So, now, you can see that, Yes I do have an obsession with this. Hopefully I can get help. Back story for this long comment. This commentor, notsofast, has an avatar that is Phil Spector in that ridiculous afro wig he wore in court. This is part of an argument where notsofast continues to call me a lib and liar. I have since changed my tactic where I have been giving him better examples of how he could insult me, but alas, I don't think he's picked on the fact that I'm making fun of him. He decided to welcome me into the folds of the Mediaite community with another nasty comment about me. This is my response:
notsofast said:
Folks, I want to introduce you to the latest lying liberal shill for BHO, Permatiltx
The other day, I commented on the tired, worn out practice of libs always coming on Mediaite to repeat their lame excuses for FOX being #1 in cable news while MSNBC still staggers way behind like a sick puppy ( see cobra above.)
Permatiltx said:
I see a lot of the no one watches FOX news here being said by libs thing. I would like some links to it. Not saying it doesn’t happen, but this is the first time I’ve read that Libs are saying it.
notsofast said:
Ask the Royal King-
King, tell him how many watch FOX.
Permatiltx said:
So, one guy says it, means all libs say it? I’m confused
notsofast said:
Wrong!
Mediaite weekly shows cable ratings and on that post many libs chime in with “only 0.3%” of the population watches FOX. ” America’s Got Talent ” has more viewers than FOX”, etc.
Permatiltx said:
You told me one guy said it. That’s what you said, and I’m just quoting you from before.”
notsofast said:
See, ya lied, child.
Flat out lied!
I never said “one” said that. I said many.
So kindly STFU!”
Actually, you didn’t say “one” that is true. But you didn’t say many until after I raised that question. Again, you “jumped to conclusions” similar to the way MSNBC jumped to conclusion about FOX being responsible for the Sherrod incident (I don’t think FOX was responsible. I don’t know if I ever did. But I do believe that the left did jump the gun on this one). I asked for a link about the libs saying that. Most people agree that FOX News is tops in ratings for cable news commentary channels. I agree with that statement. I was curious who was saying it and where. A reasonable request. Your response: Ask the Royal King-
King, tell him how many watch FOX. Um, to help your 182 IQ with math and wording, that’s one guy. You answered my question with one guy. Now, I’m looking at a logical and rational response to that with. Wait, one guy? Your response was instantly an attack. Attack tactics in debate show a person who is not basing his opinions on solid ground. That is a theory are argument techniques. You attack because you are worried about your backing. I haven’t really gone on the attack at this point. I was making a logical assessment from what you wrote. So, I never lied about that. Questions don’t equal lies. We question to figure things out. However, you called me a liar. And you were wrong on that account. We can argue semantics all day, but I’m backing up that I didn’t lie about that.
notsofast said:See the lying Permatiltx was trying to argue that libs don’t in fact come here and repeat their worn out excuses, trying to disparage FOX.
Is that really what you took from my argument? Cause I never argued that. See above of how I didn’t make that my point. Most libs that I have seen in other message boards have argued the ratings don’t equal quality argument, also the FOX wins in the ratings because their audience is older and tends to turn to television for their news as opposed to the internet. Liberals do tend to skew younger and therefore will use other forms of media. I’ve heard this argument. I’m new here, and that was the first time I had heard libs saying that people don’t watch FOX. I was just curious. Again, didn’t deserve the attack. And there, I did not lie. It seems that notsfast doesn’t like curiosity? (Of course, this isn’t true, I’m just using similar fallacies in your argument to instantly jump to that conclusion.)
notsofastAnd now look at Permatilx- his wretched ass is now arguing the same trash that I said libs do.
“Ratings don’t equal quality.”
Actually, that’s the same “trash” that debate scholars will argue is a logical fallacy. The “tons of people can’t be wrong” argument would get thrown out of any debate competition in any school. I did use examples, and not just entertainment, but also the approval of Hitler during WWII. But since we’re talking about race, let’s go back to slavery and see the amount of people who participated in the act that we now see as an unjust practice. Again, most thought it was a perfectly fine practice. Did that mean it was right? Now, I’m not comparing FOX to slavery or Hitler. But my point and it’s the backing of why this is a fallacy is that “10 million Elvis fans can be wrong.” And yes, I can make entertainment comparisons because Beck will state himself a rodeo clown and entertainer first, political stalwart second. Again, Beck has said this. Murdoch and Ailes both say they are interested in ratings. Thus, the entertainment comparisons can technically be justified.
notsofast said:He then regurgitates the worn-out lib talking points of comparing entertainment/movies to the ratings of a cable news network.
Sorry, child, that has been tried many times before. Try something original for a change. And you won’t compare comparables to comparables, such as FOX to CNN or MSNBC, unless he then follow ssuch a comparison with misrepresentations or an outright lie.
Now, first off, the “sorry, child” act is getting pretty old. We are having a lively debate and discussion, but perhaps due to self esteem issues, you have to belittle those with differing opinions. I’m not sure. But it shows a complete lack of maturity. Now, I have seen people of differing opinion to my own argue with me without the name calling or the irrational fear that seems to permeate from your comments. Whether you’re right or not, you’re a pretty shitty debater. Sorry for the language, but it seems that it helps you understand a little bit better where I’m coming from.
notsofast said:“Maddow is also not a ratings disaster. She doesn’t have Bill O’s numbers, but she does still do pretty solidly among the other news commentary shows.”
Categorized | Cable News Daily Ratings
Cable News Ratings for Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Posted on 22 July 2010 by Robert Seidman
O’Reilly rerun ratings at 11PM.
11 PM P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
The O’Reilly Factor– 1,683,000 viewers (656,000) (970,000)
Maddow ratings Live at 9:00PM
9 PM – P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
Rachel Maddow Show —976,000 viewers (245,000) (492,000)
LMAO
And your big lie, child!
When compared to CNN, that’s not really a ratings disaster. It does remarkably hold water with the young don’t use television as their main source of news commentary. Look at the low numbers for both groups. Again, she’s not doing as well as Bill O’Reilly. And she would love to be doing as well as Bill. Who wouldn’t. But I’m not seeing a “disaster.” (Homeboys in Space, now that was a ratings disaster). Of course, this will help you better if I say In My Opinion. I don’t know if that helps or not. I hope it does. I’m not lying. The concept of what is a ratings disaster could be considered opinion. I didn’t say you lied by saying it was. Now, opinions aren’t facts. Calling it a ratings disaster is not a fact. It’s an opinion. Now we are comparing again. The funny thing is that Bill O’ was more in the right over the Sherrod thing than Maddow. FOX didn’t need to take the blame. They were not directly responsible. And I feel that is true. However, when Bill O’ took the “We’re beating you in the ratings” approach, he, unfortunately lost the argument. I don’t dislike Bill. We don’t have similar opinions, sure. But his debating style fell into supreme question on this one. He had the upper hand and he lost it. And Maddow’s rebuttal was very well organized and structured. I’m sorry. Bill had it, and then he slipped up.
notsofast said:“Also, Morning Joe regularly beats Fox and Friends. Therefore, Morning Joe is better than Fox and Friends?”
Cable News Ratings for Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Morning programs (6:00AM-9:00AM) P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
FOX & Friends- 997,000 viewers (305,000) (549,000)
Morning Joe- 368,000 viewers (121,000) (170,000)
Mr. 146- you are nothing but the everyday run -of-the- mill lying lib.
Again, everyone, welcome Permatiltx to Mediaite, but remember- he is just another lying lib!!!
This one I will admit I’m embarrassed about. I read an article about Morning Joe overtaking American Morning. The same article discussed the ratings lag that occurred with FOX and Friends. I jumped the gun, read the facts wrong, and yes, it came out as a lie. I apologize for that and recant. I make mistakes. Yes, I will throw out a fallacy as well in my arguments. Not perfect. So, let’s call it a lie, a mistake, a misreading of the facts as I researched for rebuttals. Again, I’m sorry.
