Archives
2008 2007 2006 2005 2004
R.I.P. The 80's
With the passing of Michael Jackson I think the 80's are officially over. Our generation is now officially filled with old guys.
I wasn't a Michael Jackson fan but anyone who was a teenager in that era that doesn't get a pang of nostalgia when they hear Vincent Price's voice was probably too high at the time to truly be living. I'm a child of the 80's and proud of it. I silently mourn the death of the decade that most shaped me as a person.
What better way to pay tribute to the crowning achievement of that decade than by watching this video of a re-enactment of the Thriller video, in it's entirety, acted out by stop-motion Lego figures? I can't think of anything better to do at this moment of deep contemplation.
It's worth watching the whole thing if only to see the coordinated zombie dance sequence. Totally awesome.
In Defense of Transformers 2
I had occasion to see an early screening of Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen yesterday, at almost the exact same time it was being premiered in Los Angeles. Since then I've been reading some reviews and believe me they have not been kind. As I read them I became a little dismayed at the negativity showered upon the movie, much if it mis-aimed and misguided, in my estimation. A lot of it was aimed directly at Michael Bay and not at the movie itself, which makes me wonder how the reviews would be different if someone else's name was on it.
It's funny, each year the 'Hollywood establishment' will tout it's numbers, declaring each year 'the best ever' in box office returns. Yet during the year they fail to acknowledge that the bulk of the heavy lifting is done by the summer blockbusters such as Transformers 2, Terminator Salvation and other poorly reviewed effects-driven films. Everyone decries the dreck handed out by the big studios but everyone is more than happy to participate in the year-end circle jerk around the big pile of cash these movies bring in. I'm not sure what that says about the industry but it's an interesting game. We have the media and critics, who as much as they'd hate to admit it ARE part of the system, telling us that we're morons for paying good money to see these kinds of movies, while at the same time the teats they suckle for their paycheck, the studios, praise us for our discerning taste and hunger for good old fashioned entertainment.
It reminds me of something funny I discovered while visiting Graceland some ten years ago. Ever the opportunist, Colonel Tom Parker, Elvis' wrangler and manager, played both sides of the coin by selling buttons that read 'I Love Elvis' and 'I Hate Elvis'. He wasn't about to tell you what your opinion should be, but he was covered either way.
If you saw the first Transformers you can expect more of the same from Transformers 2. More of the same times ten. Bigger robots. More robots. Explosions left and right. Blaring soundtrack. Slow motion running. Minimal dialog. Minimal emotional investment. It's a relentless assault on your senses. But why shouldn't it be? It's giant robots from space, fighting. What did you expect?
I'm not going to pretend that Transformers 2 is high art. I'm not delusional enough to think this movie will ever make it onto an AFI to 100 list. I'm willing to accept Transformers 2 on its own terms and its own merits. In this time of financial uncertainty, war, joblessness and the general 'funk' that the world is in right now, I'm not going to apologize for wanting to see big robots fight for two and a half hours.
There are a few major, consistent complains I'm seeing in early reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. One major theme centers around the plot, but it seems the critics can't decide amongst themselves what the problem is. Some say the plot is convoluted and hard to follow. Some say they couldn't find a plot in it at all, between all the explosions. Again, I hate to beat a dead horse, but: giant alien robots fighting. I found the plot pretty easy to follow, anyhow, because the characters spell it out to you in the dialog. The plot hardly matters, anyway. It follows the classic 'McGuffin' storyline: find the object, take the object somewhere so something catastrophic doesn't happen. What could be simpler?
There were also a good number of complaints about the love story between the two main characters. I didn't even want to address this one. It's called 'Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen' not 'Transformers: The Notebook'.
Critics can't seem to get a handle on who is fighting who in the battle scenes. The robots all look the same to them. Maybe it's because I'm part of the videogame generation, but I had no problem distinguishing the brightly colored Autobots from the dark, almost monochromatic Decepticons. And I'm almost 40.
