| Cultureshark is back |
[Jan. 2nd, 2002|01:43 am] |
Thanks for waiting for me this summer. Please follow me over to my new home at http://cultureshark.blogspot.com/
I'll have regular posts, new features, and cash prizes. Well, 2 out of 3 ain't bad, anyway. Hope to see you there, folks. |
|
|
| Good-bye for now, folks |
[Jun. 6th, 2007|03:14 pm] |
Yes, good-bye for now. As much as I enjoy providing whatever it is I provide here at Cultureshark, right now I'm not able to make this what it should be. Until I can create a Cultureshark that resembles what I envision, I'm going to take a sabbatical and figure out how to make it so. Hopefully sometime in the not-too-distant future, maybe a month or two, I'll bring this back, possibly in a different format, and I hope you'll be there with me.
For now, I'm going to think about restructuring the website, work on some longer-form writing, and try to forget how bad Spider-Man 3 was. Thanks for reading, and I hope you'll check back in and see what I'm up to. Adios, amigos. |
|
|
| 10 SUMMER MOVIES I WANT TO SEE |
[May. 17th, 2007|11:38 pm] |
10 SUMMER MOVIES I WANT TO SEE
It's time again for summer movies and of course summer movie hype. This year I'm surprised at how cold the crop of expected megahits leaves me. After examining the lineup, I came up with 10 I think will be worth paying for. Here's my list (in chronological order) and the reasons why I actually want to check them out.
PUSS IN BOOTS ADVENTURES (Friday): Also known by it's alternative title, Shrek the Third. Because we still haven't seen that direct to video Puss in Boots spinoff, this is our chance to get a fix of the most electrifying character in the Shrekiverse. Anything the big green guy or the talking donkey does is a bonus.
PIRATES OF THE CARRIBBEAN (May 25): Sure, the second installment had that trying-too-hard vibe, and it left us hanging with a so-called ending as abrupt as the "Who unplugged the record player" finish on Abbey Road's "I Want You." But it didn't suck, and I want to see how it all turns out.
Recently I sat through several big-time 2007 Summer O Fun trailers, and the only one that made me legitimately interested in the flick it was pimping, the only one that worked on its own merits without an emotional attachment to the franchise, was the one for Pirates 3. It offered fun, thrills, excitement--and it didn't even bother showing Keith Richards! I expect this will deliver where its predecessor didn't and end the trilogy on a high note.
MR. BROOKS (June 1): What can I say? I have an affection for that name. And who doesn't have an affection for Kevin Costner and William Hurt? OK, just about everyone in Hollywood. But Costner has been so willing to Act lately and so proud of this particular movie that I can't help but root for the guy. Meanwhile, Bill Hurt has been quietly (well, nothing quiet about him in History of Violence) turning in standout performances in everything he does lately, entertaining the hell out of me each time out.
That's two good reasons to support this one, and I haven't even mentioned the premise: Costner is a hitman who talks to his imaginary friend, played by Hurt.
LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD (June 27): I should know better. The fourth of anything is never totally successful. Studies even show that 83% of parents with 4 kids like their youngest the least. But enough time has passed since the third installment of this golden oldie that the franchise has almost come back around to feel fresh again. And unlike some other past-their-prime movie series, I WANT this one to be good. I just like the character.
Will the movie reward my goodwill? Sources tell me (translation: I read in Entertainment Weekly) that Bruce Willis himself picked Len Wiseman to direct after watching Underworld: Evolution. I didn't see Underworld: Evolution, but that was because the first one kind of stunk. What did Willis see that was of any value except Kate Beckinsale in leather? I really hope he's not planning on donning all black skintight duds and then having Wiseman's baby, because if that's what's in store June 27, I choose to Die Hard.
RATATOUILLE (June 29): A blockbuster animated feature starring...Patton Oswalt? As a rat? Well, no one can accuse Pixar of pandering. The trailer I've seen doesn't even look impressive. But, ah, back up to where I said "Pixar," and there you have the reason I expect an excellent movie. Patton Oswalt or no, Pixar movies are reliably funny and well-crafted, and when we start having to worry about them, then we're in real trouble as far as summer movies go.
HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX (July 13): I still haven't read any of the novels, but I have seen all the movies, and they are reliably solid entertainment. I know the wife is into this one, I certainly don't mind it, so--baM--one half of date night coming up. The only decision is steak or seafood after the movie.
HAIRSPRAY (July 20): I really don't know if I'll be able to take Travolta in drag, but if any movie this summer fails in spectacularly amusing fashion, it'll be Hairspray. Gigli wasn't amusingly terrible enough to earn its status as the "go-to" flick for snarky box office bomb references. This looks to me like a no-lose situation: Either it's fun, feel-good entertainment, or it's the Battlefield Earth of musicals.
THE SIMPSONS MOVIE (July 27) : This can't possibly be as good as I want it to be, and I think I'm almost to the point where I've been NOT watching the show as long as I watched it. Still, it's the Simpsons, man, and I will be there.
Besides, this offers the single coolest movie standee in the history of motion picture exhibition: The giant lobby display of the family on the couch. One of my local theaters has a sign next to theirs urging patrons to sit next to Homer and have their picture taken. I'm waiting to find a movie my wife and I can go to so she can take a snapshot for me. Because, you know, it would just be sad for a grown man to ask an usher to do that.
BOURNE ULTIMATUM (August 3): I'm sick of seeing the films in this series referred to as some variation of "the thinking man's action movie," and I almost wish they'd just go way over the top, Michael Bay style, and make a "dumb man's action movie" to see how the critics would respond. It's like it's OK to enjoy these Bourne films, and everyone is assuming the third one will also be acceptable. Truth is, I enjoy 'em, too. The second one wasn't perfect, and I question the need for another sequel, but there are worse ideas being brought to the big screen.
TALK TO ME (limited release beginning in July): We all need a solid, entertaining, sort of middlebrow movie that is only a Summer Movie because it happens to appear in the summer. It lets us feel like cultured filmgoers a cut above the popcorn and candy crowd. It has to be somewhat under the radar so that it's not endlessly hyped from January on, but not too obscure. After all, we have to be able to recommend it to our friends without forcing them to go to an arthouse cinema in Manhattan to track it down. They have to actually see it so they can gush about, well, not how brilliant the movie is, but how brilliant we are for telling them about it.
I have selected Talk to Me as this year's leading candidate. It's based in the sixties and based on a true story. Don Cheadle plays Petey Williams, a Washington D.C. ex-con turned DJ who shakes up the airwaves. I saw the trailer a few months ago and was suitably impressed. Maybe this can be "that" movie this summer. |
|
|
| Great TV Cliches of the Past: A Room at the Y |
[May. 16th, 2007|10:59 pm] |
Great TV Cliches of the Past: A Room at the Y
Recently I tuned in to an episode of I Love Lucy on TV Land, lured in by the false promise of a Mertz-centric episode. I'm not generally amused by Lucy, but if Fred's gonna be grunting his way through more one scene, lobbing insults at Ethel and sharing snide sexist remarks with Ricky, well, I'm gonna be there.
