Paul Blart- Birthday Ruiner

It being a Sunday and having gone out the night before, the roommates and I opted to go to the Harris Teeter Redbox to rent a movie (for $1 I might add). When we got to the front, a line had formed and so after once through "Comedies" I said we should get Paul Blart: Mall Cop. Regular readers know that I'll give almost any movie a fair chance. I like Kevin James: King of Queens and what stand up of his I have seen. Bucking the critics, Paul Blart was a smash success at the box office, I figured, why not?

I'll tell you why not: people are idiots. It is terrible. It is completely predictable and not funny. When the bad guys take over the mall (am I ruining anything? no- this movie sucks) I thought I had fallen asleep and woke up to Home Alone 4: Kevin Really Let Himself Go. No redeeming quality to watching this movie.

Creamy Goodness

For all of you DC FroYo connoisseurs out there, there's this article on the best places to get frozen yogurt in DC. My vote is Mr. Yogato: free chocolate sprinkles and Seinfeld trivia/tetris/challenges/doing embarrassing things will get you free/reduced yogurt. Plus, they let max chill inside when we walked him there one day.

Soccer and more, lots more

ESPN gives soccer the short end of the sports stick a lot of the time, so I'm glad that the did this little feature on US soccer this summer. The pictures are great. The bad thing is that its a features article and not about soccer. Boo on that.

For those not soccer-ly inclined here is an article from my hometown press outlet. Its sort of about human rights but mostly just a human interest thing.

Upon a time

After hearing NPR stories and reading a lot of good reviews about Once, I was excited to watch it, but after such buildup I didn't want to dash the hopes I had for it.

Once is great. It is very touching, and I feel like it needed to be done because it is a low-budget indie-ish film that goes a different way than Hollywood romances. It is VERY cute: in one early scene the girl- whose name we never learn- brings her "Hoover sucker" (vacuum) to the guy- whose name we never learn- to fix it, and she ends up rolling it around town. At points its got a cerebral "what is love" sort of feel like Before Sunrise, but those moments do not dominate and are outnumbered by the number of times when the guy and girl share love.

Oh, plot summary, yes. It is about a guy and girl who meet while he is playing his heart out via guitar on the streets of Ireland. Her insistence at him acknowledging her (not in a romantic or sexual way, but more like "I'm not going to take the hints that you want me to leave, lets establish a platonic relationship because you are interesting.") eventually leads to them forming a romantic bond through music and off the movie goes. She helps him make the leap of faith and act on his dream of being a professional musician.

I loved the art of this movie. Multiple scenes are shot like a music video or a reality TV show. It made me want to go out and shoot a movie (I started playing around with the video editing software pre-installed on my computer after watching the movie). In the special features they talk about it being shot like a movie someone would make and that gives it a very real and approachable feel. The style enhances the simplicity of the story, sucking you in as a participant- sort of like being in the audience at a show- rather than as someone merely watching a movie. The principal actors have great chemistry. Lastly- and I hesitate to make this the last word, because music is a central part of the story-, it goes without saying that the music is fantastic (the most popular song from the soundtrack here).

Watch it.

Mala Hierba Buena

Season 4 of Weeds is completely different. The leave Agrestic/Majestic (or what's left of it) and "transplant" to San Diego. Nancy gets deeper than she ever wanted to and the family grows up a little bit more (Shane and Silas especially).

I'm not sure if I liked it. Nancy's conscience grows but there are not really any new frontiers on her personal troubles. She's still a crappy mom, a crappy friend, and has a messed up love life. The funniest story line of the season is Doug and Andy's coyote-with-a-heart-of-gold business. Because this aired last year, the commentary on the border seems a little stale (the major immigration reform dust up bruhaha was 2006).

Also, it sucked seeing Guillermo (Guillermo Diaz of "Half-Baked" and "Wrap it up B!") go from an affable if not a little scary guy to a complete villain. I like him and his comedy, so seeing a bad side of him was disappointing. Also, no Simon. Although, maybe the commentary on race and class had run its course.

