Monday, December 26, 2011
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Insanely Awesome
 |
| Image from Shackleton Antarctica expedition, 1915 (Courtesy Retronaut.co) |
Monday, December 19, 2011
Psychic Ability
I've been thumping this drum for about a week and a half now, so I figured I'd cowboy up (pun intended) and set it down with a date and time stamp so everyone will be wildly impressed when I prove right: I think the Eagles are going to win the NFC East. I see them winning their last two games, the Cowboys losing their last two games, and the Jets putting the Giants out of our misery this coming Saturday. A long shot, I know, but I think it's more probable than some might imagine, and I want to get out in front of it. So there--I set my prediction down in black and white (or whatever colors you monitor is showing right now). We'll see how it goes...
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Calls of the Wild
 |
| The children of the night... such music they make. (Photo courtesy wikipedia.org) |
This is not exactly new to me; I heard the coyotes howling plenty of times during my residence at my apartment in nearby Lafayette. But these late episodes bring something special to the scene: a certain wonderfully ominous character to them that strikes my ironic funny bone in a most peculiar way.
You see, it's basically winter out there (not by the calendar, but for the Bay Area, this is pretty much it as far as that season goes). And you have all these old people holed up in their boxy little apartments, while outside a band of mini-wolves is howling at the door. It's like a theater in the round version of a very odd Russian play. Next thing you know an army will march through and seize everyone's grain.
Yeah, I know it's not much, but in these trying times I have to amuse myself with what I've got. Check back in next week when I'll be house-sitting and enjoying more leisure time with myself for something more entertaining.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Mobility
Once again, for the second time in three years, the Heavily Fortified Bunker has been broken down into Lego sized boxes and stored away, leaving me temporarily homeless for an undisclosed amount of time. This is an unfortunate circumstance, to be sure, but yours truly will endure. And maybe, now that the move is accomplished, I will have more time to dedicate to posting items here on my cyber-home. Selah.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
I Want This!
Recently Read
 |
| The Big Squeeze Visit author's website |
by Steven Greenhouse
It can hardly be called a secret: these days, in this country, if you're not rich, you're boned.
New York Times reporter Steven Greenhouse decided to set that fact down for the record, and the result was The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker. Published in 2008, just as everything was going to shit in America's economy, The Big Squeeze documents the full gamut of the ways in which American workers are being screwed: diminishing wages, nonexistent job security, and a host of illegal activities, such as denying benefits, altering time sheets to cheat workers of earned wages, aggressive union-busting, and a general hostility towards the rights of workers--up to and including locking workers in on the night shift and not letting them out, regardless of what emergency may come.
As Greenhouse make clear, all of these actions are the products of a philosophical shift that seized corporate America's collective hive-brain sometime in the 1980s (the Reagan era, of course); that shift brutally devalued the contributions of those who work in favor of the demands (and even whims) of those who hold stock. In a land where the shareholder is king, those who earn paychecks are disposable peasants locked in a form of neo-serfdom--a portrait that author Greenhouse skillfully paints with the litany of grim stories presented in his telling prose.
Greenhouse wisely covers all the angles in telling his tale of dispossessed labor in America. To thwart those who might claim that the tribulations he documents are simply the sorrows of low-wage peons working dead-end jobs for the usual corporate suspects, the author provides powerful counterarguments by describing the problems of high tech workers--problems that, despite their high level of education and skill, mirror those of their uneducated working brethren. It's not just the lowly Mexicans who are getting screwed here, and the author spells that fact out through powerful, sympathetic stories that cover a whole socioeconomic range of victims.
Greenhouse also makes the cagey decision to offer the reader not just the villains in this piece, but a corporate hero as well, in the form of Costco. The membership driven wholesaler stands in sharp contrast to its chief competitor on the low-price front, Wal-mart (an organization Greenhouse routinely excoriates throughout his narrative). Somehow, unlike its competitor from Arkansas, Costco finds a way to pay decent wages and create a fair and equitable corporate culture while still providing its customers the inexpensive products they desire. Through that contrast, Greenhouse makes a strong case that, despite the bullshit that spews from the mouths of CEOs, our labor market doesn't have to be this way. The American economy could still work to the benefit of all of us; that it does not is a conscious choice on the part of those in power.
The Big Squeeze has a few minor faults. Much of the text reads like lengthy newspaper stories that have been somewhat inelegantly stitched together--no surprise, since much of the source material came from Greenhouse's work for the Times. The book as a whole is long, and textually denser than what the casual reader may be prepared to handle. Finally, the work is undeniably a downer. That fact inevitably results from the subject being covered, but it still affects the mood of the reader long before the final summary of suggested remedies. The few hopeful stories offered to the reader are buried too deeply within the grim litany to brighten the overall mood.
Nevertheless, The Big Squeeze documents the details of an important reality that we who are the 99% must face. Only by confronting that reality head on can there be any hope that it will change, through the actions of our own selves if not our so-called leadership. Greenhouse, with The Big Squeeze, has painted the bullseye on the most critical targets. It's now up to us to act.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Saturday, November 5, 2011
Driven Insane, Just By Looking At It
Bonus reading: the now legendary Tales of the Plush Cthulhu.
Recommended Reading
I'm a regular reader of journalist Matt Taibbi's blog on Rolling Stone's website; I've just added a link to the blog in My Sausage Factory over on the right. I highly recommend reading Matt's stuff, especially for cut-through-the-bullshit insight on the misdeeds of the financial sector.
Taibbi also writes on politics in general, and has produced a couple of very informative--if not horrifying--profiles on a certain candidates for the presidency, including an excellent piece on the troglodytic Rick Perry. The money quote:
Taibbi also writes on politics in general, and has produced a couple of very informative--if not horrifying--profiles on a certain candidates for the presidency, including an excellent piece on the troglodytic Rick Perry. The money quote:
I can't believe it, and neither can the assembled crowd of Georgia conservatives, who hesitate before breaking into polite applause. I feel like a high school cheerleader who just had her leg jizzed on in the back of a convertible. That's it? It's over? That was Rick Perry's stump speech?The whole article lays bare the wretchedness that is the current Governor of Texas. Be sure to read the whole thing.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Sound Advice
I'm not much of a college football fan. I'll take the pros over college any day. But every once in a while, when there's a really good local team playing, or there's a game that draws my interest, I'll give it a look. Or, alternately, when I've got absolutely nothing else going on and need to kill some time, I'll settle for whatever college game ESPN is showing that night.
This, unfortunately, has some consequences. Like for instance, the convergence of my ears and the verbal stylings of Lou Holtz. Holtz does studio duty for ESPN during their halftime shows, and occasionally makes his way into the broadcast booth for actual game play, as with this past Wednesday night's game between Pitt and Connecticut. I've now had several opportunities to get a taste of Holtz in his ESPN gig, and I'm just a little baffled by what I'm hearing.
You see, the man apparently has a little problem with his dentures, or a missing tooth, or...something--it's difficult to say what's the source of the trouble. Somehow, someway, no one at "the worldwide leader" has noticed this, but Coach Holtz has something of a speech impediment. Sort of like China has a Great Wall. And this is a problem for the viewers, especially the casual viewers like me. Because it's more than a little distracting when you're hearing analysis of a team's blitz package coming from Sylvester from the old Looney Tunes cartoons. It's bad enough when you're hearing him coming through your TV speakers; imagine what it's like for me, someone who does most of his television viewing with headphones on. (Noisy neighbors; long story; don't ask.)
Once upon a time, to get on TV, you had to have a certain combination of qualities. Looks helped; many a radio star saw his career go down the drain when television first arrived. Knowing what you're talking about (for analytical positions) helped a lot, too. But you also needed to sound good--like you weren't drowning the mic in spit. It's an aural medium as well as a visual one, and something as off-putting as a profound lisp should be a no-go when it comes to a major speaking role on a national television network.
Now, I don't want to be overly harsh here. By all accounts Coach Holtz is a fine man, much accomplished in his field and worthy of respect. And I have little doubt that his impediment is the product of his well-advanced age; he can't do much about it. But it's tough to listen to him for more than a few minutes without diving for the remote control. I get that ESPN values his insight into college football, but please--can't he just dole out his wisdom through a column in ESPN The Magazine? Our ears will thank you for it.
| Coach Lou Holtz (aural representation only) (Google Images) |
You see, the man apparently has a little problem with his dentures, or a missing tooth, or...something--it's difficult to say what's the source of the trouble. Somehow, someway, no one at "the worldwide leader" has noticed this, but Coach Holtz has something of a speech impediment. Sort of like China has a Great Wall. And this is a problem for the viewers, especially the casual viewers like me. Because it's more than a little distracting when you're hearing analysis of a team's blitz package coming from Sylvester from the old Looney Tunes cartoons. It's bad enough when you're hearing him coming through your TV speakers; imagine what it's like for me, someone who does most of his television viewing with headphones on. (Noisy neighbors; long story; don't ask.)
Once upon a time, to get on TV, you had to have a certain combination of qualities. Looks helped; many a radio star saw his career go down the drain when television first arrived. Knowing what you're talking about (for analytical positions) helped a lot, too. But you also needed to sound good--like you weren't drowning the mic in spit. It's an aural medium as well as a visual one, and something as off-putting as a profound lisp should be a no-go when it comes to a major speaking role on a national television network.
Now, I don't want to be overly harsh here. By all accounts Coach Holtz is a fine man, much accomplished in his field and worthy of respect. And I have little doubt that his impediment is the product of his well-advanced age; he can't do much about it. But it's tough to listen to him for more than a few minutes without diving for the remote control. I get that ESPN values his insight into college football, but please--can't he just dole out his wisdom through a column in ESPN The Magazine? Our ears will thank you for it.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Visual Aid
My sister sent me this pic, one of the best I've seen it a while. Nobody's colder than Ice.
Tripleheader
I have a tripleheader of baseball related grumblings to share with all of you. So without further ado:
"How can you not like Pujols?" I've been asked that question before, and a few days ago I was provided some concrete evidence as to my answer.
That Albert Pujols is one of the best players in the game is undeniable. Possibly the best player. But something about him has always rubbed me the wrong way. I'm always leery of ballplayers who are big on the Jesus thing; the heaps of praise offered over the slightest accomplishments is intrusive and annoying. The fact that he plays for the Cardinals--a.k.a. Anheuser-Busch, hardly my kind of company--doesn't help either.
Now, however, we have the evidence of Game 2 of the World Series, a game that turned on Pujols's 9th inning error, and its aftermath. Pujols bailed out of the clubhouse after the game without talking to a soul, leaving his teammates to answer questions about the Cardinals' late-game meltdown. Not exactly the stuff of legends, regardless of how many home runs he hit in the next game.
Furthermore, this act seems to have been taken place before that incident. Yahoo Sports writer Jeff Passan gave us the lowdown on both Pujols's behavior that night, and his history to date. The money quote:
"How can you not like Pujols?" I've been asked that question before, and a few days ago I was provided some concrete evidence as to my answer.
 |
| Albert Pujols, doing his thing (Courtesy memphisflyer.com) |
Now, however, we have the evidence of Game 2 of the World Series, a game that turned on Pujols's 9th inning error, and its aftermath. Pujols bailed out of the clubhouse after the game without talking to a soul, leaving his teammates to answer questions about the Cardinals' late-game meltdown. Not exactly the stuff of legends, regardless of how many home runs he hit in the next game.
Furthermore, this act seems to have been taken place before that incident. Yahoo Sports writer Jeff Passan gave us the lowdown on both Pujols's behavior that night, and his history to date. The money quote:
They could disappear because of the culture Pujols created, one the organization enables. St. Louis manager Tony La Russa empowers Pujols to do what he pleases, right or wrong, even if it’s the equivalent of ordering the lobster-stuffed filet and sticking the minimum-wage worker with the bill. He will face no discipline. He never does. That is life with Pujols, and the Cardinals’ Omertà means nobody calls him on it.
To someone who spent the Nineties and Aughts living in the Bay Area and watching Bay Area baseball, that sounds an awful lot like the behavior of one Barry Bonds. This is not to say that Pujols is juicing, or is an equal to the surly presence that was Bonds. But it's not surprising to see him described this way.
Again, there's always been something about Pujols that rubs the wrong way. Pujols has never hesitated to point to the sky--presumably to thank God--after hitting a home run; did he give the big man any props when he made that error, thanking the Lord for giving him the lesson in humility he could take from that error and its consequences? Nope. Later, Pujols was front and center after his Game 3 home run binge; "God" was almost the first word out of his mouth in the post-game interview. But faith is not strictly for the times of convenience; if he's that big on his religion, he could have been out front and center in his trying moment, just as he was in his moment of triumph.
But that wouldn't have been Albert Pujols. And that's how I can not like him.
OK. I guess it's up to me. No one else has stepped up to throw some cold water on this whole thing, so I'll take up the task. To wit:
Theo Epstein will not make the Cubs World Series champs.
There's been a lot of fever over this move by the former Red Sox GM to take over the perennial sad sack Cubs. Apparently, a few days after Boston folded at the end of the regular season, someone rolled back a rock in New England and found an empty tomb, with reams of sabermetric stat sheets scattered all over the floor. Soon thereafter, the new owners of the Cubs had a vision of Epstein on the road to Damascus--or possibly Des Moines--and lo, salvation was at hand.
I hate to break it to you...no, wait, I love bursting bubbles. And this one's easy to prick. We've seen this act before.
Earlier incarnations of this sort focused on the new coach who was going to lead the Cubbies to greatness. Dusty Baker came in, hot off his World Series appearance with the Giants. Then Lou Piniella was going to break all the curses with his personal championship history, and a few well-timed kicks of the dirt around home plate. Special players have also come and gone. The arms of Wood and Prior, the big bats of Sandberg and Dawson, Grace and Sosa--all achieved some success, none even made it to the World Series.
Now comes Epstein, and lots of folks are making lots of obvious parallels between the Cubs and the Red Sox, assuming that if Epstein could turn the hopelessness of Boston into two Series titles, then clearly he must be able to do that for hopeless Chicago.
But here's the thing: Boston wasn't that hopeless when Epstein slipped into the big leather chair. The Red Sox had already been regular winners when he signed on. His term as GM started in 2003, not long after Boston's wild card appearances in 1998 and 1999, and the team remained mostly competitive in the years leading up to Theo's ascension. And Boston was already well on its way to competing dollar-wise with the "Evil Empire" on free agent signings when Epstein showed up to rule the roost. Epstein's predecessor Dan Duquette laid a lot of the foundation for the team's ultimate, future success, particularly with the signing of Manny Ramirez in 2000. Bottom line: he had plenty in the cupboard going into his tenure.
In contrast, the Cubs--despite a few post-season appearances in the past decade-plus--are a far greater shambles than the Red Sox ever were before or during Epstein's time as GM. There is much more work to be done with Chicago, and it will take time to accomplish what needs to be accomplished.
And that's the rub: it will take time. With time, Epstein (like a lot of baseball executives) could turn the Cubs around and build a consistent winner. But he's not going to have that time. The expectations are going to be sky-high going in; hell, they're sky-high NOW. What happens when the results don't happen right away? There's good reason to believe it won't be easy. Consider the depth in the NL Central Division right now; Epstein's Cubs need to battle--and surpass--the Cardinals, Brewers, and possibly the Reds just to get into the playoffs. Unlike Boston in the AL East, it won't be as simple as challenging the Yankees and beating up on the rest of the patsies in the division. (Funny how Boston's success in the early Aughts gave way once the Rays started to step up and fight back against the big boys.) What happens when it's two years from now, three years from now, and the Cubs still haven't made it to the World Series?