I'm not sure where this fits into my list of complaints about the reviews for this movie, but Manohla Dargis from the New York Times actually said "In Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, the director's subject is as blatant and consistent as his cluttered mise-en-scene." Note that I couldn't draw the little accent above the second to last 'e' in 'mise-en-scene'. My response to this is "Are you fucking kidding me?"
Some reviews point out that there is a credit at the beginning of the movie informing us that it was produced in a partnership with Hasbro. As if we didn't already know that? Would taking out that credit have made it a better movie? Did some reviewers not make the connection between the Transformers in this movie and the Transformers toys made by Hasbro? Were they surprised when they realized they were watching a movie about toys?
Sometimes I wonder if critics watched the same movie I did. Maybe there was a different cut of it in Los Angeles. I love Roger Ebert but I'm going to take a few paragraphs to rip on his review.
First, anyone that refers to a 'lad magazine' is seriously out of touch. Really, he used that term. Go read his review. I only knew what he was talking about because of the context in which he used those two words together.
In reference to Shia LaBeouf's parents in the movie: "Later they swoop down out of the sky on Egypt, for reasons the movie doesn't make crystal clear, so they also can run in slo-mo from explosions."
First, it was very clear why they showed up in Egypt. The decepticons were using them as bait to force Shia to have to decide between his parents or saving the world. This is action movie 101. Second, I don't recall that they ran from any explosions, they were driven away by Bumblebee.
"The plot is incomprehensible. The dialog of the Autobots, Deceptibots and Otherbots is meaningless word flap."
I found it pretty easy to follow, as outlined above. Transformers are prone to soliloquy, as evidenced by watching the original 80's cartoon. I didn't 'watch' it but I did 'see' it a few times. Until yesterday I thought it was a poorly dubbed Japanese import. But apparently they actually made the cartoons that way. I'm not giving Transformers 2 any points for verbally spelling out the plot, but if you couldn't follow it, perhaps you're thinking too hard.
"I find it amusing that creatures that can unfold out of a Camaro and stand four stories high do most of their fighting with...fists."
Watch the movie and ask yourself if this is true. I saw plenty of rockets, bombs and big stabby things. I think perhaps Mr. Ebert accidentally wandered into a midnight showing of Kickboxer 2.
Transformers 2 is actually kind of stupid. There are plenty of groan-inducing lines. Some scenes and lines may be construed as sexist or racially insensitive (if you're hyper-liberal and just looking for something to latch onto.) You might consider fire as being an actual uncredited actor in the movie. But again, I present you with two words: Michael Bay. You were expecting Orson Welles?
The movie appeals to the lowest of the lowest base pleasures in being a human, and that is the pleasure of spectacle. That's really what this movie is. A mindless spectacle. But this might be exactly what the world needs right now, the glossiest of turds hurtled straight at our eyes at 90 miles per hour.
I will say this: The movie is two and a half hours long and I never once looked at my watch to see if it was almost over. It's like watching a video on Youtube of someone on the roof of a house with a bike, skateboard or rollerblades. You *think* you want to look away, but you secretly laugh (or in my case not so secretly) when he scrapes half his face off on the sidewalk when he lands head-first. Then you hit play again before you send the link on to your friends. It's a shiny, glossy train wreck that you can't turn away from.
I predict that audiences will not turn away from it, either. Presales on Fandango are outpacing Star Trek. Transformers 2 opens tomorrow. I don't know if all five days through Sunday count as 'opening weekend' but I predict it will break $100 million in ticket sales come Monday morning.
[UPDATE: I was half right. In that what I guessed Transformers 2 would gross (domestically, though I forgot to specify) was half of what it actually grossed. Variety is reporting that it took in $201.2 million in the US. Add to that another $162 from overseas ticket sales. Let me re-iterate that the gross doesn't mean a movie was any good, just that it's something people want to see, and that movies like this have a place.]