Now, calling me a lib. You’ve done this several times now. You also said I’m here to be a shill for BHO (I assume that’s Barack Obama and not a dyslexic version of Home Box Office, which is a pretty good channel). Well, actually, I think he and the White House were wrong in this case. I’m a pretty piss poor shill then, don’t you think. Look, I’m against ideology. It was one of the main reasons I now register as an independent instead of Democrat. I can’t say ideology is hurting this country in one hand and then stay true to an ideology. I’m moving away from labels such as lib and con. I do consider myself more of a progressive, sure. But that’s because my beliefs are based on my heart and my soul, not on what a bunch of higher ups tell me is my party line. I don’t buy into all the Dems ideas, just like you shouldn’t buy into all the Reps ideas. We don’t use our hearts and minds to make educated guesses any more. That’s a sad thing that is happening to this country. And you know what, I will continue to head into message boards and spread my views on what we as human beings (not libs or cons, Dems or Reps) should be considering when we head to the polls. Maybe it will keep the country (which I love so please don’t attack me for a lack of patriotism, it will only hurt your arguments more) from being split apart. I don’t want to insult you or lower myself to name calling and mudslinging, but it seems that these are the absolutes that you understand best. I mean, it makes sense when you look at it. You chose a convicted murderer as your avatar.
End of post:
After I wrote this diatribe, this was his response.
Permatiltx said:
You chose a convicted murderer as your avatar.
He is also a lib like you, liar!
He's not very good at this.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Thursday, July 22, 2010
I've sort of developed an unhealthy addiction to going to media political sites (HuffPost, Mediaite) and getting into heated discussions over the conservative conspiracy and the progressive agenda. Sorry, I should of put those phrases in quotation marks. On Mediaite, there was a discussion of Rachel Maddow's commentary on how the Fox News and the conservatives use the scare white people tactic to push their agenda. One commentor pointed to the four stories that she discussed and how she was wrong that they have a racist slant (actually he didn't, he just wanted to spout how the liberals are stupid. Seriously) I responded, and when I was done, I realized that instead of a comment I had written a blog. I haven't written one in a long time, so I just wanted to post it up here. I think it's a reasonable argument that I try to make. Of course, I was then called a racist and a lib hack. The solid arguing techniques used on these sites.
Here it is:
Johnny M said:
"Maddow is doing exactly what she claims Fox News and the Right are doing, just from the opposite Point of View. She is misconstruing the entire reasoning for each story to fit her ‘black vs white’ agenda. She and many members of the Left are the one that can only see stories in black and white."
Don’t disagree with you on that. I think Rachel took too myopic a view. Alas, the scare white people is certainly a tactic that is used. But it’s not the only one. Fear is a powerful manipulative tool. I still think how I supported the Iraq War back in 2003 because it was sold to me as something to fear. That Al Qaeda and Hussein were in co-hoots (they weren’t, if anything Hussein would’ve been our ally in fighting Al Qaeda if things were different) and the weapons of mass destruction fiasco (we seem to tend to forget those elements). Again, not racism, just out and out fear. Fox does do a good job of stirring up its base. An examination of classic brain washing and propoganda techniques could be used to show how the media and politicians use these concepts to control a society not willing to take risks and step outside to see if there is truly anything to fear.
Johnny M said: "Lets go story by story, which Maddow claims are only about race:
Van Jones: About a goverment appointed official, who signed a 9/11 truther document, had documented past activism activities, and supported the release of a police murderer."
Van Jones is a legitimate story. I don’t have enough info on it to be honest to give my assessment. But it seemed to be the right thing to investigate and certainly anyone who believes in the 9/11 truther movement should not have a position of power. But again, not too familiar with the story.
Johnny M said: "ACORN: A supposed bi-partisan publically funded organization, that was anything but – caught on tape showing people how to hide prostitution and avoid taxes. While also having several lawsuits for voter registration fraud."
I don’t get why people on the right still backs this story. The lawsuits were thrown out. The video was proven to be doctored. One of the people who told them how to smuggle immigrants into the country, reported it to the police after they left. (That’s a good American right there. Didn’t play hero, but did the right thing.) and they never dressed like pimps and prostitutes, and never showed the video that showed how one of the workers was working to get the prostitute out of prostitutiion. In other words, to rescue her. Now, not all of the stuff was solid that ACORN did, I admit that. But seems odd that an activist group that is trying to help the poor and the minorities would get such a harsh smear campaign to get rid of them. ACORN did little wrong. They had a few bad apples. And it is sad to see them go. It’s an example of zero investigation into the nature of the video and jumping the gun, which is frankly wrong (Yes, I’m looking at Congress on this one.) As a video editor, I can testify that video can be edited and manipulated.
Johnny M said: "Black Panthers: Organziation that is proud in its racism against whites… case of voter intimidation documented on tape thrown out before it even gets to court."
Dropping the case is certainly wrong. It should’ve been investigated as a criminal case. Oh, by the way, the Bush DOJ changed it from a criminal case to a civil case. Thus, they were not going to do any jail time if the case was pursued anyway by the DOJ. Now, if it is true that there is a “liberal playbook” that states pointedly not to go after blacks (and not just hearsay but actual playbook signed and approved by higher ups in the Obama administration) then yes, that is wrong as well.
Johnny M said: "Sherrod: A classic “gotcha” journalism effort by a conservative blogger against the NAACP, which last week was claiming the Tea Party was nothing but racists. Then, when it gets reversed on them – they overreact."
Okay, so the NAACP didn’t call the Tea Party nothing but racists. They came out and said they need to purge the racist elements from their ranks (specifically I feel they targeted Mark WIlliams, and the tea party got rid of him. Smart move on their part). So, if they implied that all Tea Partiers were racist, then the NAACP that the Tea Party should just go on and get rid of themselves (a logical fallacy). The NAACP is right on the issue of the Tea Party. There are some racist elements in there and some do have loud voices (too loud of voices). Now, this classic “gotcha” journalism move was to take doctored tape and preach it as gospel. The tape never mentions the reaction of the crowd. The issue of the reaction of the crowd seemed to appear after the Sherrod scandal started. The NAACP did overreact and did the one thing that most cons don’t seem to know how to do. Apologize. Has Rush or Glenn or any of those ever apologized for something they said? They can always be right (No one is). It’s funny how in the end despite doing the wrong thing, the NAACP took the high ground.
Johnny M said: "This stories are not in the media to make people fear African-Americans…they are out there to make people fear the Progressive Agenda. The more light that is shown on the agenda, the more the majority of people disagree with it which is why the Left fights so hard to paint it as a racist argument. Race makes everyone hazy so the Left can balance the playing field and try to re-shape the debate. But the more and more the Left cries Wolf in these cases, the less they are working to sway the national opinion."
Now let’s discuss stopping the progressive agenda. The progressive agenda got its start back with Teddy Roosevelt. Now, the idea of progressivism is to move society forward (it’s what progress means), and without it, we wouldn’t have the national parks, we wouldn’t have civil rights, and we wouldn’t have a lot of the luxuries that life now has to offer. That’s the amazing thing about progress. It’s good for us and evolution speaks volumes to its importance for a culture. Conservatism would’ve kept us as British Citizens. They were against revolution. In fact, most of the founding fathers could be seen as progressives. Now, progressivism has been made as a bad, scary word (conservative scare tactic) there’s no investigation into the agenda. Fear keeps people from looking deeper. I don’t fear this administration, so I’m okay with criticizing on its merits, and also praising its accomplishments. We can’t do that if we live in fear. The Cons know this, heck the Libs know it to. And I recommend coming out of your box (Lib and Con) and seeing this country for what it can be. Because no one (Con or Lib) is following in our founding fathers footsteps. And as Americans, we should all be disappointed.
