Sequels come out so fast now...
REVIEW: Man of The Year
Spoiler Warning.
"Man of The Year" is being pitched on the lines of a movie that may otherwise have been called "President Doubtfire", the ads promising an inoccuous one-joke comedy about Robin Williams as a wacky TV comedian who runs for President... and wins! With "Wag The Dog's" Barry Levinson at the helm, that the actual film is something entirely different shouldn't really be a surprise. But then Levinson goes and does something fairly devious... he builds a second surprise into the first, so that what at first appears to be a dark political satire hiding inside a "zany" comedy premise unfolds further to reveal itself as... a quaint 40s-style morality play.
The foundation could've originated as the pitch for a feature-length spinoff of "The Daily Show" (or "Colbert Report" for that matter): Cable TV political-satirist Tom Dobbs runs for president as a barnstorming, fun-poking independent candidate... and actually WINS! Robin Williams plays Dobbs, and at first his broad, scattershot brand of humor seems an ill-fitting substitute for John Stewart's politically-charged sarcasm; until one realizes that Levinson and Williams are playing Dobbs in another direction - that of the Capraesque everyman do-gooder.
And while Capra's era was mercifully spared the amuck technology that drives the film's primary plot twist, he would doubtlessly have found common ground with the tough nut of right and wrong it brings about. The election has been conducted using an upstart company's electronic voting kiosks, and a vote-counting program which a low-level employee (Laura Linney) had discovered is fundamentally buggy. It's this bug that causes Dobbs' surprise electoral win, and gives way to the central quandry of the film: Dobbs is a good man, in this for the right reasons, who could very likely make a good president. But his victory isn't legitimate, and soon enough he knows it. What's the right thing to do? Tell the truth and lose the chance or live the lie and use it for good? Complicating matters are Linney's former employers, who will be ruined if the truth comes out and are willing to go to dark extremes to cover up the bug.
The best intentions are on display here, but it doesn't entirely "work." Folksy charm goes a long way, but doing a political satire thats almost entirely apolitical is a difficult wire to walk. Also, the "thriller" storyline focusing on Linney's persecution goes WAY dark WAY too early on, and the effect is whiplash-inducing. Most of these flaws are polished away by a fine cast and a likable atmosphere, but they leave issues that'll nag you later on.
Imperfect, but worthy and worth seeing.
FINAL RATING: 7/10
MINI-REVIEW: "The Departed"
I've now seen "The Departed" twice since it came out last Friday, and I've been struggling to figure out how to approach reviewing it. Or, rather, how to review it in greater depth than simply telling you the basic truth: That's it's one of the best, if not THE best, major movie of the year and that you should absolutely go right out and see it.
Outside of that, I find that the film defies my ability to construct a useful review by way of it's stripped-down, unpretentious edge: It doesn't aim to turn it's story or character arcs into larger symbols, it attaches no "greater" issues or themes to it's central plot other than eternal quandries of loyalty, honor, etc. And while, as usual, one could write a dozen reviews just relating director Martin Scorsese's skill at building tension and constructing a scene... here the best examples would only be spoiled by description.
Briefly: The film is a loose remake of Hong Kong's "Infernal Affairs," here relocated to Boston. Leonardo DiCaprio is a state trooper drafted as a deep-cover mole into the local Irish mafia, while Matt Damon is another trooper who's been drafted as the Irish mafia's mole into the police department. At the center of both men's lives, to varying degrees, are Vera Farmiga as a psychiatrist unknowingly treating both men, Martin Sheen, Mark Whalberg and Alec Baldwin as the police superiors and Jack Nicholson as Luciferian mobster Frank Costello.
The cast is, across the board, excellent. Scorsese finally wrings the excellent performance out of DiCaprio that he's been promising us for two movies now, Damon is fine as a self-satisfied heel, Sheen and Baldwin serve notice that they do remember how act with greatness after all, Farmiga holds her own in the difficult position of being the film's lone strong female voice, and Whalberg has probably never been better in a role that at first seems extraneous and soon proves anything but simply because the character is so enjoyable to watch.
