A Fun British Romp

Wild Target is a film I wasn’t sure I’d ever watch.  It came up on Netflix instant several times as a suggestion, but I always wrote it off because something about the art for it through me off and made me think it wasn’t what it ended up being.  I thought it was going to be some slightly-serious girl in trouble piece, but it turned out to be a not-even-remotely-serious girl in trouble piece, and is a whole lot of fun to watch.

Wild Target is the story of a thief who is more like a kleptomaniac named Rose (Emily Blunt).  In selling a piece of artwork she had stolen, she unfortunately rips off the wrong British gangster (Rupert Everett).  He is understandably pissed off, so hires the best assassin in the business Victor Maynard (Bill Nighy) to kill her.  Victor is somewhat particular about things, which is evident from his meticulous plastic-wrapped home.  In his pursuit of Rose, he changes his mind about killing her, which sets into motion a comedy of errors where he is trying to prevent Rose from being killed by the gangster’s henchmen with the help of Tony, played by Rupert Grint of Harry Potter fame.  Thankfully, aside from the initial “He’s from Harry Potter!” you don’t think of him that way for the rest of the movie.

A Tale of Two Interpretations

At the end of his review for the poorly named, but better than the original, Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows, my Hackert mentions that he prefers the BBC’s Sherlock better.  This may have been glossed over by many, but it is a very important take away from that review in my opinion.

This isn’t to say I too did not find the Guy Ritchie film, filled with his characteristic dull colors with glossy sheens and slow motion action, to be a bad film. I enjoyed it’s more intellectual story relative to the original film, in which Sherlock was less detective and more fighter, and balances its grand set pieces with a more complex interweaving plot.  On the other side of the coin, it also has horribly obvious foreshadowing which sadly ruins some of its more emotive moments. It is a great flick, but clearly not without its flaws.

And don’t call me Sherly

Over break I went and saw Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows, which like its predecessor was a great romp to see over the holidays.  Although he was hinted at as the villain in the first movie, Professor James Moriarty--played very well by Jared Harries—is front and center the bad guy in this film.  Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) and Moriarty have always had an interesting relationship in the various ways they have been presented over the years, and this movie is no exception.  Although they come face to face early in the movie, both are too sure of their own genius to feel the need to do anything at that moment, so leave each other be.  The reason may also to have been to allow for the rest of the movie to take place, but that is a rather dull reason.

The rest of the cast is equally great in their roles, the returning characters as well as the new characters.  Jude Law returns as Doctor John Watson, who you have to feel for since his best friend does a very good job of making his life very complicated.  In the end they are still bros though, so it’s all good.  Rachel McAdams also returns for this film as the thief Irene Adler, but she is mostly a foil for presenting the main conflict of the movie, and only features in the early part of the movie.  The two new supporting characters are probably the most fun though.  Stephen Fry play Mycroft Holmes, Sherlock’s equally eccentric brother, and like in his other movies brings a dry wit and a flair for the insane.  Noomi Rapace, who some may recognize from the Swedish Girl with the Dragon Tattoo movies, plays Madam Simza Heron, a gypsy fortuneteller with a penchant for knives.  What Stephen Fry brings to the humor, Noomi Rapace brings to the action, helping Watson and Sherlock escape from a number of dangerous predicaments they find themselves in.

Catching Up on Past Viewings: A Dangerous Method

"Chewing the Scenery" is a term for melodramatic over acting, and it also happens to be the exact phrase my dad used to describe Keira Knightley's performance in A Dangerous Method.  His argument is that it is easier to overact and it isn't always right to do so.  I'd argue that Knightley does exactly what is asked of her, and does it well and in a way that adds to the story, rather than as a way to draw attention to herself at the expense of the other characters.

Saturday Night Live: A Return to Decency

With the Christmas episode in the can, I'm calling this the halfway mark of the Saturday Night Live season, and boy has it been a good one.  Each year SNL is dissected because of its past glories as a barometer for cool.  It's history has been filled with great comedians who have gone on to having their own success outside of the show, and the past few years, particularly with Seth Myers as head writer, the show has taken some lumps.

Catching up on Past Viewings: The Muppets

If you've ever wanted to feel extremely nostalgic this is a movie to do it.  I consider myself to have a fairly terrible memory of childhood.  That's not to say my childhood was bad, merely that unlike my sister, I don't remember a lot from when I was 8 and younger.  Despite not being able to distinctly ever watching any episode of the Muppet show from the 70s, Sesame Street, or Fraggle Rock this movie made me feel like a kid again.

Catching Up on Past Viewings: Shame

Yesterday afternoon, I caught a matinee showing of Shame, the slightly controversial, NC-17 rated movie starring Michael Fassbender and Carey Mulligan (An Education).  The film, directed by Steve McQueen, who I'd say ranks third behind Alexander McQueen, a fashion designer, and Steve McQueen (The Great Escape), is the second collaborative effort with Fassbender, the first being Hunger [can be seen on netflix instant].

Counting Down to In Time

Yes, it has been a long time since I last posted, but between internet problems at home (the only kind of domestic problem a single guy living alone may have other than cooking) and traveling by car on the weekend I’ve been hard pressed to write about let alone see a movie.

This weekend a potentially good movie is back on the silver screens of America, In Time.  In Time looks to further the string of movies designed to turn Justin Timberlake from teen heartthrob singing sensation into a multi-talented superstar (some would say he already is due to his popular appearances on Saturday Night Live).  Coming off successes in The Social Network and Friends With Benefits, the superior movie to No Strings Attached from what I’ve heard, In Time should cement Timberlake as an actor who can open a movie if it can win the #1 spot from Paranormal Activity 3: Most Paranormal, Most Active [ed. note, not actual title].  

Rango is not a children’s movie

Well that was not what I was expecting.  The original teaser trailer for this movie was pretty off the wall, since it was just the plastic fish floating across the road, but I didn’t think that would be a more accurate portrayal of the movie than any of the subsequent trailers.  This movie is flat out weird, in typical Johnny Depp fashion.  The fact that it’s animated does not take away from that weirdness at all, it might even add to it.  This starts out as a fish out of water tale, where our hero who is initially nameless but dubs himself Rango finds himself lost in the desert and eventually finds Dirt, a town low on water that could use a hero.  Out of practically nowhere and through a series of misinterpreted events, Rango is dubbed that hero and works to save the town.

