosting the 2010 World Cup drew closer.
The hotel I stayed at in Johannesburg was very nice and appeared to be in the middle of the banking and financial district probably in what we might consider a downtown corridor. The real shock came when I went to the front desk to retrieve my room key and was told not to go outside, especially at night. It was explained that Johannesburg had a crime problem and that kidnappings were a very real possibility.
District 9, as a film, largely portrayed Johannesburg in the same manner as I found it during my visit.
In this film, a large group of aliens have descended upon Earth in what appeared to be the exact same ship as seen in Independence Day. I have no problem with Directors utilizing existing special effects, no need in reinventing the wheel. It would be ironic though if the aliens in deep space really did all have the same ships. Can you imagine a whole galaxy filled with the equivalent of Toyota Corollas? I do like the idea that aliens leaving sporting events or concerts could have that look on their face (you know the one) when they walk outside and see a sky filled with the same colored ships wondering exactly where they had parked.
For a largely unexplained reason, the aliens that arrived in the Corolla ran out of gas and just hovered above Earth until the humans forced their way in and transferred them to a settlement on the ground. This portion of the film utilized news footage and interviews to set the stage for the present day action. The present day action revolved around a plan by a government contractor, Multi-National United, to relocate the alien population from District 9 to a new settlement further outside of Johannesburg. This plan was going to be carried out by a middle manager named Wikus Van De Marwe.
In an obviously well thought out idea, Wikus plans to go door to door in District 9 having 1.8 million “Prawns” read and sign an eviction notice over the course of one business day (it is a 24 hour eviction notice). I don’t know how the math works out as to how many signatures you would need per hour to get all 1.8 million in a day, but I only saw Wikus get four signatures prior to lunch. At that pace I think he was better suited to work for the Department of Transportation! Unfortunately, we will never know if he would have obtained all of the signatures because he spilled some Corolla Gas on himself and began transforming into an alien (I would use the same excuse if I needed 1.8 million signatures and had 4).
I don’t want to spend a lot of my space on a technical review of the film. I do want to point out that there was a major hole in the film that was exposed at this point in the story. As I previously mentioned the introduction to the film was largely based on interviews and file footage. Once the present day relocation program started the film style turned to documentary with Wikus being recorded by a camera crew and acknowledging both the camera and the audience (think of it as Dwight Schrute meets Alf). Unfortunately, once Wikus spilled the Corolla Gas the Director forgot to change the style from Documentary to Narrative. It did not make sense to have the characters shot in a documentary style when there obviously was not a camera crew following them (they were wanted fugitives). It would have been funny though if Wikus as a fugitive would have shown some good emotional confusion as to why his secret plans and hiding places were so easily deciphered (the full camera crew, hair & make-up team and boom operator tend to give away your location).
Skipping back, once Wikus spilled the Corolla Gas he started to turn into an alien and his own company brought him in for testing, experimenting and weaponry. In today’s security first society, I found it really funny that this top secret testing was performed on the third floor of a public building and the experimentation rooms were conveniently located next to a stairwell that led directly to an exterior building exit. Not only was Wikus able to easily escape the testing room, he was able to find his cell phone, his company identification cards and his access badge.
After Wikus escaped the experimentation center he returned to District 9 to learn that the Corolla Gas actually powered the hovering space ship and that a Prawn and his son could reverse the effects of the alien transformation if they had the gas and turned on the ship. Realizing this was great news, Wikus easily broke back into the public building, utilized his still active access code to gain entry to the experimentation room and obtained the loosely secured gas before dodging a volley of automatically fired bullets from Army sharpshooters and drove back to District 9 in a plane white government vehicle. The plan played out just like he drew it up!
Figuring the rest of the film would play out as a traditional Hollywood script, I was surprised at the twists that finalized the story. The first twist was the use of the Corolla Gas. Although the space ship had been hovering above South Africa for many years and the Prawns were basically a group of dangerous, procreating squatters the Humans were afraid to let the visitors actually use their ship to leave the planet. The second twist involved the Prawn and his son who said they could fix Wikus. It turned out that the Prawn could fix Wikus but it would take three years. As the Prawn explained it he needed to help his own people first.
Expecting an ending where the aliens leave the planet and Wikus is turned back into a human and reunited with his wife, I was very surprised to find the planet still inhabited by aliens, the space ship gone and Wikus fully transformed into a Prawn.
When the film wrapped up I spent some time thinking about the story that Director Neill Blomkamp had told. It was a science fiction representation of South Africa under the rule of Apartheid. Every viewer of this film should take the time to think about what they have seen and to question why Humans let segregation, disenfranchisement, removal, relocation and racism exist and sometimes flourish. There simply is no place in our world for these injustices yesterday, today or tomorrow.
Wow, that last part sure seemed cooler in my mind. As I read that paragraph it makes me think that I was suddenly channeled by Keith Olbermann. “Multi-National United, you are the worst people in the world.”
Warren
District 9 is an Alien chase picture set in Johannesburg, South Africa. I knew that the picture was set up to be a side door explanation of Apartheid but I was not prepared for the personal reflection that the story would require. I especially enjoyed the film scenery because I was a visitor to Johannesburg a couple of years ago.
After flying into Johannesburg International Airport (it was a jumping off point for a safari trip to Botswana) I was whisked off to a hotel for a single night. The route to the hotel had me driving by settlements that looked eerily like the shanty town that was District 9. It was very hard for me to reconcile that people still lived in these kinds of shacks, largely without basic services, not only in this day and age but also in such an important city. I remember the bus driver commenting that the Government was trying to figure out what to do with the folks living in these settlements as the pressure of hosting the 2010 World Cup drew closer.
The hotel I stayed at in Johannesburg was very nice and appeared to be in the middle of the banking and financial district probably in what we might consider a downtown corridor. The real shock came when I went to the front desk to retrieve my room key and was told not to go outside, especially at night. It was explained that Johannesburg had a crime problem and that kidnappings were a very real possibility.
District 9, as a film, largely portrayed Johannesburg in the same manner as I found it during my visit.
In this film, a large group of aliens have descended upon Earth in what appeared to be the exact same ship as seen in Independence Day. I have no problem with Directors utilizing existing special effects, no need in reinventing the wheel. It would be ironic though if the aliens in deep space really did all have the same ships. Can you imagine a whole galaxy filled with the equivalent of Toyota Corollas? I do like the idea that aliens leaving sporting events or concerts could have that look on their face (you know the one) when they walk outside and see a sky filled with the same colored ships wondering exactly where they had parked.