This Movie Deserves Your Attention
I know I'm breaching protocol for this blog by posting about a movie mid-year but I thought that this particular movie deserves your attention. By the end of the year it may be too late to see it in theaters (though you will have other opportunities.)
Sita Sings the Blues is "... an animated version of the epic Indian tale of Ramayana set to the 1920's jazz vocals of Annette Hanshaw." Sounds awesome, right? In many ways it is. Explaining the movie would be impossible. Perhaps you can read through some of the website to get a taste. Or see the movie in an art-house near you, if one decides to play it. Or, you can simply download the movie yourself and watch it at home.
What? A free movie? At home? While it's still (technically) in theaters? What gives? Is that legal?
Yes it is legal because the artist who made the movie has released it into the public domain. The story of why this is stretches over a long period of time and has many twists and turns, but I'll try to summarize as best I can.
The movie contains 11 songs by the aforementioned Annette Hanshaw, a 1920's-era jazz singer. The songs themselves have been out of copyright for some time. However, as Nina Paley was making this film she found that the "underlying composition" of each song was still under a copyright restriction so she couldn't use them without paying exorbitant fees (more than $200,000, initially.)
This duality in our copyright system is indicative to how broken it is. Old songs, in particular, can be both open and restricted by copyright at the same time. There is a whole world of content out there that we will never see, never hear, perhaps never read because "big media" holds all these copyrights and makes it near impossible to release to the public in any way. Nina has a theory on why this is, and it makes sense to me. People are not clamoring to pay $200,000 to put Annette Hanshaw songs in their movies, so the motivation to the copyright holders is not monetary. The theory is that open/free content in the public domain would create competition with current, moneymaking content that the media companies rely on to remain profitable. "Big Media" has exploited a loophole in an archaic copyright system to suppress potential competition with 'the next big thing'.
So how is it that this movie is available to us for download, with the songs in-tact? Nina somehow negotiated the fees down to $50,000 and begged for and borrowed money to pay it. Terms of the copyright still do not allow her to derive income directly from the movie but she decided it was more important for people to see her art than to profit from it, so she's giving it away for free. Besides, under the circumstances no distributor would touch it. So she had to come up with a clever way to distribute the movie herself.
I'm not sure I understand the whole story with how theaters can show the movie without being sued, but the gist, as I understand it, is that any theater showing it has to buy their own print or download the digital media themselves. They are not allowed to give Nina any take from ticket sales. Perhaps the idea is that the copyright holders will not come after the theaters. Perhaps she will get sued anyway, which she admits is a real possibility. But at the very least she has the right to make and show the movie. Maybe one day the courts will decide whether or not she then has the right to give the movie away for free.
The movie itself is amazing in it's own right, but as discussed above that's only one reason to see it. Nina animated the movie on her own computer (two of them, actually) all by herself. It's better than most of the garbage I've seen animated on TV as of late, and it's certainly better than anything I've seen from Dreamworks (Zing! Just kidding, Kung Fu Panda was great.) There was a lot of love put into this movie and it shows in every frame.
How can you help? As I mentioned, you can go see the movie if it plays in a theater near you. Although any profit goes to the theater, it may be that they need to recoup the cost of a print. At the very least you would be showing them that you believe in art and support culture. Perhaps it will have a trickle down effect and will encourage other artists to go with their vision.
You can also make a donation to Nina directly from her website.
The easiest thing to do might be to just download the movie and watch it. Art can't exist without someone looking at it, after all. Simply encouraging artists, writers and performers to ply their trade might be the most worthwhile thing you can do.
It's difficult to estimate how much other art we are missing out on because the artists don't have the balls Nina Paley has. Maybe this movie will encourage other independent artists to release their work, even if they initially won't make any money off of it. Maybe some day a critical mass of citizens will drive a movement for copyright reform.