Unfortunately, the description in my TV listings, something like "The Mertzes have marital problems," wasn't exactly complete. Nor was it distinctive, either, of course; that kind of summary for this show is like describing a Honeymooners plot as "Norton irritates Ralph." Still, I hoped for more of those Not-so-Mirthful Mertzes than I got, and when Lucy butted her head into it early on, it became a Lucy and Ethel episode, as Ricky and Fred were pushed to the margins. Yawn.
However, one aspect of this show resonated with me. It was the early revelation that after his latest fight with Ethel, Fred had moved out and "was staying at the Y." This is one of the classic television conventions that needs to come back: characters spending a night or two at the YMCA while things cool down on the homefront.
OK. Get it out of your system now. Laugh it up. YMCA. Yep, I said it. Yep, Fred actually stayed there. Yes, characters in TV shows used to get rooms there all the time. Take a minute. Play the song. Get the image in your head. Seriously. Didn't forget the policeman, did you?
All right. Now stop snickering. We all know Fred Mertz was hetero even for the 1950s, possibly the most hetero decade of all time. Sure, he may have donned a hula skirt in the skit his Navy crew put on for the top brass, and he may have put a little rouge on to highlight the long curls and flowery dress he donned in his vaudeville days. But who DIDN'T?
No offense intended, but we need to, for lack of a better word, de-gay the concept of the YMCA. It's nearly impossible now because that infernal song is so catchy, but the fact is, there is a lot more to the YMCA than the, er, activities to which the Village People referred. Unfortunately, because that dubious classic is now firmly ingrained in the public consciousness, and will stay there as long as there continue to be basketball games and wedding receptions, we have lost a perfectly good sitcom plot device.
I always liked the idea of a man being so unable to communicate with his wife that instead of sitting down and talking something through, he packs a suitcase and heads for the local athletic club. It was not the most desirable course of action, but seemingly it was one of the only bits of leverage a harried sitcom hubby carried. Even when he didn't actually go there, the option was an implied threat. After all, if wifey was gonna continue to be unreasonable and insist that, say, her mother-in-law WAS staying here, and that's final, well, the man of the house could always go to the Y, and you know how embarrassing THAT would be.
Not to mention it would presumably be scary, boring, or otherwise disastrous for the poor lady of the house. If she didn't buckle under when the threat was announced, well, by golly, surely she would when she was cooped up in that empty house for a day or two.
At least, that's how the man saw it. The fact that it's an idiotic premise all around is what makes it so funny. Of course, when this happens to Lucy, she pretty much acts like a blithering idiot and confirms the idea that she is hopeless without a man around, but try to forget that for a second.
No sitcom writer could get away with having his lead character, or anyone of consequence, declare he was heading to the YMCA, unless there was an acknowledgment of the gay angle. I don't even know if you CAN stay overnight at the Y just because you had a fight with your spouse, but my ignorance is all the more reason to make it a plot point. I wouldn't bother to fact-check. I'd just enjoy the tried-and-true humor of the concept. It would be too much of a distraction nowadays, though, and that's a significant loss to the already-declining world of television situation comedy. |
|
|
| A Very Special Post--Happy Birthday, Nadia! |
[May. 15th, 2007|11:32 pm] |
A Very Special Post
Today's post is all about my wife. See, it was her birthday a few weeks ago, but since it's a special birthday and since she is special to me every day of the year, I want to give her a shout-out today.
Without Mrs. Shark by my side, not only would I not be able to complete my posts for this website, I would barely be able to function on a day-to-day basis. She is, quite simply, the best thing that's ever happened to me, and each day I'm grateful I was lucky enough to end up with her.
Oh, yes, Mrs. Shark does have a real name of her own--Nadia--and so, let me say again, Happy Birthday, Nadia! I love you! |
|
|
| Backstage Ass: Rocky Revisited, Evigan, Taxi, Movies |
[May. 14th, 2007|02:58 pm] |
Backstage Ass: Rocky Revisited, Evigan, Taxi, Movies
*I've been watching the Rocky movies in preparation for renting Rocky Balboa soon. How lame is that? I didn't prepare that much for my SATs. Even lamer, though, is some of the stuff in Rocky IV or Rocky V.
I forgot about the robot that Mr. Balboa gives Paulie as a birthday present. It's not enough that the movie features Commies, multiple training montages, and "No Easy Way Out" on the soundtrack; no at some point the writer or director decided it needed MORE cheese. Enter robot.
I had never seen Rocky V until recently. Oh, how I now envy my pre-recently self. I must have successfully blocked out the fact that [SPOILER ALERT] the climactic fight doesn't even take place in a ring, but in the streets. So I was able to absorb that colossally misguided finale with fresh eyes. What was Stallone thinking? If he thought fans didn't want to see the character in the ring again, then why make the movie?
Strangely, seeing Rocky V makes me more accepting of the sixth film because now I can totally understand why Stallone couldn't let his baby go out like that.
*Am I the only one who pumped a fist and exclaimed something like, "Whoo-hoo!" when Greg Evigan showed up on Desperate Housewives last week? I hope it's a recurring role, and my ironic Evigan fandom is so long-lasting that I don't even know if it's still ironic. I only wish he sang on the show. That would have made it a perfect return.
*One of the coolest and most frustrating aspects of the TV Land Awards is the attention given to older shows that aren't commonly seen in reruns anymore. It's great to see Family Affair get even miniscule props, but it's disappointing that we're more likely to see a live Janet Jackson concert on TV Land.
Similarly, good for the network for reassembling the cast of Taxi and giving the show a token award, but where can anyone see it these days? Here's hoping the publicity helps spur more DVD releases of the classic sitcom, which is now stuck at 3 out of 5 seasons in the bag.
*Talk about a weak weekend in movies. Does anyone want to challenge Spidey and Shrek? Friday gave us a Larry the Cable Guy vehicle, yet another zombie movie, what seems like yet another Zach Braff movie, and a DOA chick flick most notable for being the one on which Lindsay Lohan got chewed out. Why bother? |
|
|
| THIS WEEK IN DVD |
[May. 10th, 2007|10:58 pm] |
THIS WEEK IN DVD
MUSIC AND LYRICS: Face it, the little videos with Hugh Grant as an 80s pop singer might be amusing, but nothing in this film can be as funny as People naming Drew Barrymore the most beautiful person in the world.