The Thing is, it’s pretty freaky

If you haven’t seen John Carpenter’s The Thing, please see that before seeing this movie.  Since this is a prequel you don’t really need to see it to understand the story, but I feel as though it would be ruined by seeing this one first.  It is a classic horror movie, and was amazing effects for its time, and really the new The Thing is the same basic film, just prettied up with modern effects.  And that is not a bad thing!  The movie is still terrifying and Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. (don’t ask me to say that out loud) made it his own with the monster effects and the kills, and it will still get you to jump out of your seat several times.

Rocky, but less robotic

Real Steel is a good movie.  There, I said it.  Everyone was initially turned off by the over-simplified premise, in that Hugh Jackman was going to be a trainer for robot boxers, or Rock-em Sock-em Robots THE MOVIE!  But really, instead of a modern underdog boxer story like Rocky, or a boxing story from the past like Cinderella Man, this is the same basic formula, but set in the future.  It’s not just about the boxing though, Hugh Jackman’s character, Charlie Kenton, has a son Max that he is taking care of who is played by Dakota Goyo, who may be the breakout star of this whole movie.  Charlie is basically the unsuccessful jerk of a father that Max never had, while Max is really the one that bring all the personality to this movie.

Anticipating Election Season with The Ides of March

The Ides of March is directed by some actor named George Clooney, and I’ll say this now, it will be good.  In all likelihood, it will be very good but still may disappoint me because it didn’t actually meet my lofty expectations for it.

Like many movies that I expect to enjoy, this one has a solid cast featuring the Oscar nominated and/or winning Phillip Seymour Hoffman (Capote), Marisa Tomei (My Cousin Vinny), Paul Giamatti (Cinderella Man), and of course, George Clooney.  Even better, none of these people are the protagonist of the film, that character is played by Ryan Gosling, hot off his recent successful performances in Drive and Crazy, Stupid, Love.  

Conan Can't Stop, and I Don't Want Him To

Well, after a brief lay off due to the real world and a test I took Saturday that I had to study for, I’m back. So lets get down to business.

Ever since my 2^rd year in college, I’ve most frequently fallen asleep doing one of two things, watching tv, or watching something, either tv or a movie, on my computer. The latter can be dangerous because you could potentially roll over and destroy your computer so I don’t wholeheartedly recommend it.  This week I went to Netflix in the hope they might have updated their Watch Instantly programming with something I hadn’t seen before and was interested in watching, and they came through in a big way, with the documentary Conan Can’t Stop.

RealTalk Reviews: Pan Am.

My expectations were low after the premiere of NBC’s The Playboy Club, but Pan Am wasn’t as bad as I thought it would be. Great? No. But where The Playboy Club simply follows Don Draper after hours, at least Pan Am sticks us on a plane, throws in some espionage, and has some decent directorial moments.

Pan Am’s headliners are four female flight attendants: Collette (Karine Vanasse), Kate (Kelly Garner), Laura (Margot Robbie) and Maggie (Christina Ricci). Their stories are pretty bland, but have enough juice that I will come back for at least one more episode (for the record, I did not watch the second episode of The Playboy Club). Vanasse is the token foreigner, who everyone wants to be because duh, she’s French and has unapologetic sex in faraway lands. Garner and Robbie are sisters, the former being the shorter ginger who no one believes in (sad) but who is picked up by the CIA to track evil Russkies abroad.  Robbie plays the hotter sister who runs away on her wedding day, because she is a Strong Woman.  Finally, Ricci’s character is an intellectual who will clearly be a feminist in the next decade but for now, is quenching her thirst for knowledge by traveling the world. I actually enjoyed her character the most, finding Ricci’s part well-acted and very committed; but I think that’s mostly because I associate her with dramatically opposite roles, like Wendy Addams and the girl from Casper. We have yet to fully meet the other characters or the show’s male leads, although it seems that Michael Mosley and Mike Vogel will slip into the roles of Hot Captain With Female Lead Romance next week.

While the storylines are slightly contrived, I feel that at least Pan Am has somewhere to go, pun intended. The various places the show can take us might make some interesting trysts, and the plane itself is a neat setting, one that we did not get to fully enjoy in Lost.

Furthermore, what I find refreshing is the obviousness of the escapism. Many shows that transport us to the past or future do so as grandiose metaphors, leaving the viewer thoughtfully questioning everything. “She’s wearing a polka dot dress. That must be a metaphor for the unoriginality of her life. I think that’s what they’re saying…Maybe that’s a metaphor for my life!” Not so in Pan Am. These characters are unabashed about the fact that they want to run away from the world, and they want you to come with them. Just go ahead, fly away with the girl from Casper. No thinking required.

Of course, I’m sure there is a deeper message, which in the case of Pan Am might be to show us how ironic—and iconic—the sixties were. Example: lack of TSA, but super-scrutiny into last names ending in “-chov” or “-chev”; freedom from sexism while bound by sexism. That’s sort of cool, but frankly, I don't care much either way. I would rather the show leave out the deep analysis and continue to separate itself from Mad Men by staying in the air and out of the office, as I think it did half-successfully in the first episode. I would also appreciate a guest appearance by Jack and/or another member of Lost. Wouldn't that be fun?

All in all, Pan Am just didn’t have much of an impact, good or bad. But I will watch next week’s episode, because a little Sixties fashion and spies on a plane are good enough for me—at least for now.

The “RealTalk Reviewer” will be a recurring guest on Rambles and Reviews and thinks that planes were so much cooler in the Sixties.

Terra Nova watches too many movies

On Monday I watched the premiere of Terra Nova, the other new show from Steven Spielberg, this one without aliens.  This show is a great almagamation of several different movies or genres, drawing aspects of dinosaur sci-fi, time travel sci-fi, future sci-fi, and family dramas.  That last one gets built up a bit since the first three are pretty obvious, but balanced around each other it turns out better than you'd expect.  The first episode (episodes? I think it was two shown as one big block) set the scene for us, even though the first hour was kind of a fleshing out of the 30 second commercial summary.  There were a lot of characters introduced, so none really got built out that well, but over the course of the season hopefully they'll get their own back stories or side stories.  It also set up some future plot points for the film, but probably gave away two many details that could have been bigger reveals down the line once people started trying to predict it.  If you are over your horrible relationship with Lost, and don't mind a sci-fi oriented character drama, then Terra Nova is your new fall show.  Sorry I couldn't post more, but I didn't want to spoil too much, so below you'll find a ton of random thoughts I had while watching the show.

