The Shrine of the Silver Monkey

I'm Back

2009-06-18T15:07:00.000-07:00

Sorry about the hiatus. I've been job hunting and then I spent the last weekend getting crazy at Bonnaroo. If you want to read about the experience at what we'll generously call my day job, check out the article:

RIGHT HERE

What happened while I was gone? The Hangover was big (um...Zack Galifianakis was good), the Braves have gone into the toilet (just in time to face the Sox, the Yanks, and the Phils), and I got Ghostbusters the game. In the next week I'll try to post some old reviews that aren't online, explain my unnecessarily complicated new rating system, and write my much-postponed article about the female equivalent of a bro.

Project Natal

2009-06-01T12:25:00.000-07:00

For those of you who have lives/jobs and weren't watching the Microsoft keynote address at E3, you missed the announcement of Project Natal, a motion sensor gaming apparatus that XBox 360 hopes will make controllers obsolete, beat the Wii, and give them some of that sweet, sweet casual gamer money. Unlike the Wii, Project Natal allows you to control the 360 with your entire body. You can navigate the menu by waving your hand around, and play games by moving your body, legs, and head too. This could be a game changer, but I have a few questions.

Question 1: Does it work?

This kind of goes without saying, but this is all meaningless if it doesn't work. I'm not at E3 and thus have not tried it, but the thing they used in the demo worked pretty effectively. But can it work that well in your living room? Can it improve upon the Wii's motion sensor (which I'd give about a B-)? I guess what this really depends on is the difference between trying to detect a controller and trying to detect a body.

Question 2: Is this an effective mode for gaming?

Another Wii-inspired question, but one that needs asking. There was a time when the Wiimote was going to revolutionize gameplay, but today all its good for lame gimmicks and mini-game collections. Outside of a few of the Nintendo regulars (specifically Galaxy and Zelda), there's really been no games that have found an interesting way to use the Wiimote and still functioned on a creative, artistic level. There's been 0 third party success, and very little success outside of the minigames or the youth-oriented games. And many games (especially third-party ports) feel like they've shoe-horned in motion sensitivity and it becomes a burden instead of a perk.

So is that the path that awaits Natal? Not necessarily. For one thing, the Wii has been hamstrung by its weak graphics engine. And the problem with most of the Wiimote controls is the boil down to wiggling or wanking (for lack of a better term) the controller, which feels pretty silly and asinine. Natal's 3D motion sensor could allow for more natural movement and a much larger range of options. But, then again, a lot of the Wii's games are just too simple-minded because they're made by hardcore gamers aimed at casual ones, resulting in gameplay that feels condescendingly straightforward. But this is a developer problem and Microsoft's developer outreach is still second-to-none. There's nothing inherently wrong with pursuing casual gamers, but the game still has to fun to play.

Question #3: Are we ready to move past the word "game" in "gaming console"?

I'm still not convinced that, even if Natal takes off, we'll be seeing Resident Evil 6 or Bioshock 3 played without a controller. And as Molyneux's presentation (as well as the paint thing) showed, the implications of Project Natal stretch far beyond playing games. Molyneux seemed to be interested in creating a crude, proto-Skynet with that vaguely creepy kid who will be your friend. There's also the simple way that a lack of a controller would change the way you navigate the 360. The microphone and camera could provide a new, Horizonsesque way of interacting with your friends. Add this to the fact that the 360 can now stream live TV (in the UK), play 1080p movies and TV on demand instantly, and will soon have Facebook and Twitter, we're heading towards a world where the gaming console is the media and social hub of your living room. However, since they said that the number of console owners is still under 50% (if my memory serves). Is pitching the XBox as some sort of family entertainment center the ay to get boxes in the rest of those houses? Can it beat the PS3 on that front (or, to ask that another way, does Minority Report-style menu control trump a BluRay)?

So, in conclusion, Project Natal is an interesting new development. However, for Microsoft to pull off what they want to pull off, they're going to need to pay close attention to where the Wii went wrong and make sure that Natal is an innovation, not a gimmick, that is supported by a broad cross-section of talented designers.

P.S. They also announced the first ten songs on Rock Band: The Beatles. No "Helter Skelter" or "Drive My Car" yet, but the picks are solid and the idea of being able to use up to three microphones to sing harmony is really cool. Here's the trailer.

How to Fix Angels and Demons

2009-05-26T15:12:00.000-07:00

Just to get this out of the way up top, I did not like Angels and Demons, nor am I a fan of Dan Brown (I read 50 pages of Angels and Demons, thought it was dumb, and put it down). However, I think the Langdon movies are a gigantic missed opportunity that, if done right, could have been a lot of fun. Here's my advice on how to fix it:

Step 1: Replace Tom Hanks: There are two directions to take Robert Langdon. He could be a clear, unsophisticated action hero (a la Indiana Jones), but that's a little tired and I don't think that's what appeals to people about Langdon. So, instead, the best course would be to go in the other direction and make him a total nerd. But Tom Hanks isn't convincing in either part, he's in bland, nice guy mode and loses that snarky edge that makes him so appealing when he's at his best. Instead, why not go for Paul Giamatti, who could perfectly nail the awkwardness, the dorky intellectualism, and the prickly, somewhat antisocial exterior that tends to characterize brilliant college professors.

Step 2: Fire Ron Howard: Ron Howard really only ever works in one mode: lofty, Oscar-contender. His comedies are middlebrow, his dramas are middlebrow, and it was no shock that his action film lacked any sense of fun or excitement or grit, and you've got to have one of those to make a good action movie. A better choice would have been someone like J.J. Abrams, Matthew Vaughn, or, if you want a reach, Brad Bird.

Step 3: Throw the book out: Watching Robert Langdon stand around and solve puzzle after puzzle is about as compelling as watching your grandmother do a Sudoku. The crushing flood of history lessons and word problems may work in prose, but it absolutely does not on film. So boil the plot down to the bare essentials, toss everything else out, and make an adventure movie. Still not convinced? Read the source materials for Jaws and Rear Window and then watch the movies.

Step 4: Let Langdon be Langdon: Robert Langdon is, to put it mildly, a bit of an asshole. He whines about 500 year old censorship, he bitches at Vatican officials about locking out his research when there's a bomb about to go off, and he's generally uncooperative. So why does everyone bat their eyelashes and go on as if he's just given them an interesting history lesson? And why does the script seem to play it like Langdon's just a normal guy. I say, let Langdon be an asshole, make him a bigger asshole, and let that give the film a much needed dose of humor. Just think of how awesome this film was if it had the symbology equivalent of Jeff Daniels' character from The Squid and the Whale trying to save the world.

Step 5: Try a Little Tenderness: Going along that line, if you're going to pair Langdon up with hot women, why not have him hit on them? And (and this is the important part) have them not reciprocate. At all. It makes him more of a doofus and gives the film another sly way to both nod at and subvert its predecessor: the Indiana Jones series.

Step 6: While We're At It, Give the Females Something To Do: Pretty self-explanatory.

Step 7: Drop the Idiotic Mystery: Its so obvious who the bad guy is from the start, and its a distraction that makes the whole film a lot less interesting. Give us a bad guy and give us a really good one.

Step 8: Less Talk, More Rock: The biggest fight or action scene in Angels and Demons is Robert Langdon versus a glass wall. This is unacceptable. BLOW THINGS UP.

Step 9: Fix the Ending: Clearly, this movie should end with it turning out that all the Cardinals are actually aliens. Then, when Langdon defeats them all, with no one left able to lead the Catholic Church, he becomes the new Pope, ushering in a new, pro-science era. AND THEN THE VATICAN EXPLODES. Cut to black.

Top 10 Country Histories

2009-05-19T17:59:00.000-07:00

In the spirit of last week's top ten, here's a new top ten list: the ten countries with the coolest history:

1. France - France has got the two things I'm most interested in: awesome wars and rich, powerful people having sex with each other. Its also got my favorite revolution, because how many other revolutions featured the guillotine and deteriorated into tyranny so bad that Napoleon looked good?

2. England - English history teeters off a little bit after the Georges take over, but man the Tudors did some crazy things. Pretty much any king who got a Shakespeare play is awesome and their civil war is pretty exciting. Plus they have their own William Henry Harrison: Lady Jane Grey, who was Queen for 9 days.

3. Russia - Russia had czars instead of kings, a fucking wizard who advised their leader, and a revolution. So, why not number one? Because this is apparently a myth.

4. Japan - This ranking isn't just about the samurai...

5. China - They keep to themselves, and I respect that. But they're also missing out on the next level sex and violence of some of these other countries.