Anything more... honestly, I can't and shouldn't say. Let it be enough that you need to see this, even if your not a fan of the genre, the maker or anyone in it. It's a good movie, simple as that.
Outside of that, I find that the film defies my ability to construct a useful review by way of it's stripped-down, unpretentious edge: It doesn't aim to turn it's story or character arcs into larger symbols, it attaches no "greater" issues or themes to it's central plot other than eternal quandries of loyalty, honor, etc. And while, as usual, one could write a dozen reviews just relating director Martin Scorsese's skill at building tension and constructing a scene... here the best examples would only be spoiled by description.
Briefly: The film is a loose remake of Hong Kong's "Infernal Affairs," here relocated to Boston. Leonardo DiCaprio is a state trooper drafted as a deep-cover mole into the local Irish mafia, while Matt Damon is another trooper who's been drafted as the Irish mafia's mole into the police department. At the center of both men's lives, to varying degrees, are Vera Farmiga as a psychiatrist unknowingly treating both men, Martin Sheen, Mark Whalberg and Alec Baldwin as the police superiors and Jack Nicholson as Luciferian mobster Frank Costello.
The cast is, across the board, excellent. Scorsese finally wrings the excellent performance out of DiCaprio that he's been promising us for two movies now, Damon is fine as a self-satisfied heel, Sheen and Baldwin serve notice that they do remember how act with greatness after all, Farmiga holds her own in the difficult position of being the film's lone strong female voice, and Whalberg has probably never been better in a role that at first seems extraneous and soon proves anything but simply because the character is so enjoyable to watch.
Anything more... honestly, I can't and shouldn't say. Let it be enough that you need to see this, even if your not a fan of the genre, the maker or anyone in it. It's a good movie, simple as that.
(not really) Friday the 13th part XI
Attention: Rights-holders to the "Friday the 13th" franchise.
Make THIS movie:
It will make you piles of money.
You're welcome.
Make THIS movie:
It will make you piles of money.
You're welcome.
Columbine Dad on CBS News: Teaching evolution causes school shootings
Have you been watching these "Free Speech" segments on the new Couric-ized CBS Evening News? The basic idea is that CBS will turn over a bit of nationally-telecast airtime to basically anyone who wants to get on a soapbox about anything. Like a lot of Network News' attempts at remaining relevant, thus far I'd say they've been a great idea poorly realized. Most of the "big" moments have come from well-knowns like Rush Limbaugh, and what's the point of that? I can hear what Limbaugh or any famous person has to say anytime I want... he has HIS OWN SHOW.
I want to hear from people I'd otherwise never hear from, I want ordinary folks speaking their mind. And I have only two "requirements" for them to be considered successful at doing so. ONE: Be entertaining. Perform. You're on TV. TWO: Be incredibly insightful or batshit crazy. No middle ground. One or the other. Ho-hum folksy reasonability is bad TV. I either want to see Yoda give me the secrets of existance in the form of a simple limerick or I want a guy in a foil hat whipping out a pie-chart that proves Paul Wolfowitz is secretly a member of the Green Lantern Corps.
The other night, CBS finally got it right. They invited on the father of a Columbine Massacre victim to give his take on the phenomenon of school shootings in the wake of the recent tragedy at an Amish school in Pennsylvania. Gawker, via YouTube, here provides the clip in case you missed it:
Direct Link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ma8MEzG_V_0
Summary of charges: The removal of school prayer and creationism and broader-societal permissiveness regarding suicide and abortion have made America morally weak, and evolutionary theory being taught in schools is particularly to blame because it replaces absolute right and wrong with kill or be killed.
Let's put aside for a moment what you think about this man's opinions (you already know what I think.) I want to ask the politically-minded in my readership, liberal, conservative or otherwise, to consider a few things.
Back over the summer, Ann Coulter caught some (largely deserved) flak over a portion of her latest book involving the concept of victims being re-cast as experts. As is usually the case with Coulter, her argument was a kernel of genuine logic framed in hyperbolic attack-journalism tones. The basic point was that, in Coulter's view, "the left" (her words, not mine) was responsible for ruining honest public debate by frequently re-branding the sufferers of various tragedies as experts on the larger cause of said tragedies; with the goal being to render one's opponent unable to respond for fear of seeming callous toward a victim.
