Secure Immaturity

It’s always really exciting to fall in love with an idea for a book. You purchase it with excitement and covet the time you have to sit down and read it whether it be the couch, bed, beach, pool, or even ‘The Throne’. And, for awhile, even when the expectations have made the actual delivery of the book unsatisfactory, we can proceed on hoping the idea remains strong and the book gets better. And god help us if it is a long book because when the reality of how poor the book is dawns on you but you MUST complete it. . .you have a long road ahead of you.

Unfortunately, I fell in love with the idea of 10 Bad Dates with de Niro and soldiered through the first few days when I realized it wasn’t that good because I was so committed to the idea. But alas: it isn’t very good and it is way too long especially for the subject matter it is talking about. Don’t get me wrong, I love lists, but I didn’t realize that reading 460 pages ABOUT a visual medium in list form is actually kind of oppressive. Add to the fact that the contributors (there are 45 of them, 46 if you count ‘The Coen Brothers’ as two people) are expressing opinions that you most likely are going to disagree with (since lists are always personal, subjective things) and you have a very long road ahead of you.

Even in fun schlock like Entertainment Weekly, a list is fun to read. But imagine every single ET list put in book form: wouldn’t you start seeing through the cracks? But at least ET is a populist magazine: you have more then likely seen every single movie they’re talking about. This makes the list readable or, at the very least, survivable. 10 Bad Dates. . . biggest error is being too deep into film. I’d like to think I am a film connoisseur but I got nothing on most of these contributors.

Continue Reading »

Well, in terms of the family race, it was tight. It was nice that it came down to the last category pretty much. I got 13 right, my dad got 10, and my mom got 10 (I got 14 right if you count my complete guessing on the three categories I didn’t include here). My daughter, Lizzie, tried to steal the score pages a few times but I suspect that was because my dad told her to so he could change the number count. Never trust pop-pop when he’s defending his title!

The broadcast was pretty good this year. . .it was MUCH better then last year. Steve Martin was very funny while Baldwin played sidekick to proper effect (his lines about Damon/Garner and Woody being high stole the opening). There were no oppressive musical numbers (save the opening which is fine because Niel Patrick Harris was in it) and the awards went off at a chipper pace. And for those involved in the movie give-away the ceremony went to credits at 10:04 p.m. Arizona time. I’ll figure out all the time zones and what not if I need to.

The only bad thing was the complete misfire that was the original score presentations: interpretive dance that has no relation to the movies whatsoever for. . .twenty minutes! Yikes. But that is literally the ONLY gripe I have which is saying something for an Oscar broadcast. I didn’t mind the Actor/Actress blow jobs because it was kind of fun and it was only done for two categories and it had some interesting choices. And, even though this all Hollywood back patting, some of it was touching: Colin Farrell’s very brotherly love towards nominee Jeremy Renner was quite touching.

But anyways. . .my thoughts on the winners below. I highlighted the correct choices in red. (I thought I was going to have a banner year since I got the first four awards right and nine out of the first 11. . .and I suppose I thought that would mean something someday. . .sigh. . .)

Best Documentary: The Cove. Fisher Stevens just won an Oscar. I bet Michelle Pfeiffer thinks he’s hot again.

Best Foreign Film: The White Ribbon. Film from Argentina whose name I don’t feel like typing. My mom, against type, voted for the brutal, prison-rape-mob movie.

Best Animated Film: Up. No comment. Too easy.

Best Visual Effects: Um. . .Avatar. No comment.

Best Sound Editing: Up. The Hurt Locker. Deserved especially after Morgan Freeman explained how it all worked.

Best Sound Mixing: Avatar. The Hurt Locker. The only award I think The Hurt Locker didn’t deserve.

Best Music (Song): Crazy Heart. Duh.

Best Music (Score): Avatar by James Horner. Up. Meh. I’m still in shock over the interpretive dance.

Best Makeup: Star Trek. The curse is over! Though Star Trek’s Oscar record is now 1 for 14. . .that is an improvement!

Best Costume: Coca Avant Chanel. The Young Victoria. Wow. . .the most humbling speech of the year (and I use my sarcastic tongue in cheek as effectively as possible).

