Random Video: Happy New Year Edition!

A couple of really random videos today, but first a quick programming note:

I have just one screener left -- 'The Wrestler', which I'll post a review of by the end of the weekend. I seen a couple which I haven't reviewed -- 'What Doesn't Kill You' and 'Nothing But The Truth' (and no, I haven't kept from reviewing them out of a vendetta against movie titles with half of a famous saying in them). They were both somewhat enjoyable, and I may get around to posting reviews of them in the not-too-distant future, but won't make my year-end Top 10 list. 'The Wrestler' might.

Wait, did I say Top 10 list? You bet your goddamn ass I did. Next week, I'll roll out my lists for Top 10 Movies and Top 10 TV Shows of 2008. A nation awaits breathlessly. Or not. Let's get to the clips...

Here is a clip from some BBC documentary about nature. It's from a segment about the Lyre, a bird which mimics noises it hears -- kind of like this guy. The 1:50 mark is where it gets interesting -- the bird imitates different cameras the crew uses, and even a car alarm. It's really pretty amazing.



This next one is tres bizarre -- an Italian ad for Alfa Romeo, who apparently uses a (fake) sloth as its mascot/spokesperson. It this, the sloth goes to the beach, gets drunk, and gets his groove on at a club.



(Hat tip to Film Drunk for the videos)

Movie Review: 'Frost/Nixon'

This is the part where I act like an authority on entertainment, and criticize the work of professionals who are, without exception, more successful than I in the industry in which we both work. Some people would say this is proof I have "balls", or "chutzpah" in Jewspeak. Others would say it's proof I'm a "douchebag". To catch up on any old reviews, you can find the link on the right hand side of the page, or just click here.

Growing up, I always knew who David Frost was, but I never knew quite why. He was just someone people interviewed every once in a while on TV. And whenever anyone did, they always asked about Richard Nixon. Since I was a kid, I didn't watch long enough to find out anything more than he had interviewed Nixon once. And, somehow, through the years, I never learned much more than that. So it was with that almost total ignorance of the background of 'Frost/Nixon' that I saw the movie.

Of course, I knew Richard Nixon had been President. I knew about Watergate. "I am not a crook". The resignation. The pardon. All that jazz. But I had never seen a single clip of the Frost/Nixon interviews, nor had I seen screenwriter/playwright Peter Morgan's play of the same same name, which premiered in 2006. Morgan adapted the play for the screen, turning what what essentially a two-man production into a ensemble. Added are minor characters in each man's camp, and a framing device in the form of periodic snippets of documentary-style interviews. These elements are a bit hit-and-miss, as opposed to the rock-solid core of the film -- the two leads.

Frank Langella reprises his role as Nixon, the role which won him a Tony Award for the stage version. Langella's superb performance springs from his decision to eschew a impersonation in favor of an interpretation. Rather than mimic a literal imitation of Nixon' shaky jowls and outsized personal ticks, and focus more on the essence of the man. After all, Langella doesn't look like Nixon -- and he's at least four inches taller -- but he's able to nail the toxic mix of arrogance and insecurity which made Nixon such a fascinating character. And by the end, he manages to make Nixon a sympathetic figure.

Michael Sheen plays Frost, a lightweight British TV personality, who bought his way into an exclusive interview with the disgraced ex-President. Sheen also hits the mark on his subject as well, perfectly capturing Frost's pompous charm as well as the small fire inside to advance past his current station. As the film progresses, he allows that fire to burn brighter and brighter until Frost is forced to become an actual journalist, playing at the highest level, against a legendary foe. Sheen has made a habit of playing historical figures in political films written by Morgan -- previously, he played former British Prime Minister Tony Blair in both 'The Deal', 'The Queen'. Recently, he signed on to complete the Morgan/Blair Triple Crown.

Sure-handed, populist director Ron Howard allows his actors time to play off one another. There are long pauses in their dialogues, reaction shots, and a theatrical pace to their scenes together. Another director might have made it a bit more far-reaching, a bit more unique, but Howard does what he does best -- tell a straight-forward story without getting too bogged down with stylish nuance. And while this film won't wow too many people, it's far better than the mess Oliver Stone might've turned in. (What am I saying? Stone already turned in that mess.)

