The 822 Writing Company

Sunday Breakfast with Pauly: Bacon Chocolate Chip Cornmeal Packages with Blueberry Syrup

2010-04-11T15:40:00.003-04:00

Recently, while visiting Chris in Philly, we went to a brunch establishment called Day by Day that offered a wholewheat cornmeal waffle. Chris ordered it, I had a bite and enjoyed the texture and flavor that the cornmeal brought to the dish. So I decided to attempt my own recipe this morning.

After looking round the interwebs for a recipe, I decided to wing it. Here's what I came up with:

Pancakes:
1 cup flour
3/4 cup cornmeal
4 strips bacon
1/2 cup chocolate chips
3/4 cup milk
1 egg
1 teaspoon oil
1 teaspoon baking soda
1 teaspoon baking powder
3 tablespoons sugar

Syrup:
1/2 cup orange juice
1/2 cup blueberries
1/4 cup sugar

Start off by cooking the bacon to whatever your preferred level of crispness is. While the bacon is cooking, mix the other ingredients for the pancakes, incorporating the bacon after its been cooked and broken up. While your pan is heating up for the pancakes, get your blueberry syrup going. Put all the ingredients in a small pan, cooking on medium heat, and mashing up the blueberries as you go. I'm not going to instruct anyone on how to cook pancakes, as I believe its fairly self evident. Once you're done, top with the warm blueberry syrup and enjoy. Should serve 1-2 people.

Irish Soda Bread French Toast

2010-03-15T17:48:00.004-04:00

Or how I took one step closer to world unity.

I was trying to figure out what to make for breakfast Sunday morning, and was about to make some scrambled eggs. I asked my wife, Chrystal, if she would like some too, but she said "No, I'm just going to toast some Irish soda bread."

"We have Irish Soda Bread?"

"Yeah, I got it from work. I told them you'd probably want to make something like Irish soda bread French toast."

That is exactly what I wanted to do and I did it.

The recipe was simple enough. I started out with your basic egg batter, threw a bunch of pieces of soda bread into the batter and then heated up a pan with some butter in it. The key difference between soda bread and normal bread is that its very very dense. It doesn't absorb too much of the egg and it will crumble a bit if you're not careful.

Finally, once browned on both sides, I topped this first step* at a culinary United Nations with powdered sugar, as we were out of syrup, and it needed a bit more sweetness to complete. It was a delicious breakfast, one that I'll make again whenever we have Irish soda bread in the house.

* Afterwards, I considered the possibilities of making a breakfast with a few more nations represented. I'm open to suggestions. Canadian bacon is an obvious choice, though I think it would be really interesting with some shredded pork in an Asian BBQ sauce on top and a poached egg.

Film Review: A SINGLE MAN (dir. Tom Ford)

2009-12-29T00:24:00.004-05:00

This film looks like an ad in Italian Vogue for homoerotic suicide fantasies. I don't mean that in a snide way (although, obviously: it is snide) but rather in a descriptive way.

Fashion advertisements, after all, do everything possible to glorify their subject. Tom Ford, a designer rather than photographer, nonetheless manages to imitate a style with which he is quite familiar. It also presents a melodramatic glorification of suicide: that is, the romanticism surrounding the act of suicide as envisioned by an individual with only the faintest intent of carrying it through. I do not get the sense from Colin Firth's performance, despite all assurances to the contrary, that (spoiler alert!) that he would have gone through with it himself in the end. What I get from the character is pathos, a wish to perfect one's death (possibly/probably in reaction to the sudden and unthinkable death of one's lover) in one's mind, and the film as that mental effort playing out on the screen. In short, I find the main character a bit solipsistic and I'm not exactly sure whether that adds to or detracts from the narrative.

I'm sure there are some things that I, as a straight male, may be missing in the subtext. Despite the dismissive way I treat the film above, I really did enjoy it, probably more as a tone poem than anything else.

Pauly's Favorite Yuletide Entertainment

2009-12-22T10:05:00.000-05:00

It's time for me to teach y'all about the Christmas spirit. Here's my syllabus of Christmas movies, television specials and episodes that will help you to learn the true meaning of Christmas. You might say, "Pauly, it's December 22nd! How can I possibly absorb all of this in such a short period of time and learn about Baby Jesus?" To that I say, Santa gets around the world in one night, so you can watch all this shit in 3 days.

Film:

Its a Wonderful Life
NBC used to play this right after the Thanksgiving Day Parade. Then they stopped for some reason. Bastards. Luckily I have this on DVD so I can watch this anytime, but I miss the structure. Don't let anyone say this film is outdated or too sappy. It's got some hilarious one liners and goddamn if it doesn't make me cry every time.

Die Hard
The later Die Hard films forgot what Die Hard was all about: Christmas. Who else has wished that their office holiday party would be taken over by a group of international terrorists that are actually pulling off an elaborate heist because of this film? This also features my second favorite Christmas song, "Christmas in Hollis." (First favorite: "Holly Jolly Christmas" by Snowman Burl Ives...only the Snowman puppet version, no live action Burl allowed!)

Bad Santa

So much credit is given to Billy Bob Thornton in this film, but not enough to Brett Kelly as "The Kid." The scene of him dutifully opening his advent calendar that has been filled with pills and candy corn? Amazing.

Scrooged

"What is it, Frank? It's a toaster!" WHACK! Tied with A Muppet Christmas Carol for best version of Charles Dickens's A Christmas Carol.

The Home Alone Series (1&2)

Kevin McCallister is a strategical genius, prepared for every possible outcome to every situation. And he's a little kid who loves Christmas. His family also apparently is part of some offshoot of Christianity that worships the Christmas tree in Rockefeller Center.(See Home Alone 2)

The Nightmare Before Christmas
Technically this film should be watched once at Halloween, once at Christmas, and once inbetween on Thanksgiving.

The Muppet Christmas Carol

Michael Caine is amazing as Scrooge. Probably the last great Muppet movie, and my favorite Christmas movie ever for a multitude of reasons.

Television:

"Chuck Versus Santa"
From Season 2 of Chuck. Worth viewing for the return of Sgt. Al Powell, Reginald Vel Johnson's character from Die Hard. Also, Chuck saves Christmas or something of the sort.

30 Rock
"Ludachristmas" Everyone tries to learn the true meaning of Christmas, then gets trashed. Also, Andy Richter guest stars. That's a reason to watch on its own.

A Very Sunny Christmas
While some may balk at paying $15 to $20 for what is essentially two episodes of Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia, its well worth it. You get "The Gang" at their most shameless, Charlie's mom getting gang banged, an appearance by Mac's dad, and a naked Danny DeVito.

Also, any sitcom produced by Miller-Boyet in the 1980s-90s or aired on TGIF has dozens of Christmas episodes worth watching. Like the Full House where the Tanner family gets stuck in an airport on Christmas, but luckily the real Santa shows up. (In fact, almost every show in the history of television has an episode where Santa shows up but he's believed to be a main character in a Santa suit until that character shows up after the real Santa has already left)

Anyway, just watch all these shows and movies in the next three days if you need a quick lesson about Yuletide cheer and goodwill towards men.

Looking to look like you're worth a million bucks for under a thousand?

2009-12-21T19:38:00.005-05:00

I recently set off in search of a bespoke suit. Here is what I initially sought: a three-piece, two button suit good for three out of the four seasons, custom lining, in gray or navy wool herringbone; a classic cut, suit for the office or the evening, but with some subtle flourishes. With a few samples ripped from magazines and catalogs in hand (as well as some advice from the Esquire black book of style), I researched appropriate tailors in Philadelphia.

Royal Custom Tailors: The gentleman here discussed what I was looking for and showed me some samples. He gave me a quote of $1,350. An online search for reviews turned up nothing on his suit-making.

Dress Right/David Chae: Without discussion of specifics, I was quoted a price of $1,500 to $2,000. An online search for reviews turned up nothing except a Best of Philly 2009 award, which does not mention the suit-making.

Mr. Rock: His website is useless and the pricing scheme (only $999 for two suits and three shirts) left me skeptical. I am also not comfortable with the fact that he is a transient, travelling from city to city and shipping work orders back to Hong Kong (supposedly). I wouldn't imagine that results in a great suit or a trust-building relationship with your tailor. I do appreciate his supposed strategy of building his customer base with MBA students and establishing a relationship with them throughout their business careers. Nonetheless this whole scheme appears dubious to me.

Nieman Marcus: An online search does not specify whether custom suit-making is offered.

Boyd's: I suspect they do custom suits here. I also suspect they will start somewhere north of $2,000.

Phillip E. Leon Haberdashery: I was referred to Chris Phillips by a friend. We discussed what I was looking for and he quoted me a recession special price starting at $600. I've scheduled a fitting, so we'll see.

The above-referenced Esquire guide suggests one should expect to pay at least $3,000 for a bespoke suit. Is the ethic at work in Esquire is always highly aspirational, I assume that means its reasonable to spend, what, $1,500? $1,000? The first two on my list would therefore be in that range. Phillip E. Leon's non-recession prices start at $900, which also roughly squares with the suggested price range. (Seth has purchased bespoke suits in China, so the information is not applicable to this evaluation.) About $1,000 sounds reasonable to me and that is what I would like to pay.

Again, I think the target demographic of Esquire is basically the aged 30 to 40 years young professional dandy, oft single, with money to spend and with the habit of admiring nice things just outside what is reasonable for them to spend. And I think that nearly encompasses my situation. Really, its unnecessary for me to purchase a bespoke suit; I own several nice ones I have bought off the rack and had tailored to fit. Its just that I think I should own at least one made to fit. Or several.

To be continued...

List o’ Top Ten Crap

2009-12-16T11:54:00.001-05:00

I’m trying to decide if I’ve failed miserably, or succeeded beyond any expectations anyone’s ever had of me. On the one hand I haven’t consumed as much media as I a) usually do, b) claim to or c) technically should do based on my participation on this blog (despite how rarely it is updated), whereas on the other hand, I’ve dedicated time to other worthwhile projects. Suffice to say, I haven’t seen/read/heard/participated in/consumed 10 of any medium that I would list as top. I might have top 10 films I planned on seeing, but never did, but for most of those, you can just see my colleague’s lists because I’ve missed most of those movies.

So, as a result, what follows is a list of 10 things that I would put at number one, or at least in the top five, of a list devoted to each topic. You’ll get it.

10. Film: “UP.” I was reluctant to go see “Up” because I’m so loyal. My favorite movie of 2008 (and yet to be supplanted) was “Wall-E,” and after hearing about how great “Up” is, I was scared I’d like it more than “Wall-E.” Having seen it, I can confirm that I don’t love it as much as “Wall-E,” but I do love it more than anything I can remember seeing this year. It’s beautiful both visually and in its story which is often a balance that a lot of films lack. Runner up: “Zombieland”: Saw it twice in theaters, so that’s got to count for something.

9. Music: Rancid, “Let the Dominoes Fall.” Despite the fact that I try to support the music industry as much as possible, a lot of new releases slipped through my fingertips this year. However, Rancid’s been my favorite band since 5th grade, so I wasn’t going to let this one go. With this album, they dropped the poppy crap from the previous album, and wrote my new favorite Rancid-styled ska tune, and in my opinion wrote a song that actually sounds like they’re from California. Runners up: I actually didn’t love too much that came out this year, but in 2009 I did discover a lot of bands I haven’t listened to previously such as The Loved Ones, The Postal Service, Alkaline Trio, The Ting Tings, and Dead To Me. Also, One Man Army re-emerged as my favorite band. Finally, my band’s first CD came out in 2009….available in stores everywhere!

8. Books: “Harry and Horsie,” Written by Kate van Camp; Illustrated by Lincoln Agnew. This seems like a huge cop out, but my favorite book of 2009 was this children’s picture book. It’s got a very typical “use your imagination and you’re not alone” type of story, which is sweet and all, but the art absolutely blows me away. I’m no art critic, but if I could have a print of every page from this book spread out among the walls on my apartment, I absolutely would. I had a few email exchanges with Mr. Agnew, and he’s a really nice guy. I’m bringing this book with me when I get my next tattoo so that my artist knows what to draw. Runners Up: Both my favorite non-fiction and favorite YA authors, Chuck Klosterman and Barry Lyga respectively, released new books within a week of each other, and I loved them both.

7. Comic: “Blankets” by Craig Thompson. Full disclosure: I don’t really read a lot of comics. I don’t keep up with any of the popular series, and only occasionally read a “lit comic,” all of which would surprise my employer because I’ve been deemed the go to graphic novel guy. This is ok with me because most people that work in the graphic novel field are a lot cooler than those in the general publishing field. Suffice to say, I’m not necessarily behind the times in comics—ok, yeah I am. I was at a conference in Chicago and went to a panel featuring Neil Gaiman, Craig Thompson and…I can’t remember who else. Anyway, Thompson talked about “Blankets” and it totally peaked my interest, so I borrowed it from Pauly to give it a go. If you don’t know, a large part of the story is about a long distance relationship, and I read it on an airplane to China, where I would be arriving and not talking to my girlfriend for two weeks. That sucked. Loved the book though.

6. TV Show: “Chuck.” This is another case where it’s new to me in 2009, but not new to the world. I’m pretty bad at keeping up with new TV. I loved the first three episodes of “Flash Forward” a show that would have been my TV Show pick, but then I went away for a few weeks, and never caught up despite the fact that every episode is still saved on my DVR. However, with “Chuck” I was able to watch the entire first season on Blu-Ray and stay committed through the second season. I even dedicated a few minutes to the “Save Chuck” campaign, and am psyched that it starts back up January 10. “Chuck” is funny, “action-packed,” geeky, and features a really super hot chick that’s often in just her underwear. I’m sold. Runner Up: “30 Rock.”

5. Concert: The Casket Architects at Snapper McGees, Kingston, NY. This was a case of “I don’t love this band’s CDs, but I can probably get in for free and I have nothing else to do, so why the hell not?” Glad I went. The opening bands were fantastic—I particularly recommend Long Island’s own Love Panther—but when the three piece Casket Architects set up their gear and hit their set at 1000 miles per hour, I was blown away. One of the best, tightest and most exciting live bands I’ve ever seen. Runner Up: Flogging Molly with The Aggrolites at Hammerstein Ballroom, NYC. I’ve seen Flogging Molly over 30 times and they’re starting to lose their specialness with me, but the Aggrolites kicked ass.

4. Burger: The Primehouse in NYC. This might be getting away from the pop-culture aspect of the blog and list, but most of us are “foodies” on some level, and I for one have been searching for the best burger of my life for most, if not all of 2009. I think I found it. At The Primhouse, I ordered the “Blue Cheese Burger” which featured a thick, juicy beef patty, melted blue cheese, and the most amazing bacon I’ve ever had (I would actually liken it more to fried sliced pork belly than bacon). Coupled with fries, it might have been the best burger-related dining experience I’ve ever had. Sure, it’s more money than I would spend on a burger if I was paying (this was a business lunch), and because they stop serving burgers after lunch (which ends at 4PM), it’s likely I’ll never have it again, and that adds to the mystique, but as of now, this is the burger to which all others are measured. Runner Up: The Tavern, Croton-on-Hudson, NY. I didn’t discover the Tavern in 2009, but every burger I have there is the best burger I’ve had (besides the Primehouse).

3. Restaurant: Cezari in Bologna, Italy. I’m a Jew from New York, so I’m inherently and Italian food snob. To think my trip to Italy this past March wasn't made 9/10th for food and 1/10th for work would just be wrong, stupid, and frankly irresponsible. In my 9 day trip, three dinners were at Cesari, where I had everything from the typical (ravioli) to the new (artichoke flan). The meals were multi-coursed and each course was top notch. Leaving no detail out, the house wine was amazing, and the after-dinner drink, homemade blueberry grappa had none of the turpentine like quality of other grappas and left me and my bosses literally stumbling back to the hotel. It’s weird to say, but this might be my favorite restaurant in the entire world. Runner Up: Blue Smoke. This, yet again, isn’t a new 2009 discovery, but it might be my favorite restaurant in New York City, and I ate there at least twice this year. I need to make that happen more often.

2. Beer: In a year that featured Seth in Germany, Seth in London and Seth discovering new places to drink loads of different beers in New York City, my favorite new beer of 2009—to probably no one’s surprise—comes from the always reliable Samuel Adams Brewery. Featured in the 2009 Harvest Brews pack, the Sam Adam’s Dunkleweisen is a not too dark fall beer with a gamut of flavors including my favorite: pumpkin. Sadly I couldn’t find this beer available outside the pack, so we’re looking at 16-18 bucks for two bottles, but I’ll be damned if it’s not awesome. Runner Up: Hefeweisen in Germany. Seriously, you order by the type of beer, not the brand. Every time I ordered Hefeweisen or Wheat Beer, it was a good night.

1. I Hate Humanity: Mtv’s “Jersey Shore.” I’ve never seen this show, but having gone to Hofstra University, and with the understanding that the douche bags on this show are those douche bags taken to the next extreme, I don’t feel this is an accident that I need to rubberneck for. And thanks to Chris’s pointing out of this, I feel like I know everything that has happened or will happen in this show. Runners Up: The father in question in this article. A large proportion of the people who commented on this article. Anyone offended by the Oxford American Dictionary’s inclusion of the word “Teabagger.”

Pauly's Best Films of 2009

2009-12-16T09:07:00.001-05:00

Divided into my Top 9(take that Top 10 and Top 5 lists!) and some other films I though were great, but not worthy of "Top" status. No list is in any particular order.

Top 9:

Big Fan - This film reminds us that sad, obsessed fans existed before the interwebs. Great film in the tradition of Scorsese's King of Comedy and Taxi Driver.
The Box - This film stirred up a lot of deep, meaning of life, questioning everything thoughts in me. A film that will benefit from many repeat viewings.

A Serious Man - The Book of Job via the Coen Brothers. My jaw dropped after the last two scenes.

Up - Holy crap. Beautiful, beautiful film. Anyone who doesn't love this should expect a punch in the face from me.

Moon - Sam Rockwell, acting opposite Sam Rockwell. Kevin Spacey doing non-shitty work! Multiplicity on the moon.(Not really, but that's how I picture a quote from some TV film critic on the poster if this film was released wider...and if it was a comedy.)

Inglourious Basterds - For years, Hollywood has entertained audiences by killing Nazis on screen. But never like this. Every scene that Colonel Landa is in is simply amazing.

The House of the Devil - Wonderfully tense film. You will never have more fun waiting for something to happen.

Zombieland - I saw this 3 times in the theaters. That is a personal first. Not the greatest zombie movie ever, nor the most faithful to zombiology, yet one of the most fun. Plus, Bill Murray kills in his cameo. (If you haven't seen it yet, fuck you)

Star Trek - A fun popcorn version of Star Trek. Good move on filling the cast with character actors and semi-unknowns.

Other films of note:

Observe and Report - A great riff on Taxi Driver.

Coraline - Beautifully animated, though it dragged a little.

The Fantastic Mr. Fox - This close to making the top 9 into a top ten...this close.

Drag Me To Hell - A slapstick fight with an old woman that also manages to be a little scary. It is strange to see a Sam Raimi horror comedy without Bruce Campbell, though.

The Road - Definitely worth seeing, but not a "great" film.

Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans - Nic Cage. Bat. Shit. Crazy. Also, a fairly subdued and chubby Val Kilmer.

District 9 - The allusions to Apartheid kinda fall apart when the aliens are fucking disgusting and fairly violent right? But an enjoyable sci-fi flick nonetheless.

MTV's Jersey Shore OR This Show Makes Me Too Depressed To Think Of A Clever Title For This Post

2009-12-13T20:32:00.005-05:00

I am not sure what I can really say about MTV's new show Jersey Shore that hasn't already been covered by other commentators or the no doubt forthcoming indictment from a U.N. war crimes tribunal.

That being said, I think the most depressing fact about this show is that it is reality television in the strictest sense. Its terrible and exploitative, except the people being exploited don't seem to really care about it beyond the fact that they get to live in a sweet house all summer. These are not young wannabe media products, these are actual human beings who, to the best I can determine, are not exaggerating their behaviors for the cameras. I have been to the Jersey shore (LBI, Sea Isle and a few other locales but not the Seaside Heights featured on the show) and witnessed first hand the horrors that these people inflict upon humanity, indeed, upon the very concept of human civilization. Every time I see a fist being pumped, a little part of me dies.

The horror, the horror. Exterminate the brutes.

Review: Momofuku by David Cheng (with Peter Meehan)

2009-12-13T19:26:00.006-05:00

I rarely have use for cookbooks. Traditionally, I prefer to crowdsource a recipe via a Google search and then alter that information as suites my own personal preferences, derived from seven years as a short order cook nee frustrated chef and the de facto Japanese fusion cuisine my grandmother cooked for me as a child. I've long harbored a dream of opening a Japanese/pan-southeast Asian noodle bar in Philly that would not seem out of place in some crowded Singapore alleyway and David Cheng, owner of Noodle Bar (and others) in NYC, has come closest to implementing my dream stateside & so I thought to give his cookbook a try. (Also notable: Thai Singha To Go, here in Philly, but the owner has not yet revealed his secrets to me.) So far, I'm only a few recipes deep but the results are very promising.

DISH ONE - PICKLES

Pre-Momofuku cookbook, and inspired by Q.T. Vietnamese in Philly's Chinatown, I've been running through a bunch of different concepts for banh mi's--basically, Vietnamese ingredients on a French baguette, hoagie-style. (My Indian mango chutney-based one was a particular success.) However, until now I have been unable to find a good pickle recipe and have had to settle for raw vegetables, sauteed or none at all. Chang's quick recipe--hot tap water, rice vinegar, salt and sugar--along with my own addition of peppercorns, ginger and sesame seeds is off the chain.

DISH TWO - XO SAUCE

The recipe said "pungent" and "lasts for months, if not years." Sold. I had no idea what this was before reading about, and even until the very end of the cooking process, wasn't sure what it would turn out like. Made from dried shrimp, dried scallops, Chinese sausage, red chile, ginger and garlic, it is indeed pungent (my apartment reeks despite numerous measures intended to lessen its effects) but delicious. As far as uses, I've come up with quite few: mix it with mayonnaise for ghetto pate, with day old rice and veggies for pseudo-fried rice, with tofu and string beans for an entree & et cetera. It took two and half hours over two days (plus a trip to Chinatown) to make but I think it was worth the effort.

DISH(ES) THREE & FOUR - DASHI STOCK & RAMEN BROTH

This is the only minor let-down I've had so far, but I think that may be my fault. I generally use easy dashi stock as a base for miso soup but the recipe looked simple enough, just seaweed and bonito (dried fish flakes) in hot water, so I gave it a try. I also added some dried shiitake and Chinese straw mushrooms to deepen the flavor profile (umami!). The result came out kind of bland and I think its because I mis-measured amount of bonito, depriving it of its appropriate smokiness. Still, dashi is just stock. I guess I was mostly pissed off that I had spent an hour to get an underwhelming result.

I glanced at Cheng's ramen broth recipes, both of which called for several hours of work and tons of meat. I was in the mood for more of a veggie-based ramen experience, so I mainly took those recipes as inspiration. Starting with the dashi, I added red miso, fresh ginger, tamari, soy sauce and sesame oil for the broth. Then for toppings, egg noodles, bean sprouts, julienne'd carrots and scallions. For my first attempt, I was pretty satisfied but in the future I will probably make some adjustments to the broth (a cube of beef or pork fat would deepen the flavor) and maybe add a fried egg to the toppings.

CONCLUSION

I could not be more satisfied with the Momofuku cookbook. It is well written and entertaining, even if it leaves off information about preparation techniques (which you should know anyway or can Google). The recipes range from the simple--what I've detailed above is representative--to the advance, i.e. molecular gastronomy. I think even with my very basic skill set, it has helped me pull off a few very cool things. I look forward to where it might take me in the future. If you have any interest in pan-Asian cuisine, you would do well to check out this cookbook.

2009: Notable Artistic Achievements

2009-12-10T18:56:00.007-05:00

So, some arbitrary preferences I would like to express. I will probably forget some very notable things and be ridiculed for it, as I should.

COMICS
I've had some scarce comic habits this year. I'd like to say I'm getting cooler but it really just that a lot of the writers and artists I enjoyed in the past are taking on commercial gigs that don't interest me. Whence Casanova, Matt Fraction? Like that writer, Grant Morrison has also migrated from exciting projects (The Filth, All Star Superman) to ones slightly less inspiring (Batman & Robin). We did manage a Seaguy follow-up, which is pretty great.

Even Brian K. Vaughn & Tony Harris' otherwise enjoyable series Ex Machina was barely published this year; still, its wrapping up and I like where's its headed.

Also finished: Warren Ellis & John Cassiday's Planetary, which inspired awe to the very end. I am looking forward to the second volume of the Absolute Edition.

Elsewhere, the recent Muppets comics have been really fun. I didn't read many, but what I did captured the manic spirit of the television series perfectly.

BOOKS
My book habits are also problematic. I tend to read a spate of good reviews, pick up the book, and then, let it marinate on the shelf. Still, we're seeing a couple Haroki Murakami translations every year now; After Dark was published in softcover this year and I loved it, so maybe I can fairly include that here. Another paperback cheat or two I can include: Henri Bernard Levi's The Left in Dark Times and Christopher Hitchens' God Is Not Great, which give me hope for the continuing tradition of public intellectuals.

Books published is 2009 I would like to have read but have not yet had the opportunity: 2666, Fareed Zakaria's The Post-American Century, Dambisa Moyo's Dead Aid. (Excerpts from the latter two in Foreign Affairs and the like have given me hope for the new generation of public intellectual, too.) I also look forward to trying out a few recipes from the Momofuku cookbook; xo sauce, here I come.

Books published in previous years which I have read this year: I will not bore you with this list. Let us keep things relevant, yes?

MUSIC
Apple is brilliant. Their iTunes program is the perfect means of generating conspicuous musical consumption. The algorithms they use to generate music recommendations for me have been better than Netflix (movies) or Amazon (everything) at the same task.

So, what are the great releases I've stumbled across? My top eleven, in no particular order:

Them Crooked Vultures, Them Crooked Vultures (John Paul Jones + Josh Homme + Dave Grohl)

*Langhorne Slim, Be Set Free (not even close to tired of the shtick yet... and he's a local boy!)

*The Mountain Goats, The Life of the World to Come (contains some of the best song writing of his career)

Jay Farrar & Ben Gibbard, One Fast Move Or I'm Gone (evokes Kerouac perfectly)

*Beirut, March of the Zapotec (more interesting musical explorations)

Avett Brothers, I And Love And You (the first time I heard the title track on WXPN I sat in my car until the very end)

*Blk Jks, After Robots (thanks for "discovering" these guys Diplo!)

*A.A. Bondy, When The Devil's Loose (bad ass wordsmith in the mold of Tom Waits/Leonard Cohen/etc.)

Kanye West, Welcome to Heartbreak (you're just tired of Kanye's antics, don't dis the album, too)

Mos Def, The Ecstatic (we're agreed that Mos is a legitimate hip hop genius, right?)

TV on the Radio, Dear Science (ditto these guys for, what might you call this, prog rock?)

The Flaming Lips, Embryonic (nearly as good as Yoshimi and with some individual tracks I like even better than anything on that earlier album)

Honorable mention for re-releases:

Death, ...For The Whole World To See (MC5-esque hotness)
Fela Kuti, The Best of the Black President (best Fela Kuti compilation I've come across)

(* Denotes live performance seen in this calendar year.)

MOVIES
I will definitely forget many that merit a mention but I will make an effort.

Big Fan (Patton Oswalt acted the shit out of this Taxi Driver-riff)
Antichrist (see below)
Bronson (see below)
Where the Wild Things Are (see below)
Inglorious Basterds (Tarantino's best movie yet--the Platonic ideal of one of his films)
Ong Bak 2 (see below)
The Road (bleak and beautiful)
The Box (better than Donnie Darko and very promising for Richard Kelly's filmmaking future)

That was eight. Pauly will no doubt have a few to supplement this poor showing.

Some movies I have seen recently...

2009-10-26T09:25:00.005-04:00

So, Pauly goes and promises to THE WHOLE DAMN INTERNETS that we'll be posting every day this month then the bastard goes and gets married--like being knee-deep in hot, hot marital bliss will give him time to contribute. I've been slowly dying inside at my job, so I haven't had much time to construct a series of themed entries like last year. Instead, I will be presenting you with the following hastily-compiled reviews of films I have seen recently.

ANTICHRIST (dir. Lars von Triers)

This is my first von Triers film, so I cannot comment on how it contributes to themes of misogyny or whatever it is the intelligentsia have decided the talking points on this should be. I do know, however, that I saw something terrible and beautiful and revolting and thought-provoking, often all at once.

BRONSON (dir. Nicholas Refn)

I think I first heard about this from the trailer, which does not promise anything the film cannot deliver. If you enjoy a little of the ol' unltraviolence, this is a film for you. Brutal, hilarious and a great "that was awesome!" film to sit back and enjoy. I'll definitely be seeking out the director's Pusher trilogy after seeing this.