Here it is:
Johnny M said:
"Maddow is doing exactly what she claims Fox News and the Right are doing, just from the opposite Point of View. She is misconstruing the entire reasoning for each story to fit her ‘black vs white’ agenda. She and many members of the Left are the one that can only see stories in black and white."
Don’t disagree with you on that. I think Rachel took too myopic a view. Alas, the scare white people is certainly a tactic that is used. But it’s not the only one. Fear is a powerful manipulative tool. I still think how I supported the Iraq War back in 2003 because it was sold to me as something to fear. That Al Qaeda and Hussein were in co-hoots (they weren’t, if anything Hussein would’ve been our ally in fighting Al Qaeda if things were different) and the weapons of mass destruction fiasco (we seem to tend to forget those elements). Again, not racism, just out and out fear. Fox does do a good job of stirring up its base. An examination of classic brain washing and propoganda techniques could be used to show how the media and politicians use these concepts to control a society not willing to take risks and step outside to see if there is truly anything to fear.
Johnny M said: "Lets go story by story, which Maddow claims are only about race:
Van Jones: About a goverment appointed official, who signed a 9/11 truther document, had documented past activism activities, and supported the release of a police murderer."
Van Jones is a legitimate story. I don’t have enough info on it to be honest to give my assessment. But it seemed to be the right thing to investigate and certainly anyone who believes in the 9/11 truther movement should not have a position of power. But again, not too familiar with the story.
Johnny M said: "ACORN: A supposed bi-partisan publically funded organization, that was anything but – caught on tape showing people how to hide prostitution and avoid taxes. While also having several lawsuits for voter registration fraud."
I don’t get why people on the right still backs this story. The lawsuits were thrown out. The video was proven to be doctored. One of the people who told them how to smuggle immigrants into the country, reported it to the police after they left. (That’s a good American right there. Didn’t play hero, but did the right thing.) and they never dressed like pimps and prostitutes, and never showed the video that showed how one of the workers was working to get the prostitute out of prostitutiion. In other words, to rescue her. Now, not all of the stuff was solid that ACORN did, I admit that. But seems odd that an activist group that is trying to help the poor and the minorities would get such a harsh smear campaign to get rid of them. ACORN did little wrong. They had a few bad apples. And it is sad to see them go. It’s an example of zero investigation into the nature of the video and jumping the gun, which is frankly wrong (Yes, I’m looking at Congress on this one.) As a video editor, I can testify that video can be edited and manipulated.
Johnny M said: "Black Panthers: Organziation that is proud in its racism against whites… case of voter intimidation documented on tape thrown out before it even gets to court."
Dropping the case is certainly wrong. It should’ve been investigated as a criminal case. Oh, by the way, the Bush DOJ changed it from a criminal case to a civil case. Thus, they were not going to do any jail time if the case was pursued anyway by the DOJ. Now, if it is true that there is a “liberal playbook” that states pointedly not to go after blacks (and not just hearsay but actual playbook signed and approved by higher ups in the Obama administration) then yes, that is wrong as well.
Johnny M said: "Sherrod: A classic “gotcha” journalism effort by a conservative blogger against the NAACP, which last week was claiming the Tea Party was nothing but racists. Then, when it gets reversed on them – they overreact."
Okay, so the NAACP didn’t call the Tea Party nothing but racists. They came out and said they need to purge the racist elements from their ranks (specifically I feel they targeted Mark WIlliams, and the tea party got rid of him. Smart move on their part). So, if they implied that all Tea Partiers were racist, then the NAACP that the Tea Party should just go on and get rid of themselves (a logical fallacy). The NAACP is right on the issue of the Tea Party. There are some racist elements in there and some do have loud voices (too loud of voices). Now, this classic “gotcha” journalism move was to take doctored tape and preach it as gospel. The tape never mentions the reaction of the crowd. The issue of the reaction of the crowd seemed to appear after the Sherrod scandal started. The NAACP did overreact and did the one thing that most cons don’t seem to know how to do. Apologize. Has Rush or Glenn or any of those ever apologized for something they said? They can always be right (No one is). It’s funny how in the end despite doing the wrong thing, the NAACP took the high ground.
Johnny M said: "This stories are not in the media to make people fear African-Americans…they are out there to make people fear the Progressive Agenda. The more light that is shown on the agenda, the more the majority of people disagree with it which is why the Left fights so hard to paint it as a racist argument. Race makes everyone hazy so the Left can balance the playing field and try to re-shape the debate. But the more and more the Left cries Wolf in these cases, the less they are working to sway the national opinion."
Now let’s discuss stopping the progressive agenda. The progressive agenda got its start back with Teddy Roosevelt. Now, the idea of progressivism is to move society forward (it’s what progress means), and without it, we wouldn’t have the national parks, we wouldn’t have civil rights, and we wouldn’t have a lot of the luxuries that life now has to offer. That’s the amazing thing about progress. It’s good for us and evolution speaks volumes to its importance for a culture. Conservatism would’ve kept us as British Citizens. They were against revolution. In fact, most of the founding fathers could be seen as progressives. Now, progressivism has been made as a bad, scary word (conservative scare tactic) there’s no investigation into the agenda. Fear keeps people from looking deeper. I don’t fear this administration, so I’m okay with criticizing on its merits, and also praising its accomplishments. We can’t do that if we live in fear. The Cons know this, heck the Libs know it to. And I recommend coming out of your box (Lib and Con) and seeing this country for what it can be. Because no one (Con or Lib) is following in our founding fathers footsteps. And as Americans, we should all be disappointed.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
THE FIVE MOST ANTICIPATED MOVIES OF THE SUMMER OF 2010
We are merely weeks away from the greatest season for a movie geek like myself. I long for the first weekend in May, it's my opening day. I've been gearing up, practicing waiting in line at 2 pm on a Thursday to get into a midnight show, watching an overdose of explosions as not to injure my eyes. And now, Summer Movie Season is so close. So, what movies will I be first in line for?
Here are my top five most anticipated movies of the Summer of 2010.
5. Predators - I'm jazzed for this film only because of the nostalgia trip it will give me. The Alien Vs. Predator movies have been train wrecks. Even, Predator 2 failed to expand upon the Predator mythology. But this film looks to take the movie away from Earth and introduce us to a new planet that may or may not be the Predator planet. Add into the mix Robert Rodriguez as producer and a Predator hunting dog, and this film should be two hours of mindless fun that other Predator sequels failed to achieve.
4. The A-Team - This is another one purely for nostalgic purposes. Hopefully the film can maintain what made the series so great. It wasn't really the action (Consistently shooting machine guns at the ground can get boring quick), but instead the memorable, iconic characters that were created. If the film can at least match the interactions of these characters with the humor and fun of the series, then we've got us a new franchise. If they can't, well, then we've got us another angry blog entry from me.
3. The Expendables - So, here's the cast list: Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren, "Stone Cold" Steve Austin, Terry Crews, Mickey Rourke, Eric Roberts, and Danny Trejo. So, why am I so amped up to see this film? Well, here's the cast list: Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren, "Stone Cold" Steve Austin, Terry Crews, Mickey Rourke, Eric Roberts, and Danny Trejo.
2. Iron Man 2 - One of the great triumphs of the original Iron Man was that it took an origin story (usually not the best for comic book films) and created a charismatic main character so good that you didn't care about the underdeveloped villain. In fact, the villain wasn't even necessary at all. Now, we have that same charismatic hero mixed with a fascinating villain (Mickey Rourke as Whiplash) and it's extremely difficult to mess up that formula. Rarely does the second film in a comic saga turn out to be terrible. (See: X2, The Dark Knight, Blade II).