Best Art Direction: Avatar. I film hinging upon design better win the design award.

Best Editing: District 9. The Hurt Locker. I thought District 9 would win something! Oh well. . .

Best Cinematography: Avatar. My dad said, ‘you can’t have best cinematography for a cartoon’. And that’s why he lost.

Best Adapted Screenplay: Precious. Expected.

Best Original Screenplay: The Hurt Locker. Good. Probably the first time I got both screenplay picks right in the same year. I tend to go heart instead of head with those.

Best Director: Katheryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker. God, I have a crush on her. She looks so sweet and soft. . .and she directed the most intense movie I’ve EVER seen. How is this possible. It was so adorable how nervous she was. Can you imagine her being married to James Cameron?

Best Supporting Actress: Mo’Nique for Precious. I love Vera but Mo’Nique had the momentum.

Best Supporting Actor: Christopher Waltz for Inglorious Basterds. No big surprise here.

Best Actress: Sandra Bullock for The Blind Side. A lot of people thought it was lame that she won but she deserved it. She was really good in The Blind Side and some of the performers she was up against have got their due. I say bravo!

Best Actor: Jeremy Renner for The Hurt Locker. Jeff Bridges for Crazy Heart. I should have picked him to puff up my score but I wanted to vote for Renner with the heart because he was awesome.

Best Picture: Avatar. The Hurt Locker. As I was telling folks on Facebook, when your two favorite movies of the year are up for the award, you can’t really lose. This might be the first time my favorite film of the year actually won.

Laura Felix, of Glendale, Az, won the Oscar-Hurt Locker contest while Liam Quirk, of Seatle, WA, won second prize.

I am pretty bad at these things when it comes to getting a large percentage correct or a big number total. Luckily, my family is even worse. We’ve played an Oscar-off, of sorts, for about 15 years and I’ve won 11 Oscar titles. My father is the current/defending champion (his lone title) while my mother has two (and one shared with me) and my deceased grandfather has one. I rule these things. . .when it’s all in the family.

But last year, I didn’t do well. But no matter. This year, my picks don’t matter. The members of the Facebook Group get all the glory if they win (see below). Anyways, here are my likely false picks for this year’s Oscar broadcast:

Best Documentary: The Cove. It’s the only one I’ve heard of and, well, that might mean something.

Best Foreign Film: The White Ribbon. It’s about WWI Germans so. . .all that dark depressing stuff gets love right? I dunno. I’m guessing here.

Best Animated Film: Up. It’s nominated for Best Picture so it has to win since the other four aren’t. . .right?

Best Visual Effects: Um. . .Avatar.

Best Sound Editing: Up. I think Avatar will get technically beat by something. . .

Best Sound Mixing: Avatar. It’s going to pull a Lord of the Rings in the technical categories (save Sound Editing).

Best Music (Song): Crazy Heart. It’s a song about a musician and if the song from the musician sucks then what’s the point of the picture (aka, I have no blasted clue).

Best Music (Score): Avatar by James Horner. Horner resurrected from the dead for this moving score.

Best Makeup: Star Trek. See here.

Best Costume: Coca Avant Chanel. The movies about revolutionary fashion. . .it has to win!

Best Art Direction: Avatar. Please. Next.

Best Editing: District 9. Hollywood’s little film that could needs a trophy and this is probably it.

Best Cinematography: Avatar. I was torn but no matter how fake the world really was, you’d never guess based on how real it appeared and the camera work helps that.

Best Adapted Screenplay: Precious. I’d like to see Up in the Air win but I think that film is getting The Thin Red Line broom this year.

Best Original Screenplay: The Hurt Locker. This one depends on other film’s success at the ceremony but I figured the safe pick is on The Hurt Locker.

Best Director: Katheryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker. She did an amazing job with the best film of the year (in my opinion). See my pick for Best Picture for more details on my views on this particular award.

Best Supporting Actress: Mo’Nique for Precious. I want Vera Farmiga to win because she is so intoxicatingly beautiful and amazingly ‘real’ in her role in Up in the Air but Mo’Nique has the intensity and momentum that usually beats out the more low key roles (think Sean Penn beating the much better Bill Murray a few years back).