Ryan Reynolds is so Underground

This week I received Buried from Netflix (I don’t think it’s Qwikster yet).  First, a brief rant:  If I put something on my DVD queue and it’s available on instant streaming, can we get a heads up?  Sorry about that, anyway, you probably all heard about Buried when it first came out as the movie that’s entirely Ryan Reynolds in a coffin.  Fortunately, for what they were working with conceptually, it was a surprisingly well done movie.  It was as creepy and claustrophobic as you’d expect, but also had some extremely depressing moments that were quite a shock when they happened in the narrative.

This movie is pretty frightening, not just because of the base fear of being buried alive, but also for all the political and social things it brings up over the course of the movie.  Ryan Reynolds plays Paul Conroy, a contractor in Iraq, but not the Blackwater type contractor, he’s a truck driver from Michigan working for CRT in Iraq, just “trying to do right” by his family.  It’s quickly made clear that Conroy was promised a very different Iraq than he found himself working in, and that he doesn’t have much hope for his current predicament.  The only hope he does have is a Blackberry phone, but most of the calls he places don’t provide happy news.

The only other characters in the film are the people Conroy talks to on the phone, and there are a variety of different people throughout the film.  Conroy tries to get in contact with government agencies that can help, tries to get in touch with his family, and at times also has contact with the people that kidnapped him.  Most of these calls are depressing in one way or another, but a few do provide a little bit of happiness.  The most horrifying call though is with none other than Stephen Tobolowsky, who you may recognize from Glee or Heroes or a number of other bit parts from tons of different shows and movies.  All I can say is, if you recognize his voice, prepare to get really angry and really sad.

Buried is a very eerie movie and I feel bad that I can’t say too much more about it, but I really don’t want to spoil it for anyone who hasn’t seen it yet.  It’s extremely well done, and fills the 90 minutes very well, but is not something you should watch if you’re looking to be cheered up.  It’s probably a realistic take how things are going in Iraq, but you really can’t be sure since the official position appears to be covering this type of situation up.  And I really hope CRT isn’t a real company, because this movie does not put them in a good light.

John Hackert is a columnist and would get a smartphone if their batteries weren’t crap.

Award Shows and Movie Review Goggles

This weekend, the film Moneyball comes out, starring Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill, about the amazing use of math and statistics in putting together a baseball team.  While this will inevitable be a dumbing down and over-dramatization of the book somewhat (oh yeah, based on a book, about math!), it is still being widely praised by critics as a fantastic film and one of the best of the year so far.  I am here to tell you that yes, this movie will likely be good, but don’t lose your minds over this movie come awards season.

Very often, a movie will get really well reviewed because of the presentation or the story, and the actors in it will be lavished with awards for their amazing work in it.  But if you take a step back and really watch the movie, you realize almost any actor could have been interchanged in the roles, and due to the direction and the writing, could have appeared to be an award-winning performance.  This phenomenon is what I will refer to as “Movie Review Goggles”, in which a well-reviewed movie should always have the principal actors nominated for awards.  I don’t think this is the case at all.  For awards like Best Actor in [Category] or Best Supporting Actor, it should be in movies where someone else could not have pulled off the performance that the actor gave.  Yup, these are very subjective standards, and that’s what reward shows are always about, but some subjective is better than others.

I don’t doubt that Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill do a great job in bring this story to the screen, but if they get nominated for Golden Globes I won’t be surprised, but I think they would be taking a chance from someone more deserving.  I didn’t say Oscars because they tend to draw from higher brow stuff, and I believe are already smart enough to avoid Movie Review Goggles.  I watched Troy last night, one of my favorite movies and favorite Brad Pitt movies, so I am well aware that he is able to phone it in and still come across as awesome.  Hopefully Moneyball isn’t on that level, but I doubt this will be one of the top 5 performances by Pitt in his career.  (If there is an outcry for me to list my top 5 I can do that in another post.)  And this very well might be one of the first dramatic movies Jonah Hill has done.  He’s done great movies like Superbad before, but that was him playing to type.  Seeing him not being the goofy friend or in a fish-out-of-water scenario (we’ll wait for The Sitter) will be a great change of pace, but I doubt he’ll kill it his first time out.

So to summarize, I would not be surprised to see Brad Pitt and/or Jonah Hill nominated for something later this year, but if they aren’t, please don’t lose your minds saying they were robbed.  And after seeing this movie this weekend, if I am completely wrong and these were some of the greatest performances of the year and they truly deserve a nomination, I’ll post a picture of me holding a sign saying just that.

John Hackert is a columnist and is a man of his word.

Fall TV: A Pleasant Surprise

The New Girl actually isn’t all that bad. Starring Zooey Deschanel (which puts both Deschanel sisters on the same network #nepotism) and airing on Fox after Glee and beforeRaising Hope, The New Girl is the biggest new, and most advertised, sitcom for the Fox network this fall season.  It’s time slot alone, sandwiched between two successful comedies, makes it likely to succeed and be picked up for a second season.

This review could be influenced negatively by one thing in particular, so discount accordingly, but I expected this show to not be good. Not The Playboy Club bad per se, but not good. The cast didn’t look all that special to me, and I generally have a negative opinion of Zooey Deschanel because she seems hipster, and flaky, and that annoys me. Maybe I’m wrong though, maybe those roles she played in 500 Days of Summer and Yes Man were just that, roles.

The show opens with Zooey (I forget her characters name) explaining that her boyfriend cheated on her, a fact she discovers while being super awkward. We, the audience, than find out that her story has no relevance to what was being asked of her by her three, male prospective roommates.  The roommates seem amusing, if not clichéd into typical roles of douchebag, overly masculine, and slightly effeminate, but all by episodes end have a soft spot for their new female roommate.  Most of the jokes in this pilot episode were quick, and intelligent enough, which is good, because most sitcom pilots aren’t always that funny, requiring sometime to find their groove of comedy.