GOOD HAIR (dir. Jeff Stilson, produced by Chris Rock)

I went to see this with my girlfriend. I've long known about some of the issues surrounding black hair--I remember being struck in college by the knowledge that the first African-American millionaire was a woman selling hair product & the passage in The Autobiography of Malcolm X about the first time he relaxes his hair is rather memorable-- but this goes well beyond that. Still, I basically agree with the criticisms that far too much time was spent at the hair show in Atlanta, which is mostly spectacle, and that time could have been better spent exploring some of the issues in detail.

WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE (dir. Spike Jonze)

Again, I think I will agree with the majority of the critics. While I loved the film--the acting, the production design, the story were all near perfect--I'm not sure its a film for kids as much as a film about being a kid, which is a pretty big difference. E.g. the little girl, 6 or 7 or so, sitting down the row from me who was bored senseless by it while her early-30s yippie mom ate it all up.

THE MEN WHO STARE AT GOATS (dir. Grant Heslov)

Amusing but complete fluff. On the continuum of ironic, self-aware modern war films this is a lot closer to something like Lord Of War than it is to Three Kings in terms of re-watchability. I'm not sure what the underlying message is meant to be but you get a few amusing set-pieces here and there. Unless you're dead set on seeing it immediately, you can probably wait to see this on HBO.

TOWELHEAD (dir. Alan Ball)

I thought this was a very strong film, which could have been better if it dealt with its themes less heavy-handedly. But, Ball always has a tendency to be a bit on the nose. Expect exactly what you're expecting from him: the sexualization of young women; men with odd, affectless voices; & undermining the existence of the "American dream."

ONG BAK 2 (dir. Tony Jaa)

If you've seen the original Ong Bak, The Protector or Chocolate you know that you're in for some really awesome fight sequences. (Also, elephants.) But, what you don't know, is that Tony Jaa also directs this one and he is completely out of his gourd. Its all very Sam-Raimi-directs-a-Thai-martial-arts-film. The story is borderline indecipherable but pay no mind to that fact; the fights will explode your head with their sheer awesomeness.

Review: ZOMBIELAND

2009-10-02T11:35:00.002-04:00

Zombieland is an incredibly fun zombie comedy, or "zom com" if you will. I had the opportunity to catch an advance screening this past Tuesday, and it was well worth the hour and a half wait in line.

First off, its worth noting that these are not zombies in the traditional sense. For one thing, they run. Yes, this has been done in other films, but there is a distinction made here. It's stated by the narrator that the virus that creates the zombies is an "advanced strain of Mad Cow disease that leaves victims with a swollen brain, insane, and with an intense hunger." Not once is it stated or shown in the film that anyone has risen from the dead. Therefore, we are dealing with infected people, not zombies in the Romero/Brooks sense.*

However, it must be said that in a real world situation, if one is faced with creatures that display most if not all characteristics of a monster in the popular culture lexicon, then you might name said creature after a popular monster. Thus, the infected in this film are referred to as zombies. This is actually a strength in Zombieland, in that the survivors have come to terms with their new world. By naming these creatures "zombies", they're actually establishing a sort of dominance over them, in the way that man has named all animals that he has found. Zombieland also stands out amongst other zombie/infected movies in that the "Zed word" is actually said.

This is also the first upbeat zombie film. While a comedy, like Shaun of the Dead, this film doesn't play with the same stakes. Its a bit more cartoony and doesn't have to deal with the issues of shooting your zombie mother, or leaving your best friend to die. Zombieland takes place after all of that. As I mentioned earlier, most of these characters have come to terms with the world they live in. They know that just about everyone else is dead. In the end, it celebrates the fact that these four characters have found each other, and maybe that's enough in their world.

* The risen dead that crave flesh although they have no scientific need for it, as defined by George A. Romero and Max Brooks. While straying from Romero/Brooks zombies may discourage, and even enrage my colleague in zombiology, Dr. Giacomo Kmet, I encourage him to check out this film.

Horror of Dracula/Dracula Has Risen From the Grave/Taste the Blood of Dracula/Dracula A.D. 1972

2009-09-27T16:12:00.005-04:00

A year ago, things were much better for horror fans. Not all horror fans, mind you, but those who had cable providers that carried MONSTERS HD? They were living the sweet life*, brother.

Monsters HD gave you 24 hours, 7 days a week of uncensored, uncut, no commercial interruptions classic horror and sci-fi. Through this glorious channel, I caught up on some Friday the 13th, a little bit of Nightmare on Elm Street, and most importantly, I was exposed to the glory of the Hammer Horror films. Sadly, Monsters HD is no longer with us, so I now have to supply my own horror programming via DVD. It was so much easier when I could just turn to channel 777 and know that something great would be on, but oh well.

Anyway, craving some Christopher Lee/Peter Cushing showdowns, I picked up a DVD set from Amazon that features four of Hammer's Dracula films: Horror of Dracula, Dracula Has Risen From the Grave, Taste the Blood of Dracula, and Dracula A.D. 1972.

Chris reviewed Horror of Dracula last year, so I'll touch upon it briefly to note that it sets up a pattern that these other films follow: Someone wrongs Dracula, Dracula pursues his revenge, Dracula achieves reasonable revenge but wants more, Dracula gets taken the fuck out. This is the cycle that repeats itself just about every time and Dracula never learns. In fact, he almost never seems to remember that any of this has happened before. He just wakes up pissed off, seduces some broads, offs some stuffy old guy, then meets his end by the hand of the handsome young fiancee.(Or Van Helsing, who is rather spry in their first battle in Horror of Dracula. Check out the scene where he jumps and pulls down the curtains.)

Lee's Dracula isn't particularly charming. He can hypnotize the ladies, but isn't interested in the vampire stable of hoes like most Draculas. Again, there is a pattern. He usually will get a brunette or redhead and then a blonde. He quickly uses and murders the brunette/redhead because the blonde is his ultimate goal. The only other Dracula that gets this close to monogamy is Gary Oldman in Coppola's Dracula, but that is a deep Dracula. This Dracula is just trying to get into the blonde's panties for revenge, usually against some old guy who looked at him the wrong way.

When taking his revenge, he's a bit of a dick, and when attacked, he's a red-eyed wild animal. This is a Dracula who in almost every final battle, throws shit. He throws shit. He goes from Dracula to the Hulk the first second shit don't go his way.

I haven't seen all of the Hammer Dracula films, but I'd like to know how he got so focused on the constant revenge seeking. The next time he comes back, he needs some time to reflect, cause Christopher Lee's Dracula is one miserable fuck.

* As in things were good, sweet life, not "Suite Life of Zack and Cody" sweet life.

31 + Days of Halloween Starting this weekend!

2009-09-25T13:50:00.004-04:00

Wow...been awhile since any of us have posted on here.

Well, to jump start things, I issue a challenge to my 822 colleagues to create content almost every day for the next month or so in celebration of one of our favorite holidays, Halloween!

I mean, if the stores can have Halloween costumes out in August, why can't we start blogging about it a little early?

So, starting this weekend, I'll pop in some Halloween movies and have my take on them by Sunday.

Glove slap, 822. Let's write about some vampires, zombies, slashers, and Dr. Freudstein.

The best there is, the best there was, and the best there ever will be...for 2008

2009-01-23T18:51:00.003-05:00

Technically, my title is inaccurate. A few years down the line, some of the things I mention won't age well, but who cares? I just felt like a Bret Hart shout-out in my title.

Anyway, this may be a little late in terms of "best-of" lists, but in many cases, most people don't get around to seeing the best stuff of a year until the new one starts.

Thus, I begin:

Music:

I don't really follow music too much, most of what I get is from movie soundtracks, but anyway, here's what I dug this year:

"Roar" - Michael Giacchino, the Cloverfield end credits. Michael Giacchino is someone I've only recently discovered, through Cloverfield and Lost, and his shit is epic. This guy could make doing a grocery list sound important. "Roar" reminds you that what you just saw was a GIANT FUCKING MONSTER movie, not just a deconstruction of the genre.

"Flight of the Conchords" - Flight of the Conchords. The show is hilarious, the songs are toe-tappingly good. (This guest review done by Larry King)

"Volume One" - She & Him. Folksy? Is that how I describe this?

And my best album of 2008, is, guess what? Something I didn't buy til 2009:

"Batman: The Animated Series Soundtrack" - Shirley Walker. This was put out in a very limited release by LaLa Land Records. If you're a fan of the show, it's a must have.

Books:

I'm not sure what I read this year that actually came out this year.

But I'm pretty sure I read a lot of older stuff. Here's three books that I remember:

Eat this, Not that - The twist is, the fishwich is more unhealthy than the McNuggets...and the butler did it.

The Omnivore's Dilemma - I really don't feel like looking up the author's name. But he taught me that corn is IN FUCKING EVERYTHING. You are corn.

The Great Derangement - Matt Taibbi. There are equally crazy people on the right and the left and everyone in between is fucked because of it.

Comics:

Don't these belong with books, you ask? Fuck you. They're comics.

Captain America & Daredevil - Ed Brubaker w/ Steve Epting & Michael Lark, respectively

No, there isn't some glorious Captain America and Daredevil team up book. But Ed Brubaker is rocking my socks off with Cap, and while his Daredevil isn't too different from what has come before, it's executed well.

Booster Gold - Geoff Johns w/ Dan Jurgeons

Just a straight up fun comic. It also serves as a history lesson for the DC Universe. Oh, and time travel, evil counterparts, and did I mention time travel?

Criminal - Ed Brubaker w/ Sean Phillips

As I eventually give up buying monthly comics and exclusively buy trades, I will continue to pick this up each month its published, as it's got a ton of great extras each issue. Essays on noir from the authors as well as guests like Patton Oswalt.

Deadpool - Daniel Way w/ Paco Medina

I loves me some Deadpool. Fox is getting my 12 bucks because they put him in the Wolverine movie. And Deadpool has his own comic again. And it's actually good...and hilarious.

Television:

I discovered Lost, The Wire, and Deadwood this past year. Television doesn't get much better. Burn Notice and Chuck provide some fun spy action without getting too deep. Fringe started out leaving me wanting The X-Files to come back(although not like it did this summer), but it quickly became a favorite new show. And Heroes sucked balls.

Movies:

In no particular order: Wall-E, The Dark Knight, Iron Man, Hellboy 2, Redbelt, The Wrestler, The Fall, Tropic Thunder, Snow Angels

I love these films. Each is amazing in their own way, but looking at this list, The Fall, The Wrestler, and Redbelt would be a great triple feature. I'll probably do a more in-depth look at The Wrestler after I see it again, but I consider all of these "must sees," and as Gene Shallit would say while holding a basket of eggs, "Eggcellent."

Genetic Altering of Dewbacks: Unethical or Unavoidable

2009-01-21T18:14:00.006-05:00

For centuries the moisture farmers and hunters of the desolate desert planet Tatooine have domesticated the large reptilian beast of burden known as the Dewback and now they want to take a drastic measure and clone, then genetically alter the animal. The Dewbacks earned their name by getting moisture by licking the dew that had formed of each others’ backs in the morning. If only it were this easy for the moisture farmers of this arid land to collect their crop. These days the water seems to be, for lack of a better phrase, drying up! The planet’s average temperature has risen a drastic 1.5° over the past decade.

The 1.5° increase in temperature has caused an issue that effects more than just the moisture farmers. The Dewback, which is the one of the few animals that can survive in the harsh climate of the planet, are starting to lessen in number. The Galactic Non-Sentient Protection Agency has not designated Dewbacks as a threatened species. These beasts travel to the Jundland Wastes, where the sands are the ideal temperature to lay their eggs, once a year for mating season. The species has done this journey for so long and it has become so engrained in their genetics, that it is near impossible to breed a Dewback in captivity. Over this past decade the number of newborn Dewbacks has dropped a significant 5% and is believed to grow exponentially over this next decade. Because of this decrease and the planets dependency on the animal, scientists speculate that cloning the species may need to begin within the decade.

Owners of Dewbacks have other concerns about their Dewbacks and are voicing their opinions to the scientists researching and advocating the cloning of the species. Doc Breetel is a young human gem hunter who resides just outside Anchorhead. “Every year I lose my Dewback, Vernil, for about five weeks during mating season. I can’t be walking around the wastelands hunting for precious stones on foot. If they’re going to clone these things, they could at least find a way to deal with this problem,” he says. Many people rely upon Dewbacks as simple desert transportation and assisting them in their daily business, ranging from the moisture farmers, to local construction companies using them to haul equipment across town. All of these Dewback owners lose their animal for several weeks during mating season, stalling business until they return. Why do they let the Dewback go away? Ask ex-Republic gunner Remmie Dextin. “We had just bought a Dewback for my friend’s dad’s used transport lot to haul scrap metal around. Mating season rolled around and we still had some work to do, so we tried to keep the Dewback in his pen. Bad idea. The thing broke through the fence and knocked me over, damaging my leg beyond repair.” And the solution to the mating season problem is very simple. When the animal is cloned they can be genetically altered and turned asexual. However, the Galactic Non-Sentient Protection Agency still claims that it is unethical to turn such a reproduction-oriented animal asexual.

The idea of neutering the Dewbacks has been discussed much in the past years. The animal’s tough hide and poor healing ability make operating more pain than it’s worth. The animal’s reproductive orgas also lie very close to several important nerve clusters which, if even slightly knicked, would severly damage the Dewback’s nervous system. Not only that, but the size and genes of the Dewback make it immune to any legal tranquilizers. There have been several illegal neuterings done recently, but in the end have left the Dewback unable to work at the same capacity it did before the operation due to damage done to the nervous system.

The Dewback owners on Tatooine would be very grateful to have an animal that does not disappear for weeks (up to two and a half months depending on the distance to the Jundland Wastes) once a year. However, until the GNSPA allow the altering of genes on cloned animals, individuals like Doc Breetel will have to continue to manage with the Dewback mating season like the residents of Tatooine have for centuries.

COMICS! On The March

2008-12-10T18:25:00.002-05:00

For the past few years, respectable journalistic outlets have been covering the rising tide of comic book culture. They hide their shame by re-naming the artform as "graphic novels."* Or they give themselves some ironic distance with endless variations on "Biff! Bam! Pow! Holy [Relevant Subject Matter], Batman!" & "Comics: Not Just For Kids Anymore!" Nonetheless, it seems like the secret shame of comic book fandom is out of the closet.

In Japan, where the equivalent artform is known as manga, comics are read in public by all members of society according to these articles. People openly and notoriously read these books on the subway, so the legend goes. Since I take two different trains during my commute to work every day I thought it might be a good opportunity to do some fieldwork to see if the same is happening in the United States.

In theory, my route would be ideal for spotting comic book readers. The first leg, the RiverLine to Camden, goes to Rutgers University. The second train, the Patco into Philadelphia, provides access to numerous undergraduate universities as well being the main means of arriving at a moderate-size art school, the University of the Arts. If the comic book surge is bringing in new readership, as these reports allege, commuter trains packed with artistically-inclined undergraduates should be prime observations territory.

Alas, it is not quite the case. Thus far I have witness only two incidents of people reading comics on the trains. They are not promising.

1st Encounter: Approximately two weeks ago on the RiverLine I spotted an aging, obese white male reading an issue of the Jeph Loeb HULK series. Not really the image comics are trying to encourage right now. On the other hand, dude was LOVING that comic book. He was folding pages around the spine and bending it like you read a newspaper, just devouring the thing. The look in his eyes was like a kid in a candy store. I suspect he was mildly mentally disabled.

2nd Encounter: This morning on the Patco I stood next to a paunchy, goateed white male in his early 30s wearing wire-rimmed spectacles; he looked rather meek. He was reading a new copy of the WATCHMEN trade paperback so I assume he is either new to comics or generally is a hardcore mainstream superheroes-only type of fan. I have no reason to suspect he was also mentally disabled but its a safe bet his social skills are severely impaired.

The results of my scientific study of new comic readership are, as you can observe, thus far quite disappointing.

Even expanding this to encompass other likely locations for comics reading does not bear fruit. Every afternoon I walk to the Starbucks near my firm, which is also the nearest Starbucks to the University of the Arts. The store is always teeming with artsy girls in their late teens and early twenties, who I have been led to believe love indie comics and manga, sitting there drinking coffee and reading. I have yet to spot any of them reading a comic book so it appears they are not so into the whole thing. You know what they ARE into? Avoiding eye contact with me so as to not give the false impression that I have a green light to approach them.

They must smell the fanboy on me.

* The term "comic book" in an anachronism anyway. It hearkens back to ye olde times when the first comic books were literally re-packaged newspaper comic strips. Stan Lee prefers the term "comicbook," no space between the words, to signify the break.

A Very Pauly Christmas Part 1: It's a Wonderful Life

2008-12-03T21:21:00.004-05:00

This will be the first of a series of Christmas movies I'll be writing about over the next month. Here's my list:
It's a Wonderful Life
Gremlins
The Nightmare Before Christmas
Die Hard
Eastern Promises
Home Alone 1 & 2
Scrooged
Jingle All the Way
Muppet Christmas Films & Specials

There isn't any sort of unifying theme amongst these films, they're just some of my favorite Christmas movies. I might throw in some Christmas episodes of old television shows, too. So without further ado,

It's a Wonderful Life was a film I would always watch on NBC after the Thanksgiving Parade and before everyone would come over for dinner. For whatever reason, they've stopped showing it in that time frame, so I picked it up on DVD a year or two ago. However, this film, and others like it, are ones that I prefer to watch as a network broadcast. I enjoy the breaks that tell me "It's a Wonderful Life will be right back" or remind of the fact that I'm watching It's a Wonderful Life on NBC. There was just something comforting in the whole network holiday movie presentation package.

Anyway, there's not much I can say about the film except that it's overlooked how many hilarious one-liners there are.
"What d'you mean you don't like coconut?"
"Listen, brainless."
"I like him" "You like every boy!"
"This is an interesting situation!"
"He's making violent love to me, mother!"
While only one of these lines is actually said by Jimmy Stewart, it's funnier to think of any line in film as if Jimmy Stewart said it.

I don't have much else to say, other than if you don't love this film, or if you don't think you love this film, please give it another shot and you'll find that is as hilarious as it is sentimental. And if that doesn't work out for you, check out the alternate ending below, as done by SNL in 1992:

MTV's True Life

2008-12-02T20:13:00.002-05:00

...A show in which young people make terrible choices.

This, of course, from a network specializing in shows about young people making terrible choices. Every show on MTV, good or bad, mostly bad, glamorizes generational narcissism. The Hills is rich kids living a glitzed up but still somehow dreary version of the typical suburban over-privileged white kid lifestyle. The Real World is your six or seven least-favorite self-absorbed douchebags shipped off to a familiar-yet-exotic locale to film an improvised Sartre play. The Tila Tequila brand features... sadness. Just sadness.

What sets True Life apart is that it abandons most pretense of glamorizing its subject. It genuinely takes a documentary approach. Each episode explores a single theme or experience of a refreshingly broad, racially, socially and economically cross-section of people 16-22. E.g. love triangles, long distance relationships, compulsive behavior, drug abuse, emotional traumas, graduations, marriage. What unites all of the episodes is that these people uniformly make terrible choices.

With a couple years of curmudgeonly distance between that demographic and myself, I feel confident in judging the people making the choices. Oh, the smug grin that spreads across my face as I witness slow-motion trainwrecks.

Beyond that, though, each story possesses a strange gravity. I want to know what happens to these people later on. The worst thing is when it looks like someone has their life back on the tracks then the coda comes on, written in black-and-white. He relapsed. She went back to the abusive boyfriend.

Not all the episodes end that bad. Sometimes there's a happy ending. Mostly, nothing changes. Life goes on, with the people stuck in the same rut.

So, the point of all this, if I have one is: What are the producers of True Life trying to say? Its a documentaty, right, but this is MTV. I can't shake the feeling that I'm being sold something, some lifestyle, some cultural product because I'm hanging on the margins of a valuable demographic. Yet, improbably, True Life exists above it all, unadulterated.

Review: "Twilight"

2008-12-01T17:26:00.001-05:00

Let me begin by pointing out that I have not seen the film but I have seen a trailer, so I feel that this makes me qualified to make a review.

Let me also point out that upon seeing the trailer on Lifetime (during Golden Girls or Fraiser), someone pointed out to me that they believed it to be a Lifetime movie about vampires.

Also, let me point out that when I heard this, I watched the trailer a second time and found out that the male lead is from the Harry Potter series of films. Thus I am double qualified.

The film (trailer) begins as dramatically as one could hope a teenage vampires film (trailer) to begin. The use of fog around the school parking lot creates an ominous feeling, already putting me on the edge of my seat. Then they push the drama even further. That low hanging precipitation that earlier in the film (trailer) worried me, has its ground-bound cousin, the puddle, transforms a mini-van into a several ton deadly torpedo careening towards our leading lady and her dad’s sweet pickup truck. At this point the drama has me close to shitting myself. The director of the film (trailer) now uses some amazing fades to show the connection made between the leading lady and the male lead that stopped the mini-van… with his hand! All the fades can mean is that these two are truly in love.

The tension grows as he denies explaining that he’s a vampire. She points out that he’s pale, cold, and burns easily. When she mutters the word ‘vampire’ you can sense the sexual tension in both their loins ready to explode.

However, before he can hold his pale undead body against hers, the dude’s vampire friends show up and want to get a piece of the girl too, because vampires love orgies. But the male lead refuses, lots of fighting ensues and glowing blue font reveals the most important line of the film (trailer)… ‘Forever Begins Now.’ Holy shit, my mind is blown. This teenage vampire film (trailer) has show me that love has no boundaries and how now tosses out some Kant level philosophy all in less than two and a half minutes.

Overall it was pretty awesome. My only problem is that it seems kind of short, like maybe they cut some stuff out. I’m pretty sure the bad vampires lose, but I’m not exactly sure. Sequel?

Review: Baz Luhrmann's Australia

2008-11-28T16:06:00.002-05:00

Dear Wolverine,

Why did you make this movie? And when did you take up acting? Were you possessed by the Shadow King? Or did Mastermind create an illusion that convinced you you were living the life of an Australian "cowboy"? Perhaps Spider-Man's foe, Mysterio, convinced you that you were this "Drover" character whose name was also his profession of cattle drover. Mesmero once convinced me that I was the proprietor of an erotic cake bakery. And I could understand wanting to believe the illusion. While I was an erotic cake baker in my mind, I was never happier. But why would you want to live in this illusion? I looked for any signs in your eyes that you were fighting, but you appeared to have given up.

Please, we're all concerned for you, even Scott.* Come by the mansion and we shall get your mind all sorted out.

Sincerely,

Professor Charles Francis Xavier

*Though he's still a dick

Will The World Change Today?

2008-11-04T13:29:00.000-05:00

Today is Election Day. My political leanings are as transparent as a clean windshield: I’m liberal, and I’m voting Obama. No surprise there. It’s also not surprising that after a month of horror entertainment, I think the scariest thing of all would be a Palin administration.

Like most angsty, apathetic people, I didn’t care about politics until they got bad. I was raised by democratic parents, so by the time I became aware that there is a president, good ol’ Bill was in office, and I had nothing to worry about. In 2000, when Bush was elected, all I really knew was that if I could vote, I would have voted for Gore, but I couldn’t tell you why. That was my junior year of high school, and my US History teacher couldn’t have been happier that we were witnessing an historic undecided election, but this was history that, admittedly, I only cared about peripherally.

Sadly, it wasn’t until Bush did things I really disapproved of that I started caring: Invading Iraq on false pretenses, putting us into a ridiculous monetary deficit, violating most of our civil rights, citing his religion for decisions he makes—just to name a few. In 2004, I was able to vote in my first presidential election, and I proudly drove home and voted for that guy that wasn’t Bush. John Somethingorother.

Oh, that’s right, John Kerry. Obviously I knew that, but I don’t care. The fact of the matter is that I, and so many people that I know, simply voted for not Bush. And then Bush won, and continued to alienate me. Today, November 4, 2008, there’s so much talk about replacing Bush. For me, I’m happy to be able to vote for someone I actually believe in, rather than voting for the lesser of two evils. But the truth is, as I said before, that I didn’t care about politics until it got bad, and that just makes me wish I still didn’t have to care.

Will the world change today? It just might. But I can't help but think about how much better it would have been if it never reached the point where we needed it to.

Monday Night Raw: 800th Episode

2008-11-03T20:15:00.003-05:00

I have been a wrestling fan most of my life. But midway through college I stopped giving a shit. My experiment, beginning tonight is to see if they can make me give a damn about their programming again. Tonight is Raw's 800th episode, and none of the shows I normally watch on Mondays are on, so I'm giving them another shot. Will they capture my attention again? Let's see.

8:17 - Just started watching. They seem to be showing "best of" stuff at the moment. Right now its "The Kid" vs Razor Ramon. Sean Waltman, X-Pac, 1-2-3 Kid has always kinda looked douchey.

8:18 - Now its an 8 man battle royale for an intercontinental shot. And the current champ...an Italian with a unibrow and a mullet is walking out. I have no idea who anyone is onscreen. The unibrow guy's unibrow is painfully fake. His name is Santino apparently.

8:20 - Oh wait, there's William Regal. He's no fun unless he's on the mic, though. And Ted Dibiase's son is in this match too. He needs a beard. And a manservant to count his money. I think Diabiase might win...but it will be a hollow victory without a beard, a manservant, and a suit with dollar signs on it.

8:22 - William Regal wins it. He's got spooky bad guy music now. I miss his stuffy English music. When he was the "WWE Ambassador" character, waving like the Queen. Ooh. They're doing the old "someone's pulling up in a limo gag." It's Stephanie McMahon! OOOO! And Shane McMahon...ooooh!

8: 24 - Commercial Break. Based on the Mortal Kombat Vs. DC Universe commercial I just saw, I will not be buying that game. "We have come to challenge you to Mortal Kombat!" Lame.

8: 28 - New Raw theme sucks. Another flashback. Vince buying WCW. Now Randy Orton's in the ring. Almost forgot he existed. Shane McMahon making a big entrance...I still like his entrance music. Everything is better with entrance music. Vince McMahon should handle elections in this country.

8: 35 - Pretty bored. Bored bored bored. Checking email, checking various websites.

8:41 - Obama saying "Do you smell what Barack is cookin?" with no conviction or energy at all. I wish he had The Rock working with him on interviews. Now they have a new Russian bad guy. What the fuck? Bret Hart music??? Ok...apparently Charlie Haas is Bret "The Hitman" Haas. He's doing the stolen gimmick bit that Big Show and others have done before. Lame.

8:47 - USA's commercial for Inside Man just made it seem like a wacky comedy. Intriguing.

8:50 - Jim Ross isn't announcing on Raw. Not right. Ugh. Now they've got Bautista. He sucks. WWE is a bunch of sucky sucks now. I don't know if I can make another 2 hours and 10 minutes.

8:56 - DX is coming out. Don't really know if an anti-establishment angle works when you're the owner's son-in-law. Or when the other member is a born-again Christian. Triple H seems bored. "You can mock my kids, you can punch my wife in the face, but nobody mocks my chaps" - Shawn Michaels. You cannot mock chaps...especially when assless. They have made me chuckle, but this segment has gone on for 10 minutes now.

9:14 - Experiment over. Not paying attention anymore. I'm bored, I do not give a shit. Sorry RAW, I'll give you a try again in a few years.

Day 31: Shadow of a Doubt

2008-10-31T21:20:00.005-04:00

"You go through your ordinary little day, and at night you sleep your untroubled ordinary little sleep, filled with peaceful stupid dreams. And I brought you nightmares. Or did I? Or was it a silly, inexpert little lie? You live in a dream. You're a sleepwalker, blind. How do you know what the world is like? Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you rip off the fronts of houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?"
- Joseph Cotton as Uncle Charlie in Shadow of a Doubt

I find myself tired, and trying to find some spare time in my Halloween night, so I'll only leave you with the quote above, and the extreme recommendation, Halloween movie or not, make sure you see Shadow of a Doubt at least once in your life. It is one of Hitchock's best films and definitely one of my all time favorites. I'll go in-depth on this film at a later date, but for now, it shall simply be something that I recommend.

Day 30: The "Friday the Thirteenth" Series

2008-10-30T15:52:00.002-04:00

Though not the original—I suppose that would be “Halloween”—the “Friday the Thirteenth” series is synonymous with “guy who can’t die in order to make more movies”…as if that’s something of which to be proud. Truth is, a lot of horror purists think it is, and frankly so do it. Should the thirteenth of a given month happen to land on a Friday, this previously innocuous* day now warrants horror of the highest level all thanks to a hockey mask and whatever’s convenient for killing someone at that moment.