"Free" doesn't just mean without cost, it's short for "Freedom". The freedom to create, the freedom to display and distribute, the freedom to consume. Nina writes in her FAQ that up to 98%, read that again, ninety-eight percent of culture [art] is unavailable for consumption due to copyright restrictions. Fixing this is a bandwagon I can certainly get on.
If you don't do something I will sic my cat on you.
BBBQ (<-- Simpsons reference, I know it's misspelled)
I'm not even hungry so I don't know why I'm thinking about BBQ at 1:30 in the morning. But in the course of my thinking about BBQ I remembered that a couple weeks ago I was reading Yelp (against my better judgement) with regards to a BBQ joint my wife and I have been frequenting as of late. Some of the comments on there were clearly made by people that don't know what BBQ is.
BBQ is one of my favorite foods, so here now, for no particular reason, are some facts and comments about BBQ:
1. Good BBQ does not need sauce, but you may want it. It's okay. If your plate of meat needs sauce to be good, it's bad BBQ.
2. BBQ sauce has no business being anywhere near pulled pork.
3. BBQ and grilling are two completely different things. However, if you are at a BBQ you may be enjoying both grilled and BBQ'ed meats.
4. Hmmmm. How do I find a politically correct way of saying this ... BBQ is an African-American tradition. I've eaten BBQ made by folks from both ends of the color spectrum. I make a pretty decent BBQ'ed tri-tip myself. I've eaten a lot of very good BBQ but the best has always been prepared by someone well-versed in the traditions of this historic (yes, I said historic) food. BBQ is true, legitimate soul food and you should seek out pitmasters who have the lineage and family traditions that are required to produce good BBQ.
5. This is something that used to bug me until I understood how the business of BBQ works. Contrary to all logic, a BBQ joint that runs out of food later in the day is an indication that they are a GOOD establishment, not a bad one. Let me explain. BBQ takes a long time to prepare and it does not keep well. The pitmaster has to balance the predicted demand of BBQ during that day with the reality that leftovers likely have to be thrown out. It's a difficult thing to get right. Since it takes a minimum of 4-5 hours to just smoke some baby back ribs (not to mention a good brisket) there is no time during the day to whip up another batch. When it's gone, it's gone. Running out of food means first and foremost that all that food was fresh. Second, it means there was a steady supply of customers buying up all the food, which is almost never an indication of low quality. Lastly, it means the restaurant is not cutting corners to whip up a quick batch of ribs just because you want them 10 minutes before closing. Get there earlier next time. The same thing goes for sides. If they are out of something it means they didn't make a five gallon pot of beans on Monday and you're still getting the same reheated beans on Thursday. If your local BBQ joint is out of something you want once in a while it means they deserve your patronage, not your scorn. I'd be a little weary of a place that always had everything I wanted at all hours of the day. This is simply how BBQ works. It can't be faked.
Hmmm. All this talk of BBQ and I'm still not hungry, but I am tired. I hope you enjoyed reading my BBQ manifesto.
This City
I'm sometimes fascinated by birds. Especially birds of prey, and especially when these birds are in a location that seems out of place. For instance, on the power lines in my neighborhood. I've always thought of hawks as desert creatures, because that's where they hang out in Southern California. But we have a beach bird here in San Francisco, and I shot a short video of it the other day:
San Francisco has the reputation of being some kind of mecca to homeless people. After living here for 9 months I can tell you that this seems to be somewhat of a myth. In doing about 10 minutes of research, I found (from the National Alliance to End Homelessness) that many cities have a greater homeless population than San Francisco. I'm not going to spend time doing the per capita calculations, but Tampa, Atlanta and San Jose all have more homeless than San Francisco. Phoenix and Denver have significantly more homeless, while cities like New York and Los Angeles have numbers that are off the charts, even for their greater populations. I think the desire to paint San Francisco as an undesirable city is a conspiracy of the right wing media! Ha ha.
