Appleplectic

Hiatus

2010-10-26T11:40:00.003-04:00

Seeing as I'm currently here...

...it's been decidedly difficult to get to here...

...or find any spare time to take care of things around, well, HERE!

Blogging will resume in December. For now, I'll be posting uber-short reviews on my TWITTER FEED!

Thanks for reading!

Calm Down, People

2010-09-09T00:41:00.000-04:00

It's not Chayevsky.

2010 Emmy Predictions

2010-08-29T20:00:00.011-04:00

DRAMA

Series: Mad Men

Lead Actor: ~~Michael C. Hall, Dexter~~ Bryan Cranston, Breaking Bad
Lead Actress: ~~Julianna Margulies, The Good Wife~~ Kyra Sedgwick, The Closer
Supporting Actor: ~~Terry O'Quinn, Lost~~ Aaron Paul, Breaking Bad
Supporting Actress: ~~Christine Baranski~~ Archie Panjabi, The Good Wife
Directing: ~~Lost, "The End"~~ Dexter, "The Getaway"

Writing: Mad Men, "Shut the Door Have a Seat"

Lots of interesting and unexpected picks here. The Lost finale gets snubbed in favor of Dexter's bloody season four send-off in Directing. Neither of Lost's supporting gentlemen grabbed a statuette either. Instead, the excellent Aaron Paul from Breaking Bad receives his due.

Yet for some reason, Emmy keeps dishing out dues to Breaking Bad's leading performer Bryan Cranston (albeit also excellent) while so many other deserving actors go unadorned. I thought Michael C. Hall would finally pick one up after earning nods from SAG and Huffpah (HFPA), and for, you know, battling cancer while doing it. Or how about some props for Hugh Laurie or John Hamm--neither of whom have ever won.

Kyra Sedgwick had never won until tonight either, even after four previous consecutive nominations and arguably setting the mold for strong female-centered cable dramas. The year's Comeback Kid Juliana Margulies then didn't take home the gold, but The Good Wife's Archie Panjabi earned top honors for Supporting Actress. I assumed The Good Wife would prevail here, but I pegged TV and stage vet Chrisinte Baranski (also nominated for Guest Actress in a Comedy this year) to do it.

In any case, Mad Men wins for Writing, which it will always deserve above any other honor. This year, it's for an electric season finale that saw the downfall of one agency and the birth of a new one. Sterling Cooper Draper Price! Another series win for Matthew Weiner to boot, even though Breaking Bad was looking extra strong along the home stretch there.

COMEDY

Series: Modern Family

Lead Actor: ~~Alec Baldwin, 30 Rock~~ Jim Parsons, The Big Bang Theory

Lead Actress: Edie Falco, Nurse Jackie

Supporting Actor: Eric Stonestreet, Modern Family

Supporting Actress: Jane Lynch, Glee

Directing: ~~Modern Family, Pilot~~ Glee, Pilot
Writing: ~~Glee, Pilot~~ Modern Family, Pilot

So Jim Parsons managed the win after all. I thought the older-skewing ATAS would go for the old pro Alec Baldwin, and that they'd want to reward 30 Rock somewhere.

I swapped the Directing and Writing wins, assuming that Emmy would side with DGA and give the other one to Glee by default. Then again, Glee has the far snazzier display and doesn't come close to matching the smarts of Modern Family. That's also why Modern Family nabbed the series prize: it's smarter, sharper, more sophisticated, and much more consistent. In other words, right up Emmy's alley.

MINISERIES/MOVIE

Miniseries: The Pacific

TV Movie: ~~You Don't Know Jack~~ Temple Grandin

Lead Actor: Al Pacino, You Don't Know Jack

Lead Actress: Claire Danes, Temple Grandin

Supporting Actor: David Strathairn, Temple Grandin

Supporting Actress: ~~Susan Sarandon, You Don't Know Jack~~ Julia Ormond, Temple Grandin
Directing: ~~The Pacific, Part Nine~~ Temple Grandin
Writing: ~~The Pacific, Part Ten~~ You Don't Know Jack

The Spielberg-Hanks production The Pacific earned Best Miniseries (it was one of two nominees), but Temple Grandin and You Don't Know Jack (both also under the HBO brand) swept elsewhere. Al Pacino and Claire Danes earned leading trophies as expected, but Temple Grandin's Julia Ormond and David Strathairn were also called to the podium for their supporting turns. Temple somehow edged out The Pacific for Directing honors, while You Don't Know Jack was honored for writing. I assumed the Academy would want to show support for The Pacific wherever it could. But the TV Movie outmatched the ever-fading Miniseries format every time.

OTHER

Variety Series: The Daily Show with Jon Stewart

Reality Series: ~~The Amazing Race~~ Top Chef!

AT LAST! The Amazing Race is toppled by a truly formidable installment of the Top Chef series. Well-deserved and unexpected. Bravo!

Welcome to Wonderland?

2010-08-05T11:44:00.001-04:00

Worries:

Chicago + Showgirls retread?
Cher can barely move her face. What about the rest of her?
Wooden, wooden, wooden line-reading.
Christina--can she act? Can you do more than her signature croak?
Tucci goes uncredited in the trailer. The shame!
"They're all dancing with the stars." (what??) "I can't tell you! Nobody can tell you!" (huh??) "Welcome to Wonderland." (saywhaa??)

But... Christina looks (visually) great: pure, porcelain, and powder. And what's this... oh hello, Kristin Bell as sassy contra-colored rival!

A snazzy, campy delight--or a looming catastrophe? One or the other, it seems.

Armond White, You Are My Hero

2010-08-05T00:56:00.000-04:00

The New York Press' chief film critic Armond White is routinely criticized for expressing contrarian opinions solely for generating controversy and site traffic. Most recently, and in the same weekend, he lambasted the universally-acclaimed Toy Story 3 while finding beauty and bravery within the widely-panned Jonah Hex. In his latest publishing, White had this to say about the upcoming Step-Up 3D:

Step Up 3D—the newest of a craven franchise—isn’t really as good as the underrated 1980s diptych, Breakin’ and the superb Breakin’ 2: Electric Boogalo, with its memorable break moves by Shabba-Doo (Adolfo Quiñones) and Boogaloo Shrimp (Michael Chambers) immortalizing an original cultural moment. [emphasis added]

Oh yes, he did just do that:

Keep doing your thing, Armond!

Catching-Up, Part 1: An Auteur in Sheep's Clothing

2010-08-04T11:33:00.001-04:00

Hello, good readers! Boy, things have sure been cobwebs and tumbleweeds around here lately, haven't they?

Here's my cool story, bro. I'm still seeing lots of movies, still writing lots of reviews--not so much here on the blog, though. I hope that will change soon, as I am slowly (ever so slowly) working on a new layout that should make things much easier for all of us (me especially!). Life and health (especially that second one) have been getting in the way plenty, too. But the dust is beginning to settle, it would seem, and I should be back up on here in full force within the next few weeks.

I know, I know. I'm like the boy who cried wolf on that one--but I really mean it this time, mmkays? I've got things to say, and I want you to hear them. So don't go anywhere! You got that?!

Anyhoosiers, here's what I've been up to in the meantime. I'll be presenting my recent cinematic observations in four parts.