What the layperson associates with the franchise—the hockey mask, machete, and “ch ch ch ah ah ah”—are rather frightening, but they’re not what the franchise is really rooted in. When the original “Friday the Thirteenth” was released in 1980, the murderer was a mystery, the killings rather simple, and the horror very real. Once revealed, we learned that the original “Jason” was simply the voice in a grieving mother’s head, as she sought revenge on those that had caused Jason’s death: the counselors at Camp Crystal Lake.

And thus we have the mythology of the character Jason that we all know so well. This brute who doesn’t feel pain, hides his face and is surprisingly crafty when in need of a death tool was once a young camper whose promiscuous and drug addicted counselors felt no need to keep track of—even when he was drowning. It’s really a case that any mother would want to take revenge on. What we’re all so afraid of however is when the boy himself takes over.

In the second installment of the franchise (well, really the last few minutes of the first), we’re introduced to Jason the specter, a ghoulish figure who, seeking revenge for his own death, will seek any means necessary to murder not only those responsible for his death, but anyone who takes up post as a counselor at Camp Crystal Lake, and in fact any late teen or twenty something that seeks his legend or spends a few hours or a night there.

The good news for those watching is not only the amount of nudity in the series used to demonstrate the promiscuity, but also the fantastic ways in which Jason kills: From his trusty machete, to drowning people, to trapping people in sleeping bags and smacking them up against trees, to conveniently finding the right weapon at the right time (see: a random vat of toxic waste in “Jason Takes Manhattan,” or a sink full of liquid nitrogen in “Jason X, Jason in Outer Space”). The beauty is that Jason can be killed each of these ways as well…he just doesn’t stay dead come the intro to the next movie.

Like any great horror franchise, there’s a drop-off in greatness the more movies that get made. In his 10 movie career (11 if you count “Freddy vs. Jason”), Jason has murdered in Manhattan, been defeated by some sort of telepath, gotten new mythologies, traded a burlap sack for his trademark hockey mask, had his heart eaten, and been to outer space (which happened after he “went to hell”). No franchise can sustain itself for 10 (or 11 movies) well, and “Friday the Thirteenth” is no different. But the beauty of the franchise isn’t its sustained quality, but it’s cultural affect. Halloween was scary before “Halloween,” and nightmares were frightening before they happened on Elm Street, but the thirteenth’s mainstream cause for terror was never the same after 1980.

*Maybe not historically, but certainly commonly.

Day 29: EDWARD SCISSORHANDS (1990)

2008-10-29T19:35:00.003-04:00

With Tim Burton's second attempt to make a Frankenstein film, at this point in his career with a couple of successful films under his belt, the director re-interprets Frankenstein as a kid-friendly story with a slightly darker tone.

He does once again jettison the central conceit, which is, to refresh our memory, that men like Baron Frankenstein (or in this case, The Inventor played by Vincent Price) will be punished for transgressing against God or the Gods. In its place, Burton substitutes two different Ur-conflicts, man versus himself and man versus society. The Edward Scissorhands (Johnny Depp) of the title plays a central role in both.

On one level, the film explores The Inventor's battle with his own loneliness. While Frankenstein's attempt to create life was spurred on by pure hubris (or maniacal glee when played by Peter Cushing), here, the creature's erstwhile creator seeks only to complete himself. He desires only a companion and a son, someone to love and be loved by in return. Sadly, like many parents, he dies before he can see his child reach his full potential. It is a far more personal story, even if Burton only skims the surface.

On the other level, the film explores the conflict between the creature as an outsider and mainstream society. It is not mere coincidence that Edward resembles the typical Goth, or that the film takes place primarily in the suburbs, among the American ideal that this imperfect being can never fit in with. As Edward learns societal norms and acclimates himself more to the suburban lifestyle, the people in turn accept him more. Later, they turn on him sharply, never having learned to fully trust this outsider they believe absolutely in the first (false) rumor of his transgressions against one of their own. In the end, the creature is once again cast off by society and forced to live alone.

These two conflicts are subjects that Burton turns to in his films time after time. In so many ways, he wears his broken teenage heart on his sleeve when he directs.

There exists a certain fondness in my own heart for this film, which has resulted in my being awful lenient, complimentary even, towards Burton's departure from the classic Frankenstein story he draws upon for his narrative. There are a couple reasons for this.

First, most serious devotees of film will likely agree by this point that Burton's waters run only so deep. Thematically, his films trend strongly towards shallow ponds, albeit ponds with an inspired sense of design. (SWEENEY TODD (2008), for example, was a Frankenstein's monster-like abomination against Stephen Sondheim's work but was also the most beautifully shot film of the year. I look forward to seeing it in Blu-Ray.) One must accept his work for what it is, contradictorily both deeply personal but failing to provide any deeper truth.

Second, the film adheres to most of the window dressing of the James Whale films. Examples of this include the castle and the angry mob, though the rationale behind the mob is slightly different. Burton, despite his flaws, is gifted when it comes to borrowing elements from other sources and re-fashioning them as his own. Say what you will about PLANET OF THE APES (2001) but if someone had told you he would re-make that sci-fi classic, the final result was basically what you would expect--an homage or two, followed by a complete re-appropriation of the story in an insane direction.

This is without any doubt a film which belongs in the upper echelons of the Frankenstein canon. Although it is not very faithful to many of the core elements, it does manage to explore alternate themes in a highly satisfying way.

OVERALL: ****/5 and an oddly faithful adaptation of the Frankenstein myth.

Day 28: Robert Kirkman’s "The Walking Dead"

2008-10-28T14:59:00.001-04:00

For more than eight volumes, Robert Kirkman has told the story of a band of survivors just trying to survive in his graphic novel series, “The Walking Dead.” Much like my colleague describes below in regards to George A. Romero’s movies, Kirkman succeeds in creating a world where the existence of zombies is simply the norm. But where Romero has the restraints of the MPAA, and the need to keep his movies at an R rating or less to make all of their money back, Kirkman has the freedom to take his characters, and the artists with whom he works, to almost uncharted territory in the zombie genre.

It’s true that there are only so many ways in which a zombie can devour a human, but put in the scenario that the living (as opposed to the undead) are in, the human mind seems be limitless in its possibilities to survive, and this is the territory that Kirkman treads on. And sometimes, he trespasses: killing babies, decapitating humans as bribes, fighting zombies as sport and torturing the living are just some of the devices that Kirkman’s characters employ, not just to survive, but to prove to each other that his or her life is more valuable than another’s.

“The Walking Dead” has been published monthly since 2003, and in these five years, it’s had ample time to develop its story. While early volumes certainly cast the undead as the villain, later volumes almost seldom have them making appearances, and often when they are in a scene, facing them is the preferred option to facing the other survivors. In fact, when later volumes feature killings by the zombies, those deaths almost seem like copouts.

While Kirkman hasn’t hinted that any ending is near, he’s running out of characters to kill. Perhaps upcoming volumes will return to the zombie-as-villain storyline, getting the remaining survivors out of their surrogate homes, and back on the run from the undead and the pathetically living. It might be a good turn since most of the protagonists’ character traits are almost exactly those of the other humans they’re fighting: selfish, dangerous, and mostly uncaring. But for the world in which they’re forced to live, maybe it’s not so far fetched to not have a “good guy”.

Three people that are scarier than zombies out of five.

Day 27: Night, Dawn, Day, Land, & Diary of the Dead

2008-10-27T21:40:00.002-04:00

It is more than likely that until the day he dies, George Romero will make zombie movies that point out the ills of society. He might even continue after that, because it seems that the same problems he's been pointing out over the years: racism, classism, and consumerism among other themes.

The thing about Romero's Dead series is that the zombies aren't the bad guys. They are simply part of that world. They may not seem like anything natural, but they represent two things that are very natural, human nature and death. The walking dead can almost be considered innocent when their actions are compared to those of the survivors. The zombies are driven by one thing, the need to feast on living flesh. There is some base version of survival in their instinct. They may not need living flesh to survive, they're going to rot and decompose either way, but there is a purity in their single-mindedness.

No, the true villains of these films are those in humanity who seek more than survival in the end of the world. They come in the form of a lynch mob-like group of hillbillies in the end of Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead, as well as marauding bikers in Dawn, and they are the remnants of the military-industrial complex in Day, Land and Diary of the Dead.

It's not to say that the zombies are "good guys." They simply are. Romero always presents a group of human survivors that are simply trying to live, to carry on with some sort of life as the good guys. And they inevitably come into conflict with the dregs of humanity that have survived, ultimately leading to the destruction of whatever society they have tried to restore, leaving even less people to carry on. There is never any action on the part of the zombies, they are only able to feed when the good guys and bad guys collide. In other words, humanity always brings death and destruction upon itself because it can't move past things as petty as race, religion, or material wealth.

Romero has shown us these images again and again, and in Diary of the Dead he shows how ineffective it is to simply watch these events unfold. It takes action to survive and build a better society. We can't beat death, but we can defeat those who selfishly put themselves above the greater good. It just seems that we are stuck in a pattern of watching instead of doing.

Day 24: THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1957)

2008-10-24T18:37:00.003-04:00

The first Hammer horror film and the first of many Frankenstein films the studio would produce, Terence Fisher's THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1957) is neither an adaptation of the novel nor an update to James Whale's Universal original. (Hammer explicitly drew upon the early Universal horror films for inspiration.) While it jettisons many of the central thematic elements of those works, and indeed the Frankenstein mythos itself, it does manage to create an exceptional horror film.

That is not to suggest that the film does not hint at the error of man usurping the powers of Gods. Towards the beginning of the film, an imprisoned Victor Frankenstein (Peter Cushing), calls upon a priest to come and act as his confessor. This encounter proceeds to the point where Frankenstein moves to strangle the priest. To paraphrase Ralph Wiggum describing the final scene of THE DEPARTED (2007), the rat symbolizes obviousness. Later on, Frankenstein and his former tutor, Paul (Robert Urquhart), have an argument on the result of their shared experiment. Paul calls it a revolt against nature, having been in the corpse reviving game purely in pursuit of a humanistic improvement to modern surgery techniques. Frankenstein is genuinely ambivalent about stopping scientific progress merely because his work is an abomination in the eyes of God. Those two scenes would be the extent of it.

The film remains more than notable, however. Even if it fails to transcend its genre in favor of a shallow horror film, it is at least far from typical. Here, at last, was all the blood and gore and sex and pure, insane awesomeness which is the basis of the Hammer horror legend!

More than a Frankenstein film, this is cross between a mad scientist film (a dominant horror sub-genre during the 1950s) and a zombie film (in the style of George Romero but before Romero). It possesses trappings of both, without completely indulging either instinct. The film is also like a Gothic love story, in the style I have discussed here previously, but with a nefarious, crazed leading man.

Peter Cushing does a phenomenal job as Victor Frankenstein, going through his role with a mad gleam in his eyes the whole time. In the first experiment to revive the dead, he and Paul bring back a small dog from the dead and Cushing just dives into madness. He plays its just with his facial expressions, stopping just short of breaking into maniacal laughter and self-parody. He bangs the maid and treats her terribly, manipulating and controlling her, as he does most of the people in his life.

Christopher Lee, under make-up that has him looking like the Toxic Avenger with a Beatles moptop, does an equally great job as Frankenstein's unholy creature. Less a man in a state of nature (the novel) or a shambling hulk (the Universal film), here the creature is basically a zombie. Well, except for a love of eating brains but he can always learn that one later. The similarities really hit me towards the middle of the film, when Frankenstein has the creature chained to the wall like a late-stage Romero zombie.

To accompany these elements, the film has plenty of violence. The appearance of the creature, shockingly disfigured and grotesque, especially for that era, is only the beginning. Victor Frankenstein non-chalantly sawing off a corpse's head and collecting various gooey eyeballs, brains, et cetera from corrupt charnel house attendants, continue in this vein. The creature gets his eye shot out and blood subsequently squirts out like a geyser. Later, the creature gets set on fire and falls in a tub of acid. Also, some other random murders. It is, to put it simply, fucking insanity.

After being disappointed by THE HORROR OF DRACULA (1958), made by largely the same group of people, this film was approached with trepidation. The MacBook was at the ready, biding its time until email was checked, webpages distractedly scrolled through and unsuspecting females creepily scrutinized on Facebook. Instead, THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN achieved pure greatness.

OVERALL: ****/5. I was shocked to have enjoyed this film so much.

Day 23: Count Chocula, Frankenberry and Boo Berry cereals

2008-10-24T17:18:00.001-04:00

Each features a sugary rice puff, vaguely in the shape of its branding motif, as well as tiny marshmallows, also vaguely in the shape of something "spooky." They are relatively devoid of nutritional content--approximately 130 calories per 1 cup, high in sugar and nearly devoid of fiber, protein and nutrients.

Count Chocula is clearly the "big ticket" item among these cereals, being the only one reliably found on supermarket shelves year-round. In most markets, Frankenberry and Boo Berry are unavailable until around Halloween. (I am unaware of whether they are produced during the remainder of the year and available to order.) There is nothing particularly distinguishing among the three except the artificial flavor. Chocula, obviously, gets chocolate. The others receive something akin to berries, or at least the closest thing to it that can be developed along the "Chemical Corridor" in northern New Jersey; Frankenberry leans towards strawberry but not anything immediately recognizable as such.

On that account, Frankenberry gets the closest to the themes of its source. While the term "Frankenfood" traditionally is applied only to genetically-modified produce or livestock, it would be difficult to argue that the cereal is anything less than an act in definance of God and all that is holy. On the other hand, only very special people would recognize the erotic subtext of Count Chocula.

OVERALL: ***/5 compared against the sugary breakfast cereal genre. They lack the nutritional value of Cheerios, for example, but also do not go as far into decadence as Cookie Crisps.

Day 22: The Cinematic Legend of I AM LEGEND

2008-10-22T19:55:00.005-04:00

Since Richard Matheson's I Am Legend was published in 1954, there have been three attempts at adapting the novel: The Last Man on Earth starring Vincent Price in 1964, The Omega Man starring Charlton Heston in 1971, and I Am Legend starring Will Smith in 2007. The most interesting thing about these films is how The Last Man on Earth and I Am Legend serve as bookends to the zombie genre. I'll mostly be ignoring The Omega Man, as it is the most divergent from the novel, and doesn't serve any real purpose in this essay.

Matheson's novel is a deconstruction of the vampire. The vampires that come about as a result of a global virus have symptoms associated with vampirism, yet Robert Neville surmises that many of these are psychological. The way they act is based on how they think a vampire should act. Belief has to do with their weaknesses as well, as in the case of Neville's former colleague, Ben Cortman, a cross has no effect on him, but the Jewish Torah does. These vampires are also slow moving and slow-witted, not the cunning, sexy vampires of Stoker or portrayed by Lugosi.

While the deconstructed vampire isn't carried over into The Last Man on Earth, the de-evolved one is. They are slow, stupid, and single minded in pursuit of Neville. They are drawn to him not only because he is food, but because he represents a tie to the world that used to be. This film takes the vampire away from the role of the other and reminds us that he is us. There's no allure here for living past death. It is something the mind can't handle and it brings humanity down to its very worst. This film is cited as an inspiration for the modern zombie, for the "Romero" zombie, which I'll touch on a bit more tomorrow. For now, its important to note that rather than revolutionize the vampire genre, the zombie genre was birthed instead.

Cut to 40 years later, and another adaptation of I Am Legend which has more influences in recent zombie films than it does in the book or in vampire lore. The "dark seekers" in the film, are an amalgamation of running zombies and Bat Boy from the Weekly World News. They're sensitive to sunlight, burning but not incinerating, and can be killed with bullets or whatever else is lying around. They are strong, they are fast, and they are all exactly the same. There is very little definition to these creature in design and in behavior. The seekers are supposed to have a leader creature, but its hard to tell when they all have the same features and the same tattered clothing. And for the most part, there is no effort to show that these creatures are us.

As I said, there is almost no effort to show any humanity in the "dark seekers." However, there are little touches here and there, and there is an alternate cut. The leader shows affection for the female seeker that Neville captures in both cuts of the film. The leader also sets a trap for Neville, copying the same trap that Neville caught his mate with. These elements are in both cuts of the film, yet in the theatrical cut they are ignored by Neville, without any indication that this is willful ignorance. It just seems to be glossed over. They've been stripped of their humanity so that Smith's Neville can retain his, so that in spite of any evidence to the contrary, he remains the hero.

Here's where I briefly bring in Mr. Heston's film. Both the Omega Man and I Am Legend succeed when their leading man is left alone. But once the monsters and other survivors are introduced, the filmmakers chose to put everything into stark black and white. The grey areas of the first film and the novel are ignored. They don't allow any humanity in their monsters nor do they allow any monster in their heroes. Each sacrifices themselves for "the greater good" of the remnants of humanity rather than accept the reality of Price's film and Matheson's book, that humanity is dead, and Robert Neville, the last man, is nothing more than a legend.

Day 21: Frankenweenie (1984)

2008-10-21T20:32:00.004-04:00

Tim Burton's first film does not quite do the same job as A Taste for Love (2008) in terms of encapsulating the themes of the original work. Of course, the latter takes place in the context of an R rated film and the former as a Disney short film, which my account for most of that.

Anyway. Young Victor Frankenstein;s beloved dog is run over by a car. Then because Victor is precocious, like all good children's film protagonists, and he loves the mutt, he raises the dog from the dead. The villagers hate the dog mostly because it is ugly; it causes mischief not even rising to the level of hinjinx, let alone murdering a little girl like the original monster. The dog saves Victor's life but dies again in the process. Finally, the villagers rally around this unholy abomination for his heroics and all pitch in to revive the dog a second time.

The lesson of that is, obviously, 1) don't be ugly and 2) if you insist upon being ugly, save a child's life.

In one brief scene Victor's parents very nearly arrive at the question of the morality of playing God but never quite get there. Then again, the entire Disney empire is built upon the notion that you can take powerful, primal storytelling (Grimm's and Han Christian Anderson's fairy tales, Kipling, et cetera) and translate that into something palatable for a mass audience, often retaining a large degree of artisitc merit in the process. In other words, it is an inevitable and entitely acceptable whitewash.

OVERALL: ***/5 but be warned that this short film is complete and utter fluff, as per the Tim Burton oeuvre.

Day 20: BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1935)

2008-10-20T19:28:00.003-04:00

Watching James Whale's 1935 follow-up to the hugely successful FRANKENSTEIN (1931), one is astonished to discover just how many classic elements of Frankenstein lore derive from this film and not the original. The girl thrown in the lake and the torch-carrying villagers chasing the monster to his doom were all there from the beginning but the remainder did not arrive on the scene until four year years later. The infamous white streak, the blind old man and grunting monster with the Hulk's vocabulary, among others, make their first appearance here. Like Frankenstein's eponymous monster itself, the film was not truly complete until it met its bride.

For this reason, and more immediately because the film begins at the moment the original ends, it is impossible to view either in isolation. (The brilliant manner in which GODS & MONSTERS [1997] weaved threads from both into the life of their director & the way in which Mel Brooks took them as an interchangeable whole from which to mine comedy gold also add to the inseparability.) Together, the first two Universal Frankenstein films form what may be the perfect horror film.

This meta-film has everything one desires in a creature feature, late at night when your house starts making odd noises and all the lights are off: Mad scientists! Deformed assistants! Monsters! Defiance of the Gods! Villagers chasing people or things with torches! Unrequited love! Evil doppelgangers! Thunderstorms bellowing outside a spooky old castle! Germans!

The prologue, depicting the origin of the novel and also acting to recap the previous film, gives away the game: Mary Shelly admits it is a story about a man who dares to play God. (And you said I was just making this up as I go along...)

This film, working through an alternate version of that theme, introduces an evil twin to Baron Frankenstein (Colin Clive) in the form of Doctor Pretorius (Ernest Thesiger).

While Frankenstein seeks to play God by first creating Adam/the monster (Boris Karloff), then Eve/the monster's bride (Elsa Lanchester) with Doctor Pretorius' urging and assistance. Notably, Doctor Pretorius plays God at firsy by recreating contemporary society in its imperfect whole. They are not an innocent childlike brutes like Frankenstein's monster existing in a state of nature, but rather kings, queens, archbishops and preening ballerinas, replicating the vices of modern societies. He attempts to seduce Baron Frankenstein to the sordid, tyrannical side of this role by displaying miniature human beings in glass jars, whom he taunts like a cat dangling a mouse. One imagines that Frankenstein was in the God business with much better intentions than that, or at least he possessed a misguided adherence to science over faith.

Doctor Pretorius first enters the film dressed in black and lurking in the shadows, a foreboding presence. Perhpas I make too much of the fact that he enters this appearance immediately after Frankenstein's fiancee declares these expiriments in tinkering with life and death as the work of the devil but Pretorius himself declares that these two scientists are meant to be taken by the audience as a modern God and Satan, dueling over a new dawn of man represented by the monster. The doctor is definitely a villain in this film, and Frankenstein an ambiguous, if not redeemed figure.

OVERALL: ****/5 on its own or a perfect *****/5 as a double feature with FRANKENSTEIN (1931). Not including the bonus points for implied necrophilia, which... how did that get past the censors? I would definitely like to see that memo.

Day 18: MST3K: Manos: The Hands of Fate

2008-10-18T21:05:00.005-04:00

This picture says all I need to say.

This movie is great.

This character, Torgo(pictured above) is great.

5 Torgo theme musics out of 5 Torgo theme musics

P.S. Never see this movie on its own. Only watch the Mystery Science Theater 3000 DVD that its on.

Day 17: Resident Evil, Resident Evil: Apocalypse, Resident Evil: Extinction

2008-10-17T21:38:00.005-04:00

Unlike most zombie fans, I was not brought into the genre by George Romero. My zombie love started in 8th grade when I picked up a game called Resident Evil 2. It had everything: an evil corporation, a corrupt pedophile mayor, lots of crazy weapons, and most importantly, a city under siege by zombies and other biological monstrosities. This was my first real exposure to the walking dead and I was hooked.

In 1998 when the game came out, there was a contest to win a walk on role in a Resident Evil movie. The first draft was worked on by none other than George Romero, of Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, and Day of the Dead fame. I didn't know his films, but I knew his reputation. I figured if it was safe in anyone's hands it was him. Unfortunately, the powers that be didn't see it that way, and he was removed from the project for his script being "too close to the game." That is the biggest problem with video game and comic book movie adaptations. For some reason, the source material is almost always completely disregarded.

The first Resident Evil film is a very loose adaptation of the game. All it pretty much has in common is the setting, the villain: The Umbrella Corporation, and the cause of the zombies: the T-Virus. The T-Virus, in both game and film, was designed to reanimate dead cells, and was intended for use as a bio weapon. They unleash it in a city, let the residents kill each other. That's essentially what happens in the sequel, Resident Evil: Apocalypse. Now while Apocalypse does fall in line a little closer with the plots of the games Resident Evil 2 & 3, it still only incorporates a few of the characters, in minor roles. No, the biggest departure in all the films is the character of Alice, played by Milla Jovavich. Alice evolves from a normal ass kicking, zombie killing rebel against the Umbrella Corporation in the first film, to a rebellious super powered bio weapon in the second and third films.

That's right, whereas in the games, you were a normal cop against undead hordes, in the movies, the heroine has super fast reflexes and...wait for it...telekenisis. It comes out of nowhere at the end of the second film, when Alice delivers an aneurism to a guard monitoring her. It is a true "What the Fuck?" moment. In fact, the first two films, are filled with "What the Fuck?" moments which are really jarring and keep me from fully enjoying them.

However, when we get to the third film in the series, Extinction, that is where they embrace "What the Fuck?" They take all the best ideas from Day of the Dead and Dawn of the Dead(2004) like mad scientists who think they can domesticate the zombies, and convoys of armored vehicles and unleash them in a bleak, post-apocalyptic, Western America. There are hillbillies who get their kicks making people fight zombie dogs, there are zombie crows, and best of all, there are zombies unleashed by the Umbrella Corporation in matching jumpsuits. That means that some poor fuck has the job of not only corralling the zombies, but dressing them too. And these aren't just any old zombies, these are essentially zombies that have been shot up with meth. And they fuck shit up.

That is where Extinction truly succeeds. It breaks through the mediocrity of the first two films by really just fucking shit up. Not only did they amp up the action, but they also brought up the credibility of the film by incorporating some Romero-esque themes: Playing God, Everyone in Authority is an Asshole, etc. They raised the stakes by putting their characters in a world where the living are the minority, their only hope a pipe dream of an uninfected town in Alaska. Its the first film where the characters are doing more than simply trying to survive, they're struggling to want to survive. And they're not just up against zombies, but the remnants of a corporation still trying to keep its grip on a dead planet.

Resident Evil: 2 braiiins out of 5 braiiins

Resident Evil: Apocalypse: 3 braiiins out of 5 braiins

Resident Evil: Extinction: 4 braiins out of 5 braiins

Extinction also gets a bonus 1/2 braiiins for its ending which sets up another film: Hundreds of super-powered Alice clones vs the remnants of the Umbrella Corporation and all the zombies left on the world. If it follows the pattern so far, the next one will be even better than the last.

Day 16: FRANKENSTEIN (1931)

2008-10-16T19:57:00.006-04:00

I. A GRAVEN IMAGE

If one must approach the Dracula myth with a thesis, this is no less true with Frankenstein films. Unlike the former however, the latter have tended from the very beginning to approach directly their underlying themes, namely, the folly of Man playing God.

Why this result occurs, I cannot say for sure. My best guess is that you will run into problems with the censors if you make a film that is obsessed with bodily fluids. Any vampire film will have blood to start and the better ones will get most of the other excretions in there as well. A Frankenstein film does not absolutely require anything of the sort. (Keep in mind, I have never seen the Warhol factory product FLESH OF FRANKENSTEIN [1973].)

Alternately, there is the possibility that the West, as a culture, is incapable of reconciling the ideas of God's plan and human free will. This conflict tends to show up in the popular media. If I may play pop psychologist, and for what its worth I have been playing that role all along in my reviews, I am referring to the possibility that our culture is fascinated by the prospect that man can, variously: a) overcome death and b) create life.

After all, it was not for nothing that Mary Shelly's novel was subtitled 'modern Prometheus.' That refers, of course, to the Greek myth of Prometheus. To reduce that myth to its essential elements is as follows. Prometheus steals fire from the Gods and gives it to mankind. For this transgression, either purely as punishment for his actions or because man was not supposed to have this gift, he is chained to a rock where, every once in a while, Zeus comes by in the form of a bird and feasts upon Prometheus' innards. (Its been a slow progression in Greek cuisine to arrive at the gyro.)

I will assume that everyone is familiar enough with the Frankenstein mythos that I can avoid recapping the plot and pointing out the obvious parallels. The 'modern Prometheus' of the novel refers clearly to Doctor Frankenstein himself, not his famous monster. How dare this scientist, this mere mortal, interfere with the province of Gods by creating life himself?

II. THROW THE SWITCH

So, with that out of the way, it is time to address some specifics on James Whale's first Frankenstein film in particular.

The film proper opens with a priest reciting a prayer in Latin at a funeral. Dr. Frankenstein and Fritz hide in the shadows, waiting to steal a fresh corpse. Immediately, the conflict between God and man has been introduced into the narrative.

Another riff on the Prometheus myth is the infamous torch-bearing mob at the end of the film. Possibly. It could also be reading too much into the use of fire here, which may not be an intentional echo.

Its also interesting that the monster (Boris Karloff) is, alternately, primitive and childlike. In the novel the monster can speak, and his profit on it is that he can then lecture Doctor Frankenstein. The monster in the novel does not shut up. He is kind of a jerk with all the philosophizing, actually.

Both interpretations play off the central theme of the Frankenstein myth in different ways, the novel being didactic and the film being allegorical. This split plays to the respective strengths of each format. Each genre within the format, too. Shelly wrote a Romantic novel, which accounts for the verbiage. Whale directed a mass market horror film, albeit one which rises far above the typical schlock of the era.

Yet, for some reason, the Universal film interpretation has become dominant in popular culture. Karloff's portrayal might play a role in that. His Frankenstein's monster possesses a degree of physicality, of menace, of danger and vulnerability exceeding Bela Lugosi's Dracula, a performance which was excellent and iconic but one-dimensional.

III. WELL, WELL, WELL... WHAT'S ALL THIS?

OVERALL: ****/5 on its own but, as we will discover in my next review, a perfect *****/5 when taken together with BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1935). Both skillfully shot and innovative.

Day 15 Redux: NOCHNOY DOZOR (2004)

2008-10-16T18:32:00.002-04:00

For those of you who do not speak Russian, that's NIGHT WATCH by director Timor Bekmambetov. I was intrigued by this film because I had, apparently in error, assumed it was the inspiration for the song "Night Man," written by Charlie on IT'S ALWAYS SUNNY IN PHILADELPHIA.

Kidding, of course. The reason I sought out this film was because I greatly enjoyed Bekmambetov's first English language work, WANTED (2008), which was loosely based on an even more lossely plotted comic book series by Mark Millar. Like that film, NIGHT WATCH is high on awesome but low on substance. So much so, in fact, that after about twenty-five minutes I had gotten the gist of it and was not at all motivated to carry on with the rest.