Another big difference is that the homeless here are not aggressive. Now, I don't hang out in the Tenderloin (and who would) but there is a fair contingent of homeless around Union Square. For the most part they seem to be sleeping most of the time. A great deal of the 'homeless' I see are kids with bogus signs stating that they need bus fare back to Portland. Yeah, right. I've never been pursued by a homeless person begging for change the way I have in Los Angeles and even in San Diego. Maybe San Francisco takes better care of their homeless so they don't have to be dicks.
One thing that bolsters that theory for me is the number of homeless I see here with pets. It's common knowledge that homeless people care for their pets better than they care for themselves. The dog always eats first. You see dogs with homeless people in Southern California once in a while, a cat here or there (in Pasadena) but up here it seems like every other homeless person has a well-fed dog with them. I think this keeps them happier, less aggressive and gives them something do to. That kinda came out stupid, we're talking about homeless people after all, but if I were struck homeless, the first thing I'd do is go get me a dog and a tennis ball.
My wife and I were walking near Union Square a couple weeks ago when we came across this astonishing scene. Apparently homeless people in San Francisco are pretty progressive, too, since they carry around cell phones.
By the way, in case you can't tell by the little foot hangig out, the cat is resting its head on a rat.
New Toy!
Okay, it's not really a toy. But I/we have had the current camera, which I really like, for five years. The technology in the behemoth can now fit into something a third the size. Even better technology can apparently fit into something about a sixth the size. We purchased a new compact digital camera. W00t!
It's a Panasonic DMC-FX150. It's 14 megapixels. Yeah, yeah. I know. That's about twice the resolution that a human eye can see, but who cares. This camera has been out for a few months and the price has dropped below equivalent 12 megapixel cameras. Plus, it's from Panasonic and I trust them.
It has all the normal features you'd expect from a digital camera, plus a few more that helped me decide we should get it. It has a neat focus feature that detects faces and focuses on them no matter where they are in the frame. It can also shoot wide-frame pictures (16:9 aspect ratio.)
Two things this camera does that no other camera in this price range does (that I could find anyway) is that it can save pictures in RAW format, plus it can shoot video at HD resolutions. RAW format images allow post-processing (white balance, sharpness, etc.) to be done after the picture is taken (like on your computer.) It's basically a big, high-resolution picture that you can schmooze later on a bigger screen.
The camera also has a couple useless features that are none the less neat. Check out this picture ...
Note that I only have one Rubik's cube at home, and only one Jerry Mouse Kinder toy.
Here's the requisite macro focus picture of part of a half-dollar:
So far, what with the whole hour or so I've played with the camera, I'm really happy with it. I can't wait to take it out on the road!
I Have a Crush
She has blue hair with a dragonfly barrette. She has some weird neighbors and parents that don't pay her much attention. I saw her for the first time tonight and I was enchanted.
Yes, I'm talking about Coraline. I don't normally talk about movies until the year is over but my wife and I saw this tonight and we were both thoroughly impressed. This is a movie you MUST see in the theater, do not wait for DVD.
We saw it in 3D and if you have that chance, take it. I haven't seen anything in 3D since Captain EO and the quality of this surprised me. Oddly, after a while the effect wears off a bit and it just seems like a normal part of the movie, it's almost like you're not aware of it any more, but it definitely lends a literal, as well as figurative, depth to the movie that you may not otherwise be able to appreciate.
I think the stop-motion/puppet aspect of the movie lends itself to 3D and on it's own is equally impressive. I particularly noticed the facial expressions of the characters. Thinking back to The Nightmare Before Christmas, the characters in that movie were monsters and whatnot and didn't need to be as detailed in the face. There was some serious movie magic going on to bring Coraline's adorable crooked mouth to life, I tell you what.
Oddly, again, after a while you sort of stop 'wowing' at the animation because you get so engrossed in the story, which has just the right amount of weirdness and randomness to pull the realistic parts of it along.