Part 1: An Auteur in Sheep's Clothing

My last review post featured Sex and the City 2 and Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, a one-two punch of sandy stupidity. Yuck! No wonder I lost all will to ~~live~~ post!

Just before then, I laid out why I thought Ridley Scott's Robin Hood was under-appreciated by the critical community due to its right-leaning politics. It's interesting to look at this next to far-left pandering films such as Paul Greengrass' Green Zone and Roman Polanski's The Ghost Writer, both of which were generally well-regarded--if only because of their political positions.

I thought Green Zone was a self-contradicting, bloated mess (my review @ The Dagger). Here's how the New York Times' A.O. Scott concluded his appraisal:

All of this suggests that the arguments embedded within the movie’s version of 2003 are still going on seven years later, and are still in need of accessible and honest airing. Which is precisely what “Green Zone,” without forsaking its job of entertainment, attempts. When Mr. Greengrass made “United 93,” his 2006 reconstruction of one of the Sept. 11 hijackings, some people fretted that it was too soon. My own response to “Green Zone” is almost exactly the opposite: it’s about time.

It's about time for a flaccid, fictionalized skewering of US policy in Iraq, eh? I'm sorry, Mr. Scott (the A.O. one). I might be on board if it were actually convincing or, I dunno, coherent in the least. Me, I prefer to be challenged--not to have my blood boiled with pure denouncements and political buzzwords (WMD! WMD! WM-mutha-effin-D!). Green Zone fails as entertainment, and it fails at crafting an intelligent political perspective--but points to it anyway because they all tried? Meanwhile, Robin Hood is far more entertaining and smartly staged (i.e. not shaky-cam overload), but its politics--however successfully stacked--fall on the wrong side of the line... so no points for Ridley.

Lots of points for Roman Polanski, though. His Ghost Writer sits at a favorable 77 on Metacritic and a whopping 84% on Rotten Tomatoes. I just got a chance to see it last week. I thought it was an extremely well-directed luxury thriller, with two top-notch performances (Pierce Brosnan, Olivia Williams) and one highly unfortunate one (ahem, Kim Cattrall), that promised far greater depth than it was able to deliver. A thinly-veiled conspiracy that posited Tony Blair in the pocket of an unscrupulous, money-hungry Bush White House was ludicrously laid out and induced a good groan or two if you thought about it too much--but the facets of the story itself kept things humming along nicely. The same goes for Polanski's obvious empathy-grubbing via Brosnan's isolated exile on Martha's Vineyard. I chortled, but I didn't dwell.

My favorite working critic Manohla Dargis of the New York Times also chortled, but she didn't mind so much:

Fingers are pointed, though sometimes it seems not only at [Brosnan's] Lang but also at Mr. Polanski, who is under house arrest in Switzerland awaiting word on whether he will be sent back to Los Angeles to face sentencing for having had sex with a 13-year-old girl in 1977. Certainly the shots of Lang’s detractors, with their furiously distorted faces and accusatory placards (“guilty,” “wanted”), gives the film an extra-cinematic tang, though as with so much here, it’s also evident that Mr. Polanski is having his fun.

Unlike Ms. Dargis, I'm much more concerned with my own fun--my own experience--over that of a film's director, no matter how controversial or prestigious a figure he may be. It could be read that Ms. Dargis is giving Polanski a pass because of his unfortunate personal circumstances, which brings me to the far more pressing issue in play here. Like most publicly-aired personal fiascos, Mr. Polanski's fate has become far more a political issue than anything else--with the left likening him to a martyr, and the right thirsty for his blood. And, also like most of these fiascos, the underlying truths get lost in the shuffle.

Polanski (who has since been released by Swiss authorities) was not awaiting sentencing for "having had sex with a 13-year-old girl in 1977." He had already been convicted, in 1978, of having unlawful sex with a minor. He pleaded guilty, in fact, to avoid more serious charges, including rape. If the victim, a 13-year-old Samantha Gailey, is to be believed, however, a rape conviction would have been justified. She described the then-43-year-old Polanski forcing himself on her despite her rejections. They shared champagne and quaaludes, and, while both were impaired, he performed oral, vaginal, and anal intercourse on her. If that does not constitute pure rape and sexual abuse of a child, I don't know what does.

The idea that a drugged-up 13-year-old girl could participate in consensual sex with a 43-year-old man is absurd. Let's even pretend for argument's sake that the sex was consensual. It's still a serious crime, and for a reason! The balance of power and levels of physical and psychological maturity involved in such a pairing are dangerously disproportionate. In this particular instance, the imbalance was even worse: Polanski was aiding Gailey in her modeling career.

Polanski was convicted and sentenced to a psychological evaluation, and would have then faced further sentencing. He fled the country when imprisonment became a possibility. Because he fled, he has yet to be sentenced for the underage sex charge to which he plead guilty, on top of which he faces charges for failing to appear in court (to the nth degree).

The Smoking Gun has the full transcript of Gailey's grand jury testimony. They let their opinions known in the article's title, but the official documents speak for themselves (log-in required).

You could argue that if Polanski were an Average Predatory Joe, the police would have shut the books on his case by now. You could also argue that were he an APJ, more would have been done to see to his proper extradition by both foreign and local authorities. You could argue that he emerged from a tragic past (Charles Manson ordered the brutal murder of his wife Sharon Tate and unborn son) and therefore deserves special consideration. You could argue that he is a virtueless pedophile and deserves to be put away.

Whatever your stance, the facts remain: he committed a serious crime, he plead guilty to and was convicted of a serious crime, and he fled the country before he could face appropriate sentencing, which itself is a serious crime. That's why Polanski's sympathy grab in The Ghost Writer feels much more tasteless than clever.

But as I said, I didn't dwell. (I swear, I didn't!)

Ghost Writer pairs well with Martin Scorsese's Shutter Island (my capsule review), in terms of established film directors dabbling in less auspicious fare. A lot of the criticism Scorsese drew was actually re-evaluated with a positive spin in deference to Polanski--that is, overstating genre conventions, relying heavily on score and shot design over story, and using happenstance over natural narrative flow. Polanski's product may be more seductive and sleek, but Scorsese wields his directorial prowess to more provocative and powerful ends.

For the record (and despite their best attempts), neither film was able to attain the crackling, pulpy goodness of Richard Eyre's Notes on a Scandal from 2006. Is there a finer example of contemporary exploitation-intrigue? If there is, I sure haven't seen it yet. (But if there is, DO TELL!)

So Q1 of 2010 featured four prestigious auteurial figures taking a broader stab at audience accessibility. Though neither Ridley Scott nor Paul Greengrass are strangers to commercial success, each cast a heavy intellectual undercurrent through their mainstream-aimed productions Robin Hood and Green Zone, respectively. I (and the box-office) declare Scott's frothy interpolation the victor, though the critical community preferred Greengrass' misdirected blame-game; they prefer the far-left slant of Green Zone over Robin Hood's light evocation of the right (which is really more libertarian and democratic than conservative).