From what I could gather, in ye olde times, the forces of Good and the forces of Evil roamed the earth. Then, in order to prevent mutually assured destruction, they called a truce. This truce is enforced by... vampires? Or people with random powers that are all called vampires for some reason? In either case, its an excuse for cool camera angles and action sequences and stuff exploding. (I did not personally witness any explosions in the roughly one-fourth of the film I watched but I assume that eventually some explosions ensued. Safe bet.)

Let me stress that I am not accusing this of being a bad film. With the caveat that you understand its the cinema equivalent of cotton candy, it s a perfectly plausible was to spend a couple hours. I just was not in the mood for it at the time.

OVERALL: I did not bother to finish watching this film, so I have no right to give it a review. Instead, let me take this opportunity to rate Vladimir Putin's recently released judo instructional video. While I have not seen that either, I prospectively give it *****/5 Resurgent Evil Empires.

Day 14: Slither

2008-10-14T19:53:00.002-04:00

Or What's the deal with horror audiences?

An important thing for me in a horror movie is the presence of humor, a balance and compliment to the gore and scariness. The worst thing the horror genre can do is to take itself too seriously. Yet the main audience for horror, douchey teens, isn't looking for that. They want whatever has one or two of the latest teen stars, probably from High School Musical or Gossip Girl, its usually a slasher film, nothing supernatural, and will probably be rated PG-13. That is the kind of horror movie that makes money these days.* And I don't understand why, when people like James Gunn are putting out quality films like Slither.

A brief disclaimer, this is more a "here are things that are great about this" than an actual review.

Slither is a love letter to the films of John Carpenter, Fred Dekker, and most of the brand of horror that came out in the late 70's into the 80's. The mayor is named Jack MacReady after Kurt Russell's character in The Thing. The worms of extraterrestrial origin that "slither" into peoples bodies turning them into zombies of sorts is reminiscent of Dekker's Night of the Creeps, and the humor in the film has its inspiration in both these directors as well as Lloyd Kaufman, founder of Troma.

The plot is this, a meteor crashes to earth, unleashing some small gelatinous creature, which stings local pervy old guy, Grant Grant. He is then taken over by the creature and its need to procreate. He kidnaps a young woman, feeds her raw meat and she explodes sending out little worm things that take over people with the alien consciousness resulting in them becoming hive mind zombie type creatures. Eventually, it comes down to police chief Bill Pardy; Starla Grant, Grant Grant's wife and Pardy's unrequited love; and a hot teenage girl; to stop Grant/alien monster from taking over the world.

Nathan Fillion of Firefly and Two Guys, a Girl, and a Pizza Place fame, plays police chief Bill Pardy. Like his role as Captain Mal Reynolds on Firefly, Fillion, as Pardy, is someone who's a good mixture of badass and goofball. Much like Harrison Ford when he's on his game. Michael Rooker, as Grant Grant, brings a good mix of the funny and the creepy as well. Never again will I hear someone say "meat" without thinking of him saying "MEAT." And Gregg Henry as the mayor hilariously curses his whole way through the movie. He says "Fuck" enough times to earn the R rating without any of the guts.

Also great is the song "Baby I Love You" by the Yayhoos which plays over the credits. Download it right away, it's awesome.

Now, while I do believe Slither to be worth 5 out of 5 hive mind zombie creatures, I will subtract half a zombie creature for its lack of nudity. If you're getting an R rating anyway, you might as well throw in some sweet boobs.**

*I know Saw has been successful, but I haven't bothered to see any of those films, thus it is irrelevant to me.

** Pronounced "sweet bewbs" as per the 6th graders on South Park

4 1/2 out of 5 hive mind zombie creatures

Day 13: DRACULA: DEAD & LOVING IT (1995)

2008-10-13T17:42:00.006-04:00

The poster art and timing would leave one to believe this is a spoof of Coppola's Dracula film. However, aside from a few easy marks (e.g. the hair & the shadow descending the staircase shot), in most respects this is based off of the 1931 version in the same manner that Mel Brooks' earlier skewering of Frankenstein was a spoof of the Universal classics. That being said, knowledge of basic Dracula lore is sufficient to enjoy this film. Indeed, this film does not reward familiarity with the source material in the same way that the superior YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN (1974) does.

I am somewhat torn on that subject. I think its hugely unfair to measure this film against early Brooks (the above named film, GET SMART, BLAZING SADDLES, et cetera). That's not to say that one should not consider his directorial efforts as whole, an approach which is entirely warranted in most cases. The problem is that so much of his early work receives praise which makes later films hard to compare against. After viewing this film, I came to the conclusion that it would be held in much higher esteem if: 1) YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN did not exist and 2) it was not simply another Leslie Nielson spoof.

I will approach the latter reservation first. Leslie Nielson is a fine comic talent, no disputing that. His pratfalls and reaction shots reach the pinnacle of the form. To my mind, however, his presence here detracted from the overall product because he plays it how he always does, rather than a performance tailored specifically to Dracula. Bela Lugosi, Christopher Lee and Gary Oldman are all ripe for parody; Nielson takes on the Hungarian accent and leaves it at that.

Now, to the former reservation. There is no doubt that this film is inferior to YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN. Nielson, as noted, cannot match Peter Boyle interpreting Boris Karloff. Neither can Peter MacNichol as Renfield match Gene Wilder nor Amy Yasbeck match Terri Garr. We can continue in this vein as we scroll down the credits, but you certainly get the point. There is comedic talent on display here but not, you know, comedic talent. I could chalk that one up to preference but I doubt there would be serious dispute on which film has the heavy hitters.

Continuing on this point, what disappointed me most was that Brooks here failed to shoot the film in black & white. Every time an establishing shot popped up in the familiar palette only to go to television-grade cinematography, my hopes were dashed. Was he trying to avoid the inevitable comparisons to YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN? Because they were inevitable, really, if that was the purpose then it was for nought. It would have given the proceedings a dose of authenticity to play against the silliness of the plot, enriching the overall product. (See also: the washed out color palette of BLAZING SADDLES, mirroring classic Westerns.) Not only was opportunity missed by shooting in color, he also opted against using a lot of deep blacks and low light, which would have at least brought to mind other vampire movies. As it remains, it looks indistinguishable from how one would approach a romantic comedy or any other genre devoid of noticeable atmospherics.

Sadly, there is little to discuss in terms of the sexuality inherent in the Dracula myth as presented in this film. Mina Harker vamps it up to the chagrin of her reserved English fiancee after having been bit, which is a funny scene. Of course, Terri Garr did the same thing, better, after experiencing the monster's, ahem, monster in YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN. (Come to think of it, so did Madeleine Kahn in BLAZING SADDLES.) The oversexed female is a go-to comedic concept for the director, and for pretty much everyone else. But, hey, the film still made a better effort to explore the subject than Hammer Films!

So, even though I made a noble effort to compartmentalize this film from Brooks' earlier, superior efforts I was still a bit disappointed. Not to say this is an unfunny experience, by no means. It is definitely worth viewing for some inspired gags--more than you would find in any spoof film in the past two and a half decades or so.

OVERALL: **/5 in the Mel Brooks canon but ***/5 when measured against spoof films in general.

* * *

Well, this is going to be my last Dracula-related review for now, which is bittersweet. On one hand, I do get some nice symmetry by starting with DRACULA (1931) and ending with its spoof. On the other hand, I would have liked to hit on other important films, such as NOSFERATU (1922) and BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA (1992), as well as a couple of the later Universal films. Further, in the larger scope, its impossible to advance my thesis on the eroticism of the vampire myth using this film. Perhaps I'll return to the subject later.

For now, however, I'll be moving on to a series on on Frankenstein. Tentatively, the lineup is as follows:

FRANKENSTEIN (1931)
BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1935)
EDWARD SCISSORHANDS (1990)
FRANKENWEENIE (1984) (short film)
YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN (1974)

You might spot some parallels between that list and the choice for the Dracula series. To my knowledge, Hammer never attempted a Frankenstein film; if I am in error on that fact, I will attempt to locate that film. I may also add Kenneth Branagh's MARY SHELLY'S FRANKENSTEIN (1994), which I have never seen. Look for that in the remaining days of October.

Day 10: House of the Dead an Uwe Boll Film

2008-10-10T13:18:00.009-04:00

Back in 2003, things were pretty good. I was in my formative years of college, those lovable losers the Tampa Bay Buccaneers won their first Superbowl, and a little gem of a film named House of the Dead was released.

I can remember my excitement in learning that a film would be based upon one of my favorite arcade shooters, the aptly titled House of the Dead. A game with little to no story line aside from vaguely police like people shooting zombies through the skull with high caliber bullets. It was being brought to life by director Uwe Boll whose list of accomplishments simply distort space-time with their greatness. Who can’t remember the first time they enjoyed German Fried Movie? I for one cannot. But, of course, we are talking about me and my perverted movie going pleasures. So this whole genocide of celluloid was something I would have to watch (and later own on DVD).

In the theater with me were two of my good friends and one lone child with his mother. It was the films opening day. Popcorn, nachos, and large cups full of blue colored (and flavored) ice were in our hands dripping with glistening condensation. This movie was going to be enjoyed, swallowed, and ingested. The lights dimmed and we fell silent. What transpired over the next 90 minutes was absolutely inspired.

Teen party seekers/adventurers bribe a shady tugboat captain to take them to a haunted island where the “Rave of the Century” is being thrown by Sega (the videogame developer). The one girl with a nice rack decides to get the party started early and takes her top off on the boat. So far, so good.

When they arrive on the island the supposed greatest party ever turns out to be massively underwhelming, as in there’s nobody there. What could have happened to them? Where are these supposed hundreds of party goers? Who cares, its time to skinny dip!

So we skip ahead over some boring and incoherent scenes featuring our rag tag group and end up in zombie heaven. The captain turns out to be an illegal arms smuggler and has a crate full of automatic weapons and shotguns that never need reloading. So our heroes each pick up their weapon of choice and master it in the very next scene.

The next scene, which is my favorite scene, features our heroes slaughtering zombies while trying to get to a house (presumably of the dead). This takes roughly 10 minutes. Every shot fired is a head shot. Every intense face is in slow motion. There is even a high-speed 360° shot of every character doing their best Matrix impression. On the DVD commentary, Uwe Boll informs us that this effect was achieved by having a camera spun around the actors at really high speeds. So dangerous was this technique that it’s never been used again. Boll used it nearly at least 8 times. All of those times, are in this one scene.

Now they make it to the house, but not without casualties. They figure out what pesky experiments have caused this outbreak and attempt to set them right. Now I won’t spoil the end for you, but if you were hoping for a zombie sword fight you’ll be extremely happy.

So should you see this film? Well there’s a lot of gore, that’s cool. The zombie makeup is decent, but nothing spectacular. Gun’s? Check. Swords? Check. Boobs? Check. Plot? Not so much. Did I mention they cut together action scenes with actual game play footage? Awesome.

It’s tough to sit through alone. This is an experience to share with someone you love. Or someone you hate. Or maybe your infant cousin. Either way, you should be in for a decent time provided you have enough snacks (and a board game for the boring parts). Just remember that this is a video game based zombie movie directed by an amateur German boxer.

1 out of 5 squib explosions.

(5 out of 5 awesomely bad squib explosions)

Day 9: HORROR OF DRACULA (1958)

2008-10-08T19:18:00.007-04:00

This seminal Hammer horror film--the description that accompanies the film from iTunes credits it with single-handedly reviving the genre, a historical fact I have no cause to dispute--hews closely to the Bram Stoker source material in some respects but departs from it in others. For one, Jonathon Harker travels to Dracula's castle knowing he is a vampire and seeking to destroy him rather than being the hapless real estate agent of the original, but this change does little to alter the course of events which follow. If anything, it is merely an early signifier that this is a horror film. In terms of my ongoing inquiry into the sexual undertones of the Dracula myth, however, it does little to advance the thesis.

Some erotic elements are present, if only barely. As Dracula bears down on Mina (or possibly Lucy, I got distractedly bored quite a few times while watching this film) some tender kisses on the cheek and neck preclude his savage bite. That's about it, to my memory. Nary a torn bodice in sight.

I am not entirely sure what this reserved stature is a function of specifically. It could be either: A) this is a British film or B) it relies too heavily on presenting a literal translation of the novel.

In support of Option A, let us be clear, it is very British. Exceedingly so. Christopher Lee as Dracula and Peter Cushing as Van Helsing practically re-invent the term "stiff upper lip" in their respective performances here. This heavily British approach to the material also reflects on the mildness of the horror elements to the story. As Dracula, Lee's upper crust Anglo demeanor is no match for Bela Legosi's Hungarian exoticism. Here, the Count is far likelier sneer at an unlucky street urchin than tear his jugular out. In fact, the first victim when he arrives in the city is indeed a street urchin.

In support of Option B, the film adheres to the Gothic novel aesthetic. For those of you who are aware of the term but lack specifics, allow me to explain what it meant originally, rather than its modern re-interpretation. First, take whichever Jane Austen or Bronte sisters novel you were assigned to read in high school. I am going to use Wuthering Heights for the sake of example. Now, remove all references to contemporary social mores and marital customs. Replace that text with explorations of, primarily, Germanic or Slavic folklore. Finally, give Heathcliff fangs/lycanthropy/consumption and a creepy old house. That is a Gothic novel, even if that is an extremely reductive description.

Not to be dismissive of Stoker's novel, of course. The problem resides in transmitting that form to the screen. Here and most elsewhere, the result is flat except in the hands of the most exceptional filmmakers (i.e. David Lean & Ang Lee). Long narrative passages about deep, unfulfilled longing make for great reading. Numerous close-ups of actors conveying that feeling by pursing their lips and half-closing their eyes not so much. Therefore, the horror or erotic subtext, in the most entertaining films, needs to be accentuated and brought to the surface. Tod Browning chose horror, Francis Ford Coppola chose to wallow in eroticism and dabble in horror.

It seems as if the director, Terence Fisher, chose very modest portions of both. I have already noted the minimal extent of the sexual elements in this film. The opening titles, which feature bright red rivulets of blood dripping onto Dracula's coffin, make a promise of horror to come which the story never actually fulfills. As the film proceeds, Dracula is not at all menacing. If anything, he's just kind of a dick. Although the final sequence where Van Helsing hunts the vampire is extended compared to the 1931 version, and as noted the Dracula hunting mission is telegraphed from the outset, it somehow manages to disappoint. There is no more tension here than in the dull thud of the climax to Browning's film.

Perhaps the later Hammer horror films featuring Lee, Cushing and Vincent Price are the classics which I have been promised. However, such an effort is not on display in this film. A middling entry into the Dracula canon at best.

OVERALL: 1 torn bodice & 1 tastefully undone bodice out of a possible 5 torn bodices.

Day 8: THIS Boy's Life - An American Psycho...review - Guest Review by Giacomo Kmet

2008-10-08T12:07:00.000-04:00

I'm not sure how this piece will turn out. I'm not sure it will be a conventional review, as I do not remember how to do one; plus, everyone should have seen this movie already. And if you haven't, kill yourself. Or you can show me your tastefully thick business card, and I'll do it for you.

I remember when American Psycho first came out. It was in 2000 and I was still a sophomore in high school; under the age limit for an R movie. As un-law abiding as I was (and am) at times, I never snuck into an R movie while underage. I remember the commercial - combining blood, screaming, and Huey Lewis and the News, in the most spectacular way. I was immediately enthralled. I wanted to see it in the worst way...and I never did. Like most High Schoolers, I must have immediately moved on once the next "big thing" distracted me.

Flash forward two years, and I was in Blockbuster with Anna. We had just started going out...I think. But I remember stopping in front of a side display and seeing American Psycho - ON VHS! - a movie I had completely forgot about since I had seen the commercial. I pointed it out to Anna, clearly excited (me, not her) - and I told her I had never seen the movie. Despite our short time together, she was confused as to why I had not, and semi-excitedly told me to get it (MISTAKE). I watched it alone a few days later, on some shitty old television, with my shitty VCR. I was, contrary to what you may believe, less than impressed. I liked the movie, but it wasn't what I expected. The movie, as I have come to appreciate, is much more Black Comedy than Horror or Thriller, or in whatever category you would fit a movie about a rich 80's Wall Street VP, who is possibly delusional, possibly murdering colleagues and hookers, at an alarming rate, in a brutal and explicit manner.

American Psycho was one of the first DVDs I received for Christmas, when I first got a Sony PlayStation 2 (didn't have a DVD player at the time). I used to watch it while writing creative writing stories in High School (which were not about murder - I didn't want to get sent to that weirdo guidance counselor). I read the book - highlighting the best parts. In retrospect - I realize I should have highlighted with different colors, different parts of the book. : pink for the sexual passages, blue for Patty Winters Show references (don't get me started on how much time I must have wasted trying to find out if that show actually existed and if i could get copies), classic Yellow for the murder. I suppose I could purchase another copy, but to get the broken in feeling, I'd need to read the book another 10 times.

College is the place where I watched the bulk of my viewings of American Psycho - and where I grew to appreciate it the most. It's what I believe help me make some friends (along with WWF/WWE, and ridiculous movies). American Psycho Wednesdays. Ah, a simpler time in my life. Every Wednesday in October - we, or I if alone, would watch American Psycho, possibly multiple times, while drinking bourbon mixed with cranberry juice (cran-apple), and a lime (I can always get you a lime). I believe I'm up to 75 viewings thanks to college- I'll need to check the log to be sure. Yes, around the 30th viewing, I started writing down the times. My room in New Jersey is a disturbing shrine to American Psycho: The advance poster (No Introduction Necessary), the US one sheet (Killer Looks), both Japanese mini movie posters (chirashi), a small reproduction of the German movie poster, 2 small copies of the Australian poster (it's double sided), a self made meat-bone filled in NYtimes crossword with blood and hair stains, a commissioned artwork of the original book cover (thanks Pauly!), the 7" Bateman figure, the 18" motion activated talking Bateman figure, and, if not mistaken, 6 copies of the dvd including the original unrated edition, the killer collector's edition, the Canadian edition, the original R rated edition, the UK edition, and the German edition...and the original VHS that started it all.

I love American Psycho. It introduced me to Christian Bale. It cemented my hatred for Jared Leto. At one time, I, and my college friends, could recite nearly the entire movie from memory. As insane as my purchasing in related paraphernalia has been - the movie reminds me of different times in my life. That first VHS with Anna; all those wonderful times on American Psycho Wednesdays; all those American Psycho themed artworks (Chris's rendition of himself as Bateman with a chainsaw in front of his crotch; Titan-American Psycho; Pauly's wonderful painting)...I could go on and on, but this is already getting too long. To close - this may not have been a review of the movie - but it is nothing short of a glowing recommendation, and a glimpse at what a movie can mean to someone - even a black comedy/horror-thriller.

If you have never seen American Psycho, this confession has meant nothing. American Psycho (Univeral 2000) (motion picture).

5 drawings of a watermelon out of 5

Day 7: Creepshow 2

2008-10-07T19:30:00.002-04:00

Like many of the movies I'll be tackling over the next month, Creepshow 2 is a wonderful movie that I found for five dollars. Buying a movie blind for five dollars is much more fun than stopping to watch a movie on cable. It's very low risk gambling. Yeah, you're out five bucks if it sucks, but its only five bucks. And if it's awesome, then, well, you only paid five bucks for it! Creepshow 2 kinda falls in the middle though. I'm happy with about two dollars and sixty eight cents of my purchase.

I still haven't seen the first Creepshow, but I've been aware of both movies for awhile, mostly because I knew George Romero and Stephen King were involved. They were writers and producers in the case of the sequel, though in the end, I saw a little bit more Romero than King in the film. Mostly in the villains of the stories, in that they have little to no redeeming qualities, as it is in Romero's Dead films. His bad guys are usually cartoonishly bad, and that touch is really evident in Creepshow 2 in the characters of "Fat Stuff," "Horny Teen 1," "Horny Teen 2," and "Rich Lady."

The main reason I'm pretty "meh" on Creepshow 2 is the pacing. Each of the three stories is paced as if part of an individual television show, not as a part of a whole. The slow pace pretty much only works in the case of the first story, which involves a slow and sleepy small town, wherein a wooden Indian takes revenge for the murders of elderly shopkeepers. The second takes forever to get to the murders of horny teens by pollution and the third involves a rich woman who runs over a hitchhiker who won't die. I was pretty much done watching the movie and reading a book about halfway through. I stopped giving a shit after the third line from the whiny teen interrupted the horny teens from getting it on.

Plus, none of these stories captured my attention as much as an episode of Tales from the Crypt. Creepshow 2 seemed to be lacking the energy, and real wicked sense of humor that was present in all the Tales from the Crypt episodes I've seen. Both are working from or inspired by the same source material, the horror comics of the 1950's, but Creepshow 2 didn't seem to pull it off as well.

$2.68 out of $5.00

Day VI: A Taste For Love (2008)

2008-10-04T11:36:00.004-04:00

(A.k.a. the Dracula musical from FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL)

I'm not going to insult anyone's intelligence by actually attempting to review five minutes of a film as if it were a real film. But what I would like to discuss is the usage of Dracula as a symbol. This task is made somewhat easier for me since FSM makes the subtext of what he represents here, well, text.

In one of the raw-ish emotional moments of FSM, Pete (Jason Segal) explains that he identifies with Dracula because, like him, he believes he is cursed to suck dry everyone he grows close to. Which, self-pity aside, is actually quite good usage of the myth. As noted in Day Two's review of DRACULA (1931), the good Count and vampires generally have often been employed as metaphors for erotic longing. (Never more so than in the last decade, starting around the time of Coppola's film to become the dominant thematic element.) What could one long for more than what he loves most but always destroys?

Towards the climax of FSM, Pete, with the emotional assistant of Rachel (Mila Kunis), abandons the self-pity and realizes that a dracula musical with puppets works best when played for laughs. Why not let the wounds inflicted by Sarah Marshall (Kristen Bell) heal? After all, the vampier's main victim, Mina Harker, is traditionally cured when the forces of good (the men of her native land or the kindly hotel staff) defeat the forces of evil (Dracula as lusty foreignor or Sarah Marshall the distant television sex symbol).

Playing Dracula's predicament for laughs in fact maintains the essense of the metaphor as well as if it were drama. Only in stories are people forever cursed by tragic loves. Pete, whose heart has now healed, can see the comedy in the story. Although he presumably still identifies with Dracula to a degree, as I am sure most of us could, he also recognizes that Dracula need not be a horrific visage but rather an object of friendly ridicule, as if to commit an act of distancing to prevent him from ever becoming such a creature. Only vampires don't see the light of day eventually.

OVERALL: No rating, but high marks for thematic usage of the Dracula myth.

Day Three: Fringe (FOX, Tuesdays, 9PM)

2008-10-03T10:49:00.000-04:00

Ok, so it’s not a movie; but Fox’s new science fiction show from JJ Abrams of (most recently) Lost and Cloverfield fame can get your heartbeat raised as much as anything else worth viewing during the Halloween season, and frankly, most of it is just as—if not more—jarring.

The basic premise of Fringe is the following: Specific sector of FBI is dedicated to investigating peculiar happenings—often referred to as “The Pattern”—with the help of a crazy old genius, and his son who seems to only be involved because his father is so crazy that he’s in his son’s custody. There’s also a lot of evidence that most of “The Pattern” is a result of experiments the old genius did decades ago in his Harvard-based lab, where he shared space with another genius who, instead of going crazy, patented most of his ideas and is now a rich genius. I never got into the X-Files, though evidence is strong that if I started watching it now, I would enjoy it. Having said that Fringe seems to be a lot like the X-Files, but instead of aliens, science is the cause of the weirdness.

And make no mistake: things are very, very weird. Spooky even. Like most shows, each episode of Fringe begins with some sort of catalyst, followed by the opening theme. Fringe’s opening theme is bright and happy, accompanied with bizarre images. It’s a great sensory piece that offers conflict: I hear happy, I see crazy. Isn’t that what Halloween is? What makes us happier than being able to escape reality—even if we’re escaping somewhere that we eventually realize we don’t want to be (when it's finally too late)?

Every episode thus far (four have aired since mid-September) has featured some escape from reality that we’d all hate to be experiencing, yet the world in which it takes place is very much our own. If the psychosis of that isn’t “Halloween enough” for you, consider that peoples’ faces melt, others get trapped like “mosquitoes in amber,” bizarre men read other peoples’ thoughts, serial killers eat flesh, and those you thought you could trust turn out to be the exact people you can’t.

It might not be a movie, but for an hour each week, Fringe succeeds in bringing out the most frightening of October thoughts.

Score: 4 out of 5 murderous experiments.

Day 2: DRACULA (1931)

2008-10-01T21:14:00.012-04:00

SOME INTRODUCTORY REMARKS...

Throughout this month my particular Halloween genre will be the classic Universal horror films, specifically, the Dracula and Frankenstein series. * In elementary school, the library had two or three volumes on early horror films for no discernible reason, which I checked out multiple times each, searing their importance into my still not fully developed brain before I even had a chance to view them. (The books also covered the Hammer films of the 60's/70's but Pauly will be discussing some of those.) More than films in and of themselves, I understood them as pieces of history or influences on later artworks.

My first cinema exposure to these films--aside from the re-imaginings in comic books and on television--was actually the 80's teen flick THE MONSTER SQUAD, which drew heavily on these series, as well as Creature from the Black Lagoon, the Wolfman, the Mummy, and for good measure, Nazis. Even then, I did not directly approach viewing these classics. Before FRANKENSTEIN itself was Mel Brooks' YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN and about the first third of Mary Shelly's novel; I did not seek out BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN until after viewing the magnificent GODS AND MONSTERS. DRACULA was first seen only after viewing Mel Brooks' under-appreciated (!) DRACULA: DEAD AND LOVING IT and reading Bram Stoker's novel. The major elements had so infiltrated the pop culture I didn't feel the need to rush myself.

When it was finally time to watch them in their entirety, along with other films from the era, especially the Lon Cheney/Lon Cheney, Jr. vehicles, there was both much to like and much to bore me. Quite simply, horror has evolved a great deal since that era. It has also been freed of many of the Hays' Code era restrictions, which limited what could be done. (In other words, censorship.) Which brings me to the first film I'm going to review, Tod Browning's DRACULA (1931), a quintessentially erotic story stripped** of all sexual elements.

FINALLY, A REVIEW...

There's probably loads of academic work on the subject, but vampire myths in all cultures are rife with sexual overtones, especially fear/sexual desire of The Other. Its not a coincidence that Stoker's novel was published in repressed England and featured a blood-sucker from the Slavic/Asian East who held a strange power over women. Although this film stars Bela Lugosi, a Hungarian, I find it difficult to determine anything even remotely sexualized about either his performance or appearance. If they were aware of the sublimed sexuality of the source material, it does not seem like they made any effort whatsoever to translate that to the screen.

The element more apparent in this film is pure fear of the unknown, the inherent discomfort of being out of one's element. The film begins with an Englishman visiting Dracula's castle, interacting with odd locals, isolated in the territory of another without the comforts of England. Dialogue pointedly contrasts Christian values with the evil presence we are to encounter. Dracula thrives at night because that's when creatures go bump, not uglies. (Give it a moment. Get it yet? Good.)

The feminine attraction to Dracula is present, of course, but in the same inexplicable and chaste manner as in any romance from the era. It acts as a plot device, devoid of much content or deeper meaning. This is especially disappointing in contrast to the way Browning pressed against taboos in in the far superior FREAKS (1932). You also have the men of the film suspicious of the good Count, but not on account of jealous lovers' envy, but because they know from quite early on that he may be a vampire. The closest the film comes to delving into this fertile psychological territory are some minor glimpses of Mina Seward/Harker as a "fallen women" tainted by Dracula's touch, who mustn't be kissed or loved any longer by her beau, but I suspect that wishful thinking on my part more than anything else. I think I see hints of Van Helsing as a eunuch, the "good" mirror image*** of Dracula as an Eastern The Other, but again, probably wishful thinking.

"Listen to them. Children of the night. What music they make." It sends chills up my spine, though purely of the eerie, non-erotic variety. Its one of the few times that Legosi's stilted delivery works most effectively. (See also: "I never drink. Wine." and "There are far worse things. Awaiting man. Than. Death.") Though, to be fair, perhaps that same off-putting delivery enhances the general aura. Dracula is not one of us mere mortals; he'll take an unsettling pause whenever he damn well pleases.

Browning also makes spectacular use of light and shadow, as well as littering the landscape with askew crosses and a relentless fog. The menace is present in every frame, even when Dracula himself is absent.

Despite being somewhat anti-climactic,**** overall, I think the film succeeds beyond expectations... if you factor in the limitations of the era. A film freed of content restrictions, but stopping short of overindulgence with the sexual themes (e.g. Coppola's film, INTERVIEW WITH A VAMPIRE or basically every modern depiction), would be my ideal version of the Dracula myth. Alas, I have yet to find that film.