THE PAINTED VEIL: Go figure. This movie based on the Maugham novel really looked like homework when it was released theatrically, and it still does. But the idea of seeing the Greta Garbo version of the same story is much more appealing. Maybe I AM biased in favor of black and white and anything that can be called "classic." Or maybe the modern version is as dull as many said it was.
CATCH AND RELEASE: Sad to say, but Kevin Smith in the "nonthreatening male confidante" role looks much more interesting than does the star of this romantic comedy, Jennifer Garner. He has more screen presence, at least in his own movies. As for Garner, well, I wish her continued happiness as a wife and mother, and she'll always be a hit at sci-fi conventions.
BECAUSE I SAID SO: Hey, what's up with all these chick flicks this week? Is there some kind of National Ladies Day coming up or something? Well, if there was, I wouldn't insult the special woman in my life by giving her the latest lame Diane Keaton movie.
DONNIE BRASCO: UMPTEENTH FUGEDDABOUTIT THIS TIME WE REALLY MEAN IT EDITION: I'm kidding about the title. I love this movie, and even I'm sick of Universal re-releasing it in "special editions."
THE CAINE MUTINY: COLLECTOR'S EDITION: There are a ton of double-dips this week, most of them likely rather unnecessary (Anyone up for the Mrs. Doubtfire Behind-the-Seams edition?), but this one could be an exception. Columbia classics DVDs are too expensive compared to the efforts from other studios, but a new transfer and significant extras might tempt me to upgrade on this one. The colors in said transfer look a little off from screenshots I've seen, but the original DVD I own was practically bare bones, and I'd like to check out the commentary on this one. It's a great movie, at least, and more worthy of a second release than many other repeat offenders this week.
THAT THING YOU DO: DIRECTOR'S CUT: One would think that director/producer Tom Hanks would be all over this special edition of his baby, this charming homage to mid-60s music and culture. One would be wrong because Hanks doesn't participate in the new extras, at least not according to the excellent review at http://www.dvdmg.com/thatthingyoudodc.shtml
TUCKER STRIKES AGAIN: Finally, we here at This Week in DVD like to pick on Ken Tucker, and we'll do it again. In the current Entertainment Weekly, he gives a take on the new Best of Ozzie and Harriet set from Shout Factory. It's not a bad piece, but it completely neglects the worst aspect of this release: it features syndicated versions, 22-minute butcher jobs missing at least 4-5 minutes of footage per episode. Shout has a good reputation, and many fans assumed that since they teamed up with the Nelson estate to issue this DVD collection, it would feature intact shows. It's all well and good for Ken Tucker to share with readers his vision of the TV show, but many fans who would actually want to buy the DVD are interested in that sort of thing and are disappointed by the set. It's particularly frustrating because Mill Creek just out a 38-episode set with many complete episodes including original commercials. But EW doesn't mention that.
Granted, The Tuck gets very little space to do his reviews, but still, EW needs to get on the ball and make disclosing issues with TV on DVD sets a priority, especially when it involves cut versions of shows. The mag is more proactive about bitching about full-screen-only DVDs on movies, so why do they neglect this issue? It lets lazy studios off the hook and keeps interested consumers in the dark. Entertainment Weekly's DVD reviews are indeed entertaining, but until they address this sort of thing more often, they will be of little use. You have to go online to get the whole story. In fact, check out this review at DVD Talk if you're interested in Ozzie and Harriet.
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=27788
Paul Mavis writes one of the best TV on DVD reviews I've ever seen, placing the show in context, addressing technical issues and extras, and admitting his own biases where appropriate. Maybe Tucker would do this kind of thing if he had the space, but he ought to give it a shot as it is. |
|
|
| 5Q Movie Review: Hot Fuzz |
[May. 7th, 2007|11:21 pm] |
5Q MOVIE REVIEW: HOT FUZZ
Q: Hot Fuzz is from the same team that brought us Shaun of the Dead. It can't possibly be as good, can it?
A: Uh, no, it can't. But Hot Fuzz is plenty good in its own right, and while it is flawed, it may well become the kind of enduring cult classic that holds up to repeated viewings. If you liked Shaun of the Dead, you'll get your money's worth here.
Q: So is this a comedy? An action flick? A sendup? A loving tribute?
A: Stop! You're both right! This buddy cop movie is filled with laughs, and it does poke fun at the conventions of flicks it refers to, like Bad Boys. But, like in their zombie comedy, they never degenerate into an all-out spoof, and in fact it's clear they revere the source material. In fact, they don't feel superior to dumb action movies. They want to become a dumb action movie.
Unfortunately, they succeed all too well in that regard. Hot Fuzz is about 20 minutes too long, and that's mainly because it really does become what it is joking about at some point. There are false endings, ridiculous amounts of violence, and an excessive amount of hyperactive editing. Excess really sums it up, actually.
Q: Wait a minute, there is a plot?
A: Oh, yeah. This is not a loosey-goosey totally zany improv fest, but an actual movie. There is a real story, with character development and all. The heart that is invested in the screenplay really pays off, as you laugh but you also truly care about the people you're watching. As for the mystery, the joy is not in the Who Done It of the How Done It, but the Why Done It, which is hilariously satisfying.
Q: Is it just me, or is there an outstanding supporting cast here?
A: There is, indeed. At one point, it really seemed possible that every single cool actor of British descent would show up for at least a cameo. That isn't the case--Ricky Gervais, for one, is absent--but there are plenty of other rewards here. I don't want to give them all away, but there are faces familiar from movies, faces familiar from British TV, and faces familiar from Shaun of the Dead. And in a key role as a possible villain, Timothy Dalton is a lot of fun. Timothy Dalton is a lot of fun! People didn't even say that when he was James Freakin' Bond.
Q: Will you be looking forward to more from these guys, or are they starting to repeat themselves?
A: I will absolutely look forward to each film these guys want to give us, and I will pay my ticket and see it in the theater. This one didn't have as many high points as Shaun of the Dead, but it was consistently funny, and it worked in its own way. Critically, the chemistry between co-stars Simon Pegg and Nick Frost is equally strong this time out, and though there are similarities with their previous characters, these two new roles are distinctive. I never felt they were repeating themselves. |
|
|
| CALL TO ACTION: VAN HAGAR |
[May. 4th, 2007|09:40 pm] |
CALL TO ACTION: Van Hagar
As lame as this year's Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Ceremony was and as unimpressive as the makeshift group of Van Halen representatives fronted by Sammy Hagar was, seeing the ceremony did make me wish I had a little more Van Hagar on CD. Like, any. I never got around to buying 5150 or OU812 on compact disc, though Lord knows I heard enough of the former back in the day and have the latter on a cassette tape somewhere in the far reaches of the Cultureshark Archives.