The second act takes on the Frost/Nixon interviews from 1977, making it its main focus, and this section is the strength of the film. Highlights include the banter between the men, the glimpses of Nixon humor, and the behind-the-scenes machinations of Team Frost as they attempt to take down Nixon on camera. Nixon's competitive nature turns the interviews into a verbal duel of the electronic age, the likes of which had never been seen. After more Americans watched the tapes than had ever seen a news program in history, it began a trend of celebrity tell-all interviews which still exist. (And which made Barbara Walters a millionaire.) It's a battle of wits, each man with a whole lot riding on the outcome, which both of them agree can have only one winner.

As Frost's inability to pin Nixon down early on raises tensions, and Nixon's competitiveness raises the stakes, the film is at its most watchable. Frost's need to dedicate himself and Nixon's self-destructive bent are both illuminating and enthralling subplots. The high point of the film for me was a late night phone call between the two late in the second act. Speaking alone, with no prying eyes or ears, both men disarmed, as it were.

The weak link in the chain is the thread which runs throughout, used to hold frame the entire story -- the present time documentary-style footage. It's a familiar crutch and doesn't really move the story forward. The supporting cast, however, is a strength. Sam Rockwell is great as James Reston, Jr., an emotional force of nature who lights that fire under Frost, pushing him to take on Nixon full bore. Oliver Platt is Bob Zelnick, another member of Team Frost. Kevin Bacon is Jack Brennan, a member of Team Nixon. Rebecca Hall is Frost's main squeeze.

'Frost/Nixon' is a solid piece of filmmaking, which offends nobody, and entertains everybody. But it's not a masterpiece. It's the Best Picture (though a nomination wouldn't surprise me. I guess you could say, I like it, but I don't like like it. For instance, I haven't been able to stop thinking about 'Benjamin Button' since I saw it, and I might want to see it again. This film, I might see again, sometime down the road on cable. 'Button' I might see in the next couple of weeks.* In other words, I might need to consider revising my scoring system as not all "HIGHLY RECOMMEND's" are created equal. As it is, it's that good -- no more, no less.

Using the age-old Hollywood scale of judgment -- HIGHLY RECOMMEND/RECOMMEND/CONSIDER/PASS (circle one) -- I rate 'Frost/Nixon':

HIGHLY RECOMMEND

* Part of this is because, like 'Frost/Nixon', I saw 'Button' on an Academy screener. And even though I have a large, widescreen TV and surround sound, I think the amazing visual wizardry of 'Button' needs to be witnessd on a big screen.

Movie Review: 'Defiance'

This is the part where I act like an authority on entertainment, and criticize the work of professionals who are, without exception, more successful than I in the industry in which we both work. Some people would say this is proof I have "balls", or "chutzpah" in Jewspeak. Others would say it's proof I'm a "douchebag". To catch up on any old reviews, you can find the link on the right hand side of the page, or just click here.

’Defiance’ just may be my JEFME film of the year. The JEFME formula relies heavily on a film’s ending and the viewer’s expectations heading in. Despite ranking it at #7 on my Top 10 list of movies I still wanted to see this year, I didn’t have particularly high hopes.

Some other movies had climbed above it, and I hadn’t heard much hype about it. I still haven’t heard much hype, but now I’m beginning to wonder why. I’m sure its subject matter has something to do with it. It is a true story about three Jewish brothers who escaped Nazi-occupied Poland into the Belarussian forest, where one joined the Russian resistance while the other two built a village in order to protect themselves from the Nazis. That’s not blockbuster material. But it’s not like ’Doubt’ is the feel-good movie of the holiday season, and I see hype for that everywhere I look.

But hype or no hype -- and JEFME or no JEFME -- I thought it was one of the 10 best movies I saw this year. Of course, now that you’ve read this, your expectations will be raised so that JEFME mojo will be working against you. And ’Defiance’ won’t be for everybody -- it’s a dark, intense drama that takes character and arc more seriously then fight scenes. The result is more ’Schindler’s List’ than ’Saving Private Ryan’.