6. Ethiopia - Did you know Ethiopia was never colonized by a European power? Because Ethiopians are pretty hardcore.

7. America - We're too young to be any higher, but we've packed some cool shit into the last 400 years, between the pilgrims, the Revolution, the West, and the 1920s.

8. Italy - Yeah, you had the Roman Empire, but except for the Renaissance (which is more of an artistic movement and not really involved in this discussion) there hasn't been much else to Italian history.

9. India - I find India's colonial period absolutely fascinating, plus four major religions started there.

10. Australia - Did your country start as a prison colony? That's what I thought.

Here comes Medlen

2009-05-15T18:40:00.000-07:00

Braves fans know that Tommy Hanson is the future, but if you haven't been watching Gwinnett closely, you may not know about Kris Medlen. He's kind of like the Robin to Hanson's Batman if Robin led the minors in ERA (0.96) and was 5-0, having not given up an earned run in his last 3 starts. To learn more about Kris Medlen, check here. Still, I'm shocked and a little excited to see that its Medlen, not Hanson, who is getting called up to replace Reyes in the rotation. The reasoning is that he's just a placeholder until Glavine's ready to come back (I'll believe it when I see it) and that makes sense to me, but as someone who has become a Kris Medlen fan (because of his versatility - moving from shortstop to closer to relief to starter - the fact that he's not the whiz kid favorite that Hanson is, and his interviews, where he seems like a pretty down-to-earth guy), I'm rooting for him to dominate in his big chance in the spotlight. I've also heard rumors that he may be tradebait, rumors that I hope are false because the idea of a 2012 Braves rotation with Hanson, Jurrjens, and Medlen makes me happy in my pants.

Holy Crapy, Lost!!!!

2009-05-14T15:49:00.000-07:00

I will post a full Lost recap when I can wrap my mind around it, so for now, here are a few stray notes:

1. What if everything we saw this year (perhaps ever) is the attempt of a few Desmond-like people to slightly alter the timeline. Just like how Desmond couldn't change the fact of Charlie's death but he could change when it happened, maybe the bomb was always going to go off in 2004 when Desmond turned the key, they were able to slightly manipulate events they knew of to take advantage of the island's unique time-travelling properties to get the bomb to go off in 1977 instead. Who are they? And to what end would they change it? I couldn't really say.

2. If Ben had never seen Jacob, then he was clearly lying at the cabin. So maybe it wasn't Jacob in the cabin at all, but the Man in black from the beginning (hereafter known, as in the cast list, as Man 2). Man 2 has spent the past two seasons manipulating Locke (and Ben) into thinking he was Jacob (another long con) in order to get around whatever that loophole was. In the same vein, I think that MiB is the smoke monster or else has some control over it. I'm betting that Locke is another version of the Christian Shepard thing. Maybe Jacob did something to MiB, disembodying him into that black cloud, so now he can only take on the form of dead things on the island. To take that another (perhaps too ridiculous) step further, maybe MiB and Jacob are manifestations of the island's unique electromagnetic and time travelling properties.

3. All in all, I thought that was one of the most intriguing and moving episodes of Lost ever. I have no idea where this show is going or what season six will look like (did the bomb change anything? And, if so, how will the new timeline still be able to resolve the 2007 cliffhanger?) Well played, Lost. Well played

Watching the Watchmen: Casiotone Part 1, The Music Problem

2009-05-11T13:50:00.001-07:00

Watching the Watchmen is a semi-regular feature where I ~~whine about~~ explore questions and problems related to writing pop culture criticism.

I have a couple of problems with this review of the new Casiotone for the Painfully Alone album. So why don't we all read it, listen to some of it on the lala sidebar, and then reconvene here.

I think that all in all, this is a pretty thoughtful review of an excellent record that does a good job of breaking down its main thematic motif: child panic and the societal expectation to be a parent. The record's focus on criminals, and its subsequent turn with the boyfriend-wants-you-to-get-an-abortion stunner "Killers," reflects the idea that its kind of criminal in our culture not to settle down and make some babies. That's what society expects you to do, which is why the record spends so much time making these old school, folk hero-type ballads about bank robbers, painting them as romantic Dillinger-esque social rebels.

But there's a gaping hole in this music review: only one sentence is actually about the music. Aside from a parenthetical at the end, there's no mention of what the record sounds like. And sure, the project's name kind of perfectly describes the sound that Ashwroth is going for, but that doesn't mean there's not interesting things to mine with the music. For example, the way the jangly tambourine and piano give a more traditional folk ballad feel to the album compared to Ashworth's more electronic work. And the way that music compliments Ashworth's lyrics about criminals, giving a Depression-era feel that evokes Bonnie and Clyde as strongly as the album art or the words. And not even a mention of the "When the Saints Go Marching In" quote in "Optimist Vs. The Silent Alarm?"

I empathize with this problem because, as someone with no background in music theory or composition, I have a very hard time analyzing what's actually happening in the music. The temptation is to latch onto the words because they're easier to wrap my mind around and actually understand. But ignoring the music only gives you half the story and the story of this Casiotone album is one of a musician adjusting his sound in subtle, but very smart ways. The review misses what Ashworth has actually achieved with Vs. Children, how his sound has evolved, and the way this record achieves such a quietly moving catharsis during the slow-burn ending. I don't mean that music writers need to know everything about music or spend paragraphs painstakingly detailing chord progressions. But a film review wouldn't ignore the behind the scenes elements like cinematography and editing, and a game review wouldn't ignore the actual process of playing a game.

Stay tuned for Part 2, where we look explore ratings systems and just how much of a difference a tenth of a point can make

Boldly Seeking Change

2009-05-11T11:42:00.000-07:00

I didn't get the chance to talk about this in my Star Trek review (which, if all goes well, could actually be online this week, details forthcoming), but I think that Star Trek is the perfect blockbuster to kick off the Obama Presidency.

What's at the heart of Star Trek (standard caveat: I'm not a Trekker, but I've seen most of the movies, I just get bored by the TV shows) is Roddenbery's upbeat view of a future where human ingenuity has overcome our baser instincts. Earth unites under a single governing body and racism and sexism are no longer problems. Its an idea that I'm sure seemed pressingly relevant in 1964, as did the notion of a future where we had a robust fleet of spaceships committed to exploring new worlds. Unfortunately, pretty much everything that has happened since has pretty much made that notion seem ridiculous. There's been the Vietnam War, Watergate, Reagan, 9/11, and George Bush have created a world more polarized and divided than ever, racism and sexism are still major problems, and America's interest in scientific discovery and advancement has been replaced by religious fanaticism and the Grapple. Star Trek has been having problems since the waning days of The Next Generation and there are all kinds of reasons why: the nerd stigma that became attached to the series, the hopelessly complex mythology that mortals had no hope of grasping, the lack of writing, and the stodgy refusal to let the series naturally grow and move forward are all to blame. However, on a deeper level, Star Trek was dying because it didn't speak to the world we lived in.

But the election of Obama has changed that. Not only is it a big step forward for civil rights, but it makes me feel less foolish for hoping for a truly better world. And, looking at what really matters, it created a situation where an optimistic view of the future could come into vogue again. I think its no accident that the first trailer for Star Trek featured a speech from John F. Kennedy or that Kirk's joyride is underscored by a Beastie Boys song. Star Trek can be our world if we want it to be, and there's something very exciting about that.

There are, I think, a number of factors behind Star Trek's big opening weekend (which hopefully won't lead to a second week cratering like Wolverine deservedly got) - including J.J. Abrams' populist bent and the fact its suddenly cool to be a geek - but I think it says something about the national mindset that, a year after obsessing over the paranoia and bleakness of The Dark Knight, that we're finally ready for a movie that makes us feel good about our future again.

Top 10 Fast Food Restaurants

2009-05-06T08:27:00.000-07:00

Inspired by this week old post on KSK (and a desire not to do my work), here's my Top 10 fast food restaurants in order:

1. The Varsity: Perhaps a slight tinge of nostalgia is what powered this over IAO for the number one, but whatever the reason, I've got to take The Varsity first for two reasons. First, the onion rings, which may be the most perfect onion rings in human history. And second, the peach and apple pies which blow my mind. Oh yeah, and this.

2. In N Out Burger: Pretty much the universal number one, and with good reason. Essentially McDonald's evil twin, In N Out Burger focuses on the basics (all you can get are burgers, fries, and milkshakes) but they get them perfect. The secret: the spread, which takes the one thing McDonald's gets right (the secret sauce) and makes it even better. Just read about the Animal Style Burger and tell me you're not starving.