For a largely unexplained reason, the aliens that arrived in the Corolla ran out of gas and just hovered above Earth until the humans forced their way in and transferred them to a settlement on the ground. This portion of the film utilized news footage and interviews to set the stage for the present day action. The present day action revolved around a plan by a government contractor, Multi-National United, to relocate the alien population from District 9 to a new settlement further outside of Johannesburg. This plan was going to be carried out by a middle manager named Wikus Van De Marwe.
In an obviously well thought out idea, Wikus plans to go door to door in District 9 having 1.8 million “Prawns” read and sign an eviction notice over the course of one business day (it is a 24 hour eviction notice). I don’t know how the math works out as to how many signatures you would need per hour to get all 1.8 million in a day, but I only saw Wikus get four signatures prior to lunch. At that pace I think he was better suited to work for the Department of Transportation! Unfortunately, we will never know if he would have obtained all of the signatures because he spilled some Corolla Gas on himself and began transforming into an alien (I would use the same excuse if I needed 1.8 million signatures and had 4).
I don’t want to spend a lot of my space on a technical review of the film. I do want to point out that there was a major hole in the film that was exposed at this point in the story. As I previously mentioned the introduction to the film was largely based on interviews and file footage. Once the present day relocation program started the film style turned to documentary with Wikus being recorded by a camera crew and acknowledging both the camera and the audience (think of it as Dwight Schrute meets Alf). Unfortunately, once Wikus spilled the Corolla Gas the Director forgot to change the style from Documentary to Narrative. It did not make sense to have the characters shot in a documentary style when there obviously was not a camera crew following them (they were wanted fugitives). It would have been funny though if Wikus as a fugitive would have shown some good emotional confusion as to why his secret plans and hiding places were so easily deciphered (the full camera crew, hair & make-up team and boom operator tend to give away your location).
Skipping back, once Wikus spilled the Corolla Gas he started to turn into an alien and his own company brought him in for testing, experimenting and weaponry. In today’s security first society, I found it really funny that this top secret testing was performed on the third floor of a public building and the experimentation rooms were conveniently located next to a stairwell that led directly to an exterior building exit. Not only was Wikus able to easily escape the testing room, he was able to find his cell phone, his company identification cards and his access badge.
After Wikus escaped the experimentation center he returned to District 9 to learn that the Corolla Gas actually powered the hovering space ship and that a Prawn and his son could reverse the effects of the alien transformation if they had the gas and turned on the ship. Realizing this was great news, Wikus easily broke back into the public building, utilized his still active access code to gain entry to the experimentation room and obtained the loosely secured gas before dodging a volley of automatically fired bullets from Army sharpshooters and drove back to District 9 in a plane white government vehicle. The plan played out just like he drew it up!
Figuring the rest of the film would play out as a traditional Hollywood script, I was surprised at the twists that finalized the story. The first twist was the use of the Corolla Gas. Although the space ship had been hovering above South Africa for many years and the Prawns were basically a group of dangerous, procreating squatters the Humans were afraid to let the visitors actually use their ship to leave the planet. The second twist involved the Prawn and his son who said they could fix Wikus. It turned out that the Prawn could fix Wikus but it would take three years. As the Prawn explained it he needed to help his own people first.
Expecting an ending where the aliens leave the planet and Wikus is turned back into a human and reunited with his wife, I was very surprised to find the planet still inhabited by aliens, the space ship gone and Wikus fully transformed into a Prawn.
When the film wrapped up I spent some time thinking about the story that Director Neill Blomkamp had told. It was a science fiction representation of South Africa under the rule of Apartheid. Every viewer of this film should take the time to think about what they have seen and to question why Humans let segregation, disenfranchisement, removal, relocation and racism exist and sometimes flourish. There simply is no place in our world for these injustices yesterday, today or tomorrow.
Wow, that last part sure seemed cooler in my mind. As I read that paragraph it makes me think that I was suddenly channeled by Keith Olbermann. “Multi-National United, you are the worst people in the world.”
Warren
Thursday, February 18, 2010
I Didn't Master the Art of French Cooking
I still remember the first time I visited the mystery movie box. It seems like only yesterday that I caught a glimpse of the box in the front corner of the grocery store and thought “what a terrible idea, what idiot would ever give their credit card number to that machine!” Well, it turns out that I am just such an idiot. Not only do I routinely give my credit card number and email address to this machine, I have also started reserving the films online with my credit card number so that I can just visit the machine and pick up my selection without flipping through the list of available movies. Who could have ever imagined that a simple box that dispenses DVDs would evolve from a niche item into a fully networked company that is bringing down both Hollywood Video and Blockbuster.
Yesterday I went online to try to reserve a film my wife has been begging to watch since it originally left the theaters. My parents have also seen the film and my mom recommended it as a gold star worthy viewing experience. I personally remember watching the preview in horror thinking that this Hollywood formula film would one day hunt down my television and display itself all over the thirteen inches of its screen. In essence, what I did was look up Jason Voorhees’ telephone number, call him to see if he had any plans, pick him up at his cabin near Crystal Lake, drive him to my house, introduce him to my wife, feed him a nice steak dinner, and allow him to terrorize me for one hundred and fifty minutes.
I selected Julie & Julia. I rented Julie & Julia. I paid for Julie & Julia.
Let’s start with the preview. I recall watching this preview mostly because I remember how excited my wife was about the prospect of the film. The preview introduced us to Julie Powell and Julia Child by way of Amy Adams and Meryl Streep. As I recall, the preview also foreshadowed a journey of self exploration by way of French cooking as measured up by Julia Child’s famous cookbook Mastering the Art of French Cooking. The preview seemed to indicate that the journey would not only be to complete every recipe in the formidable book but to learn to cook along the way. I specifically remember that the preview showed several cooking “bloopers” as a way of foreshadowing that Julie Powell did not know a copper pot from a Copperfield.
The film itself did turn out to be a journey of self exploration. The rest of the preview did little justice to the length of the journey, the cost of the journey and the actual cooking prowess of Julie Powell.
The basic premise of the film is that Julie is an aspiring writer stuck in a government job which is crushing her creative spirit and aspirations. In order to keep her hope alive, Julie’s husband proposes that she prepare every recipe in Julia Child’s cookbook over a one year period. This challenge will be supplemented with a blog entry for each of the dishes which will be monitored by every publisher and literary agent in America and eventually lead to book deals, movie rights and a pilgrimage to Julia Child’s kitchen.