Here's what happens: the pressure will grow, and moves will need to be made, just to relieve the burden. A new manager, a raft of new players, risky trades with big upsides (and big downsides, naturally)--all the moves that can lift a team up, but which as often as not just create the instability that leaves a franchise spinning its wheels.
It's not true that there are no second acts, either in baseball or America. But it is true that it's never as easy as it looks. For those of you in the Midwest, giddy with expectations now that Theo is in the fold--beware. The deed is not done yet.
Finally, it's a tradition unlike any other: every year the baseball playoffs and World Series arrive...and every year, we get to read a face full of shit about how the TV ratings are the lowest ever.
There are a lot of reasons for this, beyond the usual trope that "baseball is boring." Any intelligent observer can point out that the audience is vastly more subdivided than it was back in the glory years; number of viewers and audience share will inevitably come in lower today than back when there were only three real channels (and you had to actually get off your ass to change the channel). And the less said about the wretchedness that is the FOX and TBS (a.k.a. FOX Jr.) coverage of the game's showcase, the better. As someone old enough to remember NBC's coverage of the game back in the '70s and '80s, I will testify that the quality is not what it used to be, despite the vastly superior tools available to the broadcasters today (read: bad announcers, overproduction, etc.).
But one thing that never receives much attention is probably the most crucial element in baseball's perceived slide into obscurity: the horrifically bad, grotesquely incompetent marketing campaigns that MLB inevitably trots out in October--a screed of awful commercials and bad strategy that, at the very least, has no impact on growing the audience, and may be actively turning away otherwise interested viewers.
What's the problem? Well, there's the commercials. The bad commercials. The incessant commercials. The bad commercials that are incessantly run during the very games themselves.
The spots are some marketing moron's typical idea of how to sell the game. Some little bitch whines about stars and seasons and possibly what his weird uncle did to him when he was five; I don't know, I tune out after the first few insulting notes. This aural insult accompanies a visual pastiche of highlights that flash by so quickly that I half suspect there's a subliminal message about buying more Coke or Pepsi tucked in between the frames. What's the payoff? I don't know--all the flashing images sent me into a seizure 10 seconds ago. Just perfect. How many fans have turned off their TVs and not watched the games out of simple disgust at that annoyance?
And then there's where the spots run. "Catch the World Series on FOX" the voice over guy says...to the people who are already watching the World Series. Aaaargh! How stupid can you be? We're already watching the damn game--why are you still shilling us on tuning in? We're already here--go find some new viewers to cage into watching the thing.
Except, of course, that's the whole problem: they don't run those commercials anywhere but during the games they're trying to sell. You watch anything other than the baseball coverage--any other sports, hell, any other programming at all--and you'll never see any ads for the baseball postseason. If you're not already tuned in to the games, the whole month of October could pass by without you ever knowing that MLB didn't call off the whole thing. What the fuck? How the hell are you supposed to bring in new viewers if you never reach out to them where they're living? That is to say, watching other channels. People tuned in to Law & Order or NCIS or NASCAR--or, dare I say it, the NFL on Sunday--may ignore the commercials and not tune in, but if they never see any promos for baseball, it's guaranteed they won't be changing the channel. You can't succeed if you don't even try.
Of course, other sports leagues and their partners--it's spelled N-F-L--know that. Watching the baseball games this postseason, I've seen more of Deion Sanders than I've seen of Tony LaRussa. DirecTV has been relentlessly pitching their NFL package during the baseball games. And you're likely as not to see those same commercials during just about any program you turn on. Pitch the games, get the viewers. Football knows that; MLB doesn't even try.
Naturally, I lay this all at the feet of The Idiot Selig, a whipping boy I've been flogging for two damn decades now. Everything bad that has happened in baseball the last twenty years has had that shyster's money-grubbing fingerprints all over it. Whatever success baseball has had during that period has happened despite the "leadership" from the commissioner's office, not because of it. Maybe, if the old Used Car Salesman keeps his promise and goes away sometime soon, the game will see new, intelligent leadership in that office--someone who at least understands that you need to get your promotional materials before the eyes of the people who are not consuming your product, if you want to bring them into the fold. But I won't hold my breath.
But that wouldn't have been Albert Pujols. And that's how I can not like him.
OK. I guess it's up to me. No one else has stepped up to throw some cold water on this whole thing, so I'll take up the task. To wit:
 |
| Theo Epstein (Courtesy bostinnovation.com) |
There's been a lot of fever over this move by the former Red Sox GM to take over the perennial sad sack Cubs. Apparently, a few days after Boston folded at the end of the regular season, someone rolled back a rock in New England and found an empty tomb, with reams of sabermetric stat sheets scattered all over the floor. Soon thereafter, the new owners of the Cubs had a vision of Epstein on the road to Damascus--or possibly Des Moines--and lo, salvation was at hand.
I hate to break it to you...no, wait, I love bursting bubbles. And this one's easy to prick. We've seen this act before.
Earlier incarnations of this sort focused on the new coach who was going to lead the Cubbies to greatness. Dusty Baker came in, hot off his World Series appearance with the Giants. Then Lou Piniella was going to break all the curses with his personal championship history, and a few well-timed kicks of the dirt around home plate. Special players have also come and gone. The arms of Wood and Prior, the big bats of Sandberg and Dawson, Grace and Sosa--all achieved some success, none even made it to the World Series.
Now comes Epstein, and lots of folks are making lots of obvious parallels between the Cubs and the Red Sox, assuming that if Epstein could turn the hopelessness of Boston into two Series titles, then clearly he must be able to do that for hopeless Chicago.
But here's the thing: Boston wasn't that hopeless when Epstein slipped into the big leather chair. The Red Sox had already been regular winners when he signed on. His term as GM started in 2003, not long after Boston's wild card appearances in 1998 and 1999, and the team remained mostly competitive in the years leading up to Theo's ascension. And Boston was already well on its way to competing dollar-wise with the "Evil Empire" on free agent signings when Epstein showed up to rule the roost. Epstein's predecessor Dan Duquette laid a lot of the foundation for the team's ultimate, future success, particularly with the signing of Manny Ramirez in 2000. Bottom line: he had plenty in the cupboard going into his tenure.
In contrast, the Cubs--despite a few post-season appearances in the past decade-plus--are a far greater shambles than the Red Sox ever were before or during Epstein's time as GM. There is much more work to be done with Chicago, and it will take time to accomplish what needs to be accomplished.
And that's the rub: it will take time. With time, Epstein (like a lot of baseball executives) could turn the Cubs around and build a consistent winner. But he's not going to have that time. The expectations are going to be sky-high going in; hell, they're sky-high NOW. What happens when the results don't happen right away? There's good reason to believe it won't be easy. Consider the depth in the NL Central Division right now; Epstein's Cubs need to battle--and surpass--the Cardinals, Brewers, and possibly the Reds just to get into the playoffs. Unlike Boston in the AL East, it won't be as simple as challenging the Yankees and beating up on the rest of the patsies in the division. (Funny how Boston's success in the early Aughts gave way once the Rays started to step up and fight back against the big boys.) What happens when it's two years from now, three years from now, and the Cubs still haven't made it to the World Series?
Here's what happens: the pressure will grow, and moves will need to be made, just to relieve the burden. A new manager, a raft of new players, risky trades with big upsides (and big downsides, naturally)--all the moves that can lift a team up, but which as often as not just create the instability that leaves a franchise spinning its wheels.
It's not true that there are no second acts, either in baseball or America. But it is true that it's never as easy as it looks. For those of you in the Midwest, giddy with expectations now that Theo is in the fold--beware. The deed is not done yet.
Finally, it's a tradition unlike any other: every year the baseball playoffs and World Series arrive...and every year, we get to read a face full of shit about how the TV ratings are the lowest ever.
There are a lot of reasons for this, beyond the usual trope that "baseball is boring." Any intelligent observer can point out that the audience is vastly more subdivided than it was back in the glory years; number of viewers and audience share will inevitably come in lower today than back when there were only three real channels (and you had to actually get off your ass to change the channel). And the less said about the wretchedness that is the FOX and TBS (a.k.a. FOX Jr.) coverage of the game's showcase, the better. As someone old enough to remember NBC's coverage of the game back in the '70s and '80s, I will testify that the quality is not what it used to be, despite the vastly superior tools available to the broadcasters today (read: bad announcers, overproduction, etc.).
But one thing that never receives much attention is probably the most crucial element in baseball's perceived slide into obscurity: the horrifically bad, grotesquely incompetent marketing campaigns that MLB inevitably trots out in October--a screed of awful commercials and bad strategy that, at the very least, has no impact on growing the audience, and may be actively turning away otherwise interested viewers.
What's the problem? Well, there's the commercials. The bad commercials. The incessant commercials. The bad commercials that are incessantly run during the very games themselves.
The spots are some marketing moron's typical idea of how to sell the game. Some little bitch whines about stars and seasons and possibly what his weird uncle did to him when he was five; I don't know, I tune out after the first few insulting notes. This aural insult accompanies a visual pastiche of highlights that flash by so quickly that I half suspect there's a subliminal message about buying more Coke or Pepsi tucked in between the frames. What's the payoff? I don't know--all the flashing images sent me into a seizure 10 seconds ago. Just perfect. How many fans have turned off their TVs and not watched the games out of simple disgust at that annoyance?
And then there's where the spots run. "Catch the World Series on FOX" the voice over guy says...to the people who are already watching the World Series. Aaaargh! How stupid can you be? We're already watching the damn game--why are you still shilling us on tuning in? We're already here--go find some new viewers to cage into watching the thing.
Except, of course, that's the whole problem: they don't run those commercials anywhere but during the games they're trying to sell. You watch anything other than the baseball coverage--any other sports, hell, any other programming at all--and you'll never see any ads for the baseball postseason. If you're not already tuned in to the games, the whole month of October could pass by without you ever knowing that MLB didn't call off the whole thing. What the fuck? How the hell are you supposed to bring in new viewers if you never reach out to them where they're living? That is to say, watching other channels. People tuned in to Law & Order or NCIS or NASCAR--or, dare I say it, the NFL on Sunday--may ignore the commercials and not tune in, but if they never see any promos for baseball, it's guaranteed they won't be changing the channel. You can't succeed if you don't even try.
Of course, other sports leagues and their partners--it's spelled N-F-L--know that. Watching the baseball games this postseason, I've seen more of Deion Sanders than I've seen of Tony LaRussa. DirecTV has been relentlessly pitching their NFL package during the baseball games. And you're likely as not to see those same commercials during just about any program you turn on. Pitch the games, get the viewers. Football knows that; MLB doesn't even try.
Naturally, I lay this all at the feet of The Idiot Selig, a whipping boy I've been flogging for two damn decades now. Everything bad that has happened in baseball the last twenty years has had that shyster's money-grubbing fingerprints all over it. Whatever success baseball has had during that period has happened despite the "leadership" from the commissioner's office, not because of it. Maybe, if the old Used Car Salesman keeps his promise and goes away sometime soon, the game will see new, intelligent leadership in that office--someone who at least understands that you need to get your promotional materials before the eyes of the people who are not consuming your product, if you want to bring them into the fold. But I won't hold my breath.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Wordsmith
Another term for Stephen's Dictionary:
Meanderthal
[noun]
A primitive subspecies of the human animal which, instead of striding purposefully in the direction in which it is heading, meanders in a slow, erratic, almost drunken fashion, with a tendency towards getting in the way of someone who is walking on the same ground and actually has somewhere to go
Meanderthal
[noun]
A primitive subspecies of the human animal which, instead of striding purposefully in the direction in which it is heading, meanders in a slow, erratic, almost drunken fashion, with a tendency towards getting in the way of someone who is walking on the same ground and actually has somewhere to go
Staying in Touch
Just to make it that much easier on anyone interested, I've now added a new "Follow by Email" feature to the site, in addition to the previously set up subscription options. Just type your email address in there and away you go. Never miss out on even one of these scintillating posts.
Sweet.
Sweet.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Recently Read
Wind, Sand and Stars
By Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, best known to posterity as the author of The Little Prince, served eight years as a pilot in the French mail service, winging his way to distant and dangerous lands in the 1920s and '30s--days when climbing into the cockpit of an airplane was no casual act. Out of those flights came the book Wind, Sand and Stars, offering the author's ruminations on life as a pilot and all that he saw from his lofty perch--not just the physical landscape, but metaphysical views about the world, nature, and man's place therein.
At its best, Wind, Sand and Stars offers de Saint-Exupéry's philosophical insights wrapped in poetic imagery that sweeps the reader away from his living room and back, through space and time, to the lonely wilds of Patagonia and the Sahara. Every so often the author writes prose so rich and satisfying to read that the book seems as elevated as the wings of the former pilot's plane. Yet, the text also suffers at the hands of the very same philosophizing; at times, de Saint-Exupéry's words trail through tangents that seem, if not pointless, then at least lacking in the same level of insight as other parts of the work.
Thus, the text veers up and down in accordance with the whims of the writer's thoughts. An emergency landing due to some mechanical failure--apparently an all-too-common occurrence in those days--produced the author's account of a visit with a family in Argentina, a delightful, charming, whimsical scene. Tales of days and nights spent in the desolation of the Sahara evoke exactly the sense of adventure and wonder one would expect from such adventures. And de Saint-Exupéry's account of a crash landing in the Libyan desert, an occasion when he and his engineer nearly died of thirst and exposure, brings to vivid life the experience of desperation and despair, as well as the joy of salvation felt upon their miraculous rescue by a Bedouin herdsman. These episodes are thoroughly enjoyable reads in their own right, even if they make together a disjointed narrative.
Then again, other passages go completely off course. Some of de Saint-Exupery's ruminations on life and being, while hardly worthy of contempt, come across as unsatisfying, and perhaps a little too far out of context, And the book's close--the author's lengthy account of his time spent in Spain during that nation's civil war, including his meandering contemplation of every man around him and his greater meaning--takes all the steam out of the narrative. The last thirty pages of the book are, to be frank, just plain boring--even though those pages are focused on the life and death struggle of a civil war!
Wind, Sand and Stars is uneven, to say the least. As a time capsule, revealing to its readers visions of a word long since past, and certainly never to be seen again, the book has some value. But too much of this work, when trying to soar to lofty heights, simply crashes and burns. How much pleasure you will get from these pages depends largely upon your interest in that other time, in aviation, in meditations upon the life of man--and your indulgence.
By Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
 |
| Wind, Sand and Stars |
At its best, Wind, Sand and Stars offers de Saint-Exupéry's philosophical insights wrapped in poetic imagery that sweeps the reader away from his living room and back, through space and time, to the lonely wilds of Patagonia and the Sahara. Every so often the author writes prose so rich and satisfying to read that the book seems as elevated as the wings of the former pilot's plane. Yet, the text also suffers at the hands of the very same philosophizing; at times, de Saint-Exupéry's words trail through tangents that seem, if not pointless, then at least lacking in the same level of insight as other parts of the work.
Thus, the text veers up and down in accordance with the whims of the writer's thoughts. An emergency landing due to some mechanical failure--apparently an all-too-common occurrence in those days--produced the author's account of a visit with a family in Argentina, a delightful, charming, whimsical scene. Tales of days and nights spent in the desolation of the Sahara evoke exactly the sense of adventure and wonder one would expect from such adventures. And de Saint-Exupéry's account of a crash landing in the Libyan desert, an occasion when he and his engineer nearly died of thirst and exposure, brings to vivid life the experience of desperation and despair, as well as the joy of salvation felt upon their miraculous rescue by a Bedouin herdsman. These episodes are thoroughly enjoyable reads in their own right, even if they make together a disjointed narrative.