Best Supporting Actor: Christopher Waltz for Inglorious Basterds. He’s a favorite and my massive unfamiliarity with the whole category makes my opinion edge towards the one most talked about. I love Woody Harrelson. . .he’s my heart pick, but not my official pick.

Best Actress: Sandra Bullock for The Blind Side. Bullock is the favorite. Does she deserve to win. . .well, maybe if she wasn’t lined up with the juggernauts she’s up against (Streep and Mirren to name two). But she was good. . .but maybe her Norbit-Syndrome will haunt her on Oscar night. I’m still picking her.

Best Actor: Jeremy Renner for The Hurt Locker. I wanted to go Jeff Bridges here because he’s getting all the hype but Renner will be one of those ‘where did he come from?’ winners that most of America, even after seeing The Hurt Locker, hasn’t heard of.

Best Picture: Avatar. I think the Oscar voters will do the split they often do when there is a tough choice for the award. Like they did with Spielberg in 1998 and Ang Lee a few years back, the Best Picture will go the box office giant (and Oscar-vet nominees. . .especially after the ‘controversy’ of the Hurt Locker nominees) while director goes to the chick who should probably win Best Picture too!

And for those of you who joined the Facebook Group by 3/1/10, I’ve started a The Hurt Locker Blu-Ray give away! Check out the Facebook fan page for details.

Not too long ago I did a little analysis on how, more often then not, a second film in a franchise manages to be a major let-down. And for the most part all of those franchises were built as trilogies or were lucky to get even that far (though some couldn’t even do that *cough cough Fantastic Four cough cough*). But as I was sitting down doing some spitballing today I thought about the existence of that fourth film in a series. It’s kind of an impenetrable number. It doesn’t necessarily look good on a poster regardless of how successful the franchise and, in most cases, I’d imagine (and this is probably where more research would have made my article worth reading), a fourth film can be a last ditch attempt to slaughter the cash cow and suck it dry.

Sure, some film franchises are suited for multitudes of film (Star Trek, James Bond, etc) but it takes a true juggurnaut or a large cult (kind of an oxymoron) to drive some franchises to that fourth film and beyond. Four is a milestone, for sure. And while some have made their way there without issue some have dumbfounded us all (Police Academy 4, Leprechaun 4, Critters 4. . .what?). Here is a look at some fourth entries in franchises and how they fared before, during, and after. (Note: I’m aiming for franchises that aren’t necessarily viewed as ‘franchises’ in the Star Trek sense, etc where the ability to lend itself to sequels is possible. This is an analysis of works where, for the most part, sequels, especially a fourth entry, was not entirely expected (or wanted)).

Lethal Weapon 4 (1998)

What Came Before: Lethal Weapon 3 in 1992. It was a financial success for sure. . .but is clearly the weakest of the series before or after Lethal Weapon 4’s existence. It’s not a bad film but it feels too TV for a franchise that was so summer-action-buddy-movie like in it’s first two installments.

The Fourth: People will always say it’s an improvement. . .but as to whether that is good or not is in the eye of the beholder. I personally love the film (it is my second favorite behind Lethal 2) because of it’s amazing continuity (I dig a franchise that doesn’t start over when it gets a bigger budget. . .all the Lethal films are grounded in their universe by using the same characters and sets and always referencing past films). I can see why many people didn’t like it: it had been a long time since the last entry (and a lot had changed from 1992 to 1998 in terms of what was ‘hip’) and people don’t want to go see movies where the heroes are old. . .especially when they are old on purpose (which, to me, strengthens the fun and evolution of the characters).

What’s Up Now?: Lethal Weapon 5 is like one of the urban legends in the development world. That and Back to the Future Part IV. Lethal Weapon 4’s charm was that the heroes who we sort of grew to love since the 80s were getting, well, too old for this shit. There was a sense of closure to the proceedings when Riggs and Murtaugh narrowly defeated the much younger, faster, and better Jet Li and the two came to the realization that they can’t be the people they were. Lethal Weapon 4 ended perfectly. . .I’d hate to see it ruined with another entry. But it will probably be talked about until Gibson (nearing 55) or Glover (nearing 103) die.