1. Inception - I've loved every single film that Christopher Nolan (Memento, Insomnia, The Prestige, The Dark Knight) has made. They tend to be both cerebral and highly entertaining. And now, he's bringing us a completely original mind trip that studios rarely put money into making these days. The visuals in the trailers have been mind blowing and I'm still left in the dark as to what the film is about. This one has the potential to be the next Matrix.
We are merely weeks away from the greatest season for a movie geek like myself. I long for the first weekend in May, it's my opening day. I've been gearing up, practicing waiting in line at 2 pm on a Thursday to get into a midnight show, watching an overdose of explosions as not to injure my eyes. And now, Summer Movie Season is so close. So, what movies will I be first in line for?
Here are my top five most anticipated movies of the Summer of 2010.
5. Predators - I'm jazzed for this film only because of the nostalgia trip it will give me. The Alien Vs. Predator movies have been train wrecks. Even, Predator 2 failed to expand upon the Predator mythology. But this film looks to take the movie away from Earth and introduce us to a new planet that may or may not be the Predator planet. Add into the mix Robert Rodriguez as producer and a Predator hunting dog, and this film should be two hours of mindless fun that other Predator sequels failed to achieve.
4. The A-Team - This is another one purely for nostalgic purposes. Hopefully the film can maintain what made the series so great. It wasn't really the action (Consistently shooting machine guns at the ground can get boring quick), but instead the memorable, iconic characters that were created. If the film can at least match the interactions of these characters with the humor and fun of the series, then we've got us a new franchise. If they can't, well, then we've got us another angry blog entry from me.
3. The Expendables - So, here's the cast list: Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren, "Stone Cold" Steve Austin, Terry Crews, Mickey Rourke, Eric Roberts, and Danny Trejo. So, why am I so amped up to see this film? Well, here's the cast list: Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren, "Stone Cold" Steve Austin, Terry Crews, Mickey Rourke, Eric Roberts, and Danny Trejo.
2. Iron Man 2 - One of the great triumphs of the original Iron Man was that it took an origin story (usually not the best for comic book films) and created a charismatic main character so good that you didn't care about the underdeveloped villain. In fact, the villain wasn't even necessary at all. Now, we have that same charismatic hero mixed with a fascinating villain (Mickey Rourke as Whiplash) and it's extremely difficult to mess up that formula. Rarely does the second film in a comic saga turn out to be terrible. (See: X2, The Dark Knight, Blade II).
1. Inception - I've loved every single film that Christopher Nolan (Memento, Insomnia, The Prestige, The Dark Knight) has made. They tend to be both cerebral and highly entertaining. And now, he's bringing us a completely original mind trip that studios rarely put money into making these days. The visuals in the trailers have been mind blowing and I'm still left in the dark as to what the film is about. This one has the potential to be the next Matrix.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
My Oscar Nomination Thoughts: Just in Time for Groundhog Day
Well, that was painless this morning. There's a lot to discuss so let's get right into it. Though, I did miss the Groundhog this morning to watch the nominations, so could someone tell me how much more winter we've got ahead of us.
Best Picture
Avatar
The Blind Side
District 9
An Education
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
Precious
A Serious Man
Up
Up In The Air
Who Will Win: The Hurt Locker. It's interesting that the wins at the DGA and the PGA has put such a low grossing film into the frontrunner spot. Best Picture winners tend to be box office hits, but this one barely made a blip in the Summer. The buzz is there earning the most nominations, and taking up most of the big prizes (Golden Globes excluded), this one will overtake Avatar, especially now that the Avatar backlash is starting.
Who Should Win: Inglourious Basterds. Still my favorite film of the year. It was so much more than what the movie was advertised as. The movie was the best celebration on the cult of film. Plus, it was all done focusing on dialogue and character interactions as opposed to mindless action. A triumph, and quite possibly, Tarantino's masterpiece.
What Happened: Invictus. Where's the Eastwood love? That's all I've got to say about that. Clearly, the Academy is ready to bestow a ton of that love onto Sandra Bullock. I predict that Speed 3: Speed 2 Never Happened will be nominated in the next few years.
Best Actor
Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart
George Clooney, Up In The Air
Colin Firth, A Single Man
Morgan Freeman, Invictus
Jeremy Renner, The Hurt Locker
Who Will Win: Jeff Bridges. So what if the movie isn't good. The Academy loves to give out awards to people who have had a long, successful career, but been snubbed quite a bit. This year, it's Bridges' turn.
Who Should Win: Jeremy Renner. This was a startling real, tense performance. He played the right amount of insane mixed with a rational mind and truly showed the effects that war has on the adreneline junkie. Plus, he took a punch to the face and gut like nobody's business.
What Happened?: Matt Damon, The Informant. Actually, I nailed this one, guessing 100% right the nominees. However, Damon gave the performance of his career with this little seen gem. It would've been nice for him to get the nod for this film instead of Invictus. That being said, I don't know who he should've replaced.
Best Actress
Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side
Helen Mirren, The Last Station
Carey Mulligan, An Education
Gabourey Sidibe, Precious
Meryl Streep, Julie & Julia
Who Will Win: Sandra Bullock. Come back role mixed with an accent are Oscar gold. Bullock did an effortless job of capturing a real person with a performance that was well reviewed. And with the film winning a nom and Julie and Julia not getting anything other than Streep's nod, well, Meryl will have to wait until next year to get her third Oscar.
Who Should Win: Gabourey Sidibe. The most heartbreaking performance of the year. At least, the only one that made me cry. She did this with subtlety and understatement, which may be why she was overshadowed by Mo'Nique. To see who she is in reality, and you know that she accomplished what every actor wants: To not look like you're acting.
What Happened?: Emily Blunt, The Young Victoria. Actually, I nailed this one as well. But if someone could've snuck in, it would be this ingenue. But just like before, I don't know who she would replace.
Best Supporting Actor
Matt Damon, Invictus
Woody Harrelson, The Messenger
Christopher Plummer, The Last Station
Stanley Tucci, The Lovely Bones
Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds
Who Will and Should Win: Christoph Waltz. He won Best Actor at Cannes and that was just the beginning of the award avalanche he's been under. He created a true vision of a monster. Smart, tense, played with his victims. And he did it all with a smile. His first scene is suspenseful and the best part of an already great movie. Now, let's hope he doesn't have an acceptance speech this time.
What Happened?: Anthony Mackie, The Hurt Locker. I thought he would have rode on the accolades of The Hurt Locker to get in here, but instead, the Academy didn't forget about The Messenger like I originally thought.
Best Supporting Actress
Penélope Cruz, Nine
Vera Farmiga, Up In The Air
Maggie Gyllenhaal, Crazy Heart
Anna Kendrick, Up In The Air
Mo'Nique, Precious
Who Should and Will Win: Mo'Nique. She's been winning awards left and right just like Waltz. And just like Waltz, she created a true monster, though one that's more intense and violent and terrifying. And expect to see her speech at the end of the film to be in the clip reel. Powerful. Almost made me forget Phat Girlz. Almost.
What Happened?: Julianne Moore, A Single Man. The Academy loves nominating her. But somehow, Maggie Gyllenhaal pulled an Ethan Hawke. (I'm referring to when Hawke was nominated for Best Supporting Actor for Training Day solely by riding on the laurels of Denzel's Oscar winning performance) I like Maggie, but is this really that outstanding of a performance?