Meanwhile, the film also tells the story of Julia Child herself as she struggles to find her own calling while living in post WWII Paris with her husband. In many ways the film tries to draw parallels between the plight and path of Julie and Julia. While Julie was stuck in a job which was not challenging her creatively, Julia was stuck without an activity to stimulate her own creativity (she is portrayed as trying hat making and card playing to fill that void). While Julie’s husband proposes a challenge for her to accept and follow - whereby proving to herself that she can finish what she starts, Julia’s husband encourages her to follow any and all endeavors until she finds an activity she truly loves. And, while Julie creates a blog about following simple instructions involving measuring and stirring to gain her own literary celebrity, Julia takes someone else’s recipes, translates (converts) them into English, adds a dash of salt and becomes a legend.
The first thing that caught my attention about this film was the performance of Amy Adams. Amy Adams is a good actress, having appeared in a variety of films including Talladega Nights, Night at the Museum 2 & Sunshine Cleaning. I also think Amy Adams is very attractive. In this particular film I thought her performance was uneven and her look was not particularly attractive. Frankly, I have to wonder if the producer of the film was really hoping to cast Hilary Swank. Perhaps when the filming schedule of this movie and whatever project Hilary Swank was tied to couldn’t be reconciled the producer told Amy Adams “Ok, I will hire you for this project but you have to make yourself look exactly like Hilary Swank.” Think about it, ever since she had that pet hawk in The Next Karate Kid, Hilary Swank has looked exactly the same in every movie. We need to petition Hollywood for more features starring Ben Affleck and Hilary Swank. Ben Affleck will always be the same character and Hilary Swank will always look the same. My working title would be “Look like the Devil, Act like the Devil.” Scratch that, how about “The Notebook 2: The Second Notebook.”
The one other issue I wanted to discuss with regard to this film is the ending. I apologize to those of you that have not seen this movie and therefore I am ruining the ending (wait, shouldn’t you be apologizing to me?), but this was totally unexpected and frankly it left me with a puzzled look on my face.
As I have previously discussed, both of the main characters, Julie Powell and Julia Child, are depicted as following similar paths to literary and professional fulfillment in the film. I have to think that every viewer of this movie accepted the foreshadowed path that in the end Julie and Julia were going to meet and share stories and possibly perm each other’s hair. There is a scene towards the end of the film where Julie gets a call about having a surprise guest over for dinner. The film’s writer probably wanted the viewer to think it might be Julia Child in order to build up an even bigger high pitched, hug-frenzy payoff in the end (the dinner turned out to be with Judith Jones). Then, there is a scene where Julie takes a telephone call from a reporter wanting a comment with regard to Julia Child saying that Julie’s blog and cooking journey were disrespectful and unimpressive. After watching this scene I was still sure that Julie and Julia would meet at the end of the film. It never happened. I repeat, it never happened!
I watched a turtle race a snail for two solid hours and in the end neither of them won. I would be contradicting my previous reviews to say that this movie needed a happy ending. Life does not always have a happy ending and neither should all movies. Unfortunately, without a happy ending to this film the viewer is left with only one thought, Julia Child was a grumpy old bitch. I hate to type that thought and I hate reading it even more. It’s not that I know for a fact that Julia Child was not a bitch, she may have been. But the story is clearly about someone following a path forged by Julia Child, and sharing an experience through words and instructions (and to some degree thoughts). How can that experience just end with a third party reporting that Julia Child thinks the whole journey was bogus?
When I first began to contemplate the ending to the film I wondered if the author was showcasing the dangers of false idols and the expanse that can separate larger than life personalities from reality. That is always a good lesson and in today’s pop culture frenzied society it is very relevant. But if that were the case wouldn’t that seed have been planted somewhere within the story? The portrait that is painted of Julia Child is that of a nice middle aged lady who was looking for her calling, found it in cooking and enjoyed every minute of her life and the lives around her. A good portion of the film surrounds the relationship of Julia and Avis DeVoto, a relationship based on a fan letter to a Harvard Professor that turned into a long standing friendship. My point is, there was nothing in the film to project that Julia Child was anything but a nice lady who found a passion in cooking (and eating) and parlayed that into stardom. There was not one inkling that she had any pronounced character flaws or distaste for anyone that supported her along the way.
So what is the truth? Was Julia Child a mean old lady who resented unknown, harmless bloggers who felt a kindred spirit to her? Was Julie Powell a self-aggrandizing writer who wanted to end her story with herself as the victim of an evil cooking plot? Did Kristin really shoot J.R.?
To wrap this one up I want to have another first here on the Movies and Pop Culture Blog. I am going to post an authentic Julia Child recipe. This is a dish I have eaten. It was absolutely horrible. I am confident in saying it was one of the two or three worst dishes I have ever tried. I know for a fact that it was properly prepared utilizing the correct (and freshest) ingredients. The presentation of the dish looked exactly like it did in the photo attached to the Julia Child recipe. I do not encourage you to try making this at your home or serving it to anyone you truly love. Bon Appetit!
Corn Flake Chicken
4 garlic cloves, peeled and minced
1 small onion, peeled and sliced
1 teaspoon dried oregano
1 tablespoon ground cumin
1/2 cup fresh orange juice
1 good chicken, cut into serving pieces, trimmed of excess fat
4 tablespoons melted butter
2 cups Corn Flakes, lightly crushed
1. In a large bowl, combine cloves, onion, oregano, cumin and juice. Add chicken and toss; let sit while you heat oven, or marinate it, refrigerated, for up to a day.
2. Heat oven to 425° F. Spread half the butter on a 9-by-12 baking dish. Put Corn Flakes on a plate and roll chicken in them, patting to help crumbs adhere. Carefully transfer to baking dish.
3. Drizzle chicken with remaining butter and bake, rotating pan so pieces brown evenly, until they are browned and cooked through, 30 to 40 minutes. Serve hot.
Warren
Yesterday I went online to try to reserve a film my wife has been begging to watch since it originally left the theaters. My parents have also seen the film and my mom recommended it as a gold star worthy viewing experience. I personally remember watching the preview in horror thinking that this Hollywood formula film would one day hunt down my television and display itself all over the thirteen inches of its screen. In essence, what I did was look up Jason Voorhees’ telephone number, call him to see if he had any plans, pick him up at his cabin near Crystal Lake, drive him to my house, introduce him to my wife, feed him a nice steak dinner, and allow him to terrorize me for one hundred and fifty minutes.
I selected Julie & Julia. I rented Julie & Julia. I paid for Julie & Julia.