The real slum, dog

One of the things that bothered me about Slumdog Millionaire was that it didn't explore the depths of poverty in India. It sort of glossed over it.

Born into Brothels does not. I'm not sure who recommended it or if I just heard about it because it won the Oscar for Best Documentary (?) in 2004, but it is fantastic. Not that long, but pretty powerful. The story follows a group of 9 children in Calcutta who live in a brothel in the red light district. An American photographer ("Zana Auntie") teaches them photography and gives them little cameras to go take pictures. Besides taking brilliant pictures of their little part of the world they are also dealing with some pretty real stuff. About half-way through the movie, it starts to focus on the American woman's attempts to intervene into their lives to get them into school. Scenes of the Indian bureaucracy messing up the kids names on their forms, rejections from schools, and resistance from the families and the kids send this story into some sad moments. Not going to ruin the ending, but I think its worth the watch.

Movie-wise a couple of things bothered me. First, the music is melodramatic and kind of diminishes what is an otherwise powerful film. Take away the music and there's a whole new ball game. Second, and maybe I'm comparing it too much to Mad Hot Ballroom (a MUST-see documentary about an inner-city ballroom dance competition in NY public schools) but the drama and intrigue are not strong. The kids are very sympathetic and their stories are compelling and heart-wrenching. But, the film tried to make it into a drama and not an expose on their lives. I think it could have done with less work in the editing room.

I think its available online (Netflix has it to stream or rent) and maybe at the video store. Check it out.

The most trusted name in news

I get random bits of information from Yahoo! because it is my home page (for now- read below). When I saw this article/blog post I was very appreciative of its timely relevance to my life.

As for Yahoo! being my home page, that may soon go by the wayside for several reasons. First, they change the layout so much that I'm tired of it trying to figure it out every so often. Not a big deal but its annoying. Second, I don't use their mail that much any longer (the funny e-mail name isn't as cure when you're 26 as it is when you're 13- when I got it). Third, the things that Yahoo! has been the most useful for- checking to see if I have an e-mail or not- is no longer available. I can't go to yahoo.com and see that I have (or don't) a new e-mail so, why not just go directly to mail.yahoo.com or to games.yahoo.com to play a crossword? Fourth, as my ironic blog title indicates, I get my "regular" news from other sources: NYTimes, WaPo, Chron.com, etc. so why flip through to Yahoo's webpage to see what they're saying?

The previous paragraph probably should be filed under the category of gratuitous posting of life's minutiae that maybe should be left to one's self. But, whateryagonna do.

A.O. Scott

One of the things I have enjoyed the most about the New York Times is the movie reviews in the Arts section. Often I find myself reading reviews of movies I have zero interest in watching just to read how others think of them. My favorite reviewer is A. O. Scott and until tonight I had never seen his face.

He review "Mad Max" in their video section of their website in this clip. Its short so there's not much there, but for other fans of his, I thought it might be interesting.

The mind of an unemployed person

So, I may be on a little bit of a blogging kick.

Last year I was informed of the foreign policy blog "Passport" by the magazine (wait for it) Foreign Policy. Everyday they do a Morning Brief entry with the day's most important goings on, etc. The title of this morning's post tickled me a little bit (I'm weird) because it reminded me of this.

Also, in case you just click the link and don't get to see the posts, there is this little piece of news that is sort of interesting. The post has a very snarky tone to it, which may or may not be appropriate.

VIVA LA HYPERLINK!

Let's open up the vault

If you're reading this you probably know me and that I'm willing to watch just about anything (also stated "I'm interested in seeing crappy movies"). There are some movies over the years that have escaped me for one reason or another and now with the invention of the Netflix queue and my laziness some of those movies arrive in my mailbox.