This doesn’t mean I’m not worried about where the show might be headed.  The male characters are fairly shallow to begin with, but this could end up being a bigger problem in that they’ve had to recast one of the male roles already. God I hope they don’t just try to pretend the new black guy is the same character as the old black guy, it would be lazy and probably slightly offensive on multiple levels.  Also, Zooey Deschanel is a hipster as well as a singer, and it looks like her character has many of the same qualities, most prominent her propensity to see awkward theme songs about herself at random times in the show.  This could get annoying quickly, so I’m hoping they don’t come back to it often.

The show is definitely worth a first and second look, and has potential to be another ensemble comedy, though more at the critical and commercial success level of Happy Endings than Modern Family or Community

Matt Brickell is a contributing writer and having trouble uploading blog posts today.

Hope Springs Anew

Well its September 20^th, and as we all know that means fall is less than 3 days away (it’s on the 23^rd according to Google). What else does that mean? Fall tv shows premiere this week, including some ugly ones last night.

This year, like every year, I’m hopeful there will be a new show that I can add into my stable of tv I don’t watch live, but instead the day after on the Internet; since I have a job, I may actually start watching these shows live now.

Last night had the premieres of the perennially good How I Met Your Mother, as well as new shows 2 Broke Girls and the Playboy Club. The more likely to succeed of these two will be 2 Broke Girls. It has a name actress in Kat Dennings (40 Year-Old Virgin, Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist) in one of the lead roles and more importantly it’s on CBS. The fact it’s on CBS leads me to believe it will be a marginally funny show, and run for 7-9 years because that’s what most CBS tv shows do (eg CSI, NCIS, Two and a Half Men).  

The Playboy Club looks to be one of the many NBC shows that get cancelled in their first year, no matter how well intentioned they are.  The premise of the show is to follow the lives of girls working at the Playboy Club in the 60s and there is a murder mystery plot and maybe the mob is involved. I tried to watch the show, but couldn’t get interested in it. You’ll feel like it’s a rip-off of Mad Men because it wishes it were Mad Men.  More likely to succeed will be the other Mad Men rip off called Pan-Am about the stewardesses and a pilot or two in the 60s. It has Christina Ricci and will likely be more amusing and better attended to by the people at ABC.  

Like all of you, I’m most excited for the return of the shows I’ve grown to loved, or have loved from day 1. Among the shows returning this week are Community, Modern Family, Parks and Recreation, and The Office (I’m excited to see what they do without Steve Carell) and dramas like House. Community I can’t recommend to everyone because its comedy can be so off the wall, but its cast is perfect for the show, and its meta and entertainment referencing jokes frequently require some thought. It’s ambitious and doesn’t play to the lowest common denominator of humor, and I love it for it.  Parks and Rec and Modern Family are the two best network comedies on tv right now and The Office and House are just classic shows that you don’t feel bad on checking in on, even if they aren’t must watch live anymore (there are few of these left anyway).

Sadly for me, there are some shows I really wish would start now but wont be until midseason or later: Awake, Mad Men, and 30 Rock. The drama I’m most excited to watch this year won’t show up until midseason. It is Awake and is about a cop who loses half his wife or son in an accident, but doesn’t know which because in his dreams one lives and in reality the other is alive. He’s clearly got some psychological issues so it should be neat to watch.  Mad Men just won best drama series at the Emmys Sunday so get on Netflix and stream it already, its superb.  30 Rock, I feel, is starting its decline in quality, so this may be its last solid season and that’s reason enough to me to watch it weekly

I’m sure I’ve missed some shows, and that we’ll come back to them in the future.

Matt Brickell is a staff writer and thinks he’d make a great extra, you’d certainly see him in the background towering over everyone else

“-ster” does not inspire confidence

This morning I received a rather sad sounding email from my buddy Reed Hastings.  I haven’t mentioned him before, but he’s the co-founder and current CEO of Netflix, a movie service that’s near and dear to my heart.  Over the past few months he’s had some issues with his business, with pricing changes and contract negotiations irritating a lot of people.  I just wanted to take some time right now and write a few things in defense of Reed, and a few worries I have as well.

First off, splitting off the DVD service into its own company isn’t a huge surprise if you’ve been following Netflix in the news.  Buying all those DVDs, storing, and shipping them eats a huge amount into Netflix’s profits, way more than hosting a server farm does.  So eventually getting streaming rights to new releases and doing away with the DVDs was a long term goal of Netflix.  I used that phrase long-term though, and as we can see now, long term for Netflix is kind of a rushed decision for the rest of us.  My only qualms with this change happening now are the name and the amount of separation.  Qwikster is kind of a silly name, and the fact that it rhymes with Friendster doesn’t inspire a huge amount of confidence.  And having it be its own website, so I’ll have to go to Netflix and Qwikster to manage each queue, is going to be pretty annoying starting out.  Who knows, maybe they’ll have some synergy between them where you can jump back and forth, but at this point we really don’t know.

In regards to the price increase, it makes sense as well.  When Netflix first started, no one at the movie or TV studios understood how valuable streaming would become.  Now that all those initially cheap contracts are expiring, Netflix’s costs are rising dramatically for streaming as they sign more expensive contracts to keep rights to the shows and movies we’ve all been watching.  And that’s when the studios even permit them to pay more to keep the rights.  Starz straight up said “tough shit” and cancelled their contract, so all those nice Starz Play movies are going to be gone pretty shortly.  This seems rather rude since Netflix likely would have given them a ton of money to keep them, but maybe they want to try their hand at their own streaming service.

That’s the nightmare scenario we’re looking at right now, which video games are already dealing with with Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft.  Someday soon we may have to have a Netflix account, and Hulu Plus account, and accounts to all the different networks to watch all the shows we love, and that’s if we don’t decide to just pirate them.  And if we can’t afford all the different streaming services?  Then you have to pick and choose what you want to watch.  The best we can hope for is stratified contracts, where Hulu or Netflix gets a show first, and the other service gets it on a delay.  At least then we can have the show on both services.  In the dream scenario, however, Netflix will just pay to get streaming rights to everything as the movie studios and television studios realize DVDs are going the way of VHS, and we’ll have to pay $15 or so a month to stream everything.  We can’t know if that will work out though since there are currently too many players, but all I can recommend is an old adage from a popular work of fiction:  “Don’t Panic.”