Best Director
James Cameron, Avatar
Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker
Quentin Tarantino, Inglourious Basterds
Lee Daniels, Precious
Jason Reitman, Up In The Air
Who Should and Will Win: Kathryn Bigelow. Sure, I love the Basterds, but The Hurt Locker was hands down the best directed film of the year. Tense where it had to be without being over the top. The pacing was perfect and somehow created a realistic interpretation of war. Bigelow will be the first woman to win this award, and she'll do it with a film that goes beyond gender.
What Happened?: Clint Eastwood, Invictus. Seriously, Academy. I thought you loved him. Oh, and this was another category I got 100% right.
Best Adapted Screenplay
District 9, Neil Blomkamp & Terri Tatchell
An Education, Nick Hornby
In The Loop, Jesse Armstrong, Simon Blackwell, Armando Iannucci & Tony Roche
Precious, Geoffrey Fletcher
Up In The Air, Sheldon Turner & Jason Reitman
Who Should and Will Win: Up in the Air. This movie best represented the current state of our world. And they did it by making smart additions to an unfilmable book which was told as more a stream of consciousness monologue.
What Happened?: Fantastic Mr. Fox. So, the Academy either hates Roald Dahl or Wes Anderson. Though, probably both.
Best Original Screenplay
The Hurt Locker, Mark Boal
Inglourious Basterds, Quentin Tarantino
The Messenger, Alessandro Camon & Oren Moverman
A Serious Man, Joel & Ethan Coen
Up, Bob Peterson, Pete Docter & Thomas McCarthy
Who Should and Will Win: Inglourious Basterds. This movie is all about the most important aspect of any great script. The dialogue. Tarantino once again showed his mastery of dialogue, and he should get rewarded again for it.
What Happened?: The Hangover. I know that there is talks that Todd Phillips totally changed the script, but I figured that this was where the funniest movie of 2009 would get some attention. Alas, the Academy didn't forget about The Messenger like I had thought.
Best Picture
Avatar
The Blind Side
District 9
An Education
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
Precious
A Serious Man
Up
Up In The Air
Who Will Win: The Hurt Locker. It's interesting that the wins at the DGA and the PGA has put such a low grossing film into the frontrunner spot. Best Picture winners tend to be box office hits, but this one barely made a blip in the Summer. The buzz is there earning the most nominations, and taking up most of the big prizes (Golden Globes excluded), this one will overtake Avatar, especially now that the Avatar backlash is starting.
Who Should Win: Inglourious Basterds. Still my favorite film of the year. It was so much more than what the movie was advertised as. The movie was the best celebration on the cult of film. Plus, it was all done focusing on dialogue and character interactions as opposed to mindless action. A triumph, and quite possibly, Tarantino's masterpiece.
What Happened: Invictus. Where's the Eastwood love? That's all I've got to say about that. Clearly, the Academy is ready to bestow a ton of that love onto Sandra Bullock. I predict that Speed 3: Speed 2 Never Happened will be nominated in the next few years.
Best Actor
Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart
George Clooney, Up In The Air
Colin Firth, A Single Man
Morgan Freeman, Invictus
Jeremy Renner, The Hurt Locker
Who Will Win: Jeff Bridges. So what if the movie isn't good. The Academy loves to give out awards to people who have had a long, successful career, but been snubbed quite a bit. This year, it's Bridges' turn.
Who Should Win: Jeremy Renner. This was a startling real, tense performance. He played the right amount of insane mixed with a rational mind and truly showed the effects that war has on the adreneline junkie. Plus, he took a punch to the face and gut like nobody's business.
What Happened?: Matt Damon, The Informant. Actually, I nailed this one, guessing 100% right the nominees. However, Damon gave the performance of his career with this little seen gem. It would've been nice for him to get the nod for this film instead of Invictus. That being said, I don't know who he should've replaced.
Best Actress
Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side
Helen Mirren, The Last Station
Carey Mulligan, An Education
Gabourey Sidibe, Precious
Meryl Streep, Julie & Julia
Who Will Win: Sandra Bullock. Come back role mixed with an accent are Oscar gold. Bullock did an effortless job of capturing a real person with a performance that was well reviewed. And with the film winning a nom and Julie and Julia not getting anything other than Streep's nod, well, Meryl will have to wait until next year to get her third Oscar.
Who Should Win: Gabourey Sidibe. The most heartbreaking performance of the year. At least, the only one that made me cry. She did this with subtlety and understatement, which may be why she was overshadowed by Mo'Nique. To see who she is in reality, and you know that she accomplished what every actor wants: To not look like you're acting.
What Happened?: Emily Blunt, The Young Victoria. Actually, I nailed this one as well. But if someone could've snuck in, it would be this ingenue. But just like before, I don't know who she would replace.
Best Supporting Actor
Matt Damon, Invictus
Woody Harrelson, The Messenger
Christopher Plummer, The Last Station
Stanley Tucci, The Lovely Bones
Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds
Who Will and Should Win: Christoph Waltz. He won Best Actor at Cannes and that was just the beginning of the award avalanche he's been under. He created a true vision of a monster. Smart, tense, played with his victims. And he did it all with a smile. His first scene is suspenseful and the best part of an already great movie. Now, let's hope he doesn't have an acceptance speech this time.
What Happened?: Anthony Mackie, The Hurt Locker. I thought he would have rode on the accolades of The Hurt Locker to get in here, but instead, the Academy didn't forget about The Messenger like I originally thought.
Best Supporting Actress
Penélope Cruz, Nine
Vera Farmiga, Up In The Air
Maggie Gyllenhaal, Crazy Heart
Anna Kendrick, Up In The Air
Mo'Nique, Precious
Who Should and Will Win: Mo'Nique. She's been winning awards left and right just like Waltz. And just like Waltz, she created a true monster, though one that's more intense and violent and terrifying. And expect to see her speech at the end of the film to be in the clip reel. Powerful. Almost made me forget Phat Girlz. Almost.
What Happened?: Julianne Moore, A Single Man. The Academy loves nominating her. But somehow, Maggie Gyllenhaal pulled an Ethan Hawke. (I'm referring to when Hawke was nominated for Best Supporting Actor for Training Day solely by riding on the laurels of Denzel's Oscar winning performance) I like Maggie, but is this really that outstanding of a performance?
Best Director
James Cameron, Avatar
Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker
Quentin Tarantino, Inglourious Basterds
Lee Daniels, Precious
Jason Reitman, Up In The Air
Who Should and Will Win: Kathryn Bigelow. Sure, I love the Basterds, but The Hurt Locker was hands down the best directed film of the year. Tense where it had to be without being over the top. The pacing was perfect and somehow created a realistic interpretation of war. Bigelow will be the first woman to win this award, and she'll do it with a film that goes beyond gender.
What Happened?: Clint Eastwood, Invictus. Seriously, Academy. I thought you loved him. Oh, and this was another category I got 100% right.
Best Adapted Screenplay
District 9, Neil Blomkamp & Terri Tatchell
An Education, Nick Hornby
In The Loop, Jesse Armstrong, Simon Blackwell, Armando Iannucci & Tony Roche
Precious, Geoffrey Fletcher
Up In The Air, Sheldon Turner & Jason Reitman
Who Should and Will Win: Up in the Air. This movie best represented the current state of our world. And they did it by making smart additions to an unfilmable book which was told as more a stream of consciousness monologue.
What Happened?: Fantastic Mr. Fox. So, the Academy either hates Roald Dahl or Wes Anderson. Though, probably both.
Best Original Screenplay
The Hurt Locker, Mark Boal
Inglourious Basterds, Quentin Tarantino
The Messenger, Alessandro Camon & Oren Moverman
A Serious Man, Joel & Ethan Coen
Up, Bob Peterson, Pete Docter & Thomas McCarthy
Who Should and Will Win: Inglourious Basterds. This movie is all about the most important aspect of any great script. The dialogue. Tarantino once again showed his mastery of dialogue, and he should get rewarded again for it.