You know what, though? I don't think I NEED 5150 and OU812. I want the hits, including songs like "Love Walks In" and "Why Can't This Be Love?" but I recall some filler on those albums. What I need is a good greatest hits that features the best of those (and I really don't need to buy For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge, which I never liked in the first place).
A better Best of Van Halen Lee Roth is welcome but not essential, as we should really be just buying those individual albums. The Van Hagar area, though, while loaded with high points, didn't feature whole discs that were as consistent. Isn't that sort of phenomena the reason why the concept of Greatest Hits was invented?
Well, no, I think the concept was created to get people to repurchase songs they had already bought. Creatively speaking, though, there is a need for Greatest Hits albums in many cases. I want my 38 Special singles but don't necessarily need the whole LPs, and while I doubt any of those guys will join Sammy in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, they all share something in common because there really oughta be a Best of Van Hagar on my shelf.
Only problem is, there is no such thing. A while back, someone had the insane idea of combining the David Lee Roth era with the Van Hagar era in one greatest hits package--and alternating between the two song to song! I prefer my two Van Halens kept separate and distinct, thank you, and I'll not be picking that one up. I prefer the third Van Halen, with Gary Cherone, placed in an incinerator, never to be spoken of again. But I'm straying off topic.
No, what we need is a Best of Van Hagar collection without any David Lee Roth or {snicker) Gary Cherone. Sure the band (or what's left of it) and Mr. Cabo Wabo may not be on great terms, but Eddie could throw him a bone for being gracious enough to go to the HOF ceremony and accept with class. More importantly, the fans deserve this. Make it happen, folks, by demanding it.
They can even title it with a patented snicker-inducing acronym. I volunteer this one for free:
Best of Van Halen: Sammy Hagar's Inimitable Tracks. |
|
|
| YEAHS AND NAHS: Pop Culture List Books |
[May. 4th, 2007|09:31 pm] |
YEAHS AND NAHS: Pop Culture List Books
Pop culture lists are not just the basic building block for 80% of the combined programming schedules of VH-1 and E. They're fun, easily digestible, and provocative. A good list book should be the same. I read two in the last month, one a big success, the other not so much
NAH: TELEVISION WITHOUT PITY
Many of you who have missed an episode of your favorite TV show likely have turned to the site televisionwithoutpity.com to get a detailed recap. Or maybe you just enjoyed visiting the forums to exchange opinions about the show. Well, the website with a proud reputation for snark has found a way to cash in on its online cachet by producing that charming relic of bygone days: a book.
Authors Tara Ariano and Sarah D. Bunting started the site and created this book of the same name, subtitled "752 things we love to hate (and hate to love) about TV." Pretty self-explanatory, eh? Indeed, it plays out much as you might expect, with the 752 things arranged alphabetically with occasional woodcut illustrations, sort of like a mini-encyclopedia.
I'm not a frequent visitor to the site, so I can't speak to whether this book captures whatever makes the Internet experience so appealing. But as simply a book about TV, though, I find it rather disappointing. I generally love breezy, opinionated volumes like this one, with bite-sized sections and various takes on pop culture topics. Unfortunately, while it wasn't a chore reading Television Without Pity, I was never absorbed in it and ultimately got little from reading it.
The limited frame of reference is part of the problem. There is a clear emphasis on TV from the late 1980s and up, or programming that was in heavy reruns in the time period. That's fine, and not surprising given the likely age of the authors. But I saw most of that stuff myself. For me to get much out of that subject matter, the writing should offer some high insight or entertainment value, and it's lacking. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume their assertion (in an I Love Lucy entry) that black and white TV isn't funny is facetious. But there is still a distinctly narrow scope here. I enjoy reading about aspects of TV I don't know much about, and when the subject matter is more familiar, I expect a new take on, say, how lame Cousin Oliver was. A book called TV Land TV to Go did a much better job of pointing out the medium's conventions and cliches.
Also, the encyclopedic format quickly becomes annoying as we find frequently pointless cross-references and entries that consist solely of directing us to another entry. Another flaw is the repetition of the authors' pet obsessions. They clearly think Regis Philbin doesn't prepare for interviews on his morning chat show. It feels like they mention it dozens of times. I exaggerate, but more than once is probably too much. And there are way, way too many references to Lex from Survivor.
One might argue a book like this isn't meant to be read straight through, but I say that when I read a good one, it's difficult to put it down. Sadly, that's not the case here. It's a small book that I read quickly, but more out of obligation than interest. One unique aspect of TV Without Pity is its female perspective. While I don't necessarily NEED to read about the sex appeal or lack thereof of Ian Ziering, it at least provides a new perspective for me, as much of this kind of writing seems to come from male voices. This helps give the book distinction, but not enough to make this slim, padded effort worth its cover price. It might be an entertaining read at a discount for those who have seen a lot less TV (and read a lot less about it) than I have.
YEAH: A much better example of this kind of book is Greg Wyshinki's "Glow Pucks and 10-Cent Beer: The 101 Dumbest Ideas in Sports History." It's witty but never too silly and provocative without being overly snarky.
Oddly, this list book isn't presented entirely in list form. The top 25 are given as a countdown in the final portion of the volume; before then, the entries are grouped thematically. This seems a good compromise between the logical flow of a book and the orderly randomness of a ranking. Hey,one advantage is that it lets you skip over the hockey parts if you're so inclined. Besides, the list isn't the emphasis, and it needn't be as long as the writing is clever.
There is more of a bias towards relatively modern events and ideas here, but Wyshinski shows a grasp of sports history beyond his own personal frame of reference. He includes plenty of familiar and expected items, like the infamous Olympic Triplecast and the XFL, but his concise writing and sharp humor make reading about such subjects worthwhile.
This was a fine list book that I plowed right through, and any sports fan will get some value from it. |
|
|
| THIS WEEK IN DVD |
[May. 1st, 2007|03:30 pm] |
THIS WEEK IN DVD
It's a slooooow week, so I'll be in and out with just a few thoughts:
Little Children: By far the best recent theatrical release to arrive today. It's an arresting mix of comedy, drama, morals, and political commentary, and while I'm not sure every decision in this movie works, you have to give Todd Field credit for his ambition. This may really improve on DVD once you get used to some of the narrative techniques, such as the odd narration. A second viewing would also be useful in reminding viewers that, oh, yeah, Jennifer Connelly was in this one. It's a fine, provocative film, but sadly, there are virtually no extras. So if you want any insight into how Field adapted the novel, too bad. It's a disappointingly spare video release for such an acclaimed movie.