Ashley Judd and Tommy Lee Jones star in Double Jeopardy, a thriller where Ashley Judd's character (I think they said her name but she'd probably prefer it if you call her Ashley Judd's character) is framed for murdering her husband and sent to jail only to discover while in jail that her husband is still alive and has started a new life with her son and best friend. That is approximately the first 15 minutes. I'm not sure what happens in the next hour and a half because I blacked out from ODing on obvious plot "twists" and assertions of the strength of Ashley Judd's character (think Not Without My Daughter). Tom Lee Jones plays somebody that does something and we're supposed to be interested but JHC its terrible. I could've just written this: Double Jeopardy: its bad, don't see it. However, I know my readers expect- nay, demand an explanation.

I watched Confessions of A Dangerous Mind last week. I didn't want to write a review of that because I was only half paying attention but it was worth watching. Interesting for sure. I wish they'd played up the fact that his CIA experiences may not have actually happened and sort of taken a bigger picture (like Adaptation) view of his autobiography: a movie both about and from the book. Not a lot to write about it b/c I wasn't immersed in it but its got some spy stuff and the visual effects are pretty neat (I was reminded at some points of Europa, Europa- I don't remember why).

OH, OH. A movie I watched that I really liked was Bloody Sunday. It was done in 2002 and won an indy award for making a political statement or promoting peace (something like that). Its about the Sunday in Dairy, Ireland (the Northern part) where British paratroopers killed a bunch (13) of innocent* people. Never having learned the story and knowing disappointingly little about the event (the one from the U2 song) I was amazed about the story. The frustrating sequence of events that led to unnecessary death was displayed masterfully. I was moved. The acting is phenomenal and art (camera work and lighting, especially) are amazing. I would watch this again for sure.

*= asterisk.

Royal disappointment

On my friend Danielle's recommendation I started watching the six episodes of Kings that they aired this past year. The premise was interesting- it is loosely based on the story of the great Jewish kings- and I'm a sucker for a new TV show so away I went last night and today.

The pilot (Goliath pts 1 and 2) is EPIC. If it were a movie I would've paid to watch it (luckily it is free at NBC.com and Hulu.com until Sept. 20). My crappy internet connection made it take a LONG time to watch, but I had to. It is incredible. So full of promise. The best parts were the character of David Shepherd (as in David vs. Goliath- a name that also makes an appearance) and the romance between David and the King's daughter. Plus they threw a plethora of story lines out there, so it looked like it was going to be an incredible show.

Oh, what could have been! Watching episodes 2-5 was so disappointing. David becomes a naive, impotent boy. The greatest story line- the rise of a smart, daring, passionate man to power based on a sense of fairness- gets thrown in the trash in favor of palace intrigue. All of the power plays that were alluded in the first episode (great and terrible people doing great and terrible things) become cloak and dagger boring minutiae.  Oh, and Macaulay Culkin shows up in the 5th episode. 

The actress who plays the princess is the best, by far. The actor who plays the king es no bueno. He's got no range and his character has some serious issues that need someone to show something besides arrogance.

I'll probably watch this one until they stop making them (a la The Black Donnellys- one of whom plays one of David's brother in Kings) but this show is unsustainable. For some reason I heard that it was cancelled/not picked up for the fall but have not confirmed.

Recommendation: watch the pilot and then wait until you hear some buzz (from me or someone else) about the show. 

UPDATE: The end of Episode 6 is better and more intriguing than the rest...

I forgot to mention that the music is terrible and that the use of the butterfly (a MONARCH naturally) is weird and does not work.

But is such happiness sustainable?

On my brother's recommendation I checked out the pilot for Glee. I liked it and will be watching when it comes on again in the fall(?). The action centers around the Glee Club's advisor and the kids in the club itself (focusing on a couple, with the others not receiving much attention). 

The setting is in a stereotypical high school with the standard cliques (jocks, cheerleaders, etc.). Very similar to High School Musical there are stigmas attached to artistic activities and crossing over is taboo. Also similar to HSM one of the main characters is a jock unsatisfied with being just one thing. There are a lot of characters and the pilot sets up many possible story lines within and among characters.

