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'.

TV Review: 'Leverage'

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.

[Before we start, a quick site update: I know I said my 'Revolutionary Road' review was up next, and it is -- among my movie reviews. But first I caught up on all the back episodes of this new TNT show in the last few days, so I thought I'd throw up a review of that first. But, while I may throw up a Link Dump or some random videos over the holiday, I promise my next "real" post will be my review of 'Revolutionary Road' after Christmas. Okay, that's it -- carry on.]

’Leverage’ is about a band of ex-thieves who band together to run undercover scams to help people who can’t help themselves. Kind of like ’The Equalizer’ meets ’The A-Team’. It sounds okay on paper, but some elements seem to be out of whack.

Firstly, the backgrounds of the team. Their leader, Nathan Ford (Timothy Hutton) is not ex-CIA, but an ex-insurance investigator. I’m sure in this line of work, one could learn many different scams, and shortcuts to getting what you want, but when one old acquaintance bring up a foreign coup he was involved in, you begin to wonder if the writers understand what an insurance investigator actually does.

Also, it’s not entirely clear if (or how) the jobs they do put any money in their pockets. And if they’re doing it purely from a vigilante/charity perspective -- and must spend a ton of money pulling them off -- then should we assume they are all independently wealthy ex-thieves?

Other problems include the uneven nature of the characters, tone and acting. Timothy Hutton is great as Ford, a smart, charming weasel with a heart of gold. He brings his Oscar-winning acting talent, but a low-key approach which be-fits a show that's trying no to take itself too seriously. But the rest of his crew can’t keep up. Honestly, they're like the people left over after all the other shows got to have their pick.

Christian Kane is stiff as Elliot, a tough guy with a nerdy name. He tries to pull off the kind of raspy snarl another Christian (Bale) made famous in Batman, but unlike Bale, the cheesiness factor overcomes the toughness he projects. Both the women in the crew -- Sophie (Gina Bellman) and Parker (Beth Riesgraf) -- are asked to do quite a bit of comedy, which doesn’t fit in with the tone very well. It’s not that the women aren’t up for it -- they are -- it’s that the bits they are asked to perform involve gags so broad that they disrupt the tone of the show and take viewers out of the moment. The worst of these moments come in ’Family Guy’-type unmotivated cutaways and flashback for comedy beats which just aren’t worth all the trouble.

The best part of the crew, besides Hutton, is Aldis Hodge, the wise-talking black guy. Now, I know what you’re thinking: “Wait, the cliched ‘wise-talking black guy”? is a good thing?” Well, not really. But at least they turned him into an anti-cliche -- a computer hacker and information guy, rather than a street smart hood. But he’s still left to make quippy one-liners a la Chris Tucker.

If the comedy could be refined a little -- maybe if creators Chris Downey and John Rodgers just resigned themselves to not trying so hard -- the mixed tones of scams and comedy might work. There’s certainly enough recent history of success in this endeavor -- ’Burn Notice’ and the ’Ocean’s Eleven’ franchise come to mind. But this show isn’t there yet.

It may come in time, especially given Hutton’s good work. But first, the must find a way to raise the rest of the cast’s game to meet Hutton’s, or replace them with those who can. I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if by the end of the first season, or the beginning of the second, another more heralded actor who can match Hutton’s talent is brought in. Probably an actress, maybe an old flame.

Until then, the show is worth watching as light fare only, not to be taken very seriously. Which it seems their network, TNT, already realizes: Their ad campaign for the show includes one spot which quotes a critic who describes the show as “better than the last two ’Ocean’s Eleven’ movies. With that ad, TNT seems to be saying, “Hey, it’s not great TV or anything, but it’s not complete crap.”

I, for one, agree.

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

CONSIDER

Movie Review: 'Doubt'

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.

Doubt is a very well done film. So well done I feel bad criticizing it. But that’s exactly what I’m going to do. The film features such great performances -- by the whole cast, really -- it’s almost impossible not to like, and I did like it to some extent. But there’s a staleness to it. A stiffness not just by choice, but by an inertia of plot. An inability to expose much in terms of information, either as story, or backstory.

What there is centers around a priest, Father Brendan Flynn (Philip Seymour Hoffman), who we get the feeling is new to this catholic school. Father Flynn gives good sermon -- we find that out right away, in the opening scene. We soon learn he’s good with the boys -- maybe too good. He’s clearly taken a special interest in one young African-American boy. And Sister Aloysius Beauvier (Meryl Streep) is suspicious there may be something more to it than that. And that’s about as far as the film gets, exploring that doubt, the lengths to which her suspicions will drive her, and the repercussions, which -- without spoiling too much -- aren’t exactly earth-shattering.

Character studies don’t necessarily rely on plot, however, and the film does feature a few interesting characters, and one absolutely terrifying one -- Sister Aloysius, who hisses more than speaks, and scares the bejesus out of every boy in the school -- and most of the faculty. Her right hand (or stooge) is Sister James (a meek and mousey Amy Adams), who does her bidding, digs up information to aid her drive to know all there is to know about Father Flynn. Her fixation drives the movie, and Streep performance carries the film.

Hoffman is also great, and is Adams. So is Viola Davis, who plays the boy in question’s mother, and steals the movie with the cold realism of her opening scene. The acting is so great because they have room to just act -- there’s no driving story or subtext to get in their way. That’s why I’m sure it was a great play -- because that art form is for actors. At times, this seemed like like a movie, and more like the best acting class you could ever stumble in on.