Maybe that's it. Like many of the better animated movies to come out recently, the technology fades to the background as the story comes to the forefront (Ratatouille comes to mind.)
Top to bottom this movie was incredibly enjoyable. It has a pretty awesome web site, too.
Stupid Quarters!
A little over ten years ago a friend and I were in Reno. We were snowboarding back then and Reno was a cheap place to stay if you wanted to go to Tahoe. Plus, you could gamble and whatnot. Turns out that Reno is kind of a crap town but I recall we had a good time. I also recall my friend starting to doze off on the way back to the bay area, at which time I had to take over driving. But that's not really the important part of the story.
Since I didn't (still don't, in fact) have a lot of expendable income, but at the same time I didn't want to be a tight-wad, I tended to play the quarter slots when gambling. It's been a long time since I've gambled so I don't even know if quarter slots are still popular but at the time they struck a good balance between being cheap and having the possibility of a decent pay off.
To stray a little further off-track, back when I was around 19 or 20 I had to go to Vegas for a stop-off on the way to Colorado to get some training on some equipment Dad was buying for his business. Now that I think of it, I have no idea why the hell we'd have to stop off in Vegas (overnight, mind you) to fly to Colorado. Seems kinda weird now. Anyway, obviously Vegas doesn't check ID's at the door, and I probably looked old enough to gamble, but I wasn't. So what do you think happens? I'm playing quarter slots with the 50 bucks I scraped up to bring to Vegas, and I hit something like an 1100 quarter payout. Back then (and maybe still now?) it would actually pay out that many quarters. So I had to sit there while the machine made all that damn noise and hope nobody from the casino came over. Then, I got to tote around a couple big cups of quarters while I hunted down my brother so he could cash them in. I have no idea how much of that I gave him, but it was pretty cool that it happened and I had some more money for junk food during the trip. But let's get back to the original story.
Back in Reno I hit a modest payout, maybe 100 bucks in quarters, and I noticed that some of the quarters were different. I didn't know what to make of it at first, I thought the damn things were fake. Or that suddenly the casino was minting their own quarters. The fronts of them looked real enough, but the backs had pictures of Caesar Rodney (whoever the hell that is, I just had to look it up) or the outline of Pennsylvania. Sensing something less sinister, I held onto the special quarters and set out to figure out what they were once I got back home.
Luckily I was a nerd and was on the Internet in 1999. It didn't take too long to figure out we were at the beginning of the '50 State Quarters Program' from the US Mint. In 10 short years I could collect all 50 state quarters, and I promptly purchased a map. This map had a certificate of authenticity, though what it's authentic to I have no idea. Either way, I was somewhat obsessed and excited about getting these quarters. My only rule was that I would collect them from regular circulation, meaning I would wait until they showed up in my change to put them in the map.
Over the past couple years my wife has been an integral part of helping me collect the quarters. I tend to embrace technology and it's creeped into my wallet. I use my debit card so much that I rarely get change back from monetary transactions any more. My wife is more cash-based (so rob her and not me, okay?) She finally located a Hawaii sometime in December and I was able to finally fill in the map. It was a great day, indeed.
Sometime in 2002 I had to travel to an area outside Boston with a coworker (I still remember his name: Taylor, NOT TYLER!) who was even more obsessed about the quarters than me. He was thrilled to be on the east coast so that he could collect state quarters from a different mint. I can't even read the mint marks on the quarters, much less care about where they came from. It might be interesting to get a magnifying glass and look at all the quarters to see if I have any from further away mints.
So I was feeling proud of myself for sticking to it over the years and getting all the quarters. Then I saw this on the Internet today! What the hell? I'm not done? Will someone make another map for this? When did Congress approve this? How come I was not informed? Talk about being a little deflated. It's like running a marathon then when you cross the finish line they tell you that hey, while you were running the International Marathon Committee decided that marathons are now 30 miles, so you better keep going.