Let’s start with the preview. I recall watching this preview mostly because I remember how excited my wife was about the prospect of the film. The preview introduced us to Julie Powell and Julia Child by way of Amy Adams and Meryl Streep. As I recall, the preview also foreshadowed a journey of self exploration by way of French cooking as measured up by Julia Child’s famous cookbook Mastering the Art of French Cooking. The preview seemed to indicate that the journey would not only be to complete every recipe in the formidable book but to learn to cook along the way. I specifically remember that the preview showed several cooking “bloopers” as a way of foreshadowing that Julie Powell did not know a copper pot from a Copperfield.
The film itself did turn out to be a journey of self exploration. The rest of the preview did little justice to the length of the journey, the cost of the journey and the actual cooking prowess of Julie Powell.
The basic premise of the film is that Julie is an aspiring writer stuck in a government job which is crushing her creative spirit and aspirations. In order to keep her hope alive, Julie’s husband proposes that she prepare every recipe in Julia Child’s cookbook over a one year period. This challenge will be supplemented with a blog entry for each of the dishes which will be monitored by every publisher and literary agent in America and eventually lead to book deals, movie rights and a pilgrimage to Julia Child’s kitchen.
Meanwhile, the film also tells the story of Julia Child herself as she struggles to find her own calling while living in post WWII Paris with her husband. In many ways the film tries to draw parallels between the plight and path of Julie and Julia. While Julie was stuck in a job which was not challenging her creatively, Julia was stuck without an activity to stimulate her own creativity (she is portrayed as trying hat making and card playing to fill that void). While Julie’s husband proposes a challenge for her to accept and follow - whereby proving to herself that she can finish what she starts, Julia’s husband encourages her to follow any and all endeavors until she finds an activity she truly loves. And, while Julie creates a blog about following simple instructions involving measuring and stirring to gain her own literary celebrity, Julia takes someone else’s recipes, translates (converts) them into English, adds a dash of salt and becomes a legend.
The first thing that caught my attention about this film was the performance of Amy Adams. Amy Adams is a good actress, having appeared in a variety of films including Talladega Nights, Night at the Museum 2 & Sunshine Cleaning. I also think Amy Adams is very attractive. In this particular film I thought her performance was uneven and her look was not particularly attractive. Frankly, I have to wonder if the producer of the film was really hoping to cast Hilary Swank. Perhaps when the filming schedule of this movie and whatever project Hilary Swank was tied to couldn’t be reconciled the producer told Amy Adams “Ok, I will hire you for this project but you have to make yourself look exactly like Hilary Swank.” Think about it, ever since she had that pet hawk in The Next Karate Kid, Hilary Swank has looked exactly the same in every movie. We need to petition Hollywood for more features starring Ben Affleck and Hilary Swank. Ben Affleck will always be the same character and Hilary Swank will always look the same. My working title would be “Look like the Devil, Act like the Devil.” Scratch that, how about “The Notebook 2: The Second Notebook.”
The one other issue I wanted to discuss with regard to this film is the ending. I apologize to those of you that have not seen this movie and therefore I am ruining the ending (wait, shouldn’t you be apologizing to me?), but this was totally unexpected and frankly it left me with a puzzled look on my face.
As I have previously discussed, both of the main characters, Julie Powell and Julia Child, are depicted as following similar paths to literary and professional fulfillment in the film. I have to think that every viewer of this movie accepted the foreshadowed path that in the end Julie and Julia were going to meet and share stories and possibly perm each other’s hair. There is a scene towards the end of the film where Julie gets a call about having a surprise guest over for dinner. The film’s writer probably wanted the viewer to think it might be Julia Child in order to build up an even bigger high pitched, hug-frenzy payoff in the end (the dinner turned out to be with Judith Jones). Then, there is a scene where Julie takes a telephone call from a reporter wanting a comment with regard to Julia Child saying that Julie’s blog and cooking journey were disrespectful and unimpressive. After watching this scene I was still sure that Julie and Julia would meet at the end of the film. It never happened. I repeat, it never happened!
I watched a turtle race a snail for two solid hours and in the end neither of them won. I would be contradicting my previous reviews to say that this movie needed a happy ending. Life does not always have a happy ending and neither should all movies. Unfortunately, without a happy ending to this film the viewer is left with only one thought, Julia Child was a grumpy old bitch. I hate to type that thought and I hate reading it even more. It’s not that I know for a fact that Julia Child was not a bitch, she may have been. But the story is clearly about someone following a path forged by Julia Child, and sharing an experience through words and instructions (and to some degree thoughts). How can that experience just end with a third party reporting that Julia Child thinks the whole journey was bogus?
When I first began to contemplate the ending to the film I wondered if the author was showcasing the dangers of false idols and the expanse that can separate larger than life personalities from reality. That is always a good lesson and in today’s pop culture frenzied society it is very relevant. But if that were the case wouldn’t that seed have been planted somewhere within the story? The portrait that is painted of Julia Child is that of a nice middle aged lady who was looking for her calling, found it in cooking and enjoyed every minute of her life and the lives around her. A good portion of the film surrounds the relationship of Julia and Avis DeVoto, a relationship based on a fan letter to a Harvard Professor that turned into a long standing friendship. My point is, there was nothing in the film to project that Julia Child was anything but a nice lady who found a passion in cooking (and eating) and parlayed that into stardom. There was not one inkling that she had any pronounced character flaws or distaste for anyone that supported her along the way.
So what is the truth? Was Julia Child a mean old lady who resented unknown, harmless bloggers who felt a kindred spirit to her? Was Julie Powell a self-aggrandizing writer who wanted to end her story with herself as the victim of an evil cooking plot? Did Kristin really shoot J.R.?
To wrap this one up I want to have another first here on the Movies and Pop Culture Blog. I am going to post an authentic Julia Child recipe. This is a dish I have eaten. It was absolutely horrible. I am confident in saying it was one of the two or three worst dishes I have ever tried. I know for a fact that it was properly prepared utilizing the correct (and freshest) ingredients. The presentation of the dish looked exactly like it did in the photo attached to the Julia Child recipe. I do not encourage you to try making this at your home or serving it to anyone you truly love. Bon Appetit!
Corn Flake Chicken
4 garlic cloves, peeled and minced
1 small onion, peeled and sliced
1 teaspoon dried oregano
1 tablespoon ground cumin
1/2 cup fresh orange juice
1 good chicken, cut into serving pieces, trimmed of excess fat
4 tablespoons melted butter
2 cups Corn Flakes, lightly crushed
1. In a large bowl, combine cloves, onion, oregano, cumin and juice. Add chicken and toss; let sit while you heat oven, or marinate it, refrigerated, for up to a day.