Dreamgirls: If you liked this movie more than I did, you may want to own it, but let me warn you: I don't care how many discs this is, how many bonuses it boasts, what kind of "special edition" name is attached to it--this one is bound to get a Super Super Deluxe Edition later. If you think it's so nice you'll buy it twice, go ahead. You know, maybe you should, though, because I have a feeling that the fine people who put this movie together, disappointed as they may have been to not get more Academy Awards recognition, would rather see this DVD on your shelf than a little gold man on their shelf.'
Except Eddie Murphy. You better believe he sure as &*%$ wanted that mother&*#@&^% Oscar.
Turistas: Young people. Vacation. Torture. Death. Yawn.
Alpha Dog: Justin Timberlake's attempt to be all tough and "street" pretty much obscured any serious attention this relatively small film got. Maybe it's worth a shot on DVD. |
|
|
| HALF-ASSED GOURMET: Ginger Pasta Stir Fry |
[Apr. 30th, 2007|03:11 pm] |
HALF-ASSED GOURMET: Ginger Pasta Stir Fry
A few weeks ago, an inexplicable urge to cook something without use of a microwave hit me, and I dove into a cookbook. Specifically, it was a Better Homes and Gardens 5 Ingredient recipe book. 5 ingredients equals easy, and easy equals me having a fighting chance of pulling it off without creating an inferno.
I was drawn to a recipe for ginger pasta stir fry that seemed ridiculously easy. Combine vegetables, ginger sauce, pasta, cooking oil, and cashews. Cook. Eat. Nice!
Now, there were a few more steps than that. For example, I cooked the pasta before combining it with the veggies. But still, it was very easy and quite tasty. I never would have thought to combine cheese-filled tortellini with stir fry vegetables like broccoli and water chestnuts, let alone throw a ginger-flavored sauce in there, but damn if it didn't work out just fine. I was really proud of myself.
But then it hit me. What I did wasn't really an accomplishment, and not just because the recipe was so basic. The recipe itself isn't that brilliant, either. You know why?
I have a new Theory of Cooking that explains why: You can combine virtually any kind of ingredients, as long as they taste good individually, throw in a decent sauce, cook it in a big skillet, and the result will always taste good.
If I may paraphrase Joey Tribbiani when he tried Rachel's horrible English Trifle dessert, what's not to like? Pasta? Good. Vegetables? Good. Ginger stir fry sauce? GOOD.
I haven't tested this much, and sure there are some ridiculous combinations out there you could "get" me with, like peanut butter and swiss cheese and chicken (although as I type that, it looks not entirely undeserving of a go). But I think my basic premise will hold up. I have a few other combinations I look forward to testing soon, and I will do so with confidence. You just can't screw up this basic formula. |
|
|
| A REALLY COOL THING ABOUT THE LOOKOUT (WITH AN ASTERISK) |
[Apr. 27th, 2007|07:27 pm] |
A REALLY COOL THING ABOUT THE LOOKOUT (WITH AN ASTERISK)
I'm going to share with you what is perhaps the single coolest thing about The Lookout. This one aspect I'll discuss is an X factor that amused me throughout much of the movie, enhancing the on-screen activity without ever overwhelming it. Were it not for one tiny problem, I'd go so far as to call it the best reason to see The Lookout.
Unfortunately, there is that one little problem, and while I didn't let it bother me during the movie, it's significant enough that I feel obligated to let you in on it. But rather than blurt it out right away, I'll add it to the end here as an asterisk. Don't skip down yet. First let me reveal that a great surprise of this fun thriller is a remarkable casting decision. There is a gang of thugs who want to rob a bank, and the most menacing, fearsome one of all, known only as "Bone," is played by...Geddy Lee! That's right, the lead singer of Rush is in The Lookout as a shotgun-wielding, glowering "strong and silent" type!
If you must know now what the asterisk is, then jump to the bottom, check it out, come back, and read the rest of this post. I hope you'll still want to. I hope you can ignore the asterisk and appreciate how cool this is, in much the same way as I ignored it and had a blast while enjoying the coolest thing about this flick.
Anyways, getting back to Geddy Lee, all I can say is: Geddy Lee! Imagine my surprise seeing the man who sang "Fly by night, good-bye, my dear," portray some kind of bad ass on the big screen. Lee brilliantly underplays, too, teasing you with his nasty, sullen demeanor but not speaking for most of his screen time. This is probably a deliberate move designed to keep that distinctive voice in check so we can feel Lee's menacing side. It works. All the while, you're just waiting for him to go Modern-day Warrior on someone. It's a performance as brilliant as anything on Moving Pictures. Sure, at first I was wondering if Neal Peart would show up as a hired goon, but as I settled in and let the sheer audacity of this casting fade somewhat, I had a blast.
Time for the asterisk.
If you waited to the end, I congratulate you, and I reiterate that I sincerely hope reading the asterisk below won't prevent you from seeing The Lookout and celebrating this cool thing.
*The guy that plays him isn't Geddy Lee. In fact, on closer examination, he doesn't even look all that much like the Canadian rock star. More like a cross between an older version of Weed from the comic strip "For Better or For Worse" and a a younger Gene Simmons. No, the guy that plays the mysterious, brooding Bone is named Greg Dunham, and as far as I know, he has never played in Rush, nor even in a tribute band.
But why let that stop us from enjoying The Lookout? After all, to quote a far more famous movie, one that also didn't star Geddy Lee, "Nobody's perfect." |
|
|
| 5Q MOVIE REVIEW: THE LOOKOUT |
[Apr. 27th, 2007|06:35 pm] |
5Q MOVIE REVIEW: THE LOOKOUT
Q: This relatively small crime pic rapidly vanished from theaters. Why should we make an effort to see it?
A: First, here is why you should WANT TO see it: It's the directorial debut of Scott Frank, writer of fine movies like Out of Sight and A Simple Plan. Here's why you should see it: It's an absorbing thriller with solid performances.
Q: Solid performances? You mean like the kid from Third Rock from the Sun?
A: Yes, I do! In fact, after seeing this and last year's brilliant Brick, I hereby officially declare it's time to quit giving Joseph Gordon-Leavitt for being on that show. Er, that is, if I didn't already do so when I saw Brick. As Chris Pratt, a former high school hockey star/BMOC who has everything going for him until he suffers brain damage in a car accident that kills or injuries some of his friends (and is the direct result of his own recklessness), Leavitt is more subdued this time. The nature of this character, who must frequently jot ridiculously basic things down in a little notebook because of his short-term memory issues, means that he can't deliver that showy purple dialogue as in Brick. However, he still registers by revealing both the numbing effect his current lifestyle has on him and the dormant yearning for his old life.
Q: Is this anything more than just a cool crime pic?
A: The actual crime is pretty simple. Some lowlifes led by a guy who knew Chris in school (and pointedly tells him he was several years older then him yet envied him) want to rob the bank where he works as a night janitor. Things go wrong, of course, and while the resolution is exciting, the more fascinating part of the movie is showing how the gang seduces their target into helping them by serving as a lookout for the cop who stops by each night.