OVERALL: **/5 but ****/5 in terms of historical relevance

THE APPENDICES YOU REQUESTED...

* My spellcheck accepts Frankenstein but not Dracula as correct. I can only assume this is because 'Frankenstein' is derived from German and 'Dracula' from Romanian. The English language is heavily influenced by German, whereas Romanian is a Latin-derived 'romance language' which exerts a smaller influence in English. That's a wild guess of an explanation with some legitimate linguistic foundation, of course, but how amazing would it be if I was actually correct?

** Pun very much intended. Heck, I've even got puns you can't see going on here; I drank a Bloody Mary while watching the film. I briefly considered some red wine, a Coppola Cabernet Sauvignon, but decided to hold off on that if and until I decided to review Coppola's much more faithful adaptation of the novel. For the record, I'm not sure that film fares any better than this one in terms of overall quality, even if it all about the sex at the expense of the horror elements.

*** Another pun, yes, but unavoidable in this case.

**** Avoidable pun, but correct terminology.

NOTE: Future reviews, God willing, will not match the length of this piece.

31 Days of Halloween Movies: John Carpenter's THE FOG

2008-10-01T19:17:00.003-04:00

Today begins a 31 day journey through Halloween movies here at the 822 Writing Company. I say Halloween Movies rather than horror movies, because to say that horror movies are the only appropriate films to view around Halloween would be incorrect. Some movies like They Live or The Thing fall a little bit more on the sci-fi side than the horror and the works of Alfred Hitchcock are more in the category of thriller, yet all are very appropriate to watch around Halloween. These are the movies that evoke the feeling of Halloween for us here at 822, so won't you join us as we share some of our favorites with you?

It's no coincidence that I name dropped two John Carpenter films in the above paragraph. For making those two films, along with Escape From New York, Big Trouble in Little China, and Halloween he is one of my favorite directors. My love of these films doesn't come out of any nostalgia, aside from Halloween and They Live I hadn't seen any of these films until about a year ago. So I'm a little late to the John Carpenter party. Anyway, last October, while going through that year's Halloween movies, I was pretty gay for Carpenter. So while in WalMart looking for five dollar movies to buy, I came across The Fog. I saw that Carpenter had directed it, I saw that Jamie Lee Curtis and Adrienne Barbeau were in it, and I saw that it was five dollars, so I purchased it. And then it sat on my DVD shelf until last week.

Now, one of the first and best things about The Fog is also one of the most fleeting. George "Buck" Flower appears in the beginning as a doomed fisherman. George "Buck" Flower is awesome. Click on his name. Look at all the movies you've seen him in. You'll say "Oh, that guy" followed by, "that guy is fucking awesome." Deny this. Try it. I defy you to declare that the late George "Buck" Flower is not awesome.

At this point, three glasses of Francis Ford Coppola's Chardonnay in, I'm not going to even try to review The Fog. Instead, I'm going to make a point about what I think an appreciation of the movies we're going to be talking about this month does. It helps you to recognize the George "Buck" Flowers of the world, the character actors who usually play the same part, who are vaguely recognized by the general viewing public and are loved by those who love movies. They are in shitty movies, they are in great movies, they are in shitty movies that are great. They look funny, they talk funny, they usually have a single defining characteristic that gets them work (usually creepiness in various forms) and they fucking knock it out of the park every time. So that's part of what this month is about, the character actor.

P.S. Review of The Fog: 3.5 Dead Hookers out of 5

Midnight Movie Madness (Updated & Revised)

2008-09-21T13:31:00.004-04:00

Today I'd like to repair the reputation of a couple films which didn't get the level of respect I feel they deserve. I think critics and fans alike should take another look at these solid pieces of film-making and re-think their assumptions.

I won't bother to make the case for Swept Away. There's been a whole procession of flops released since to take its place and it has yet to make the canon of films that are called 'rediscovered genius.' You probably wouldn't believe me anyway, but for the record, its a brilliant satire of bourgeoisie concepts of desire and possession. The fact that Madonna's husband wrote and directed it specifically for her only adds to its power, rather than acting as a distraction to the work itself.

(Side note: What's really tragic about the Swept Away thing is that Guy Ritchie has yet to make a decent comeback, making it increasingly unlikely that future generations will somehow uncover the genius of this film. If anything, I think Ritchie will be a director whose works are divided into early classics and then a precipitous drop into unwatchable dreck.)

Cloverfield: The overdose of pre-release hype deserves some of the credit for the slightly bad rep given to this film. Set expections that high and you need a pretty huge payoff. But, I'm going to give critics some credit and assume that they'd be above unfairly sinking a film just because of an aggressive marketing campaign. The reviews weren't terrible, per se, but there was a general feeling of disappointment with the final product at the end of that long trail of a marketing campaign, which started with a brilliant Super Bowl spot.

As I recall, a lot of the reviews and word of mouth had trouble with the technique and the characters. Those were the central criticisms, at least. The camerawork is took shaky and its making me queasy! The protagonists are douchebags and I don't get why they like each other or why we should care!

Cloverfield's problem is generational, plain and simple. Failure to effectively bridge this generational divide has led to film being unfairly held in poor esteem.

This film portrays and communicates with a specific age & locale demographic, the 20-something urban dwelling narcisstic. Oh, its an intense narcissim and we see that in the film. I know these jerkoffs. I am one of these jerkoffs, to a degree.

The folks a bit older than us, the film critics' generation seem to dislike our generation a great deal. You know, the "kids today blah blah blah..." stuff. Quite fairly, I might add.

Which leads me to my next point, our generation loathes itself. Its a byproduct of the narcissism. Omnipresent irony is a manifestation of this self-loathing. (E.g. Hud's content-devoid droning throughout or the cameraphone encircling of the decapitated Statue of Liberty in the midst of obvious tragedy, which also works towards the central conceit of the film, detailed below.) The casual passive aggressiveness we exhibit towards each other, even to our friends and loved ones, is pervasive throughout the film. (E.g. Marlena early on in the film or Beth's bringing a date to the party.) Its not that the characters are too unlikable. Its that we are.

As for the shaky camerawork, which I'm only giving a small part of the blame for Cloverfield's problem with the critics, well, that's the point of the film, isn't it? Its the film's central conceit: This is happening in the real world and this film is not really a film, its found footage. I think it services this concept well enough, while at the same time making the appropriate concessions to a coherent & entertaining film narrative. If the director had pressed the point, there'd be a whole lot more dead air and shots where the lens wasn't properly capturing the scene. Not only that, but the characters would have been even more unlikable.

Overall, Cloverfield comes out as probably the best monster movie of the present era. It blows the Roland Emmerich Godzilla out of the water, at least. Its also superior to the Japanese Godzilla 2000, which mostly served to demonstrate how stale the genre had grown since its Cold War heydey. I can't think of any other recent challengers for the title, but I'd be willing to defend my claim against anything you can come up with.

Speed Racer: Why did this film bomb? The plot is dumb, sure, but that's hardly ever stopped a film from suceeding. I'm going to attribute failure here to the same problems experienced by the first Hulk film.

Like Ang Lee's attempts to create a comic book mis-en-scene (which critics recognized but maligned), the Wachowski Brothers attempt to recreate, literally, an old Speed Racer cartoon but using fancy new computer graphics.

Comic books display action and convey verbal elements of storytelling in a way that's particular to comic books (e.g. static images, panel transitions). Its too far removed from live storytelling to translate without including some Engrish. Succesful comic book adaptations in recent years have avoided this problem by forgoing storytelling elements from their source materials in favor of simply borrowing the form of the image or echoing iconic images. The Raimi Spider-Man films are loaded with such iconic borrowed images (e.g. the "Hero no more!" Peter Parker walking away from a trash can into which he has dumped his costume), as are the Nolan Batman films (e.g. Batman perched atop a gargoyle observing his fallen kingdom, Gotham City).

The "Frank Miller school" of comic book films--including Sin City, 300, the upcoming The Spirit and, for good measure, Daredevil--avoid much of the comic book translation problems because they rely so heavily on Miller's source material. Miller himself is something of a wild card in terms of his comic book output. His Daredevil was influenced more by classic film noir than anything in the comic medium, with the exception of Will Eisner, paticularly The Spirit. Eisner himself was also heavily influenced moreso by cinema than by the funny pages. Based on the trailer for The Spirit, it appears that Miller is attempting to integrate some of the panel transitions from the Eisner comics, but there's too little available to truly judge if this expiriment will be succesful. As for Sin City and 300, the original comic books were written after Miller returned from a stint in Hollywood (Robocop II & III), and bear the marks of noir influence even more heavily that his predeccessor works. The individual comic book panels are individual stills from a film reel more than anything else. This becomes apparent in the finished movie product, which faithfully re-creates those panels; the comic book-ness of the source material is basically irrelevant. Thus, the cinema output of Frank Miller is an outlier rather than representative of comic book adaptations.

Cartoons, while possessing their own idiosyncrasies, also have the benefit of being moving images. Even when the animation was relatively primitive, like the original Speed Racer cartoon or the the Hanna-Barbara aesthetic, its still got motion involved in the storytelling.

The critics can whine about the choppy action in this film all they want, but it was there in the cartoon too. It was integral, in fact, to convey how fast everything was going and it works to the same effect here. More fluid cutting would not achieve this result.

To my mind, the only jarring element here is real human actors in world that's too cartoonish by comparison. The contrast is too much to bear sometimes. I'm thinking the image might be too sharp. Why the box office failure of this film and not Transformers? Perhaps the explanation lies with the Transformers toys and then cartoons being modelled on real world objects and attempting to portray what is essentially a faithful version of our reality. Even Scooby-Doo might well have existed in some parallel reality where dogs can talk, since the concessions to cartoon logic in the orginals were minimal. Speed Racer exists in a distorted funhouse world, as only cartoons can create. Other films which derive from cartoon source material avoid this problem by either remaining cartoons (The Simpsons, The Jetsons) or setting expectations very low (The Flintstones films).

(Neither I nor the critics seem to have had a similar problem with Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, but then again, the live image there had some grain to it while Speed Racer is immaculate.)

This is high speed, bright light, big action cartoon fun and I'm just fine with that. If the Wachowskis were any less fond of their source material, and tried to depart from it too much in order to conform to critical and audience expectation, it would not have been a Speed Racer film; it would've been a sub-par, ho-hum racing film with some bright colors.

Lending a Helping Hand

2008-09-10T16:21:00.003-04:00

I just donated money to the Obama campain. It's my first time donating to a political cause, but frankly, I'm scared. I've never donated to a campaign before--and I didn't donate much--but I'm too afraid to lose in November. I keep reading all of these articals about how Obama is sexist, and Biden is taking shots at Palin, and all this BS and I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE!!! People believe this crap. They really do. Women will vote for McCain because he picked a woman VP. I don't buy it, but since I know so many do, I decided that I need to do SOMETHING to help. So I did. I don't know if it will help in the end.

I hate double standards. It's more than apparent that Obama can't talk without it being thrown back in his face, regardless of the issue. When Biden said that people with disabled children should support stem-cell research, the GOP blew up and said he was attacking Palin. Well guess what: Parents of disabled children SHOULD support stem cell research. If it happens that Palin doesn't, well then she's not the advocate she said she'd be for disabled children! How come McCain can use the "lipstick on a pig" comparison while Hillary is still in the race, but now that Palin's in it, Obama can't?

The sad thing is that all these crap responses from the GOP are changing people's minds. Well not mine. And I hope not yours. I found a way I can try to help. Maybe you can help too....

Super Vagina

2008-08-17T09:50:00.004-04:00

Amongst comic fans, there is always the discussion of Superman's sperm being so powerful, it would shoot out like a bullet, thus killing an ordinary woman like Lois Lane. However, I have to wonder, in the case of "super" women like Super Girl, Power Girl, and Wonder Woman, shouldn't they have vagina muscles so powerful that any normal man's penis would be ripped right off?

Discuss...

Is American Fatalism the New Disguise of Christian Determinism?

2008-08-12T12:40:00.008-04:00

In Editorial Board (a meeting where new books are proposed) the Fourth Amendment was brought up and with it fatalism.

Fatalism in the sense that we surrender to the inescapability of fate (or other foreign bodies).

Americans are fatalists.

Not just in relation to the Fourth Amendment but with healthcare, college aid, maternity leave, work vacation time, etc. My sister, who lives in Ireland, just took a four week paid vacation! I get ten days (unpaid)! Hell, you’d have to work for my company for over twenty five years to get that… twenty five days is all you get for a quarter of a century of work and dedication. Bleak and daunting, miserable but true.

This won’t change because Americans just don’t care enough to make one. Oh, we’ll bitch and moan about it, but don’t expect us to rally together and fight the good fight.

I can’t tell you how many times when I was going to school in Ireland people told me I was nuts for paying thirty thousand dollars a year for an education. The reply was always the same “if university cost that much here, no one would go”.

Where’s the rebellion?

Where are the millions of American college students protesting, not against paying for college but for the twenty years or so of debt that will follow? And believe me, it will.

Why aren’t we saying “NO!” to a society that’s raising the degree limit for jobs? A college degree has lost its value and now replaces a high school diploma. For many jobs you need graduate school, a two year long program that costs just as much as a four year college one, without two thirds of the aid.

Why aren’t we livid and indignant about financial aid?

Tell me, where’s the uproar, the protests about privacy, sending troops over seas?

Will we be this passive if they reinstate the draft?

Elrond help us, what happened to our balls?

How come we’re okay with people getting in trouble for music and movie piracy when the programs are on download sites?

If the internet is being monitored so closely, why aren’t they suing these sites for having the programs available? This isn’t the Bible, this isn’t God saying we have free will and should make the right choice. If downloading music for free is illegal then so should the programs that provide the service.

We’re fatalists because instead of saying “what the fuck?”, we swim passively along without caring. Is loss of choice inevitable? Is the communal good of a democratic country no longer the citizens concern?

We’re fatalists because we allow choices we should be making to be made for us and we don’t even care that it’s being done.

To me, it sounds an awful lot like theological determinism is creeping about in a sheep costume: an evil, horrific philosophy that all of our choices are predetermined by an external force or causation of an event (God/Big Bang maybe?).

Is a passive-aggressive nation one of the many rippling effects of a country founded on fundamental Christian principles? I have no idea. Is it the age old saying “leave it in God’s hands” simply morphed into leave it in Bush’s/the Government’s hands? Shit.

If the long term effects of Puritanical ideals are of this caliber then I say we’re all fucked.

I’m moving to Europe.

Interweb...EXPLODES!

2008-07-17T21:35:00.002-04:00

The trailer for the Watchmen movie is up.

I've watched it once so far.

I'm not sure what to make of it yet. I mean, it looks cool...but that's also my concern. The fact that it looks cool. Based on interviews, it seems like Zach Snyder wants to be as faithful as possible to the source material, but I don't know if it looks like Watchmen to me. That feeling could be because this is Watchmen as filtered through Zach Snyder, it looks very similar to 300 and Dawn of the Dead(2004). It could also be that the slickness, the coolness of it, is part of a commentary on the modern superhero film.

I don't know yet.

It's just a trailer. I'm not bounce off the walls excited like when I saw the trailer for X2, or Iron Man, or The Dark Knight. But there's a little part of me that's excited. A little part that's just itching to go back to the Apple site and watch it again. And a slightly larger part of me that wants to go see if I can watch it through the internet connection on my PS3 in HD.

But I am excited.

A little bit.

In Defense of the All-Star Game

2008-07-09T10:11:00.002-04:00

The "Midsummer Classic" is less than a week away. So, inevitably, the rumblings have begun as to whether the All-Star game is irrelevant. In theory, most of the charges against it are correct but upon further reflection I think it has its place.

In recent years, MLB has made some tweaks to the game so that it has an impact on games that count, such as home field advantage in the World Series. Considering that the National League has not won an All-Star game in decades, I'm not a huge fan of that rule. Of course, the Designated Hitter is by far the dumber decision made by MLB,* so I'm not going to hold that one against the American League.

For me, its the inequity of the whole thing. The game doesn't feature the actual "All-Stars" per se, but rather, the most popular players. The Tampa Bay Devil Rays are the best team in baseball right now yet they only have two players on the team, neither of which are in the starting lineup. On the AL team, if you play decent ball for New York Yankees or Boston Red Sox, big market teams with long histories, you're virtually guaranteed a starting spot regardless of your comparative value against other players in the league. (They have a combined ten representaives, which is actually a weaker showing than recent years.) This year its the same deal with the Chicago Cubs, another big market team with a long history, on the NL team, with seven representatives. The Cubbies, at least, are leading their division; the same cannot be said for the Yanks and Sox.

Of course, the All-Star game is for the fans who want to see their favorite players compete against one another; the starting lineups are elected democratically, through ballots at the game and online. Its a popularity contest more than a reward for demonstrating skill on the diamond. So that's a legitmate criticism of the game but an excusable one. If you really want to stand on this point, it could be said that the popularity contest should be kept to the Home Run Derby--let the rubes see 'em hit some dingers!--but its ultimately a losing argument.

One-inning maximums on pitchers fall into the same category of excusable conduct. You don't watch your ace injuring himself in a glorfied pick-up game, right?

On the plus side, whatever you have against the All-Star game, at the very least it gives teams a well-deserved break in the middle of the season. Tired players get a few days off to rest and relax, compose themeselves for the rest of the long grind into October. Managers and pitching coaches get the opportunity to shuffle their starting rotation, since the pitchers' arms get a few more days rest.

On the balance, I suppose the best that can be said is this: the All-Star game is dumb and oftentimes boring but it has its benefits. High praise indeed.

* Don't bother to argue this. Sure, it increases run production, but it also removes a huge element of strategy from the game. NL managers have a much more difficult job because they need to consider whether to keep a pitcher going another inning when his slot in the lineup comes up and they're in a rally versus AL managers being able to do so whenever they please. Sure, pitchers rarely hit for shit but a well-placed bunt is one of the great pleasures of the game. If you like the DH, you're a moron who shouldn't bother to watch actual baseball games and should just stick to watching the highlights reel on SportsCenter.

A Beautiful Film, An Ugly World

2008-07-07T15:21:00.003-04:00

[May Contain Spoilers]

On July 4th, after returning rather burned out from a long conference in California, I enjoyed a calm day of sleeping until noon, and seeing “Wall-E.” Little did I know how un-American that decision truly was...

“Wall-E” is a movie about a lonely and in love robot that’s also really curious and adorable. He follows the girlbot he loves into outer space, meets some devolving humans, and helps bring humankind back to Earth, which had been barren of any organic life for 700 or so years. This story, combined with the wonderful score, amazing animation, and lack of dialogue (ok, and the fact that “Wall-E” is so freakin adorable) made it a unique movie going experience. After the movie, I shared with Pauly (of 822 fame) my feelings of the movie, to which he replied, “It’s a really beautiful film.” For the first time, I could really tell the difference between a great movie and a beautiful film.

Not that it’s a surprise, but this plot was grabbed on by both sides of the political aisle and analyzed and then over-analyzed. As The Village Voice’s “Runnin’ Scared” reports, there is a large backlash against the movie coming from the right-wing, claiming, “‘The plot was something only Al Gore could love,’ wrote Say Anything. ‘And your average soy latte-sipping, Obama-voting, Che-flat-waving liberal.’” Of course, also according to “Runnin’ Scared*,” there wasn’t only hatred from that side, but a love: “Crunchy Conservative Rod Dreher said Wall-E ‘argues that rampant consumerism, technopoly and the exaltation of comfort is causing us to weaken our souls and bodies, and sell out our birthright of political freedom.’” Inject your politics as you will I suppose.

I’m not naïve enough to think that there would be no political backlash, but I’m certainly not happy about it. After the movie, Erin (also of 822 fame) said, “well, if that was the one movie that Earth beamed out and the aliens saw, it would make humans look terrible.” True. But it wouldn’t make conservatives or liberals look terrible—just humans—a group that conservatives and liberals alike cannot deny being a part of.

At this point in 2008, there’s a thick black line separating the right from the left, so there’s no surprise to see politics injected where it doesn’t belong. Kyle Smith, a columnist for the New York Post and self-proclaimed film critic had a negative review of the movie. Responses to his review ranged from agreement about the movie’s pacing (“what a yawnarama”) to the political (“Is this movie as blatantly liberal as ‘Happy Feat?’) to of course the backlash (“I’m quite ashamed with your review of ‘Wall-E’”). The biggest political issue seems to be with the environmentalist “message” of the movie, but thankfully Kyle tries to push that to the curb: “Well, I loved ‘Happy Feet,’ but if anything ‘Wall-E’ is even more of an environmental parable. (Not that I concede that to want a clean environment is a liberal idea. I hope we all want that)."

I may disagree with Smith’s review of the movie, but I think his sentiment about the environment is accurate. Hate the movie for it’s lack of dialogue, but leave the politics (or the politics you inject) out of it.

*This is a link to a different “Runnin’ Scared” post, so please click both.

The Idiot's Guide to Drinking Your Milkshake*

2008-07-01T10:11:00.003-04:00

Sometimes its appropriate to give the devil his due. The recently announced oil contracts in Iraq are indeed such an occasion.

Now, without saying whether I personally believe this to be true or not, one need not don a tinfoil hat to speculate that the Iraq war was entered into partially or wholly on the basis of securing U.S. access to oil in that country. I would regard this as legitimate suspicion rather than pure conspiracy theory; certainly, the litany of news since 2003 detailing the way in which the Bush administration deliberately mis-characterized the case for going to war would provide ample support.

What would be in error would be to suggest that heavy U.S. involvement in advising the Iraqi government on the new oil contracts or that the oil contracts were awarded to the oil companies who previously held exclusive rights to the Iraqi oil fields conclusively demonstrates that indeed such a conspiracy existed. There are legitimate reasons why such circumstances would occur absent Dick Cheney's malignant and abandoned heart.

The business of oil is a far greater undertaking than merely digging some holes and pumping out black gold. For the most easily accessible oil fields, that's basically the case, and so the Jed Clampett scenario is somewhat plausible. It was certainly the case during the early years of U.S. oil drilling. However, examining the history of domestic U.S. oil production, its also fairly obvious that it proceeded in a manner that involved a great deal of waste. In oil production, efficiency is key. Failure to abide by this dictum can spoil an otherwise profitable well and make it prohibitably expensive to pump out the remaining crude. Specialized knowledge on procedures can make a huge difference. The massive inefficiencies of the nationalized Iraqi oil industry under Saddam Hussein's regime make this obvious.

Proper technique is not the only key. Oil production also requires a great deal of specialized knowledge on the specific geological conditions of a well; not all oil wells are the same. Failure to recognzie this fact, and conduct the proper surveys, will also spoil an otherwise profitable well. If Chevron et al are to be re-awarded the Iraqi contracts, the best basis to do so would be their prior knowledge of the specific conditions in question.

Finally, the huge variance in the clauses in an oil contract can have a huge impact on profit. While at the present point in history, there is only one basic type of oil contract, there are also a nearly infinite number of possibilities that arise from how that contract is structured. The specialized knowledge in this area can have as great an effect as either of the other two areas. Arbitration clauses, royalties, profit structuring and technology-sharing agreements will all produce a wide variance in how much money the Iraqi government will receive from these contracts. While I have not seen the contracts in question, nor do I believe they are at the moment publicly available in any form, I think it would be in error to assume that simply because the U.S. military conducted the war and also advised the government on the contracts that there is some sort of causal connection. Even in the absence of such a connection, for decades, the Iraqi oil industry has operated a nationalized industry and they have scant experience in structuring such contracts in a private market. I refuse to jump to the conclusion that the terms of the contracts were simply dictated to the Iraqi government; they absolutely needed some outside guidance. Whether the U.S. military was the best source of this advice is another matter, but is not determinative of the ultimate issue here.

In short, while its reasonable to be suspicion of what is occurring in the Iraqi oil industry, it does not prove a grand conspiracy. If such a conspiracy exists, in the coming years the public will not need to rely on this circumstantial evidence. I'm sure Rep. Henry Waxman is planning to launch an investigation into the matter the day after President Obama is inaugurated.

* I do not mean to be condescending with either the title or the contents of this post. If, in my analysis, I have omitted certain information or simply stated something as true without explaining it it's mostly because it involves a highly technical explanation or a long history. If you have doubts regarding any of my conclusions or statements of fact, feel free to leave a comment or email me & I'll point you towards my source information. Most of the knowledge I represent here comes from having studied international oil and gas law and I am open to being corrected if I am in error.

Further Thoughts on the Marvel Film Universe

2008-06-22T19:24:00.002-04:00

To add to my post below, I'd like to share a geeky memory. When I was younger, somewhere between the end of elementary school and the beginning of middle school I was at the height of my comic book love. Specifically, my love for Marvel comics. I was a Marvel Zombie. At one point I was buying almost every single Marvel comic because it tied into the Onslaught* crossover. Which in some cases, was really stupid, because the tie-ins could be really dumb, as in Ghost Rider casually mentions he could be helping everyone in New York fight Onslaught and yet somehow the cover reads "ONSLAUGHT TIE-IN! DON'T MISS IT!" Needless to say, I was really excited about anything Marvel. So when one fateful Saturday, the Sci-Fi Channel advertised a "Might Marvel Movie Marathon," I was ready for a new change of pants.

This was before Spider-Man, before Blade. At this point there hadn't been any Marvel heroes on the big screen aside from Dolph Lundgren in The Punisher(which I hadn't seen), so it was exciting for me to see all these TV movies, like The Incredible Hulk Returns**, The Trial of the Incredible Hulk, Captain America, Captain America II: Death Too Soon, The Amazing Spider-Man, and Doctor Strange. I don't recall much of these movies except that they had very little to do with the source material and they mostly sucked(except for the Hulk ones). But at the time, it was exciting to simply see any kind of live-action media featuring these characters.

Now, while I don't wish a return to crappy low-budget versions of Marvel characters on television, I feel that certain characters would benefit from small-screen exposure before a movie was attempted. Specifically, a Daredevil series would benefit greatly from a serialized format. If it was given the production value of a top-tier series like Lost, and with creators of a high caliber, it could easily be one of the best shows on television. People complain all the time about the glut of comic book movies, well, I think its time to bring comic books back to television.

*Onslaught was a villain that was the result of Magneto and Professor Xavier's minds making a baby. It was an ugly stupid baby.

** The Incredible Hulk Returns features Thor. And the guy who plays Thor looks like the wrestler Triple H, which leads me to believe that Triple H playing Thor wouldn't be as bad as I first thought.

Building a Film Universe

2008-06-09T20:50:00.002-04:00

As a lifelong comic book fan, I've always enjoyed the shared universes that were created by Marvel and DC. The best thing was that in any given Spider-Man comic, any member of the Marvel Universe could show up, whether in a starring role or just in a cameo. You might see an issue where he teams up with the Punsiher, when all of the sudden in the background, you see Bruce Banner walking along pondering his troublesome existence as the Hulk. Plus you would get a footnote telling you to buy the latest issue of The Incredible Hulk to see why Dr. Bruce Banner was in New York this month.

Since comic book films gained popularity 8 years ago with the release of X-Men, many fans have been clamoring for interconnectivity between the films. It seems like it would be easy for DC characters since all their films are put out by Warner Brothers, but nothing has come of that yet. Not even the slightest hint that either exists in each other's world. Maybe they mentioned Metropolis in Batman Forever, but that's about it. Spider-Man and Ghost Rider were both put out by Sony and no connections were made there. Brian Cox's X2 character made his way into a photograph in Fantastic Four and Elektra spun off from Daredevil, but these were a far cry from any real suggestion that these characters existed on the same planet let alone the same universe. Daredevil couldn't even mention the Daily Bugle because it was a Fox movie and Sony had any Daily Bugle rights because of Spider-Man.

Sure, Marvel was making a ton of money licensing these movies, but they lacked in creative control and didn't have the option of linking the properties because none of the studios would want to give up any of "their" characters. Now, with Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk, Marvel is bringing the Marvel Universe to the big screen. Nick Fury cameos at the end of Iron Man and Tony Stark is supposed to pop up in the new Hulk film along with Captain America's Super Soldier serum. What Marvel is doing is building what could potentially be the biggest film franchise ever. If all of these films are considered part of one gigantic story, they can put out any number of sequels per year, featuring different characters, with little nods and cameos that place each film in the larger universe. Eventually if it grows enough, Fox and Sony might want to let the X-Men, Fantastic Four, and Spider-Man play too. Imagine a film where every Marvel hero teams up to take on a gigantic space god in purple helmeted Galactus instead of a shitty cloud! I would need a new pair of pants for every frame of film.

P.S. Fuck Blade and Ghost Rider. They can keep to their mopey, supernatural selves. Unless they show up in a Dr. Strange movie. Then that might be pretty cool.*

*If they recast both parts.

What place does the media have in the zombie apocalypse?

2008-06-03T10:03:00.000-04:00

When faced with the impending doom of mass death and destruction courtesy of nigh-unstoppable un-dead armies, one would hope that you could turn on your television and get useful information on stopping the zombie hoards at your door from your local newscast. However, in most cases, they only seem all too willing to help the government or corporation responsible to cover things up.