2. Heat oven to 425° F. Spread half the butter on a 9-by-12 baking dish. Put Corn Flakes on a plate and roll chicken in them, patting to help crumbs adhere. Carefully transfer to baking dish.
3. Drizzle chicken with remaining butter and bake, rotating pan so pieces brown evenly, until they are browned and cooked through, 30 to 40 minutes. Serve hot.
Warren
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Everything's Up to Date in Avatar
Let me begin by sending out a Birthday wish to Matthew. The King of Cool turned somewhere between 25 and 50 years old last month and sources say he partied like it was 1999. I even dipped into some of the profits I have earned from this blog's sponsors to purchase him a new, sealed in the packaging, copy of the Midnight Meat Train DVD. We are all looking forward to his thoughts on what is sure to be a timeless cinematic classic. Happy Birthday, Matthew!
Last night I finally made it to see seven time weekly box office winner Avatar. This was my forth attempt to go to the film and with each attempt I became increasingly less interested in returning. My first attempt was on New Year’s Day when my lovely wife and I tried to attend the film with my blogging mentor – Cooking with Jessie and her husband. That attempt failed when we walked into the theater and found three randomly scattered seats. We decided to go to Sherlock Holmes instead.
After we saw Sherlock Holmes we went out to dinner and since the restaurant was crowded I started chatting up the family sitting next to me in the waiting area. I didn’t ask them at the time but I am sure they were out of towners, I can usually tell because out of towners wear their short pants in 50 degree weather while I am in a Parka and Ushanka. At any rate, I asked the male leader of the family what movie they attended (their left over popcorn bag gave them away) and he replied that they saw Sherlock Holmes. I immediately piped in that we had also seen the movie and that the scenes where Sherlock Holmes pre-determined what punches to throw (and in what order) based on their level of damage while brawling were absolutely ridiculous. I also indicated that the homoerotic bro-mance was probably not what Sir Arthur Conan Doyle had in mind. The out of towners (male leader, lady friend and two offspring) all said they loved the movie and politely excused themselves.
The very next day I was out for some strenuous exercise on a local golf course and I was paired with some visitors from Michigan. The husband of the group asked me on the first tee if I had recently seen any movies. I replied that I had just seen Sherlock Holmes and that it had these goofy fight scenes, an underdeveloped lead female character (Irene Adler), a questionable relationship between Holmes and Watson, an evil nemesis that look suspiciously like Stanley Tucci, and a contrived ending ala Ocean’s Twelve. The husband was dead silent after I had finished making my declarations about the movie but the wife said “we loved it too!”
In case you were wondering, I just used four paragraphs to say I will be keeping any further opinions regarding Sherlock Holmes to myself!
Getting back to Avatar, the second and third times I tried to attend the movie were both at IMAX screens and both times it was sold out. That might not sound unusual but those two attempts were within the last three weeks. The movie has been out for eight weeks! Each unsuccessful attempt to see the film left me less interested in returning but for some reason I got the itch back last night and my lovely wife and I trekked to the IMAX theater and purchased our way overpriced tickets.
Knowing that we had our tickets in hand and that there were plenty of seats available was actually somewhat exciting but then as we entered the theater we were given our 3D glasses...what a disappointment! In my first attempt to see the film (New Year’s Day) we were actually given the glasses utilized on the Real-D screens and they were cool. It was almost like I was being provided some Blues Brothers Ray-Bans with 3D lenses. Unfortunately, the IMAX glasses were giant plastic glasses recovered from the Captain EO movie. Instead of looking like Elwood I was looking like Jeff Spicoli.
The film itself got off to a quick start and it became evident that James Cameron’s screenplay was going to be heavy on the middle but weak on the beginning and end. That is an unusual way to write a story but I can appreciate what he was doing. Much like George Lucas did, Cameron started his story in the middle knowing that he could build prequels and sequels in the future. Considering the amount of interest and profit this film has already garnered (not to mention Oscar consideration) you can bet there will be many more movies in the future (and a cartoon, and action figures, and Halloween costumes).
There is really no indication as to what year the movie takes place. I know it is in the future but I don’t know how far in the future. Space travel has certainly been figured out because the planet of Pandora has several moons around it so it can’t be in our current solar system. Just as an FYI, the center of our current Galaxy is 27,000 light years away. Amazingly enough, in the future humans have conquered deep space and can travel at a speed faster than that of light but we still dress like Maverick and Charlie from Top Gun.
The rest of the film played out like James Cameron watched Return of the Jedi, Predator, Pocahontas, Rambo and Apocalypto in one all day TBS movie marathon and decided to combine them all into one three hour best-of script.
The main character in the film, Jake Sully is a hardened soldier with no options other than war (Rambo). Jake travels in a spacecraft to a forest planet (Return of the Jedi) where he infiltrates the locals to gain their trust (Pocahontas). While acclimating himself to the locals Jake meets, is trained by, and falls in love with the Chief’s daughter (Pocahontas). With advanced weaponry, the humans fight the locals to gain control of their land (Predator) so it can be harvested for its rich natural resources (Apocalypto). In the end, Jake helps the locals to win a battle with the humans but it is clear the locals have not won the war (Rambo, Predator).
I was really hoping that at the end of the film Jake and the locals would dance in their tree house while the ghostly spirits of Eytukan, Yoda and John Rolfe looked on proudly.
So, what do we think is going to happen in both the prequels and sequels to this movie? If we start with the sequel (I assume they will play out the current characters and then create new characters to foreshadow the current characters) I am guessing that Jake (now fully a local having discarded his human body) will continue to live with the locals, marry Neytiri and start either a traveling family band or open a banana stand. There has to be some conflict so the humans will probably return for a second round of running and explosions which will lead to a destructive and bleak vision of the survival of the locals at the end of this sequel.
In the third installment the bleak picture from the previous sequel will continue to become dark and ominous and I would think that Jake’s wife and the mother of several small locals, Neytiri, will die in a tragic accident probably involving either lawn fertilizer or that man-eating plant from Little Shop of Horrors. Devastated by the accident (and probably somehow personally guilty), Jake will forge a new friendship with a horse beaked, long eared, jive talker with a Jamaican accent who speaks in broken English but offers poignant yet surprisingly simple advice. The powerful bond Jake and (let’s call him) Jar Jar quickly develop over two minutes of screen time will propel them to turn the tide of the war and give the humans no choice but to negotiate a lasting peace involving mineral rights and cell phone towers in exchange for the locals opening up Casinos all over Pandora.