Then again, other passages go completely off course. Some of de Saint-Exupery's ruminations on life and being, while hardly worthy of contempt, come across as unsatisfying, and perhaps a little too far out of context, And the book's close--the author's lengthy account of his time spent in Spain during that nation's civil war, including his meandering contemplation of every man around him and his greater meaning--takes all the steam out of the narrative. The last thirty pages of the book are, to be frank, just plain boring--even though those pages are focused on the life and death struggle of a civil war!
Wind, Sand and Stars is uneven, to say the least. As a time capsule, revealing to its readers visions of a word long since past, and certainly never to be seen again, the book has some value. But too much of this work, when trying to soar to lofty heights, simply crashes and burns. How much pleasure you will get from these pages depends largely upon your interest in that other time, in aviation, in meditations upon the life of man--and your indulgence.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Recently Read
 |
| In The Garden Of Beasts |
by Erik Larson
At this point, we have long since passed the point when a standard, comprehensive history of Nazi Germany has much left to teach us. That ground has been long since thoroughly covered.
Hence, author Erik Larson made a canny decision to narrow his focus to a particular place and time (the diplomatic community in Berlin in 1933-34), and a particular pair of persons--Ambassador William Dodd and his twenty-something daughter Martha, during their first year in the Nazi capital--to show us new landmarks in that most familiar territory. The result is the highly illuminating monograph In The Garden Of Beasts.
Between the two principal characters, Ambassador Dodd far and away comes across as the better person. Dodd had his faults; benign faults, such as excessive zeal for maintaining his common-man manner despite his lofty position as ambassador to a major European nation; and not-so-benign faults, such as his willingness to soft-pedal America's relations with the Nazi regime, despite his foreknowledge about the excesses and outright crimes of Hitler, his subordinates, and the Nazis' strong-arm tools such as the thuggish SA. Dodd greatly admired the German people, an admiration born in his days as a student in Leipzig; that feeling fed his sense that Hitler could be reasoned with, could be taken at his word (as with the Führer's oft-repeated but risible professions of peaceful intentions) until the dishonesty, the almost inhuman irrationality of the Nazi leadership finally brought his perspective to what is now the historical truth.
(The title of the book is a pun on the Tiergarten--the garden of beasts--which was the Berlin neighborhood where the diplomatic community live and worked. The irrational Nazi leaders, such as the sociopathic Göring, fit the image only too well.)
Unfortunately, Martha Dodd never quite made the transition her father did. The younger Dodd, a would-be writer whose literary talents seemed to lean more towards hobnobbing with writers rather than producing actual editable copy, displays a cornucopia of faults throughout Larson's narrative. Between an all-too enthusiastic embrace of the Nazi "revolution" (including turning a blind eye to its harrowing realities, even after her own eyewitness experiences), scandalizing the city with various affairs with various officials from various nations--including at least one go-round with Gestapo chief Rudolf Diels--and letting one particular dalliance set her on flirtatious course towards a potential career as Communist spy, Martha dances through the text as a frustrating, indeed irritating, presence. Taken as a whole, Martha's career in Germany and beyond testifies that she was--to put it in the most brutal terms--a shallow, self-absorbed slut. The reader affords her little sympathy upon learning that her actions ultimately led to a life of disappointment and exile.
One wonders, then, if Larson picked the best eyewitnesses to serve as the prism through which the reader might see a contemporary portrait of Nazi Germany. Thankfully, the author is a gifted prose stylist whose talent brings to vivid life the scenes of that strange time, and he punctuates his story of monsters and madness with plenty of dark humor and keen insight. That the Nazi leadership themselves were fascinating characters--as evil beings often are--helps a great deal to hold the reader's interest. And the heroic denouement of Ambassador Dodd's career--his eventual firm stance against the Nazis, including at least one brave public speech in Berlin, as well as numerous engagements after his return home, warning his countrymen against the developing threat in Europe--gives the story a redemptive and satisfying climax.
Even if one grows tired of Martha and her antics, In The Garden Of Beasts is itself never tiresome. It's a good read, a book that--through its intimate stance with its subject--helps the reader see the broader, well-known picture with fresh vision. For anyone whose interest in those dark days has not yet been satiated, In The Garden Of Beasts is worth a look.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Night Vision, Feline Division
I was sifting through my back pages recently and rediscovered this photo, posted a few years ago. I can only imagine what living in that neighborhood is like. Alameda is lousy with cats, but that's ridiculous.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Reel Reviews
The A-Team -- Stupid fun. I can't really say it's a good movie, per se; it has its faults, not the least of which is a muddled scenario with one too many villains. But I must admit that it's more artfully crafted than I would have expected, and the players are all appealing in filling their respective, very well-known roles. Don't expect anything epically great, and you'll do all right with this one. Posted 9/26/11.
Reel Reviews -- W
Waiting For Guffman (~) -- Given the talents involved--Spinal Tap veteran Christopher Guest is the auteur here--this should have been better. Still, it has its moments.
Waiting for "Superman" -- I've seen better docs, but maybe none as important, certainly in terms of subject matter. This one makes a pretty good case regarding what can and should be done for our nation's schools, and the kids who attend them. The arguments are convincing, though they could use a little more depth. And the results of all the madness, when personalized on the screen for the viewer, can be downright heartbreaking. So brace yourself, take a look, and use it as a springboard for your thoughts on a most crucial subject. Posted 9/26/11.
Waking Life -- This flick would probably have gotten a plus simply for showing that animation can be used for something other than standard Disney bullshit. Watching this movie is a bit like attending a Spike & Mike festival, with less ass and shit jokes. But don't be fooled--this movie has some serious stuff on its mind, and it deserves credit for showing that at least a few people out there are thinking about the nature of our world. Some of the philosophical discussions may fly over your head (particularly if you have not done any background reading), but you'll absorb at least some of it. Posted 11/28/02.
A Walk In The Clouds -- It's hard not to like this film. Here's what you get: a visually sumptuous movie, with a gentle, lilting story that stays true all the way through and pulls at your heart without resorting to cheap, manipulative tricks. You know right from the start how it's going to end, and you're still glad to get there. All in all, a movie that delivers on all of its promises. Posted 3/21/05.
Walk The Line -- The credits say the costars are Joaquin Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon; the real costars are Johnny Cash and his demons. That pair made for a compelling story, and combined with some excellent work from the actors, splendid musical performances, and a well-crafted presentation, the whole bundle makes for an exceptional and entertaining (if lengthy) movie. Posted 3/28/07.
A Walk To Remember (~) -- Mandy Moore: grrrrr. This movie: meh. Actually, I'm probably not being fair with that so-so squiggle; for the most part, this flick is well-made and the story is ultimately effective. However, points have to come off for a touch of predictability, and they could have been less insistent on trying to sell the soundtrack album (the tunes are really intrusive). As for the previously leered at Miss Moore: no, this isn't just another Titney thing--the girl really can act. Posted 3/11/03.
War Horse -- The visuals dazzle, the music swells, the story touches the heart...so what's the problem here? I'm not sure there is one, but it's impossible to watch this film without knowing that you're staring at very conscious Oscar bait. That fact hints at a cynicism floating just below the surface, a vibe that will always make the alert viewer feel like he's being used. But most folks don't watch movies in that way; a picture should be judged on its merits for the general audience who will view it--and there's no denying that this is a well-crafted movie. To be sure, the story is obvious--nothing really comes as a surprise here--though it is unusually dark. In fact, this is very much a movie about grief and sorrow, which makes it tough to watch at times. But as an example of the craft, as an emotional journey, as a statement of disgust against war and all its miseries, this film accomplishes its goals. That earns it enough respect for a positive vote here. Posted 6/6/13.
War Of The Worlds (2006) -- I knock Spielberg around sometimes, but I can't deny credit where it's due: the strength of this movie, the action set pieces, are phenomenal works of direction. The chaos of the alien attacks is realized to an astounding degree, creating scenes that are emotionally gripping and downright scary. It helps that the alien tripods (a bit of throwback fidelity to Wells's original story) are genuinely alien and creepy. So visually, the film is most impressive. On the down side, the character relationships are just about unbelievable (no kids, no matter how alienated from their father, would be that snotty when all that shit was going down), and there's at least one major story discontinuity. But this one really isn't a thinking movie; it's there to be seen, and you get what you want in that regard. Posted 4/20/07.
Wedding Crashers -- Just sit back, throw up your hands, and let go. Take that attitude and you'll be all right. There's no aim for any "statement" here--they're just going for the cheap laughs. Which is OK--we can't all be Ibsen. So judged by its own standard, this film largely succeeds. There's a bit of unwelcome sappiness at the end, but there are more than enough laugh out loud moments sprinkled throughout to make up for that. Posted 3/28/07.
The Weight of Water (--) -- It starts out boring. And then it stays boring. A complete waste of Sean Penn's time and talent--not to mention us viewers. Posted 10/25/04.
Who Killed The Electric Car? -- A fast-paced, gratifyingly straightforward documentary that doesn't fall into the trap of being too cutesy, too into itself, too convinced of its cleverness--a frequent failing of the genre lately. No, this one just gives you an effective--often devastating--presentation of its case: everyone's a little guilty here. It can be depressing to consider this story, but the film ends on an upbeat, positive note that tempers the despair and offers some direction for the future. A great effort, well worth seeing for the informed citizen. Posted 4/23/08.
Wild Things (~) -- If you like 'em smutty, you're in the right neighborhood. Actually, it's not that racy, but I suppose it's not exactly Disney Channel fare, either. The serpentine plot is a bit of a put off; eventually, you start paying less attention to the movie and more to thinking about how clever the writer thinks he is.
Wilde -- Tough to make an uninteresting movie when Oscar Wilde is your subject; just the dialogue alone should carry you through. Such is the case here. It's a bit poignant despite all the wit, though, given Wilde's misfortune in being gay in a not very tolerant time.
Win Win -- I don't know. We've seen a lot of this before. A small, indie film with a focus on the up and down trials (in one form or another) of a suburban family, with generous dashes of quirky humor thrown in. This template has almost been done to death by now. And no one would blame the choosy viewer if he skipped this one. But this is not a bad film; it's enjoyable to watch, with some very likable actors in the primary roles. I give it a tenuous approval, though I won't insist on anyone going out of his way to watch. Posted 3/3/13.
Winged Migration (~) -- Kind of a big disappointment. The visuals of migrating birds in this documentary are nice and obviously took some doing, but they're not so knockout as to be jaw-dropping. The movie's sparse narration is so matter of fact that one wonders if there really is a point to it, beyond a simple "wonders of nature" rap. And the New Age-y score does little to enhance the viewing experience; they would have been much better off with a classical or even a jazz score. Posted 3/22/04.
Wings Of Desire (~) -- A movie that has, much like the Germany from which it came, positives and problems. This film is very artsy, and much more abstract than its Hollywood version, City of Angels. There's too much philosophical stream of consciousness--very few heads are that far up in the clouds--and traditional story development takes a back seat to the demands of director Wim Wenders's unique presentation. But there are also many shining moments where the viewer can truly connect with that abstract foundation, scenes that provide a spark that enters your mind and illuminates. And Peter Falk's scenes bring the proceedings down to earth in a most welcome way. A tough call--better if you know German (though the language demands are not too daunting). Probably best for the adventurous viewer. Posted 9/6/06.
Wings Of The Dove (--) -- One of those stuffy British dramas; unfortunately, in this case, not a particularly engaging one. I can hardly remember it. I think Venice played some part in the story, but other than some nice visuals, not a lot to recommend here.
The Winslow Boy -- Surprisingly entertaining story about a now obscure case of a young boy's trouble in WWI England, and his family's quest for justice. An interesting look at, among other things, an early example of a mass media-driven public sensation.
Wisegirls -- You're waiting for me to tell you how awful Mariah Carey is in this movie. Sorry, but she's not. In fact, she's quite good in this role, strongly playing off lead Mira Sorvino. Beyond that, you've got an engrossing tale of mob restaurant waitresses, and what they do when the shit goes down. Worth a look. Posted 3/1/05.
The Wolf of Wall Street (~) -- Pretty standard issue Scorsese. Very high energy, actors chewing the scenery, everything very Noo Yawk...It’s an entertaining template, for the most part, but not nearly as great as his apologists like to believe. Case in point: at around three hours this film is way too long. How many orgy/drug fiend scenes do we need to see to get the idea that your guys are debauched? We get it; in fact, we got it the first five times. There’s so much nudity here that the viewer wonders if there’s actually a comment intended in it, some sort of meta-criticism of movies...but maybe Scorsese just wants to show us a lot of tits and bush. It’s hard to say. And ultimately, what’s the message? “Chickens come home to roost”? Not sure about that, not based on the ending. I leave you to sort out the muddle on your own. Posted 8/20/14.
The Wolverine -- Another X-Men movie? Yes, and (surprise!) it’s a good one. There are lessons to be learned here: the cast, except for Jackman, is all unknowns (at least to an American movie viewer), the setting in Japan comes across as intriguing (instead of yet another well-worn string of action sequences in the all-too-familiar settings of this land), and a set of as yet unknown writers and filmmakers got a shot at telling their own story (one that still dovetails well with the already established canon). In other words, make it different and original, and even a series movie can seem fresh and exciting. Like this one. Give it a look. Posted 3/9/13.
Wonder Boys -- Solid, and surprisingly funny. Good work by Michael Douglas and Tobey Maguire. Posted 5/13/02.
The World Is Not Enough -- At this point, Bond movies all sort of run together; nevertheless, they're still solid entertainment.
World War Z -- This is better than I ever figured it would be. The subject matter has a lot of inherent absurdity, and this film seemed destined to lead to a lot of eye-rolling. Perhaps it’s Brad Pitt’s skill at forming a connection with the audience that leads the viewer to give the story more credence than critical thinking would normally allow. There’s also a shrewd decision made by the director and screenwriters, in that the action comes quick and rarely lets up; there’s no real time for questioning, and that piece of cagey filmmaking serves this work very well. Posted 1/8/14.
The World’s End -- Consistently amusing and entertaining story about drinking, friendship, and the apocalypse, not necessarily in that order. The Britishness of the principals involved really shines through, lending the film heavy doses of appealing eccentricity as well as a notable way with the language that sparks many of the laughs. Interesting to compare and contrast this with that other apocalyptic comedy, the recently viewed This Is The End; the differences clearly stem from the creators’ nationalities, and each film is appropriate to its own kind. Can’t really say which is better or worse; just that, in this case, this is exactly the kind of funny movie the limeys do best. Posted 4/27/14.
Wreck-it Ralph -- Again, the Pixar problem, but this one overcomes it in a big way. That probably owes to the fact that this movie breaks the template in important ways (for instance, there’s a decided lack of ginned up, vaguely false sentiment here). Also, the film’s intelligence really shines through in the execution; the filmmakers create a world with its own rules, and they adhere to those rules all the way through. It’s just a very smart film. And, to top it off, it’s an extra hoot for anyone old enough to remember the originals of many of these games. Strong stuff. Posted 3/9/13.
Waiting for "Superman" -- I've seen better docs, but maybe none as important, certainly in terms of subject matter. This one makes a pretty good case regarding what can and should be done for our nation's schools, and the kids who attend them. The arguments are convincing, though they could use a little more depth. And the results of all the madness, when personalized on the screen for the viewer, can be downright heartbreaking. So brace yourself, take a look, and use it as a springboard for your thoughts on a most crucial subject. Posted 9/26/11.