John Hackert is a columnist who isn’t too busy to visit multiple websites.

A New Disney Revenue Stream?

The biggest, most critically acclaimed release this past weekend was Drive starring Ryan Gosling. Drive was great, and will be reviewed later for this blog, but it did not interest the general movie going public as much as I think it should have. In fact it finished 3^rd this weekend at the box office with $11 million, not exactly the next or Transformers movie clearly (ie its actually a quality film).  Instead 2 movies surpassed it, in 2^nd place was Contagion, last week’s #1 film.  Which begs the question, if Drive was the biggest new film being released over the weekend, and last week’s #1 film didn’t repeat as the #1 this week, what took in the most money over the weekend?

The Lion King... in 3-D.

The Lion King was rereleased in 3-D, having been converted at some point in the last year or two, I’m assuming this because I doubt they redrew the thing and shot it with 3-D cameras. Originally released in June 1994, it has made an indelible mark in many of our lives, becoming an instant classic film as well as part of the soundtrack to many an afterparty. Disney must’ve known both these facts as they chose to release this movie in 3-D first, presumably to test the waters for releases of other classic films in 3-D as well.

Normally, I would be inclined to say that this is just a classic case of a movie studio looking for a new way to make money.  Unfortunately, I love Disney, so I don’t feel that way.  I’ve always disliked the “Disney Vault” where great movies are “stored” until round number anniversaries of their releases come around and then they are sold, generally when I don’t care to buy them.  Releasing them again in hopefully well converted 3-D is a whole other story.  I think its great a new generation of kids will get to see these classics, as well as giving me the opportunity to view it as well. Personally I almost went and double-featured Drive with the Lion King, but then realized I didn’t have any 3-D glasses (I’m going to have to start bringing a pair with me for just these occasions).

So while I could deride Disney for doing money grabs like a 2 week release of the Lion King, I can’t because I think they should do it with all their films. I’m selfish and don’t remember seeing some of these on the big screen, and have only seen other classic movies on tv.

Matt Brickell is a contributing writer and hopes Sword and the Stone or Beauty and the Beast is the next to be released in 3-D.

Who's the Best Disney Princess? Alice of Course.

 [Editor's Note: We asked for 125-175 words on the title question; this is what we got in response]

Miles deep below the furrows of garden soil, lurking in the shadows of reality and seeping through the hazes of oddity, a young girl, born from a perverted love affair between Lewis Carroll and a young female neighbor, stands atop a pedestal compared to her counterparts in Walt Disney’s elitist clique of The Princesses.
     
Miss Alice yearns for an escape from her hopelessly mundane and indefinitely forecasted existence; a true break from complacency, compelled simply by her sheer curiosity and inquisitiveness.  Our wanderer of Wonderland offers young women a healthy portrayal of a female free of dependence upon a male, as she undertakes a terrifying journey in an unknown land with not a soul to associate with. Unattuned to idiosyncrasies of society, Alice’s spirit is teeming with the rapture of her imagination and she accepts Wonderland for its handsome eccentricity and the delicious ambiguity of its inhabitants. Our heroine is quite human in making countless rash errors, as in consuming glass vials and shortbread cookies outwardly demanding their own consumption. However, she becomes quite conscious of such blunders and strives to conjure lessons from her ill-fated situations.  One characteristic of Miss A herself, which radiates deep and persistent throughout her adventures, is her unbiased open heart with which she encounters and considers every quite incontestably foreign creature. In a day and age where quickly conjured conclusions stand as lily pads to us being frogs, we need a heroine who passes no judgment to those dubbed weird and mad.

Because isn’t it the truth…We’re all mad here.  I’m mad.  You’re mad. You ask how do I know you’re mad? Well, you must be.  Or you wouldn’t have come here.

Liz Lawton is a guest writer and wishes she were Alice of Wonderland

Who's the Best Disney Princess? A Breakdown.

 [Editor's Note: We asked for 125-175 words on the title question; this is what we got in response]

Ranking of Princesses:

On the Disney homepage for “Princess,” I see nine girls. From left to right: Belle, Pocahontas, Aurora, Ariel, Tiana, Cinderella, Jasmine, Belle, and Mulan. While there are a few fringe “princesses” that could be counted, for sake of argument we’ll stick to these “official” princesses, which I will subsequently rank:  

1. Belle
2. Mulan
3. Jasmine
4. Ariel
5. Pocahontas
6. Cinderella
7. Snow White
8. Aurora
Unranked: Tiana

Methodology:

This ranking is purely qualitative, as I was unable to obtain sufficient quantitative data by the time of this writing.

In reverse order:

Unraked: Tiana. I tried to watch Princess and the Frog (streaming on Netflix instant for limited time) as research for this publication. I could barely get through the first 30 minutes. I watch a lot of bad movies. And a lot of bad Disney movies. I just couldn’t cope with the fact that I was going to have to watch her as a frog for the rest of the movie. She had dreams of opening a restaurant, and her song was ok, but overall her delivery was unmemorable. Maybe this is because I’m now 24 and the magic is gone, but a quick perusal of Princess on Rotten Tomatoes vindicated my cynicism. However, because I didn’t give her a fair shake, she’ll remain unranked.

8. Aurora. The thing I remember most about Sleeping Beauty was being scared out of my mind of Maleficent. But overall, Aurora is a yawner (pun intended). Also, she gets renamed “Briar Rose.” Gross.

7. Snow White. Snow white is a frumpy creep who somehow convinces a bunch of geezerly old men in tiny bodies to enjoy doing her manual labor. I don't even remember the rest of the story other than her singing with birds or something. The only reason she’s ranked higher than Aurora is her pseudo-capitalistic ingenuity.

6. Cinderella. Pretty much falls into the same archetype as Aurora, but somehow enjoys more prominence in popular culture. The myth is nice to imagine, and I give her points for eventually triumphing over the evil stepsisters (not bad for a “scullery maid”) but the whole Fairy Godmother thing is more of a cop-out than anything. Mulan and Pocahantas would laugh in Cinderella’s dainty-footed face. But perhaps Cinderella is merely a product of her time; stuck in the feminist fantasy right before the cusp of second-wave.