Since the visual effects of the second and third installments of this series have no real chance of living up to the standards set in the first film, and since the story is sure to suffer from the lack of new movies being shown on TBS for James Cameron to watch, I assume there will only be one prequel made and it will probably be a mid-budget film directed by someone other than James Cameron. In fact, I would probably give even odds that the prequel will either be a straight to DVD release or an ABC Family Channel movie of the week. This prequel will no doubt have a few beefed up special effects that seem to indicate that in a period prior to Avatar the locals were even more technologically advanced and the forest had stronger, more dangerous plants, animals and possibly a fountain that predicts the future using terms similar to those found in the Magic 8-ball. The story will follow the birth and maturation of both Jake and Neytiri and in a shocking yet undeveloped twist we will find out that Jake was adopted after his real father gave him up to travel to Pandora to become head of security for the humans. Who knows, maybe they will even throw us a real curve ball and develop Neytiri as a discarded human baby who was found in the woods and her consciousness was transferred to a genetically bred local who was adopted by the Chief. Could Jake and Neytiri really be brother and sister...
So, to wrap this one up, if you are going to see Avatar make sure you pony up a little extra money and see it on the IMAX screen. The entire visual experience was pretty phenomenal! And if this movie wins an Oscar then Mark Hamill, Sylvester Stallone, Mel Gibson, Kelly McGillis and Carl Weathers should be up on that stage with James Cameron.
Warren
Last night I finally made it to see seven time weekly box office winner Avatar. This was my forth attempt to go to the film and with each attempt I became increasingly less interested in returning. My first attempt was on New Year’s Day when my lovely wife and I tried to attend the film with my blogging mentor – Cooking with Jessie and her husband. That attempt failed when we walked into the theater and found three randomly scattered seats. We decided to go to Sherlock Holmes instead.
After we saw Sherlock Holmes we went out to dinner and since the restaurant was crowded I started chatting up the family sitting next to me in the waiting area. I didn’t ask them at the time but I am sure they were out of towners, I can usually tell because out of towners wear their short pants in 50 degree weather while I am in a Parka and Ushanka. At any rate, I asked the male leader of the family what movie they attended (their left over popcorn bag gave them away) and he replied that they saw Sherlock Holmes. I immediately piped in that we had also seen the movie and that the scenes where Sherlock Holmes pre-determined what punches to throw (and in what order) based on their level of damage while brawling were absolutely ridiculous. I also indicated that the homoerotic bro-mance was probably not what Sir Arthur Conan Doyle had in mind. The out of towners (male leader, lady friend and two offspring) all said they loved the movie and politely excused themselves.
The very next day I was out for some strenuous exercise on a local golf course and I was paired with some visitors from Michigan. The husband of the group asked me on the first tee if I had recently seen any movies. I replied that I had just seen Sherlock Holmes and that it had these goofy fight scenes, an underdeveloped lead female character (Irene Adler), a questionable relationship between Holmes and Watson, an evil nemesis that look suspiciously like Stanley Tucci, and a contrived ending ala Ocean’s Twelve. The husband was dead silent after I had finished making my declarations about the movie but the wife said “we loved it too!”
In case you were wondering, I just used four paragraphs to say I will be keeping any further opinions regarding Sherlock Holmes to myself!
Getting back to Avatar, the second and third times I tried to attend the movie were both at IMAX screens and both times it was sold out. That might not sound unusual but those two attempts were within the last three weeks. The movie has been out for eight weeks! Each unsuccessful attempt to see the film left me less interested in returning but for some reason I got the itch back last night and my lovely wife and I trekked to the IMAX theater and purchased our way overpriced tickets.
Knowing that we had our tickets in hand and that there were plenty of seats available was actually somewhat exciting but then as we entered the theater we were given our 3D glasses...what a disappointment! In my first attempt to see the film (New Year’s Day) we were actually given the glasses utilized on the Real-D screens and they were cool. It was almost like I was being provided some Blues Brothers Ray-Bans with 3D lenses. Unfortunately, the IMAX glasses were giant plastic glasses recovered from the Captain EO movie. Instead of looking like Elwood I was looking like Jeff Spicoli.
The film itself got off to a quick start and it became evident that James Cameron’s screenplay was going to be heavy on the middle but weak on the beginning and end. That is an unusual way to write a story but I can appreciate what he was doing. Much like George Lucas did, Cameron started his story in the middle knowing that he could build prequels and sequels in the future. Considering the amount of interest and profit this film has already garnered (not to mention Oscar consideration) you can bet there will be many more movies in the future (and a cartoon, and action figures, and Halloween costumes).
There is really no indication as to what year the movie takes place. I know it is in the future but I don’t know how far in the future. Space travel has certainly been figured out because the planet of Pandora has several moons around it so it can’t be in our current solar system. Just as an FYI, the center of our current Galaxy is 27,000 light years away. Amazingly enough, in the future humans have conquered deep space and can travel at a speed faster than that of light but we still dress like Maverick and Charlie from Top Gun.
The rest of the film played out like James Cameron watched Return of the Jedi, Predator, Pocahontas, Rambo and Apocalypto in one all day TBS movie marathon and decided to combine them all into one three hour best-of script.
The main character in the film, Jake Sully is a hardened soldier with no options other than war (Rambo). Jake travels in a spacecraft to a forest planet (Return of the Jedi) where he infiltrates the locals to gain their trust (Pocahontas). While acclimating himself to the locals Jake meets, is trained by, and falls in love with the Chief’s daughter (Pocahontas). With advanced weaponry, the humans fight the locals to gain control of their land (Predator) so it can be harvested for its rich natural resources (Apocalypto). In the end, Jake helps the locals to win a battle with the humans but it is clear the locals have not won the war (Rambo, Predator).
I was really hoping that at the end of the film Jake and the locals would dance in their tree house while the ghostly spirits of Eytukan, Yoda and John Rolfe looked on proudly.
So, what do we think is going to happen in both the prequels and sequels to this movie? If we start with the sequel (I assume they will play out the current characters and then create new characters to foreshadow the current characters) I am guessing that Jake (now fully a local having discarded his human body) will continue to live with the locals, marry Neytiri and start either a traveling family band or open a banana stand. There has to be some conflict so the humans will probably return for a second round of running and explosions which will lead to a destructive and bleak vision of the survival of the locals at the end of this sequel.
