Seriously, what. the. frick.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Saturday, March 28, 2009
The what-what?
My Netflix queueueue is not organized and so I get random movies I have put on there for no known reason showing up in my mailbox . A week ago I got "The Chumscrubber" and put it off because I didn't really know what it was about. It is a suburban dystopia where, similar to "Brick" (a movie I highly recommend) and the show "Weeds" the kids live in an alternative world where they do adult things (drugs, sex, crime, etc.) and the adults are petty and childish. The movie has a pretty good cast (Glen Close, Ralph Fiennes, Alison Janney and a host of familiar-looking teens/kids) and I think the acting is pretty good.
I thought it was a decent movie touching on themes that are overripe. The movie came out in 2005, so maybe I just watched it after its relevance, but I don't think that's the case. I liked the fantastic (as in fantasy) animation sequences- very much like "A Scanner Darkly" (or those Charles Schwab commercials with the real life people overlayed with animation, if you haven't seen Scanner)- that serve as commentary of the unnaturalness of suburban life but that aspect may have been too much because the action stands alone as commentary. It is more of a character-centered film, so unless you're gung-ho about criticizing suburbia it is not a must-see.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
UPDATE: The Prez's picks!
Thoughts:
1) His handwriting is very neat.
2) Lots of safe picks.
3) I agree with him that, Tar Heels, you let everyone down. Maybe you shouldn't field a team and risk the chance of hurting our president.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
No love for UConn...
In the style of the "They're just like Us" page in Us Weekly, apparently President Obama has made his picks for the tournament and given them to ESPN, fulfilling a promise he made to Andy Katz (of ESPN).
His picks: Louisville, Pitt, UNC, and Memphis. I'm trying not to read anything political into those choices because that's a pretty good Final Four. I am curious, though, to see if he will sneak a Dayton over West Virginia pick in there.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Dickie V and Jay Bilas go at it.
I've been following the seeding pretty closely this college basketball season and so I was interested to find analysis on snubs. I found this video on ESPN.com and... um, well look for yourself. I hate that Dickie V uses Duke against Bilas. Its a weird "insult."
Also, is Dickie V sick?
Friday, March 13, 2009
Ire Land
As a huge fan of The Daily Show I've seen John Stewart get in a lot of arguments with stupid guests. During the entire 2006 season everybody with a book pandering to the conservative mindset of the country and the culture war/conservative revolution made a pass through TDS and it got to be a little trite. Since then there have been fewer and fewer of those interviews. But I have come to dislike the interviews when those arguments happen because John will make serious, thought-provoking arguments and the audience will jump in and applaud rather than let the guest respond. Basically, I think it kills the segment. (There is probably some effects from editing too.) The best argument John Stewart has gotten into by far happened NOT on his show but when he was on Crossfire with Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson and basically took them and the news media to task. There was an audience, but it wasn't involuntarily applauding when he made points, it responded to his jokes.
Come to last night's Stewart-Cramer faceoff and it went a little different than normal. First, they were talking about really complex financial stuff for some of the show and I don't think the audience knew when to respond. There was some, especially when John's tone of voice cued them to cheer but it was just not as much as maybe it should've been (not saying the audience is dumb, but...). Second, Cramer was very deferential and did not try and maintain a fight (very smart tactic) so the conversation was not as a tense as when jackasses who don't give a flip come on and just try to play the villain like a WWF bad guy (I'm old school so I don't care 'bout no WWE). Third, it was longer and necessarily so. There was SO much to talk about the normal 6.5-8 minutes wouldn't have cut it. So, the discussion was fuller and the parsing made it more comprehensive. Fourth, there were- at least on the internets- F-bombs that were not deleted. In all, I was bracing myself for the eye-rolling cheers from the audience and I was pleasantly surprised when they did not come to the level I was expecting.
Last night's interview was basically an extension of the "media not doing its job" theme of the Crossfire interview: what CNN et al. weren't doing for the public with regards to real information and discourse on our government and presidential candidates CNBC was not doing for financial instruments, corporations, and the financial system- GOOD REPORTING. I think Cramer was a little more forthright about his show ("Mad Money") being a work of entertainment than smug Carlson and vapid Begala were, to his credit. At the end, though, the level of catharsis that was provided by John going after Cramer about promoting certain financial instruments and stock etc. was more than offset by the fact that the problem is so much bigger than just him. The Daily Show is still on Comedy Central, CNBC is still going to do what it does, and major changes in our country's finances are not impending.