5. Pocahontas. While I never much cared for the movie (which was still 90 times better than Avatar) Pocahontas has one of the more memorable songs of the entire Disney oeuvre. On top of that, she’s smart, speaks impeccable English, and commits one of the greatest acts of raw courage (saving John Smith) of all the Princesses, rivaled only by Belle (which I will return to momentarily). Yet something about the gratuitously rewritten history of the story makes one uneasy.  

4. Ariel. Ariel’s song, “Part of Your World” is truly one of the finest examples of songwriting in the 20th century. She’s also spunky; a true rebel. Although I must confess I think the moral in the end is a bit… convoluted. I know the goal of Disney movies is to showcase triumph against inconceivable odds, but what if it comes down to physically changing your body type so you can be with the man you want? Is she really the best role model?

3. Jasmine. What is wrong with Jasmine? Um… nothing? If it weren’t for the exceeding qualities of the last two princesses, Jasmine would take the cake. She’s a princess, but remains awoman of the people; has a pet tiger; and totally rolls with all the punches when it comes to magic carpets and such. Voiced by Lea Salgona, “Whole New World” is incredibly memorable. BUT, she doesn’t get her own song. Major point deduction, but perhaps not her fault.

2. Mulan. Mulan would be number one but she’s not an actual princess, nor does she become one. However, she is also voiced by the incomparable Lea Salgona, and “Reflection” was so good even Christina Aguilera couldn’t screw it up. She subverts gender roles, but does so to preserve her ties to family; quite the opposite of the archetype. And let’s not forget she defeats the frikkin Huns. That’s impressive.

1. Belle.  Ah, Belle. “It is no wonder that her name means beauty.” Not just because of her pastoral charm, but her dedication to her father, her booksmarts, her stubbornness, but also her ability to look beyond all physical characteristics of beauty and into the heart of the Beast. What more needs to be said? Her songs are memorable. Her wit is quick. Even Gaston chooses her over the trio of bucolic skanks. Belle is the best Disney Princess. She truly earns her place in the castle, and could be my guest any day of the week.


Evan Cudworth is a guest writer with a large collection of Disney classics on his Ipod.

Are You a Bad Enough Dude to Escape from New York?

The other night I watched John Carpenter’s Escape from New York, starring Kurt Russell as the appropriately named Snake Plissken.  With John Carpenter you can’t really go wrong for an entertaining movie, and this is no exception.  In the future, New York is one giant prison (social commentary? Nope) and Air Force One has the misfortune of crashing right into the middle of it.  Enter Snake: he is tasked by the warden to retrieve the President so he can make a meeting to prevent a war, and if he rescues him he goes free.  That’s really all there is to it, but what more do you need?

This movie was an awesome action film, being very basic and not requiring any major affects to get the story across and still keep you on the edge of your seat.  While I was watching it, I couldn’t help but wonder, why doesn’t Hollywood produce movies like this anymore?  Relatively low budget, fun to watch, don’t even have to be remotely believable, and would likely make a profit unless something was done catastrophically poorly.  Then I thought some more, and realized this type of movie would put them in direct competition with another major industry: video games.  Back in 1981, there were no 3D HD gaming consoles with ultra-realistic graphics and Hollywood stories, there were games like Pong.  Therefore, a simple action movie could make money without worrying about doing the same old thing.  Nowadays?  You could be killing zombies on the moon and it wouldn’t be original (seriously, look it up).

Movies today have to do something over and above what we get in our homes through television and video games, which is why Michael Bay makes action movies now.  They need huge explosion, ridiculous special effects, and actors spouting lines they should be ashamed to be paid to utter.  These movies are still entertaining, but their budgets don’t allow for a lot of up and coming directors to get a chance in the system, because studios can’t take the risk.  Therefore we are more and more seeing “new” directors coming over from totally different mediums like commercials or online shorts.  And in the future, we might see some of these directors go back to the internet for movies like Escape from New York, because online is where this would be appreciated, not in the theater for $15.

Escape from New York is a great action romp and definitely worthwhile as a Netflix instant streaming choice some night.  Sometimes you just need to decompress, and a plot that can fit on a post-it tends to be great for relaxing.  The action movies of the 80s were a great time, and there were so many that it always seemed fresh, even if they all followed the same formula with interchangeable leads.  Hopefully, if everything truly is cyclical, we will see this time of film be produced again in the future.

John Hackert is a columnist and forgot to send in his byline. [Editor's note: Idiot.]

Anticipating the Pursuit of Ryan Gosling in Drive

Well apparently a lot of you were like me and saw Contagion over the weekend as it took the top spot at the box office.  That’s all well and good, but now were on to smaller, but hopefully better movies, moving deeper into the fall dramas that are film festival darlings and awards circuit contenders.

This week, I’m excited to go and see Drive. The movie has up and coming stars of the film industry all over it, and has had great early buzz since it played at Cannes months ago.  It tells the story of a movie stunt driver whose night job is being a getaway driver for anyone who hires him, but gets mixed up in a theft gone wrong.  Directed by the up and coming Nicolas Winding Refn, who made a name for himself and Tom Hardy with Bronson, the trailer teases long shots and slo-mo action and car crashes. Two things that definitely get me excited.

More impressive than the quality of the director is that of the cast. It features highly regarded actors, who all are making it big right now. The film stars Ryan Gosling (Crazy, Stupid, Love and The Notebook) as the hero with a controversial side-job and Carey Mulligan (Wall Street 2 and Never Let Me Go) as his apparent love interest. Backing them up are Bryan Cranston (Breaking Bad), Christina Hendricks (Mad Men), Oscar Isaac (Robin Hood), and in a rare role as a bad guy, Albert Brooks. This is an all-star cast who have the chops for drama, Hendricks and Cranston coming from the two best dramas on television, and will ony intesify the noir feel that comes through in the trailer.