3. Cook Out: As far as I know, they've just kept these in North Carolina, because they know that if they get out, the entire country will weigh 300 pounds. For 3 or 4 dollars, you can get a combo that is a) delicious b) not ridiculously filling and c) includes chicken nuggets AS A SIDE ITEM. That's right, you can get a hamburger, french fries, and CHICKEN FUCKING NUGGETS. And an awesome milkshake.

4. Zaxby's: The Wings and Things meal consists of the following: The Best Fast Food Buffalo Wing (suck it Buffalo Wild Wings), their delicious chicken finger which, while not superior the Chik-Fil-A on its own, gets the edge thanks to Zax Sauce, some damn good fries, and Texas Toast. I've also over the last couple of years become a fan of their kettle chips, which are neither too soft and greasy nor too crispy and old.

5. Five Guys: I always get exactly the same hamburger everytime I go to Five Guys (lettuce, pickle, grilled onions, sauteed mushrooms, A1 sauce) but because their menu has 25 different toppings, I feel like I have so many more options than I would otherwise. Then, when you order your meal, not only do you get a massive amount of fries in a cup, but they take an additional scoop of fries and dump them in your bag. Plus, they have peanuts, which are always fun.

6. Chik-Fil-A: This is the thing I've missed the most over the last four years. What makes Chik-Fil-A work is the simplicity: just a bun, chicken breast, and pickles. There are some people out there who will tell you that their waffle fries are inferior to normal fries. Those people are morons.

7. Skyline: The Southeast bias on this list has admittedly been a little extreme, so here's something from America's heartland. I think adding fries was a bit of a mistake, but the five way, coneys, and oyster crackers are still so good.

8. White Castle: White Castle has taken gross, disgusting fast food expediency and turned it into an artform. There's something refreshingly honest about a burger patty that's faker than Steak-Ums and a bun streaked with grease. Plus, no burger makes better use of onion and its so satisfyingly gluttonous to walk into a restaurant and order 5 hamburgers.

9. Chipotle: In an alternate universe where In N Out Burger is the nation's number one fast food chain, Chipotle is our Taco Bell. The sheer, ridiculous weight of the burrito means that I almost always eat myself sick, but its worth it. And they use fresh, natural ingredients, which is always nice.

10. Panera Bread: The bread is fresh, the soup and salad is good, and the cookies and muffin tops are delicious. A solid choice when the grease and mass of numbers 1-9 are just too intimidating.

Shorter Hazards of Love Review

2009-03-11T21:16:00.000-07:00

The Decemberists have finally made their full-on, no holds barred, Black Sabbath record. Don't sweat the narrative (it doesn't really matter that much) and you'll have a good time.

Longer review forthcoming.

An Open Letter to Football Night in America

2008-12-21T14:33:00.001-08:00

Dear Football Night in America,

Please use the flex option to make Packers-Lions the Week 17 game. History may be made a Lambeau Field and we all deserve the chance to gather around and toast this awesome season one last time, with a historic game that has absolutely no playoff implications.

5 Things I'm Still Trying to Understand from Week 12

2008-11-25T18:03:00.000-08:00

A little football for you guys, with what we hope will be a weekly segment:

1. The Panthers Defense: A little homerism out of the way. I haven't been able to watch a full Panthers game all year (stupid Ohio), but I was under the impression that our strong point was the defense. Boy was I wrong! 45 points? Against Matt Ryan? Where was Julius Peppers? Jon Beason? I'll put it this way: when Jake Delhomme is the high point, its a bad day for Carolina.

2. Randy Moss: Dear Randy Moss, you have sucked this season. Its not entirely your fault. Prettyboy got taken down in week one and since then you've had Matt Leinart's backup throwing 5-10 yard passes. So when Miami decides to shift coverage towards people who, you know, ARE GETTING THROWN TO, its not a personal assault on your honor.

3. Joey Porter: Let's choose to think of J-Po as an overachiever - the kid in the class who complains when he gets an A- - and not a 250 pound infant with a god complex.

4. The Titans WR Corps: HAHAHAHA. Remember when these guys were going to win the Super Bowl? Thank you Jets. Thank you so much.

5. 837 points: You know what the crazy thing is? Oakland, Buffalo, and Kansas City combined for 116 of those points.

Next week: Thanksgiving football becomes even more meaningless! Chicago and Minnesota try to sort out who's the least mediocre! I am forced to root for Marmalard!

I have a problem

2008-11-09T18:11:00.000-08:00

This is the Buffalo Dipped Chicken Sandwich

Its one of two flavor dipped chicken sandwiches at Wendy's (the other is a BBQ sauce one). The concept is simple, take one of Wendy's fried chicken breasts and soak it in delicious, delicious sauce.

I'm not going to lie, this looks like the best thing fast food has ever created. I would unspeakable things to this sandwich if I ever got my hands on one. And yet, I can't bring myself to go to Wendy's to eat it. Money and time make it very rare for me to find a time to actually be able to go and eat out and, frankly, when the opportunity comes it feels like it would be a waste to go to Wendy's.

And yet this sandwich is haunting me. Somehow every TV show I watch on every channel features advertising for this sandwich. It seems to be following me around, everywhere I go, haunting me. Everyone I talk to about it (and believe me, I've talked to a number of people about it) seems to think this is the most disgusting thing they've ever heard of, and they think I'm crazy. Some day I will eat this sandwich. And it will be glorious.

The new Los Campesinos!

2008-09-19T13:11:00.001-07:00

I got We Are Beautiful, We Are Doomed last night and all I can say is goddamn. Releasing two albums in seven months is hard enough, but releasing two that are this good? This is a very special band.

NEW CHARLIE KAUFMAN! WOO!

2008-09-19T12:16:00.000-07:00

Yes, after what has felt like a very long four years, Charlie Kaufman has a new movie coming out. And it looks strange. In the best way possible.

While you're killing time before it comes out, why not check out this 2 and a half hour long interview that Wired has posted from him.

Gossip Girl

2008-09-16T12:40:00.000-07:00

At the risk of surrendering my man license, allow me to make the following confession: My name is Jonathan Gardner and I’m addicted to Gossip Girl. Its not because of the writing, which is stilted and asinine at best. And its not because of the acting (apparently drama classes are not offered at the anonymous prep school that the characters attend). But on a much deeper level, Gossip Girl is the ultimate frenemy drama for our blog-addled times. Just like 24 captured the spirit of post 9/11 America and The Wire brilliantly used Baltimore as a stand in for an entire country ravaged by the war on drugs, Gossip Girl perfectly embodies the age of Gawker and TMZ.

For those who haven’t seen it, the show is about a pack of rich kids who, despite not being particularly intelligent or talented, are super rich and therefore form the center of a world that goes beyond just the school and extends to the entire Upper East Side of New York. Watching their every move is Gossip Girl, the unseen blogger who recounts their every exploit for her hoards of readers. Last season the ostensibly 16 and 17 year old characters had no problem ordering a martini from a hotel bar or getting into an exclusive club, a motif that seemed ridiculous until you remember the underage exploits of Lindsay Lohan and Jamie Lynn Spears. It seems equally silly that there would be a blogger who devotes 100% of her time to tracking the actions of what is essentially a clique of high schoolers, but in this time when someone can become wildly famous simply for going to parties, the premise is strangely plausible.

This is not to dismiss the show’s many problems. Most of the show’s main characters are incredibly boring, especially Dan and Serena, the main romantic couple, who have spent the last seven or eight episodes behaving like no one in the history of the world has ever behaved (Serena, in particular, seems to have had a lobotomy around the time of the strike and has never fully recovered). Indeed, the show has come to rely heavily upon the antics of its resident manipulators, Blair and Chuck, to bring the scandal. On the weeks where they don’t do anything particularly interesting the show is just dull. And the writing is incoherent, oscillating wildly between slyly critiquing the culture of excess and reveling in it, depending on what they need to happen from minute to minute.

This season, in particular, seems to have suffered from any truly buzz worthy moments. Nate’s fling with an older woman is pretty tired terrain and the storyline with Blair’s summer boyfriend turning out to be an English lord was more LOL than OMG. It appears that after a season of scandal and intrigue, the writers have left themselves with nowhere to go but bland. Unlike the truly great high school shows like Veronica Mars and Buffy that focused on the outsiders, Gossip Girl has aligned itself with the cool kids, a strategy that usually causes shows to run out of steam quickly.