The critical base also preferred Roman Polanski's glittery brain-puzzle of government corruption over Martin Scorsese's artful embrace of B-movie thrills. (I liked both but preferred the firmer grip of the latter.) Is it a coincidence that The Ghost Writer depicted an incorrigible (and somehow, extremely powerful) US political force, while indications of federal conspiracy in Shutter Island turned out to be delusions? In other words, liberal coddling wins out again, emboldened further politically by Polanski's signature.

Just sayin'.

Next Up on Catching-Up: Film moves further into the third dimension, with lots of 3D conversions and computer-animated offerings. Let's Get Digital!

Best Performances of the 2009-2010 TV Season

2010-07-07T18:23:00.017-04:00

The 2009-2010 television season has come to a close, and the Emmys will reveal their yearly nominations tomorrow. But who cares what Emmy says? She's drunk most of the time anyway (or definitely on something... see: multiple nods for Two and a Half Men). Here are my picks for the MVPs of the last year in TV, including the 2009 summer season.

First, some names that did not make the list, in case you were wondering what happened to...?

Not Listed: Desperate Housewives

Was anyone able to stay interested this season as the ladies of Wisteria Lane further devolved into empty shells, and insipid soapiness replaced any semblance of plot? It may finally be time to euthanize.

Not Listed: Tina Fey and Alec Baldwin, 30 Rock

The fourth season of 30 Rock was carried by its supporting players, as its duo of leads were puzzlingly preoccupied. Baldwin, once infallibly suave as TV exec Jack Donaghy, spent this season always squirming under somebody's thumb: first, squashed by the pressures of a shift in management, then pinned down by the improbably unrelenting guilt of a love triangle. Meanwhile, Liz Lemon lost an awful lot of herself in her quest for an identity (ironic much?), and Tina Fey often seemed asleep on the job--halfheartedly sleepwalking through the part.

Not Listed: Many from True Blood

Let's be honest. True Blood is frisky and fun, but it isn't exactly the pinnacle of television artistry. (I admit, I too was once misled by the hype.) And while the first season offered a handful of cautiously strong performances, including a top-tier turn from Nelson Ellis as Lafayette, season two saw the unraveling of meaning, momentum, and character consistency. One name lands a spot on this list (see below), but the entire cast of leading characters, led astray by a crisis in creativity, couldn't quite make the mark.

Not Listed: Many from Mad Men

The third season of Mad Men is hard to define. It was at times more prolific and poetic than anything that came before, even while all the more cumbersome and frustratingly inert. What emerged from the dips and whirls into various conceptual arcs was the existential journey, the saga, even, of one particular character (unsurprisingly, listed below). And while John Hamm as Don Draper, Elizabeth Moss as Peggy Olson, and Christina Hendricks as Joan Holloway (and even the rest of the cast) all gave solid performances, none of them were quite given the opportunity to leave a lasting impression.

Not Listed: Julianna Margulies, The Good Wife

Hers may have been the most talked-about performance of the season, and indeed Margulies was effective and affecting. What she lacked, however, was a supportive environment that would allow her character to blossom. The CBS network likes to play it safe when it comes to programming (the understatement of the century), and even The Good Wife, arguably their most dynamic primetime offering, felt constrained by a frantic avoidance of serialization--as did Ms. Margulies.

Not Listed: Jim Parsons, The Big Bang Theory

Sheldon, played with considerable savvy by Jim Parsons, is the glue that holds Big Bang Theory together, but the show itself is yet another repetitive, unchallenging entry into the sitcom genre by the CBS television network. Parsons is always the most interesting component of the show, but, like Margulies, he works hard to enliven his environment instead of his environment lending any support to him. Get back to me when they give this guy his own show--hopefully on a different network.

Not Listed: In Treatment

The show was on hiatus this year. Season three will be the first to be fully realized without a foundation (the first two seasons drew from the Israeli series BeTipul), and Dianne Wiest has unfortunately declined to return. The always impressive Amy Ryan will join the cast as Paul's new therapist, but will the show achieve the same level of excellence with entirely original content? Stay tuned!

And now, the ones who did make the list...

20. Portia de Rossi, Better Off Ted

Better Off Ted was a satirical gem that never found an audience, and Portia de Rossi gave a spot-on, spiky performance as no-nonsense boss Veronica.

19. Susie Essman, Curb Your Enthusiasm

It's rare that someone's mere presence can elicit so much hilarity, but such was the case for Essman: swiping and sneering, often without saying much at all.

18. Jon Lithgow, Dexter

His casting and his character may have felt a little obvious, but Lithgow found lift for his closeted serial killer Arthur in personal turmoil and anxiety.

17. Hugh Laurie, House

When House was confined to a mental hospital during the sixth season opener, Laurie gave an elegant performance, showing a fragile, sensitive side to his typically abrasive character. The rest of the season did not hold up, but the impact of its intro persisted.

16. Michelle Forbes, True Blood

True Blood's second season was scatterbrained and wacky, but Forbes was always in control as the devilish, audacious, and manipulative Maryann.

15. Glenn Close, Damages

Patty Hewes may be among the most fascinating TV characters of all time, owed almost entirely to Close's deceptively restrained and complex performance. She doesn't let a single beat go to waste, offering depth, nuance, and intrigue with her every bounce and breath.

14. Rose Byrne, Damages

This season, Byrne took the reins on her burgeoning law-titan character Ellen, standing her ground next to the impenetrable Glenn Close and often one-upping her--with improbably shrewd conviction. Her refusal to conform, both as an actress and as a character, made her personal journey the most challenging component of the season.

13. Jenna Fischer, The Office

There are enough eccentricities on The Office to headline a traveling circus show, but regardless of her environment, Jenna Fischer's Pam is a warm, sweet, and human--thank the Lord someone on this show is human--presence. Fischer showed us a new vulnerability as Pam made her way across the peaks and valleys of pregnancy, marriage, and motherhood, all while strengthening her patience, her compassion, and her charm.

12. Larry David, Curb Your Enthusiasm

Is there a more self-possessed performer on TV right now? David knows and owns every aspect of his character (even if it's probably-allegedly-maybe based on himself, what he does is much more than showing up), and he nails every joke, every bit, every glance, bobble, and humph with breezy certitude. His character may be a self-righteous jerk who brings out the worst in everyone else, but oh, how often is he right on the money!

11. Michael C. Hall, Dexter

Dexter seemed all but doomed to Desperate Housewives suburban melodrama this season, but Michael C. Hall never let us forget that darkness lurked beneath the surface. His mounting apprehension over juggling his personal life--his facade--and his deadly secret took us to the point of fracture; though Hall never lost his grip. Even during his many tête-à-têtes with John Lithgow's Arthur, Hall was sharp, skilled, and in control.

10. Tracy Morgan, 30 Rock

While 30 Rock felt weighed down by a confusing sense of anxiety this season, Tracy Morgan, as the over-the-top, unpredictable funnyman Tracy Jordan, rose to the occasion, firmly rooting the show in the whimsical absurdity that spawned its initial success. He was repeatedly the highlight of every episode with his hilarious high-jinks and incomparable one-liners dished out with the utmost confidence and finesse. This supporting player fully held the show together, and then some.