Continue Reading »

When deciding how to rate this book I had to consider one major factor: I know nothing about DC comics besides the big names. And a book that features so many faces unknown to me could be a little intimidating. But as I read the book I realized that not knowing a lot of the continuity and past of many of the characters made the book stronger for me.

By seeing the work as a simple story (no confusion and that-is-wrong-because-of-this-and-this nerdery) I was able to grasp what it was trying to say. The story, in the end, actually lends itself to an ambiguity; that not necessarily knowing who is right and who is wrong makes the narrative more successful (believe it or not).

I definitely admired the effort that went into the book, for starters. Alex Ross is a favorite artist of mine and Mark Waid, though I haven’t read much, is someone I’ve heard good things about. I have no issues with the how. . .but perhaps the why.

Kingdom Come is about a world where, as one characters puts it towards the end, the super was emphasized more then the man. The world has been abandoned by the traditional heroes (Superman, Wonder Woman, etc) and an environment of hatred and violence has spread as the next generation of ’superheroes’ has embraced their powers in all the wrong ways.

Superman eventually returns and has to become a de facto dictator to bring peace to the slowly decaying earth. One major catastrophe has already occurred and without fast action, another is due. But what Superman learns is that perhaps his existence is what will usher in the new disaster. Is the world worth saving or is a world without superhumans, or Gods, better?

The moral dilemnas are intriguing, and much better written here then in the Marvel series that blatantly ripped this off, Civil War, but the whole thing goes on a bit too long. The book, at the least, could have used more imagery and suggestion then endless dialogue blatantly spelling everything out for the reader. The talents are too good to be preachy.

And that’s why I can rate the book an A+ for effort but a C for story. It shows so much but over-delivers (which is better then under, I guess). But my lack of knowledge in DC mythos, something I already said was a benefit, also comes with drawbacks. Sometimes not knowing who is bad in a world where bad is hard to define is good but some scenes lacked the power they would have with someone who knows Wonder Woman and Superman’s history together. So I can’t fault the book for my issues. But to it’s core, the book can be blamed for over-reaching.

I’ve recently read the other Elseworlds book Red Son and found that one a little better in terms of presenting itself (the plots are somewhat similar) but Kingdom Come, which came before Red Son, has the stronger writer and stronger artist. Neither books are one to miss but if you were, unlikely as it seems, to pick between the two, I’d go with Red Son first.

This was the fourteenth book I read in my own personal Quest for 100 Book Challenge (read 100 books in 2010).

I’ve had it. I just can’t take it anymore. I am tired of a league (and a media) where the story is always ‘what have you done for me lately?’ I know the sports world is a place where expectations are sometimes higher than anyone can possibly deliver, and, in many ways, I’ve learned to just accept it. I’ve suffered from results not meeting the lofty expectations whether it be the player’s fault directly (T-Mac’s laziness and diva-nature while on the Magic) or due to some unfortunate personal luck (Grant Hill’s ankle. . .oh how you’ve tortured me!) And despite the fact that I’ve learned and even accepted the lesson that the grand entertainment world comes with rules and regs not seen in the ‘real’ world, it seems that as the country and said sports world (especially the NBA) grows older, our brains only get smaller and our memories shorter.

My case in point is Dwight Howard: the only NBA superstar who is both universally loved and universally held under the thumb of immense and, let’s face it, undeserved criticism. Now, before I continue, let’s get something out of the way. Yes, I am an Orlando Magic fan but, as you may or may not know about me, I am also a realist. I take things at face value and can see beyond my bias. Example: my immense hatred for the Cleveland Cavaliers. I do NOT like them or LeBron James. But do I recognize they are the best team in the NBA and LeBron is the best or second best player in the league? Yes and yes. I’d be foolish to think otherwise. (I still think Kobe is the best in the league but that is a whole different article). This is not arrogance or some kind of snobbish sports elitism: this is truth. I know the Orlando Magic are not the best team in the world and I know that Dwight Howard is not the world’s greatest player; I also know my place in the sports opinion sphere. I didn’t go to school for journalism and I haven’t picked up a basketball in years. I do know this, however: I love the game but in as realistic a light as I can. So I don’t want to hear that I am merely speaking from a biased, fan boy standpoint.