While Streep will get all the accolades and award nominations for her role -- and deservedly so -- Hoffman has to show more range. He goes from happy and friendly to outraged, never missing a beat. We never know if he's the nice priest unfairly badgered, or the too-nice guy who's able to use that "he'd never do something like that" persona to cover his intentions. Streep is the film's star though, and her character is its most memorable element. She not only serves as the face of the movie, she might serve that position for the entire Catholic church of that era.

Of course, ’Doubt’ was an award-winning play, written by John Patrick Shanley, who adapted it for the big screen and directed it as well. This isn’t anywhere near Shanley’s first screenwriting gig -- he won an Oscar for ’Moonstruck’ in 1987, and has done all kinds of work, from critically acclaimed indies (’Five Corners’) and TV movies (’Live From Baghdad’) to literary adaptations for big budget studio films (’Alive’, ’Congo’). Shanley has directed before, but it’s not really something he can boast about. He was the guy who couldn’t make a ton of money by putting Meg Ryan and Tom hanks in a movie in the 90’s. Of course, he was the first to try -- he wrote and directed the big budget flop, ’Joe Versus The Volcano’ in 1990 (four years before Nora Ephron made the first of two huge hits with Hanks and Ryan).

As a director, Shanley does a credible job -- the film is aesthetically pleasing -- but overdoes it a bit with the dutch angles (when the camera is purposely titled at a diagonal angle). Maybe it’s to overcome the lack of action. Otherwise, he lets the actors do what they do best, which is a considerable help. As is his ability as writer to keep the audience guessing as to whether Sister Aloysius is crazy, or if she may just be on to something.

But since not much happens along the way, and the ending is anti-climactic, the writing falls a distant second to the actors. If that’s enough for you, you’ll probably love ’Doubt’, If not, steer clear.

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

CONSIDER

Next up: 'Revolutionary Road'

Detour

I'll have my review of 'Doubt'Looking for something to read until then? Good. Like football? You better, or you're probably a communist. All you other, non-commies, should go over to Niners Nation to check out my weekly Monday column wrapping up the weekend's games in the NFL, 'After Further Review...'. It's chock full (I 'll be honest, I don't know what that means) of stories, stats and other knowledge you can use to impress your friends.

Movie Review: 'Vicky Cristina Barcelona'

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.

Woody Allen has long been obsessed with death, so it’s a bit surprising that it took him until now to make a truly, and honestly sexual film in ’Vicky Cristina Barcelona’. It’s not forced, it’s not creepy, it’s just real. And real sexy.

Maybe it’s an easier task, to properly sexify a film when you have the kind of talent -- and I do mean talent -- Allen has to work with here. Scarlett Johnasson and Penelope Cruz rank among the sexiest women working in film today, so having them in sex scenes with a man is compelling, and having them in a sex scene with each other is downright miraculous. But it’s relative unknown Rebecca Hall who steals the film -- both in term of acting, and sex appeal.

Hall plays Vicky, an uptight young woman engaged to Doug, an uptight young man. She wouldn’t look so sexually repressed if she weren’t paired with best friend, Cristina (Johansson), a voluptuous sexpot (does Johansson ever play anything else?). The two nubile young ladies travel to Barcelona for a summer adventure.

And lest you think there’s nothing out there for the (non-lesbian) women, Javier Bardem plays Juan Antonio, a Spanish artist with animal magnetism and arrogance to spare. He sweeps both women off their feet to various degrees. Cristina is after him right away -- befitting her unpretentious hedonism and thirst for life’s experiences. Vicky is slower to admit her feelings -- befitting her repressed sexuality and cautious demeanor.

Throwing another wrench into the works is Maria Elena (Cruz), Juan Antonio’s fiery artist ex-wife, who we learn early on has attacked him with a knife. They hate each other, but motivate and inspire each other’s art. The fire and ice relationship between them is one of the highlights of the film due to Bardem and Cruz’s fine performances. Bardem is always this good, so it's no surprise to see him nominated for a Golden Globe for Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture - Comedy or Musical. But Cruz snagged a Golden Globe nomination herself -- for Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role -- because this role suits her particularly well. Watching them together, I couldn’t help but be reminded of painful, dysfunctional relationships in my past -- as well the passion which caused them to last as long as they did. It's a vivid portrayal.

Speaking of Bardem, it’s great to see more manly central male figures in Allen’s work, rather than Allen himself, or one of the many thinly-veiled versions of him he's used for years. Bardem's Juan Antonio couldn’t be more different -- bold, decisive, unfettered by neuroses. There is an uptight neurotic man in the film, Doug, who represents the polar opposite of Juan Antonio. Doug is safe and logical, Juan Antonio is dangerous and emotional. It’s battle for Vicky’s heart, waged between rational mind and raging id.

Vicky prefers safe and real -- or thinks she does -- then reaches out unconsciously for excitement. Cristina openly pursues excitement, then backs away when it’s not real enough. These women represent all women -- all people, really -- constantly deciding exactly where that risk/reward meter is in most balance with what’s in our soul. And how much that meter can swing one way or the other when you're young.

Johnasson is great playing a familiar role, but Hall is a revelation -- simultaneously sexy and prudish, like the librarian from your dreams. She's already gotten a Golden Globe nomination for Best Performance by an Actress, and if she's doesn't recieve more acclaim and larger roles in the future I’d be very surprised -- and disappointed.