9. Jayma Mays, Glee

With the eyes of a baby owl and the silky texture--both physically and expressively--of a polished pearl, Jayma Mays was a delectable presence on Glee's first season. Though she offered little musically on the primarily musical show, her balance of the delicate and neurotic, of the quaint and exaggerated, continued to deliver on the show's semi-surrealist premise. And even while sharply portraying such an array of traits, she was always careful, consistent, and believable.

8. Jennifer Carpenter, Dexter

It took four seasons to find an appropriate outlet for her burly enthusiasm, but did she ever do just that! As Dexter's sister Debra Morgan, Jennifer Carpenter brought new emotional heights and depths to her character in the wake of her lover's demise. Though she was always a formidable foil for her brother's infinite introversion, this season she branched off with her own foray into feeling. Her parking-lot exchange with Dexter, during which she unleashed all of her anger, fear, and despair, was the single most powerful acting moment on television this year.

7. Khandi Alexander, Treme

Treme boasted a first-season cast devoid of any weak link (would you expect anything less from a David Simon production?), but it was Khandi Alexander as embittered, broken bar-owner Ladonna who stood tall above the rest. Her piercing eyes and furrowed glare beautifully reflected the tragedy of post-Katrina New Orleans, as well as the city's unbreakable spirit and soul. She constantly held back a wave of emotion, just as a levee holds back the rising tide, but just like her ill-fated city, she could only take so much--a courage and then a collapse that was exciting, exhausting, and inspiring.

6. Lea Michele, Glee

She took a lot of warming up to, but Lea Michele proved herself essential to the television experience, and to the very fabric and success of Glee. At first, her theatrical roots were blatant and off-putting, and her Rachel Berry came across as caricatural and abrasive--even as her vocal talents were undeniable. With time, Rachel softened into a relatable personality, just as Michele transformed into a skilled and perceptive performer. As Glee the show rode across constant oscillations in quality, Michele remained convincing, complex, committed, and, in terms of her considerable songstress skills, spellbinding.

5. January Jones, Mad Men

As Don Draper's wistful wife Betty, January Jones really got to show off her chops this year. Season three of Mad Men was arguably The Betty Draper Show, with every storyline, character development, and narrative construct referring back to Betty's experience. Ms. Jones fostered complexity and character integrity (not to mention eye-popping physical allure) even as Betty's life swooped and swayed. An unexpected pregnancy, a father's death, the dissolution of a marriage, a forbidden affair, and enough psychological distress to last a lifetime were all handled with grace and the intention of growth by Jones.

4. Sophia Vergara, Modern Family

At first, Modern Family's Columbian firecracker matriarch Gloria was a tad too irritating for her own good, with her thick accent, unrelenting expressiveness, and sharper edges (when compared to the rest of the cast, at least). But it was these very features that Sophia Vergara used to her advantage as the season progressed, and the result was a singular spicy mix of heart, spirit, and unexpected wit. Her exterior ravishing, her interior effervescing, Vergara drew and quartered the gold-digging (coal-digging?) bimbo stereotype by brandishing confidence, awareness, and intelligence when you'd least expect it.

3. Ty Burrell, Modern Family

Expertly played, deliriously lovable, and always hilarious, Ty Burrell's Phil Dunphy of Modern Family is etching his name into the pantheon of TV's greatest dads. He carries the torch when it comes to the show's gleeful mix of physical comedy and one-liner showdowns, but he's just as careful never to place the family dynamic, the very foundation of the show, out of reach. He draws big laughs with his geeky enthusiasm and general obliviousness, but he warms our hearts while conveying his cosmic love for each and every member of the Dunphy-Pritchett-Tucker clan.

2. Jane Lynch, Glee

Oh Jane Lynch of Glee, how do I describe the brilliance of thee? Never once were you out of character as the indefatigable Sue Sylvester. Never once did you let a word--no, even a moment--go to waste. Never once were you not the most outrageous and pants-pissing hilarious presence on the boob tube. If only all performers were as gifted as you: able to spin forth a ridiculous, bulky chunk of backtalk without breaking a sweat or even taking a breath, while somehow conveying every embedded sentiment with priceless aplomb. And what's this? Even then you refuse to be just some weekly punchline and gracefully portray depth of character and, yes, a palpable, beating heart? Genius!

1. Eric Stonestreet, Modern Family

With professional integrity, glowing authenticity, and pure performance ingenuity, Eric Stonestreet as Cameron Tucker on Modern Family gave the most complex, impressive, and important performance on television this season. The show's writers were very careful not to mine cheap laughs from gay stereotypes; in fact, they often made a point to deconstruct or debunk these stereotypes--a process that could have proven just as clunky and irksome. But Stonestreet didn't care about playing "the gay" or, for that matter, "the anti-gay." He played a person: a person with whims, wishes, and quirks that spanned the spectrum from "gay" to "straight," from "feminine" to "masculine," and everything in between. He earned our laughs, our tears, and our love not because he was "the gay" or because he was "the anti-gay," but simply because he was. This is a character and a performance that will go down in history: a shining example of utmost skill paired with progressive fluency.

So there you have it! We'll see how many of these performances Emmy places in her cross-hairs. At the very least, I pray that we won't be hearing the word "Two" followed by "and a Half Men" anytime during the announcements tomorrow.

Also, be sure to check out LAST YEAR'S LIST!

Zero Swank

2010-06-18T02:56:00.004-04:00

On 27 February AD 2011

Fancy actress montage was beginning.

Bening: What happen?

Swinton: Somebody set us up the empty podium.

Kidman: We get shafted.

Bening: What!

Hathaway: Main screen turn on.

Bening: It's you!!

Swank: How are you nominees??

Swank: All your Oscar are belong to us.

Swank: You are on the way to bridesmaid.

Bening: What you say!!

Swank: You have no chance to win make your time.

Swank: HA HA HA HA...

Hathaway: Take off her accent and fug!!

Kidman: She don't know what she doing.

Swinton: Move her to stable now.

Bening: For great justice!

See the video...

For great justice!

Expect Delays

2010-06-15T22:36:00.000-04:00

CAUTION!

This blog is currently UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

Thank you for your patience. New layout, new posts, and new content COMING SOON!

Dear Hollywood...

2010-05-28T17:32:00.001-04:00

Dear Hollywood...

Please stop making crappy movies!

Exhibit A:

Exhibit B:

Read my take on both... at THE DAGGER!*

*If you comment at the Dagger, I'll give you a cookie!

But what does it mean?

2010-05-24T00:38:00.006-04:00

The following shots appeared over the closing credits...

(click to enlarge)

What does it mean?

UPDATE: The L.A. Times has the scoop...

ABC wants to clear the air: Those photographs were not part of the "Lost" story at all. The network added them to soften the transition from the moving ending of the series to the 11 p.m. news and never considered that it would confuse viewers about the actual ending of the show.

Lame, served on top of lame.

Curious about Cannes

2010-05-17T17:31:00.003-04:00

I've felt less than enthused about the Cannes Film Festival this year. Maybe I'm just insanely jealous that I didn't get to go, or that Xavier Dolan, mere months older than I, has established himself as a legitimate filmmaker while I'm at home stuck in the suck, and the general appleplexy.

In any case, with few high-profile names in the fray and fewer titles that I can pronounce with confidence, only a handful of films have piqued my interest.