And yet, this show is not done yet. Blair’s evilness, for the time being anyway, continues to carry it along nicely (along with Kristen Bell’s hilariously smarmy voiceovers). And even at its shallowest, Gossip Girl is too addictive to stop. Lost may be revolutionizing television storytelling and Mad Men continues to do so much with tiny moments, but there’s something very relevant about a show where people use gossip as a weapon. It may be completely unrealistic when compared to the lives of the average high schooler, but Gossip Girl perfectly reflects what we all see on our television and computer screens.

B-

The Stand Ins

2008-09-16T12:37:00.001-07:00

Its always dangerous when rock starts write music about how hard it is to be a rock star, but in last year’s seminal release The Stage Names, Okkervil River frontman Will Sheff managed to capture how unglamorous the daily grind of being a musician really is. A little over a year after releasing that album, Okkervil River has returned with The Stand Ins. Recorded at the same time as The Stage Names and originally intended to be released with it as a double album, The Stand Ins is less of a direct sequel and more of a continued rumination on the same themes of the struggles and failures of near success.

The major difference between the albums is the amount of space that Sheff has included in this one. Whereas The Stage Names had Sheff declaring that life “is just a bad movie where there’s no crying,” within seconds of the album starting, The Stand Ins begins with a brief instrumental. While The Stage Names benefited from being packed full of Sheff’s witty wordplay and angry observations, its nice to have a little more breathing room this time. Once “Lost Coastlines” kicks in, the album really gets going. The catchy first single, “Lost Coastlines” is a twangy song that builds slowly from a great bassline. It also features vocals from Jonathan Meiburg, the band’s guitarist who has left to focus on Shearwater. However, Lost Coastlines isn’t the only song that cribs off of the sound of 1970s AM radio. From the Dylanesque insult song “Singer Songwriter” to the jangly “Calling and Not Calling My Ex” the album has a warmer, slower sound than previous Okkervil albums.

Which is not to say that the songs lack the emotional punch of those earlier albums. Starry Stairs, which finds Sheff crooning the sad story of a porn star over Stax Records-style horns, has an especially potent moment where the horns swell as Sheff sings “I am alive/but a different kind of alive/than the way I used to be.” “Calling and Not Calling My Ex” is about having an ex who gets famous and hits its heartbreaking climax when Sheff sings “you look the same on TV as when you were mine.” Most surprising is the new wavey “Pop Lie,” which has Sheff railing against “the liar who lied in his pop song.”

Watching Sheff turn his poison pen against the shallowness and falsity of the music industry and the touring life has been a pleasure. The Stand Ins is not as life-changingly epic as its predecessor, but it ups the subtlety without toning down the darkness. The cycle of songs ends with a song about a fictional interview with middling pop star Bruce Wayne Campbell, who perfectly sums up the album when he confesses that he’s “sick with singing the same songs in the bars they’ll soon be drinking, let me cash my check and sing along.”

Fringe Review Up

2008-09-11T22:19:00.000-07:00

Check it

Holy Crap

2008-09-11T22:15:00.001-07:00

No one line has better summed up the Republicans opinion on everything since the 1960s than this

One of the reasons that so many Republicans (not me) have been so delighted by the Palin pick is precisely that it represents an attempt to beat the Democrats at their own game. I can understand why Democrats are reacting now so negatively — one's own game never looks so nice when one sees somebody else playing it!

Where others see genuine harm being done by racism or sexism, the Republicans see a game to be co-opted and played.

Death Cab News

2008-08-05T11:48:00.000-07:00

Good news and better news from Nick Harmer:

There were four songs that we recorded during the Narrow Stairs sessions that didn’t quite fit into the final running order. We were really happy with them though so we decided to go back into the studio, in some time off between our Australian tour and before our Fall starts up, to add a few finishing touches and do a mix.

A new EP sounds sweet but, more importantly, hooray for a fall tour! Here's hoping they make a stop in Columbus...

Update

2008-07-17T12:06:00.000-07:00

So, the bad news is that my Batman project seems to have failed. I couldn't track down the Adam West version, and I can't figure out how to revive my VCR and play my old 1995-era videotape of Batman Forever. The good news is that I'm seeing The Dark Knight at midnight tonight, so I should have my thoughts up on that soonish.

Things I Find Tiresome This Week

2008-07-16T16:20:00.000-07:00

Sure we get Dr. Horrible, new Hold Steady, and The Dark Knight this week, but that doesn't mean there's not tons of things I find tiresome:

Jib Jab - McCain's old! Obama likes change! Hilary's a bitch! Insightful stuff

The Coverage of the New Yorker Cover - The Congress voted to go ahead with impeachment hearings, and all we're hearing about is a stupid cartoon?

Katy Perry - I was in Europe and completely missed the rise of this song, but it is truly terrible

Summer TV - When does Mad Men start?

The hype for Inglorious Bastards - Can someone explain to me how this is going to be different from any other Quentin Tarantino movie?

Not releasing Where the Wild Things Are - If there's one thing we learned this summer, its that ambitious, creative children films are a poor bet.

Batman Week: Batman (1989)

2008-07-14T08:10:00.000-07:00

Its difficult to remember now, but in 2006, when The Dark Knight was first in production, there was a lot of consternation over Nolan's choice to revive the Joker, because how could any performance possibly match up with Jack Nicholson's work in the 1989 Batman. It seems kind of silly now, given the deafening buzz that Heath Ledger's performance has received, but I remember a lot of people trying to convince me that bringing back the Joker would be a devastatingly poor choice for the series. After watching Batman, my view is quite different. In my opinion, while Jack Nicholson does a fine job with what he's given to do, the film and its interpretation of the Joker ultimately fail.

Although its called Batman, the film is really about the Joker. Batman's the first major character the audience sees, but after the first scene, he disappears. We don't even see the unmasked Bruce Wayne until about 20 minutes into the film. Instead, most of that time is filled introducing and developing Jack Napier. We learn about his work as a criminal, his illicit affair with the boss' wife, and his generally insane disposition. Before we even meet Bruce Wayne, the character that we're supposed to invest in and care about, we've spent 15 minutes learning about the problems and characteristics of Jack Napier.

This gets at the film's biggest problem, its complete indifference to Bruce Wayne. He's a bland and boring character who is just as empty at the end of the film as he is when we meet him. There's no reason to invest in his character because he doesn't do anything until he dresses up as Batman. The film attempts to hit a couple of points, but it doesn't really care enough to develop any of them. The closest it comes is attempting to set up Bruce's issues with trust, by having him spend most of the movie dodging Vicki and not telling her the truth about his identity. But there's not any real reason for him to need to tell her, since he barely knows Vicki, since she happens to be a reporter who's trying to find the truth about Batman, and especially since she's almost as uninteresting and wooden as he is. There's very little chemistry and almost no reason to invest in this story. And, if that's not enough, Bruce doesn't even tell her the truth. Alfred takes her down to the Batcave without even consulting him. The other attempt at an arc, the concept of revenge, is certainly more fertile ground for a Batman movie, however the film bungles that by saving the story of Bruce's parents its almost over. This idea feels like an afterthought, and doesn't factor into the movie.

In addition to that, I have a couple of problems with the Joker. One is that the film's Gotham City doesn't really have a crime problem, it has a Joker problem. Pretty much every act of violence in the film is planned or executed by the Joker. This may not seem like a problem at first, after all he is the villain. But the whole Batman mythos is predicated on the idea of Gotham as being this awful cesspool of crime. If everything is reduced back to one man, the Gotham doesn't really seem so bad anymore. This goes back to the biggest change that the movie makes: the Joker's responsibility for the Waynes' murder. Batman is no longer a creation of and reaction to a world of senseless violence. Rather, he's been created simply to fight the Joker. The Joker isn't as much the opposite of Batman, as Batman is an answer to the Joker. Another major problem with Burton and Nicholson's Joker: he's funny. The Joker is not a funny character. He's a psychopath who dresses like a clown and murders people. By making him funny, he becomes more harmless. And that's the biggest problem with this interpretation of the Joker. He's a funny, wacky character, who wins over audiences. He's both more watchable and more interesting than Bruce Wayne. And ultimately, he seems more like an advertisement to sell toys than a real villain.

I was going to talk about Harvey Dent (played by Lando himself, Billy Dee Williams), however he really has nothing to do in this film. He's really only in there to tease fans about a future Two Face appearance, and adds nothing to the film.