What Happened?: The Hangover. I know that there is talks that Todd Phillips totally changed the script, but I figured that this was where the funniest movie of 2009 would get some attention. Alas, the Academy didn't forget about The Messenger like I had thought.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Oscar Nomination Prediction
It's been a long time since I've blogged, but I'm coming back hard core. For at least a couple of days.
I, like a majority of movie geeks, will be up by 8:30 am to watch Anne Hathaway and some guy (the president of the Academy or something, but who cares. I mean Anne Hathaway, right? She can princess my diaries anytime.) will announce the nominees for the Oscars. And so that I can get it down on paper, here our my predictions for this year's nominees. I'll have my own opinions on the actually nominees and how I faired tomorrow. I'm not expecting any of you to read that, as much as I'm not expecting any of you to have read this sentence. For now, enjoy.
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
District 9
An Education
Fantastic Mr. Fox
Precious
Up in the Air
I think Precious, An Education, and Up in the Air are pretty much locks. And a lot of buzz has hovered around District 9 so it's an almost lock. The fifth slot is difficult to figure out, but a lot of people have been impressed with Anderson's Fox script, feeling that it is the first script to truly capture Roald Dahl. And capturing an author's vision is exactly what the Academy likes to reward.
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
The Hangover
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
A Serious Man
Up
The Hangover, thanks to the Golden Globe win, is getting enough pull to overtake other Oscar possibility, (500) Days of Summer. And the writer's branch of the Academy loves them some comedy.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Matt Damon, Invictus
Anthony Mackie, The Hurt Locker
Christopher Plummer, The Last Station
Stanley Tucci, The Lovely Bones
Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds
Christoph, Stanley, and Woody are pretty much a lock, but I think Morgan Freeman's nomination for Invictus will help carry over to Damon. I think we are going to see Anthony Mackie get some spillover Hurt Locker love. Thus, Woody Harrelson will be left out in the cold, but at least, he'll have some good weed while out there.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Vera Farminga, Up In The Air
Anna Kendrick, Up In the Air
Diane Kruger, Inglourious Basterds
Mo'Nique, Precious
Julianne Moore, A Single Man
The question here is which Inglourious Basterds actress is going to fill the fifth slot, Diane Kruger or Melanie Laurent. I liked Laurent's performance better but the Academy can be a sucker for a good accent, and Diane pulls off a good one. Melanie already had the accent.
BEST ACTRESS
Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side
Helen Mirren, The Last Station
Carey Mulligan, An Education
Gabourey Sidibe, Precious
Meryl Streep, Julie and Julia
This is one of the two categories that pretty much have five solid locks. Emily Blunt for The Young Victoria could sneak in, but I don't honestly see who she would knock out. So, taking the risk and calling it a lock.
BEST ACTOR
Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart
George Clooney, Up in the Air
Colin Firth, A Single Man
Morgan Freeman, Invictus
Jeremy Renner, The Hurt Locker
And this is the other category that's a lock. Less for not knowing who could get knocked out and more for who could possibly replace any of them.
BEST DIRECTOR
Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker
James Cameron, Avatar
Lee Daniels, Precious
Jason Reitman, Up in the Air
Quentin Tarantino, Inglourious Basterds
It's the Kathy vs. Jimmy show here. But this is a close lock. However, Lee could get bumped out for Clint Eastwood for Invictus, mainly because he's f-ing Clint Eastwood.
BEST PICTURE
Avatar
District 9
An Education
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
Invictus
Precious
A Serious Man
Star Trek
Up in the Air
There are the five definites , we know there names by heart now: Avatar, The Hurt Locker, Basterds, Precious and Up in the Air. If there were only five nominees this year, these would be it. Which leads the other five completely up in the air (excuse the pun). With the nominating procedures, I feel that District 9 and Star Trek could get in there on plenty of love from the technical awards people. I feel Up will miss out only because of the feeling that it will be honored for Best Animated Feature. A Serious Man has some support to slip in here. An Education won quite a few accolades over the awards season. And Invictus because, for the love of God, it's Clint F-ing Eastwood.
I, like a majority of movie geeks, will be up by 8:30 am to watch Anne Hathaway and some guy (the president of the Academy or something, but who cares. I mean Anne Hathaway, right? She can princess my diaries anytime.) will announce the nominees for the Oscars. And so that I can get it down on paper, here our my predictions for this year's nominees. I'll have my own opinions on the actually nominees and how I faired tomorrow. I'm not expecting any of you to read that, as much as I'm not expecting any of you to have read this sentence. For now, enjoy.
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
District 9
An Education
Fantastic Mr. Fox
Precious
Up in the Air
I think Precious, An Education, and Up in the Air are pretty much locks. And a lot of buzz has hovered around District 9 so it's an almost lock. The fifth slot is difficult to figure out, but a lot of people have been impressed with Anderson's Fox script, feeling that it is the first script to truly capture Roald Dahl. And capturing an author's vision is exactly what the Academy likes to reward.
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
The Hangover
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
A Serious Man
Up
The Hangover, thanks to the Golden Globe win, is getting enough pull to overtake other Oscar possibility, (500) Days of Summer. And the writer's branch of the Academy loves them some comedy.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Matt Damon, Invictus
Anthony Mackie, The Hurt Locker
Christopher Plummer, The Last Station
Stanley Tucci, The Lovely Bones
Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds
Christoph, Stanley, and Woody are pretty much a lock, but I think Morgan Freeman's nomination for Invictus will help carry over to Damon. I think we are going to see Anthony Mackie get some spillover Hurt Locker love. Thus, Woody Harrelson will be left out in the cold, but at least, he'll have some good weed while out there.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Vera Farminga, Up In The Air
Anna Kendrick, Up In the Air
Diane Kruger, Inglourious Basterds
Mo'Nique, Precious
Julianne Moore, A Single Man
The question here is which Inglourious Basterds actress is going to fill the fifth slot, Diane Kruger or Melanie Laurent. I liked Laurent's performance better but the Academy can be a sucker for a good accent, and Diane pulls off a good one. Melanie already had the accent.
BEST ACTRESS
Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side
Helen Mirren, The Last Station
Carey Mulligan, An Education
Gabourey Sidibe, Precious
Meryl Streep, Julie and Julia
This is one of the two categories that pretty much have five solid locks. Emily Blunt for The Young Victoria could sneak in, but I don't honestly see who she would knock out. So, taking the risk and calling it a lock.
BEST ACTOR
Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart
George Clooney, Up in the Air
Colin Firth, A Single Man
Morgan Freeman, Invictus
Jeremy Renner, The Hurt Locker
And this is the other category that's a lock. Less for not knowing who could get knocked out and more for who could possibly replace any of them.
BEST DIRECTOR
Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker
James Cameron, Avatar
Lee Daniels, Precious
Jason Reitman, Up in the Air
Quentin Tarantino, Inglourious Basterds
It's the Kathy vs. Jimmy show here. But this is a close lock. However, Lee could get bumped out for Clint Eastwood for Invictus, mainly because he's f-ing Clint Eastwood.
BEST PICTURE
Avatar
District 9
An Education
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
Invictus
Precious
A Serious Man
Star Trek
Up in the Air
There are the five definites , we know there names by heart now: Avatar, The Hurt Locker, Basterds, Precious and Up in the Air. If there were only five nominees this year, these would be it. Which leads the other five completely up in the air (excuse the pun). With the nominating procedures, I feel that District 9 and Star Trek could get in there on plenty of love from the technical awards people. I feel Up will miss out only because of the feeling that it will be honored for Best Animated Feature. A Serious Man has some support to slip in here. An Education won quite a few accolades over the awards season. And Invictus because, for the love of God, it's Clint F-ing Eastwood.