That is a serious review but it was a pretty serious episode. If you want a funny clip watch this:
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Goodbye Michael
Note: I started writing this article on Feb. 20 and put it aside to formulate my argument.
The Office is one of my favorite shows. Seasons 2 and 3 are incredible. I have recently re-watched all of those episodes thanks to Netflix's instant watch feature (although I learned that if you don't have an unlimited out package you can be limited to only a few episodes/movies a month). Season 4 and Season 5, though have been significantly less interesting and have some pretty horrific episodes (The Dinner Party, Chair Model, Did I Stutter?, and Job Fair from Season 4; Employee Transfer in Season 5) that are hard to watch. There are funny parts during some of those episodes, but in general the show has been less interesting.
I think I know why the recent seasons have been less interesting: the Jim and Pam story line is resolved, Jim is no longer apathetic, and the Michael story lines are played out.
1) The Jim-Pam romance story line was a huge part of why people watched the show during the first two seasons. Since they've started dating, there is no "will they-won't they" aspect, a major part of the buzz and interest in seasons 2 and 3.
2) Since Jim moved to Stamford he has been increasingly less apathetic and less resistant to the office. When he got the promotion for moving back to Scranton he did some pranks, but since Season 4, he has not pulled any pranks or done any shenanigans like the Office Olympics. Plus, he has assumed more responsibility in the office: leading the office while Michael was out (Survivor Man S4:E7), organizing an after-hours work session to avoid coming in on the weekend (Night Out S4:E11), and co-chairing the Party Planning Committee with Dwight (Lecture Circuit S5:E14 & 15). The funniest prank-y type thing to happen was this exchange during Customer Survey (Season 5, Episode 6).
3) The Michael story lines are played out: Michael struggling to find love (Lecture Circuit parts 1 and 2) and happiness (Stress Relief S5:E13), Michael as a terrible boss (Stress Relief and all of the episodes, really), Michael as a racist/sexist/idiot (Moroccan Christmas S5:E10)/terrible person (Prince Family Paper S5:E12), etc.
So, where do I think the office is going? I think Michael is going to be fired or demoted to salesman (or fired, then re-hired, as a salesman). Getting him out of the boss role would allow him to do new things and possibly grow. It would allow for the introduction of new characters or the development of new aspects of old characters. We've already seen Jim gain more responsibility in the office as mentioned above and in the Survivor Man episode his travail as leader was an important story line. So maybe he is the favorite for that to happen. Also, it would shake up the office and bring a buzz back to the show. We would get some episodes of: Who will be boss? How will that person act as boss (if they promote from within)? There could be conflicts with the new boss (e.g. by bringing back Karen) or old conflicts that re-surface because of the change in power. If Jim were the boss maybe Jim would have to deal with Dwight sucking up to him.
That is my prediction. What do you think?
(Spoiler Alert! DO NOT READ IF YOU WANT TO BE SURPRISED)
----------
SUPER SPOILER:
I was looking on IMDB.com to see if there was a new episode tonight (3/12) and the episode next week is called "New Boss". Maybe we'll find out if I'm right very soon?!
The Flower(ing) Sawyer
LaFleur: If you've never seen "Hands on a Hard Body", the documentary about a Longview, Texas competition to win a new truck by keeping your hands on it as long as possible, I highly recommend it. It is hilarious. At one point a veteran of the competition is waxing philosophical about the nature of the competition and comes up with this gem (best enjoyed while envisioning a THICK East Texas drawl): "It's a human drama thing."
...And that's how I felt about this episode. No real answers but just a thick layer of complication in the relationships between the Losties. I am, of course, referring to Juliet and Sawyer. Throughout the "3-years ago" parts of the episode we see the two of them align and then, near the end, Sawyer convinces Juliet to "give him two weeks" to allow him to convince her to stay. That alignment turns into three years and romance, just like the blossoming of une fleur. The depth and nature of that relationship is explained in their profession of love (preceded by the giving of an actual fleur) near the end and in the fact that they seem to live together. Horace's fight with Amy brings up the question of what happens if/when Sawyer and Juliet ever meet Kate and Jack. Sawyer basically says he is over Kate. We don't have to wait long, though, to test the validity of that because guess who's back? Kate. Oh and Jack, but I guess Juliet's love for Jack won't be as big of a deal because we never see Juliet's angst or thoughts on the matter. It's a human drama thing, y'all.