Of those duking it out for the Golden Palm:

Another Year - Because Mike Leigh is a unique voice in filmmaking who puts a lot of care into crafting his scripts when most directors go for visual style over narrative strength. And because his Happy-Go-Lucky was one of my favorites of 2008.
Biutiful - Because Iñárritu's latest effort was offered as a potential Oscar contender when it was slated for release last year. And because Javier Bardem ain't so bad (and neither was Babel).
Fair Game - Because I still haven't a clue what actually happened during the Valerie Plame fiasco, and this should clarify Hollywood's (and a liberal's) perspective. And because I'd see Naomi Watts in just about anything.

Am I terribly square for not really caring about the rest of the competition lineup? Yes, I've read the synposes and researched all the names involved, but I just can't get excited about anything else.

As for the other films featured at the festival... Yes, I had a general curiosity about Robin Hood, Wall Street 2, and Woody Allen's latest mouthful You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger, but more as the work of big-name directors and less as potential expressions of art.

But one title caught my interest early on, and tomorrow is its Cannes coming-out.

Tamara Drewe is the name, and Stephen Frears (twice Oscar-nominated for The Grifters and The Queen) is at the helm of this game. I know little about the project, based on an acclaimed high-brow graphic novel in the UK Guardian, aside from what is offered in a basic synopsis and three video clips on the Cannes website.

In a nutshell, Tamara Drewe, once an awkward, ugly teenager, returns to her country home as an absolute vision, and a bit of a seductress to boot. The locals respond with jealousy, some with lust, and she incites a swirl of gossip and scandal in the small town. Though Tamara looks like a different person on the outside, has she changed on the inside? And is her confidence in her looks as strong as her confidence in herself?

It's a story about human relationships with a strong undercurrent of dark comedy. And the available clips and photo stills portray a delectable color palette with stunning cinematography.

But I'm most curious about Ms. Gemma Arterton in the title role of Tamara Drewe. Arterton burst onto the Hollywood scene in 2008's Quantum of Solace and, after Tamara Drewe, will have appeared in no fewer than 11 feature films in the span of four years. Recently, she was the most interesting part of the bloated blockbuster Clash of the Titans, and next week, she'll appear opposite Jake Gyllenhaal in what appears to be another bloated blockbuster Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time.

Ms. Arterton has the goods: the talent, the looks, the youthful exuberance, and a relatable appeal. Could she have a slam dunk with Stephen Frears' Tamara Drewe? There's something incredibly magnetic about her presence in the photo stills, and the part of Tamara Drewe seems ripe for critical acclaim.

I shortlisted Arterton as a Best Actress contender in my Year-in-Advance Oscar predictions. Will her aspirations--and, admittedly, my aspirations for her--come to fruition? We'll find out soon!

Robin Hood was robbed!

2010-05-17T15:39:00.002-04:00

Ridley Scott's re-imagining of the classic Robin Hood tale, starring Russell Crowe as the toxophilite hero (Adam learned a new word!), opened in theaters this weekend to fairly robust box-office returns and a middling critical response.

I quite enjoyed the film; it contains that satisfying mix of action, drama, comedy, and romance that makes up the best of summer blockbusters, with an alluring subtext positing Robin Hood as an everyman. The acting is top-notch (how can it not be with Cate Blanchett on board?), the scenery is exquisite, and Ridley Scott fashions a climactic battle sequence destined for the history books.

Well, maybe if I were writing the history books. The majority of the critical landscape was unenthused. The film sits at a 56 on Metacritic, with 19 of the nation's top contributors feeling underwhelmed. The broader consensus is even bleaker, with an overall 45% approval rating, and a rotten green tomato splat, on Ye Ole Rotten Tomatoes.

So what gives? Is the movie a fresh reinterpretation or a rotten misfire? I say the former.

You can read my full review at THE DAGGER!

But the critical base says the latter. And I cry foul.

I strongly believe that Robin Hood has been judged unfairly and dishonestly by a large mass of critical voices. My suspicion is that the liberal media mindset (not to sound like a Fox News analyst) shunned Robin Hood for its portrayal and endorsement of libertarian values: those of freedom, equality, and democracy.

Ridley Scott's Robin Hood (the man) begins as a swordsman following orders from the state. When he travels to Nottingham, he sees the devastation brought about by self-interested rulers with far too much power, and he becomes a champion of the people and their rights. Before he leads the charge into a final battle with the French, Robin Hood and other proponents of liberty strike a deal with the king to ensure that corruption by the crown would no longer infringe upon citizens' rights. (Historically, this scene mirrors the signing of the Magna Carta, with extra emphasis on populist support that better reflects America's Bill of Rights.)

So why would this interpretation threaten a liberal mindset? First and foremost, it annihilates the classic understanding of Robin Hood's cause. "To take from the rich and give to the poor" seems like an action rooted in liberalism, in socialism--that is, the redistribution of wealth. But here, Robin Hood is not a socialist by any means; he is distrustful of government and supports placing the wealth not where it is needed, per se, but where it naturally belongs. His views are democratic, populist, and classically American--not progressive or liberal as one might expect.

Here is the root of the critical disapproval: Robin Hood is much too American. Our current sociopolitical climate includes a certain resentment among liberals of the American ideal, and Robin Hood sticks too closely to that ideal.

The resentment, of course, is understandable after nearly a decade of supposedly traditional philosophies leading our country into a disastrous military conflict and, arguably, ravaging the nation's economy, among a slew of other difficulties. But the resentment is also misplaced, for the problems our country faces are far more a result of government intervention than an allegiance to the tenets of liberty.

The liberal solution to our nation's problems (created by the government) is more government or better government. Robin Hood fights to take power away from the government and put more power into the hands of the people. His beliefs reflect a more conservative mindset, threatening the foundation of the liberal cause.

Robin Hood, as depicted in the film, is an adversary to the current liberal agenda, and so liberal voices in the media have been quick to express disapproval. They see Robin Hood rallying the citizens of England against absolutism, and they see a Tea Party convention picketing Obama's progressive politics.

"At times, it feels like a political attack ad paid for by the tea party movement, circa 1199," writes Michael O'Sullivan of the Washington Post. For O'Sullivan, missing is "the socialist stuff that we normally associate with the man in tights in this new, politicized version." Instead of Robin Hood as a socialist, Robin Hood depicts "the story of the radicalization of some guy named Longstride."

Cloudy judgment? I'd say so.

Karina Longworth of the Village Voice agrees, and then some. "Ridley Scott's Robin Hood plays like a rousing love letter to the Tea Party movement," she describes. And Robin Hood himself? "[A] self-serving rabble-rouser who'd play on the emotions of the struggling public to incite anarchy."

So it's Robin Hood, the Tea Party conservative, "whose ability to mobilize commoners with empty, anti-government rhetoric equating taxation with slavery is posited as a virtue." She concludes her disdainful, politically-motivated evaluation: "Conservatives will never again be able to complain that Hollywood ignores their interests." As for the film's more objective shortcomings, "[a]ll the more reason for Sarah Palin to love it." Yes, a cheap shot at Sarah Palin to boot.