This isn't a perfect movie by any means. While this is Allen’s best work in quite awhile -- much fresher and more vibrant -- he's not re-inventing the wheel here. 'Vicky Cristina Barcelona' is another Allen film featuring overlapping storylines involving sexual indiscretions, and never rises above the usual Allen navel-gazing He even employs a narrator to keep us updated on each characters innermost thoughts and feelings. But I love this combination he mixed up, and hope this is a sign of new direction rather than a hit among misses.

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

RECOMMEND

Next up: 'Doubt'

Detour

I should have my review for 'Vicky Cristina Barcelona' up shortly, but until then, surf on over to Niners Nation and check out 'Any Given Friday', my weekly column previewing the the NFL games on tap this weekend.

Movie Review: 'Gran Torino'

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.

When I first saw the trailers for ’Gran Torino’, with Eastwood sneering, and pointing a gun, and growling “Get off my lawn” at some kids, I thought, “It’s ‘Dirty Harry 6: Grumpy Old Man’.” But after seeing the actual film, it’s clear his character, Walt Kowalkski, is much closer to William Munney in ’Unforgiven’ than anything else he’s done.

Walt, a retired car factory worker, is a bitter old man who’s seen too much, done things he bitterly regrets, and has resorted to hiding behind a gruff, grumpy, bigoted shell. He’s shut out his kids, his grandkids, everyone around him -- save for a drinking buddies he trades racist jokes with. His neighborhood has become filled with Hmong immigrants from Vietnam, and keeps mainly to himself.

But when Walt loses his wife, there’s a huge void in his life, and that opening dovetails with a couple of incidents with his Hmong next door neighbors, the Lors. First, Walt catches their teenage son Thao Lor (Bee Vang) trying to steal his prized possession, the titular Ford classic (which just happens to be the same model Dirty Harry used to drive). Next, he’s awoken by Thao and family’s struggle with a local Hmong gang trying to recruit him. Both feature Walt pointing a gun at the kids, but before long, he’s taken a liking to Thao and his sister, Sue (Ahney Her). He doesn’t say this, mind you -- that would be too sappy for crusty old Walt. He’s still calling them offensive things like “gook” and ”slope”, but you can see his attitude change.

What occurs in the second act is predictable -- a feel-good story of acceptance, redemption, and humanity. But Eastwood’s portrayal of Walt -- more than his technique -- lifts up the material. In fact, it’s Eastwood the director who seems to be a touch off his game here, with a couple of awkward scenes which seem overly staged. That may have something to do with the fact he used novices Vang and Her to play the two major parts besides his. More than anything, it seems Eastwood -- known for using just one take -- shot this movie in about two weeks.

But that’s not to say the film isn’t engaging. It is. And the story, while quite predictable, is easy to like. The screenwriter, novice Nick Schenk, lives in Minnesota and wrote about the world around him, so it’s no surprise it comes off as genuine. Schenk, a writer for wrestling shows, wrote the whole screenplay in a neighborhood bar before getting it to a friend in Hollywood. The script eventually made its way to Eastwood, who decided to make it without changing a word.

Because Eastwood is willing to do that -- leave things as is, without multiple re-writes and takes -- the film comes off as low maintenance, never overdone. The kids come off as real -- not “movie kids” -- and Walt’s arc seems organic and sub-textual. In short, the film never feels like an after-school special, though its message would fit there nicely (it's language would not). It’s got plenty of heart without manipulating your emotions, or trying to hard. With one exception: Eastwood’s growling -- literally growling -- to show Walt’s displeasure goes a little over the top for my tastes.

The third act is less predictable than the second, and the climax is a jarring, if not completely unexpected jolt. It’s not going to be for everybody, and I’m not sure it was 100% for me when I first saw it. But upon further reflection, I think the resolution is apt, and earned -- even foreshadowed if you think about it hard enough. The ending is sweet, but not saccharine. However, the last seconds are a bit uncomfortable as Eastwood's singing voice makes its first appearance, belting out the film's theme song. It's not that Eastwood can't hack it, I just felt it a little out of place. Perhaps, if the film was already over and the credits rolling, it might have seemed less like breaking the fourth wall to have the film's lead singing the theme song.

Small flaws aside, ’Gran Torino’ is an unexpected pleasure, a simple, touching story about the battle for one man’s soul. It isn’t popcorn cinema, nor is it an art film, but it has a little for everybody. That being said, I think there are just enough minor flaws -- a bit heavy-handed, a bit predictable, a bit stilted at times -- to keep it out of the Oscar race.

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

RECOMMEND

Next up: 'Vicky Cristina Barcelona'

Movie Review: 'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'

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.

'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button' is old school, big cinema storytelling coupled with cutting edge technology. Thematically, it's David Fincher's take on 'Forrest Gump' -- a typically darker, more haunting tale, replacing the lightness and innocence of 'Gump' with the mystical brooding of this (almost) modern day fairy tale. The two films have the same screenwriter, Eric Roth, both mine Southern culture of the past for its background, and have their protagonists bump up against history now and again. But the similarities end there -- while 'Gump' delivers plenty of joy and laughs as it meditates on the subjects of fate and destiny, 'Button' is less whimsical and more haunting while delving into the mysteries of life and death.

Roth adapted the screenplay from a short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald, which chronicles, well, the curious case of Benjamin Button (Brad Pitt), a man who ages backwards. But Roth uses only the major conceit of the original story, crafting entirely new details to frame Button's life. In Fitzgerald's tale, Button is born as a 70-year old in 1860 Baltimore, raised by his father, grows up (down?) to have children of his own, and eventually, as an old man, attends Kindergarten with his own grandson.