Waking Life -- This flick would probably have gotten a plus simply for showing that animation can be used for something other than standard Disney bullshit. Watching this movie is a bit like attending a Spike & Mike festival, with less ass and shit jokes. But don't be fooled--this movie has some serious stuff on its mind, and it deserves credit for showing that at least a few people out there are thinking about the nature of our world. Some of the philosophical discussions may fly over your head (particularly if you have not done any background reading), but you'll absorb at least some of it. Posted 11/28/02.
A Walk In The Clouds -- It's hard not to like this film. Here's what you get: a visually sumptuous movie, with a gentle, lilting story that stays true all the way through and pulls at your heart without resorting to cheap, manipulative tricks. You know right from the start how it's going to end, and you're still glad to get there. All in all, a movie that delivers on all of its promises. Posted 3/21/05.
Walk The Line -- The credits say the costars are Joaquin Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon; the real costars are Johnny Cash and his demons. That pair made for a compelling story, and combined with some excellent work from the actors, splendid musical performances, and a well-crafted presentation, the whole bundle makes for an exceptional and entertaining (if lengthy) movie. Posted 3/28/07.
A Walk To Remember (~) -- Mandy Moore: grrrrr. This movie: meh. Actually, I'm probably not being fair with that so-so squiggle; for the most part, this flick is well-made and the story is ultimately effective. However, points have to come off for a touch of predictability, and they could have been less insistent on trying to sell the soundtrack album (the tunes are really intrusive). As for the previously leered at Miss Moore: no, this isn't just another Titney thing--the girl really can act. Posted 3/11/03.
War Horse -- The visuals dazzle, the music swells, the story touches the heart...so what's the problem here? I'm not sure there is one, but it's impossible to watch this film without knowing that you're staring at very conscious Oscar bait. That fact hints at a cynicism floating just below the surface, a vibe that will always make the alert viewer feel like he's being used. But most folks don't watch movies in that way; a picture should be judged on its merits for the general audience who will view it--and there's no denying that this is a well-crafted movie. To be sure, the story is obvious--nothing really comes as a surprise here--though it is unusually dark. In fact, this is very much a movie about grief and sorrow, which makes it tough to watch at times. But as an example of the craft, as an emotional journey, as a statement of disgust against war and all its miseries, this film accomplishes its goals. That earns it enough respect for a positive vote here. Posted 6/6/13.
War Of The Worlds (2006) -- I knock Spielberg around sometimes, but I can't deny credit where it's due: the strength of this movie, the action set pieces, are phenomenal works of direction. The chaos of the alien attacks is realized to an astounding degree, creating scenes that are emotionally gripping and downright scary. It helps that the alien tripods (a bit of throwback fidelity to Wells's original story) are genuinely alien and creepy. So visually, the film is most impressive. On the down side, the character relationships are just about unbelievable (no kids, no matter how alienated from their father, would be that snotty when all that shit was going down), and there's at least one major story discontinuity. But this one really isn't a thinking movie; it's there to be seen, and you get what you want in that regard. Posted 4/20/07.
Wedding Crashers -- Just sit back, throw up your hands, and let go. Take that attitude and you'll be all right. There's no aim for any "statement" here--they're just going for the cheap laughs. Which is OK--we can't all be Ibsen. So judged by its own standard, this film largely succeeds. There's a bit of unwelcome sappiness at the end, but there are more than enough laugh out loud moments sprinkled throughout to make up for that. Posted 3/28/07.
The Weight of Water (--) -- It starts out boring. And then it stays boring. A complete waste of Sean Penn's time and talent--not to mention us viewers. Posted 10/25/04.
Who Killed The Electric Car? -- A fast-paced, gratifyingly straightforward documentary that doesn't fall into the trap of being too cutesy, too into itself, too convinced of its cleverness--a frequent failing of the genre lately. No, this one just gives you an effective--often devastating--presentation of its case: everyone's a little guilty here. It can be depressing to consider this story, but the film ends on an upbeat, positive note that tempers the despair and offers some direction for the future. A great effort, well worth seeing for the informed citizen. Posted 4/23/08.
Wild Things (~) -- If you like 'em smutty, you're in the right neighborhood. Actually, it's not that racy, but I suppose it's not exactly Disney Channel fare, either. The serpentine plot is a bit of a put off; eventually, you start paying less attention to the movie and more to thinking about how clever the writer thinks he is.
Wilde -- Tough to make an uninteresting movie when Oscar Wilde is your subject; just the dialogue alone should carry you through. Such is the case here. It's a bit poignant despite all the wit, though, given Wilde's misfortune in being gay in a not very tolerant time.
Win Win -- I don't know. We've seen a lot of this before. A small, indie film with a focus on the up and down trials (in one form or another) of a suburban family, with generous dashes of quirky humor thrown in. This template has almost been done to death by now. And no one would blame the choosy viewer if he skipped this one. But this is not a bad film; it's enjoyable to watch, with some very likable actors in the primary roles. I give it a tenuous approval, though I won't insist on anyone going out of his way to watch. Posted 3/3/13.
Winged Migration (~) -- Kind of a big disappointment. The visuals of migrating birds in this documentary are nice and obviously took some doing, but they're not so knockout as to be jaw-dropping. The movie's sparse narration is so matter of fact that one wonders if there really is a point to it, beyond a simple "wonders of nature" rap. And the New Age-y score does little to enhance the viewing experience; they would have been much better off with a classical or even a jazz score. Posted 3/22/04.
Wings Of Desire (~) -- A movie that has, much like the Germany from which it came, positives and problems. This film is very artsy, and much more abstract than its Hollywood version, City of Angels. There's too much philosophical stream of consciousness--very few heads are that far up in the clouds--and traditional story development takes a back seat to the demands of director Wim Wenders's unique presentation. But there are also many shining moments where the viewer can truly connect with that abstract foundation, scenes that provide a spark that enters your mind and illuminates. And Peter Falk's scenes bring the proceedings down to earth in a most welcome way. A tough call--better if you know German (though the language demands are not too daunting). Probably best for the adventurous viewer. Posted 9/6/06.
Wings Of The Dove (--) -- One of those stuffy British dramas; unfortunately, in this case, not a particularly engaging one. I can hardly remember it. I think Venice played some part in the story, but other than some nice visuals, not a lot to recommend here.
The Winslow Boy -- Surprisingly entertaining story about a now obscure case of a young boy's trouble in WWI England, and his family's quest for justice. An interesting look at, among other things, an early example of a mass media-driven public sensation.
Wisegirls -- You're waiting for me to tell you how awful Mariah Carey is in this movie. Sorry, but she's not. In fact, she's quite good in this role, strongly playing off lead Mira Sorvino. Beyond that, you've got an engrossing tale of mob restaurant waitresses, and what they do when the shit goes down. Worth a look. Posted 3/1/05.
The Wolf of Wall Street (~) -- Pretty standard issue Scorsese. Very high energy, actors chewing the scenery, everything very Noo Yawk...It’s an entertaining template, for the most part, but not nearly as great as his apologists like to believe. Case in point: at around three hours this film is way too long. How many orgy/drug fiend scenes do we need to see to get the idea that your guys are debauched? We get it; in fact, we got it the first five times. There’s so much nudity here that the viewer wonders if there’s actually a comment intended in it, some sort of meta-criticism of movies...but maybe Scorsese just wants to show us a lot of tits and bush. It’s hard to say. And ultimately, what’s the message? “Chickens come home to roost”? Not sure about that, not based on the ending. I leave you to sort out the muddle on your own. Posted 8/20/14.
The Wolverine -- Another X-Men movie? Yes, and (surprise!) it’s a good one. There are lessons to be learned here: the cast, except for Jackman, is all unknowns (at least to an American movie viewer), the setting in Japan comes across as intriguing (instead of yet another well-worn string of action sequences in the all-too-familiar settings of this land), and a set of as yet unknown writers and filmmakers got a shot at telling their own story (one that still dovetails well with the already established canon). In other words, make it different and original, and even a series movie can seem fresh and exciting. Like this one. Give it a look. Posted 3/9/13.
Wonder Boys -- Solid, and surprisingly funny. Good work by Michael Douglas and Tobey Maguire. Posted 5/13/02.
The World Is Not Enough -- At this point, Bond movies all sort of run together; nevertheless, they're still solid entertainment.
World War Z -- This is better than I ever figured it would be. The subject matter has a lot of inherent absurdity, and this film seemed destined to lead to a lot of eye-rolling. Perhaps it’s Brad Pitt’s skill at forming a connection with the audience that leads the viewer to give the story more credence than critical thinking would normally allow. There’s also a shrewd decision made by the director and screenwriters, in that the action comes quick and rarely lets up; there’s no real time for questioning, and that piece of cagey filmmaking serves this work very well. Posted 1/8/14.
The World’s End -- Consistently amusing and entertaining story about drinking, friendship, and the apocalypse, not necessarily in that order. The Britishness of the principals involved really shines through, lending the film heavy doses of appealing eccentricity as well as a notable way with the language that sparks many of the laughs. Interesting to compare and contrast this with that other apocalyptic comedy, the recently viewed This Is The End; the differences clearly stem from the creators’ nationalities, and each film is appropriate to its own kind. Can’t really say which is better or worse; just that, in this case, this is exactly the kind of funny movie the limeys do best. Posted 4/27/14.
Wreck-it Ralph -- Again, the Pixar problem, but this one overcomes it in a big way. That probably owes to the fact that this movie breaks the template in important ways (for instance, there’s a decided lack of ginned up, vaguely false sentiment here). Also, the film’s intelligence really shines through in the execution; the filmmakers create a world with its own rules, and they adhere to those rules all the way through. It’s just a very smart film. And, to top it off, it’s an extra hoot for anyone old enough to remember the originals of many of these games. Strong stuff. Posted 3/9/13.
Reel Reviews -- A
The Adventures Of Rocky And Bullwinkle (~) -- So-so update on the classic, "Best Of All" television series. The puns are groaners--naturally--and Robert De Niro is a hoot as the original Fearless Leader. The rest of the cast is just OK, and the story and animation are nothing special. Posted 9/9/02.
The Affair Of The Necklace (+) -- An enjoyable bit of dandied up fluff. Not profound, but it holds your interest. Posted 11/18/02.
Affliction (--) -- Again, noble intentions go down for the count. The main storyline of this film, the ripple effects of an abusive family life, is (sadly) too routine to break new ground, and the presentation is too lethargic to hold the interest of the average viewer. There are hints of a more interesting movie in the subplot, about an apparent murder mystery--star Nick Nolte certainly seems more engaged by that storyline--but that subplot remains peripheral throughout. The idea was better than the execution. Posted 3/10/06.
After The Sunset (+) -- Implausibility in the opening sequence: bad sign. Salma Hayak's tits: good sign. I guess it's all about what you're looking for. What you see here is a scenario we've witnessed many times (cool, suave criminals as heroes of the story). The charm of the actors (Pierce Brosnan and the aforementioned Hayak) helps immensely, as does the funny, well-written script. And the Carribbean scenery looks great on screen. Not a bad way to go, overall. Posted 9/30/06.
After The Thin Man (+) -- Actually a bit better than the original. The ultimate resolution is a confused bit of detective film hooey, but the Charleses share lots of snappy dialogue, and Nicky is still drinking like a fish. Enjoyable. Posted 7/31/05.
A.I. (+) -- There were some serious reservations at the start; it's just not that engaging at first. It's even a little creepy (but not in an interesting way). But once it starts to--very consciously--parallel its literary antecedent (Collodi's Pinocchio) the movie really takes off and becomes something worth watching. Posted 5/14/03.
A Knight's Tale (+) -- A bit disorienting at first, with the medieval setting and rock 'n' roll soundtrack, but once you get past the anachronisms, you get a thoroughly entertaining and intelligent movie. Great characters all around; special pats on the back to Paul Bettany, who plays an outrageous Geoffrey Chaucer. Posted 9/16/02.
Alex & Emma (--) -- This should tell you all you need to know: about a half hour into this movie, I felt comfortable with the idea of pausing it and going for a long sit on the toilet. I guess it's not very engrossing. Apart from being false and unbelievable (writers don't go about their business like that, and those two wouldn't wind up caring about each other), the story actually cuts its own throat when it's on the verge of saving itself (by not going with the obvious but far more interesting ending). Don't waste your time. Posted 3/10/05.
Alexander (~) -- Only your local deli serves up more ham sandwiches than this flick. You can call this typical Oliver Stone: bombastic, full of weird directorial decisions and over the top performances (paging Angelina Jolie...paging Angelina Jolie...). But the history seems mostly spot on, and there's plenty for the eyes to feast on. If you want an enjoyable, old-fashioned "among the legions" epic, you can do worse than this. Posted 5/21/09.
Ali (+) -- Very stylishly done, but you expect that from director Michael Mann. The story is told more visually than textually, but the tale still comes strongly across. And Will Smith does an astounding job of capturing The Champ's enormous charisma. A very strong effort. Posted 2/14/03.
All is Lost (+) -- What’s most impressive here, in some ways, is how much one man can do for himself even when he’s lost at sea and all is going to hell around him. There’s also a refreshing aspect to watching this film: since there is basically no dialogue, nothing is explained for the viewer. Anyone watching need to figure everything out for himself, and that makes for a very engaging, engrossing experience. Posted 8/20/14.
All The Pretty Horses (~) -- The squiggly line has never been so squiggly. This one has some wonderful moments, and it is visually glorious, but the story is never particularly engaging or interesting to those with broader mental horizons. Take it for a spin if you really like cowboy movies. Posted 12/18/02.
Almost Famous (+) -- It isn't especially deep or important, but it is an awful lot of fun (especially the music). Just watch it. Posted 2/24/03.
The Amazing Spider-Man (~) -- In many ways this film reflects the state of the art of superhero movies. Gone are the days of the genre's cheesy, low-rent flicks; the template is now well-established, and every entry in the field is competent (at least), entertaining, a little bit funny, action-packed, and a certain crowd-pleaser. But once we've gone through that ride a certain number of times, it's bound to grow a little old. So it is here--you can like this movie, but you also can see the template getting stale, too. I certainly won't say this film isn't worth watching, but I'm not sure you're missing anything if you skip it either. Posted 3/24/13.
The American (~) -- Say what you will about the big, tent-pole mainstream movies--they lay your motivations right out in front of you. Not so here. It's hard to say why we would root for George Clooney's hit man, other than the fact that it's George Clooney playing the lead role. But that does not necessarily equate to a bad movie. This one's moody and atmospheric, has some really nice Italian locations going for it, and the relationships between the characters--particularly Clooney's assassin and the town priest--are complex and interesting. And Clooney's minimalist performance and a well-turned plot combine to bring an involving sense of urgency by the end. If you're willing to deal with a movie that's somewhat opaque, you'll be rewarded by this one. Otherwise, stick to the front end of the googolplex. Posted 8/13/12.
American Gangster (+) -- A muddled beginning followed by a slow build, but the film steadily grows into a riveting account of one man's rise and fall (and another's fall and rise). On its own merits, this might be just another crime movie, but some rich, compelling work by stars Crowe and Washington lift this one into something a cut above. Worth a look. Posted 4/16/09.