"Rob the Rich? Give to the Poor? Oh, Puh-leeze!" reads the byline for A.O. Scott's review in the New York Times. His explanation is laced with sarcasm:

You may have heard that Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor, but that was just liberal media propaganda. This Robin is no socialist bandit practicing freelance wealth redistribution, but rather a manly libertarian rebel striking out against high taxes and a big government scheme to trample the ancient liberties of property owners and provincial nobles. Don’t tread on him!

Lest we forget the Tea Party angle... "So is “Robin Hood” one big medieval tea party? Kind of, though that description makes the movie sound both more fun and more provocative than it actually is."

Then some more tongue-in-cheek conservative discourse from Mr. Scott: "Robin and Marion engage in a bit of heavy-handed screwball antagonism before the imperatives of tax reform and heterosexuality unite them forever."

And then A.O. takes it a step further: "The anti-French animus of “Robin Hood” is amusingly over the top — the French monarch is first glimpsed slurping oysters — but also perhaps a little anachronistic, belonging less to 1200 than to 2003, the height of the Freedom Fries era."

Freedom fries?? Now there's a stretch to connect Robin Hood to radical conservatism!

Now don't get me wrong. I think interpretation with a partisan perspective is interesting, and even important in amassing a broad-range understanding of a particular work or message. But this is not responsible criticism! Personal beliefs should not factor in to the process of an honest critical evaluation.

As a piece of narrative filmmaking, Robin Hood is an expansive, even enthralling exercise, and an interesting retelling of the classic fabled hero. It's a shame that this was forgotten by so many in the media who, quite wrongfully, felt personally scorned.

Iron Man 2 is Shiny and Hollow

2010-05-07T19:11:00.000-04:00

It doesn't matter. This thing is going to make a bazillion dollars this weekend. And Iron Man 3D will no doubt be announced soon.

Basically, this a movie about boys and their toys: a bunch of hot-headed guys fighting over who has the biggest penis. Maybe I didn't get the memo, but isn't this supposed to be a superhero movie? There's not much that's super or heroic about it, really.

Read my full review at THE DAGGER!

Am I Nuts??: Babies

2010-05-07T18:55:00.001-04:00

Am I nuts to be made uncomfortable by all this talk of pornography when it comes to the movie Babies?

Nick Schager from Time Out New York gets the ball rolling:

Babies is barely more insightful than your average Flickr photo gallery or home movie clip: it’s just infant porn for prospective parents.

The Village Voice's Dan Kois gets right to the point, in his review titled "Babies Porn":

Is Babies a good movie? Of course not. But that's missing the point—like asking if a porn video is a good movie. Babies gets the job done.

He concludes his evaluation with this bit of insight:

But for the most part, the strength of Babies is the way it babies babies babies babies babies universality babies babies babies, babies babies babies miracle babies babies.

He also claims to have ovulated a dozen times during the film. He should probably get that checked out.

So even if Babies employs the same audiovisual manipulation/fascination techniques as pornography (or, say, The Food Network), am I nuts to cringe at the comparison spelled out in print?

Am I nuts to want to keep babies and porn as uncorrelated as possible?

Get ready for Freddy

2010-05-01T12:05:00.000-04:00

Or don't.

If you hadn't guessed, the new Nightmare on Elm Street is a bust.

While trying to reinvent the franchise for a new generation, the filmmakers have abandoned just about everything that made Wes Craven's original so successful.

Most distressing is that Jackie Earle Haley, Oscar-nominated for his stellar work in Todd Field's Little Children, reduced himself to participate in such drivel. I sincerely hope he got a hefty pay day for this.

And Hollywood continues its recent trend of exploiting the innocence of children for swift dramatic impact-- and in this case, for humor as well. Because surely there's no knee-slapper quite like child abuse!

Read my full review at THE DAGGER!

Adam's Insane Itinerary

2010-04-29T00:49:00.007-04:00

Tuesday, April 20

MRI - Two hours inside a coffin-like space with a cage over my head. Noises so loud that I can barely hear my own thoughts. "My Heart Will Go On" played through headphones as relaxation music gets a bonus techno beat from the buzzing and clicking of the machine.

Screening: The Back-up Plan. Not so different from my experience described above. Occasionally outrageous, but mostly inappropriate and lame. Read my full review at The Dagger!

Wednesday, April 21

MRI, Part 2 - Ninety minutes inside this time, and no cage over my head to intensify claustrophobia. I swear to the nurse that I'm not cold, but she doesn't trust me and throws a blanket over me. I emerge with throbbing eardrums and a thin layer of sweat on my skin.

Screening: The Losers. What is the deal lately with Hollywood putting children in the middle of violence for our amusement? A helicopter full of refugee kids becomes a giant ball of flames, and our five heroes go into hiding to escape the shame and the blame. Their leader is Clay, played by Jeffrey Dean Morgan who looks and acts like Javier Bardem after a week's worth of binge drinking and sleepless nights. Idris Elba is on point as wing-man Roque, but he's still playing too close to Stringer Bell from The Wire. The three remaining Losers yield an overload of goofball sidekicks (one is usually plenty), but Chris Evans as Jensen converting a falsetto rendition of "Don't Stop Believin'" into background chase music is absolutely golden. While they all trip over themselves trying to sure up their respective masculinities, Zoe Saldana outpaces them all as the sexy, slender, and dangerous Aisha.

Action scenes are convincing enough to keep us interested and exciting enough to keep us entertained, while director Sylvain White and DP Scott Kevan trade in improbably well-constructed frames. Aisha dives through shattered glass while evading a barrage of bullets, and we see her maneuvers reflected in the fragments. While Max, the smug central villain, is speaking, we see only his pristinely pressed pinstripe suit jacket donning a metallic American flag pin. The story delivers a final-act twist for the sake of a delivering a twist, disposing of narrative logic and character consistency in the process. Then comes the conclusion, which is more a sequel-grubbing than a believable plot construct, and will likely compel you to demand a refund.

Thursday, April 22

Doctor's Appointment - My future is likely to include yet another needle into my spine, as well as an overnight hospital stay to monitor changes in my spinal fluid pressure over the course of multiple days. The cranky secretary makes sure that I don't get to finish my morning coffee before demanding I dispose of it.

Physical Therapy - Let's get those neck muscles working again, shall we?

Screening: City Island - A tepid tale of a brash Bronx family with a clinically disastrous failure to communicate. Expectations, from each other and from City Island society, lead to secrets, which lead to more secrets, which lead to misunderstandings, which lead to resentful dinnertime conversations. Featuring strong performances by The Good Wife herself Julianna Margulies, who is equally at fault here, and especially Andy Garcia as the gruff, taciturn patriarch Vince: a prison guard with furtive acting aspirations. He auditions for a bit part in an unnamed upcoming Martin Scorsese/Robert Deniro project, and Garcia masterfully strides through the steps of the acting process when it's his turn to read. Through him, we see a performer born from a human; it's a tiny slice of movie magic. Ezra Miller provides many a chuckle as Vince's son, a cheeky teen with an inexplicably bizarre sexual fetish, but Emily Mortimer is, for the first time perhaps, quite intolerable as Vince's acting partner Molly, an obnoxiously spirited nymph lacking any proper self-reservation. As hidden agendas collide, the importance of truth becomes essential and palpable, and City Island promotes that ever-important moral credo: be who you are, and live for those you love.