The question is, though, can all of the story lines be original and entertaining? High school has been the setting for many different stories (too many to list) so I can see it getting stale quickly. Nevertheless, I'm looking forward to seeing how it develops.

Back and Bloodier than ever.

The school year ended and I have some packing to avoid, so I'm back at the reviewing game.

Talking about Blood Diamond last night neither Jake nor Geoff could come up with a happy movie set in Africa in the past 10 years (Lion King is too old). And that's the way this goes. Set in Sierra Leone, Solomon Vandy (Djimon Hounsou of Amistad and Gladiator) is separated from his family and forced to mine for diamonds. He finds a big 'un and is about to get killed over it when he miraculously is able to escape after hiding the diamond. Danny Archer (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a Zimbabwean (nee Rhodesian) profiteer who learns of the diamond and tries to get Solomon to take it to him. Add the American Maddy Bowen (Jennifer Connelly) as the reporter who is trying to land a big story on the diamond trade and we've got a movie.

Two thoughts jumped out at me: 1) The plot is pretty standard and some of the action seems unreal. Coincidences and close calls make some of the movie eye-rollingly unoriginal. To be clear, the plot isn't bad, just nothing surprising. 2) A lot of it is too real, baring the atrocities in an un-gratuitous and revealing way. The violence isn't shocking for how it is depicted, it is shocking for what it is. Included in that is the violence committed against the young boys who are changed into child soldiers.

A big interesting theme that runs throughout the movie is the question of what should the rest of the world be doing in Sierra Leone? At times that question is uncomfortable as American culture and attention to suffering around the world is indicted. However, the movie is ultimately thought-provoking rather than accusatory.

I recommend Blood Diamonds with the caveat that its not great and you will see women and children die.

No time for the Jibba Jabba

From the Presidents- they're just like us! files here is an article about Barack Obama's TV preferences. 

No time for long posts but here is some quick hits:

TV

Lost- loving it, the plot is moving fast.

House- thanks, world, for ruining the major change to the show before I had a chance to watch it.

Movies

Zack and Miri make a Porno- don't see. I was excited to see the movie because I like most of the elements (Kevin Smith, Seth Rogan, Elizabeth Banks, Craig Robinson, etc.) but it was bad. The best part was Jason Mewes (Jay of Jay and Silent Bob) who played a dumb guy instead of his normal character. 

Is THIS why we lost?!?!

Seriously, what. the. frick.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Okay, you've got to see this

A MUCH better clip.

A clip from last week's SNL

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:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

The Deer Hunter

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

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.

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.

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:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

White House Press Corps

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Joke of the Day

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!

Lexicology

Watching the clip of President Obama at the Wizards-Bulls game a thought occurred to me: can you call the President the "leader of the free world"? It seems like a Cold War anachronism because the world is not bipolar anymore. Also, in what sense(s) could you call the U.S. the "leader"? Certainly we have the plurality of military and economic might, but in what areas have we led lately?

Other thought: should the president be doing in expensive activities like going to NBA games? I love that we have a personable president who gets out and enjoys basketball.  It seems to be a political risk because it may not portray the proper thrift that the times demand.

Indiana Jones and the Unnecessary Sequel

I really enjoyed the Indiana Jones movies growing up and fondly remember playing the Last Crusade computer game (where you just do what he did in the movie) in 5th grade computer class. So, I was wary about ruining my affection for those movies with a 66-year old Harrison Ford.

Sadly, I was proven correct. The movie is completely unbelievable... as in non-believable. The story involves aliens and Communists (Nazi-thwarting is way more entertaining) and surviving a nuclear explosion and a tough-guy Shia LaBeouf and monkey-kids (all the depiction of South Americans are shamefully racist) that haunt ruins and ESP. I did not put any of that in a spoiler section because it all happens in the first 30-45 minutes. In the first action sequence Harrison Ford is trying to escape and it looks baaaad. I mean, I think they sped up the tape to make him look like he was climbing and running faster than he was. The combined effect makes this movie entirely over-the-top non-believable. The Lost Ark and the Last Crusade (the good ones of the three) are predicated on historical/religious lore. This one is all made up stuff with splashes of historical plausibility.