Ultimately, a superhero movie succeeds when the external threat mirrors the hero's internal struggles. In Batman, this really is not the case at all. Batman has no internal struggle to drive the film and the Joker ends up making a far more lasting impression than Bruce. Tim Burton has said in interviews that the Joker was always a more appealing character to him than Batman. Yet the Joker, like any great archnemesis, really only works in duality with Batman. He can't contrast with his enemy, because his enemy is blank. This is the big failure of Batman, and in my opinion it damaged the series from the start.

Announcing...BATMAN WEEK

2008-07-13T19:42:00.000-07:00

So its almost here! After a lengthy wait, this week will see the release of The Dark Knight, which is probably the most heavily hyped blockbuster since The Lord of the Rings.

In celebration of the release, I'm declaring Batman week here on the blog. All this week I'm going back and watching older Batman films to analyze how they dealt with the Joker and Two Face. Here's the tentative schedule depending on how lucky I get at the video store:

Monday: Batman (1989, dir. Tim Burton)
Tuesday: Batman: The Movie (1966, dir.Leslie H. Martinson)
Wednesday: Batman Forever (1995, dir. Joel Schumacher)
Thursday: Batman Begins (2005, dir. Christopher Nolan)
And hopefully I'll be seeing The Dark Knight at midnight

I haven't seen any of these films in a long time (except Batman Begins), so I'm curious to go back and look at them. However, my somewhat faded memory is that all of them have some big problems. But we shall see!

Hell. Yes.

2008-07-11T02:59:00.001-07:00

It turns out the secret to making flying saucers was ionized air! Who knew?

[blockquote]If a professor at the University of Florida (U.F.) has his way, the first flying saucer to grace Planet Earth's skies isn't likely to come from outer space but rather from Gainesville, where the faculty member is drawing up plans to build a circular aircraft that can hover in the air like a helicopter without any moving parts or fuel.[/blockquote]

That's all kinds of awesome.

Movies from My Life

2008-07-10T13:01:00.000-07:00

Like this but with movies (Thanks AV Club):

1987: The Princess Bride (Dir. Rob Reiner)
1988: Who Framed Roger Rabbit (Dir. Robert Zemeckis)
1989: Do the Right Thing (Dir. Spike Lee)
1990: Goodfellas (Dir. Martin Scorsese)
1991: Barton Fink (Dir. Joel Coen)
1992: Unforgiven (Dir. Clint Eastwood)
1993: Schindler's List (Dir. Steven Spielberg)
1994: Ed Wood (Dir. Tim Burton)
1995: Se7en (Dir. David Fincher)
1996: Fargo (Dir. Joel Coen)
1997: L.A. Confidential (Dir. Curtis Hanson)
1998: Rushmore (Dir. Wes Anderson)
1999: Fight Club (Dir. David Fincher)
2000: Best in Show (Dir. Christopher Guest)
2001: Amelie (Dir. Jean-Pierre Jeunet)
2002: Adaptation (Dir. Spike Jonze)
2003: City of God (Dir. Fernando Meirelles)
2004: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Dir. Michel Gondry)
2005: The Constant Gardener (Dir. Fernando Meirelles)
2006: Pan's Labyrinth (Dir. Guillermo Del Toro)
2007: The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters (Dir. Seth Gordon)

I'm going to hold off on 2008 for now, because I haven't seen anything that I really think is as good as anything on this list. But it would probably be Iron Man.

On a happier note

2008-07-09T11:06:00.001-07:00

To leave you with some levity today, I give you the funniest thing I've seen on the Internet in some time...Michael Bay's rejected screenplay to The Dark Knight. Most of the attention has gone to the Joker's "Howdy Batman. Got time for a little...prank," but this part is my favorite:

Be sure to read the whole thing.

Meta note: The dearth of blog postings recently has been because I'm in Europe, however when I get home I should have new music reviews to write (Go Hold Steady!), as well as a ton of movies to see and write about. So Stay Tuned!

So Stupid...

2008-07-09T10:03:00.000-07:00

The Beltway pundits, the people whose job it is to analyze the world of politics, put out such a stupefying number of ridiculous and wrongheaded claims every day that it seems worthless to sort through them all. But occasionally, one example shines through, showing just what exactly the problem is with those in the swamp. Such an article appeared yesterday in part of the Washington Post's opinion section (quite possibly the worst opinion section in a non-Murdoch newspaper in the country)

Stumped is a kind of political Dear Abby, where people write in to ask an Informed, Serious Expert questions about the political world that they, a lowly citizen, cannot possibly know, as they don't live in Washington or go to the right parties with the right government officials. Anyway, this week's question is about what would have happened if Al Gore won the Presidency. The writer asserts that there would have been no 9/11 and no wars in Afghanistan or Iraq. Andres Martinez's response, "are you right about all of this? I think not." In fact, despite the fact the he says he agrees Al Gore should have been President, he finds this sentiment to be "kind of creepy." Its creepy to imagine how nice the world would have been with a competent leader?

Unfortunately, it only deteriorates from here. Martinez spends his first paragraph of substantive argument fighting a straw man. He finds the letter's comments about 9/11 vague and so he wants to dismiss the notion that "al Qaeda wouldn't have attacked an America presided over by a more benevolent President Gore." No one suggested this idea, because it is ridiculous. Al Qaeda doesn't base its decisions to attack based on who's President (something I think we should all keep in mind, given the way McCain's rhetoric has gone so far). "That is patently absurd," says Martinez to no one in particular. For the very first paragraph of argument, Martinez sets up an easily disprovable argument that no one has made and then easily disproves it, making the person he's arguing against seem ridiculous even though that person never made such an argument to begin with.

Now that Martinez has made the person he's debating seem foolish, he begins to address the actual concerns of the letter. According to Martinez, the idea that Gore could have stopped 9/11:

blends irrational partisanship with that quintessentially American belief that all tragedies -- whether on the playground or elsewhere -- are eminently preventable.

Actually, the argument is predicated on the notion that the administration ignored evidence of a rising threat from al Qaeda, probably because they were more worried about finding a way to invade Iraq and get access to that sweet, sweet oil. Martinez points out the famous "Bin Laden Determined to Attack the United States" security memo that Bush treated with the same attention that I'm currently giving to Jane Austen's Persuasion. But it was okay! says Martinez, because "none of this was terribly ground-breaking." Really? I remember George Bush "nobody in our government at least, and I don't the think the prior government, could envision flying air planes into buildings." Certainly, I had never imagined such a thing was possible, and if I couldn't then no one could, right?

In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.
One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center.

Also, that report was not the no-shit-Sherlock kind of report that Martinez describes it as. Instead it contained the claim that "FBI information... indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country, consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attack."

This is not to say that Hypothetical President Gore would have 100% been able to stop the 9/11 attacks. However, what I am trying to argue is that Martinez's interpretation is childlike in its simplicity and fails to take into account the fact that there was a legitimate amount of concerning information. Information that, perhaps in the hands of someone competent, could have been used to stop an attack.

If this were the end of Martinez's article, it would have been stupid, but not the kind of "you've crushed my soul stupid" that would inspire a long rant. However he goes on to make one of the dumbest claims I've ever seen. Assuming 9/11 happened under President Gore, Martinez still thinks we would have invaded Iraq. Think about that for a moment. Martinez is so diluded that he still sees the Iraq War as a natural response to 9/11. According to Martinez:

it is easy for us now to forget how much the 9/11 attacks weighed on the initial decision to take on Iraq at a time when Saddam Hussein was acting like another looming threat.

Anyone over the age of 18 and not suffering from amnesia should be able to remember the run-up to the Iraq War with relative clarity, especially if said person's job is following the political world and then commenting on it. Apparently, in Martinez's world, in late 2002 the vast majority of the American public suddenly demanded an invasion of Iraq. The Bush Administration tried to explain that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, but the American public just wouldn't be satisfied. So, reluctantly and with great sadness, the Bush Administration began an invasion of Iraq.

Yeah, something about that just doesn't seem right. I seem to remember there being an orchestrated effort by the Bush Administration to tie Iraq to 9/11 and al Qaeda, with Cheney going on Meet the Press to claim that Iraq is "the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9-11."

If only there were some archive which documented this massive public relations effort.

And what did Al Gore say during all of this:

I am deeply concerned that the policy we are presently following with respect to Iraq has the potential to seriously damage our ability to win the war against terrorism and to weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century.

That's in 2002.