Friday, April 23

Screening: Mother and Child - I am unable to disclose any critical commentary at this time, but I will say this is an involving, multidimensional human story with complex, layered emotions and extremely impressive leading turns by Naomi Watts and Annette Bening. This is the first film I've seen this year that I would consider "Oscar-worthy," and Bening especially seems like a good bet between this film and The Kids Are All Right. I will be interviewing writer and director Rodrigo Garcia when he is in town for the Maryland Film Festival next weekend. So stay tuned!

Another Doctor's Appointment. Sick of waiting rooms with stale magazines. I flip over the issue of Entertainment Weekly that features a brunette Katherine Heigl asking us and whatever God it is she worships (there's probably a mirror up there) for forgiveness. I can't even look at that face anymore.

Blechhkkkhhh!

But this place gets The New Yorker. Huzzah! I love me some David Denby!

Saturday, April 24

Some much needed R&R. You know... Resting and Rrrwriting. And an unhealthy binge of South Park episodes. The more I watch it, the more I'm convinced that it's the sharpest cultural commentary in existence. And if I find the little guys of South Park to be really cute (I mean baby cute, not hot damn cute), do I qualify for some mental illness?

Butters!

Sunday, April 25

Driving to New York City to see more doctors. Traffic is despicable. The streets are bright and noisy. I sleep not.

A hotel in Bayside, Queens, also considered Flushing, depending on whom you ask.

Monday, April 26

Nothing like an early-morning CAT scan. Then more waiting rooms, more appointments, and another doctor. He pretty much agrees with what the doctor last week concluded and seems unable to offer any more guidance, other than to say that there's pretty much no solution.

Bye, bye, New York! The sky was so muggy the whole time that I didn't even get a peek of the Manhattan skyline. Boo!

Tuesday, April 27

A day of nothing. Thankfully, I can get some more R&R: Resting and Rrrrtrying not to burst into tears every three minutes. Stuck in the suck am I.

Wednesday, April 28

More appointments and all that entails.

Screening: A Nightmare on Elm Street - Stay tuned! For now, the word "queasy" comes to mind...

Can I sleep now? If Freddy comes to kill me in my dreams, I'll likely be indifferent.

Kick-Ass Tests the Limits of “Exploitainment”

2010-04-16T12:35:00.003-04:00

ex·ploi·tain·ment ('ek-ˌsplȯitˈtān-mənt) n. an act or instance of using something unfairly or improperly for one's amusement or diversion

Or, if you hadn't guessed, the careful balance between entertainment and exploitation.

This is a tricky proposition: too great a push in either direction nullifies the term, risking generic distraction one way and tasteless exhibitionism the other.

Kick-Ass places front and center an 11-year-old murdering machine who plows through the bad guys with a deliriously bloody resolve, cursing like a delinquent sailor and brimming with self-assuredness along the way.

Her name is "Hit-Girl," and she signifies the apex of exploitainment in the film.

But does Kick-Ass cross the line? Is Hit-Girl a crude and ludicrous flight of fancy, or an offensive, irresponsible perversion?

Does Hit-Girl venture beyond mere exploitainment?

My thoughts, and my review of Kick-Ass, at THE DAGGER!

Gleep of the Week

2010-04-14T22:58:00.008-04:00

It's an "eep" from someone on Glee, once a week.

"Did you know that dolphins are just gay sharks?"

Courtesy this week of Heather Morris as "Brittany."

No, Brittany! I did not know that! So what exactly do you call this, then?

Oh haaaiiii!!! :P

At the Movies Meh-vies

2010-04-13T13:39:00.005-04:00

Aight. I got something that I just have to say: movies haven't been so great lately. They haven't all been terrible, but most have landed somewhere close to mediocrity.

Let's start with the good news and continue on down...

How to Train Your Dragon (Dreamworks/Paramount)

How to Train Your Dragon is a surprisingly heartwarming and good-humored treat, with stunning use of 3D effects and spot-on voice work from Jay Baruchel as "Hiccup," the young Viking outcast who recognizes a potential for peace amid a culture of war. Hiccup befriends a rare and mysterious "Night Fury" dragon that he names "Toothless," and watching their relationship develop proves beautiful and touching. Toothless looks like an overgrown salamander and acts like a overly curious kitten. When he perks up his ears and displays a wide grin, he is instantly endearing. Still, I missed the fantastical elements of dragon lore-- the shiny scales and touches of magic-- in this land of flying reptiles. The story could be smoother, too. And it's particularly disappointing that after all is said and done, the cycle of fear and ignorance that propelled a centuries-long Viking-dragon conflict is placed in blame upon an external entity-- a "big bad"-- in the typical Hollywood storytelling fashion. I know this movie is about dragons, but come on people, let's get real.

Shutter Island (Paramount)

Shutter Island opened nearly two months ago, but I didn't get a chance to write anything about it. Martin Scorsese is a master manipulator, employing stylish genre tactics toward artistic and emotional crescendos. His film is a spellbinding haunted house carnival ride, and its tracks run through long corridors, across jagged cliffs, and up spinning spiral staircases. Leonardo DiCaprio offers his typical devotion, but no one in the cast seems properly committed to the film's flashy theatrics-- except, perhaps, for Michelle Williams, but her character exists solely in memories anyway. But as more than fireworks and thrills, Shutter Island's message gets a bit jumbled. There's a pointed commentary on the disturbingly fine line between sanity and insanity, between our world and a world of madmen, somewhere in the film, but Scorsese allows misdirection and thriller movie conventions to overwhelm his narrative.

The Runaways (Apparition)

The Runaways, the much ballyhooed rock-and-roll biopic starring Dakota Fanning and Kristen Stewart, has a strong sense of style and solid leading performances, but the film get lost along the over-trodden path of a conventional biographical narrative.

Read my full review of The Runaways at THE DAGGER!

Alice in Wonderland (Disney)

Alice in Wonderland is a richly-imagined Gothic visual fantasy, as is typical of any Tim Burton production, but the decaying alternate universe depicted in the film lacks much of the humor and whimsy that made Lewis Carroll's story so appealing. A mostly inconsequential, dully haphazard narrative only adds to a dearth of excitement, and conflicts climax in Wonderland on a chessboard battlefield-- far from the most imaginative plot construct in a fantasy-adventure film. A deliriously toothy CGI Cheshire Cat and Helena Bonham Carter as the gloriously fussy Queen of Hearts offer delectable escapist absurdity, while Anne Hathaway is frozen and light years from home as the flighty White Queen. Johnny Depp, meanwhile, is top-billed as the Mad Hatter, but it seems that Depp himself is the one with screws loose-- his performance entirely lacking focus or purpose. Integration of Carroll's "Jabberwocky" poetic fable into the story is an inventive homage, but Alice emerges from Wonderland armed with a new-found confidence and moral finesse that even Carroll himself would deem a stretch. With respectable post-production 3D effects, and a theme song against the end credits, sung by Avril Lavigne, as aurally destructive as the screech of an approaching Jabberwocky.

Clash of the Titans (Warner Bros.)