The most obvious embodiment of this concept, to Coulter and her ilk, was Cindy Sheehan, the anti-war activist who's son was killed in Iraq and who subsequently embarked on a series of speaking engagements. The argument here, which I find unfortunately (given the sources) difficult to completely disagree with, is that Sheehan's loss, however tragic, does not immediately annoint her any kind of expert on war or the geo-politics thereof. To put it another way, living through Katrina didn't grant anyone a degree in climateology.
The flaw in Coulter's logic (in ALL of Coulter's logic, really) is that she ascribes the notion of propping up victims (or victims propping themselves up) as experts with their victimhood as sole qualification exclusively to the "left," and the above clip/link clearly indicates that this is as much a "red" problem as it is a "blue" one. I'm not here to give the gentleman from the CBS clip a hard time, just asking people to consider the broader implications at play here: What this man had to say, honest opinion or not, is just the standard boilerplate of the religious "right" for the last few decades or so; but coming from this particular person it's going to resonate much more strongly with many more people than it otherwise would've because, the currency of modern media culture his victimhood is meant to imbue him with the instant weight and gravitas of expertise.
Viewed now in the context of a "both sides" problem, is "expertise by way of victimhood" out of hand? Does it hurt the decorum of honest debate? Are we becoming a nation of "Oprah" guests, where feelings and emotion hold greater currency than reason and facts?
I want to hear from people I'd otherwise never hear from, I want ordinary folks speaking their mind. And I have only two "requirements" for them to be considered successful at doing so. ONE: Be entertaining. Perform. You're on TV. TWO: Be incredibly insightful or batshit crazy. No middle ground. One or the other. Ho-hum folksy reasonability is bad TV. I either want to see Yoda give me the secrets of existance in the form of a simple limerick or I want a guy in a foil hat whipping out a pie-chart that proves Paul Wolfowitz is secretly a member of the Green Lantern Corps.
The other night, CBS finally got it right. They invited on the father of a Columbine Massacre victim to give his take on the phenomenon of school shootings in the wake of the recent tragedy at an Amish school in Pennsylvania. Gawker, via YouTube, here provides the clip in case you missed it:
Direct Link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ma8MEzG_V_0
Summary of charges: The removal of school prayer and creationism and broader-societal permissiveness regarding suicide and abortion have made America morally weak, and evolutionary theory being taught in schools is particularly to blame because it replaces absolute right and wrong with kill or be killed.
Let's put aside for a moment what you think about this man's opinions (you already know what I think.) I want to ask the politically-minded in my readership, liberal, conservative or otherwise, to consider a few things.
Back over the summer, Ann Coulter caught some (largely deserved) flak over a portion of her latest book involving the concept of victims being re-cast as experts. As is usually the case with Coulter, her argument was a kernel of genuine logic framed in hyperbolic attack-journalism tones. The basic point was that, in Coulter's view, "the left" (her words, not mine) was responsible for ruining honest public debate by frequently re-branding the sufferers of various tragedies as experts on the larger cause of said tragedies; with the goal being to render one's opponent unable to respond for fear of seeming callous toward a victim.
The most obvious embodiment of this concept, to Coulter and her ilk, was Cindy Sheehan, the anti-war activist who's son was killed in Iraq and who subsequently embarked on a series of speaking engagements. The argument here, which I find unfortunately (given the sources) difficult to completely disagree with, is that Sheehan's loss, however tragic, does not immediately annoint her any kind of expert on war or the geo-politics thereof. To put it another way, living through Katrina didn't grant anyone a degree in climateology.
The flaw in Coulter's logic (in ALL of Coulter's logic, really) is that she ascribes the notion of propping up victims (or victims propping themselves up) as experts with their victimhood as sole qualification exclusively to the "left," and the above clip/link clearly indicates that this is as much a "red" problem as it is a "blue" one. I'm not here to give the gentleman from the CBS clip a hard time, just asking people to consider the broader implications at play here: What this man had to say, honest opinion or not, is just the standard boilerplate of the religious "right" for the last few decades or so; but coming from this particular person it's going to resonate much more strongly with many more people than it otherwise would've because, the currency of modern media culture his victimhood is meant to imbue him with the instant weight and gravitas of expertise.