American History X (+) -- A hard ride. This one's probably too intense for most folks, and that's a shame, because there's a really good movie here: a good story, well-told, with an important message; strong performances by all of the principles; and some solid moviemaking technique as well. If you give it a look, brace yourself, but it will be worth it. Posted 5/31/05.
American Splendor (+) -- You might be fooled by the promotional materials into thinking that this is a comedy. It is, in fact, a biography of a man and his art, and true to that fact it has its funny and serious moments. The cast does decent work, but the true star here is the real life Harvey Pekar (appearing throughout in documentary interludes) and his committment to presenting his work and its philosophy in blazing, uncompromising honesty. We should all be so legitimate. Posted 9/18/03.
America's Sweethearts (~) -- Mildly amusing. The ever reliable John Cusack comes through, for the most part, and no one particularly embarrasses himself or herself. But the humor doesn't cut nearly as deep as it should have; and the movie's satirical targets have already been shot to death a thousand times over. Posted 8/17/03.
An American In Paris (--) -- Another reminder of why musicals are dead (or nearly so). This is not to say that the Gershwin tunes aren't great, or that Gene Kelly's choreography is not in and of itself an artistic achievement. There are moments of joy here. But the demands of the set musical pieces upon the storyline are so onerous that the overall effect is weird and disjointed. And don't even get me started about that half-an-hour-of-ballet ending. Posted 6/19/05.
Amistad (+) -- This movie features some tightrope walking: Spielberg is a director who has never let subtlety get in the way of the film he wants to make, and he lays it on thick in many scenes here. Yet, in addition to an impressive cast, this flick also features some terrific, inspiring moments about humans making connections, listening to their consciences, and the ideals by which--we hope--our nation lives. Even given its length, this film stays watchable, entertaining, and thought-provoking to the end. Good stuff. Posted 9/6/12.
Analyze This (~) -- A few laughs; you could do worse with things with your time. Just don't expect greatness.
Anna Karenina (+) -- The strengths of this movie lie in the visuals and the performances. Much of this film is a feast for the eyes; only rarely are these scenes played plainly and on a small scale. Add to that some very good actors performing at the top of their games--Jude Law in particular is a marvel of conveying emotion through a veil of restraint--and you get movie that moves well and holds the attention all the way through. One negative critique: I’m not sure this presentation really needed the extra bells and whistles (scenes, especially transitions, are often portrayed as stage pieces); sometimes a director needs to know when to get out of the way and let his story do the storytelling. Posted 5/23/14.
The Anniversary Party (+) -- This one would get a plus for no other reason than the (now rare) chance to see Phoebe Cates. (Yes, she's still adorable.) But it has merits beyond that--the humor is as dry as the Sahara, and the story is insightful and incisive. The only down side: when it turns from comedy to drama, the drama is a little too heavy. But mostly, it's a lot of fun. Posted 11/16/02.
Another Thin Man (+) -- Nick and Nora, doing their thing. Again, a sequel that in many ways surpasses the original, thanks largely to the crackling dialogue. Posted 8/15/05.
Antwone Fisher (+) -- An effective story of struggle and redemption. You can't help but root for the title character. Of course, the real Antwone Fisher wrote the screenplay, so there may be reason to be skeptical. Nevertheless, it is a good movie and a good story. A side note, though: this does not exactly depict the ideal patient-therapist relationship--a little too involved there, doc. Posted 2/16/04.
Any Given Sunday (--) -- I can't tell--did Oliver Stone make a stupid football movie because he's stupid, or because football is stupid, or is it both? The critique of the character of big-time football is welcome (apparently, everyone involved with it is a horrible person), but bluster and bullshit are not substitutes for an actual story. Posted 10/5/02.
The Apostle (+) -- Occasionally slow, but mostly interesting look at a preacher who's got more than a bit of the devil in him. Maybe Robert Duvall's best work.
Apt Pupil (+) -- Ian McKellan, the perfect Nazi? Who knew? All jokes aside, McKellan gives a great performance.
Argo (+) -- This is a very enjoyable movie, but no duh, it did win Best Picture. That statue does not always necessarily go to the deserving film; in this case, I think the win was deserved, given that all the competitors were flawed. And this too is a film with flaws, but they are so minor, so slight--a few cliched scenes at the climax--that they hardly make watching this work anything less than a fine experience. One interesting thing to note: the verisimilitude is almost too good, in that watching this flick as an American of a certain age can call up a little more rage against Iran than anyone, at this remove, should feel comfortable feeling. Let’s hope that with time comes wisdom, all the way around. Posted 1/8/14.
The Aristocrats (+) -- A one-note movie? Somewhat, but it's a note played with so many nuances and personal styles it doesn't grow tiresome. There are a few duds in terms of delivery, but the good tellings of the "jokester's joke" are worth the price of admission alone. Remember the obvious caveat: the language is as filthy as humanly possible, so no wilting flowers, please. And be sure to watch it with a lot of other people--a crowd setting will heighten the laughter. Posted 9/9/05.
Art School Confidential (+) -- 'Wry' barely covers it. According to this film, everything you already think about modern art is true, and who's to argue? Overall, the story is slight but honest, it moves briskly, and just enough hearty laughs pop out to make you feel you've gotten your full share of comedy. Posted 5/9/09.
The Artist (+) -- A very clever film. I don't know if it's Best Picture clever; I suspect it won the little gold statue for being a movie about movie-making, and given the self-fellating ouroboros that is Hollywood, that was probably more than enough for Academy voters. Which is not to say this one isn't good; again, it's very clever, it pulls out all the stops to tell a silent story visually, and the performances lay on a healthy dose of charm. That's enough to result in a very enjoyable movie watching experience. So give it a look; just don't start worshiping it or anything. Posted 3/24/13.
The Assassination Of Richard Nixon (--) -- Like almost all assassination plots, this film has a fatal flaw. The movie's arduous, even repetitive efforts to paint Sean Penn's character--a failed salesman, husband and would-be assassin--as a loser undermines any broader significance to the man's actions. It's an unavoidable question/conclusion: what reason is there to question the system if the only one driven to challenge it is someone congenitally unable to function within its domain? Are all activists, murderous or otherwise, simply those who can't get along? That is the unexpected train of thought that grows out of this film. Penn's performance is typically fine, but there isn't much of interest--apart from the violent denouement--once his character is established. A noble, but large, failure. Posted 10/6/07.
Atlantic City (~) -- Decent performances, but I didn't think it was anything particularly special, despite it being a Best Picture nominee way back when.
Atlantis: The Lost Empire (--) -- Ironically--for a movie with such a "deep"(sea) theme--this one comes across as rather shallow. For a moment I thought it was going to build an allegorical story, relating the "dying" culture of the Atlanteans to our modern America, but no, it just plowed ahead with its straight-ahead, banal story. The characters, including the now-requisite "zany" sidekick(s), aren't very interesting, the animation impressive in a now-standard way (including one sequence that is painfully derivative from Aladdin), and all the crystal power stuff comes across as so much New Age hooey. Posted 12/3/02.
Auto Focus (~) -- A word of advice: if you're having the Pope over for the evening, you might want to bypass screening this one after dinner. The movie certainly has its share of nakedness, but it's not as sleazy as you might think; it's certainly not as stimulating as one would anticipate. I can't say if Greg Kinnear really captures Bob Crane--I was never a Hogan's Heroes fan--but the performances are well done and believable. The movie just never rises to any particular heights. Posted 2/28/04.
The Aviator (~) -- A technically superior movie, to be sure. But also a strangely disjointed film. It's time and place--Hollywood's Golden Age--has never seemed so alien, almost otherworldly, despite having appeared in countless period pieces. Something seems to be missing, or not captured properly. The film also suffers from a casting faux pas; despite a strong roster overall, DiCaprio seems miscast as Howard Hughes--he's too young through most of the film, even for Hughes's early adventures. And while there is an interesting story element buried within the flash and dazzle--an underdeveloped statement about obsession and achievement that could have been enlightening--the pieces never come together to make the whole truly engaging. A near miss. Posted 10/24/06.
The Affair Of The Necklace (+) -- An enjoyable bit of dandied up fluff. Not profound, but it holds your interest. Posted 11/18/02.
Affliction (--) -- Again, noble intentions go down for the count. The main storyline of this film, the ripple effects of an abusive family life, is (sadly) too routine to break new ground, and the presentation is too lethargic to hold the interest of the average viewer. There are hints of a more interesting movie in the subplot, about an apparent murder mystery--star Nick Nolte certainly seems more engaged by that storyline--but that subplot remains peripheral throughout. The idea was better than the execution. Posted 3/10/06.
After The Sunset (+) -- Implausibility in the opening sequence: bad sign. Salma Hayak's tits: good sign. I guess it's all about what you're looking for. What you see here is a scenario we've witnessed many times (cool, suave criminals as heroes of the story). The charm of the actors (Pierce Brosnan and the aforementioned Hayak) helps immensely, as does the funny, well-written script. And the Carribbean scenery looks great on screen. Not a bad way to go, overall. Posted 9/30/06.
After The Thin Man (+) -- Actually a bit better than the original. The ultimate resolution is a confused bit of detective film hooey, but the Charleses share lots of snappy dialogue, and Nicky is still drinking like a fish. Enjoyable. Posted 7/31/05.
A.I. (+) -- There were some serious reservations at the start; it's just not that engaging at first. It's even a little creepy (but not in an interesting way). But once it starts to--very consciously--parallel its literary antecedent (Collodi's Pinocchio) the movie really takes off and becomes something worth watching. Posted 5/14/03.
A Knight's Tale (+) -- A bit disorienting at first, with the medieval setting and rock 'n' roll soundtrack, but once you get past the anachronisms, you get a thoroughly entertaining and intelligent movie. Great characters all around; special pats on the back to Paul Bettany, who plays an outrageous Geoffrey Chaucer. Posted 9/16/02.
Alex & Emma (--) -- This should tell you all you need to know: about a half hour into this movie, I felt comfortable with the idea of pausing it and going for a long sit on the toilet. I guess it's not very engrossing. Apart from being false and unbelievable (writers don't go about their business like that, and those two wouldn't wind up caring about each other), the story actually cuts its own throat when it's on the verge of saving itself (by not going with the obvious but far more interesting ending). Don't waste your time. Posted 3/10/05.
Alexander (~) -- Only your local deli serves up more ham sandwiches than this flick. You can call this typical Oliver Stone: bombastic, full of weird directorial decisions and over the top performances (paging Angelina Jolie...paging Angelina Jolie...). But the history seems mostly spot on, and there's plenty for the eyes to feast on. If you want an enjoyable, old-fashioned "among the legions" epic, you can do worse than this. Posted 5/21/09.
Ali (+) -- Very stylishly done, but you expect that from director Michael Mann. The story is told more visually than textually, but the tale still comes strongly across. And Will Smith does an astounding job of capturing The Champ's enormous charisma. A very strong effort. Posted 2/14/03.
All is Lost (+) -- What’s most impressive here, in some ways, is how much one man can do for himself even when he’s lost at sea and all is going to hell around him. There’s also a refreshing aspect to watching this film: since there is basically no dialogue, nothing is explained for the viewer. Anyone watching need to figure everything out for himself, and that makes for a very engaging, engrossing experience. Posted 8/20/14.
All The Pretty Horses (~) -- The squiggly line has never been so squiggly. This one has some wonderful moments, and it is visually glorious, but the story is never particularly engaging or interesting to those with broader mental horizons. Take it for a spin if you really like cowboy movies. Posted 12/18/02.
Almost Famous (+) -- It isn't especially deep or important, but it is an awful lot of fun (especially the music). Just watch it. Posted 2/24/03.
The Amazing Spider-Man (~) -- In many ways this film reflects the state of the art of superhero movies. Gone are the days of the genre's cheesy, low-rent flicks; the template is now well-established, and every entry in the field is competent (at least), entertaining, a little bit funny, action-packed, and a certain crowd-pleaser. But once we've gone through that ride a certain number of times, it's bound to grow a little old. So it is here--you can like this movie, but you also can see the template getting stale, too. I certainly won't say this film isn't worth watching, but I'm not sure you're missing anything if you skip it either. Posted 3/24/13.
The American (~) -- Say what you will about the big, tent-pole mainstream movies--they lay your motivations right out in front of you. Not so here. It's hard to say why we would root for George Clooney's hit man, other than the fact that it's George Clooney playing the lead role. But that does not necessarily equate to a bad movie. This one's moody and atmospheric, has some really nice Italian locations going for it, and the relationships between the characters--particularly Clooney's assassin and the town priest--are complex and interesting. And Clooney's minimalist performance and a well-turned plot combine to bring an involving sense of urgency by the end. If you're willing to deal with a movie that's somewhat opaque, you'll be rewarded by this one. Otherwise, stick to the front end of the googolplex. Posted 8/13/12.
American Gangster (+) -- A muddled beginning followed by a slow build, but the film steadily grows into a riveting account of one man's rise and fall (and another's fall and rise). On its own merits, this might be just another crime movie, but some rich, compelling work by stars Crowe and Washington lift this one into something a cut above. Worth a look. Posted 4/16/09.
American History X (+) -- A hard ride. This one's probably too intense for most folks, and that's a shame, because there's a really good movie here: a good story, well-told, with an important message; strong performances by all of the principles; and some solid moviemaking technique as well. If you give it a look, brace yourself, but it will be worth it. Posted 5/31/05.
American Splendor (+) -- You might be fooled by the promotional materials into thinking that this is a comedy. It is, in fact, a biography of a man and his art, and true to that fact it has its funny and serious moments. The cast does decent work, but the true star here is the real life Harvey Pekar (appearing throughout in documentary interludes) and his committment to presenting his work and its philosophy in blazing, uncompromising honesty. We should all be so legitimate. Posted 9/18/03.
America's Sweethearts (~) -- Mildly amusing. The ever reliable John Cusack comes through, for the most part, and no one particularly embarrasses himself or herself. But the humor doesn't cut nearly as deep as it should have; and the movie's satirical targets have already been shot to death a thousand times over. Posted 8/17/03.
An American In Paris (--) -- Another reminder of why musicals are dead (or nearly so). This is not to say that the Gershwin tunes aren't great, or that Gene Kelly's choreography is not in and of itself an artistic achievement. There are moments of joy here. But the demands of the set musical pieces upon the storyline are so onerous that the overall effect is weird and disjointed. And don't even get me started about that half-an-hour-of-ballet ending. Posted 6/19/05.
Amistad (+) -- This movie features some tightrope walking: Spielberg is a director who has never let subtlety get in the way of the film he wants to make, and he lays it on thick in many scenes here. Yet, in addition to an impressive cast, this flick also features some terrific, inspiring moments about humans making connections, listening to their consciences, and the ideals by which--we hope--our nation lives. Even given its length, this film stays watchable, entertaining, and thought-provoking to the end. Good stuff. Posted 9/6/12.
Analyze This (~) -- A few laughs; you could do worse with things with your time. Just don't expect greatness.
Anna Karenina (+) -- The strengths of this movie lie in the visuals and the performances. Much of this film is a feast for the eyes; only rarely are these scenes played plainly and on a small scale. Add to that some very good actors performing at the top of their games--Jude Law in particular is a marvel of conveying emotion through a veil of restraint--and you get movie that moves well and holds the attention all the way through. One negative critique: I’m not sure this presentation really needed the extra bells and whistles (scenes, especially transitions, are often portrayed as stage pieces); sometimes a director needs to know when to get out of the way and let his story do the storytelling. Posted 5/23/14.