There is something else in The Lookout that I find compelling. There's a strong thread throughout the film of people underestimating the main character. Because he has suffered the head injury, almost everyone treats him with pity or condescension, including his own family. Even the characters that have honorable intentions can't picture him capable of much (one notable exception is a case worker, Carla Gugino, who disappears for some reason after her one early scene and is missed). This, more than a noirish sense of fatalism, drives the plot, as our protagonist is swayed by people who appeal to him by indicating he has potential. There is a conflict between destiny and people's expectations on one hand, and free will and self-reliance on the other. Plus it is intriguing that instead of "looking out" for someone they see as handicapped, many in this film look past him, not clearly seeing him as an individual.
Ultimately, the gimmick behind the main character, the fact that he can't remember anything without writing it down, doesn't hold up so well. The plot becomes increasingly contrived as we wonder how Chris can do some things and retain some info but not others. I think some of the elements Frank is trying to blend don't quite come together to turn this into more than an entertaining heist flick.
Q: Is The Lookout as dark as you're making it sound?
A: No, it's quite amusing in some spots. And as Chris' blind roommate, Jeff Daniels provides a wonderful performance and lightens up the film. His odd-sounding dream for the future and his corny humor provide a stark contrast to the troubled Leavitt and create an effectively weird tension/chemistry between the two.
Q: Hey, that tall, lean dark-haired gunman with the dark glasses--is that...?
A: Sorry to leave you hanging, but see my next post! |
|
|
| BACKSTAGE ASS: DVR woes, Fuse Network, Pearl Jam |
[Apr. 27th, 2007|06:33 pm] |
Backstage Ass: DVR woes, Fuse Network, Pearl Jam
*Isn't technology great? I especially love that DVR device that lets me store hours of programming on one cable box's hard drive without having to go through the hassle of using VHS tapes. Well, a few weeks ago, my DVR suddenly went on the fritz and, in order of events, started playing back my recorded programs sluggishly and crashing, stopped recording altogether, and then denied access to the programs that were already on there. I lost about 40 hours of movies and TV shows I had recorded.
Kind of makes me glad I kept my VCR.
*For a while I thought Fuse had aborted its attempt to clone MTV with ill-fated "original programming" efforts like crappy cartoon Empire Square. Not that I ever watched Fuse, mind you, but it was safe to annoy it and not be too upset about how it seemed so desperate to abandon its original mission of concentrating on music.
In the words of ESPN college football analyst Lee Corso, "Not so fast, my friend."
A few weeks ago I noticed Fuse was showing something called "Daddy's Little Girl," an apparent ripoff of MTV's My Sweet 16. Last week, I discovered Fuse was running Felicity reruns. Felicity! I scanned the rest of the week's schedule and verified that, yes, Fuse is still showing horror movies weeknights, too.
Check out this show that popped up on the network recently: "Rad Girls." Here is the program description: Three crazy California girls say and do anything to shock and entertain in hilarious challenges and outrageous situations. Hmm. Remind you of anything?
So much for that alternative to MTV for music fans. Someone should pull the plug on this pathetic waste of channel capacity.
*As a Pearl Jam fan, I have to say their new cover of "Love Reign O'er Me" sounds pretty damn good. As a fan of the original version by The Who, I have to ask, was it really necessary? Not so much. But it's harmless, and if it raises awareness of The Who for a younger generation (though Pearl Jam aren't exactly young and cutting edge in 2007), I'm sure Eddie Vedder and co. would be delighted. |
|
|
| THIS MONTH IN DVD PART 2: TV ON DVD |
[Apr. 27th, 2007|06:30 pm] |
THIS MONTH IN DVD PART 2: TV ON DVD
The Odd Couple Season One: Lost in the WKRP tumult this week (see next entry) is the fact that a true comedy classic is in stores this week. Die-hard fans already got this set (a few minor changes have been made for this version) from Time-Life, so maybe that's why there isn't more buzz. But if you waited to see it in a store, stop waiting. Go out and buy it now because even though signs are we'll get all 5 seasons from Paramount, you never know. Get those sales numbers up.
WKRP Season One: Baby, if you ever wondered, wondered whatever became of the music in this show...
Well, Fox didn't feel it was worthwhile to clear it, so this rock music-heavy series has been stripped of virtually all music or had it replaced for this Season One release. There is a huge debate about this online, but it remains to be seen if Joe Public really cares or notices. Fox used syndicated cuts for these episodes, too, and deleted whole scenes and bits of dialogue where the music couldn't be avoided. So this is really a butcher job. It's a catch-22 for fans, though, as poor sales would make Fox even less inclined to give a damn about subsequent seasons. It seems unlikely that WKRP will get another shot in national syndication anytime soon. So poor enthusiasts of this series will have to reward a crappy effort or torpedo the whole DVD project. What a great option.
Ric Flair and the 4 Horsemen: I haven't done due diligence on this one yet, but I can tell you this: We could quibble about match listings, the quality of the actual documentary, or whatever, but anybody that grew up watching wrestling in the 80s has to agree that the very existence of a DVD called Ric Flair and the 4 Horsemen is a fantastic thing. I might also add, "Whoo!"
The Untouchables and The Streets of San Francisco: Good news is that Paramount is even releasing these. Bad news is that they split 'em up so that instead of the whole season one being available now, we get "Part One" of Season One and we'll have to buy two sets to get one full season. Ah, well, at least from all accounts these are uncut episodes with great-looking transfers (if no extras). I remember seeing Untouchables reruns when I was younger, but I don't ever think I got into Streets of San Fran. Still, I applaud these releases.
One Day at a Time Season One: It's been a looong time since I watched this regularly in reruns, but I suspect that to today's eye, it's gonna be one of those series that you just think, "How did it last nine freakin' years?" Despite that long run, and despite its Norman Lear pedigree, this has been out of the public eye for quite some time, save for a nice little reuinon special CBS presented a couple years ago. Oh, people know Valerie Bertenelli, and they know Mackenzie Phillips' troubles, but they don't seem to actually know the show anymore. Except Schneider. Everyone knows that One Day at a Time featured a lecherous super who was always attacking Ms. Romano and her teenage daughters. Well, the legend of Schneider has grown somewhat over the years. Check out these 15 first-season episodes and judge for yourself: Was Schneider a perv, a teddy bear, or somewhere in between? And are the Romano women interesting enough to carry the show without him?