Liev Schrieber and Daniel Craig are Zus and Tuvia Bielski, respectively. Brothers who share pain and anger, but direct it in very different ways, their dual stories -- both together and apart -- shape the story. Their stormy, competitive relationship with each other, the differing roads they choose to take following their escape from Poland, and the different, but diverging paths they take to salvation are the driving forces within the story, and their performances carry the film. Each give their characters multi-layered, complicated, vivid personas, which makes their incredible journeys that much more rewarding.

Along for the ride is younger brother Asael Bielski (Jamie Bell). He’s asked to go toe to toe with some serious talent and comes through like a champ. The brothers have all lost their parents, and soon lose more than that. They have no homes, no lives, no future. Tuvia and Asael choose to build a village and stay with the other Jews who drift in from time to time, borrowing (and stealing) food from nearby farms to survive. While the more combative Zus goes off with Russian Resistance fighters to kill Nazis for revenge.

In the camp, the Brothers Bielski fall for women but life is not easy. They are racked with famine and disease, and have to do unsettling things to survive. Not to mention the camp politics when the group swells, and food rations are scarce. The storylines are many, varied, and each delicately portrayed.

Weaving together all the threads seamlessly are co-screenwriters Clayton Frohman and Ed Zwick, who also directed. The script is adapted from the non-fiction book ’Defiance: the Bielski Partisans’. It’s an amazing story, and I’m surprised it’s taken this long to see it told on the screen. Maybe the similar ’Schindler’s List’ stole its thunder, but this story is just as heroic, and its effects are just as far-reaching.

A heroic story carries no guarantee of good film, however, and Zwick deserves a lot credit for making sure the facts fit into a coherent, and entertaining structure. Zwick does here what he always does, telling a politically-charged story (see: 'Glory', 'Blood Diamond', etc) in a straight-forward, matter of fact, Ron Howard-like way -- short of style, long on substance.

Judging by the aforementioned lack of hype, I guess Zwick and company's efforts will go largely un-rewarded this awards season (its only Golden Globes nomination was for Original Score), but it’s one of the better films of December -- the prestige opening period in Hollywood.

Using the age-old Hollywood scale of judgment -- HIGHLY RECOMMEND/RECOMMEND/CONSIDER/PASS (circle one) -- I rate 'Defiance':

RECOMMEND

Movie Review: 'Revolutionary Road'

This is the part where I act like an authority on entertainment, and criticize the work of professionals who are, without exception, more successful than I in the industry in which we both work. Some people would say this is proof I have "balls", or "chutzpah" in Jewspeak. Others would say it's proof I'm a "douchebag". To catch up on any old reviews, you can find the link on the right hand side of the page, or just click here.

’Revolutionary Road’ is one of those films that is almost too perfect to miss. Emphasis on the “almost”. The film is adapted from an acclaimed and beloved novel by Richard Yates. It is directed by one of the better directors around, in Sam Mendes. And it stars two of the very best actors going -- Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet (Mendes’ real-life wife). But that pedigree only gets you so far -- specifically, in the door to the theater.

Once the lights go out, all we have is what’s on film. And even if it looks beautiful, and is exquisitely acted -- and this film is all that -- you need to care about the characters on-screen and their predicaments. And that’s where this elegant film falls woefully short. No matter how much life DiCaprio and Winslet try to pump into their characters -- Frank and April Wheeler, Connecticut suburbanites in the 1950’s -- I couldn’t bring myself to care. Much of the blame for that must fall on the shoulders of Justin Haythe, a novelist-turned-screenwriter whose only other credit was 2004’s ’The Clearing’.

The major problem with the structure of the story announces itself almost immediately. After a brief opening scene in which Frank and April meet and share small talk at a party, we are suddenly thrust forward, years into their marriage. Because of this, all the themes the film will go on to explore -- the dreams and desires which the Wheelers subverted in favor of marriage, family, and safety -- fall flat. We never see the moments that led to these decisions, these compromises, these transactions. If I had seen the metamorphosis these people made from youthful dreamers to middle-age parents, I might feel more for those lost dreams. Instead, they’re like that couple at the party who can’t stop bickering -- you just wish they’d shut up.