The Anniversary Party (+) -- This one would get a plus for no other reason than the (now rare) chance to see Phoebe Cates. (Yes, she's still adorable.) But it has merits beyond that--the humor is as dry as the Sahara, and the story is insightful and incisive. The only down side: when it turns from comedy to drama, the drama is a little too heavy. But mostly, it's a lot of fun. Posted 11/16/02.
Another Thin Man (+) -- Nick and Nora, doing their thing. Again, a sequel that in many ways surpasses the original, thanks largely to the crackling dialogue. Posted 8/15/05.
Antwone Fisher (+) -- An effective story of struggle and redemption. You can't help but root for the title character. Of course, the real Antwone Fisher wrote the screenplay, so there may be reason to be skeptical. Nevertheless, it is a good movie and a good story. A side note, though: this does not exactly depict the ideal patient-therapist relationship--a little too involved there, doc. Posted 2/16/04.
Any Given Sunday (--) -- I can't tell--did Oliver Stone make a stupid football movie because he's stupid, or because football is stupid, or is it both? The critique of the character of big-time football is welcome (apparently, everyone involved with it is a horrible person), but bluster and bullshit are not substitutes for an actual story. Posted 10/5/02.
The Apostle (+) -- Occasionally slow, but mostly interesting look at a preacher who's got more than a bit of the devil in him. Maybe Robert Duvall's best work.
Apt Pupil (+) -- Ian McKellan, the perfect Nazi? Who knew? All jokes aside, McKellan gives a great performance.
Argo (+) -- This is a very enjoyable movie, but no duh, it did win Best Picture. That statue does not always necessarily go to the deserving film; in this case, I think the win was deserved, given that all the competitors were flawed. And this too is a film with flaws, but they are so minor, so slight--a few cliched scenes at the climax--that they hardly make watching this work anything less than a fine experience. One interesting thing to note: the verisimilitude is almost too good, in that watching this flick as an American of a certain age can call up a little more rage against Iran than anyone, at this remove, should feel comfortable feeling. Let’s hope that with time comes wisdom, all the way around. Posted 1/8/14.
The Aristocrats (+) -- A one-note movie? Somewhat, but it's a note played with so many nuances and personal styles it doesn't grow tiresome. There are a few duds in terms of delivery, but the good tellings of the "jokester's joke" are worth the price of admission alone. Remember the obvious caveat: the language is as filthy as humanly possible, so no wilting flowers, please. And be sure to watch it with a lot of other people--a crowd setting will heighten the laughter. Posted 9/9/05.
Art School Confidential (+) -- 'Wry' barely covers it. According to this film, everything you already think about modern art is true, and who's to argue? Overall, the story is slight but honest, it moves briskly, and just enough hearty laughs pop out to make you feel you've gotten your full share of comedy. Posted 5/9/09.
The Artist (+) -- A very clever film. I don't know if it's Best Picture clever; I suspect it won the little gold statue for being a movie about movie-making, and given the self-fellating ouroboros that is Hollywood, that was probably more than enough for Academy voters. Which is not to say this one isn't good; again, it's very clever, it pulls out all the stops to tell a silent story visually, and the performances lay on a healthy dose of charm. That's enough to result in a very enjoyable movie watching experience. So give it a look; just don't start worshiping it or anything. Posted 3/24/13.
The Assassination Of Richard Nixon (--) -- Like almost all assassination plots, this film has a fatal flaw. The movie's arduous, even repetitive efforts to paint Sean Penn's character--a failed salesman, husband and would-be assassin--as a loser undermines any broader significance to the man's actions. It's an unavoidable question/conclusion: what reason is there to question the system if the only one driven to challenge it is someone congenitally unable to function within its domain? Are all activists, murderous or otherwise, simply those who can't get along? That is the unexpected train of thought that grows out of this film. Penn's performance is typically fine, but there isn't much of interest--apart from the violent denouement--once his character is established. A noble, but large, failure. Posted 10/6/07.
Atlantic City (~) -- Decent performances, but I didn't think it was anything particularly special, despite it being a Best Picture nominee way back when.
Atlantis: The Lost Empire (--) -- Ironically--for a movie with such a "deep"(sea) theme--this one comes across as rather shallow. For a moment I thought it was going to build an allegorical story, relating the "dying" culture of the Atlanteans to our modern America, but no, it just plowed ahead with its straight-ahead, banal story. The characters, including the now-requisite "zany" sidekick(s), aren't very interesting, the animation impressive in a now-standard way (including one sequence that is painfully derivative from Aladdin), and all the crystal power stuff comes across as so much New Age hooey. Posted 12/3/02.
Auto Focus (~) -- A word of advice: if you're having the Pope over for the evening, you might want to bypass screening this one after dinner. The movie certainly has its share of nakedness, but it's not as sleazy as you might think; it's certainly not as stimulating as one would anticipate. I can't say if Greg Kinnear really captures Bob Crane--I was never a Hogan's Heroes fan--but the performances are well done and believable. The movie just never rises to any particular heights. Posted 2/28/04.
The Aviator (~) -- A technically superior movie, to be sure. But also a strangely disjointed film. It's time and place--Hollywood's Golden Age--has never seemed so alien, almost otherworldly, despite having appeared in countless period pieces. Something seems to be missing, or not captured properly. The film also suffers from a casting faux pas; despite a strong roster overall, DiCaprio seems miscast as Howard Hughes--he's too young through most of the film, even for Hughes's early adventures. And while there is an interesting story element buried within the flash and dazzle--an underdeveloped statement about obsession and achievement that could have been enlightening--the pieces never come together to make the whole truly engaging. A near miss. Posted 10/24/06.
Friday, September 2, 2011
Comedy Gold, Medical Division
I actually got this email yesterday from Kaiser:
Lord knows why they sent this to me. I know people think I'm crazy, but I never expected to see a howler like this in my email inbox. While it is funny in its way, it's also disturbing to think that my health insurance company apparently can't keep one patient straight with another. Especially the ones who have a "bona fide major mental illness." If I go in for a rectal exam, I wonder who will receive those results.
And by the way, how much of a great pleasure can it be working with someone who has a "bona fide major mental illness"? That cat's got some strange ideas about how he spends his joy time.
The delights that come from having a common name, I guess.
Dear Stephen:
Please accept this note as certification of the fact that you have a bona fide major mental illness, are on disability because of said mental illness, faithfully take major medication to control your symptoms, and will be in treatment with us for the forseeable future.
And may I add it is a great pleasure working with you.
Best wishes,
(doctor's signature removed)
Lord knows why they sent this to me. I know people think I'm crazy, but I never expected to see a howler like this in my email inbox. While it is funny in its way, it's also disturbing to think that my health insurance company apparently can't keep one patient straight with another. Especially the ones who have a "bona fide major mental illness." If I go in for a rectal exam, I wonder who will receive those results.
And by the way, how much of a great pleasure can it be working with someone who has a "bona fide major mental illness"? That cat's got some strange ideas about how he spends his joy time.
The delights that come from having a common name, I guess.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Reel Reviews -- O
Oblivion (~) -- This one seems to be a near miss. There’s a lot to like here: Cruise is good (he never isn’t, really), the look of the thing is wonderful, the twist is pretty good as movie twists go, and there’s even some good science that’s important to the movie’s reality (i.e., the presumed effects on Earth if our Moon were destroyed). But there’s one bit of dumbness that cancels out that good science: the story relies on the by-now well-worn clone fallacy (that clones would somehow share memories with the original organism). Probably not a bad rental, now that it’s out of theaters, certainly worth watching for free. But no surprise this wasn’t a big hit at the googolplex. Posted 3/9/13.
O Brother, Where Art Thou (+) -- Homer for the masses...and I don't mean Simpson. Well-crafted retelling of the old tale, with some great music and good performances by Messrs. Clooney, Turturro and Nelson.
Ocean's Eleven (~) -- Watching this movie is like spending a couple of hours in the High Church of Holy Hipness; it's got more smirks than you'd find on Saturday night in a frat house. There are a few amusing moments, but not enough of them. On another note: this is the second big-time movie (directed by Soderbergh, no less) in which George Clooney has played a criminal--should we be worried? Posted 10/17/02.
Ocean's Twelve (+) -- Another celluloid smirk from Soderbergh and company. It's got a flimsy premise and a redundant story; so why didn't I care? Because the pace is good, the performers are all spot on, the dialogue is sharp, and the visuals are particularly rich. And it ends in an orgy of self-satisfaction. Now, what could be more entertaining than that? In this case, nothing. Posted 5/8/06.
October Sky (+) -- You know how this thing's going to play out every minute it's on the screen--and it's still a wonderful movie to watch. Hopeful and high-spirited, it's a good movie to watch when you want a little uplifting (and it even comes with rockets for the task!).
Office Space (+) -- An uneven piece from Beavis & Butt-Head and King of the Hill creator Mike Judge. Occasionally hilarious satire of corporate life that turns dark one or two times too many. But mostly worth it.
127 Hours (+) -- Director Danny Boyle pulls every trick out of the filmmaker's bag in order to give movement and energy to a mostly static tale. In a few places, the holes in that cinematic curtain show through, but for the most part the effort is successful, resulting in an entertaining, impactful, almost riveting movie. Not to be missed. Posted 8/19/11.
One True Thing (+) -- There's that girl again; a young Renée Zellweger plays center stage, this time with veterans Meryl Streep and William Hurt giving very capable support. A bit of a tearjerker, but we won't hold that against it.
Open Range (+) -- A film that's beautiful from the first scene, but not very engaging at the start. That's why it's such a pleasant surprise when the story grows more engrossing and enjoyable as it progresses. The ultimate payoff comes as a satisfying film about realistic, complex characters that never falls prey to being too showy, too heavy-handed, or anything it doesn't need to be. Costner lets his film speak for itself, and you'll like what it has to say. Posted 4/7/09.
The Opposite Of Sex (~) -- A movie with all the hallmarks of the "indie" film: lots o' sex and violence (though relatively tame here), strange, over-the-top characters, even some "meta" filmmaking techniques (an antagonistic voiceover, fake-out scenes, etc.). Of course, "indie" can also mean muddled storytelling, narrowly focused characters who don't "speak" to all in the audience, and other problems. So too with this one. It has some positive traits, but it also runs too long and doesn't do enough to develop any bond between the characters and the audience. See it or not; it probably won't matter either way. Posted 4/25/05.
The Original Kings Of Comedy (~) -- Pretty good "concert" comedy film, though some of the routines are hit and miss. Steve Harvey does the best work, Bernie Mac gives a creditable effort, and D.L. Hughley and Cedric The Entertainer have their moments. The language is not for the "wealthy dowager" types. Posted 10/14/02.
Othello (+) -- This version--with Laurence Fishburne in the title role and Kenneth Branagh as Iago--was not particularly well received when it came out, but I've got a soft spot for Shakespeare; it takes some really bad work to screw up the Bard. This is capably done, and there isn't any silly fiddling about with the setting/staging/timeframe here--they play it straight.
The Others (+) -- Moody and stylish, just the way you like 'em. The twist is obvious, but I don't really care about such things, so I don't take points off for that. It's the journey, not the destination, that matters here. Posted 9/7/04.
Out of Sight (~) -- Pretty good. Features Jennifer Lopez, in her a little less sleazy incarnation as straightforward actress, along with George Clooney doing his usual thing. Not spectacular, but it holds your interest.
Outside Providence (+) -- Not the laugh riot you expect from a Farrelly Brothers association (they scripted), but that doesn't mean it's bad, either. Some parts are flat, but most of the film adds up to a low-key but effective coming of age story. The best, most effective stuff lies in the relationship between Shawn Hatosy's lead bonehead teenager and his father, strongly played by Alec Baldwin. There's some touching drama here, making for a nice balance against a nice chunk of sharp humor. This one flew below the radar, but if you happen to catch hold of it, you will not be disappointed. Posted 11/12/06.
Oz the Great and Powerful (~) -- The crux of the matter here lies with the source material, to wit: are we seeing a faithful representation of Baum’s work, or is this a Disneyfied version of the extended world of Oz? Having only read one of the Oz works--that one--I can’t say for sure; maybe the weaknesses are Baum’s and not those of the Disney people or director Sam Raimi. Even with a certain obviousness to the story--it’s a tale that practically wallows in stereotypes--you can still get a good, old-fashioned movie-viewing experience out of this film. It all depends on how high your critical threshold is; demanding types, stay away, but those more open will probably have a decent time. Posted 1/8/14.
O Brother, Where Art Thou (+) -- Homer for the masses...and I don't mean Simpson. Well-crafted retelling of the old tale, with some great music and good performances by Messrs. Clooney, Turturro and Nelson.
Ocean's Eleven (~) -- Watching this movie is like spending a couple of hours in the High Church of Holy Hipness; it's got more smirks than you'd find on Saturday night in a frat house. There are a few amusing moments, but not enough of them. On another note: this is the second big-time movie (directed by Soderbergh, no less) in which George Clooney has played a criminal--should we be worried? Posted 10/17/02.
Ocean's Twelve (+) -- Another celluloid smirk from Soderbergh and company. It's got a flimsy premise and a redundant story; so why didn't I care? Because the pace is good, the performers are all spot on, the dialogue is sharp, and the visuals are particularly rich. And it ends in an orgy of self-satisfaction. Now, what could be more entertaining than that? In this case, nothing. Posted 5/8/06.
October Sky (+) -- You know how this thing's going to play out every minute it's on the screen--and it's still a wonderful movie to watch. Hopeful and high-spirited, it's a good movie to watch when you want a little uplifting (and it even comes with rockets for the task!).
Office Space (+) -- An uneven piece from Beavis & Butt-Head and King of the Hill creator Mike Judge. Occasionally hilarious satire of corporate life that turns dark one or two times too many. But mostly worth it.
127 Hours (+) -- Director Danny Boyle pulls every trick out of the filmmaker's bag in order to give movement and energy to a mostly static tale. In a few places, the holes in that cinematic curtain show through, but for the most part the effort is successful, resulting in an entertaining, impactful, almost riveting movie. Not to be missed. Posted 8/19/11.
One True Thing (+) -- There's that girl again; a young Renée Zellweger plays center stage, this time with veterans Meryl Streep and William Hurt giving very capable support. A bit of a tearjerker, but we won't hold that against it.
Open Range (+) -- A film that's beautiful from the first scene, but not very engaging at the start. That's why it's such a pleasant surprise when the story grows more engrossing and enjoyable as it progresses. The ultimate payoff comes as a satisfying film about realistic, complex characters that never falls prey to being too showy, too heavy-handed, or anything it doesn't need to be. Costner lets his film speak for itself, and you'll like what it has to say. Posted 4/7/09.
The Opposite Of Sex (~) -- A movie with all the hallmarks of the "indie" film: lots o' sex and violence (though relatively tame here), strange, over-the-top characters, even some "meta" filmmaking techniques (an antagonistic voiceover, fake-out scenes, etc.). Of course, "indie" can also mean muddled storytelling, narrowly focused characters who don't "speak" to all in the audience, and other problems. So too with this one. It has some positive traits, but it also runs too long and doesn't do enough to develop any bond between the characters and the audience. See it or not; it probably won't matter either way. Posted 4/25/05.
The Original Kings Of Comedy (~) -- Pretty good "concert" comedy film, though some of the routines are hit and miss. Steve Harvey does the best work, Bernie Mac gives a creditable effort, and D.L. Hughley and Cedric The Entertainer have their moments. The language is not for the "wealthy dowager" types. Posted 10/14/02.