In the third installment the bleak picture from the previous sequel will continue to become dark and ominous and I would think that Jake’s wife and the mother of several small locals, Neytiri, will die in a tragic accident probably involving either lawn fertilizer or that man-eating plant from Little Shop of Horrors. Devastated by the accident (and probably somehow personally guilty), Jake will forge a new friendship with a horse beaked, long eared, jive talker with a Jamaican accent who speaks in broken English but offers poignant yet surprisingly simple advice. The powerful bond Jake and (let’s call him) Jar Jar quickly develop over two minutes of screen time will propel them to turn the tide of the war and give the humans no choice but to negotiate a lasting peace involving mineral rights and cell phone towers in exchange for the locals opening up Casinos all over Pandora.
Since the visual effects of the second and third installments of this series have no real chance of living up to the standards set in the first film, and since the story is sure to suffer from the lack of new movies being shown on TBS for James Cameron to watch, I assume there will only be one prequel made and it will probably be a mid-budget film directed by someone other than James Cameron. In fact, I would probably give even odds that the prequel will either be a straight to DVD release or an ABC Family Channel movie of the week. This prequel will no doubt have a few beefed up special effects that seem to indicate that in a period prior to Avatar the locals were even more technologically advanced and the forest had stronger, more dangerous plants, animals and possibly a fountain that predicts the future using terms similar to those found in the Magic 8-ball. The story will follow the birth and maturation of both Jake and Neytiri and in a shocking yet undeveloped twist we will find out that Jake was adopted after his real father gave him up to travel to Pandora to become head of security for the humans. Who knows, maybe they will even throw us a real curve ball and develop Neytiri as a discarded human baby who was found in the woods and her consciousness was transferred to a genetically bred local who was adopted by the Chief. Could Jake and Neytiri really be brother and sister...
So, to wrap this one up, if you are going to see Avatar make sure you pony up a little extra money and see it on the IMAX screen. The entire visual experience was pretty phenomenal! And if this movie wins an Oscar then Mark Hamill, Sylvester Stallone, Mel Gibson, Kelly McGillis and Carl Weathers should be up on that stage with James Cameron.
Warren
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Eat Your Heart Out - Phillip Michael Thomas
It has been almost a month and still there is no sign of Matthew. If I had not just seen him with my own two eyes I would think he might have abandoned me. Have you ever looked into the balcony and seen just Statler (or just Waldorf)? No, of course you haven’t! Here is what we need to do; ask yourself this “do I believe in fairies?” Trust me on this one. Stand up, wherever you are, and say “I believe in fairies!” Start a slow clap and continue saying “I believe in fairies.” You might feel a little awkward but this will work. Keep clapping and saying “I believe in fairies.” I know this brings Tinker Bell back to life, so this has to bring Matthew back to this blog!
Since my last blog welcomed you into the world of Las Vegas musical productions, I thought I would comment on my most recent venture into the world of musical theater. My lovely wife and I went to see Marvin Hamlisch perform with the Phoenix Symphony Orchestra. Of course it would be extremely difficult to review a musical performance without a plot or largely any talking (I guess I did review Quantum of Solace) but I was intrigued by something that happened half way through the show.
As a little background, Marvin Hamlisch is an accomplished pianist, conductor and song writer who has achieved the pinnacle of Phillip Michael Thomas’ mountain - the EGOT. Marvin has won an Emmy, Grammy, Oscar and a Tony (He also won a Pulitzer but there is no such word as EGOTP). The performance we saw with Marvin and the Phoenix Symphony consisted of medley’s and performances of some of America’s great composers and a few selections from Marvin’s own collection (scores from Ice Castles, A Chorus Line, Sophie’s Choice, The Sting and The Way we Were).
I actually enjoyed the concert and Marvin was both an excellent piano player and also a witty master of ceremonies. You might imagine a middle-aged, white, Jewish, classically trained Young MC.
The one thing I did not like about the concert was the selections sung by William Michals and Julia Murney. First, Michals came out to sing Soliloquy from Carousel. This is actually an interesting song which I especially enjoyed on a CD of Frank Sinatra’s 80th Birthday Concert from Las Vegas. Michals is no Sinatra (that just sounds dumb, I mean who is Frank Sinatra). I don’t know much of anything about professional singing but he put way too much “over acting” into the song and not enough casual singing. I realize that they tell these musical performers to sing and pronounce the words for the people in the last row, but why is that? Why do they pander to the people who paid the absolute least amount of money to attend the concert to the detriment of the people who paid the most to attend? Re-reading that last sentence really makes me sound elitist. Ironically, I purchased two seats from the least expensive category!
Getting back to my review, Marvin decided to first introduce Michals with a simple “he is an accomplished performer who has earned his reputation on Broadway.” So, Michals came out and over-acted his way through his song and then proceeded to take about twenty bows. I clapped politely for this guy but when he just kept bowing I started to wonder if the crowd was really that impressed with the performance or if it was just a big game of one-upmanship between the bowing performer and the clapping audience members.
Once that clapping/bowing Russian Roulette ended, Michals was charged with introducing Julia Murney. This introduction turned into a ten minute love fest that then turned into a quandary that kept me occupied for the rest of the evening. I am sure that Murney is a talented performer who has worked hard for everything she has achieved; I just didn’t need Michals to read me her resume. I am sure her guest spots in Law and Order, NYPD Blue and Sex in the City were groundbreaking (Julia Murney stars as Innocent Bystander #2). I am sure her performances in The Wild Party, Class Act and Time and Again were well received; I just don’t care!
So, after the reading of Murney’s resume another game of one-upmanship broke out as she decided she needed to read Michals resume. And of course, as if on cue, every time Murney mentioned another part Michals had played he bowed as if he had some kind of turrets syndrome brought on by adulation. Meanwhile, I am looking around the audience to see if anyone else is agitated by this mess and I notice that the guy sitting next to me has his hand on the thigh of the guy sitting next to him!
Once the resume reading and bowing portions of the performance were done Murney broke into a song from the musical Wicked. I have never seen Wicked and I do not know the plot of this musical. I have seen the sequel to Wicked which is called The Wizard of Oz. I have also seen The Wiz (Richard Pryor was in The Wiz...where was Gene Wilder). As Murney explained prior to singing her song, Wicked is the story of Glenda the Good Witch and Elphaba the Green Witch (both were characters in The Wizard of Oz) as they go to Witch Junior College.