The other side of the flowering metaphor is the blossoming of Sawyer as a leader. In the "3 years later" parts of the episode it seems that Sawyer (aka James LaFleur) is a feared/respected leader of the Dharma initiative folks. At the very beginning of the episode the Dharma guys run to get Sawyer when Horace goes a little nuts. Sawyer may arguably be THE leader because the doctor obeys Sawyer even though he is concerned about what Horace would think/do.
Even though this episode is more about the character interactions and not the island, some subtle island mystery things come up. First, it seems that Sawyer knew to look for the returning Losties. Jin came up to Sawyer early in the episode and said, "We finished grid 1-3 today. No sign of our people." Sawyer says that we'll keep looking for them "as long as it takes." Then, at the end of the episode Jin finds Hurley, Jack, and Kate. Jin was looking for them on Sawyer's order, but how did Sawyer know to look for them? Did Sawyer talk to Jacob?
Second, 30 years ago (or whenever Sawyer, Juliet, Miles, etc. are) people can have babies on the island. That brings up the old, un-answered question of why the babies/mothers in Ben's camp died. Third, I also wonder if there is something to the fact that it was 3 years after the Oceanic 6 came back and 3 years after the Losties stopped time traveling that they met. Fourth, we still don't really know what the Dharma Initiative is, but I'm not sure that it has some mystical criteria for the people who are living there. Why? Because Horace tells Sawyer "You're not really Dharma material" and then let's him stay after Sawyer talks Richard Alpert into keeping the truce.
You know how I know you're funny?
I thought Paul Rudd's interview/goof around session on The Daily Show was funny enough. Normally I don't like it when John Stewart's friends come on the show because they try to out-comedy one another and it ends up being 1/2 watching someone else's inside jokes and 1/2 un-funny improv show. This time it was entertaining enough because of 1) free t-shirts and 2) silly dancing.
In other news Jim Cramer is going to be on TDS tomorrow and it should be interesting. Why?
On March 4- John ripped CNBC. Over that weekend the segment became a thing on the cable news networks and Jim Cramer responded. So all of this week (March 9, March 10, and March 11) TDS has been responding.
Of course, Colbert interviewed him last Thursday (March 5) and it was hysterical.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
What you don't know will be used to scare you
I was taking notes and starting to write this review while I was watching the movie (which is "Traitor") so I had a whole long post drafted about how bad this movie was and all of the problems I saw with it (factually) and how as a vision of the "war on terrorism" it was a farce. I was truly disappointed with the film to that point and not psyched to finish it. Then about half-way through the movie they added another layer and I for a brief moment I had to stop writing and start watching.
... and then it got ideological again. Then with 30 minutes left a couple of great twists and I thought this movie was going to be salvaged.
... and then it wasn't. When the climax comes and action happens rapidly the predictable happens. Yuck.
"Traitor" is about terrorists, terrorism, and the U.S. efforts to fight them. It is from 2008, so it is done in the shadow of the Bush presidency where that stuff is taken ultra-seriously. In fact all of the depictions of everything are extreme and ideological.
The story: Don Cheadle plays Samir, a devout Sudanese Muslim who is into shady business but gets mixed up with terrorists. He goes to prison in Yemen and gets then breaks out with them only to travel and assist their operations. At the same time two FBI agents (Guy Pearce and Neal McDonough- from Band of Brothers) are trying to stop an impending massive attack in the U.S.
I kind of have to save everything for the spoiler section because it is a thriller with twists and turns, but the whole thing is best characterized as "far-fetched."
One thing that's not a spoiler is the role of the two FBI agents who are chasing Samir. That they are FBI agents is odd because it is a domestic law enforcement agency and they track him abroad waaaay before he gets involved with the terrorists. Not only that but the FBI is doing international counter-terrorism analysis and coordinating with international agencies to prevent attacks abroad under the guise of preventing an attack in the U.S. I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure those two things do not happen or do not happen to the extent that they do in this movie. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong on this.
So, all in all this movie is pulp and should not be ingested by anyone who has a formal or sophisticated understanding of terrorism.
There is a saving grace of this movie in that the majority of the people who watch it will not have that sophisticated understanding and may have their perceptions changed. Ugh, that's kind of disheartening in itself.
(Warning: spoilers below... but don't see this movie.)