Friday, July 10, 2009
TOP 5 MOCKUMENTARIES
One of my favorite genres is the mockumentary, where it all looks so real, but the whole thing clearly isn't. Bruno brings us the latest incarnation of this often hilarious subgenre. So, I've decided to compile a list of top notch entertainment for you to check out if Bruno's got you in the mood (for watching mockumentaries...not the other thing):
5. Borat - This one is quite the enigma. The character of Borat isn't real, but the situations he finds himself in are certainly very real. It's genius the way Sasha Baron Cohen was able to focus on America's xenophobia while at the same time making us guffaw like jabbering foreign idiots who need to stay out of my country (poor attempt at satire here. Cohen much better at it.) The movie makes the uncomfortable hilarious, and it features the funniest balls out nude fight scene in the history of cinema. Bonus points as the movie that got Pamela Anderson and Kid Rock to split up. Now, if only the National Guard would stop asking him to do music videos, we could be rid of him once and for all. Memorable line: "You telling me the man who try to put a rubber fist in my anus was a homosexual?"
4. Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon - If you are a fan of horror, then you have to check this one out. Go rent it right now. It's a unique horror comedy mockumentary that will actually have moments to scare you. The film is about a documentary crew following around Leslie Vernon, a fun loving serial killer who is trying to set up the night he'll be famous as a group of teenagers are set to spend the night at an abandoned house. The first hour tears down the conventions of slasher films with sly comedy and consistent winks to the comedy. Then, the documentary turns into a straight up horror film with tons of scares as the crew tries to save the teens. It's too bad that this one didn't make it in theaters, because a lot of people missed out on something truly different. Memorable line: "What kind of a survivor girl passes out in a pinch?" "Passes out? What kind of survivor girl hops on the nerdy kid's johnson like it's a pogo stick? "
3. Zelig - Woody Allen's hilarious mockumentary centers around a man who is known as the human chameleon. He takes the form of whoever he's around and can slip into just about any situation. It is a poignant study into what is human identity with the great Allen humor that you saw in Sleeper and Bananas. Also, Allen wanted to get the look of old film so much that he took his footage and through it into a bathtub where his crew would stomp on the film to give it that old look. That's dedication to art. Memorable Line: "My deepest apology goes to the Trochman family in Detroit. I...I never delivered a baby before in my life, and I... I just thought that ice tongs was the way to do it."
2. Best in Show - My mother was embarrassed when we saw this in theaters together, because I couldn't stop laughing. When I fell into the aisle after Fred Willard, as a clueless announcer who knew nothing about dog shows, delivered a line, I felt like she was going to walk out. This is exactly what makes a great mockumentary. There is a story hidden within the funny improvisation that makes you care about the characters while milk shoots out your nose (Word of warning: Do not drink milk while watching). This is my favorite of the Christopher Guest improv style movies. Memorable line: Anything said by Fred Willard. Here's a sampling: "And to think that in some countries these dogs are eaten."
1. This is Spinal Tap - The granddaddy of them all, and still the king of comedy. The exploits of an over the hill metal band trying to return to greatness never gets old. Musicians still watch this film and are amazed at how accurate the film hits the problem of touring. The film has so many memorable scenes (Harry Shearer with the cucumber down his pants, Christopher Guest showing off his amp that goes to 11, getting lost while trying to find the stage, etc.). It's clear to see where the style came from and how today's mockumentaries are still heavily influenced by this one. If you haven't seen it and want to still be called an American, then check this one out. Memorable line: (a line I still live by) "It's such a fine line between stupid, and clever."
5. Borat - This one is quite the enigma. The character of Borat isn't real, but the situations he finds himself in are certainly very real. It's genius the way Sasha Baron Cohen was able to focus on America's xenophobia while at the same time making us guffaw like jabbering foreign idiots who need to stay out of my country (poor attempt at satire here. Cohen much better at it.) The movie makes the uncomfortable hilarious, and it features the funniest balls out nude fight scene in the history of cinema. Bonus points as the movie that got Pamela Anderson and Kid Rock to split up. Now, if only the National Guard would stop asking him to do music videos, we could be rid of him once and for all. Memorable line: "You telling me the man who try to put a rubber fist in my anus was a homosexual?"
4. Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon - If you are a fan of horror, then you have to check this one out. Go rent it right now. It's a unique horror comedy mockumentary that will actually have moments to scare you. The film is about a documentary crew following around Leslie Vernon, a fun loving serial killer who is trying to set up the night he'll be famous as a group of teenagers are set to spend the night at an abandoned house. The first hour tears down the conventions of slasher films with sly comedy and consistent winks to the comedy. Then, the documentary turns into a straight up horror film with tons of scares as the crew tries to save the teens. It's too bad that this one didn't make it in theaters, because a lot of people missed out on something truly different. Memorable line: "What kind of a survivor girl passes out in a pinch?" "Passes out? What kind of survivor girl hops on the nerdy kid's johnson like it's a pogo stick? "
3. Zelig - Woody Allen's hilarious mockumentary centers around a man who is known as the human chameleon. He takes the form of whoever he's around and can slip into just about any situation. It is a poignant study into what is human identity with the great Allen humor that you saw in Sleeper and Bananas. Also, Allen wanted to get the look of old film so much that he took his footage and through it into a bathtub where his crew would stomp on the film to give it that old look. That's dedication to art. Memorable Line: "My deepest apology goes to the Trochman family in Detroit. I...I never delivered a baby before in my life, and I... I just thought that ice tongs was the way to do it."
2. Best in Show - My mother was embarrassed when we saw this in theaters together, because I couldn't stop laughing. When I fell into the aisle after Fred Willard, as a clueless announcer who knew nothing about dog shows, delivered a line, I felt like she was going to walk out. This is exactly what makes a great mockumentary. There is a story hidden within the funny improvisation that makes you care about the characters while milk shoots out your nose (Word of warning: Do not drink milk while watching). This is my favorite of the Christopher Guest improv style movies. Memorable line: Anything said by Fred Willard. Here's a sampling: "And to think that in some countries these dogs are eaten."
1. This is Spinal Tap - The granddaddy of them all, and still the king of comedy. The exploits of an over the hill metal band trying to return to greatness never gets old. Musicians still watch this film and are amazed at how accurate the film hits the problem of touring. The film has so many memorable scenes (Harry Shearer with the cucumber down his pants, Christopher Guest showing off his amp that goes to 11, getting lost while trying to find the stage, etc.). It's clear to see where the style came from and how today's mockumentaries are still heavily influenced by this one. If you haven't seen it and want to still be called an American, then check this one out. Memorable line: (a line I still live by) "It's such a fine line between stupid, and clever."
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Summer 2009 So Far
This blog is just a quick update on my opinions of the movies of the summer of 2009 so far. Then, I will do my best to bring you at least one movie a week. I've categorized the movies into five different categories:
100% PURE JOY: Just like the name suggests, these movies were awesome. I wanted to see them again the moment I left the theater. The cream of the crop.
Star Trek - This movie worked for one reason and one reason only: strong characters. Despite the flaws, this reboot of Star Trek was one of the finest pieces of sci fi filmmaking. It didn't spend tons of time on effects but focused on building the characters and even supplying a decent story to root for them. J.J. Abrams should reboot every franchise.
Up - I cried during the first ten minutes of the movie. The opening is an emotional tour de force that does it all without uttering a single word. Then the rest of the movie gets going and never lets you down. Pixar remembers that movies are only about spectacle. Themes, characters, and storytelling are the important parts to a fine motion picture.