Murney proceeds to sing this song which tells the story of Elphaba being in class in Witch Junior College and the teacher recognizing her potential and telling her she is going to get to meet The Wizard of Oz. So, apparently this is really a big deal to Elphaba and she dreams of them teaming up to really maximize the Wizardry in Oz. Really? Seriously?
Again, I know it is weird to have so many of my reviews dedicated to films I have either not seen or fallen asleep during. I grant you that I have not seen Wicked and I don’t have any idea what happens in the musical either before or after this revelation that Elphaba wants to meet the Wizard. But, how did Elphaba think this dream team of witching and wizardry was going to work? Would she get a display wall opposite of the Wizard? Would her wall be next to the Wizard? How would the day to day business of Wizarding go if there were co-managers? What if someone needed a controversial wish granted, how would that be handled? Would the Wizard and Elphaba have some kind of voting process? What if the vote came out 1 to 1? How would ties be broken?
If there is one thing that fairy tales have taught us, it is that wishes and wish grantors always come in odd numbers. Zoltar granted Josh Baskin one wish, Jambi the Genie granted three wishes on Pee Wee’s Playhouse, Jack traded his cow for five magic beans, exactly 131 people saw the Patrick Swayze film Three Wishes, and my wish to rid the world of Heidi and Spencer has not come true exactly 999,999 times.
To wrap this one up, let me just mention that Marvin is also credited (in the concert program) for having composed the score to Three Men and a Baby. He must have some huge grapes to take credit for that one!
Warren
Since my last blog welcomed you into the world of Las Vegas musical productions, I thought I would comment on my most recent venture into the world of musical theater. My lovely wife and I went to see Marvin Hamlisch perform with the Phoenix Symphony Orchestra. Of course it would be extremely difficult to review a musical performance without a plot or largely any talking (I guess I did review Quantum of Solace) but I was intrigued by something that happened half way through the show.
As a little background, Marvin Hamlisch is an accomplished pianist, conductor and song writer who has achieved the pinnacle of Phillip Michael Thomas’ mountain - the EGOT. Marvin has won an Emmy, Grammy, Oscar and a Tony (He also won a Pulitzer but there is no such word as EGOTP). The performance we saw with Marvin and the Phoenix Symphony consisted of medley’s and performances of some of America’s great composers and a few selections from Marvin’s own collection (scores from Ice Castles, A Chorus Line, Sophie’s Choice, The Sting and The Way we Were).
I actually enjoyed the concert and Marvin was both an excellent piano player and also a witty master of ceremonies. You might imagine a middle-aged, white, Jewish, classically trained Young MC.
The one thing I did not like about the concert was the selections sung by William Michals and Julia Murney. First, Michals came out to sing Soliloquy from Carousel. This is actually an interesting song which I especially enjoyed on a CD of Frank Sinatra’s 80th Birthday Concert from Las Vegas. Michals is no Sinatra (that just sounds dumb, I mean who is Frank Sinatra). I don’t know much of anything about professional singing but he put way too much “over acting” into the song and not enough casual singing. I realize that they tell these musical performers to sing and pronounce the words for the people in the last row, but why is that? Why do they pander to the people who paid the absolute least amount of money to attend the concert to the detriment of the people who paid the most to attend? Re-reading that last sentence really makes me sound elitist. Ironically, I purchased two seats from the least expensive category!
Getting back to my review, Marvin decided to first introduce Michals with a simple “he is an accomplished performer who has earned his reputation on Broadway.” So, Michals came out and over-acted his way through his song and then proceeded to take about twenty bows. I clapped politely for this guy but when he just kept bowing I started to wonder if the crowd was really that impressed with the performance or if it was just a big game of one-upmanship between the bowing performer and the clapping audience members.
Once that clapping/bowing Russian Roulette ended, Michals was charged with introducing Julia Murney. This introduction turned into a ten minute love fest that then turned into a quandary that kept me occupied for the rest of the evening. I am sure that Murney is a talented performer who has worked hard for everything she has achieved; I just didn’t need Michals to read me her resume. I am sure her guest spots in Law and Order, NYPD Blue and Sex in the City were groundbreaking (Julia Murney stars as Innocent Bystander #2). I am sure her performances in The Wild Party, Class Act and Time and Again were well received; I just don’t care!
So, after the reading of Murney’s resume another game of one-upmanship broke out as she decided she needed to read Michals resume. And of course, as if on cue, every time Murney mentioned another part Michals had played he bowed as if he had some kind of turrets syndrome brought on by adulation. Meanwhile, I am looking around the audience to see if anyone else is agitated by this mess and I notice that the guy sitting next to me has his hand on the thigh of the guy sitting next to him!
Once the resume reading and bowing portions of the performance were done Murney broke into a song from the musical Wicked. I have never seen Wicked and I do not know the plot of this musical. I have seen the sequel to Wicked which is called The Wizard of Oz. I have also seen The Wiz (Richard Pryor was in The Wiz...where was Gene Wilder). As Murney explained prior to singing her song, Wicked is the story of Glenda the Good Witch and Elphaba the Green Witch (both were characters in The Wizard of Oz) as they go to Witch Junior College.
Murney proceeds to sing this song which tells the story of Elphaba being in class in Witch Junior College and the teacher recognizing her potential and telling her she is going to get to meet The Wizard of Oz. So, apparently this is really a big deal to Elphaba and she dreams of them teaming up to really maximize the Wizardry in Oz. Really? Seriously?
Again, I know it is weird to have so many of my reviews dedicated to films I have either not seen or fallen asleep during. I grant you that I have not seen Wicked and I don’t have any idea what happens in the musical either before or after this revelation that Elphaba wants to meet the Wizard. But, how did Elphaba think this dream team of witching and wizardry was going to work? Would she get a display wall opposite of the Wizard? Would her wall be next to the Wizard? How would the day to day business of Wizarding go if there were co-managers? What if someone needed a controversial wish granted, how would that be handled? Would the Wizard and Elphaba have some kind of voting process? What if the vote came out 1 to 1? How would ties be broken?
If there is one thing that fairy tales have taught us, it is that wishes and wish grantors always come in odd numbers. Zoltar granted Josh Baskin one wish, Jambi the Genie granted three wishes on Pee Wee’s Playhouse, Jack traded his cow for five magic beans, exactly 131 people saw the Patrick Swayze film Three Wishes, and my wish to rid the world of Heidi and Spencer has not come true exactly 999,999 times.
To wrap this one up, let me just mention that Marvin is also credited (in the concert program) for having composed the score to Three Men and a Baby. He must have some huge grapes to take credit for that one!
Warren
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