Othello (+) -- This version--with Laurence Fishburne in the title role and Kenneth Branagh as Iago--was not particularly well received when it came out, but I've got a soft spot for Shakespeare; it takes some really bad work to screw up the Bard. This is capably done, and there isn't any silly fiddling about with the setting/staging/timeframe here--they play it straight.
The Others (+) -- Moody and stylish, just the way you like 'em. The twist is obvious, but I don't really care about such things, so I don't take points off for that. It's the journey, not the destination, that matters here. Posted 9/7/04.
Out of Sight (~) -- Pretty good. Features Jennifer Lopez, in her a little less sleazy incarnation as straightforward actress, along with George Clooney doing his usual thing. Not spectacular, but it holds your interest.
Outside Providence (+) -- Not the laugh riot you expect from a Farrelly Brothers association (they scripted), but that doesn't mean it's bad, either. Some parts are flat, but most of the film adds up to a low-key but effective coming of age story. The best, most effective stuff lies in the relationship between Shawn Hatosy's lead bonehead teenager and his father, strongly played by Alec Baldwin. There's some touching drama here, making for a nice balance against a nice chunk of sharp humor. This one flew below the radar, but if you happen to catch hold of it, you will not be disappointed. Posted 11/12/06.
Oz the Great and Powerful (~) -- The crux of the matter here lies with the source material, to wit: are we seeing a faithful representation of Baum’s work, or is this a Disneyfied version of the extended world of Oz? Having only read one of the Oz works--that one--I can’t say for sure; maybe the weaknesses are Baum’s and not those of the Disney people or director Sam Raimi. Even with a certain obviousness to the story--it’s a tale that practically wallows in stereotypes--you can still get a good, old-fashioned movie-viewing experience out of this film. It all depends on how high your critical threshold is; demanding types, stay away, but those more open will probably have a decent time. Posted 1/8/14.
Reel Reviews -- K
K-19: The Widowmaker (+) -- It's nice to see a couple of old pros like Harrison Ford and Liam Neeson in their best form, keeping it understated and letting the story do the work. It's also nice to see a military story told from "the other side," one that acknowledges that "they" have their heroes too. As for the movie in toto, there's a good, tense story told with meticulous attention to detail. The focal conflict is resolved a little too conveniently, but that's mostly a quibble. All in all, this movie was unfairly overlooked. Posted 11/30/03.
Kate & Leopold (+) -- Remarkably well done for a sappy chick flick. There's nothing really original here; all of the story elements (time-shifted confusion, romantic longing, etc.) are recycled from other tales. Meg Ryan is beginning to get too old for this sort of thing, but I'm guessing Hugh Jackman (sans Wolverine get-up) must have had them sighing in their seats when this was in the theaters. Plus the supporting cast is small and capable, if not spectacular. But it all works suprisingly well. Overall, a movie that's more than the sum of its parts. Posted 12/19/02.
Keeping The Faith (+) -- A very funny look at religion, relationships, and religious relationships. Most of the credit goes to Edward Norton, who wrote, directed and starred (along with Ben Stiller and Jenna Elfman).
The Kids Are All Right (+) -- A low-key, enjoyable movie experience filled with subtle humor, honest emotion, and plenty of charm. I might have a minor quibble about how it all turns out in the end--the Ruffalo character's treatment seems unduly harsh; it wasn't his action alone--but that doesn't stretch far enough to bring the film as a whole down. Worth a look. Posted 1/5/12.
Kill Bill (Vol. 1) (+) -- Here we have a movie comprised of a slew of scattershot scenes...punctuated by sequences of absolute cinematic brilliance. If Tarantino ever got it all together--cut through the bullshit, tightened everything up, crafted the whole thing perfectly--he might make the greatest movie ever made. This isn't it, but it's still well worth seeing for its filmmaking skill and bravado. NOTE: I recommend it, but Kill Bill is one of the most insanely violent movies anyone has ever imagined; proceed with caution. Posted 10/19/03.
Kill Bill (Vol. 2) (+) -- Ah, Volume 2--the reflective massacre movie. Much quieter than its predecessor, not quite as violent (though it still has its moments), this one has much more in the way of story and character than Volume 1. That tack is helped immensely by the presence of David Carradine--by now almost a talking, walking, animated death mask--as the object of the titular menace. His character fleshes out the tale, brings a depth that makes you care whether or not The Bride gets her vengence. Ultimately, put it all together and you get a worthy, entertaining tale. Posted 5/31/04..
King Kong (2005) (~) -- Insanely long, but then again, I can't say it ever lost my interest. I'm not sure this movie needed to be remade, again, but their hearts were in the right place, if the execution was not. Which is not to say it's bad; the individual elements are top notch, including superb special effects, some fine performances (particulary by Naomi Watts and, believe it or not, The Ape, in the frameworked person of Andy Serkis), and a healthy respect for the previous material. But it takes too long for the star to appear, plenty of the action sequences could have been cut out, and even what's good seems altogether a little flat. If you check it out on a big screen, and don't pay too much to see it, you could have a rewarding 3+ hours. Posted 3/28/07.
Kingdom Of Heaven (+) -- You go into this film expecting a healthy dose of mayhem and spectacle. Be patient--you get it eventually. But you also get a measured--in places almost meditative--movie, a film with a lot on its mind. Some of its allegories are obvious, but subtlety isn't cutting it much these days, so that's to be forgiven. This story could make you think twice the next time someone tells you that "God wills it!" and that certainly wouldn't be a bad thing. Posted 3/28/07.
The King's Speech (+) -- This is almost exactly the movie you expect. Sure, it's Oscar bait; yes, it's so very British; and you know exactly how things are going to play out. And yet, this is an extremely entertaining movie, one that raises George VI--Bertie to his friends--that much higher in the viewer's esteem (assuming the story as depicted here is something near the truth). That such a personal story would have such international consequences adds layers of depth and drama to a well-done but otherwise standard issue historical piece. Altogether, a work worth viewing. Posted 8/19/11.
Knocked Up (+) -- A movie that starts as little more than a collection of good lines and cardboard characters, but the actors start to flesh out their characters, the writing keeps up, and eventually something clicks, until you wind up with a thoroughly enjoyable film. How much staying power it has, I can't say; it may be forgettable as soon as the DVD stops spinning, but for its running time, its fun while it lasts. Posted 4/16/09.
K-PAX (~) -- Another "alien hiding in plain sight" flick. It takes a turn for the serious that almost ruins it, but for the most part it's a pretty decent movie.
Kate & Leopold (+) -- Remarkably well done for a sappy chick flick. There's nothing really original here; all of the story elements (time-shifted confusion, romantic longing, etc.) are recycled from other tales. Meg Ryan is beginning to get too old for this sort of thing, but I'm guessing Hugh Jackman (sans Wolverine get-up) must have had them sighing in their seats when this was in the theaters. Plus the supporting cast is small and capable, if not spectacular. But it all works suprisingly well. Overall, a movie that's more than the sum of its parts. Posted 12/19/02.
Keeping The Faith (+) -- A very funny look at religion, relationships, and religious relationships. Most of the credit goes to Edward Norton, who wrote, directed and starred (along with Ben Stiller and Jenna Elfman).
The Kids Are All Right (+) -- A low-key, enjoyable movie experience filled with subtle humor, honest emotion, and plenty of charm. I might have a minor quibble about how it all turns out in the end--the Ruffalo character's treatment seems unduly harsh; it wasn't his action alone--but that doesn't stretch far enough to bring the film as a whole down. Worth a look. Posted 1/5/12.
Kill Bill (Vol. 1) (+) -- Here we have a movie comprised of a slew of scattershot scenes...punctuated by sequences of absolute cinematic brilliance. If Tarantino ever got it all together--cut through the bullshit, tightened everything up, crafted the whole thing perfectly--he might make the greatest movie ever made. This isn't it, but it's still well worth seeing for its filmmaking skill and bravado. NOTE: I recommend it, but Kill Bill is one of the most insanely violent movies anyone has ever imagined; proceed with caution. Posted 10/19/03.
Kill Bill (Vol. 2) (+) -- Ah, Volume 2--the reflective massacre movie. Much quieter than its predecessor, not quite as violent (though it still has its moments), this one has much more in the way of story and character than Volume 1. That tack is helped immensely by the presence of David Carradine--by now almost a talking, walking, animated death mask--as the object of the titular menace. His character fleshes out the tale, brings a depth that makes you care whether or not The Bride gets her vengence. Ultimately, put it all together and you get a worthy, entertaining tale. Posted 5/31/04..
King Kong (2005) (~) -- Insanely long, but then again, I can't say it ever lost my interest. I'm not sure this movie needed to be remade, again, but their hearts were in the right place, if the execution was not. Which is not to say it's bad; the individual elements are top notch, including superb special effects, some fine performances (particulary by Naomi Watts and, believe it or not, The Ape, in the frameworked person of Andy Serkis), and a healthy respect for the previous material. But it takes too long for the star to appear, plenty of the action sequences could have been cut out, and even what's good seems altogether a little flat. If you check it out on a big screen, and don't pay too much to see it, you could have a rewarding 3+ hours. Posted 3/28/07.
Kingdom Of Heaven (+) -- You go into this film expecting a healthy dose of mayhem and spectacle. Be patient--you get it eventually. But you also get a measured--in places almost meditative--movie, a film with a lot on its mind. Some of its allegories are obvious, but subtlety isn't cutting it much these days, so that's to be forgiven. This story could make you think twice the next time someone tells you that "God wills it!" and that certainly wouldn't be a bad thing. Posted 3/28/07.
The King's Speech (+) -- This is almost exactly the movie you expect. Sure, it's Oscar bait; yes, it's so very British; and you know exactly how things are going to play out. And yet, this is an extremely entertaining movie, one that raises George VI--Bertie to his friends--that much higher in the viewer's esteem (assuming the story as depicted here is something near the truth). That such a personal story would have such international consequences adds layers of depth and drama to a well-done but otherwise standard issue historical piece. Altogether, a work worth viewing. Posted 8/19/11.
Knocked Up (+) -- A movie that starts as little more than a collection of good lines and cardboard characters, but the actors start to flesh out their characters, the writing keeps up, and eventually something clicks, until you wind up with a thoroughly enjoyable film. How much staying power it has, I can't say; it may be forgettable as soon as the DVD stops spinning, but for its running time, its fun while it lasts. Posted 4/16/09.
K-PAX (~) -- Another "alien hiding in plain sight" flick. It takes a turn for the serious that almost ruins it, but for the most part it's a pretty decent movie.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
A Monumental Failure
Fast forward to today, and it is clear that there will be no carvings, statues, or any sort of respectful memorial in future days for the nation's 44th President.
We have reached the point where this author can see no choice but to declare this administration, and the man who leads it, a monumental failure. In the wake of the debt ceiling fiasco...which came on the heels of last year's capitulation on the tax cuts for the wealthy...which followed an abysmal showing by his party at the polls...which followed a timid, half-measured effort for meaningful health care reform (which resulted in the inadequate Affordable Care Act)...which came on the heels of the failure to enact an adequate stimulus in the face of the Lesser Depression...A realistic assessment must view the past two and a half years as little more than a series of missteps and outright blundering, almost from the moment Obama took office.
Apologists will undoubtedly point out--as they have continually pointed out, in lock-step with the proceeding litany of stumbles--that Obama has had to work with (or against, depending upon your perspective) a hostile opposition who have only cared about subverting his every initiative, and that he has done the best he could working within that context. But that argument is nonsense. Too often, Obama has greeted the hostility of the Republicans with a timidity bordering on obeisance, if not outright cowardice. It was obvious from the start, to keen observers if not the President himself, that such would be the situation. But Obama bore the opposition's attacks and failed to answer with the required vigor when he needed to respond in kind. All the public got to see from the target of the vitriol was an obsessive concern with "bipartisanship"; Obama fetishized transcending political differences even when such efforts guaranteed doom for policies the nation truly needed.
And, lest we forget, from the start Obama rarely lived up to his own stated platform. He has not ended any of America's wars; in fact, he has expanded them. He has been tepid in his response to the criminal activities of Wall Street; hardly a surprise, in retrospect, seeing as the "banksters" are among his biggest donors. He even wavered on his promises to the gay community on equality issues, taking most of his time in office to end the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. All of this and more have accumulated in the minds of the American populace as the actions of a man who is ineffectual, at best, and incompetent and/or a liar at worst.
The upshot of perception--its benefit for his rivals--is the worst part of this fiasco. Obama's lack of performance as President has done more to legitimize his opponents than any acts of their own. Left to their own devices, the 2012 Republican contenders would look wholly inadequate in the eyes of the nation's voters. But Obama's wretched showing, especially the lack of progress on turning around the economy, has left the door open for one of those petty hustlers, including a few would-be Nehemiah Scudders, to walk through, claim the Oval Office, and enact a whole new series of lurid, neo-con disasters. The failures of the present are also dooming the future.
Perhaps most galling, much of this lack of vigor for a true, reforming policy agenda by Obama seems to have been the product of a cold calculation that assumed that liberal and progressive voters, no matter how disgusted they might be with the President's failure to enact a platform to their liking, would never vote for a conservative candidate whose policies and beliefs they abhor.
As it turns out, this political bet will almost certainly prove unwise. While it may be true that voters like myself would never consider positively casting a ballot for the semi-reasonable Romney--let alone nightmares like Palin, Bachmann, or Perry--that does not mean that votes for Obama are assured. At a certain point, even the most zealous leftist will throw up his hands in disgust and simply not vote at all. Eventually, when all you see around you are horrors and the future seems lost regardless, you will choose the quick death over the slow; or, as the aging titlular emperor in I, Claudius declares (upon deciding to let the repugnant Nero succeed him), "Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud, hatch out!" It would appear that we have reached the bitter end, and some of us have no stomach for the long, slow descent into the abyss. It may as well be a plunge into the shadows, rather than an ignominious crawl.
Such, it seems, will be the legacy of Barack Obama.
Wordsmith
Another term for Stephen's Dictionary:
Alameda disease
[noun]
(Medical/Psychiatric) the condition wherein the afflicted stands around in the middle of everything, doing nothing
(usually used with regard to an individual--but the condition can be contagious and will affect groups)
Alameda disease
[noun]
(Medical/Psychiatric) the condition wherein the afflicted stands around in the middle of everything, doing nothing
(usually used with regard to an individual--but the condition can be contagious and will affect groups)
Wordsmith
Another term for Stephen's Dictionary:
redneck wrong
[adjective]
description of a state wherein a speaker, who has made a statement that is demonstrably wrong, doubles down on his assertion and continues to insist that he's right
redneck wrong
[adjective]
description of a state wherein a speaker, who has made a statement that is demonstrably wrong, doubles down on his assertion and continues to insist that he's right
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Publication Note
 |
| malchats media |
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Reel Reviews -- R
Rabbit-proof Fence (+) -- A compelling story, both in the big (societal derangement over race) and small pictures (the personal plight of kidnapped Aboriginal girls in the 1930s), well-told and interesting from start to finish. And a wonderful performance by untrained actor Everlyn Sampi--who plays Molly, the oldest of three abducted sisters--shows all the signs of a potential star, if she pursues acting full time. Well worth a look. Posted 7/18/06.
Radio Days (~) -- Maybe this is where the downward slide started. Woody Allen's self-indulgence, which served him well early on, began to pull him down with this bit of autobiography. A nice idea--life during Allen's childhood, in the "radio days"--arrives too disjointed, too hit or miss, too erratic to be called a success. The film is better during the family sequences than the inevitable, shoehorned-in Mia Farrow storyline (back when she and he were still tight). The overall cast is excellent, the presentation is sterling and accurate to the period, but that self-indulgence--and some heavy-handed "statement" scenes--do just enough to pull this movie down. Not awful, but not what could have been.