The Hangover - The funniest movie of the year so far. And it does it without having an idiot character scream lines at the top of his lungs (I'm looking at you, Jack Black and Adam Sandler). The comedy is smart, raunchy, and always hilarious. And Zach Galifinakis is one of the finest comedy performers out there. His character easily could've been botched in the wrong hands but he brings something human and funny to it.
MADE ME SMILE: I liked these movies. They weren't the best I've ever seen, but were entertaining, and I had a smile on my face.
The Taking of Pelham 1,2,3 - The first 80 minutes of this remake is solid filmmaking. Tony Scott can put a thriller together. And Denzel is always fun to watch. The tense moments between him and Travolta are sublime. Then, Denzel heads into the tunnel and (pardon the pun) the film derails. Another example of a solid movie ruined by a lackluster ending.
COULD'VE BEEN WORSE: These are the movies that were okay. They could've stunk up the theater, but someone realized that if you put it in an odor controlling trash bag, well, it's not too bad.
Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian - I didn't like the first one too much, but this one had more imagination and funnier moments than the first. Plus Amy Adams and Hank Azaria are wonderful. It's too bad Ben Stiller was in it, since he really landed his lines with a thud. Also, some jokes were a little too juvenile for my tastes.
Imagine That - Not a good movie, but it did offer something I hadn't seen in a while. It focused so much on imagination that it never showed you the wonderful world that the lead girl was dreaming of. It stayed grounded in reality and let us enjoy the visuals in our heads. Anything that speaks to children in the importance of imagination without flashy visuals is a solid effort in my book.
The Proposal - An example of an unoriginal, stupid script made better by the chemistry of the two leads. Sandra Bullock and Ryan Reynolds were great together. If only they weren't saddled with this script.
BITTER AFTER TASTE: Like drinking bad beer, these movies were not good. But they aren't the worse.
X-Men Origins: Wolverine - There were too many characters and too many special effects that eventually you forget what made the first two X-Men great. Any movie that removes the charm and fun from Wolverine is a failure in my book.
Angels and Demons - It was supposed to be more exciting than The Da Vinci Code, but I don't see how they did that. Dull, convoluted, and the twist ending felt tagged on (though it worked in the novel). Dan Brown's books are better read than seen.
Land of the Lost - I'm not sure what failed here. We had some great comic actors and a bit of nostalgia. I think they took a fun childhood memory and turned into crude adult gags that felt like it was in the wrong movie. Also Will Ferrell schtick is starting to get real old.
Year One - Surprised this one came from Harold Ramis. Intelligent satiric jokes are completely undone by silly gross out humor. You want funny religious comedy, see Life of Brian. You want funny gross out history jokes, see History of the World Part 1. Don't see this.
PROOF HOLLYWOOD IS TRYING TO KILL ME: The movies that made me angry when I left the theater.
Terminator Salvation - Towards the end of the movie, we get John Connor setting up a trap as You Could Be Mine by GNR plays. All it does is remind of us T2, and how much better a movie that was. The action is so mechanic, the characters so dead eyed, and at no time do you feel like this is the John Connor who is supposed to be our savior. The movie is dull despite the plethora of explosions and chases. McG forgot what made T2 great: characters we cared about. The effects were just window dressing.
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen - Michael Bay shows us what he thinks of us. No need for strong characters or real human emotions. We just want robots transforming and fighting. But when we don't get that, we have to endure the uninteresting Megan Fox and the spastic "hero" Shia Lebouf. Also, the humor in this film made me feel like I was watching bad hacky open mic comedy. I want more than just effects. I want good storytelling.
100% PURE JOY: Just like the name suggests, these movies were awesome. I wanted to see them again the moment I left the theater. The cream of the crop.
Star Trek - This movie worked for one reason and one reason only: strong characters. Despite the flaws, this reboot of Star Trek was one of the finest pieces of sci fi filmmaking. It didn't spend tons of time on effects but focused on building the characters and even supplying a decent story to root for them. J.J. Abrams should reboot every franchise.
Up - I cried during the first ten minutes of the movie. The opening is an emotional tour de force that does it all without uttering a single word. Then the rest of the movie gets going and never lets you down. Pixar remembers that movies are only about spectacle. Themes, characters, and storytelling are the important parts to a fine motion picture.
The Hangover - The funniest movie of the year so far. And it does it without having an idiot character scream lines at the top of his lungs (I'm looking at you, Jack Black and Adam Sandler). The comedy is smart, raunchy, and always hilarious. And Zach Galifinakis is one of the finest comedy performers out there. His character easily could've been botched in the wrong hands but he brings something human and funny to it.
MADE ME SMILE: I liked these movies. They weren't the best I've ever seen, but were entertaining, and I had a smile on my face.
The Taking of Pelham 1,2,3 - The first 80 minutes of this remake is solid filmmaking. Tony Scott can put a thriller together. And Denzel is always fun to watch. The tense moments between him and Travolta are sublime. Then, Denzel heads into the tunnel and (pardon the pun) the film derails. Another example of a solid movie ruined by a lackluster ending.
COULD'VE BEEN WORSE: These are the movies that were okay. They could've stunk up the theater, but someone realized that if you put it in an odor controlling trash bag, well, it's not too bad.
Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian - I didn't like the first one too much, but this one had more imagination and funnier moments than the first. Plus Amy Adams and Hank Azaria are wonderful. It's too bad Ben Stiller was in it, since he really landed his lines with a thud. Also, some jokes were a little too juvenile for my tastes.
Imagine That - Not a good movie, but it did offer something I hadn't seen in a while. It focused so much on imagination that it never showed you the wonderful world that the lead girl was dreaming of. It stayed grounded in reality and let us enjoy the visuals in our heads. Anything that speaks to children in the importance of imagination without flashy visuals is a solid effort in my book.
The Proposal - An example of an unoriginal, stupid script made better by the chemistry of the two leads. Sandra Bullock and Ryan Reynolds were great together. If only they weren't saddled with this script.
BITTER AFTER TASTE: Like drinking bad beer, these movies were not good. But they aren't the worse.
X-Men Origins: Wolverine - There were too many characters and too many special effects that eventually you forget what made the first two X-Men great. Any movie that removes the charm and fun from Wolverine is a failure in my book.
Angels and Demons - It was supposed to be more exciting than The Da Vinci Code, but I don't see how they did that. Dull, convoluted, and the twist ending felt tagged on (though it worked in the novel). Dan Brown's books are better read than seen.
Land of the Lost - I'm not sure what failed here. We had some great comic actors and a bit of nostalgia. I think they took a fun childhood memory and turned into crude adult gags that felt like it was in the wrong movie. Also Will Ferrell schtick is starting to get real old.
Year One - Surprised this one came from Harold Ramis. Intelligent satiric jokes are completely undone by silly gross out humor. You want funny religious comedy, see Life of Brian. You want funny gross out history jokes, see History of the World Part 1. Don't see this.
PROOF HOLLYWOOD IS TRYING TO KILL ME: The movies that made me angry when I left the theater.
Terminator Salvation - Towards the end of the movie, we get John Connor setting up a trap as You Could Be Mine by GNR plays. All it does is remind of us T2, and how much better a movie that was. The action is so mechanic, the characters so dead eyed, and at no time do you feel like this is the John Connor who is supposed to be our savior. The movie is dull despite the plethora of explosions and chases. McG forgot what made T2 great: characters we cared about. The effects were just window dressing.
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen - Michael Bay shows us what he thinks of us. No need for strong characters or real human emotions. We just want robots transforming and fighting. But when we don't get that, we have to endure the uninteresting Megan Fox and the spastic "hero" Shia Lebouf. Also, the humor in this film made me feel like I was watching bad hacky open mic comedy. I want more than just effects. I want good storytelling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