Damn them.
As a final note, I have to say that I'm not too impressed with the California quarter. A lot of states did simple designs where they showed the state bird or flower or maybe an historical figure. And yes, I use 'an' in front of 'historical'. It's old school and I like it. Anyway, if you've seen how they design and strike coins you know that it's difficult to get a lot of detail, or to be exceedingly creative when it comes to a canvas that's the size of a quarter, but I thought a few states did a really good job on their quarters. Here are some of my personal highlights and lowlights. Refer to this web page for visuals.
Wyoming - Really? You just took the graphic off your license plate and that's that?
California - Not horrible, but you couldn't put something cool on there like a bear?
Alaska - Kudos to Alaska for putting a bear on their quarter.
Kansas and North Dakota - Props for putting bison on your quarter.
Ohio and North Carolina - The Wright Brothers get a shout-out on two quarters!
New Hampshire - As parodied on The Simpsons, the face has since fallen off the rock.
Rhode Island - Now THIS is what you can do on a quarter. The artistic quality of this quarter is unmatched. Amazing detail and perfect design. Simple and complex at the same time.
Vermont - My favorite quarter. I love this one. I've never been to Vermont but one of the standard Illinois grade school field trips is to go to a maple farm in the middle of winter and taste maple sap fresh out of the tree. Collecting maple sap is still done exactly like it's depicted on this quarter, in big buckets nailed to a tree under a spigot. This quarter brings back fond childhood memories, plus it's a very well designed and executed quarter.
Crazy Cat
I'll spare you the long and ongoing story of our new TV. All you need to know is that our old TV has a $150 lamp in it, and it comes in a rather elaborate box that suspends the bulb inside the box so it can have extra cushioning all around. The piece of cardboard that holds the lamp is very unique and just kinda weirdly shaped.
Perhaps this is why one of our cats is somewhat obsessed with it. I think the novelty is wearing off a little bit, but if I prop the cardboard up she'll crawl under it and generally act ga-ga about it. I call her 'the turtle' when she does it. It's adorable. Really. Look.
2008 Movies
I saw 34 movies this year. Here they are from worst to best. The ratings are on a 1-5 relative scale:
0. You Don't Mess With the Zohan - This is an honorary zero from my wife. I didn't see this one but if our scale went negative (technically, it doesn't even go to zero, either, but I'll make an exception) it would have kept falling to negative territory.
1. Tropic Thunder - I have no idea what the hype was about with this one. It clearly sucked.
1. JCVD - I kind of admire what Van Damme was going for, but he doesn't have the acting chops to pull it off.
1. Seven Pounds - This one seemed too contrived and unrealistic for me to get into. Efforts to jerk tears were pretty blatant.
2. Harold and Kumar 2 - The only thing keeping this from being a 1 was that my other three 1's were an order of magnitude worse.
2. Clone Wars - Had a Saturday morning cartoon feel to it. By the way, be sure to watch the Saturday morning cartoon version of this on TV!
2. Body of Lies - Oddly, Russell Crowe ruined this one for me. His character seemed like he was an asshole just for the sake of being an asshole. They didn't really develop his character enough for him to be believable.
2. Tell No One - Decent thriller. The connections between the events and whatnot seemed a little too far-fetched, even in a farce like this.
2. Forgetting Sarah Marshall - Decent entry from the Apatow laugh factory (woah, deja vu.)
2. There Will Be Blood - Great acting. Great cinematography. Great direction. But the story seemed too disjointed for me. The puzzle just didn't fit together correctly.
2. Appaloosa - Excellent first directing effort by Ed Harris, but the acting seemed uneven. I hope Ed gets more chances to direct.
3. Baby Mama - Probably funnier than it should have been.
3. Changeling - Pretty good, but pretty conventional story based on true events.
3. Get Smart - Another one that was probably funnier than it should have been. Steve Carrell and Anne Hathaway were good together. I'd expect a sequel to this one.