In the law, there is no distinction between a lie and reckless disregard for the truth. Therefore, I have no problem saying that Mr. Martinez lied to his readers when saying that the Iraq War was an inevitability, regardless of who was President. This may not seem like much in the big picture, but it is important that people understand the history of the Iraq War so we do not repeat the mistakes we made. When people like Mr. Martinez publish articles like this, they serve to help the Bush Administration by taking the blame away from them for lying and manipulating their way into an illegal war for profit. It is also important because this example demonstrates the excellent judgement Al Gore has shown in the past. If we had listened to Al Gore in 2002, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

P.S. So the political stuff doesn't start to dominate, I want to mention that all three amendments to the FISA bill have failed, meaning that the bill will pass with Teleco Immunity and with it will go the fourth amendment and the notion that we are all equal under the law. Almost 35 years after Watergate, Richard Nixon's notion that the President can do anything he wants and its legal because he's the President has gone from a fringe view to the stated policy of this country.

Mad as Hell

2008-07-09T05:35:00.000-07:00

I try to keep my political blogging on this site heavy on snark and light on self-righteous outrage, so I apologize if this post and the next one come off as particularly Howard Beale-esque, but I guess I'm mad as Hell and I'm not going to take it anymore.

Remember that time when some crackpot went in the media and impugned the honorable service record of a combat veteran. No, I'm not talking about Wesley Clark's appearance on Face the Nation. I'm talking about the moronic Swift Boat Veteran for "Truth" campaign in the 2004 election. The one that claimed that John Kerry faked or simply didn't receive the injuries that led to his Purple Hearts as part of some elaborate 35 year plan to one day run for President at a time when our nation is in great peril so that he can defeat our noble leader and surrender to the Terrorists. Or something. Of course, none of them were there for either of incidents they were talking about. Some of them weren't even in Vietnam at the same time as John Kerry (note: when I first published this the sentence said Iraq instead of Vietnam. Talk about a Freudian slip). But they were just so patriotic that they knew the exact details of every attack involving a swift boat. To summarize, the whole thing was mind-bogglingly stupid. The traditional media's response to this: play the ad nonstop on the news and raise vague questions about whether or not it was accurate.

So let's fast forward to 2008, when Wesley Clark said that he doesn't "think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president." The media exploded in outrage. There were claims that Clark had criticized McCain's service, "impugn[ed]" his "heroism," or questioned his patriotism. This despite the fact that people said THE EXACT SAME THING about John Kerry in 2004. Rightfully so. I know a lot of people who served in the military, but I don't necessarily think they are automatically qualified to be President.

The extreme fetishization of John McCain's military service has become one of the major narratives of this campaign. The media is so enamored of him that they require any opponent to automatically cede authority on issues of security and defense to McCain, despite the fact that in his time as a legislator he has shown remarkably poor judgement on these issues. If this how its like in July then we are in for a long five months.

Music From My Life

2008-07-07T11:22:00.000-07:00

Thanks to Idolator for this sweet list-making idea. The concept is simple, pick your favorite album from each year you've been alive. A disclaimer, these are all basically impulse picks that are subject to change depending on my daily mood. With that said, here we go:

1987: The Joshua Tree, U2
1988: Surfer Rosa, Pixies
1989: Disintigration, The Cure
1990: Fear of a Black Planet, Public Enemy
1991: Loveless, My Bloody Valentine
1992: Automatic for the People, R.E.M.
1993: Transmissions from the Satellite Heart, The Flaming Lips
1994: Crooked Rain Crooked Rain, Pavement
1995: Wowee Zowee, Pavement
1996: Pinkerton, Weezer
1997: OK Computer, Radiohead
1998: In the Aeroplane Over the Sea, Neutral Milk Hotel
1999: Utopia Parkway, Fountains of Wayne
2000: Kid A, Radiohead
2001: Oh Inverted World, The Shins
2002: Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, Wilco
2003: Transatlantacism, Death Cab for Cutie
2004: Shake the Sheets, Ted Leo and the Pharmacists
2005: Illinois, Sufjan Stevens
2006: Boys and Girls in America, The Hold Steady
2007: In Rainbows, Radiohead
2008 (so far): Narrow Stairs, Death Cab for Cutie

Oh That Wacky Ferraro

2008-05-19T17:09:00.000-07:00

From CNN's Political Ticker

Geraldine Ferraro, the outspoken former Democratic vice presidential candidate and a supporter of Hillary Clinton's White House bid, told the New York Times she may not vote for Barack Obama should he be the party's nominee.

Ferraro claims that the reasoning is that Obama was "terribly sexist," although she provides no specific examples. I have a sneaking suspicion that there's another reason Ferraro won't vote for Obama.

LOST - There's No Place Like Home Part 1

2008-05-18T12:13:00.001-07:00

While they won't be clicking their heels together until the big finale, we did get to see the homecoming of the Oceanic Six on this week's Lost. And while its clear that even going home they still aren't in Kansas anymore (think I've belabored this Wizard of Oz reference enough?) it was still exciting to see Jack, Kate, Sun, Sayid, Hurley, and Aaron return to civilization. Based on the scene in the airplane, whatever happens to get them off the island must be pretty awful. Not only did everyone seem shellshocked, I detected some resentment towards Jack. Could it be that Jack did something very wrong to get them off the island?

Certainly whatever happens seems to preclude any chance at getting back. We finally got to see the whole Oceanic Six cover story. Sayid said that there was absolutely no chance of there being any more survivors, which makes me think that the O6 think everyone else is dead or the island is gone. After all, why wouldn't they be leading a charge back to the island otherwise? Meanwhile, those two extra people came up again this week. According to the O6 story, eight people survived the initial crash, but two didn't make it. However, Sun said that Jin was not one of those two people. Also, Kate claimed Aaron as her own child, meaning Claire isn't one of the eight either. So, why lie about these two extra people? I hope they explain that. Meanwhile, we began to see the first sign of the cracks appearing in the sanity of the O6. Hurley loses it when he sees the numbers, while Jack finally learns that Claire is his half-sister, which seems to only add to his guilt. And a shout-out to Sun, who was a total bad-ass in buying out her father's company (although that must have been quite the settlement from Oceanic Airlines).

Meanwhile, on the island, not much happened, as the episode was more committed to moving everyone into place. And that place seems to be The Orchid. We know from the video released last summer that The Orchid is not a botanical research facility, and that whatever happens in there is quite weird, but we don't know much more than that. However, apparently that station contains the key to Locke's plan to move the island. I'm going to guess that Locke has to move the island through time, as well as space. But what that means is beyond me.

As we ended the episode, Jack and Sawyer were heading to The Orchid to get Hurley, Sun was on the freighter, which we found out has a ton of C4 on it that's wired to blow (likely related to Keamy's electronic thingy on his arm), and Kate and Sayid were surrounded by the ageless Richard Alpert and the Others. So, how does the O6 get together? And get off the island? I have a few predictions:

1. I'm betting that everyone makes it to The Orchid, and when they see what's happening there, some will choose to leave and others will decide to stay with Locke and help. Although I have no idea how this includes Sun and Aaron.

2. I'm betting the freighter goes boom, and takes Jin down with it.

3. Whatever happens in The Orchid, I think that it will involve Ben getting shot in the arm, putting on a parka, and getting transported to Tunesia.

Also, Michael needs something to do, right? Aside from Meet Kevin Johnson, Michael has just spent the season getting beaten up. There has to be some reason to bring him back.

What I'll Be Doing Next Fall

2008-05-18T11:38:00.000-07:00

The new slate of TV shows have been announced and I'm not quite sure how it happened, but somehow Fox has managed to dominate, scoring the new shows from the people behind Lost, Buffy, and Arrested Development. Coming in fall is Fringe, the new show from JJ Abrams:

Lance Reddick, as always, looks hardcore. Plus, skin liquifying is down right creepy. All in all it looks like what would happen if J.J. Abrams remade The X-Files, and I can get behind that.

Next is Dollhouse, from Joss Whedon:

I can't find an embedable version of this trailer, but for now here's a link

Amy Acker doesn't pop up in the trailer, but she's got a recurring role in the show too. The buzz is that the show is less bantery and more serious than past Whedon efforts. It looks really awesome, although I get the feeling it will last about six episodes. Nonetheless, they shall be six glorious episodes.

Also, while no video has popped up yet, Mitch Hurwitz has a new TV show coming out called Sit Down, Shut Up featuring WIll Arnett, Henry WInkler, Jason Bateman, and many more funny people.

Narrow Stairs, Death Cab For Cutie

2008-05-17T08:11:00.000-07:00

Its been a rough few years to be a Death Cab for Cutie fan. After a shout-out on The O.C. propelled them to success, the boys seemed to embrace their Myspacey side on the uneven Plans. I thought it had some good moments, but all in all found Plans to be a little on the boring side. However, I'm pleased to report that they have recaptured the magic on Narrow Stairs. The record is a real step forward for the band, as they explore different styles and ideas than what they've done in the past.