Ironside Season One: He's big, he's bad, and he's in a wheelchair! Raymond Burr IS Ironside! I could easily lump this in with Untouchables and Streets of San Fran as shows I haven't seen much but would like to check out, but I want to highlight a few things: One, this is available in season one--the whole thing--for people that don't go for that split season jazz. More importantly, this is another example (along with the recent McHale's Navy release) of Universal licensing shows out to Shout Factory and getting its TV library out there. So it deserves attention, and maybe success will lure other studios into trying a similar approach. |
|
|
| YOU MAKE THE CALL: DVD DILEMMA |
[Apr. 27th, 2007|03:08 pm] |
YOU MAKE THE CALL: DVD DILEMMA
Last week, Sony released a DVD set that should make any TV lover happy: the first set of Larry Sanders episodes since the studio released an overpriced, subpar season one set years ago. More installments of this classic show are long past due. Plus star Garry Shandling has put together hours and hours of in-depth extras to make this a definitive take on his creation.
Only thing is, this set doesn't make everyone happy. It's not definitive. Not Just the Best of the Larry Sanders Show has a few dozen episodes, but they're scattered across the series' run. It's not that second season release fans have been waiting for.
I absolutely loved the show on HBO and would gladly buy the whole series if it were available. Unfortunately, word has it Shandling himself was only interested in a Best Of (I know there are rumors that music clearances were blocking season sets, but those don't seem credible). He has put together a fine set. But fans want more. I want more.
Should I buy this set? Only a few episodes are duplicated from my season one collection, but that's still double-dipping. Much worse is the prospect of Sony turning around next year and releasing season sets, forcing me to once again buy episodes I have in order to get the ones I need. On the other hand, some is better than none right now, perhaps. Plus it's not like anyone is showing these on TV these days, and besides, watching this often-profane sitcom in hacked-up form on Bravo or local syndication is a painful experience.
In his recent review for Entertainment Weekly, their Esteemed Expert on Everything Ken Tucker dismissed the need for season sets, writing that "completists" might want them. As if only obsessives have an interest in the entire run of one of the most acclaimed TV shows ever being on DVD. Tucker also ignores the fact that the series had recurring themes and storylines that played out over successive episodes. And of course he doesn't bother to tell us anything about why it's a Best Of, what the chances are of more sets coming, or even basic info like if the transfers are better than the poor quality of that season one edition. Typically uninformative EW review.
You have to get your info on DVD, and by doing so, I discovered that the shows are uncut and the extras are sure to delight any fan. I also read a tantalizing hint by Shandling that Sony might put out more episodes in the future, though he likely wouldn't be as personally involved.
So, should you buy the DVD? YOU MAKE THE CALL for yourself. I can understand not wanting to get burned by getting this one and then seeing a Season Two set. Personally, I think this is a worthwhile purchase if only for the extras. It ain't cheap, and the extras might have limited rewatchability compared to the actual episodes, but there is a lot of value here. Plus there is always the remote chance that Sony will do the right thing and make a Volume 2 with the rest of the series, thereby not making loyal fans rebuy a good portion of the run.
My choices are: Buy, Rent, Not Buy, or maybe a fourth option: Put it on my Wish List and hope someone buys it FOR me for my birthday. That way, I get to enjoy the DVDs without the guilt and annoyance of supporting a Best Of instead of the season sets Larry Sanders so richly deserves. This sounds pretty good to me.
I have made my choice...for now. Check back in with me after my birthday. |
|
|
| THIS MONTH IN DVD (PART 1: MOVIES) |
[Apr. 25th, 2007|03:19 pm] |
THIS MONTH IN DVD (PART 1: MOVIES)
OK, so I missed a few weeks of the This Week in DVD feature. Solution: This Month in DVD. Voila! Here are some of the more notable releases of the past few weeks (including this one). I'll split this into two posts so I can yak about plenty o' movies and plenty o' TV sets.
A Night at the Museum: Even today, months after it happened, it's hard to fathom that this unexceptional farce made 200 million bucks. I guess families loved it, and that's fine since this comedy seemed geared to kids. I am no longer a kid, though I do act kind of like a 13-year-old when Salma Hayek guest stars on Ugly Betty, and I found Night at the Museum a real disappointment. As the movie plodded on towards its entirely predictable tidy ending, I somehow got the thought it was one of those kind of movies where the whole cast would wind up dancing over the end credits. I swear I thought this even though it was neither cartoon nor musical nor even romantic comedy. Sure enough...maybe it'll be a fun rental to see the classic combo of The Mickster and The Dickster, that is, Mickey Rooney and Dick Van Dyke, who are far more vivid and entertaining than ballyhooed co-stars like Robin Williams and Owen Wilson.
Bobby: Throughout the history of cinema, auteurs have often strived beyond providing mere entertainment to tell stories of a political nature, stories with meaning and import that, despite a superficial focus on historical events, are relevant and vital to contemporary audiences. Yes, I am talking about filmmakers like Costa-Gavras, Oliver Stone, and Emilio Estevez.
Emilio Estevez?
Sounds kind of wacky to me, but you shouldn't reject this DVD because the lesser of the stars from the Stakeout movies made it. You should reject it because it was pretty much DOA at the box office and one of the more critically reviled efforts of 2006.
However, a seeming cast of thousands shows up in various roles and parades through the film, and watching them might make watching the DVD an entertaining experience as you try to figure out what the heck Emilio did for THEM that made them owe him a favor.
Payback Director's Cut: Director Brian Hegeland gets to present his vision of the not entirely-beloved reworking of Payback. Film enthusiasts and critics the world over get to berate Mel Gibson for pulling rank and "softening" the film for its original release. We get to judge for ourselves. Hey, everybody wins, really. Even Mel Gibson probably gets some sweet residuals.
Freedom Writers: Hilary Swank already has two Oscars, so nobody had to worry about pretending this inspirational tale was more than some kind of Dangerous Minds retread.
History Boys: I know this was based on a successful play, acclaimed in some circles, et cetera, but I couldn't get over the fact that the teacher in this one fondled his students. Everything I read indicated this was dealt with in the film as some kind of "tee hee" indiscretion. Say what? I have to confess the old double standard is at work here, though: the idea of Hillary Swank as a teacher who fondles her students: considerably less repulsive.
James Cagney Signature Collection: No, his most famous movies aren't included here, most having been released on previous sets. But so what? Unless you're some kind of dirty rat, you should still check this out, see? It's another fine Warner Brothers set with extras galore.
Smokin' Aces: Special guest commentary from my dad: "I saw the DVD in the store, and I remembered thinking when it came to theaters it might be pretty cool. Then I saw Ben Affleck's name on the cover. Forget it."
Code Name: Cleaner: Someday in the not-too-distant future, Hollywood execs, producers, agents, maybe even Cedric the Entertainer himself will all realize that he's probably better off as a scene-stealing supporting player (like in Barbershop) than as the star of his own vehicle (like, well, this). In the meantime, he's presumably raking in the cash and doing what he can.