Now with that BS out of the way, let’s continue. Dwight Howard. Superman (or Superman II if we want to start all that malarkey which Brent Musberger summed up properly as a ‘false controversy’ or something like that: but if you want to play that game I’ll get my digs in: Superman was a crap movie. Superman II rocked. There. Now stop it). As a Magic fan and as a basketball fan I am having trouble watching the coverage of the guy because it seems his entire career is summed up as ‘Dwight Howard is this. . . BUT. . .’. It seems Stan Van Gundy is the only dude helping him out in the media and it seems everyone is ignoring it. I mean, Van Gundy was the master of panic right so why take him seriously? But wait. . .have you heard one bad thing about Van Gundy since he led the heavily unfavored and third ranked Magic into the Finals last year? Well, no, actually. I guess not. In fact I have been hard pressed to find any daily national criticism on any NBA star or coach at the frequency of Dwight Howard (and if I am wrong, please tell me in the comments below).

Continue Reading »

I don’t know if I’m just in a foul mood these days or if I am just unlucky but I am finding it hard as hell to find a decent book. During this whole 100 Book challenge thing I’m doing I realize that I have to read, well, 100 books in a limited amount of time (roughly 8.5 a month for 12 months). And when you are engrossed in a great book. . .you can’t stop reading and that helps you reach your goal. But when you are mired in something you don’t like, well, you find the whole aspect of 8.5 a month being scaled down to maybe five and playing catch up later.

Now I won’t classify Chuck Klosterman, the author of Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs, as mediocre or a failure. The author is very smart and has his own style of storytelling. It’s just the type of smart and the type of style I don’t really like all that much. But thankfully my first and likely last exposure to Chuck Klosterman actually hits someone else with the full force of my hate: Bill Simmons, the author of the endless The Book of Basketball. Klosterman makes a cameo in that book in person. . .but he is ever-present in tone as his style is relentlessly ripped off in that book. While Klosterman may not be my cup of tea, I appreciate his talents; a less talented near-hack like Bill Simmons fully ripping off the material is not only hard to stomach but just insulting to Klosterman’s talents and my intelligence.

But enough about Simmons and that ‘book’ (which was really a pain in the ass to read). This review is about Klosterman’s collection of essays. Once again, I just couldn’t get into it because Klosterman’s style is a little too generational for me (his focus is on GenX culture, mostly, and I’m GenY and just a tad bit behind or unappreciative of many of the things he references). But Klosterman also has a narrative voice full of frustration. The book starts out harmless enough with two chapters depicting how John Cusack movies are being taken too literally by women and how The Sims is a great video game. Good, solid stuff.

Continue Reading »

With the first Scream, I asked myself: will it hold up? With Scream 2, I asked myself: can lightning strike twice? With Scream 3, the only question that immediately comes to mind is: why is that one black guy on the poster????? That aside, I was a little worried about the prospect of watching Scream 3 again. Of the three Scream pictures, I’ve probably only watched Scream 3 two or three times compared to the billions of times I watched the first two movies. The first two films came out in my high school years when I wasn’t getting laid and could lay around the house on weekend’s watching the same thing over and over again. Scream 3 was when I was in college when, well, I wasn’t getting laid and laid around all day watching things over and over again.  . .except Scream 3 anyways.

The good thing though is that I am having the exact opposite reaction to Scream 3 as I did recently with Scream 2. With Scream 2 I remember liking it a lot and, upon the most recent viewing, being slightly disappointed. Scream 3 was disappointing in the theater and only mildly better at home a few year’s later. This time, however, I found it quite enjoyable and, oddly enough, successful both as a sequel and a horror film.