The album starts off with "Bixby Canyon Bridge," a slow burner that starts with just a guitar and Ben's vocals. Soon, however, the song explodes into a song that genuinely rocks. It was at this point that I realized this wasn't going to be like most other Death Cab albums. However, I also think a little too much has been made of how different it is. Songs like "Amputations" and "We Looked Like Giants" foretell a lot of what's on this album, its just that the dose of that kind of rock has never been as concentrated as it is here.

Ben Gibbard's lyrics are a little more direct than usual, like on "Cath," my pick for the stand-out song from the album. "Cath" sounds like We Have the Facts-era Death Cab, with the jangly, Built To Spill-style guitar. The lyrics tell the heartbreaking story of a woman who has settled for marrying someone she doesn't love because her "heart was dying fast." However, Gibbard ultimately takes her side, concluding "I'd have done the same as you." On "You Can Do Better Than Me," he cleverly subverts the expectations that title sets-up. Instead of being a song about someone who's afraid of being left, its about someone who's too scared to do the leaving.

Some have complained that the lyrics are a little too direct, especially on tracks like "Your New Twin Sized Bed" or "The Ice Is Getting Thinner," however both of these songs pack a pretty strong punch. That's mainly thanks to the contribution of Chris Walla, who I think tends to be unfairly overlooked. "Your New Twin Sized Bed" is emotionally riveting, with the guitar part effectively evoking feelings of loneliness to the point that Gibbard could be singing about what he had for lunch and the song would still be as moving.

"The Ice is Getting Thinner" ends the album with another surprise. Like Bixby, the song starts out sounding sparse and airy. However, just when you expect the drum to kick in, it doesn't. The ice is getting thinner, but it never actually breaks. Ultimately, this song reflects why Death Cab succeeds on Narrow Stairs. They don't focus on showing huge life-changing events, but instead they portray the little realizations we all have everyday.

A

This Sounds Awful

2008-05-17T08:01:00.000-07:00

The good news: George Lucas is talking about Indy 5!

Now, what could possibly happen to temper the excitement about the fact that Crystal Skull might kick start the franchise. Take it away George "The Force is just a bunch of tiny bacteria and Darth Vader is a whiny kid" Lucas:

I haven’t even told Steven or Harrison this," he said. "But I have an idea to make Shia [LeBeouf] the lead character next time and have Harrison [Ford] come back like Sean Connery did in the last movie. I can see it working out.

Really George? We're going to hand the Indiana Jones franchise to the kid from Even Stevens? Really?

Coming Back

2007-08-29T19:14:00.000-07:00

Hey, I'm gonna try to bring this blog back. I'm hoping to change the focus away from movies to include more stuff about news and tv and anything else that goes through my crazy head. This will be a more of a diary and more than a little self-indulgent, but what blog isn't...

WGA and the State of the Oscar Race

2007-01-11T22:40:00.000-08:00

I've been avoiding writing about this year's Oscar race, mostly because its been extremely boring up to this point. However, I suppose I can't avoid it forever.

Today, the Writers Guild of America announced their nominations:

ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

Babel
Little Miss Sunshine
The Queen
Stranger Than Fiction
United 93

ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan
The Departed
The Devil Wears Prada
Little Children
Thank You for Smoking

There were a few interesting surprises in there. The inclusion of Borat was a surprise, if only because it was mostly improvised. There is a precident, since Bowling For Columbine got nominated here. It could be that screenplay is where the Academy honors Cohen, since the buzz and predictors are sadly leaning away from him getting nominated in for Actor.

Additionally, I was surprised by the inclusion of Stranger Than Fiction and Prada. Fiction has been a complete nonfactor in the race so far, but I was glad to see it get included. Prada hasn't gotten much attention either, outside of Streep's performace, however I was hoping for Children of Men to get in here.

These awards mark the fourth guild nomination for Departed, Sunshine, and Babel (who were also nodded at the PGA, DGA, and the ensemble category of SAG) in what is essentially the Best Picture category. Its the third nod for The Queen (snubbed by SAG) and missing is Dreamgirls (with nods from everyone else). As a result it is, at this point, extremely foolish to predict anything besides those five films. It is sad, but true. While I like these films to varying extents, this kind of single-mindedness has made for a boring Oscar season. I also find it hard to believe that these are the only five films released in 2006 that are worthy of attention. What about Children of Men? Or Pan's Labyrinth? Or United 93? Or Little Children? Or The Prestige?

I'm not mad simply because I want there to be a race. A lot of these smaller films need the attention that comes with these awards to get box office and to spread so more people get the opportunity to see them. Additionally, precursor awards should operate as a series of suggestions to the Academy. Instead, its become a race to see who can most accurately predict the Oscars. Granted, the guilds are not trying to predict the Oscars, instead they are the most accurate because they are simply a poll of professionals working in the fields they vote on, and not a group of critics or journalists. However its indicitive of a larger problem. Looking at the critics groups winners, its nearly impossible to find an acting award for someone who is not Helen Mirren or Forrest Whittaker.

So the bad news, at this point your nominees for Best Picture are Babel, The Departed, Dreamgirls, Little Miss Sunshine and The Queen.

The good news, however, is that that is an excellent line-up without a truly weak film in the bunch. There isn't any of the trite, manipulative Million Dollar Baby-type films that usually sneak in. And even my least favorite film of the group, which is probably Dreamgirls, is a lot of fun to watch. The race may not be as much fun as it was four or five years ago, when there were more films in the derby, even at this point, but the other advantage is that the actual race for the winner is going to be extremely close. There is no film that I would count out at this point, except maybe The Queen. Round One is over, but Round Two is just beginning.

Charlie Kaufman!!!

2007-01-11T22:34:00.000-08:00

Easily one of my most anticipated movies right now is Synecdoche, New York, the newest film from Charlie Kaufman. Not only is Kaufman writing it, he's directing it, too. As of today, it has a cast as well. Phillip Seymour Hoffman is starring as a director who "decides to put on a play in a gigantic warehouse with an immaculate recreation of a city in New York for its stage." It also stars Michelle Williams, Catherine Keener, Samantha Morton, and Tilda Swinton.

Read more, along with news about what Spike Jonze is up to, here

The Bush Plan For Iraq

2007-01-11T12:28:00.001-08:00

Courtesy of Black Adder:

Why January 22/February 7 Can't Come Fast Enough

2007-01-10T21:23:00.000-08:00

On January 22, Heroes returns after what was, in my opinion, the most compelling cliffhanger of the winter (if you haven't seen that episode yet, I wouldn't watch the clip below)

And on February 7, we get more Lost (although hopefully we don't get more lost).

I'll probably have an article up soonish about why the next 16 episodes will be crucial for Lost's creative direction and another with some sort of crackpot theory about where Heroes is going.

Dreamgirls Redux

2007-01-10T21:12:00.000-08:00

Adam brought up some interesting points in his response to my Dreamgirls review that have made me think more about the film.

The point about Jamie Foxx's character is a good one, and I think I would see it if I were more familiar with the stage show. All I have to go off of is the movie and I think a combination of Jamie Foxx's less than stellar performance and the fact that all the characters were a little underwritten in the film makes me ultimately think that the movie version of Curtis lacked the subtlety and depth of the stage version. Perhaps if Condon had given more than just a cursory nod to the social conditions driving the upheaval of the 60s and 70s. Or perhaps if he given Curtis more compelling action earlier in the film. Or maybe he just needed a better actor in the role. Whatever the reason, Curtis just didn't work for me.

I agree that Beyonce nailed "Listen" but by that point it was too little too late.

Ultimately, however, it was the lack of non-musical development that caused me to grade Dreamgirls so harshly. Even the characters I liked were underwitten, and the film ultimately felt like one well put together song after another. I think that is the cause of the other problems I had with the film, and its the reason I ultimately graded it low.

Alternate Titles

2007-01-09T22:30:00.000-08:00

For those who don't know, the title of this blog is a reference to Legends of the Hidden Temple, a landmark moment in television history. However, it was not the only contender for the title of this blog. A prize to anyone that identify what each of these is a reference to:

God Help You If You Use Voice-Over
Where Is My Supersuit!
Go-Go Gadget Blog
Manos: The Blog of Fate
The Blog Hutch
No Touching
Blogs With Low Self-Esteem

MyTube

2007-01-09T22:12:00.000-08:00

Welcome to what I hope will become another regular segment, where I look at some of the most entertaining footage on YouTube. Without further ado, I give you MyTube:

First, at last comes the glorious footage of Tigger bitchslapping a visitor to Disney World.