The trailer is fast paced, featuring dramatic sounding dialogue, violence, and car chases. All of it is steadily shot and with crystal clear picture quality as opposed to the grainier look you’ll find in a Michael Mann film like Collateral or the quick action cuts of the Bourne movies or The Dark Knight.  Heck, I’m even stoked to see the movie just because the posters have the title spelled out in a neon pink cursive graffiti font.

This movie looks better than Contagion to me, and should hopefully take over the number one spot if everyone else feels the same way.

Matt Brickell is a contributing writer who loves driving and hates traffic.

Triple Tap Pan’s Labyrinth

So, in typical fashion, I am well behind the times when it comes to award winning films (except maybe the Razzies), and Pan’s Labyrinth was no different.  I got it from Netflix and let it sit for a few days, but got it out and watched it the other day, and holy crap was that not what I was expecting.  I remember reading that there was a frame story having to do with Spain under Franco, but I didn’t realize the majority of the action took place in that part of the story.  And it may be an unfair picture of that regime, or I’m not up to date on my Spanish history, but those guys were brutal!

The fantasy aspects of this story were very cool and creepy at the same time, but most of the scary came from actual real world people, not weird hand-eye monsters.  The Captain, especially, is pretty ridiculous, being a very brutal leader of his little troop that’s off in the woods hunting rebels.  However, it’s the encounters with the rebels that show how messed up these guys are.  In Zombieland, the main character said you should always double-tap a zombie to make sure it was dead, but that’s because they don’t die from normal injuries.  But in this movie, the soldiers found it necessary to triple-tap normal people, who likely would have died from one shot to the head.  This might have been Guillermo del Toro making a point, but between that little note and the brutal torture, this movie really is shockingly violent.  I found myself covering my eyes at parts, and they didn’t even show too much of the torture scene, but just the setup for it was cringe-worthy.

I suppose the marketing department for the U.S. release probably had to get clever since this movie is pretty intense throughout, but I feel a little misled.  The fantasy aspects were good, and the effects to make the fairies and the faun were really well done, but they were a minor part of this movie.  I’m not saying it wasn’t good, but some more focus on the frame story in the trailer would have set me up better for how this movie played out.  I know I can’t really talk when it comes to what I see in the theaters, but I think that American audiences need to be given a little more credit when it comes to cinema.  We don’t need to be spoon-fed simple concepts, we can take something more involved, there’s no need to sugarcoat it.

All in all, Pan’s Labyrinth was an excellent movie, and definitely on par with Guillermo del Toro’s past work, but if you are undecided, I recommend reading about it online (hopefully spoiler-free) instead of watching a trailer, because that will give you a much better idea of the film.  And hopefully the next award winning movie I watch will be a little more in line with what I was expecting.

John Hackert is a columnist and proponent of conserving ammo.

Contagion: People Are Scarier Than Disease

This weekend I went and saw the movie Contagion, which looked to be the first award-garnering film of the fall (yes, it’s fall now, sorry everyone).  The early buzz had said that this was a frightening movie, but I don’t think I was fully prepared for how freaky this movie would be.  It’s not scary in the traditional sense, but the realism in the science and the reactions definitely leaves you with a feeling of unease.

The cast of this movie is a true ensemble, which may hurt it come awards season.  Everyone in this, from the well-known big name actors to the random small part cameos--Demetri Martin?  What?--are all played exceptionally well.  No characters really stand out though, the movie effectively jumps between all the storylines, but none feel like the true center of the story.  The movie does do a fantastic job with its shots, making sure a minor detail is noticed, or that a scene is exceptionally eerie if that is what is called for.  The creepiest shots, which the trailers allude to, are the spaces that are normally full of people, like airports or malls, being completely empty.  There are also the typical garbage-in-the-streets shots, but I still find it hard to believe that people would start throwing away their ironing boards and dressers because there’s an epidemic going on.

The story is very focused on being real to the science and the timeline of the epidemic, and while it is effective at dumbing down some of the science, I couldn’t help but wish I knew a little more about how viruses worked while watching this movie.  I think that would have given me a better perspective of how devastating this virus truly was.  The film did make comparisons between the virus and the Spanish Flu and Smallpox, but since they didn’t know much about the new virus at the time they couldn’t really convey the exact impact of it.  The final-final ending of the movie is very cool in wrapping things up in a neat little package, but there are a lot of “final” scenes for each of the characters before you get to that, so don’t start to get up when you think the movie is over, at least the first three or four times.

Contagion is definitely a sign of the better films that will be coming this fall, but it will likely be better recognized for its story and direction than for the performances in it.  When you go to see this movie, maybe bring some hand sanitizer if you’re not a huge fan of germs, and prepare to be freaked out by everyone else in the theater as you walk out.  You will not look at someone coughing on the street the same way again.

John Hackert is a columnist and touches his face three thousand times a day.

Physicality and Intimacy in Warrior

Warrior is the slightly misnamed MMA movie that opened this past Friday nationwide starring Tom Hardy (Inception, Bronson), Joel Edgerton (King Arthur), and Nick Nolte (Blue Chips).  It tells the story of two brothers who join a Grand Prix formatted, winner take all, MMA tournament. The movie, however, is so much more. 

Like The Fighter, this movie is “about” fighting, but only in so much as a context for looking at a family drama.  The brothers are the sons of a reformed drunk who divided their family when his wife could take it no longer and moved out.  Resent runs deep throughout the film, and from more than one character.  All three men are at different points in their lives, and have come to grips with their previous reality to different degrees, the father seeks forgiveness from his sons, they want little familial connection to him, and in some ways to one another.

I once watched the movie Topsy-Turvy, and someone explained a scene in it to me as being a great display of acting ability because the camera was fixed, it never moved in the room, nor did it zoom in on actor’s faces.  Essentially, in my mind, the actors had to hold my interest without any gimmicks or aids. 

Warrior is extremely intimate in its filming.  The vast majority of the film features over-the-shoulder camera shots which are tightly focused on the face of who is speaking.  The frequent lack of soundtrack or background music only makes it more personal.  Hardy, Edgerton, and Nolte are all fantastic, the former two for their physical dominance (they definitely saw the inside of a gym before filming) and remarkable fragility they convey in their performances.  As destructive as they look, they each seem to be just as easily broken by their pasts and by the world around them.