In Roth's take (Robin Swicord shares "screen story by" credit), Benjamin is born in New Orleans on the night World War I ends, essentially, in the body of an old man. He's small like a baby, and cries like a baby, but is wrinkled, and gray. His mother dies in child-birth and his father, panicked at seeing his freakish son, dumps him on a random doorstep. Coincidentally (or ironically if you're feeling liberal), it's the doorstep of an old folks home, where he's taken in by Queenie (Taraji P. Henson), a live-in employee at the home, whose whole life is spent caring for those who can't care for themselves anymore. Queenie takes the child to a doctor, who reveals he has all the typical ailments of an old man, and likely only has a short time to live. Queenie pledges to make Benjamin's remaining time as comfortable as possible, and raises the boy as her own.

It quickly becomes apparent the child is aging backward -- becoming stronger, growing hair, etc. -- as he grows. He meets the love of his life -- Daisy (Elle Fanning) -- as a child, but looks like an old man. (It's as creepy as it sounds.) He has the joy, the curiosity, even the sexual appetites, 0f a younger man, but the world sees him as an old man. When he must reassure a tugboat captain (Jared Harris) that he has the strength to do the work of a deck hand in order to land his first job, "Captain Mike" takes pity on what he thinks is a man past his prime. Really, Benjamin's adventures are just beginning. The boat takes him around the world, introduces him to sex, and alcohol, and different cultures, and even into battle in World War II. The adventures we follow him on are somewhat episodic, but they are eminently watchable.

The film is all Fincher -- visually sleek and smooth, using special effects to great benefit (especially in the odd aging -- or is that de-aging? -- of Benjamin), but not overly concerned with warmth. His cinematography and sense of style is stellar as always, the set design and costumes (especially in New Orleans) is just superb. Fincher et al creates a colorful world, and allows Benjamin to explore it. He's not the most proactive protagonist, but you still root for him to overcome his "unusual circumstances". You can't take your eyes off the screen, and anticipate the next stage of Benjamin's life with wonder, but I don't know that you feel as much as you could. Living up to his reputation, he tells an amazing story, and he does it in an extremely artful way, but he keeps his subjects at arm's length. But it's not so much a failing as a choice. I didn't mind it -- I love Fincher's style, much in same way I love Michael Mann's -- but one does wonder what a more emotionally evocative director might have done it (a Ron Howard or Clint Eastwood probably would've had more people crying at the end). But the film is still involving, even moving.

Pitt is very good here in a tremendously hard role to play. He's not just playing someone at all ages of their life, but having to play different internal and external ages simultaneously. As an adventurous, wide-eyed boy on the inside, Benjamin's stuck in an elderly man's body, complete with arthrytis, bad posture, etc. Pitt does a great job mixing the creaky unease of old age with the wonder of youth. Fincher and his team of special effects people are able to use Pitt's heavily made-up face on a small, shriveled-up body, and keep it looking real. the film's budget was reportedly in the $150 million range, and it shows.

Blanchett is great as the grown up Daisy, Pitt's star-crossed lover -- the Jenny to his Forrest -- though her performance as the elderly Daisy during the framing device used to tell Benjamin's story seems a bit forced (more on that in a moment). They're nearly the same age, but look to be polar opposites. But as time goes on, they meet physically, going in opposite directions, then pass right by. A relationship is hard to pull off when half your life one of you appears to others to be in a pedophile. Some of the lesser names in the cast also give standout performances. Henson, who was amazing in 'Hustle & Flow', is great as Queenie -- all love and sweetness. Harris brings a memorable joy and saltiness to Captain Mike, who steals much of the second act. And Tilda Swinton shows a (slightly) softer side as a love interest of Benjamin's.

About that framing device: I've grown a bit weary of the old person telling the story of their life as they lay dying bit, so I was a little disappointed to see that used here. And the tacked-on feeling of Julia Ormond's character in those scenes didn't help. But I felt it was redeemed a bit by the twist used to bring that scene into the context of history -- others may feel this twist is either patronizing, exploitative, and/or predictable, but I felt it added a beautifully melancholy button (please forgive the pun) to this beautifully melancholy film.

'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button' is, if not a masterpiece, certainly an epic success -- it takes on life and death, and family, and adventure, and love, and touches your mind if not your heart. Its awe-inspiring look and masterful performances make it an odds-on bet for Oscar nominations, if not wins. Fincher, Roth, Pitt and Henson could all be up for awards. The more interesting question -- at least to me -- is whether the film will find an audience. With Pitt starring and a simple yet wondrous premise, it certainly has a chance. But at nearly three hours, and bearing all the earmarks of a Fincher film -- most pushing it toward art over commerce -- I could see it having only modest success. In which case, it may need those Oscar nods, and accompanying publicity, to become a box office success.

Using the age-old Hollywood scale of judgment -- HIGHLY RECOMMEND/RECOMMEND/CONSIDER/PASS (circle one) -- I rate 'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button':

HIGHLY RECOMMEND

Next up: 'Gran Torino'

Rant & Link Dump

Quick detour before I get back to the movie reviews. A TV heads-up and some links:

'I SURVIVED...'

I wanted tell everybody (anybody?) out there about a great show on TV which nobody knows about. You won't see many ads for 'I Survived...'. And since it's on BIO (Channel 266 on DirecTv), you probably don't stumble onto it much. But it's good, real good. It features people who have survived unbelievably dire circumstances -- being shot in the head, or stabbed in the throat, stranded in shark-infested waters for hours on end, trapped under ice, arm caught in farm equipment, huge metal hook stuck in your throat (that was a good one). People have been kidnapped, raped, left for dead, and yet everyone on the show found some way to stay alive.