The Queen: This is a highly entertaining, lively movie, despite the fact that according to protocol one must wear white gloves whenever handling this DVD and then must curtsy as soon as the menu loads.
Notes on a Scandal: When watching this one, however, feel free to get drunk, discard any articles of clothing that feel constricting, and yell back at the TV.
Deja Vu: Here's where you the reader benefit from this expanded DVD listing. I don't have time to work out some lame joke about seeing the movie again or to print this listing twice. But I reserve the right to do so later if I rent this and feel like writing about it. |
|
|
| War Books: Flags of Our Fathers and Up Front |
[Apr. 25th, 2007|03:16 pm] |
War Books: Flags of Our Fathers and Up Front
A while back, I read two outstanding World War II books: James Bradley's "Flags of Our Fathers," which Clint Eastwood adapted into the recent motion picture; and Bill Mauldin's "Up Front," which was originally published in 1944 and remains vital today.
If you ever wonder why we have such a collective reverence for the Greatest Generation that saved our bacon in World War II, well, quit wondering, bozo. They won freakin' WWII. But one thing that always strikes me in particular about that era is that people did anything they could to get INTO the war. Contrast that to Vietnam, when people--including many in our current political leadership--did anything to stay OUT. I don't want to demean our soldiers who served in Vietnam. I'm just saying that reading Flags of Our Fathers, I was struck by stories of 16-year-olds lying about their age so they could enlist. Up Front reads like it was written by a grizzled old vet, and it was--but Mauldin was in his early 20s when he authored it.
Flags of Our Fathers is Bradley's story of the men who served in the Battle of Iwo Jima, with an emphasis on those who appeared in Joe Rosenthal's iconic flag-raising photo on that barren Pacific island. One of those flag raisers was the author's father, John "Doc" Bradley, and much of the text concerns the son's attempt to piece together what happened so many years ago, since his unassuming father rarely discussed it.
Bradley (with help from co-writer Ron Powers) tells the personal story of the War and his father while also telling the larger story of Iwo Jima, and in fact, a brief history of the Marine Corps. While Clint Eastwood's film adaptation suffers from a clunky structure that bounces back and forth between "what happened" and "piecing it together," the transitions are much smoother in print. It's a powerful book that combines gripping battle accounts with moving personal histories of the combatants, and it's all connected by Bradley's human touch. The contrast between the mythology that developed surrounding the photo and the reality is a recurring theme as well. In fact, Bradley both elevates and simplifies his subjects by letting them stress what their true goal was: To do right by their buddies who fought alongside them.
Up Front expresses a similar belief system in relating the point of view of the often-unsung Army infantry. The fellas that served on the front lines and did the grunt work get their due in this thoroughly entertaining volume.
Mauldin is the legendary wartime cartoonist who contributed most famously to Stars and Stripes, the Army newspaper. Up Front collects a bunch of his single-panel cartoons, many featuring iconic soldiers Willie and Joe, along with a sort of running commentary by Maudlin himself.
The text isn't structured in a particular way, and Mauldin's writing is direct and unpretentious. I don't mean that in a condescending way, either; more like Up Front reads like Maudlin is talking conversationally to the reader with no agenda besides telling it like it is. It gives the book a certain immediacy but also makes the topic more accessible. In contrast to Flags of Our Fathers, there is no strong drama here, but this more casual approach works in its own way. The book is a tremendous education about the life of the solider. Mauldin at this time was one of the men, and he expressed their gripes, their hopes, their fears, their foibles, in cartoon form throughout the war.
Many of the cartoons aren't necessarily ha ha funny to a modern reader. The frame of reference is often too specific to be easily grasped today. However, as you look at them more closely and read Maudlin's words (sometimes commenting directly on a particular panel), you understand them. Up Front isn't a riotous cartoon book; rather, it's an enlightening portrayal of infantry life in World War II. That's not to say it's not fun--it's a quick read and hard to put down--but it is as informative as it is amusing. |
|
|
| 5Q MOVIE REVIEW: MEET THE ROBINSONS (DIGITAL 3-D) |
[Apr. 24th, 2007|05:39 pm] |
5Q MOVIE REVIEW: MEET THE ROBINSONS (DIGITAL 3-D)
Q: This one is in 3-D? I didn't even know! Is it worth paying the extra few bucks for glasses?
A: I don't think Disney promoted the 3-D showings as much as it could have. I was fortunate enough to not have to pay extra for the glasses, but the 3-D is outstanding in Meet the Robinsons and well worth the price of admission. The depth of vision really enhances the animation and makes this visually fascinating.
Q: Are there any other surprises we should know about?
A: Yeah! I even saw a vintage 1950s 3-D Donald Duck before the main feature. I was disappointed that it was more a Chip and Dale story than a Donald one, and those irritating chipmunks once again got the best of him, but still, that's a heckuva bonus. I wouldn't have known that was part of the deal if I hadn't seen it mentioned by a moviegoer online.
Q: OK, the 3-D is cool. But would this be a worthwhile movie without it?
A: While it's hard to say definitively, I believe had I seen this in regular old 2-D, I would have been somewhat disappointed. There are some compelling themes here, but they get lost in a story that never comes together. The plot is both too simple and too complex for its own good, and the humor and characterization isn't sharp.
Q: The plotting is both too simple and too complex? What does that mean?
A: Two words: time travel. The story centers on a talented if eccentric kid inventor who badly wants to find the mother who abandoned him just after he was born. When someone from the future travels back to disrupt his science fair appearance, he is recruited by a time traveling kid to go to that future and stop the villain.
Whenever you got time travel, you're gonna get some wacky stuff going on. Things get convoluted enough to make you wonder how things could be happening the way they are, yet the vision of the future isn't dazzling or creative enough to justify the setting. I found myself pondering paradoxes and the ability to change the future, and while I didn't expect a definitive explanation of those issues, it would have been nice to have seen them addressed, even in a light-hearted manner. The story just doesn't add up to much despite the gimmicks and the sometimes frantic editing. The wacky family kind of comedy that seems to be developing gets pushed aside by the time travel plot.
Q: Well, is this a good family movie?
A: I think anyone would enjoy this in 3-D, when it's easier to overlook the weaker aspects of the screenplay. Otherwise, it probably is best geared to families. It seems to me that this one was aimed all along at a younger crowd than, say, the Pixar films, which take a more all-ages approach. That's not necessarily a bad thing. But given this and last year's disappointing Chicken Little, you have to really appreciate that Pixar is around. The other Disney movies are, especially by comparison, too hyper and not inspired enough. |
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| [ |
go |
| |
earlier |
] |
| |
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif){kind=small}
cultureshark