We could go on for ages as for the why of this situation. Obviously the media is controlled by corporations, and if one of these companies is at least partly responsible for the death of millions, they're going to want to do some damage control. And if it's the government's fault, again, the media is more likely to roll over than to stand up and expose the situation. Despite the likely collapse of society and government, they still won't bet against the house.

So, how do we make use of the media in such a situation? What good are they to us if they are going to lie, straight faced while we die? The trick is to look for the warning signs. They will never outright state that the dead are coming back to life to eat the flesh of the living. No, that's out of the question. Instead, you have to listen for rabies outbreaks, quarantines of buildings, neighborhoods or other public places, or most importantly, if Entertainment Tonight wishes a Happy Birthday to Bea Arthur on any day other than May 13th. Memorize that. If you hear Mary Hart wish a Happy Birthday to Bea Arthur on December 3rd, February 22nd, any date that is not the 13th of May, that means the zombie apocalypse is imminent. This is a code word for the media elite. It means that they have to get to their designated bunkers while look-alikes will replace them in the public eye. Now you can utilize their code as well. You won't be protected underground under 200 feet of concrete, but you'll have time to do the best you can in the situation.

Now, you may be wondering, what about the internet? Everyone's got a camera these days, won't the truth be exposed this way? Won't we be able to stop the zombie infection before it spreads? No. No we will not. It's like the boy who cried wolf times a million. The internet has given every douche out there a voice, therefore any attempts at telling any kind of "truth" can be discounted by the powers that be. There will be those that will listen, but it won't be enough to matter.

What have we learned? That we can't trust mainstream media, and independent online media can't be relied upon to save the day either. So what can we do against the waves upon waves of the undead? If no one will believe it is happening or figure out how to effectively survive before it's too late, then what hope does anyone have? This expert zombiologist doesn't have these answers for you. I can only pose questions and hope you'll put some of this information towards your own survival.

Paul DeKams is an accredited Doctor* of Zombiology. He is sequestered away in his zombie proof compound somewhere on Long Island with enough food and bibles to get him through at least 3 zombie apocalypses...that is, if he goes easy on the bibles.

* Witch Doctor & Scientific Doctor, to cover instances of zombies caused by the supernatural or science, respectively.

On Cooking: The Eat-fold Path

2008-06-02T19:08:00.002-04:00

As some of the more astute readers* may have noticed, on the sidebar you'll find a link to my recipe blog, The Boat & Bridal Expo. Cooking is one of my favorite activities and not simply because I love food--though, as a former fat kid, I probably love food too much--but because of the meditative nature of the act.

Preparing meals is an intensely personal experience at every stage. At the market, you buy the foods that interest you. When you get home, you reflect on what you have available and decide what to make. As you cook, you add the ingredients you desire and season them to your own Platonic ideal of perfection. While you eat, you determine the setting to enjoy it in. In effect, you are romancing your palette.

By contrast, when you go out to eat you rely upon a series of decisions made by unknown individuals. Certainly, you have control over where you eat and what you order but your other options are limited. While some establishments may give you a say in how the food is prepared (e.g. grilled vs. baked), it is generally frowned upon to second guess the choices of the chef--who himself is preparing the meal based upon his own biased and the inherited culinary biases of the chefs who trained him. Essentially, your free will comes into play only at the stage where you salt and pepper your meal.

That is not to say that I do not enjoy going to a restaurant occasionally or that I will refuse to eat a meal cooked by someone else. Its good to experience something outside oneself in order to gain some perspective. For instance, I have never liked baked beans until I ate some at a barbecue held by Pauly--in the short time since, I have cooked them myself twice.** However, taken to the extreme, a life of eating meals only prepared by other people deprives you of valuable self knowledge; you are allowing others to define your tastes.

* I assume the imbeciles who read this blog were accidentally led here after googling "Dane Cook."

** Both recipes can be found by following the link above.

Trying to Achieve Wii Fitness

2008-06-01T10:11:00.003-04:00

In my 24 years of life, I've had few brief periods with regular exercise. Through elementary and middle school I played soccer every fall(which I maintain is responsible for my awesome calves today), in high school I would opt for the weight room over other activities(because I hated almost everyone doing the other stuff) and while working at Waldbaums I occasionally worked in the stock room, doing some heavy lifting. Plus I made a few attempts at going to the gym during college, but nothing really ever stuck. I could never get into the routine. There was always an excuse: too tired, too hungover, A-Team episode I haven't seen, Rocky marathon, or having to return some videotapes.

Recently though, I've been thinking a lot more about being healthy. While I was never "obese" (Fat rolls everywhere, ex. The Blob, Jabba the Hut, Mamma Cass), I've always been pretty fat. (Gut, man boobs, enjoyment of snack cakes) In January, I weighed in at the most I've ever weighed: 264.5 pounds. I was weighing in for the "Fat Bastard" contest at work, and while I was at first joining in for fun, when I saw that weight, I had some serious motivation to lose it. I heard the Rocky music in my head and the first thing I would do when I got home is exercise. Within a few hours, that motivation was gone. But then I happened upon the "Belly Off" diet on the Men's Health website. I'm not going to go into details, but it encourages you to eat beer and steak, and I was down with that. It got me into a better eating habit, and over the course of three months, I lost 32 pounds.

Then I kinda fell into a month long celebration of losing that weight. A few extra burgers here and there, and then I became an addict for three weeks. To Archer Farms Kettle Chips. These are delicous. Flavors like Buffalo, Spicy, Wasabi Mustard, Sweet Onion, I could not get enough of these. I wouldn't kill a man to eat these chips, but I might torture his family while he watched. But then, like an angel from the heavens, Wii Fit came down to aid me in my weight loss motivation. It arrived two weeks ago, and I've started losing weight again.

Now, the way Wii Fit works, is it gets you active and makes you feel like a fat piece of shit. It's like a personal trainer, only without the person. Which is great for me, since I'm slightly agoraphobic and like to avoid personal contact when possible. Also, I don't have to deal with that guy at the gym who looks like Triple H and grunts loudly with every rep. Anyway, back to Wii Fit and the angry scale that yells at me. "Angry scale?" you might ask. The balance board, which you use for the most of the game, also has an animated counterpart to help motivate you onscreen. It administers your body tests and then grills you on what happened if you gain any weight. Today, it seriously warned me before weighing in if I gained any weight. It said "The last two times you gained weight, you said it was from eating too much, Pauly, let's not have that happen again." And that shit was seriously in bold. Every day I get on that scale is a day I don't want to be yelled at by the animated persona of said scale. It has inspired me to lose weight with fear. The only way it could be more effective is if it gave me an electric shock every time I gained weight. That's probably how the Japanese version works. *

*Because they're crazy**

**Opinion based on viewing of Japanese game shows***

***Also based on article I read where the author bought a used pair of girl's panties from a vending machine in Japan.

P.S. I haven't beaten my kettle chip addiction, but I have lessened my portions. Also, current weight is 223.

Tatooine: A Post-Empire Economic Forecast

2008-05-19T11:07:00.003-04:00

The Organa administration of the New Republic faces many economic challenges in the coming years as it attempts to repair the economic damage done by the recently-collapsed Galactic Empire of Emperor Palpatine. Despite being able to combine resource wealth from a wide range of planets, the Empire was rife with economic malfeasance: massive weapons systems (two planet-sized battlestations), military contracters (bounty hunters and payments to local militias to fight the Rebels) and high-priced consultants (Darth Vader, the Emperor's "fixer"). It remains true that the Empire made investments in territories under their control, but the vast majority of these funds went to planets in the Galactic Core, located near the Empire's capitol on Coruscant. Located in the Outer Rim, Tatooine was not the beneficiary of any of this government largesse; while some planets joined the Empire for the collective economic benefits, it is clear that this planet was one of the many who joined under duress from threat of invasion.

Here, I will examine the various problems and possible solutions for the desert planet of Tatooine. First, extraplanetary investment is necessary to revive the economy due to the lack of local capital and expertise. Second, bantha farming is due for a boom in coming years. Third, tariffs must be elminiated throughout the Republic in order to allow Tatooinese markets to become more competitive. If this three-part formula is followed, while it is unlikely that Tatooine will ever become a tourist mecca or major population center, it will be possible to significantly raise the standard of living here within a decade.

Let me begin by conveying some of the basics. Tatooine, as noted, is a desert planet located in the Outer Rim Territories. It is populated by three principle indigenous groups: humans & related humanoid bipeds, though most of the current population of this group are settlers from other planets; jawas, who possess technical expertise and carry on trade with other groups, but generally prefer to remain within their own enclaves; and finally, tuskens or sand people, nomadic peoples with a somewhat antagonistic relationship to the other two groups. Its official language is a local dialect of Basic, but anyone doing business on this planet would be well-advised to learn Huttese, the lingua franca of commerce here. Like most former members of the Galactic Empire, local currency has been phased out almost entirely and they deal in credits. However, bartering remains significant in day-to-day affairs.

The outlook for extraplanetary investment in coming years is relatively good. During the Empire years, not only was Tatooine neglected due to its location, it also was affected by xenophobia; it is well-known that non-humanoids rarely achieved positions of significant power in the Galactic hierarchy and planets with large non-humanoid populations were regularly discriminated against. The Organa administration, in contrast, promises a much better inter-species relationship. Going back even before the Empire, the principle players in this government have had friendly dealings with a wide range of non-humanoids: Gungans, Wookies, Ewoks, Mon Calamari and others. Luke Skywalker, brother to Madam President and a hero of the Rebellion, was raised on a moisture farm here. Captain Han Solo, allegedly Madam President's lover, is reputed to have done business on the planet many times in the past. (The exact details remain classified and the government has denied multiple requests to look further into the matter.) The only possible reason to worry on this front is the blantant cronyism behind the appointment of the new head of GEMA (Galactic Economic Management Association), Jar Jar Binks, who lacks any prior experience as an economist. Investors have in the past been scared off by frequent raids by tuskens, who have been known to attack outsiders without provocation. In any case, domestic industry on Tatooine is scarce and they simply do not have the resources required to fully develop their economy themselves. Extraplanetary investment will be absolutely necessary in order to accomplish any significant economic progress.

The most promising domestic industry on Tatooine is bantha farming. However, there are some problems of supply and infrastructure which must be confronted before they can proceed to exploit this resource. Banthas are primarily cultivated by the tuskens and attempts by outsiders to work with these reclusive peoples in order to develop greater stocks have thus far been unsuccessful. Jawas have made some progress in better relations with the tuskens, but tuskens tend to be fickle and not hold to their agreements. Thus, the supply is essentially static and will be unable to meet a rise in demand for the meat. Some enterprising pied noir moisture farmers have turned to raising bantha stocks in an industrial setting, but tusken organically-raised bantha meat is clearly preferred within the market. It is difficult to pinpoint the reason for this, but most sources indicate that older segments of the galactic population are wary of industrial agriculture bioengineering following the debacle of the Clone Wars. There are also reports of health risks from eating meat from banthas raised on a diet of blue milk, rather than their natural diet. As to infrastructure, Tatooine lacks airstrips to accommodate the larger cargo ships (generally, Mon Calamari Cruisers or Corellian Corvettes retrofitted with refrigeration units). Currently, smaller ships must ferry the meat from the ground to the ships in geosynchronous orbit around the planet but insurance costs act as an impediment to further development. (When it was revealed that the second Death Star was blown up due to a disruption of the shield system located on Endor, galactic insurance agencies mandated that policies would be required on the ship in orbit, the systems on the ground, as well as a third policy to cover them together.) Extraplanetary investment in new, larger airstrips as well as better relations with the tusken population would be a boon to Tatooine's economy.

Finally, the galactic economy must be "flattened" and tariffs eliminated in order that Outer Rim planets can compete on equal terms with planets in the Galactic Core. This is a long-term policy which does not relate solely to Tatooine, but here there are some problems to be confronted before it will be admitted into any future Galactic Free Trade Zone. Illegal activity continues to dominate the major commerce centers of Tatooine, Bestine and Mos Eisly, which largely resemble the military outposts in a desert wasteland that they began as. Even the death of Jabba the Hutt has not mitigated the black market on this planet; immediately following his demise, other unsavory creatures rushed to fill the power vacuum and there is significant evidence that the Hutts are once again exerting influence. While it is obviously preferable that the New Republic not prop-up corrupt regimes like the Hutts, Han Solo is rumored to have had business dealings with them in the past so perhaps some negotiations are possible. In time, the black market could be supplanted by legal commerce and the Hutts given some stake in the new system so that it will survive in the long-term. After all, Coruscant remains the capitol of government and in remote locations such as Tatooine, cooperation with local power brokers will be absolutely necessary in order to exert effective control. The Hutts are shrewd businessslugs and the correct combination of carrots and sticks could lead to them to recognize the benefits of cooperation with the Organa administration's policies.

In summation, the economic forecast for Tatooine looks good. If the planet remains an underdeveloped backwater, it will be because the New Republic has perpetuated the Empire's neglect.

Next: Have Ewoks Jumped the Shark?

Michelle Tanner is a Dick

2008-05-18T17:06:00.004-04:00

I don't know if anyone else has noticed this, or if I am venturing into new territory in the field of television studies, but I have discovered a trend in shows that have been on too long. It occurs in the final season, or seasons, of most sitcoms and is a sure sign that everyone involved is ready to move on. Many people have written about shows "jumping the shark," but I am writing about what occurs after the shark has been jumped, when a network is just bleeding a show dry.

Now there are many obvious things like fantasy episodes or dramatic departures of leading characters that point to the end of a network comedy, but there are two things that I've picked up on recently.

1) Every single person in the cast is in almost every scene in every episode. There are very few individual character arcs because a) almost everything has been done with these characters in 7-9 years and b) every cast member wants plenty of screen time so that they're not forgotten before the show is even over. This is evident in later seasons of MASH, Full House, and now Scrubs. Even supporting characters like Radar(MASH) and Kimmy Gibler(Full House) manage to become as important as the main cast.

2) Everyone becomes a vicious dick. Since, as stated above, most plots have been used up on the show, and almost every scene is populated with every character, many scenes are overstuffed with mean spirited zingers. I'm pretty sure every episode in the last season of Full House has 2-3 scenes where the Tanner family just makes fun of Kimmy Gibler and tells her she's a dumb bitch. I even think there was one scene where Michelle Tanner pricked her with an AIDS infected needle.*

So, we have shows that still manage to pull in ratings because of either nostalgia for seasons past or because people just want to see how it ends(although with most sitcoms everything ends with something similar to the status quo) and cast and crew on autopilot. This is the future I fear for some of my favorite shows like The Office and 30 Rock. A future of repeated jokes and unfunny dickery. I wish networks could focus on consistently making new quality shows rather than sucking the life out of every show that makes any money. Bascially, I wish Britain would take over Hollywood and make sure every show was screened by the Queen of England before it was allowed to air, just like the BBC.***

*This may have been on OZ**

**Regardless of that, Michelle Tanner remains a dick.

***Not sure that this actually happens, but I'd like to believe it does. And when the Queen doesn't like a show, she hits a button that drops the cast & crew into a pit of alligators.

Can You Spot the Difference?

2008-05-08T20:59:00.002-04:00

All dead people look the same. That’s not to say that all dead people are the same, or that all people die the same way, but they do all look the same. Every man or woman I’ve seen lying in a coffin has looked like a really pale person sleeping. What’s never the same however, is what each person does in death. What do I mean? For example, what they’re buried with. My grandfather was buried with a picture of the family. Other people are buried with jewels or in their favorite clothes. Or maybe a Wolverine comic, like my friend Jeff.

I found out Jeff died last Sunday, after I had seen “Iron Man.” It’s almost a perfect set-up—movie-like even. I couldn’t have written the irony if I tried. When Jeff and my brother were roommates, I would come over and Jeff and I would talk comics. And movies. And comic movies. And music…

Before you start to feel bad for me, you should know that Jeff and I weren’t close friends. He and my brother were, so I’ve got that angle. Jeff would also call me sometimes, or come over to my place so we could discuss music. We were both in bands. We’d try to trade shows, although he was much better at this than I was.

That’s another thing in Jeff’s coffin. His band was called Shell Shock, and he’s got a Shell Shock t-shirt with him. He was pretty passionate about his music. He was passionate about my music too. That’s why I care so much about him. Not because he was a fan, but because he was passionate.

I wasn’t the only one who thought so. That’s another difference about dead people: the people who come to pay their respects. What does it take to bring a grown, large, tattooed man to tears? Do I even need to say it?

I suppose there are a lot of differences between dead people. How they die might effect how they look; Religious statutes might dictate what one can be buried in; Unfortunately money might dictate certain aspects. There are a million differences we could probably come up with. There’s one glaring difference however that’s completely staring me in the face with Jeff’s death. When death comes a callin’, well, for some people it’s just their time. But others, conversely, are taken too soon. Jeff was taken too soon. That’s one hell of a difference.

NPH and Neil Patrick Harris: The Path of the Unicorn

2008-04-27T15:23:00.008-04:00

A couple of years ago, while checking to see what Anthony Anderson was up to on IMDB, I came across a movie title that blew me away: Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle. Without knowing anything else about the movie, I knew I had to see it just for having such a great title. Then when I actually saw the film, it somehow managed to be even more ridiculous than its title or its premise. Most notably, the film created the character, NPH, or the fictional, sex and drug crazed version of Neil Patrick Harris, of Doogie Howser, MD and Starship Troopers fame. The character was very popular, and as a result, Neil Patrick Harris was able to get work as a watered down version of the character on How I Met Your Mother. Then, something very interesting happened. Neil Patrick Harris came out of the closet. Many wondered how the actor who played the womanizing NPH and Barney, could possibly be gay? Then most forgot about it and went on with their lives.

I began to wonder if, in Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay, the fictional NPH would be gay as well. I thought the first film managed to rise above the typical stoner/road comedy cliches and really make a good comedy that explored stereotypes and social issues. To make the fictional NPH gay would take a joke cameo and turn it into a three dimensional character. Upon seeing the sequel last night, I believe the filmmakers have planted a seed in that direction. Here's a little SPOILER ALERT for anyone who cares. After Harold & Kumar encounter NPH in the second film, he eats a good amount of hallunegenic mushrooms. Then, he sees a vision of himself, riding a unicorn, disappearing into a rainbow portal. The NPH on the unicorn says something along the lines of "Follow me if you wish to be truly happy." This makes the NPH driving the car cry and say "I love you." However, instead of following the path of the unicorn NPH, he makes a detour to a brothel, where he has a crazy encounter with a hooker.

Now, could it be that this fictional NPH has been ignoring the path of the unicorn NPH for a long time now, leading him to live his life of sexual and drug excess in denial of his true identity? If there is a third Harold & Kumar film, and Neil Patrick Harris reprises his role of NPH, would he finally merge with the unicorn NPH and be whole and happy? I'm sure I've thought way too hard on the subject, but I think it's a thread worth following.

As Cliched As It Sounds, I'm Trying To Find Myself

2008-02-28T19:10:00.000-05:00

I've read several interviews with author Neil Gaiman where he has stated that the best advice for aspiring writers is to read. I have also heard time and time again that Orson Welles learned filmmaking by watching the films of John Ford over and over again. The main idea in both notions is that to be an effective story teller, you have to learn it from somewhere. Not simply from a textbook or a lit or film class, but from really analyzing and observing the work of others. I really want to believe that that's what I have been doing with the year and a half since I've graduated college.

Almost every weekend I go to the movies. I purchase new books and DVDs almost every week. I seek out films and books by my favorite directors and writers and the works that have inspired them. Every now and then after taking in the latest film or book, I am struck with a bolt of inspiration that says "Holy crap, this is why I want to do this." A Clockwork Orange, Spider-Man, Rocky II, Shaun of the Dead, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Rushmore, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, The Rules of the Game; these are just a few films that have made me feel this way the first time I saw them. Each time I've felt that, I have longed to create that response in others. So I go in search of more. I take in more and more tales in the hope that I will discover the way to tell my stories.

At least, that's what I hope I'm doing. I wonder every day if everything I've read and seen is working towards something meaningful or if it's all part of some compulsion. I know that there are a few stories that I have written variations of over the years, but I have never been satisfied. I've come close once or twice, but I always worry that I won't be able to do it. Most people worry about finding meaning in the grand scheme of things and don't worry, I'm neurotic enough about that, but I think I worry more about finding meaning in my work. I know I haven't been out in the "real world" that long, but I worry every single fucking day that I'm wasting my time.

My Head Hurts, Your Brain Works Less

2008-02-27T16:20:00.003-05:00

For the past few days, I’ve had one of the worst headaches I’ve ever had in my entire life. I don’t get sick often, though one of the ailments I do suffer from on a regular basis is impatience. Unfortunately for you, that gets amplified the more my head hurts.

If I may answer your question ahead of time: Yes, I have taken something. It seems that as my head hurts more, your opinion of my ability to think declines. My head hurts, yes, but my brain is working fine. So when I say “my head hurts,” you can rest assure that I’m doing everything—EVERYTHING—I can to make it feel better.

It’s not difficult to come to the conclusion of taking something. Sure, my headache kicked my ass at Madden 2007, just barely beat me at Disney Scene It, and rather successfully made me its bitch at Checkers, but you don’t ask about them. “Taking something” is not a full proof way to rid myself of pain, but you can rest assured—even if it still hurts—that I have taken something. So, no need to ask.

An Ode: College, Unemployment & Growing Up

2008-02-24T18:34:00.002-05:00

My freshman year of college my suite mates and I shared our dorm with our floors RA. She was awesome, an unusual quality for a resident assistant and took my roommate and me to our first college bar outing. I was too shy (but later got over this hurdle) to really enjoy myself, plus Brittney lost my favorite sandals and puked on me. That Christmas we decided to do Secret Santa and I gave my RA the children’s book “Everybody Poops”.

Four years later working at Barnes and Noble I came across this book again. Everybody poops is a truism and is as factual as unemployment and the inescapability of growing up. The one thing they have in common is that they’re all shitty.

If you’re a student like me you went to a school you liked and studied what you loved. Your talents were nurtured and refined by professors who understood you, cared for you and vice versa. Your idealist and somewhat liberal beliefs were true and at most time’s reality. But the “real world” taught me that college is a mythical place you are allowed entrance into for so long and then you’ll be thrust out with your abundantly hope filled trunks and a fifty page thesis sticking to your shoes. College will forget you as more kids pass through it but you unfortunately will never forget her. College will always be, perhaps the biggest and best part of you and that is why growing up is so bitter sweet.

The thing is as you grow up you’re continually forced to settle. Take any job to have money, any apartment to have a place to sleep. Either way you struggle, struggle to pay your bills or be miserable in a job you hate. There’s barely a transitional period for you to brace yourself. Once you’re in the pit there’s hardly a way out.

A seminar on Karl Marx and grueling interview after interview taught me that we college graduates are a dime a dozen. There will always be some other kid more desperate than you who will take the $20,000 salary even if their 130k education deserves more (and we do deserve more).

College forgets to teach you that only her professors will think the world of your 1^st prize short story fiction essay. Only the bright, brimming world of academia will give a damn about your talent for iambic or your witty yet tragic protagonist. However, on an interview they mean nothing and don’t teach you how to answer questions the right way or better yet how to lie properly.

Life after college seems bitter, doesn’t it? For a few months it is but like any kind of uncomfortable pain it fades (some what slowly at times, like when you’re doing car bombs or keg stands and are reminded of those debaucheries you once did). Growing up sucks but the inevitability of it is so, so… inevitable that the only thing you can do is deal with it, get a job and hopefully, like me, go to Grad school as soon as possible.

Review: (The Crowd At) Flogging Molly, February 21, Poughkeepsie, NY

2008-02-22T09:11:00.000-05:00

Flogging Molly is, hands down, my favorite band to see live. I’ve admittedly not seen Gogol Bordello, whom I hear is right up there with the FM, but I have my allegiances, and they lie with the band sporting the green white and orange (for now). After seeing Flogging Molly several times a year for eight consecutive years, I feel as though—coming from me—a simple review of one of their shows would come off very generic and run-of-the-mill, regardless of how un-generic or run-of-the-mill the shows actually are. All you need to know: fun songs make for fun dancing, and great songs played fast and more energetic makes for fun energetic dancing. Sure, they debuted some new songs at the show, but I’ll save my review on those for when the album comes out (but I’ll give you a preview: awesome).

One thing I’ve noticed eight years into the game—not to sound like a preachy old fart—is that the crowd has gone down hill. To be clear, I’m not against a band’s success. Not only am I proud of the guys who I saw for the first in one of New York City’s smallest venues sell out theaters, but I’m also not one to turn on new fans. My biggest problem lies with the non-fans taking up valuable pit room at a sold out show.

Every time I have the opportunity to see Flogging Molly, it’s a thrice-circled date in my calendar. So when I’m stuck behind some dude chewing gum, not singing a single word the entire night, and blocking my view of the stage with his outstretched arm, equipped with a fancy camera phone, then unfortunately, I revert back to angry purist fan. “Get out of my show,” I think, “I saw them first, they’re mine, and quite frankly, you don’t deserve to be here.” Last night, while being forced to view a live show through the viewfinder of a camera phone, I cursed technology’s advancements for ruining my good time.

Luckily, next week I have the chance to experience the concert all over again, this time at a venue with enough floor space to allow for me to avoid such instances—in theory. The truth is that the scenario is far to ubiquitous. Leave one camera phone, run into another digital camera. It’s a never-ending cycle, and excuse me if I’m not going to feel sympathy when your gadget breaks, but I’m there to rock! (And you should be too.)

Review: Tuesday February 12th, 2008

2008-02-14T17:37:00.001-05:00

Some pretty sweet things have happened on February 12th.

1894- First artificial ice rink opens in North America is in Madison Square Garden.

1924 - Calvin Coolidge is the first president to deliver a speech over the radio.

1973- First US POWs released from Vietnam.

1999- Bill Clinton acquitted in his impeachment trial.

2008- Kyle Lutz had a hilariously awesome day.

I won three games in EA Sports Hockey by at least 3 points in each game.

I had a day off from work.

I saw a 300 lb. woman on a bright pink scooter patiently waiting to pull out from a side road in my neighborhood.

Power lines went down when a transformer blew a few houses down at about 9:15 PM and caused a fire in a yard. The white-trash photographer in me ran down the street, low quality digital camera in hand, and took a couple decent (but blurry) photos before two fire engines and four cop cars showed up. It was glorious.

Most importantly, I had an encounter with yet another crazy person. This time it was not during my morning commute, but at Target. I was in the 'Family Planning' area deciding if I needed 'Ultra Ribbed' or 'Ultra Thin' when, very suddenly, a 55 year old man close to 7 feet tall approached me. "I need some help buying a razor," he said. I stared at this awkward giant for an uncomfortable moment. "I only have three dollars," he continued and held out three one dollar bills in one hand and a pink woman's hairbrush in the other. I wondered if he was homeless, crazy, poor or just all three. "I don't have any cash on me. Sorry," I replied honestly and an bit terrified. The man frowned as if I had crushed every dream he ever had and heaved a massive sigh. "I have to shave. I need a razor," he said, more to himself than to me, and walked away in search of someone else who could cure him of his heavy scruff.

I think I beat Bill Clinton, barely, for the best February 12th in the history of time.

REVIEW: GONE BABY GONE

2008-02-13T21:32:00.002-05:00

While home from work yesterday I rented Ben Affleck's directorial debut, Gone Baby Gone. I haven't shared in all the Affleck hate that has gone on, he's earned enough good will in my eyes for his work in Kevin Smith's films, and I am one of the few people that didn't hate Daredevil. I thought he was one of the few things in that movie that didn't suck, and his passion for the character of Matt Murdock is obviously greater than Nicholas Cage's for Ghost Rider because one movie sucked a lot more than the other. Anyway, Ben Affleck deserves a lot of credit for his first film because while making a decent movie, he also managed several other noteworthy accomplishments.

1) He further cemented Casey Affleck's role as a leading man. With this film, The Assasination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, and the little seen Lonesome Jim, Casey seems to be headed towards a much better career than his brother. He's had a string of supporting roles since the brothers first became famous and has never really sold out like Ben has. Movies like this are what will continue to make him an actor to be taken seriously.

2) He made me extremely happy I didn't grow up in any part of Boston. Affleck shows a much less idealized version of the underbelly of Boston than Scorsese did in The Departed by using real people and shooting in real neighborhoods. These are poor, overweight, ugly people who are not normally put in front of a camera unless its the 10 o'clock news. They are also (mostly) the same kind of people in the world that I hate no matter where they're from except they have annoying Boston accents, thus making me hate them more. Let me elaborate, I don't hate them because they're poor or ugly and I don't hate all of them. I hate the ones that are like Amy Ryan's character, Helene McCready, a stupid irresponsible person with no regard for life's consequences. It just so happens that when you put a really heavy Bostonian accent on that type of person, my hate just flows out towards them.