Rango (+) -- Yeah, OK, I can see it. I mean, there’s nothing super profound here, but you do get an entertaining animated movie that has some good laughs, fine visuals (including some nicely clever visual references), and a relatively standard though still compelling Western style story line. I’ve seen worse stuff tossed out there under the cynical, “you’ll watch anything animated” philosophy; this film rises above that. Worth a look. Posted 8/21/13.
Rat Race (+) -- It takes a few minutes to get cooking, but once it does it provides plenty of satisfying comedy. And Jon Lovitz has one of the funniest scenes that I have ever seen in a movie. Posted 12/4/02.
Ratatouille (+) -- Strange. None of the characters are particularly likeable, at least at first; much of the physical comedy is overdone; some parts of the Pixar template have become too familiar (including the usual, almost banal-at-this-point technical brilliance); and the distracting Familiar Voice Problem is present. And yet, when viewed in its totality, the movie still works better than it should. This is a film that is more than the sum of its parts, and by pulling off that trick, it earns a worthiness that otherwise would not be there. Go ahead and have this one for dinner some night. Posted 5/9/09.
Red State (+) -- So this is what Kevin Smith's now-perpetual cloud of weed smoke hath wrought--a genuinely good indie film, with surprising philosophical depth, storytelling skill, and an almost oddly sympathetic engagement with its central crazies. If this really is his penultimate film (preceding the forthcoming Hit Somebody!), one could argue Smith is going out with a bang--and maybe just when he's finally figured out this whole film-making thing. Posted 1/5/12.
The Red Violin (~) -- Fine musical performances abound. The presentation is beautiful throughout. So what's the problem? The main character is, shall we say, wooden. The only consistent presence here, start to finish, is the titular instrument. It's a fine piece of workmanship to be sure, and capable of extraordinary things in the right hands--but movie viewers connect with human beings, not objects. The characters in this film do not stick around long enough to build a relationship between persona and viewer. The collection of vignettes is artfully shown, and some may enjoy the pathos of the tale(s), but I suspect most viewers will not appreciate the lack of human connection. Posted 1/23/06.
Reign Of Fire (+) -- Surprisingly excellent action-adventure movie. Great action, interesting vision of an alternate world, compelling story and characters--even Sir Shirtless himself (McConaughy) holds his own against no less a costar than Christian Bale. Add it all up and you get an unfairly overlooked but thoroughly enjoyable movie. Take the time to find this one and appreciate. Posted 4/16/09.
Remember The Titans (+) -- A bit unimaginatively straightforward, but still an effective tale of overcoming differences. And Denzel Washington is…well, Denzel Washington--the guy's not capable of a bad performance. He alone makes this film worth viewing.
Restoration (+) -- An excellent screenplay, lavishly reproduced late-Stuart settings, and a rich cast (even in supporting roles) makes this film worth a look. And just in case you needed the reminder, here's the proof that Robert Downey Jr. is more than just a punch line; in his controlled moments, the man can really act. Posted 10/30/05.
Richard III (+) -- The film version of the updated stage production of Shakespeare's classic. Set in a vaguely fascist England, with Ian McKellan taking the title role. Bang-up and bloody…just like you expect from Richard III.
A River Runs Through It (+) -- Good story, good actors, Montana scenery. What more do you want?
The Road To Wellville (--) -- You have to make a decision, folks: am I making a comedy, or a drama? Few can pull off both at the same time. And when you don't pull it off...well, kids, don't try that at home. Also, it helps to have a story, as opposed to stories, each of which only vaguely relates to the others. Put it all together, as with this movie, and you've got quite a mess. The few truly funny moments indicate that a tighter comedy would have been a good decision. Way too late now. Posted 3/15/05.
Robin Hood (~) -- The ghost of Errol Flynn hangs heavily over this movie. It would be bad enough trying to do a standard remake of the Merry Man's adventures; a re-imagination that changes the story in significant ways asks a lot of the audience. Not that this film is bad; there's much to recommend it, including a lot of authenticity and good performances by leads Crowe and Blanchett. But even so, you walk away feeling that something is missing here. A tough call--probably worth a look, but no guarantees. Posted 7/24/11.
Rock of Ages (~) -- Everyone probably should be more upset that this movie was a bust than everyone actually is. The music herein, even at its worst, is still miles ahead of the drek that winds up hitting the charts these days; it’s a very bad sign for society at large that more people weren’t on board with this film and its homage to '80s metal. There’s also the highly entertaining pleasure of watching a really good cast frequently make fools of themselves. (Which does not include Tom Cruise; his performance is pretty amazing all the way through.) On the other hand, the movie does lose a lot of momentum about halfway through, and it never really recovers all of its early drive even at its feel-good climax. So it's about half of a really good movie--in some ways, the epitome of that so-so label. Enjoy as much of it as you can. Posted 5/3/13.
Roger Dodger (--) -- I wanted to like this movie, and the dialogue in the first twenty or so minutes crackled and sparked. But that was all of the movie I could watch, because the dumbshit director chose to shoot the whole movie in that lame-ass, faux edgy, shake the camera all over the place style. Sorry, but my DVR did not come with a pack of Dramamine. Call me when you're interested in making a movie that's doesn't look like amateurish horseshit. Posted 2/23/05.
Romeo + Juliet (~) -- The middle member of Luhrmann's "Red Curtain" trilogy (though, strangely, minus the curtain), and undoubtedly the least successful. That's not to say it's bad; given the screenwriter (Shakespeare) you can hardly go wrong. It starts working once they begin playing it somewhat straight, and by the end the power of the tale has its effect. But many of the actors seem too lightweight for their roles, and some of the overwrought touches just don't work here. Posted 3/22/03.
Ronin (+) -- A nice bit of work from Frankenheimer, about disaffected and drifting former spies in post-Cold War Europe. Alternately action-packed and tense and moody, it keeps you engaged. And it's nice to see DeNiro playing someone who is not in the Mafia…though he's still not a choir boy here.
The Rookie (+) -- It starts off a bit strange and disjointed, and it gets a bit schmaltzy, but it never crosses the line. Otherwise this is a fine bit of family entertainment. Posted 2/7/03.
The Royal Tenenbaums (+) -- It's an odd one; no doubt about that. But it plays its low-key humor very well, and occasionally achieves moments of outright hilarity. Give it time to do its work and you'll be rewarded. Posted 3/5/03.
Rush (+) -- Impressive, if a little predictable. Well, of course it’s predictable; the story is based on events that actually happened, in a very well-documented way, back in the ‘70s. Then again, most folks around here don’t follow Formula 1, have not heard of James Hunt nor Niki Lauda, nor know anything that happened before last week, so the story could have had much more freshness for today’s average movie viewer. Still, the viewer knows what will ultimately happen, even without historical knowledge, and that it will be wildly dramatic in the end. (Which makes sense; run-of-the-mill happenings don’t get made into movies, of course.) Nothing about this film really stands out, but ultimately you get a "more than the sum of its parts" result, enough to make this one worth a look. Posted 8/20/14.
Rush Hour (+) -- Most of Jackie Chan's career has been built around stories like this: fish-out-of-water guy finds trouble…and turns out to be the one guy you don't want to mess with. But it works here, and Chris Tucker adds plenty of life as the sidekick.
Rush Hour 2 (~) -- Chris Tucker's verve is infectious; he makes this flick worth seeing, especially if you're a fan. Meanwhile, Jackie Chan's act, though once fresh, is becoming decidedly one note.
Radio Days (~) -- Maybe this is where the downward slide started. Woody Allen's self-indulgence, which served him well early on, began to pull him down with this bit of autobiography. A nice idea--life during Allen's childhood, in the "radio days"--arrives too disjointed, too hit or miss, too erratic to be called a success. The film is better during the family sequences than the inevitable, shoehorned-in Mia Farrow storyline (back when she and he were still tight). The overall cast is excellent, the presentation is sterling and accurate to the period, but that self-indulgence--and some heavy-handed "statement" scenes--do just enough to pull this movie down. Not awful, but not what could have been.
Rango (+) -- Yeah, OK, I can see it. I mean, there’s nothing super profound here, but you do get an entertaining animated movie that has some good laughs, fine visuals (including some nicely clever visual references), and a relatively standard though still compelling Western style story line. I’ve seen worse stuff tossed out there under the cynical, “you’ll watch anything animated” philosophy; this film rises above that. Worth a look. Posted 8/21/13.
Rat Race (+) -- It takes a few minutes to get cooking, but once it does it provides plenty of satisfying comedy. And Jon Lovitz has one of the funniest scenes that I have ever seen in a movie. Posted 12/4/02.
Ratatouille (+) -- Strange. None of the characters are particularly likeable, at least at first; much of the physical comedy is overdone; some parts of the Pixar template have become too familiar (including the usual, almost banal-at-this-point technical brilliance); and the distracting Familiar Voice Problem is present. And yet, when viewed in its totality, the movie still works better than it should. This is a film that is more than the sum of its parts, and by pulling off that trick, it earns a worthiness that otherwise would not be there. Go ahead and have this one for dinner some night. Posted 5/9/09.
Red State (+) -- So this is what Kevin Smith's now-perpetual cloud of weed smoke hath wrought--a genuinely good indie film, with surprising philosophical depth, storytelling skill, and an almost oddly sympathetic engagement with its central crazies. If this really is his penultimate film (preceding the forthcoming Hit Somebody!), one could argue Smith is going out with a bang--and maybe just when he's finally figured out this whole film-making thing. Posted 1/5/12.
The Red Violin (~) -- Fine musical performances abound. The presentation is beautiful throughout. So what's the problem? The main character is, shall we say, wooden. The only consistent presence here, start to finish, is the titular instrument. It's a fine piece of workmanship to be sure, and capable of extraordinary things in the right hands--but movie viewers connect with human beings, not objects. The characters in this film do not stick around long enough to build a relationship between persona and viewer. The collection of vignettes is artfully shown, and some may enjoy the pathos of the tale(s), but I suspect most viewers will not appreciate the lack of human connection. Posted 1/23/06.
Reign Of Fire (+) -- Surprisingly excellent action-adventure movie. Great action, interesting vision of an alternate world, compelling story and characters--even Sir Shirtless himself (McConaughy) holds his own against no less a costar than Christian Bale. Add it all up and you get an unfairly overlooked but thoroughly enjoyable movie. Take the time to find this one and appreciate. Posted 4/16/09.
Remember The Titans (+) -- A bit unimaginatively straightforward, but still an effective tale of overcoming differences. And Denzel Washington is…well, Denzel Washington--the guy's not capable of a bad performance. He alone makes this film worth viewing.
Restoration (+) -- An excellent screenplay, lavishly reproduced late-Stuart settings, and a rich cast (even in supporting roles) makes this film worth a look. And just in case you needed the reminder, here's the proof that Robert Downey Jr. is more than just a punch line; in his controlled moments, the man can really act. Posted 10/30/05.
Richard III (+) -- The film version of the updated stage production of Shakespeare's classic. Set in a vaguely fascist England, with Ian McKellan taking the title role. Bang-up and bloody…just like you expect from Richard III.
A River Runs Through It (+) -- Good story, good actors, Montana scenery. What more do you want?
The Road To Wellville (--) -- You have to make a decision, folks: am I making a comedy, or a drama? Few can pull off both at the same time. And when you don't pull it off...well, kids, don't try that at home. Also, it helps to have a story, as opposed to stories, each of which only vaguely relates to the others. Put it all together, as with this movie, and you've got quite a mess. The few truly funny moments indicate that a tighter comedy would have been a good decision. Way too late now. Posted 3/15/05.
Robin Hood (~) -- The ghost of Errol Flynn hangs heavily over this movie. It would be bad enough trying to do a standard remake of the Merry Man's adventures; a re-imagination that changes the story in significant ways asks a lot of the audience. Not that this film is bad; there's much to recommend it, including a lot of authenticity and good performances by leads Crowe and Blanchett. But even so, you walk away feeling that something is missing here. A tough call--probably worth a look, but no guarantees. Posted 7/24/11.
Rock of Ages (~) -- Everyone probably should be more upset that this movie was a bust than everyone actually is. The music herein, even at its worst, is still miles ahead of the drek that winds up hitting the charts these days; it’s a very bad sign for society at large that more people weren’t on board with this film and its homage to '80s metal. There’s also the highly entertaining pleasure of watching a really good cast frequently make fools of themselves. (Which does not include Tom Cruise; his performance is pretty amazing all the way through.) On the other hand, the movie does lose a lot of momentum about halfway through, and it never really recovers all of its early drive even at its feel-good climax. So it's about half of a really good movie--in some ways, the epitome of that so-so label. Enjoy as much of it as you can. Posted 5/3/13.
Roger Dodger (--) -- I wanted to like this movie, and the dialogue in the first twenty or so minutes crackled and sparked. But that was all of the movie I could watch, because the dumbshit director chose to shoot the whole movie in that lame-ass, faux edgy, shake the camera all over the place style. Sorry, but my DVR did not come with a pack of Dramamine. Call me when you're interested in making a movie that's doesn't look like amateurish horseshit. Posted 2/23/05.
Romeo + Juliet (~) -- The middle member of Luhrmann's "Red Curtain" trilogy (though, strangely, minus the curtain), and undoubtedly the least successful. That's not to say it's bad; given the screenwriter (Shakespeare) you can hardly go wrong. It starts working once they begin playing it somewhat straight, and by the end the power of the tale has its effect. But many of the actors seem too lightweight for their roles, and some of the overwrought touches just don't work here. Posted 3/22/03.
Ronin (+) -- A nice bit of work from Frankenheimer, about disaffected and drifting former spies in post-Cold War Europe. Alternately action-packed and tense and moody, it keeps you engaged. And it's nice to see DeNiro playing someone who is not in the Mafia…though he's still not a choir boy here.
The Rookie (+) -- It starts off a bit strange and disjointed, and it gets a bit schmaltzy, but it never crosses the line. Otherwise this is a fine bit of family entertainment. Posted 2/7/03.
The Royal Tenenbaums (+) -- It's an odd one; no doubt about that. But it plays its low-key humor very well, and occasionally achieves moments of outright hilarity. Give it time to do its work and you'll be rewarded. Posted 3/5/03.
Rush (+) -- Impressive, if a little predictable. Well, of course it’s predictable; the story is based on events that actually happened, in a very well-documented way, back in the ‘70s. Then again, most folks around here don’t follow Formula 1, have not heard of James Hunt nor Niki Lauda, nor know anything that happened before last week, so the story could have had much more freshness for today’s average movie viewer. Still, the viewer knows what will ultimately happen, even without historical knowledge, and that it will be wildly dramatic in the end. (Which makes sense; run-of-the-mill happenings don’t get made into movies, of course.) Nothing about this film really stands out, but ultimately you get a "more than the sum of its parts" result, enough to make this one worth a look. Posted 8/20/14.
Rush Hour (+) -- Most of Jackie Chan's career has been built around stories like this: fish-out-of-water guy finds trouble…and turns out to be the one guy you don't want to mess with. But it works here, and Chris Tucker adds plenty of life as the sidekick.
Rush Hour 2 (~) -- Chris Tucker's verve is infectious; he makes this flick worth seeing, especially if you're a fan. Meanwhile, Jackie Chan's act, though once fresh, is becoming decidedly one note.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