To start, this film is kinda-sorta the direct sequel to Scream. Scream 2, once sandwiched between the first and third film, feels like an impostor. Scream 2, unlike most second installments of trilogies, looks worse next to it’s ancestor. Scream 2 ends up being this kind of alternate universe picture where the only real continuity is with the characters and their history. The ending of Scream 2 is just motivation for a killer that really shouldn’t be there in the first place. Scream 3 could exist without Scream 2. I’m not sure what that says about the entire story but Scream 3 makes efforts to connect itself to the first film and, most importantly, the characters.

Continue Reading »

I always knew that nostalgia was a bitch but when I watched the first Scream, the nostalgia seemed to, uncharacteristically, live up to it’s expectations. My memories remained sound and the picture stayed strong. And while moments in Scream 2 stick out as impressive, it appears my love for that particular film resides mainly in the past when it was popular and meaningful to my existence. Scream 2 is not a bad film at all. . .in fact, for the type of film it is, it is quite excellent. . .just next to the first movie it can only pale in comparison.

Scream 2 has a strong sense of continuity, which I like in a film series. At no point do I feel like I’m seeing a completely different version of the characters (who survived) from the first film. Plus having something to reference always make the experience enjoyable for those who followed the first film (and in my case, religiously, when I was in high school). But Scream had a look and feel to it that a)couldn’t be replicated on a bigger budget and b)existed to almost forbid a sequel. Scream challenges the horror conventions (all the while supporting them) and pretty much dares anyone to make a sequel.

And since Scream 2 undoubtedly exists because the first one was a sensation, Scream 2 kind of betrays the laws it set up in the first film by existing at all. Thankfully, Kevin Williamson (the writer), decided to play with that idea and mock itself by exploiting the fact that all the murders that occur in the film are ‘just like a sequel’. The script, in general, doesn’t disappoint especially when approaching the ironic universe it exists in. . .but witty dialogue and smart set pieces do not cover for the fact that there is virtually no logical sense to the villain (or villains!) motives that isn’t kind of retconned in to service the plot.

Now, Williamson does something genius with the ending. Just at the moment when you think the killer’s motivation is completely ridiculous and stupid. . .another character points how how stupid it indeed is and presents a different one. When Randy (played once again brilliantly in the sequel by Jamie Kennedy) says in the first film that ‘motives are incidental’, it really fit the first film since the killers were just kind of crazy and needed little to make them go pop. In this movie, the motive is incidental. . .but not in that genius way the first film presented.

Continue Reading »

The first thing I tried to determine when I popped in Scream at 1am last night (or, technically, morning) was if it would still be effective. My memory of the film is, of course, legendary. It came out when I was in high school and the mixture of irony and horror was perfect for my generation: it appealed to the youth of the time and naturally I watched it every 10 hours during my freshmen and sophomore year of high school. Would time do justice to the film that changed Hollywood Horror until 2004? Let me sum it up this way: two minutes in, at 1:02 am, I paused the movie and made sure to unplug my house phone. Why? Because sometimes I get random phone calls in the middle of the night and, yes, Scream, for a majority of its running time, is still effective. . .and I didn’t want to have the shit scared out of me.

So yes, the intensity is still there. The mystery, obviously, is now 14 years old so there was virtually no surprise story wise to be had there BUT the film’s technical achievements are still stellar, and that was surprising. I expected to scoff at how ‘old’ the film looks in comparison to the riches Hollywood throws at its film’s now. But Scream is a small budgeted success: great cinematography and workman-like visuals. Scream manages to work with limited resources and succeeds. The key to Scream is not necessarily horror but mood and atmosphere. The only other film that matches Scream, in my mind, for time-specific atmosphere is one of my all-time favorite films: Halloween. Something tells me this would make Kevin Williamson (the writer of Scream) and Wes Craven (the director of Scream) happy. . .since Halloween is it’s biggest inspiration in more then just appearance.

Scream’s opening sequence is still mind blowing: Drew Barrymore gets slowly brought in to a game of eventual butchery. What Wes Craven succeeds at is making the fear of common occurrences scary. When ever Barrymore walks around the house she is intimately familiar with, it becomes alien and frightening. We’ve all had moments like this and Scream, despite 14 years of history in my brain, made me look behind me even today. Craven captured the discomfort of losing control in your own environment.

Continue Reading »