3) He changed how people will think of Ben Affleck...well, how some people will. He's still going to have the J-Lo Jersey Girl/Gigli stigma, plus all the bad movies he made without Ms. Lopez, but for those who see Gone Baby Gone, Ben Affleck will be a director whose work is looked forward to. If he can follow up with a film just as strong, he has quite a career ahead of him.

I’m Dirty, and so is “Boy Toy”

2008-02-12T10:57:00.000-05:00

It’s hard to write critically about something you feel close to. It took me probably a total of six hours to finish Barry Lyga’s second and latest novel “Boy Toy,” (Houghton Mifflin, 2007) and now, less than an hour after I’ve finished it, I feel almost like I just finished the last “Harry Potter” book. That is to say, I’m feeling very “damn, I wish I could continue reading!!”

I first picked up “Boy Toy” because I enjoyed Barry Lyga’s first novel, “The Astonishing Adventures of Fanboy and Goth Girl,” (Houghton Mifflin, 2006) which was a novel about a comic geek who loved Bendis, and the goth girl who sort of understood him, but didn’t really, but really did—sort of. I liked it, but I didn’t like like it. It was a fun read though, especially for teen lit. I was expecting more of the same from “Boy Toy,” but the only things the two books had in common were the high school where each took place, and the idea of a real-world running theme (“Fanboy…” featured comic books, and “Boy Toy” featured baseball*).

(The following paragraph may contain spoilers. Maybe? I don’t know. Perhaps these plot points were well known to those who had sought out the book, but for me, each reveal was just that: a reveal).

Where “Fanboy…” was a fun teen book, here we have something much more. “Boy Toy” is the story of a Josh Mendel, an 18 year old math and baseball wiz who is less than patiently looking forward to the end of his senior year so that he can get the fuck (or, to more accurately express the tone of Josh and the book, get the fucking fuckety fuck!) out of his hometown. He has good reason to want to leave: when he was 12, he (if I may quote the book) fucked his history teacher, Mrs. Evelyn Sherman. A lot. In fact, he fell in love with her. Josh feels stigmatized, and like most teen lit, he has but one good friend with whom he can feel safe.

Yes, there are a lot of teen lit stereotypes here. There are at least two “you just don’t get it, do you”s in the book. But there are some not-so stereotype moments: like the sex scenes between the teacher and the 12-year-old boy. There are moments when Mrs. Sherman asks Josh “don’t you love me?” There’s the part where Josh, thinking making out will undoubtedly lead to fucking, rips the underwear off the 13 year old girl he is in the closet with at a party. There’s the trial, when Josh wouldn’t testify against Eve because she loved him and he loved her. There’s the scene where Eve’s husband George beats the shit out of a 13-year-old boy for fucking his wife.

The book paints a very clear picture for the reader, one that I admittedly wasn’t prepared to buy into. Naively, I read the book thinking that Josh lived the dream: he banged the hot teacher—and at just 12 years old! The sex scenes were merely evidence of this fact. Then my attitude started to change: Eve asked Josh if he loved her. Eve said she loved him. Eve had Josh lying to his parents. Eve would call Josh on weekend to say she missed him. Eve would have Josh watch porn and ask if he wanted her to be that satisfied. My mental image went from hot teacher in lingerie, to some sort of terrifying image—something clearly predatory.

The sign of a good book might be how well it’s written, how many obvious stereotypes it avoids, or how well it gets it point across. This book changed my way of thinking. This book literally made me sick. I became disgusted with teachers and parents and police and lawyers and myself**.

When I closed the book for the last time, I put it down. For lack of a better phrase, this book touched me in a way that made me uncomfortable. When I finished, all that mattered to me was Josh being ok. If the sign of a good book is caring about the characters, then there you have it.

This book might not be a great read; I don’t know if I think it’s one of the better written books I’ve read or not; I don’t even know that I liked it. But I’m glad I read it, and I wish it had existed so I could have read it earlier.

*I hate baseball. Remember?

**Partly because I cared about baseball while reading.

Commute Rambling: The Political Historian

2008-02-08T20:09:00.001-05:00

For anyone who rides a train or subway on a regular basis, you can point out that person who will say or do something that you will be sure to tell everyone at work about. Here in Atlanta I have the distinct pleasure of hearing a crazy rant more often than anyone else. On Sunday, one such rant occurred which will top my list of 'Commute Ramblings'.

I was in the last car heading eastbound towards Indian Creek. A man in a purple LSU sweatshirt and matching leather visor sat across from me and my co-worker. After this encounter, I plan on carrying a tape recorder with me during all train rides. The following are points the half-black, half-Italian semi-drunk man, who shall be named "Warren" from this point on, made.

Only White People Understand Education. 'Warren' mentioned Yale in his ramblings about G.W. Bush (half of his tirade), then stated that Caucasians (me and my co-worker being the ones he pointed at) were the only people near him that understood that Yale means "good education".

Yale = Free Pussy Pass. According to Warren, by being a student at Yale, whether you earned it through intelligence or genetics, it means you have bragging rights and therefore can use your educational institution as reasoning with a female to get some easy poon. I will also note that he said the word "pussy" about seven times in two and a half minutes in front of a sixty year old woman and her granddaughter of eleven.

William Jefferson, King of the African-Americans. The blackest president is Bill Clinton. Warren had legitimate, undisputable proof. He said, "Bill Clinton plays the saxophone, wears sunglasses, and even made the woman that gave him a blowjob famous. He is a black man."

JFK. We took a bigger leap back through time when the Political Historian made sure to bring up the fact that JFK was having "all kinds of crazy sex with Marilyn Monroe." At this point a crazy woman in the corner in a wheelchair yelled out "Joe DiMaggio!"

I Will Not be Robbed. Before my co-worker and I (again, the only Caucasians nearby) disembarked from the train, we were assured by 'Warren' that we don't need to be afraid of him. He promised he would not follow us to our cars to rob us at gunpoint. I felt the weight soar off my shoulders.

All in all, the encounter with 'Warren' is probably one of the best Commute Ramblings I have... so far. I have no doubt that somewhere out there is someone crazier, drunker, more homeless, and wiser that will just so happen to pass me on the walk to work or, if the gods are kind, sit next to me on the train.

Here’s Your Review, (Not That You Asked)!

2008-02-07T15:18:00.001-05:00

Steve Almond is a former adjunct professor at Boston College. As the author of several books, he taught creative writing with good reason. I wonder what his professional opinion would be about the use of commas in the title of this review. I hope he would find it as delicious as he finds candy*.

Anyway, the reason why I know so much about Steve Almond is that I just finished his latest book, “(Not That You Asked)” (Random House, 2007), a collection of essays full of too much information that no one explicitly asked for (except, apparently Random House, though I doubt they chose the content). The book begins with a series of fake letters from a fictional Steve Almond to a real Oprah Winfrey, giving her hell for her place in the publishing world and the real world. It’s a bit of a weak beginning, though I do find it entertaining.

Though the Oprah letters started me off on the wrong foot for things to come, the remainder of the book is pretty strong. The second chapter of the book is a three-essay-collection about Kurt Vonnegut, and Almond’s connections (physically, inspirationally and otherwise) to the author. It’s a fun few essays that I think should have started the book. In fact, Almond originally wanted to write a book about Kurt Vonnegut, but apparently his publisher preferred for him to write a collection of essays instead (hence Random House’s explicit requests).

My biggest problem with the book is that its pretty clear Almond wanted to write about one thing, and was told to do something else. Where many of the essays are fantastic to read, oftentimes hysterical or thought provoking (like his essay about dealing with a conservative backlash and comparing it to Dante’s Inferno), others seem like filler (like the essay on Tesla).

To Almond’s credit, even when the essay feels forced, or just seems to be out of nowhere and not necessarily fit into any of the themes that lead off each chapter, it’s still incredibly well written. Almond has a style of writing that proves that his heart’s in it, no matter the content. He can make me care about things I absolutely have no interest in. Case in point: one of the longest (if not the longest) essays in the book is about baseball, a sport that I’m quite vocal in hating**.

Knowing that Random House was the catalyst to this collection, I don’t hold the filler and random essays against Almond—especially since they were a joy to read just because of the way he writes. Being all over the place in the book makes it hard to characterize, and even though this book can be found in the humor section at Barnes and Noble, don’t expect knock out laughs the whole time (I’d venture to say that if Almond had written his Vonnegut book, any laughs would have been just happy coincidences). What you can expect is a decently quick, fairly easy, and extremely fun (and yes, usually funny) read.

* See another of Almond's non-fiction works, "Candyfreak" (Heinemann Group, 2006)
** I hate baseball.

REVIEW: THE ZEN OF ZOMBIE

2008-02-05T18:51:00.000-05:00

As an amateur zombiologist, I often wonder what I would do when placed in the scenario of a zombie outbreak. I've contemplated the best ways to destroy a staircase and the best methods for taking out various undead without exerting too much energy or wasting ammunition. On colder days, before going out, I make sure I have enough layers to protect me from the cold and from the frigid walking death a bite from a zombie would bring. Although never a boyscout, my motto is definitely "Be prepared."(For some fucking zombies)

To support my research, there were two texts that I held above all others: The Zombie Survival Guide and World War Z both of which were written by Max Brooks. These expanded my mind with such radical ideas like going to a prison instead of a suburban mall or using a sword instead of wasting ammo in close combat. However, not once did I stop to consider the zombie. The zombie was simply an obstacle to me and my loved ones' continued existence. Until now.

Scott Kenemore has written a groundbreaking book called The Zen of Zombie: Better Living Through the Undead. Mr. Kenemore takes a radical approach of presenting the zombie as a role model. He believes that we will all lead better lives if we are as unrelenting and ruthless at work and in our personal lives as the zombie is in pursuit of some fresh brains. By adapting the single-minded nature of the zombie, Kenemore believes all of our goals can easily be accomplished. This is all well and good, but Mr. Kenemore doesn't go far enough.

If we are able to think and act like the zombies, then they should be easily defeated. However, Mr. Kenemore thinks that bettering one's own life is enough. He focuses on trivial issues like dating and promotions. Why not make your goal to remove the stink of rotting flesh from the globe? I guess the survival of mankind against the zombie plagues isn't that important. Were he to take his ideas and put them towards the more constructive task of ridding the world of the undead, Mr. Kenemore would be a celebrated scholar and prize winner like Mr. Brooks. As it is, he's written an entertaining and funny book, but not one that should be considered an accurate text of zombiology. The employees at the book store should really do a better job of categorizing things.

Technology Commentary in "Cloverfield"

2008-01-30T20:52:00.000-05:00

This essay has some pretty serious spoilers.

At your local theater is a film called Untraceable which, from what I've seen, is a blatant jab at Americans for being obsessed with technology and violence. It is basically telling us about the evils of the internet and the crazy people on there. We get it! The internet is the filthy old man of technology. However, the other film currently playing that suggests our culture's dependence upon technology is Matt Reeves' Cloverfield.

By using hand held personal cameras, it makes the entire world of the film that much more real. The camera used in the film out-survives the main characters. Early in the film Hud is tricked into documenting a good-bye party, but decides to have fun with it. However, as the events of the night unfold, he carries on his duty of chronicling the adventure. Several times you hear someone saying 'Put the camera down' but at no point is Hud, the cameraman, willing to stop documenting the event. In the end only the technology survives... creepy.

The most humorous example of our use/obsession with technology is when the party-goers flood onto the street and experience the head of the Statue of Liberty landing in front of them. Within seconds there are at least a dozen people using their camera phones to capture the giant bronze head. Hilarious? Yes, in a creepy 'I don't know how or why this is happening, but I have time to camera phone this crazy shit' kind of way.

When the main characters are hiding in the subway, the most emotional and disturbingly real use of the camera comes. When Rob's mother calls and he must tell her that his brother was killed, the camera stays a good distance away, giving a strong feeling of voyeurism. All I could think of while this was going on was the video I saw when they brought Heath Ledger's body out from his apartment. There are people going through an incredibly emotional time, but all other people can think is that it'll look really good on TV or in a magazine.

Earlier in the film, Rob goes to steal a battery for his phone. Hud chases after him with the camera and we see my favorite use of technology in the film. While in the store we get video footage of television... several televisions. That's reflexive. We also see Hud spin around at one point to see all the looters staring at the news. They stopped looting in order to watch TV. I know they want to know what's going on, but it's just funny to see looters taking a break in the store they're robbing to see some TV.

So those are a few of the examples I saw in the film that can be viewed as a commentary about America's obsession and dependency with technology. With a second viewing and some writing utensils I could probably write a good four to five page paper if anyone is interested in purchasing it.

Meet the Spoofs

2008-01-30T20:02:00.000-05:00

It is true and I will not deny it. I saw Meet the Spartans last evening. Before you shiv me, let me give you the details. After seeing Cloverfield (which I would review, but I'd be the third) I made my way into a different theater thinking it was the bathroom. I pulled my pants down and sat down in one of the soft chairs. Before I could wonder 'Why are there so many other toilets in here?' or 'Where will my #2 go?' I was transported to ancient Sparta. Sadly, the film contained almost none of the scenes from the preview. More sadly, it did have some good parts.

There were several actors who appeared in the film that made the 101% 300 based storyline occasionally bearable. (Yes, I will admit that I laughed occasionally but mostly because of how bad it was.) The most important of these actors was Hercules himself, Kevin Sorbo. Why the hell didn't this guy do any comedy before? He was hilarious in the over buff, shirt missing demi-god sort of way. If you, like my dear friend Seth, pick it up from the $4.99 shelf at Blockbuster be prepared to laugh (one of the five times during the movie) when Hercules gets in on a "You're Momma" contest. Also appearing in this film was Carmen Electra. I never really found her all the attractive with her 'polar bear/snake face' but I was hoping so hard that her minimal clothes would somehow become even more... minimal. There was also an appearance by Ken Davitian, better known as Azamat Bagatov from Borat. He was actually the best part of the film and I vowed not to ruin it for you (two of the five times you will laugh during the movie).

It would be fair to say that the spoof genre pretty much died with the first Scary Movie, but it will continue to linger. Once in awhile there is a spoof that I can consider bearable. I personally thought that Scary Movie 4 was better than the previous two. I also thought that Not Another Teen Movie had several good moments. These films can never reach the caliber of Naked Gun and I don't think can with they type of people buying tickets to them. Scary Movie was a good spoof because the movies it spoofed were good movies. Now, the spoof films have movies like Stomp the Yard and You've Been Served and How She Move as material and as a result end up using the entire plot from one decent film and bad celebrity impersonators to fill the holes. If the films that are there to be spoofed are worth spoofing, then the spoof film will work. Make sense?

I am an intelligent man in my early 20's who spend a bit of money to learn how to make movies and I hope nobody thinks that I loved this movie and camped out the night before to purchase tickets. It was free and I never expected another Scary Movie, even though it was made by two of the writes of Scary Movie. I knew it would be crap parodying crap and that was the humor I wanted after watching Cloverfield.

Joining The Cult As A Posthumous Fan

2008-01-30T18:16:00.000-05:00

Being born in the 80’s, there were a lot of culturally significant things that I missed. Unfortunately, before I was born there were a slew of important bands that formed and broke up, all without me being able to see them in concert. When I first heard The Doors, I fell in love. But, as I like to do with so many bands I love, seeing them live was never an option for me. The day Johnny Cash died, I saw the Bouncing Souls play at Irving Plaza in New York City. They ended their set playing “Folsom Prison Blues” as a tribute to the Man in Black, but at the time, I only knew The Simpsons’ parody of the song, which Krusty sang. A few weeks later, the singer in my band played more of Cash’s music for me, and I fell in love. It was pretty poor timing. Christmastime, 2002: I knew that “Combat Rock” was a great album, but I was just discovering how amazing “London Calling,” “The Clash,” and other albums by the seminal punk band were, when I would wake up to hear that Joe Strummer died of an unexpected heart-attack. That long sought after reunion that was finally in talks would not go off at the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame induction ceremony as planned.

Every band that I love that no longer tours or makes new music is like an opportunity missed, but for what its worth, it was out of my hands. The Clash stopped touring and making music before I even became interested in music, and Johnny Cash—though his last few albums were nothing short of fantastic—was certainly not performing the way he did back at Folsom or San Quentin. I’ve seen some “old rockers” live, and it’s obvious that I would have been better off having been born at least 20 years earlier. I defy you to find a positive review of the recent Police reunion. Even their drummer Stewart Copeland had nothing good to say.

I may have missed several opportunities, but I’ve done all I can: I’ve bought the CDs (or downloaded the tracks legally), watched the DVDs, attempted the solo stuff where applicable, watched the biopics, etc. etc. These things are out of my hands.

Other things weren’t out of my hands, and for this, I should be punished. I recently finished watching season three of Mitchell Hurwitz’s critically acclaimed TV show “Arrested Development,” and when that first credit began to stream at the end of the thirteenth episode, so did the tears from my eyes. This TV show was nothing short of brilliant, and for three glorious seasons spanning from 2003-2006, I successfully avoided it. This was no easy feat: all roommates with whom I shared living quarters during this time period were fans. I literally left the room when they would watch, because I just wasn’t interested. It wouldn’t be until it was too late that I discovered just how perfect a TV show this was, from the writing to the casting to the acting. And what really hurts the most is that it might as well have been my fault that it was cancelled. See, the show won tons and tons of awards, was so critically acclaimed that you could forget that it aired on Fox, and had some of the most loyal fans ever. Yet, it was cancelled due to lack of viewership. Imagine if I had tuned in. The difference I could have made….

I’m not sure if this is a lesson I can truly learn from. Before discovering “Arrested Development,” I took the cue from my friends and watched seasons one and two of “Lost” in time to catch the premier of season three. I bought “Heroes” season one and had a marathon viewing so that season two would fit nicely in my schedule. But these are the exceptions. I loved the first episode of “Pushing Daisies” but haven’t watched one since; after over $100 in expenses for the first three seasons of “Nip/Tuck,” I’ve abandoned it completely—and not over a lack of interest.

They call “Arrested Development” a cult classic, which is generally reserved for failures that have a small, yet extremely loyal following. Perhaps my lack of consistency comes from my fear of cults. Or maybe it’s more. Maybe I have some sort of sadomasochistic tendency that forces me to show my love for things only when it’s too late. Whatever the case may be, its clear that I have a problem. Consider this my call for help.

I Don't Hate the Oscars This Year

2008-01-29T18:49:00.000-05:00

Usually, I'm not that into the Oscars as there are usually a lot of films that are nominated because they are "important" issue films or overdramatic Oscar bait. (See Million Dollar Baby, Crash) This year, however, I am very interested in the awards, especially in the best picture category. I still won't watch the three hours of filler that comprise the show(if it even happens), but I'll be checking the papers the next morning with some enthusiasm. This is the first year I have ever seen all five films nominated for Best Picture, and while there is only one of them I really want to win, I could be okay with any of them.

Juno is this year's big indie film. I kind of expected a nomination for it simply based on all the Little Miss Sunshine comparisons. Basically, both films were indie films that managed to cross over to mainstream audiences and take in some big box office. While it is a quality film, I believe its these qualities that have made it a Best Picture nominee.

Michael Clayton is the nominee that I am the most surprised about, as it seemed to have garnered the least attention out of the five films. It's a great film and is very similar to Sidney Lumet's The Verdict starring Paul Newman. Michael Clayton also has my favorite final shot of 2007, featuring a steady shot on George Clooney as his cab drives around. It's very similar to the final shot in The Graduate where the camera is just running, there's no dialogue, and the effects of the events of the film are seen in the tired eyes of Clooney. Again, loved the film, but still not my pick for Best Picture.

Atonement probably has the most beautiful cinematography of the bunch and the most use of the "c" word on film. It's never actually said, but you see it typed almost a million times. That's right, a million. The previous record holder was She-Devil starring Roseanne. Joe Wright has made a film more erotic and depressing than any others this year, but I don't quite think its "the" Best Picture.

No Country for Old Men, or NCFOM as my mom called it when she confused the shit out of me with a text message, is almost my pick for Best Picture. Almost, so close. It is beautifully shot, well written, incredibly acted, but there is still one who trumps it.

There Will Be Blood is without a doubt, my favorite movie out of these nominees and quite possibly, of 2007. I had never seen a Daniel Day-Lewis movie, nor had I seen a Paul Thomas Anderson movie prior to this film. Just based on the strength of There Will Be Blood, I went out and bought Gangs of New York, Magnolia, and Boogie Nights the following week. This film is great in every way. Day-Lewis is so wonderfully single minded and insane, in anyone else's hands, it would fall flat or be seen as over the top. This is a man who hates people so much, he just wants to make enough money so he won't have to interact with anyone. Paul Dano as Eli Sunday is just as crazy and greedy, but he masks his ambitions with the church. The music is just as haunting and scary as the score to The Shining and makes a film that no one would think to classify as a horror movie feel exactly like one. The overall package is so wonderfully put together by P.T. Anderson that all I can say is that I love this movie. It deserves Best Picture, but if it doesn't get it, I won't be as disappointed thanks to the nominees this year that are almost just as good.

On a side note, it's worth noting that Atonement, There Will Be Blood, and No Country for Old Men each have a title that just scream out for a titular line in the film, yet don't fulfill the viewer's desire for one. Each would have been just a little bit better if the following lines were in them:

"This is my...Atonement."

"This is simply...No Country for Old Men."

"There Will Be Blood...oh, yes, There Will Be Blood."

That's just another point for There Will Be Blood as it had the opportunity to squeeze in not one, but two mentions of the title into one line. Hopefully, these lines will find their way into deleted scenes on the DVDs.

Five Little Pleasures

2008-01-27T16:12:00.001-05:00

It's doesn't take much to say you love a movie because it's so good. There's beautiful lighting, the characters are real, the acting is superb, etc. I spent four years in college and learned all about what makes a good film great. But what makes certain bad film entertaining AKA a guilty pleasure? I have chosen my five favorite not so great movies that I will always view as legendary and if I see it on TNT on Sunday at 2... that shit is staying on.

I will point out that all 5 of my top entertaining, non-award worthy films were all released in a 5 year period. Perhaps mid-late 90's to the beginning of the second millennium was just the best time for these films to prosper.

5. Anaconda (1997)
Let's start with the cast of this film: J. Lo, when her ass was still larger than her ego, Owen Wilson getting eaten by a snake, Ice Cube, and Robin Williams's dad from Jumaji (which was number 9 on this list). It's a good cast with not horrible acting ability. Wait, I forgot we also have Papa Jolie, Jon Voight, as one creepy ass dude who takes the team of documentary makers hostage and forces them to help him hunt down a giant snake just because he's crazy. Genius. The movie is full of amazingly cheap dialogs, stereotypical 1997 CGI, and pure entertainment.

4. Cable Guy (1996)
Ace Venture vs. Ferris Bueller at Medieval Times. That shit is classically stupid entertainment. I don't care if the rest of the movie is just Jim Carrey trying to one-up the kookiness of any past or future role. That's all I have to say about that.

3. Face Off (1997)
Can you pitch this movie without it sounding like the greatest plot for an action film? No, you can't. I tried. Impossible. A FBI agent switches faces with a bad guy in order to get the bad guy's brother to tell the agent where a bomb is, but things turn hairy when they bad guy gets the agent's face! There's also John Travolta making fun of his own chin, ambiguous incest tension, Nicolas Cage in one of his few awesome roles, and doves. As far as action movies go, I think this one is probably one of my favorite. Many of you have to agree, but you can also say Total Recall, which I will allow.

2. Shanghai Noon (2000)
Around the same time, Jackie Chan had started another franchise in which there was rushing and hours. However, I prefer this film since I find Chris Tuckers voice makes my ears bleed within 13 seconds. Also, Owen Wilson is a much better compliment to Jackie Chan as far as buddy comedy pairings go. The main reason I think this film is such a guilty pleasure is because it's a Martial Arts Western Comedy. The only other film that fits into that category is... nothing. Since this film is one of a kind, it deserves the second place spot in my list of guilty pleasure movies.

1. A Knight's Tale (2001)
This is not my number one because I'm dedicating it to Heath Ledger. It is number one because there are very few people, who will say 'No' to this film. In all the years of school, when I brought up that I love this movie to other film students, even though it's nothing special, everyone has always agreed that it is one of their favorite bad movies. I believe what makes this film great is that it crosses even more genres than Shanghai Noon. This film is an Historic Action Romantic Comedy Musical. I don't mean musical in the sense that there's singing and dancing, but because the soundtrack makes this film such a guilty pleasure. When else have you (or where else will you) hear Freddie Mercury belting out "We Will Rock You" during a Medieval jousting tournament? Not in The Cable Guy. This film crosses all of these genres and that is what makes it so great and more entertaining than any other guilty pleasure film. Also because it is the film that will always come to mind when you mention Heath Ledger... except very much possibly The Dark Knight (I hope).

REVIEW: Akbar's Indian Cuisine: It's a Trap...of Deliciousness

2008-01-27T07:48:00.000-05:00

Or How I Almost Ate A Warm Towelette

During my years at Hofstra University on Long Island, if we wanted to go to the mall or movie theater, we would pass by an Indian restaurant called Akbar's. Being people who loved Star Wars, it was only natural that someone would yell out "It's a trap!" as we drove by, just as the fish headed Admiral Akbar screamed in Return of the Jedi. Eventually, my enjoyment of Indian food transformed this restaurant from a joke to a curiosity.

Now, for those who don't know, I started a diet several weeks ago. It's not too hard to stick to, but it's not exactly easy either. The thing is, I've allowed myself to have about two meals during the weekend where I don't adhere to the plan. I've decided that for the most part, I don't want these meals wasted on somewhere like Friday's or any of its many clones. I want to try new foods and new restaurants, which led my lovely fiancee Chrystal and me to finally trying Akbar's last night.

First off, Akbar's is a beautiful restaurant. It's very open, very bright and very clean. We might have just gone at a slow part of the night, but the service was incredible. At least 8 people asked me if I wanted something to drink before I finally ordered a glass of wine. (Chrystal had the fortitude to stick with water, I just couldn't say no to those people) As for the food, it was a huge step up for someone who had only enjoyed take-out Indian food at work. The garlic naan was fluffy and flavorful and the chicken biryani was better than I've ever had before.

After they cleared our table of all the dinner plates, the put out a plate with two rolled up white and yellow things which looked to me, like some sort of rolled white chocolate. If anyone's ever been to a Thai restaurant, you've probably had a free dessert at the end of the meal that's like a white chocolate wrapped in banana leaves. This is the kinda thing it was. Luckily, the waiter noticed me pondering the plate and said "That's for wiping off your hands." Holy crap, I almost ate a warm, moist towelette. The actual desserts we had were far more delicious than the towel would have been. I had carrot pudding, which didn't actually have a pudding-like consistency, but was more like ground up warm carrots that were incredibly sweet. As for Chrystal, she had...milk balls? They were good, but neither their texture nor appearance is appetizing. It was three brown balls sitting in honey. Three brown balls in a yellow substance. Not what you imagine when capping off your meal, but Chrystal dove in and tried them and was pleasantly surprised.

So, after 4 years of imagining the proprietor of Akbar's to be a fish-headed admiral from a galaxy far far away, I have to say that Akbar's is truly a great restaurant in addition to being a source of puns for Star Wars geeks. I can't wait til the next time we go there so I can enjoy that sweet, sweet carrot pudding again.

Unpleasant Surprise

2008-01-25T11:32:00.000-05:00

There’s one ritual that always pretenses a weekend that contains no major plans, and that is the weekly movie check. Usually around midmorning on any given Friday, I’ll check Fandango just to see if it’ll be one of those “oh yeah, I forgot that was coming out!” moments, or, like this week, one of those “I’m less surprised by a movie that I forgot was coming out so soon, and more surprised by the very amount of total crap that they fund.”

This morning’s trip to Fandango showed me the following results for the theater near me (which is most likely typical of any theater not privately owned, that would show your basic widely released movies):

How She Move new!
Meet the Spartans new!
Rambo new!
Untraceable new!

Just the third weekend into 2008, and we’re already beginning to fill the yearly quota of stereotypes (and, all in one weekend!). Allow me to explain*:

“How She Move” is one of those MTV produced gems about attractive and talented people that either a) face some sort of adversity, b) must practice said talent in private, c) must use said talent to compete in some sort of street competition, or d) all of the above. Wild guess: it’s a d. I know these movies have their audience, and I know I’m not among them, but enough with the dancing based non-musicals!

“Meet the Spartans” is a new parody along the lines of “Scary Movie,” but is so far removed from the originality that was the first “Scary Movie” that now its just a joke. At least they changed the name from “(Genre) Movie,” or “Not Another (Genre) Movie.” Eventually they would have run out of ideas and just called it “Parody Movie.”** No, this is one of those movies that claim to be spoofing a genre, but instead is just a poorly executed parody of anything popular at the moment. Thankfully, movies like this only have a shelf life of about a month before they disappear into obscurity and onto the $5.99 previously viewed for sale rack at Blockbuster.