I never read the novel, but my wife (whom I trust implicitly) has, and loved it. She claims the book spent more time on the earlier portions of Frank and April’s relationship. This might’ve given us time to grow to like them before they became so bored and unhappy -- imprisoned by the safeness of their lives. We might’ve better understood their sacrifices, and felt the impending dread of the walls lowly closing around them. Instead, I actually found myself wondering if the Academy Awards screener DVD I was watching had skipped a few scenes accidently.

It’s not like the film is so rigorously paced that they didn’t have room to include those early getting-to-know-you scenes. Much of the second act is spent watching the same fights over the same things over and over -- if anything could’ve been trimmed, it’s this. Showing a banal, suburban life is part of the story, but it also gets a little, well, banal. I’m sure the novel was quite good -- for the same reason the film isn’t -- because so much of what makes the story go takes place between the characters ears. Thoughts, feelings and unconscious are the realm of literature, action is the realm of film.

In that regard, this film is sorely lacking. The characters often talk about their plans, their feelings, their desires, but they rarely act on them. Maybe that’s the point -- save for some sexual dalliances here and there. But unlike the subject of the famous line by Henry David Thoreau, their lives may be desperate, but they’re not at all silent. It’s hard to like people when they’re too busy whining about how unhappy they are.

That’s not to say this film is not filled with both a fascinating portrait of a specific time and place, and also a painfully realistic view of the bittersweet institution of marriage. But one can find a better portrait of 50’s-type culture in AMC’s ’Mad Men’ (I know, technically, it’s the early 60’s). Here, the time period is used more as a curiosity than a meaningful backdrop. And a more realistic portrait of marriage at my house, so why go to the movies? I guess the answer to that would be “To see Leo and Kate, stupid!”

The two stars, reunited for the first time since their smashing, record-setting first go-around in ’Titanic’ in 1997, hold up their end. DiCaprio’s Frank is a frustrated dreamer, too big for his little job, but to addicted to comfort and safety to toss it aside. Winslet’s April, on the other hand, is only too ready to toss all the constraints of suburban life -- nevermind the fact they have two children and another on the way. The story takes us into all the dark corners of the “settled down” life, with its stupid bosses, nosy neighbors, and painted on smiles. It leads us to a conclusion that is once heartbreaking yet predictable, dramatic yet antiseptic.

But sometimes the greatest sign a movie doesn’t work is the jarring aspect of the parts which do. In ’Revolutionary Road’, there’s a small subplot involving the Wheelers’ neighbor and real estate agent, Helen (Kathy Bates), and her family which is more compelling than anything between Leo and Kate. Michael Shannon’s performance as Helen’s troubled son John threatens to steal the film, and a late scene between Helen and her husband is the most telling in the film.

As a study of its subject, ’Revolutionary Road’ is fine -- like a painting of a bowl of fruit that nails all the shades and shapes just right. But as an involving, entertaining story, it’s not much better than that same painting. In this way it’s like ’Doubt’, though that film is better -- it had more vivid characters, better dialogue, and a more relatable, better fleshed-out storyline. This has the same great acting, fantastic set design and costumes, and little else. For some, that may be enough. Others will get about halfway through before feeling much like the Wheelers -- trapped in the middle of something we’re not sure we want to carry through with any longer.

Using the age-old Hollywood scale of judgment -- HIGHLY RECOMMEND/RECOMMEND/CONSIDER/PASS (circle one) -- I rate 'Revolutionary Road':

CONSIDER

BREAKING NEWS: GIANTS SIGN RANDY JOHNSON

The Giants just got a whole lot uglier. They also now have three Cy Young winners in their starting rotation (the last team to boast that was the 2002 Atlanta Braves, with John Smoltz, Tom Glavine, and Greg Maddux).