Steve Jobs continues to take over the world. Here is Phase 2, the iPhone

A very special New Year's wish from Umphrey's McGee

(If you're confused, that video is an homage to this one, from last month's Justin Timberlake-hosted SNL, which has become this year's Lazy Sunday):

And finally...a Japanese game show:

Little Children

2007-01-09T20:49:00.000-08:00

I'm going to need some time to fully digest this film, and probably a second viewing, but my gut opinion is that Little Children was amazing. The film is a sharp commentary on suburban life and our modern culture. Think of it as Desperate Housewives if Desperate Housewives were literate, intelligent, well-directed, and well-acted.

My rough interpretation at this point is about how those in the suburbs have formed a society of little children. Certainly the characters in the film are. They act on their insticts, without thinking through the ramifications of their actions. Its similar to how Kate Winslet's daughter, Lucy, refuses to ride in the car seat. She has no thought of the danger, only that restricting herself is uncomfortable. In this way, all four of the most important characters of the film (Sarah, Brad, Larry, and Ronald) cause severe damage to themselves and others because they are little children, thinking only of themselves and what they want. I see Little Children as a coming of age movie about a bunch of 30 and 40 year olds.

However, the film can be enjoyed on a completely different level, as an acting extravaganza. Kate Winslet, who is my favorite actor working right now, invests Sarah with a huge sense of melancholy and regret. It is a deep and fulfilling performance. Jackie Earle Haley, as Ronald, has the toughest job in the film, he has to make you feel sympathy for a child molester. Haley succeeds by subtly underplaying Ronald, and infusing him with a complex cocktail of emotions ranging from guilt to anger to sorrow. Finally, Patrick Wilson hasn't gotten a lot of notice for his performance, but it was subtle and charming.

The film may not be perfect. At times the narration overexplains things we can see clearly and the Madame Bovary scene overlabors its point. However, none of that takes away from the fact that Todd Field has made a worthy successor to In the Bedroom and a film that I will likely be going over in my mind for a while.

A-

8 1/2 Mile

2007-01-09T13:49:00.001-08:00

This is my favorite thing I've seen in a while.

See It Now 1/9/2007

2007-01-09T13:33:00.000-08:00

We return to our regularly scheduled program today or tomorrow (hopefully) with my thoughts on Little Children, but now what I hope becomes a regular feature, a round up of news stories:

Joe Biden is the first official candidate for President. So be the first to catch that Biden magic.

BP, Exxon, and Shell are about to hit the oil jackpot. The Iraqi Parliament is looking at passing a law (which coincidently "the US government has been involved in drawing up") that would allow major oil companies to drill for crude oil in Iraq for the first time in around 35 years. But remember, we're not there for the oil, we're there because Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction... or something.

Meanwhile, The Surge is coming, so get ready. At least 20,000 troops will be added to Iraq in Bush's attempt to save his legacy, despite the fact that no one supports a troop increase, NOT EVEN THE TROOPS. Oh, and whatever you do, don't call it an an escalation because adding more soldiers to a war zone for an undetermined period of time is not an escalation.

On a similar note, this is just disgusting. A new low, even for someone as slimy as Joe Lieberman. I originally had a big rant written, but this isn’t really even worth dignifying with a response.

Finally, the wonderful thing about Tiggers is that they know what to do when they meet some punk kid. Screw A Tigger Movie, let's try to get him a part in The Departed.

Children of Men

2007-01-07T20:42:00.000-08:00

2006 managed to produce two fantastic dystopian science fictions. First came V For Vendetta, an excellent action movie and a sharp critique of our current political climate. And then, as the year came to an end, we got another film with an excellent look into a dark future. However, what makes Children of Men different from V For Vendetta is Alfonso Cuaron's brilliant vision, as well as how personal his film is.

Children of Men takes place twenty years in the future, when humanity is no longer able to reproduce. Its a fantastic idea, and while it may seem a little far-fetched, the film makes it completely believable. The result of this is that we have essentially fallen apart as a race. Horrible things have happened all over the world, leaving Britain as the sole place where human society still exists. However, it doesn't matter. From the second the film starts, you can feel the hopelessness of every person living in the world. Clive Owen's Theo exemplifies this hopelessness. Theo has personally lost a child to the flu right before the infertility struck. And you can see in Owen's eyes how meaningless he finds everything.

Out of that meaninglessness comes hope, in the form of Kee, who has gotten pregnant. Unlike V, Theo is not fighting to bring down England's tyranical government (and the government of Children of Men is definitely tyrannical), he is fighting for hope. While the entire race may hinge on whether he can get Kee out of the country, he also can't let anybody know what he is doing, if he has any chance of his mission succeeding. As a result, the story is much more personal than V For Vendetta.

Director Alfonso Cuaron shoots the film with long, handheld takes, adding to the realism of the film, and drawing us closer to Theo. He crafts a picture of the future than seems frighteningly plausible. Ultimately the film succeeds because it is grounded in the personal. In that way, it joins the pantheon of great science fiction, and I highly recommend it.

A-

The Holiday

2007-01-07T20:33:00.000-08:00

It might be bold to admit to watching this movie with only my third post, but I have to be honest.

There really isn't that much to say. Winslet and Black were entertaining, Diaz and Law were not and ultimately it was just slightly better than the average romantic comedy.

C-

Dreamgirls

2007-01-07T17:55:00.000-08:00

So, I begin with the first film I saw in 2007, Dreamgirls.

The musical is a tricky storytelling medium to bring to film. Most musicals, especially recently, have failed to garner critical success, commercial success, or, in most cases, both. In my opinion, the main reason for this is that most musicals tend to be loaded with songs instead of focusing on the story and the characters. Music is an excellent way of emoting and showing feeling in an entertaining way, but it doesn't mean anything if there aren't characters we can invest in, or a story that is compelling. For example, think about action movies. The reason why Casino Royale worked, while Die Another Day didn't was because Casino Royale used action sequences to suppliment character and plot development. The movie is all about Bond and Vesper and the story. Now think about Die Another Day and try to remember the plot or anything interesting about the characters. Its the same way with musicals, they can be good, but only if the characters and story are there.

Which brings me to Dreamgirls, a film I was very excited to see, but that didn't live up to my hopes because it was a series of songs without a developing plot or characters to tie them together. Ostensibly, the film is about the Dreams, a Motown-style girl group who hit it big, but fall apart when one of them takes over. However, director Bill Condon is not particularly interested in telling that story. Instead, we get a series of extremely well-shot and well-performed songs, but no substance behind them.

The film begins entertainingly enough, focusing mainly on James Early (Eddie Murphy) and Effie White (Jennifer Hudson). Murphy gives the film's best performance, capturing both Early's charisma and manic nature early in the film, while also doing a great job of showing him as tired and desperate later. Hudson also does a great job with her character, and she has the film's emotional highlight, "And I'm Telling You I'm Not Going"

The problem is that this highlight comes way too early, half-way through the film, leaving nowhere to go but down. After that the song the film rather abruptly shifts focus to Jamie Foxx's cardboard character (he's the evil, controlling manager!) and Beyonce Knowles' bland diva. By moving away from the two most interesting and well-acted characters to two extremely bland ones, Condon severely damaged the film and the result is that the second half is a tedious presentation of songs that feels more like the variety show that Foxx's character puts on than an actual movie. Additionally, because the film ditches Hudson so early, her character ends up feeling underdeveloped. The film was never going to recover from "And I'm Telling You," but it didn't have to curl up and die after it.

In the end, I thought Dreamgirls contained a few songs and excellent performances from Murphy and Hudson , but the second half was just too painful for me to fully recommed this movie.

C+

Welcome!

2007-01-07T17:40:00.000-08:00

So, welcome to my blog. The story is that every year, one of my New Years' Resolutions is always to keep a screening log of every movie I see that year (the other is always to read more non-required books). And each year, I usually abandon it by about February. So this year I'm going to try this experiment in a much more public setting, in the hopes that this will make me stick to it more. So, basically, every movie I see this year will have a post, along with my thoughts about it and some kind of grade.

That said, I'm also going to use this space for my musings on a variety of subjects. So, while the primary focus will be on movies, I'll also try to talk about other things, like books or TV or maybe even politics if I'm especially angry on any given day.

Finally, I'd like for this to be interactive, so please be sure to comment on the posts. The great thing about blogs is that they can be more of a conversation than a one-sided lecture.

So, with that said, enjoy my blog, here's hoping it will still be around in February