The worst part of the whole thing, is that if this movie didn't have the Indiana Jones label, it would not have been made. The movie has no art in it anywhere. The casting of Shia is a transparent way of extending the franchise (or at least testing the waters).  I hope the producers recognize the mistake they have made and just let the series end.

Positivity section: There is an extended care chase/fight scene that is entertaining and sort of reminiscent of the car chase/fight scene in the Last Crusade. It too, however, is riddled with weirdness and unbelievability.

Recommendation: Don't see it unless its on TV, there's nothing else on and you won't really be paying attention.

No new Office?!

The fact that all my favorite TV shows took a week off is very disappointing. I did find this outtake from last week's episode Lecture Circuit, Part 2. Enjoy!

First Lost Post

[Note: As this blog gets underway I will preface my thoughts on any particular episode by talking about my general opinions about the TV show. But just for the first time I talk about a show. Also, when I talk about TV shows, I'm not going to separate spoilers.]

Preface: I really like Lost. I've seen every episode twice (at least) to keep past events fresh in my mind. It probably goes with out saying that the biggest part of my attraction to the show is trying to figure out what's going on before they reveal it. I like the supernatural aspects of the show. Part of me feels that the island is really (and has been all along) an allegory for purgatory but they did it too obviously so they've been giving other possibilities to throw the viewers off. I also like talking about it, because everyone sees different things in the shows. As much as I like it, I'm not on any of the message boards and I don't obsess over the little things in the episodes. There are contextual consistencies that the production crew maintains, but I'm not sure that they build foreshadowing and hidden information into the episodes.

316: I thought this episode was disappointing. I almost wrote that this episode was boring... but it wasn't. It moves the action from LA back to the island but we didn't learn anything, except five of the six (plus Ben, Locke's body, and Lapidus) get back to the island. We meet Jack's grandfather, but I doubt he will be important. I suspect that maybe Jack's grandfather has been to the island, based on nothing more than, his tone, speculation and the existence of some other generational ties to the island (Charlotte and Miles). The actor who plays the grandfather was well-cast because he had a pretty close "Shepherd" look and voice.

The episode is titled "316" which sounds like John 3:16,

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (From Wikipedia)

By flying on Flight 316 to get back to the island are they getting everlasting life? Does it simply mean that because they believe Ms. Hawking they won't die on Flight 316? This would reinforce the religious allegory (say... purgatory) assertion. 

Which brings me to my current big big-picture question: Is Jack going to be the island's new permanent leader (the position that Ben was in, which Locke took over)? I have always thought that Jack is the center of the show. I mean, the VERY first image you see in the pilot is Jack. Locke is dead (right? maybe he'll come back to life- like Jack's dad- when they reach the island a la purgatory) and Ben left the island so he may not be the central figure when they reach the present day. Plus Jack's dad is Jacob's face/voice (or maybe actually Jacob?!) so he has a tie to the island's spirit (which would be reinforced if Jack's grandfather had been to the island too). Towards the bottom of the resume: Jack was the force behind the Losties and I don't think that was a coincidence. 

Side note: The Jack character bothers me sometimes when the story has him shaped by events, rather than shaping events. He's the leader of the Losties (Jack SHEPHERD, comeon?) and should be kicking ass and taking names. 

Interesting Plot Questions: Where is Aaron? Does his absence affect anything? If you remember way back, the fortune teller implored Claire (where is she btw?) to raise Aaron herself... His absence has to be significant. 

Why would Sun leave her kid? It seems implausible for her to leave her child to look for Jin.

Did Ben kill Penelope? I'm pretty sure the "promise" that Ben went to keep was to kill Widmore's daughter. Since she was there with Desmond, I think that could explain it. This could be a device to get Desmond back to the island (kill Ben, resurrect her because the island is purgatory, etc.).