3. Persepolis - Interesting story told with an interesting animation style. It was hard for me to follow the subtitles and action on the screen at the same time.
3. Indiana Jones - I have a theory on why people thought this movie sucked. I think there's an age problem, as in the age of the viewers. When we were all 10 it was easy to overlook, oh, I don't know ... Nazi ghosts melting everyone's faces? The living Knights Templar? A voodoo priest that could rip your heart out and show it to you before you die? I don't see how space aliens are such a stretch. My theory is that as we get older we have a harder time suspending disbelief and we automatically remember things from our youth that are just as ridiculous as something being more enjoyable and entertaining. Ask any 10 year old which Star Wars trilogy is better.
3. Wanted - Total mindless crap, but well-made crap with lots of car crashes and things exploding. Plus, you know, Angelina Jolie in skimpy outfits and shooting people.
3. Wall-E - Typical fare from Pixar, which these days warrants a middle-of-the-road rating. They are overdue for a 'wow' movie.
3. Man On Wire - Interesting caper movie presented as a documentary about some nut that strung a wire between the Twin Towers and walked across it.
3. The Bank Job - I can't really get enough of Jason Statham. I have no idea why.
3. The Hammer - Surprisingly entertaining movie starring Adam Carolla as himself, but from 15 years ago.
3. Bolt - I was surprised that this one was as funny as it was. I fully expect a sequel to this one starring just the pigeons.
3. Rocknrolla - Typical Guy Richie fare, which is to say it was pretty good.
3. Milk - Good biopic, but I liked the documentary better.
3. Burn After Reading - Slightly more conventional fare from the Coen brothers, which is to say it's more approachable by 'regular' moviegoers. Frances McDormand and Brad Pitt are hilarious together.
And now, the top 10 ...
3. In Bruges - Very well written and acted, unconventional gangster movie with just a slight twist at the end that puts a nice cherry on top of the sweet sundae.
4. The Times of Harvey Milk - Documentary about Harvey Milk, made back in the early 80's when the incident was still pretty fresh. I didn't really know who he was, or why everything in San Francisco is named 'Moscone', but now I'm better for having found out.
4. Kung Fu Panda - I was shocked (shocked!) at how much I laughed at this.
4. Quantum of Solace - I love Daniel Craig. You could probably have named this 'Borne: Quantum of Solace' and nobody would have known the difference. Great action, great acting, weak villain.
4. The Dark Knight - Heath Ledger lives up to the hype. Excellent action, excellent acting, excellent direction. Very nice. Even more so in IMAX.
4. Ironman - Very well made action movie. I enjoyed this a lot. Pure cotton candy.
4. The Visitor - Very effective performances. It's too bad Oscar will likely overlook Richard Jenkins.
4. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - I have great affection for this movie, but I'm not sure I can explain why. It's not the must-see blockbuster of the holiday season and I have no idea how they expect to recoup the giant budget for this, but I really liked it. It's not really a thriller. Not really an action movie. It's kind of a love story, but more than anything it felt like a biography. There was a 'Forrest Gump' quality to it, except this was much, much better. The special effects live up to the hype but I felt like they supported the performances instead of overpowering them. The 'craft' of moviemaking really shows through and I thoroughly enjoyed this film.
5. Planet B-Boy - I was shocked at how dramatic and entertaining this movie was. Trying to describe it would probably just make it sound stupid, which by all accounts, on paper, it does. But you'll be surprised.
5. Note By Note - I didn't expect to like this one so much, but it was very, very interesting to watch professional piano players talk about their pianos as if they were living, breathing things. Then, the movie goes on to explain why this is in a convincing way. Meeting the people that build these pianos, and put their heart and soul into it, turns out to be rather engrossing.
My Friend Max
What's to say about Max? I'd known him for nearly 15 years. There were stretches there where he was my best friend. Now he's gone.
Shit.