In this week's episode, there was a guy who had a female stalker pay someone to shoot him -- six times -- and after he somehow recovered, she poisoned him -- three times -- and still, there he was to tell his story to the cameras. Almost without fail, it is an amazing, inspiring hour of television. There is on occasion, however, a story so gruesome, that the payoff doesn't really make it worth the ride. Some are stories where most people involved died, limbs are sometimes lost, and in one truly unbelievable story, a woman was splashed in the face with battery acid -- on two separate occasions -- and was badly disfigured.

Even in the worst cases, though, it shows the unthinkable limits humans can go through to survive. The unbelievable resiliency of the human spirit. It's really quite a show.

LINKS

--Some dude in Jersey named his kid "Adolf Hitler" and wonders why he can't get a birthday cake with his name on it.

--John Woo is ahead of his time, but only by 11 years: The nation's first face transplant just happened.

--This story seems depressing -- because it is -- but there's one redeeming element that saves it for me: This little girl wrote a letter to Santa, and got exactly what she wanted this Christmas. In this fucked-up world we live in, sometimes you have to look pretty hard for a silver lining.

--Ever wonder what it takes to work for the CIA? Here's a primer.

Movie Review: 'Milk'

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.

I grew up in the Bay Area in the 70's and 80's, so I'm well-aware of the legend of San Francisco City Supervisor Harvey Milk, the first openly gay elected official in American history. He was revered by many in the area, and had an Oscar-winning documentary made about him, so the details of his life are well-known. You might think that would affect my viewing experience of 'Milk', the biopic detailing his life and death, but you'd be wrong. Director Gus Vant Sant and first-time screenwriter Dustin Lance Black choose to spill the beans right off the bat, opening on the aftermath of Milk's murder. He even uses the original footage (famous in the Bay Area) of then Supervisor, now Senator Diane Feinstein announcing that both Milk and Mayor George Moscone had been shot and killed.

Knowing Harvey Milk's fate, Van Sant allows us to get to know him. Using the device of Milk (Sean Penn) recording an audio tape of essentially his memoir just prior to his death, he takes us back in time eight years to find how he got here. In New York City, Milk, then a restless insurance salesman, meets and seduces Scott Smith (James Franco) on his 40th birthday. In bed after sex, he tells Smith he feels he's never done anything he'll be proud of. We know then, changes are on the way, and the film doesn't make us wait around. Moving at a brisk pace, the film follows Smith and Milk to San Francisco, where they build a life. Van Sant and Black are able to cover a lot of ground here by keeping the scenes short, and the story moving forward.

The unquestioned strength of the movie is Penn, who embodies Milk with the same ease he plays characters closer to himself (even if he's a Gay Hater). That is to say, you buy him as gay. No, he's not going the "flamer" route, waving his arms around like a maniac, but he nails a certain affect that comes off as real. And it's not just for show -- there are a couple of kisses between Penn and Franco which are as realistically sexual as any you'll see on screen. Honestly, the chemistry between these characters is better than the typical Hollywood rom-com. A later doomed romance with Jack Lira (Diego Luna) is a little less believable, but the subplots work.

Emile Hirsh is outstanding as always as Cleve Jones, a friend and assistant to Milk, and the man from whom Black learned Milk's story. Josh Brolin rounds out a fantastic ensemble as Milk's nemesis, Supervisor Dan White. White is an Irish ex-cop and fireman whose politics and prejudice has him constantly at odds with Milk. Brolin is excellent in a limited role, as he's been in the entire string of juicy roles he's been in lately ('No Country for Old Men', 'American Gangster').

The film also benefits from a little luck: Much of the second act surrounds Milk's fight against Prop 6, which would've outlawed all gay people from being teachers in California. Because of the similarity to this fall's Prop 8, which outlawed gay marriage in California, the story seems more current while also nailing the look and feel of the San Francisco of the 70's. It was a progressive time and place, a hotbed of change, a place where issues were discussed on a political level for the first time. That's why it doesn't feel tacked on or convenient when Milk embraces a message of hope and change.

Van Sant is in rare form here. It may not be among his very best work, but he's following a much more commercial friendly style than usual, which suits the material. It's more in the vein of 'Good Will Hunting' than the work which first made him famous -- 'Drugstore Cowboys', 'My own Private Idaho'. Black is a former mormon, who was inspired to come out of the closet by Milk's story. As a relative newcomer in show business, Black approached a company in Hollywood who owned the rights to the Milk biography, 'The Mayor of Castro Street', an asked to adapt it. When he was turned down, he wrote his own version without anything from the book. He did research, which lead him to Jones, who gave Black all the information he needed to form his angle.

The film's payoff is expected because of the opening reveal, yet Van Sant manages to make it climactic, but not patronizing. A curious flashback is a somewhat regrettable choice, but it's a small nit to pick. One more: The efficiency employed to catch us up on Milk's story -- aided by the periodic scenettes of Milk recording his memoir on tape -- is useful, but has its drawbacks. While we quickly learn lots of information about Milk's ups and downs in politics, we don't have much time to find out who Harvey Milk the person is. Because of this, his story is not as involving as it might have been.

We see Milk's dysfunctional relationships with boyfriends, and we see his politics, but there's not much else. Maybe that was his life -- for a driven politician, it likely was -- but we didn't have to wait to meet him until he was 40. That was an artistic choice, and one which may have cost us some context. I'm not saying we needed to see a flashback from his childhood or anything as mainstream as that, but I would've liked to see what made him who he was. Or at least what he did when he wasn't crusading or having sex. But then, you only have so much time in a movie.