Viewed now in the context of a "both sides" problem, is "expertise by way of victimhood" out of hand? Does it hurt the decorum of honest debate? Are we becoming a nation of "Oprah" guests, where feelings and emotion hold greater currency than reason and facts?
UPDATE: indie theatre's "Jackass" protest-closing
A few corrections and clarifications before the saga of Greg Boardman, the independent theatre owner who closed down his theater ("with one of the finest sound systems in the world!" as he was sure to mention) in "protest" over the existance of "Jackass: Number 2", becomes old news.
FIRST: I neglected to note in the original posting that Mr. Boardman also counted "Beerfest" and "The Covenant" among the films that led him to temporarily shut down.
SECOND: Other outlets reported, and I repeated, erroneous information as to Mr. Boardman's buisness situation. The Lorraine Theater is located in Hoopeston, Illinois and not Northern California as had been said. The confusion arises because Mr. Boardman does LIVE in No. Cal and runs his business venture from there. So if you're looking to check out the Lorraine Theater (it has one of the finest sound systems in the world, y'know) you can do so in Hoopeston, Illinois.
THIRD: I'll never deny being a cynic at heart, but regarding my earlier postulation that this struck me as being more of a publicity stunt than a "protest of resistance" by Boardman since he's probably not being "forced" to screen these films as opposed to other ones, here's a clarifying quote from Boardman courtesy IMDB/Studio Briefing and the Chicago Tribune (boldface mine):
"I can fly back there anytime I want and show any movie I want. ... How man people can say they have their own movie theater and can do that?"
Link to full version here:
http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/2006-10-02/#film3
FIRST: I neglected to note in the original posting that Mr. Boardman also counted "Beerfest" and "The Covenant" among the films that led him to temporarily shut down.
SECOND: Other outlets reported, and I repeated, erroneous information as to Mr. Boardman's buisness situation. The Lorraine Theater is located in Hoopeston, Illinois and not Northern California as had been said. The confusion arises because Mr. Boardman does LIVE in No. Cal and runs his business venture from there. So if you're looking to check out the Lorraine Theater (it has one of the finest sound systems in the world, y'know) you can do so in Hoopeston, Illinois.
THIRD: I'll never deny being a cynic at heart, but regarding my earlier postulation that this struck me as being more of a publicity stunt than a "protest of resistance" by Boardman since he's probably not being "forced" to screen these films as opposed to other ones, here's a clarifying quote from Boardman courtesy IMDB/Studio Briefing and the Chicago Tribune (boldface mine):
"I can fly back there anytime I want and show any movie I want. ... How man people can say they have their own movie theater and can do that?"
Link to full version here:
http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/2006-10-02/#film3
DragonForce! or "How'd I managed to miss THIS?"
I judge great music by how it makes you feel. Great Jazz should make you want to walk around "noticing" things. Great rock should make you want to dance. Great rap should make you want to dance... but defiantly, because Whitey has been keepin' you down all week.
Great metal, on the other hand, should make you want to grab your broadsowrd, climb to the top of the nearest mountain during the next available thunderstorm and challenge the demon gods of Earth, Wind, Water and Fire to glorious final combat.
With that in mind, I ask you... How is it that up until this week I had not been formally introduced to DragonForce??
I bought this album tonight after work, so... to anyone unlucky enough to share the road with me in the near future: I'm sorry, but this stuff makes me want to drive like there's a goddamn Orc Army on my tail ;)
Great metal, on the other hand, should make you want to grab your broadsowrd, climb to the top of the nearest mountain during the next available thunderstorm and challenge the demon gods of Earth, Wind, Water and Fire to glorious final combat.
With that in mind, I ask you... How is it that up until this week I had not been formally introduced to DragonForce??
I bought this album tonight after work, so... to anyone unlucky enough to share the road with me in the near future: I'm sorry, but this stuff makes me want to drive like there's a goddamn Orc Army on my tail ;)