“Rambo” is Sly trying to capitalize on the success of “Rocky Balboa,” which was essentially Sly trying to capitalize on the success of his past, because at this point in his career, people actually appreciate him less than they ironically appreciate his brother, Frank. Some actors age and grow into new roles and find success in other ways than just playing the only characters anyone knows them for from 25 years ago. Sly seems to have been unable to do that. Shame.

From what I can tell, “Untraceable” is trying to portray the fact that the American public is obsessed with violence. They are, from what I can tell of the plot of the movie, so enamored with violence that they will watch violence even if it means killing someone. A noble message yes, but one that is lost in a movie that is just another violent movie, capitalizing on the public’s love of violence. Turns out, its just a hypocritical message. At least the “Saw” franchise isn’t on its high horse about it: people like gross, they deliver gross.

Once upon a time, any one of these movies might have been original. But it’s not that once upon a time any more. If a studio is going to fund shit, they should at least try and disguise that shit as something less contrived and obvious.

*These descriptions are based on my buying into the stereotypes that I believe these movies are trying to sell. On principle, I have no desire to see any of these films, and while I’d be incredibly surprised if my analysis on any was wrong, I invite you to challenge me (as long as you’re paying).

**Which is actually pretty clever when you think about it. Especially if it was a serious movie about the trials and tribulations that come with the failures of all of those shitty parody movies.

A Jets Fan's Lament

2008-01-23T20:19:00.000-05:00

About a week and a half ago, while in Philadelphia for business, I got a phone call notifying me that my new couch would be delivered February third. This, I would tell almost anyone within 20 feet of me, could not have been more perfect: first, a gorgeous new TV, now a comfy new couch to be delivered within a few hours of Super Bowl XLII. Absolutely perfect.

Absolutely perfect until about an hour ago,* when Brett Favre threw an ill-timed interception in overtime, setting up a whatever yard field goal by whatshisface on the Giants (who went ahead and finally made one after missing two in a row).

I should explain my disdain. I’m a very big football fan. Football, for me, is the only watchable sport, with the exception of English Premier League soccer, which isn’t a very common sight on American TV. As a big football fan, early September through early February is the only sporting season that I have marked on my calendar. It should be needless to say that, during this time span, Sundays are spoken for.

The specific reason why my Sundays during these five or so months are spoken for is simple: The New York Jets. The J! E! T! S! Jets! Jets! Jets! For as long as I can remember, the Jets have been not only my one true professional sporting love, but the same for my brother, and—when they’re having a good season at least—my father. When my parents divorced, one of the activities that made me feel particularly close to my father was watching the Jets. The Jets for me are both my favorite sporting team of any sport, and a means to share a passion with members of my family with whom I may or may not have much more in common.

As a Jets fan, the following scenario is particularly undesirable: A New England Patriots vs. New York Giants Super Bowl. The New England Patriots are the bane of Jets’ fans existence. For the past too many years, they have been a shoe in for division leaders, and with the exception of the 2002-2003 season, have made it impossible for any other team in the AFC East to be anything more than the wild card (the ‘02-‘03 season belonged to the Jets). There’s also a lot of bad blood between the two teams: Curtis Martin left New England to become a Jet, as did Bill Parcells, who brought with him his assistant coach Bill Belichick. Parcells would soon retire from being the Jets’ head coach, leaving the team to Belichick who would quit after one day to become the Patriots’ head coach. Belichick brought with him for the task of defensive coordinator his old assistant coach from the Cleveland Browns, Eric Mangini, who would later leave the Patriots to become The Jets’ head coach. The bad blood between the two coaches would become the thing of legends, even though this season was only Mangini’s second as head coach. I’m sure you heard about SpyGate. Even if you didn’t, the above description should be proof enough that these two teams have enough between them to warrant bad blood. As a Jets fan, I can only say, “Fuck the Patriots.”

The Giants on the other hand are victims of circumstance when it comes to my hatred (though my hatred for the Giants pales horribly in comparison to the hate my brother feels). The Giants are in a position to treat the Jets like little brothers, yet they seemingly chose to treat the Jets like little step-brothers. The two teams share a stadium, which is called Giants Stadium (though in a few years, they will share a brand new stadium not specifically dedicated to either team). In general, the Giants always seem to get better press than the Jets, and they are always considered the better team (please ignore the fact that they generally are). For Jets fans like myself, it’s hard to watch the Giants do well, because while they represent my city, they don’t represent me (think Cubs fans when the White Sox won the series, or Mets fans all those times the stupid Yankees won). The Giants’ success means only more good press for them, and the Jets being even worse by comparison.

So after the Patriots defeated the San Diego Chargers, something everybody knew was going to happen, pushing them to 18-0 (the first team ever), I was able to confidently sit back and assume that The Packers would beat the Giants in the NFC championship game, creating a Super Bowl match up that I repeatedly said would be awesome: the career record holder versus the season record holder. I was not happy to see the Patriots move onto the Super Bowl. Again. But it’s been clear for at least a month that it would happen. I can deal. But then, just past 9 PM, Favre threw that interception, setting up that stupid field goal, and more dreadfully, setting up that horribly match up: the bane of my existence versus my proverbial step-brother.

Right now, in a warehouse somewhere, my couch is hoping it will be moved to a good home. It’s imagining itself showing up to its new residence, greeted by its new owner with a great smile. But this February third, I’ll have nothing to smile about.

*This post was written within an hour of the Super Bowl match up being finalized.

The Producer as Auteur

2008-01-22T18:47:00.000-05:00

The way films are sold to the general public is something that interests me. Most people don't go to IMDB, or Aint It Cool News, or any other websites that offer information on upcoming movies. Most people go see a movie based on repetitive advertising, word of mouth, or mainstream film critics. They don't worry about the struggles the film had making it to the screen or who was rumored to play Batman before Christian Bale got the part. Most of them don't even know who Christian Bale is, they just recognize his face. This is why I find it interesting when films are sold based on their "auteur."

The "auteur theory" in film, believes that the final product of a film should reflect a director's personal vision. In other words, the director is ultimately responsible for what the audience sees on screen. Martin Scorsese, Robert Altman, and Stanley Kubrick all come to mind as directors who would fit this definition. Their names are selling points for their films. Commercials, posters, reviews and interviews will all lend credence to the theory of the director as author. However, what I have noticed lately, is the use of famous "auteur" directors as selling points for films that they have produced.

The Orphanage is directed by Juan Antonio Bayona, yet the name most people associate the film with is Guillermo Del Toro, or "That Guy Who Did Pan's Labyrinth." Both Hostel films have "Quentin Tarantino Presents" above the title. Cloverfield is directed by Matt Reeves, yet people mostly refer to J.J. Abrams when talking about it. Walk Hard and Superbad are considered Judd Apatow films yet they were directed by Jake Kasdan and Greg Mottola, respectively. As producers, they have all probably had varying degrees of involvement. Guillermo Del Toro and Tarantino were more likely involved to both help the studio sell the film and to get more exposure for less-known directors. However, with J.J. Abrams and Judd Apatow, there seems to be a much greater degree of involvement.

Superbad and to a lesser degree, Walk Hard very much look and feel like The 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up, which Apatow both wrote and directed. He seems to have almost as strong a guiding hand in these films as he does his own. While not having seen Lost, I know it by reputation as a show that embraces the internet to make viewers a part of solving the mysteries on the show. A similar approach was made with Cloverfield. I believe that in the case of these two writer/producer/directors the reason that so much of their influence is felt in everything they do is due to their television backgrounds. You know when you're watching an episode of Freaks and Geeks or Lost even if you come in after not watching the show for awhile. Despite different writers and directors, the show is usually kept consistent with the producers'/creators' vision. If that familiarity is gone, the viewers are gone.

The people who buy Hostel on DVD based on Quentin Tarantino's name on the box are not getting a Quentin Tarantino film for their money. While I think its a good thing that Tarantino or Del Toro's name on the poster may help get the film to a larger audience, its a shame that in the eyes of the public, these directors are getting credit for films that aren't theirs. In the case of Kasdan, Mottola, and Reeves, how they supposed to effectively get their vision onto film when their biggest successes are the visions of the producers?

REVIEW: THE ORPHANAGE?

2008-01-21T11:57:00.001-05:00

This really isn't a review, just an awkward narrative with a slight bit of review in it. I realized as I started this post that I didn't have much to say but felt I should post something anyway.

On Friday night Crystal was all like "Let's see a movie. Let's see a movie." So she looks up what's going on and I'm all like "Ooo, Cloverfield." Then I realize it's Friday night and it'll be packed with kids. Then she shows me the preview for The Orphanage. It looked like a normal 'creepy child recently moving into a haunted house' kind of movie. However, it has Guillermo del Toro's name all over it. I saw half of the first Hellboy and thought it was a well-directed action superhero movie with actual style. And if all ya'll didn't know, Pan's Labyrinth is one of the very few films in recent years that I feel is in my top movies.

We arrive in the theater and that shit is empty except for an old couple, Crystal and I, and a younger couple that comes in five minutes into the movie. The opening credits were weird, and I don't mean because they were in Spanish. There were like seven different production companies involved in making the film, plus del Toro and what looked like a few television companies. So the film itself had a feel that seemed half normal haunting movie and half foreign film. The music wasn't the blatant 'oh shit, something's coming' and 'oh shit, you should be prepared for the worst' soundtrack. It had the intensity of the haunting film without crappy dialogue. In fact, it seemed to have minimal dialog at some points, very much like Pan's Labyrinth. I think it works well in the film and causes it to be more about the visual aspects and the story. The end of the film (I won't ruin it too much) started out to be an ending like Pan's Labyrinth where you think it's all worked out and it's cheesy, but nice. Then you see the truth. And at the very end you still smile just enough not to hate the ending.

When we left the theater, Crystal asked me what I thought. I felt that it was a refreshing view of a haunting-style film with real direction. I expected a bit more because it was del Toro, but I figured more of his mind was on Hellboy 2 at the time. However, it turns out I was wrong because he didn't direct The Orphanage, just produced it and thus they were able to put his name all over it.

So basically I would say it was a good movie, but nothing incredibly special. It was a well-directed, slight re-envisioning, of a movie that seems to have been done several times before.

The 822 Cloverfield Company

2008-01-20T17:32:00.000-05:00

NOTE: While this isn’t necessarily a review, and the movie only contained few things that could be spoiled, the following MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS, so please only read if you’ve seen it, or don’t really care. You can read a real review below.

J.J. Abrams’ new movie (his first full length?), “Cloverfield,” was known for a long time as “1-18-08,” because when anyone had first heard anything about it, it was from a trailer attached to the “Transformers” movie that offered no title, just that date. This, of course, is a brilliant way to get people talking, and was just the first part of what they now call a Viral Marketing Campaign.

This Viral Marketing Campaign certainly paid off for the film. At 7:45 on a Friday night, it’s no surprise that the theater was packed, but it may have been the first film I’ve seen a theater, without the name “Harry Potter” or “Spider-Man,” that had literally every seat sold out (which has lead me to already plan my first viewing of “Dark Knight,” a movie with an even more viral campaign).

My personal opinion of the movie is the following: It was fun, had some decent drama as more and more characters died, and it absolutely would not have worked if it weren’t for the handheld camera approach—which made me nauseous. The ending was satisfying for me, in part because it left lots of stuff open to learn more and to research on the Internet, and partly because it really pissed off a lot of people in the theater that I didn’t like on principle. Watching the movie was fun and seldom more, but the aftermath was the real experience.

“Cloverfield” is one of those never-going-happen-to-me kind of disaster movies that is fun to overanalyze and realistically plan for. “We’d be prepared if that ever happened,” my girlfriend told me earnestly, and I agreed 100%. After all, we knew not to go into the subway tunnels; we knew to run if the rats were running; and most importantly, we knew that no matter what, getting bit always equates to something bad, whether its from a zombie, a vampire, or as in this case, the weird spawn of the giant lizard bug thing from “Cloverfield.” (Note to all movie monsters: don’t even bother with us, we’re very well prepared).

Even though we knew we’d be ok if it ever happened, the drive home after the post-movie activities was dedicated to “imagine if that ever really did happen” conversations, as well as weighing the pros and cons of the attack being in Manhattan versus somewhere else in the country (Pros for it being on Manhattan: “at least it’s an island. You could just destroy the whole island if you had to.” Pros for somewhere else: maybe it would be further from here).

If I could sum up the experience of seeing “Cloverfield,” it would be “that movie was great.” If I could some up the experience of seeing the movie and all of the conversation and analysis that followed, it would be “that movie is terrifying.” While I’m sure that Mr. Abrams was going for terrifying, I’m pretty much positive he wasn’t going to realism. But for a never-going-to-happen-anyone kind of disaster movie, it sure managed to get pretty real.

REVIEW: CLOVERFIELD

2008-01-19T19:22:00.000-05:00

CLOVERFIELD MONSTER GONNA EAT YOU!

If the monster in Cloverfield could talk, and it said the above line, the movie would have been fucking amazing. As it was, I just enjoyed it. It was a very interesting interpretation of the giant monster movie and a good commentary on our amateur video obsessed society. It's also a great film if you enjoy seeing douchebags get killed.

Douches Galore

The characters in Cloverfield are pretty much the characters you would usually see as victims in a modern slasher movie. Cool, attractive young folks who you pretty much know can die at any second. The only difference here is, there's not really a likable one in the bunch. I'm not saying that a character has to be likable, I'd just prefer them to not all be douches. Seriously, the main character, Rob, is a total douche. And the guy behind the camera, Hud, the doucheist of douches. He asks the question "What is that thing?" close to 47 or 49 times. He pretty much asks all the questions that the idiots and old ladies in a movie theater would normally ask. So, old ladies and dumbasses with no theater etiquette, this movie does half the work for you.

Other stuff, good.

Now, with the above paragraph, you might think I hated this movie. I didn't. I enjoyed it a lot, although the film could've used a P. Diddy song sampling Led Zepplin. The monster is pretty badass, although to all those like myself who were hoping for some sort of Gammera type turtle monster, you'll be sorely disappointed. For those who haven't seen it yet, I won't spoil it, but I will say it obviously has Godzilla influences along with some H.P. Lovecraft thrown in.

Cloverfield also wins points for really drawing me into the film. I felt like I was on that Body Wars ride from Epcot. In one of the brief moments that I looked around me, I saw that everyone eye's were glued to the screen as well. There was also a rare moment in a packed theater where everyone was actually silent with suspense. Amazingly no one giggled or talked or had their cellphone go off. So I've got to give the movie credit for that.

So, overall, I don't really have a lot to say about the movie. Did it live up to the hype? I'm not sure. I can't speak for everyone's expectations. As for my own, I simply wanted to be entertained and see a turtle monster. At least I was entertained. Go ahead and check it out, it's definitely worth seeing in theaters.*

*Unless you too wanted a turtle monster. In that case, stay home and dream of a day when someone revives the Gammera movies. Also, if you have vertigo its probably not a great idea. You'll vomit. A lot.

Sharing is Caring

2008-01-17T18:46:00.000-05:00

Here’s how the conversation went:

Me: I think I could probably try crack just once and be ok.
Friend: Really?
Me: Well, I smoked pot a few times, and I really liked it, but I’m so cheap and lazy that I don’t really see me trying to go get some for myself.
Friend: So you’re saying that, as long as none of your friends just bring some crack over, you’d be ok trying it once?
Me: Yes.*

In high school, I used to joke that I would never smoke pot because I’m so laid back already, that introducing a substance into my body with the purpose of making myself even more relaxed would probably just turn me into a slug of sorts (it should be noted that the first time I did finally smoke, I immediately sought out a couch on which I enjoyed the remainder of a cake I had, and watched “Double Dare 2000”). Turns out, I don’t much mind being a slug.

The truth is, I don’t mind it at all. But, as a man in possession of two of the least attractive character traits one can have, cheapness and laziness, I’m too cheap and lazy to seek out this state of extreme cheapness (in mind) and laziness on my own. And though I might be denying myself the ability to enjoy something that I do enjoy, I’m also allowing myself the freedom from addiction. And, no, I don’t mean addiction in the scary, after-school-special sense of the word, because frankly I’m not that scared. I mean addiction in the sense of “I’d really love to (insert thing I’d really love to do), but I have to feed my addiction instead.” Frankly, I’m too lazy to bother feeding ANY addiction that requires more than biting my nails (which I would argue is more of a habit).

Of course, drugs are just the example I use in an effort to look cooler than I actually am. I am in fact not addicted to any of the following: drugs, alcohol, candy, TV, movies, video games, sports, exercise, comedy, beauty pageants, the Internet, model making, reading or blogging—though I do enjoy several of them. When it comes to addiction for me, I just need a couch—unless you’re offering.

Which really means you should feel free to come over any time, just as long as you share.

*This conversation was paraphrased and made particularly expository to spare you all the painstaking time it took for him to actually draw this conclusion.

The Truth is Out There

2008-01-16T19:23:00.000-05:00

or, Barack Obama isn't some genius James Bond villain

If I was Bruce Banner, I would probably be subject to very short bursts of turning into the Hulk. I'm the type that bottles up my anger and rage and it comes out at rather inappropriate moments at work like, "Holy shit, where the fuck is the stapler!??!?" Or this old chestnut while on the road, "I can't fuckin' believe that motherfuckin' fuck just fuckin' did that!" However, after reading an e-mail titled "Who is Barack Obama?" I could probably go on a cross-country Hulk rampage.

Upon first reading the title, I thought it might be a humorous, Seinfeld-like analysis of the Democratic candidate, "What's the deal with Barack Obama? Who is this guy, I mean, what's the deal with politics, right?" Sadly, I was sorely mistaken.

The e-mail begins with this sentence:

"Very interesting and something that should be considered in your choice."

Well, yes, obviously. Any voter who really gives a shit should ask the question of "Who is ______?" before casting their vote that puts this person into public office. Hell, every dumbshit American Idol voter should ask this question. My very first vote for anything was for the Blue M&M and goddammit, I made sure that Blue was going to represent my interests and beliefs as my representative in the world of candy coated chocolates. Anyway, back to the e-mail.

Next, after a quick bit about how scary and important this e-mail is, it goes on to say:

"We checked this out on 'snopes.com". It is factual. Check for yourself.

Well, if you stop to check for yourself you will find out that this e-mail is anything but factual.

Apparently for most people who are lurking around the internet, making a claim that a story is factual is enough for them. Especially in an e-mail forwarded to them, with no real author and no real sources to back anything up. Well, gullible e-mail forwarding people(aka old people and teenagers) I've got a scoop for you. John Edwards is plagued by a magical imp who appears every three months causing trouble and mischief and the only way to get rid of him is by tricking him into saying his own name backwards. It's factual. You could go ahead and look on snopes.com and see that I'm lying or just take me on my word because I told you I'm telling the truth.

The e-mail moves on to Obama's parents, a "black MUSLIM" and a "white ATHEIST." I'm pretty sure they're holding back, otherwise the next line would have been "Obama has also been known to associate with several JEWS." I'm sorry, my mom is a "white CATHOLIC" and my dad is a "white CATHOLIC" yet they manage to have my sister who is an "asian SATANIST*" Obama's parents managed to produce a "black CHRISTIAN," yet this e-mail fails to acknowledge that at all. It also fails to acknowledge the fact that religion shouldn't be an issue when electing a public official let alone president yet it manages to become more and more prevalent. This e-mail instead says that Obama became a Christian because it was "politically expedient" despite the fact that any real research reveals he joined his church long before he got into politics. It's also fairly hypocritical for the author(s) to downplay Obama's Christianity as political when in fact they're trying to rally "good Christ-loving Americans" against an allegedly Muslim candidate.

They then claim that Obama was sworn into office as Senator not on the Holy Bible but on the boldface underlined KORAN! Dun. Dun. Dun! A simple google or look around Snopes reveals this to be false. But, so what if an elected official is sworn in on the Koran or on the Torah or on a Harry Potter book. You're swearing to tell the truth in front of whatever you believe to be the ultimate judge of that truth, not on one select group's version.

Finally, the e-mail wraps up with this gem:

"The Muslims have said they plain on destroying the US from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest level - through the President of the United States, one of their own!!!!

First off, "The Muslims?" The terrorists have said this, not the entire Muslim faith. It's simple minded ignorance like that that got America into Iraq into the first place. When people started equating 9/11 with Iraq that led to the never-ending shitfest going on over there. When people start interchanging Muslim with terrorist, that's when you start to see hate crimes perpetrated by violent douchebags all over the place. The saddest part is, most people who get this e-mail won't bother to actually look to see if its true or not. They'll just pass it on to others as facts, like the messenger at work who liked Obama because he was "well-spoken"(don't even get me started on that) but couldn't support him because he heard he was funded by the Egyptians who wanted to...guess what? Destroy the US from the inside out! I'm sorry, but last time I checked, the entire population of people who are Muslims are not James Bond villains.

All the bullshit rumors going around about Obama are even more ludicrous than the belief that Kennedy would be in the Pope's pocket when he was running. It's funny** how people are worried about a separation of Church and State when its not their Church involved. And it's even funnier*** how the internet, the "information super highway," something that was supposed to open up the world and people's minds has instead only helped to close more.

*My sister is not a satanist. At least not as far as I know. Sorry, Sara!

**By funny, I mean not funny at all, but actually very scary and depressing.

*** Again, scary and depressing. Even more so.

Review of Sorts: How Hugo Cabret's Invention Affected My Year

2008-01-15T15:55:00.000-05:00

Yesterday morning, the 2008 edition of the Children’s Media awards (honors? I’m not very good at getting technical names correct) took place. While there are probably about 15 different awards given, and honorary winners named, the two that are most well-known are of course those named for John Newbery and whateverhisfirstnamewas Caldecottt. Because of the gravity these two medals carry in the literary community (like being carried specifically in those bookcases at Barnes and Noble dedicated to the winners), they’re “sort of a big deal.”

Oftentimes, there’s a little too much scrutiny on the winners. Last year’s Newbery was a book called “The Higher Power of Lucky,” and hanging right there in the first sentence was a nice big “scrotum” for the young-reading world to see. Some libraries shunned the book, some bookstores became weary of the book, but as a whole, the publishing industry wore it as a badge of honor, and the book’s publisher would later refer to it as “the word,” and use it as a vehicle in an unnamed “look what we’ve overcome” campaign.

This year’s Newbery is a book I’ve never heard of by a smaller publisher (Candlewick Press), making me happy that—even though I’ve never heard of it, and its announcement became inherently anti-climactic because of its lack of popularity (but just give that some time)—there’s some concrete proof that the committee is looking at books flying well below the radar. This year’s Caldecott however, is not only a book I’ve read, but a book I’ve given perhaps a little too much scrutiny to for the better part of the last year.

“The Invention of Hugo Cabret,” made its grand entrance into my life in late March, a book among hundreds of others dwelling in the warehouse-section of my job’s home base. It would be another few weeks before, bored in Hershey, PA, I would finally pick up the book and give it the fair chance it deserved. It was just another few hours until it had earned its place on my shelf of favorites books. Throughout its over 500 pages (undoubtedly making it the longest Caldecott winner we might ever see), author/illustrator Brian Selznick concocts a story that cannot stand alone with just text or illustrations.

After the announcements of the winners, I caught up with one of my coworkers. I doubt he ever has much invested in the awards (whereas I feel like Hugo’s win was almost exclusively my doing because I’ve recommended it to so many, and named it a clear frontrunner for either Newbery or Caldecott in my blog on December 19), but, never wanting to be out of the loop, he agreed that it was a great choice. When I pushed to confirm that he had actually read the book, he said “yes,” but didn’t remember what it was about.

This is not a book that one forgets (not that I’m trying to paint a picture of my coworker as the liar he clearly is). It’s the most unique piece of literature I’ve ever read—not because of its story, but in its format. It looks at the challenge of our “visually based” society and solves it with flying black and white pencil sketches.

But of course, a book is only as good as its content. As Selznick’s first full-length novel (his previous efforts each clocked in at under 70 pages), the story never falters, and never loses the reader. Though its intimidating thickness may scare off the few not brave enough to look between its covers, reluctant readers are sure to speed through it, as not only does the story keep you wanting more, but the pictures make you not want to stop.

What little I know about Selznick allows for the book to become even more real. As a fan of old cinema, Selznick treats each illustrated page as a carefully considered shot in a movie about Hugo’s world. And Hugo’s world is not glamorous: the orphaned son of a watchmaker, he was forced to live with his alcoholic uncle, the clock keeper at a Paris train station. When his uncle disappears, Hugo realizes he must keep the clocks at the station working, or risk being caught, and sent to an orphanage. With his genetic knowledge of watch making, the task of fixing clocks is no tough challenge, but fixing the automaton that his father left behind is much more difficult. On top of all that, he must steal to survive, and his luck eventually runs out, when he is caught by the toy seller. Through a series of physical discoveries and conscious epiphanies, the plot unwinds to show the intertwined fates of the two.

Even though it only took me about three hours to read all 544 pages, it would be in my head for months to come. When I had the opportunity to meet Selznick at a book fair in New York City, I jumped at the chance. Having never been to a signing at a book fair before, I provided my own copy of the book, not knowing that they would have provided one for me. But when one of his publisher’s marketers wouldn’t allow it, and Selznick’s publicist scoffed at the idea, Selznick himself had no problem signing an extra copy for me to give to another diehard fan of the book. He thanked me for my dedication, and I appreciated how nice he was (I would later blog that meeting him was the highlight of my weekend—which also included a presentation by Stephen Colbert).

Last year’s scrotum-bearing Newbery winner was a book that I felt pride for because, in its early stages, I had taken an editorial look at as an intern at the publisher. But this year’s Caldecott winner has given me an entirely new sense of pride—one that I don’t know if I rightfully deserve. I’ve had next to nothing to do with its success (with the exception of the people to whom I’ve recommended the book), but when a piece of art that is truly inspiring receives the attention it deserves (and was not slated to receive), anyone who has ever had contact with it should feel a sense of pride.

REVIEW: CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR

2008-01-12T20:06:00.000-05:00

aka Bachelor Party 2

Charlie Wilson's War is Mike Nichols's latest film, with a script by Aaron Sorkin and starring Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts and Phillip Seymour Hoffman. Charlie Wilson(Hanks) is a senator from Texas who though he seems of little importance actually turns out to be a great influence on the Cold War. He also likes to party down.* Hell, he leads the Senate sub-committee on partying down. Charlie Wilson's War is essentially a sequel in spirit to one of Hanks's first films, Bachelor Party, if his character in that film became a senator but kept that party going another 20 years. And just like Bachelor Party, this film is very entertaining, yet leaves me incredibly depressed.**

I'm not going to talk much about the acting in this film. It's all great work as usual from Hanks, Roberts, Hoffman and Amy Adams in a supporting role as Wilson's assistant. What is really interesting about Charlie Wilson's War is the surface level of the film and how that has played into the marketing. The trailers and commercials make it seem like your average Oscar baiting, one man can do it, America can do it, crowd pleasing film. At some points it even feels like that type of movie, but its really not.

The opening scene of the film places Wilson in front of the American flag while a banner at the other end of the room reads "Charlie Did It!" Charlie is there accepting an award from the CIA for his part in arming Afghanistan against the invading Soviet forces. Nichols then flashes back to how everything unfolded until he returns to the same scene he began with. Except this time its prefaced with a short scene of the senator drinking and crying in frustration over his inability to convince anyone to rebuild Afghanistan. The exact same scene shown exactly the same way, but with different context. It's these little reminders of context, like the unyielding hatred between an Israeli arms dealer and an Egyptian official; and Gust's(Hoffman) commentary on the dubious religious motives of Joanne Herring(Julia Roberts) that really set the movie's tone. Underneath all these Cold War dealings, something much worse is brewing.

In the end, while Charlie Wilson's War does show that one man can indeed make a difference, it also ponders the ramifications of that change. Obvious parallels are drawn to the current problems in Iraq and what the United States will do once all the terrorists are out of Iraq. Will the people of Iraq just be forgotten like the people of Afghanistan only to breed more contempt for America? Once all the Communists are out, they, along with Charlie are quickly ignored as yesterday's news. As the real Charlie Wilson says in a quote at the end of the film, "We fucked up the end game." I know some people may have been on the fence about seeing this movie because of how it was marketed, but I really can't recommend it enough. Charlie Wilson's War will make you laugh, it will make you think and it will probably depress the shit out of you. Go see it, but for your own sake, don't watch Munich beforehand or you'll just want to kill yourself before the world explodes because of fanatics on all sides.

* A key element to his partying down is whiskey. Charlie Wilson is drinking whiskey in at least every other scene in this film. It really made me want a glass of whiskey. Whiskey whiskey whiskey.

** Charlie Wilson's War depresses me because of its commentary on the ever worsening situation in the Middle East. Bachelor Party just brings me down afterwards because I know my bachelor party won't be that awesome, which is sad because it won't be as good as the movie that wasn't as good as Animal House.