On the whole, the film captured an era, a movement, and a person -- a remarkable person -- and did it in a convincing and moving fashion. But I think it falls short of Oscar territory. Penn, however, could be looking at another nomination -- if his politics don't get in the way.

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

RECOMMEND

Next up: Either 'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button' or 'Gran Torino', depending on how I feel.

TV Review: 'The Shield' -- Season Seven

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.

(Before I begin, two quick notes: 1) As I mentioned in my last post, I have seen the lion-share of the top Oscar contenders coming out this month, and will have several reviews coming right up -- as well as a year-end 10 Best list. But first, I wanted to post my long-promised review of 'The Shield'. Look for the movie reviews to begin in the next day or two -- up first: 'Milk' and 'Benjamin Button'. 2) 'After Further Review...', my recap of the weekend's action in the NFL is up now over at Niners Nation -- you can check it out here.)

The ending of my favorite shows fills me with a strange and unique sensation -- one part breathless anticipation, one part dread. On the one hand, they're finales are long-awaited treats to be enjoyed. On the other, they're like old, dear friends who I'm watching march off to the electric chair, never to be seen again. I don't want them to go, but I can't wait to watch them leave.

That's how it's been with 'The Sopranos', 'The Wire', and a dozen or so great shows before them, and that's how it was with the long-awaited season finale of 'The Shield'. And having to wait nearly 15 months from the end of Season Six to the start of the final season did nothing to change that. Really, viewers have been waiting for closure since the end of Season Five, when Shane Vendrel (Walton Goggins) killed his friend and fellow Strike Team member Curtis "Lem" Lemansky (Kenny Johnson). Season Six was supposed to be the final season, but creator Shawn Ryan found Lem's death presented too much to deal with and still effectively pay off the entire series ("Lem's death sucked all the air out of the room" was a quote I read at the time).

Ryan asked the head honchos at F/X for one more season in order to allow the entire story to play out at a less rushed pace. His request was granted, so Season Six was cut a bit short at 10 episodes. It allowed for the ending to be set up, but never got to the heart of the issue on everyone's mind: What would happen to Vic Mackey (Michael Chiklis), the leader of the Strike Team, and our hero and our villain? He had found out Shane was guilty of his friend's murder, and wanted revenge, but was hamstrung by Shane's blackmail threats and his own fight to keep his badge.

To be frank, Season Six, while more compelling than just about anything else on TV -- the scenes of Shane dealing with his guilt and suicidal thoughts were especially good -- was probably the least entertaining. While long-time fans enjoyed seeing their favorite characters put through the meat-grinder, the episodes didn't have the same action-packed whiplash-inducing pace. Much of the time is spent searching for killer we (and Shane) know they'll never find. But Season Six did what it had to -- set the stage for the final 13 episodes.

Season Seven returns the show to the top of its game. The pace is back to what its lofty standards, and the tension's at an all-time high. Not only is Vic put through his usual paces -- running around town, usually behind the department's back, trying to play one side of the other and back again, looking for any angle. And this time, he faces even tougher challenges -- threats to his life, not to mention those of his wife and children, and his last remaining partner, Ronnie. He faces threats of blackmail and worse from his former best friend, Shane. Vic is also having to watch his back not only on the street, but in the squad house, where the suspicions of his captain and long-time nemesis, Claudette Wyms (C.C.H. Pounder) are forcing his actions further below radar, all while he is told he's just days from losing his badge for good.

When the final season starts, the audience knows Shane is guilty, and so do Vic and Ronnie. But by mid-season, so does the rest of the force, and that changes everything. Soon, Shane is on the run, and Vic must choose to either aid his enemy's escape, or risk his own exposure for any number of crimes upon Shane's capture -- the murder of fellow detective Terry Crowley and the robbery of the "Armenian Money Train" chief among them.

While this plays out, the supporting characters are given the usual subplots, but not paid off if any meaningful way. This is realistic, if not completely satisfying, so I understand and respect the choice. But it would've been nice to see a bit more of a climax for the dogged Holland "Dutch" Wagenbach (Jay Karnes), one of my favorite characters. He has a small payoff, as does Wyms, and also Steve Billings (David Marciano), but others -- officers Danni Sofer (Catherine Dent) and Julien Lowe (Michael Jace) just went on about their business. But such is life -- not everyone has dramatic life moments in concert with those around them.

The big payoffs are reserved for the Strike Team. I won't reveal any spoilers here, but as Shane's escape hits any number of snags along the way, it becomes clear things can't end well for him, which seems only fair. But what about Vic, our heroic villain? Let me just say this: We know he can't get away clean, and we probably don't want him to, but some men just can't die. Especially when he's willing to do anything to stay alive. If there's one thing we've learned about Mackey, it's that he's a survivor. It's more a question of how he lives with the things he's done to stay that way.

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

HIGHLY RECOMMEND

Rituals

I'm a big fan of traditions, rituals, and anything which gives me a sense of constancy is this ever-changing world. I love to do the same things year after year, hewing as closely to the specifics of past incarnations of the same activity as possible. Today, I engaged in two of my favorite long-time rituals -- one planned and one as spontaneous as any event that happens every year can be.

The first: buying and decorating our Christmas tree. Every year around this time my wife and I drive to the same parking lot across from the Hollywood Bowl to buy our tree (that's it in the photo). because we're moving, this is probably the last year we will, so it was a little bittersweet when the lady remembered us, and wished us a Merry Christmas. Today, we decorated the tree while the lights blinked and little box attached to them played a medley Christmas Carols, as always. The TV was on in the background, as it usually is, and a program was on which I have never once planned to watch, but always have.