----------------
Spoiler Section-
Don't these agencies (CIA, FBI, DHS) coordinate? Does the CIA operate on US soil like Samir was doing? The FBI agents make direct connections with scant evidence and carry on with a narrow-minded views of things. I am not of the opinion that the FBI is perfect, but I am of the opinion that they are smart and have a nuanced view of people. The whole thing seems farcical and only a step up from 24 (admittedly I only saw one season of 24 and it was apparently, it wasn't not one of the "good ones").
Half-way through, the movie becomes a bad CIA-FBI thriller. When Jeff Daniels dies I thought the movie had the potential to be a lot better. They could have played up the fact that Samir was basically operating without authority and had to decide whether to cover his ass or protect America. That angst never came across.
When Omar (played by Said Taghmaoui of Lost- recently- and some other stuff) and Samir have their showdown I wanted to vomit. Its just dumb. I'm tired and need to stop writing. But seriously, don't see the movie.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Other Reviews
Cambridge, MA
Love it. Great friends and a lot of fun to be had! Especially fun in great weather.
Cookout (Durham, NC)
Great BBQ chicken sandwich (char-grilled!), even if it is on the smallish side. The sweet tea is waaay too sweet.
Maxwell Fisher
Awesome. Sweet dog and its great that he forgets so quickly who abets the uncomfortable grooming.
Spring
March Madness, beautiful weather, and spring break. Love. It.
A week off
School work and a surprise trip to Beantown left me busy last week, so here's what I've seen in a nutshell:
How I Met Your Mother
The Good: It's finally back on.
The Bad: Can we move the plot please? Yes, Barney loves Robin. Can we get some movement there or drop it? Also, Barney seems only to love Robin when its convenient (in Three Days of Snow he pursued the college girl).
House
(Note: I watch this online and Fox puts it up a week after it airs on TV, so this may be doubly old if you watch it on TV.)
The Good: As usual a good episode.
The Bad: It seemed mechanical- reinforcing what is known about the characters, not moving them along except the Thirteen-Foreman relationship.
The Office
The Good: Victory for Kevin! I love to see him win (see Chair Model- Season 4, Episode 10). It is great to see a large part of the office coalesce into a supporting group (for the most part). The stuff with Phyllis-Bob Vance (of Vance Refrigeration) was hilarious.
The Bad: It is kind of a downer that there are a bunch of unhappy people in the office. The stuff with Phyllis-Bob Vance (of Vance Refrigeration) was disgusting.
30 Rock
The Good: The Frank-Jack story line is funny, although, maybe I say that only because I happen to really like the Frank character. I was dying when Jack had to turn Frank away just like Harry.
The Bad: I've seen this episode before- Jenna acting out because she's jealous of Tracy and Liz being crazy about babies and manipulating others to get her way is P-L-A-Y-E-D.
Lost- Separate review to follow.
The Daily Show
The Good: They're keeping the Obama administration's feet to the fire. I thought this interview was brilliant:
I really liked the interview with former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (Part 1, Part 2) and think its a must-see. The interview with Billy Crudup got me more excited about seeing The Watchmen (review to come?).
The Bad: They're still fighting culture wars against Fox News. That is kind of old hat to me.
Saturday Night Live (Yes, I still watch it)
I haven't actually watched it, but I've seen links to clips floating around online, so I'll probably watch this sometime. I just wanted to mention it.
Run, Fat Boy, Run
Running and especially running marathons seems to be a thing now so I'm very happy to review this movie. (Side note: I highly suggest watching this interpretation of marathons from HIMYM.)
The plot is nothing spectacular, but the charm of the movie is that it is funny and uplifting. The male lead is Simon Pegg, who I liked in Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, and the female lead is Thandie Newton, the woman from MI2 and Crash, and both do what they do fine. The story is basically this: out-of-shape, loserly Dennis Doyle (Pegg) leaves pregnant Libby Odell (Newton) at the alter and then wakes up one day to realize he made a huge mistake. Libby's boyfriend- Hank Azaria as Whit- is a big threat to take both Libby and Dennis' son away from Dennis. The battle for Libby's heart is fought in the arena of a marathon. A group of Dennis' friends get together to help him get in shape- hilarity ensues. Hank Azaria (from the Simpsons and probably some other stuff- but I couldn't stop hearing Simpsons voices whenever he spoke) seemed like an odd choice because he's nerdy but I think it worked in the end. The humor ranges from gross (but never over-the-top) to classic.
I recommend this if you're looking for light fare.
That's it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)