That's right, the Giants have signed Bay Area native and future Hall of Famer, Randy Johnson. The five-time Cy Young Award winner has 295 victories, so if he can stay at all healthy next year, he should rack up his 300th in in a Giants uniform, and has a shot at 5,000 K's (His 4,789 strikeouts are second most in history to Nolan Ryan).

According to the San Jose Mercury News' Andrew Baggarly, it's a one-year contract worth a base salary of $8 million, with incentives with could add another $5 million. Not bad for a guy who went 11-10 with a 3.91 ERA in 30 starts last year with the D-Bags (2.41 after the All-Star break). He also had some good-looking peripheral stats -- 3.93 K/BB, 8.46 K/9 (6th in NL). So far, The McCoven generally seem pleased, with a only a few of the "OMG! He's 45! Sabean raids AARP again!" variety.

The Giants aren't exactly building their 2009 squad like they're re-building. It's more like they're trying to ad the final pieces to a championship puzzle -- a couple of experienced bullpen arms in Bob Howry and Jeremy Affeldt, An aging SS in Edgar Renteria, and an ancient SP in Randy Johnson. But none of those players are signed for more than two years, and none for as much as $10 million in any season. Sure, it would've been nice to have Teixeira, but that kind of money -- along with the growing albatross that is The Barry Zito Contract -- could've hamstrung the team for years if it didn't work out. And if they happen to over-perform, then all the better.

These lesser deals, while they may be lipstick on a pig -- or worse -- should not affect the team's long-term development. In other words: So far, so good. But Sabean did say recently that a deal for Johnson could open up the door for a trade of Jonathan Sanchez for a bat. If the bat is young, quality, plays a corner infield position, and has a reasonable contract, then so be it. If he ends up panicking that the offense may suck, and unloads Sanchez for a Jorge Cantu-like stopgap, then I will be greatly displeased.

In the meantime, though, I'll maintain my (slightly) improved opinion of Sabean. And the thought of this rotation makes me feel very excited:

Lincecum
Johnson
Cain
Sanchez
Zito

That's the NL leader in K's followed by #13, #8, and #22. < cough >Then Barry Zito< /cough > Again, my excitement is tempered by the possibility of a trade -- and because I'm afraid Bruce "Old School" Bochy will look at that list and see Zito as the #2 starter. But until then -- or another move the D-Bags or Dodgers -- the Giants have the best rotation in the NL West. And that makes me feel very much like this:

Detour

I'll get back to the movie reviews shortly, but until then, check out my lastest 'Any Given Friday' post over at Niners Nation. I break down all the pivotal games -- and non-pivotal games (Hello, Cincy/KC!) -- in this, the last weekend of the NFL regular season, using some observations, some analysis, and a whole lot of forced attempts at humor (or "humour" as the Brits say).

If you don't read my column, you're bound to get your picks wrong and lose money, and then Cincinnati Pete is going to have to take one of your thumbs to make an example of you. Even worse, you'll have your ignorance revealed publicly on Sunday, embarrassing you in front of all your friends from the sports bar. Do don't really want that, do you?

Random Video: Merry Christmas Version!

I'm still stuffed from Christmas dinner -- crab cakes, stuffing, artichoke-spinach-cheese dip. I swear, I'm never eating again. So I'm in no mood to write. I am, however, in the mood to post video clips of the openings to some of the cheesey short-lived 80's TV shows I watched as a kid. Like 'The Phoenix':



I was really into that one. But when I first learned about this show (from the TV Guide Fall Preview Edition), I was as excited as a 12 year old nerd can be. Even then, at that tender, young age, when I finally saw it, I immediately knew that 'Manimal'was not all I had hoped it would be:



This next one, on the other hand, was one of my very favorite shows as a kid:



Another favorite (I had a crush on the girl, Amy Steele):



Another disappointment, 'Misfits of Science' followed 'Miami Vice' so I was sure it would be good. It wasn't -- as you can probably tell from the opening (with Courtney Cox):



Finally, the worst of them all -- 'Automan':



One last link: I saw this very funny piece by this guy on Kurt Sutter's blog, SutterInk (linked on the side).

Merry Christmas. Don't say I never gave you nuthin'.