Year in, year out, I consistently find myself on the couch in front of the TV on a Saturday this time of year, searching for some decent sports to watch after college football has started its pre-bowl hiatus, and I always seem to find the same thing: The Ironman Triathalon. It never fails to suck me in, and make me care about its participants. There are always a string of inspiring backstories, each more heartrending than the last. It's a wonderful thing when you care less about who wins, and more about who can simply finish. There are no losers in this sport, just admirable competitors overcoming long -- sometime unbelievable -- odds. My favorites this year included a paraplegic former-motocross kicker, a 72-year old lady, and a one-legged man. That's the kind of drama, loving narrated by the underrated Al Trautwig, that brings a mist to the eyes.

Speaking of inspiring and misty eyes, I stumbled across Jim Valvano's legendary speech at the first ESPY's when receiving the Arthur Ashe Courage Award, and announcing the start of the Jimmy V Foundation for cancer research. It's something I try to watch once a year or so, usually around the holidays. It never fails to move me, and forces me to -- if just momentarily -- appreciate what I have rather than take it for granted.



I've made it to the theater a couple of times this week, and also got my hands on some Academy screener DVD's, so in the next week or two you can expect reviews of the following: 'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button', 'Milk', 'Gran Torino', 'Doubt', 'Vicky Cristina Barcelona, and more.

Detour

You can check out my weekly NFL preview column, 'Any Given Friday', over at Niners Nation here. That's all I have to say about that.

Page 114 of 'Shawshank Redemption'

As promised yesterday, here is the final page of the draft of 'Shawshank Redemption' I have -- courtesy of the good folks at CAA by way of a friend who used to be a tortured assistant over there:*

THE BUS

ROARS past camera, dwindling to a mere speck on the horizon.

RED (V.O.)
I hope I can make it across the
border. I hope to see my friend
and shake his hand. I hope the
Pacific is as blue as it has been
in my dreams.
(beat)
I hope.

EXT. - BEACH - WIDE PANORAMIC SHOT - DAY

A distant boat lies on its side in the sand like an old wreck that's been left to rot in the sun. there's someone out there.

EXT - BOAT - DAY

A MAN is meticulously stripping the old paint and varnish by hand, face hidden with goggles and kershief mask.

Red appears in the background, a distant figure walking out across the sand, wearing his cheap suit and carrying his cheap bag. He's holding something in his mouth. Then we hear it: a FAINT HARMONICA SOUND on the breeze.

The man stops sanding, listens. Did he imagine it? There it is again. He turns slowly around. Red arrives, finishes the song with a flourish. He lowers the harmonica with a little grin of embarrassment.

RED
Been a while.

The other man nods. He raises his goggles and pulls down his mask. Andy, of course. He smiles.

ANDY
You look like a man who knows how
to get things.

Pause. Red smiles back.

RED
I'm known to locate certain things
from time to time.

Red shrugs off his jacket and wordlessly picks up a sander. Together, they start sanding the hull as we

FADE OUT

THE END

As you see, it's fine, if a bit pat and Hollywood -- slick and uncomplicated. I think Darabont made a great decision to trim off the last bit -- paying off (or at least trying to) the original lines between the characters by repeating them. But it's easy, too easy. It's connotes a shallow, somewhat lighthearted relationship between the two men, when really they had so much more. This pat ending would've cheapened the emotional debt they were paying off simply by having the two reunite. So, that's what Darabont did: simply had them meet -- wordlessly, as we drift away, too far to hear or see the details, as if they were too intimate for our prying eyes. In that way, it's a bit like the final, unheard line in 'Lost in Translation' -- we don't hear it because it's just between them.

* My HTML knowledge is linited enough that I can't do the formating any better than this.

Random Video & Rant: Happy Endings

I thought I'd post clips from two of my favorite movies. Which just happen to have two of the best endings I know of. Coincidence? Not if remember Josh's Equation For Movie Enjoyment (or JEFME):

(Movie Quality + Ending) / Expectation = Enjoyment

When I previously talked about the equation in this post, it was in the context of how expectations color judgment, but endings are huge. As you can see in the equation, I rate a movie's ending as carrying equal weight to the overall quality. Part of that is because no A movie could ever have an F ending, just as no F movie could have an A ending.

But part of that is the fact I feel the lasting taste in a viewer's mouth is crucial to the moviegoing experience. If you've seen what could've been an A movie turn into a B because of a D ending, you're enjoyment is not a B. It's a C (depending on expectations) because although you just saw a B movie, your deflation at what might have been drags your enjoyment level down a notch.

And that's why it's no surprise two of all-time favorite -- arguably my top two -- are movies with terrific endings. It not only fits JEFME, it's the basis for it. I usually say 'The Shawshank Redemption' over 'Seven' when asked about my favorite movie because the moviegoing experience I had seeing it the first time was the best I've ever had. 'Seven' comes in a close second. The difference? Expectations, of course. The movies came out with a year of each other, but I saw them with completely different mentalities.

I saw 'Shawshank' upon it's re-release in 1995 after being nominated for an Oscar for 1994 (I'd been so lukewarm about it, I'd never even considered seeing it the first time around). It was a Sunday night, I was depressed, and had no expectations at all. For 'Seven', I'd waited for it for it for weeks, and saw it on opening day in the afternoon. I had tremendous expectations. They both were great, but the fact that 'Shawshank' surprised me as well as touched me, and inspired me when I needed it, makes the idea of it just a notch above 'Seven', which wowed me, but also depressed me, and left me feeling like I'd been punched in the gut. A great experience, no doubt, but still a slightly less positive and uplifting experience.