Other thoughts: 

1) I've gotten into Ken Ken, the Soduku-like game that the NYT puts next to the daily crossword. It's fun.

2) T-Mac ruins my day. For the first few years in the league he was my favorite player. I was ecstatic when he came to the Rockets. But now, I resent him and see him as just another player. I don't want to hear any more about him unless its "T-Mac for ____" until he is dressing for games.

Inappropriate pun

Hancock. Right off the bat, with the title, things aren't looking good. But, I've watched many Will Smith blockbusters and consider them a part of my formative years (ID4, Bad Boys, Men in Black, Ali, I Robot, etc.) and am a HUGE fan of Fresh Prince. Plus, I like superhero TV (maybe not any more) and movies so I had to give this one a looksy.

Rating: Its not bad, but its not good. 

If you're watching the movie, you're probably prepared for a blockbuster and so aren't looking for any meaning out of your experience. You don't expect character development, significant statements on life/the world, and you don't really care if there is logical consistency (See Spoiler Section Note 2). Also, you expect a small degree of homophobic, racist, and sexist remarks and portrayals that demonstrate "mainstream" views or "everyman-ness" (gender bias intended). This movie had some (especially up front), but didn't beat you over the head with machoness and only had a taste of homophobia.

I like the flawed superhero aspect (super people can have emotions and personal shortcomings too!). Also, the financial toll that he wreaked on the city was an amusing touch of realism. Everyone in the movie played their parts well, but no one made their career on this movie.

At the same time, I was not entertained. The effects are okay, but it seems like they implied more than they actually show. They talk about the messed up stuff (destroyed buildings, trains, etc.) and flash some digital images (not bad quality, but obvious) of destruction here and there to paint the picture but, as long as you're taking me there, bring it. See Spoiler Section Note 1.

Another crucial aspect that was missing was any sort of interesting aspect to the story. Jason Bateman (I don't know if his character's name is ever said, its certainly not important) is trying to reform Hancock- this isn't giving away anything. The natural story line is for the superhero to try and reform and mess up a bunch of times on his path towards goodness- hilarity ensues. Instead, the answer is for him to go to prison. Not funny or interesting. There is an unforeseen twist that comes about 5/8 of the way into the movie, but it completely changes the movie into a weird sort of romance thing. The climactic action is fairly obvious although the villain does not enter into the equation until 20 minutes left into the movie. Probably not giving too much away by saying that there is room for a sequel here (although, to be fair, even if the end had not been favorable to a sequel the $62 million opening weekend and $227 million gross probably is favorable for a sequel) but please no.

Best Part of the Movie: Charlize Theron (her, her character, and um...her)

Biggest pet peeve: no good one-liners. 

Biggest let down: No allusions to Jason Bateman and Charlize Theron's previous collaboration on Arrested Development. (At least that I could see... I wasn't going to watch it again to find them).

Best thing to do if you're not going to really watch the movie: Scour the internet for updates on the possible Vince Carter trade to Houston.

(Warning: spoilers below)

----------------

Spoiler section- for further commentary on things that give away information.

1. The superhero fight scene could have been a lot better. It was a lot of close up shots of them wrestling, and it seems like the hallmark of superhero fighting is creative use of your surroundings, which that scene didn't really have.

2. Logical Consistency- So, if they are weaker when they're around each other- why didn't Hancock die when Charlize Theron threw him through the house? He- and a fridge- went through a wall into several cars and into the street- what's up with that? Moreover, how come they didn't kill each other when they were fighting? Even if the argument is that they had to have strong feelings of love for them to become weak, why didn't Charlize die? She didn't lose her memory and still loved him.

What up

Lucy's doing it and Arianna Huffington told me I should be doing it too. Good enough for me!

Welcome to Will's Reviews! I will use this web log to provide the world with my opinions on all of the TV and bad movies I watch, because frankly I don't waste enough time on them as it is. Also, some Houston, Texas, sports, politics, and Duke basketball-related matters might appear from time-to-time.