Like all sports movies, you know roughly what will happen based on the movie formulas of the genre.  That doesn’t mean, however, that Warrior wasn’t exceptionally moving.  I got goosebumps during some sequences, my gut tightened as I feared for the protagonists, and a smile went from ear to ear when they succeeded; applause broke out behind me in the theater far before the film ended.

This movie has a special kind of heart and drive to it.  It’s delicately handled and I highly recommend it.  In fact, I enjoyed it more than Contagion.

Matt Brickell is a contributing writer whose reach is far greater than most in his weight class.

This One’s for the Yankees

This one goes out to 99% of the sporting-fan population that gets to experience the joys of a winning franchise. All of you people with “good” teams, like Yankees fans or BOSTON SPORTS FANS IN GENERAL (ew), yep, this is for you. An Introduction To The World Of Losing Sports, what it feels like to be us, and why we sometimes feel sorry for you.

On the one hand, being the fan of a perennially losing team is dark, twisted, and wholly cathartic. You find yourself crawling back for more even after being continually teased with the prospect of glory and then denied with terrific and terrible force. You’re tired of telling yourself to “believe” or that “next year is here,” but you do it anyways. You tell your Yankee-fan friends who scorn your loyalty that you don’t even care if they win another World Series because it’s not “special” anymore, like who would even want all those World Series? You don’t believe in curses, but secretly you do because you’re sorry that goat that didn’t get into the stadium in the 1900s when goats were cool and you hope that he’s listening. You secretly hate goats.

At the same time though, you fan the flames of eternal optimism. For you, the glass is half-full, the game isn’t half-over but has four and a half innings left. It’s been 103 years since the Cubs have won a World Series, but you will never hear a fan say they will be dead before their team wins again. They would actually just rather be dead. And let’s be honest, there really is always next year, logistically speaking, if the Mayans are wrong. Eternal optimism. Cubs fans are probably destined to save the world or something, after we save our team.

Yes, we are among sports’ most emotionally complex, but perhaps the biggest battle that we continue to struggle against is forging ahead in the wake of catastrophe. A losing season is one thing, and every team has them. But a winning season that goes up in flames—over and over and over again—that is our truest test of faith. Because coating the vast expanse of time between our victories is a series of defeats so ridiculous that it makes you question the integrity of the game. Seriously, how is it possible that the Cubs could make it all the way to the National League Championship, within inches of a World Series bid, and lose because of a rumble with an intervening fan? How is it possible that in 2008, a team with over 100 wins and the best record in baseball could be swept in the first round of the playoffs? One of the most absurd? How is it fathomable that in 1969, the Cubs were 9 ½ games ahead of the Mets on August 19th, only to wilt at the tail end of the season as the Mets blew past them winning 39 of their last 50 games and replacing them at the top spot?

And here is where the perennially losing fan differs from the fan of a team with a few bad years. For in our disgrace, we have found solace.  We twist these mind-numbing defeats into fuel for our optimism. Because what has happened to the Cubs over the years is so utterly ridiculous, that we must believe anything is truly possible. It is because a team like the Mets came to overtake us in the embers of the season that we believe, no matter how dire our circumstances, no matter how late in the game or in the season, that we can break through the cloud layer and find our own fair weather. Our downfalls fuel our dreams, or demise is why we have hope.

People have all kinds of things to say to losing fans, among them the advice that if we boycott our team, and the high prices the franchise charges us to attend, we might send a message that it sucks to suck and we’re done. But a note to you all, from us: the day we boycott Wrigley is the day you boycott the Yankees because you just don’t feel like winning anymore. The only thing that truly threatens our loyalty to the Friendly Confines is the impending expiration of the Old Style contract.

So we continue to cheer, sometimes weary but never hopeless, as we reconcile our faith with the wounds our team continues to dole out. We continue to endure knowing that sipping from the victory cup will taste even better, even if we’re sipping from beyond the grave (but we won’t be). For anyone, the team to which you give your loyalty steals a tiny piece of your soul; the losing team to which you give your loyalty distorts your soul into something a little bit crazy, but a little bit awesome. And you let it, and you love it.

So, dark and twisted? Yes. Hopeful? Always. Next year? Obviously. Pessimistic? Sure, but we kindly refer to them as Sox Fans.

Elena Stratigakes is a guest writer for Rambles and Reviews and thinks that the Cubs will win the World Series in 2012.

Saints vs. Packers

Welcome back football season, oh how we’ve missed you.  Yes, in this post, I am attempting to review a football game.  This won’t happen often so enjoy it. 

This season is special because the sport overcame a lockout that caused most of the off-season to be missed and produced possibly the most frenzied free agency for any sport ever (or at least until the NBA has its).  The players and owners took it down to the wire, and fortunately someone realized 9 billion dollars is a lot of revenue and decided to earn some of it this year. 

So, did the NFL ease us back into regular season football with a one-sided contest? Not. In. the. Slightest.

We got to watch the past two Super Bowl winners duke it out until the last play of the game.  In fact, we got to watch an extra play!  Despite losing 42-34, the Saints were almost more impressive than the Packers for their sheer tenacity.  The Packers scored immediately, quickly, and repeatedly.  Every time, Drew Brees and the Saints answered back.  The Saints were manhandled by the Packers defense and still were one play, and one yard, away from having a chance to tie the game and force overtime.

If anything seems to have been negatively affected by the lockout, it’s special teams play. If it wasn’t a touchback or punted out of bounds, the kicking team seemed to be embarrassed by the return team every time.  There were two returns for touchdowns, one for each team.  These occurred despite one simple fact: the new kickoff rule is a joke. It’s just plain boring watching football players take a knee in the end zone.  It is, however, hilarious when a player decides to run it out of the end zone and gets a TD out of it.  

With neither running game finding success, this game became the gunfight at the O.K. Corral, too bad for the Saints they shot blanks on 4th and short at the wrong times.  With their performances, Drew Brees and Aaron Rodgers solidified themselves as two of the best quarterbacks in the league, each carrying their offenses, in Brees’ case, his team, almost single handedly.

 This season is going to be awesome (possibly hyperbolic), and I can’t wait.

Matt Brickell is a contributing writer and an avid Giants fan who thinks that even without a single healthy starter on defense, the Giants will still make the playoffs.