So, after all that blathering, here they are the ending of both movies. On more similarity between them: Morgan Freeman playing the second lead, and narrator, and speaking both film's magical lines -- in one heartening and hopeful, in the other heartbreaking and haunting. First 'Shawshank':



"I hope to make it across the border, I hope to see my friend and shake his hand, I hope the pacific is as blue as it's been in my dreams. I hope." That says it all man, maybe my favorite final line of all time.* If not, it might be this one...



"Ernest Hemingway once wrote 'The world is a fine place and worth fighting for'. I agree with the second part." Poetry. It helps when you have Morgan Freeman elegantly uttering your words, but you've got to tip your hat to Frank Darabont and Stephen King for the amazing words in 'Shawshank' and Andrew Kevin Walker for the stunning work in 'Seven'.**


* Most people don't know this, but the script actually has a lot more dialogue after that line -- there was a whole scene between Andy and Red on the beach written. I know because I have a copy of the script. The scene was a good cut. So good I doubt they even shot it that way for safety (especially because it didn't involve that helicopter shot in the final cut. I was planning on writing something about this someday and posting that never used last scene. Now that I've mentioned it, I'll probably just throw that up as a short post tomorrow. That should give you a reason to get out of bed in the morning.

** I also have a script for this with a different ending, but it's more complicated -- a totally different feel to the work, with Morgan freeman's character ending up in the hospital. Long story.

Link Dump

I'm still working for a living (at least for a couple more days) and I need my beauty/sanity sleep, so I'll keep it brief. I'm just going to dump a couple of links of interest and get off to bed:

First, I think this is funny, even though it's supposed to be serious, and I actually agree with the cause. I guess I just don't see the point of it. And I laugh every time I imagine someone actually doing it -- going through the act of making the actual call to work.

This, on the other hand, is meant to be funny. Mission accomplished.

Lastly, the Digital Shorts are the best thing on SNL, and the clip below was probably the highlight of this weekend's show:



The shorts are made by The Lonely Island -- comprised of Akiva Schaffer, Jorma Taccone, and Andy Samberg. They have dabbled in music before:

Working for a Living

I know I promised a review of 'The Shield's' final season this week, but it'll have to wait, as other responsibilities have intervened. My writing always takes priority, so that's no surprise. And there's my columns on Niners Nation. And my wife. But this week, suddenly, I also find myself working a real job. That's right-- me, in an office, sitting behind a desk, working a phone and computer and goofing off on the internet like a real, live office monkey. And in this case, I think a monkey really could do it.

I'm calling stores all over the country which sell CD's to see how many copies they have in stock of James Taylor's new album, 'Covers'. In the last two days alone, I called every Circuit City in the US. Every single one. At each, speaking with someone to ask that they find out not only if they have the album, but exactly how many copies. I'm sure you can imagine just how excited they are to go and fetch that information right up for me. At the end of the day, I had to switch to Wall Mart, and going alphabetically

The thing you don't realize -- at least, not after about 10 years between office gigs -- is that it still takes a lot out of you. The getting up early, all the coffee you have to guzzle to get you up and running, the commute, the having to deal with people with all its having to be polite banality. By the time you drive home, you just want to pour and drink, tune out for some TV and crash. It's tough, and it keeps me from things which I'd rather do, but I can't afford to turn down a paycheck. Besides, it's only five days with a weekend in between. Although it almost wasn't -- because the project was running behind, I was asked to come in Saturday and Sunday. I got out of it, but for a minute there it felt like this:



Writing is hard after a day like that is no picnic, but I was able to do it last night working on the script with Barry a bit by Skype.* But tonight I need to chill, and this weekend will be devoted to more screenwriting, and whole mess of football. This Saturday is the best day in the college football season in my mind. Partly because New Year's Day is not what it was -- all the best bowl games spread across the next few days -- and partly because of the advent of the Conference Championship Game, Here's my take on the big games:

SEC CHAMPIONSHIP: ALABAMA vs. FLORIDA

Florida is the best team here, but I'm not sure Saban isn't the best coach in the game. This rematch of the original SEC Championship Game (in 1992, when the teams were coached by Gene Stallings and Steve Spurrier) has all the makings of an all-time classic. The winner makes the National Championship Game, and I think when the stakes are that high, you go with the best player on the field -- especially when he plays QB/RB/Head Cheerleader. That man is Tebow. The pick is Florida.

BIG 12 CHAMPIONSHIP: OKLAHOMA vs. MISSOURI

Even though they don't deserve to even be here due to their loss to Texas, I think OU is the best team in the land right now. But this game has had its fair share of big upsets, mostly knocking teams out of the championship hunt -- Texas/Nebraska in the inaugural, Kansas State/Texas A&M, OU/Kansas State -- so nothing can be taken for granted. Especially given the weather forecast for Kansas City: 20's for most of the game, possibly dropping into the teens. That could slow down OU's high-flying O, but it's do the same for Mizzou. The pick: Sooners

That makes it a Florida/Oklahoma title game, and that would be one interesting game.

I'm also working Monday through Wednesday, so I'm not sure how much I get up between now and then, but you can expect a few more reviews after that -- besides 'The Shield', I'm seeing 'Milk' at a screening next week, and plan to see 'Frost/Nixon' by the end of the week.