Clash of the Titans fillets a bountiful concept-- a world of men at war with their omnipotent overlords-- into a generic, well-dressed Hollywood action-adventure epic wannabe. Borrowing heavily in perspective from the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and in aesthetic from the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, Clash of the Titans most resembles the third Pirates entry: heavy on flash, light on story, and nearly humorless. Potentially interesting Greek mythology gets pushed aside for battles with giant Scorpions and a storyline wearing blinders-- a single, narrow path toward defeating the "Kraken"-- that shifts and swerves at will. Not that the story makes much sense even in its slim construction. Sam Worthington plays the brawny Perseus, a demigod-- a child of Zeus himself-- abandoned as a baby, who swears off the gods after his adopted father is killed during an attack by Hades. He joins a growing Greek resistance against the forces of Olympus, as Zeus and Hades conspire to destroy the mortal world. But then Zeus decides to aid his son instead-- except that the destruction of man is apparently a fate etched in stone. Or not-- just as Zeus detaches himself from the plot entirely. Awfully flaky for the ruler of the universe, I'd say. Not to mention that he or any one of the gods could have easily ended the entire ordeal with a wave of their hand: casting a lightning bolt, summoning a hoard of locusts, raising the seas to flood the Earth. No matter: logic need not apply to mythology-- even though Clash of the Titans hardly acknowledges its legendary roots (and no, I don't mean the 1981 original film). Costumes and lensing are admirable, but CGI effects are regrettable-- be it Hades vomiting lava into the mouth of an underling, a glittery-torsoed Zeus, or a Play-Doh sculpted Medusa. Warner Bros. hurriedly added 3D effects to capitalize on premium ticket prices, and the "hurriedly" aspect is unduly apparent. If you decide to see Clash of the Titans, which does somehow maintain a modest momentum and peak with cautious excitement, I implore that you stick with the two-dimensional version-- for the sake of your retinal health, and for the sake of demanding excellence in 3D filmmaking.

Date Night (20th Century Fox)

Despite a narrative of inanity and a swath of lame jokes, Tina Fey and Steve Carell use their comedic charms to keep Date Night afloat. The film eventually abandons reality for improbable hilarity, but not nearly soon enough. With surprisingly strong turns by Mila Kunis and James Franco as a brashy-trashy pair of lovers, and Mark Wahlberg's dependably cut abdominals.

Read my full review of Date Night at THE DAGGER!

Greenberg (Focus Features)

Greenberg presumes prolificity, but within its extremely limited world view, the film has little to offer that is relatable or comprehensible. Characters assume quirks to feign authenticity, and writer-director Noah Baumbach carefully deconstructs each of them in a hapless quest for significance. Ben Stiller is serviceable, while newcomer Greta Gerwig almost escapes Baumbach's jaws-of-life manipulative grip. But miserabilism over petty matters can only be so tolerable.

Read my full review of Greenberg at THE DAGGER!

Dear John (Screen Gems/Sony)

Dear John opened more than two months ago, but even then I felt so unmoved to write anything about it. This is a simple story full of simple people talking simply and doing simple things. The obligatory dynamic spin involves a subplot about autism, but I could have been fooled into thinking that any or all of the characters in the film were mentally challenged. In Dear John's clumsy grasp, attempts to convey complicated issues-- lovers divided by war, emotional derangement between a father and son, and the aforementioned autism bit-- become tactless, insulting blunders. Thankfully, Amanda Seyfried displays enough resolve, and Channing Tatum enough sensitivity, to provide a charming pair of leading lovers. When the narrative spirals downward into unfounded emotional wreckage-- as per any Nicholas Sparks adaption-- one scene escapes saccharine destruction: Tatum's character finding redemption and new understanding in a tumultuous relationship with his father (played honorably though non-spectacularly by Richard Jenkins). This moment is both the film's salvation and ultimate undoing: an unexpected emotional highlight, but also a means to reconsider the focal love story-- the entire film, even-- as especially frivolous.

The Wolfman (Universal)

At some point, I do believe that The Wolfman was a strong cinematic proposition: with a talented cast, a tried-and-true story, and the promise of mythology, forbidden romance, and classic horror thrills against a moonlit Gothic landscape. But the film was clearly reworked, re-shot, and re-edited so many times that it's missing any semblance of basic narrative consistency. Instead, scenes are spliced together-- unremarkable on their own accord-- without regard for natural storytelling rhythms. A few moments provide tempered excitement, climaxing on a cliff's edge with the Wolfman bearing down upon a frightened Emily Blunt. Blunt has the self-assuredness to transcend her patchwork surroundings, but on the whole, I worry for her career: Since bursting onto the scene as the last ~~man~~ woman standing next to the powerhouse Meryl Streep in The Devil Wears Prada, Ms. Blunt has been continually stalled by her projects: one underwhelming film after the next. The film community is dying to honor her-- she somehow managed accolades and award recognition for the stodgy Young Victoria and the over-quirked, underdeveloped Sunshine Cleaning-- but patience is sure to wear thin. As for her costars in The Wolfman, Benicio Del Toro is in over his head, working feverishly but uselessly to hold the film together, while Anthony Hopkins overestimates the power of his presence as he haughtily imparts wisdom without so much as altering his expression. Art direction and costume design would be commendable were they not obscured by flat framing, frenetic edits, and lifeless lighting and lensing, with probable post-production processing to further darken the image. What continues to astound me, however, is that Hollywood has seemingly yet to design a werewolf that is actually scary and not just a sickly hybrid between man and beast or a growling bundle of fuzz. As the star of this alleged horror film, the Wolfman-- as with the entirety of The Wolfman-- isn't so horrifying after all.

The Last Song (Disney)

The Last Song is nearly unwatchable and even less coherent, before imploding in soppy-sappy emotional fraud during its final act. Miley Cyrus is tragically inept as an angsty teenager reconnecting with her estranged father. As a marketable entity, Ms. Cyrus should stick with comedy, or maybe forgo the acting thing entirely, lest she should fully depreciate in value of the tween subculture-- or any culture, for that matter.

Read my full review of The Last Song at THE DAGGER!

Thoughts While Watching...

2010-04-08T00:00:00.003-04:00

The Runaways

Kristen Stewart looks remarkably like a young Jodie Foster. From certain angles, Dakota Fanning displays physical shades of Meryl Streep. Will either fledgling actress achieve the level of success and acclaim of their venerable counterparts? (This is a good start!)

Date Night

Could NBC conceivably stage a 30 Rock/Office crossover episode? Maybe NBC decides to cut costs by doing business with a cheaper paper company? One from Scranton, PA, perhaps? Imagine Michael Scott trying to out-manage Jack Donaghy. And then trying to seduce Liz Lemon? And Liz finding herself oddly attracted to Andy, over whom she and Erin have an all-out, claws-out girl fight? Or Angela crossing paths with Jenna? Or Dwight exchanging wisdom with Tracy? Or Meredith exposing her cooch on live television? Come on, Santa. It's all I want this year.

Kick-Ass

There's nothing quite like a well-placed c-word!

Adam Tackles the Classics: A Streetcar Named Desire

2010-04-07T17:57:00.003-04:00

Round two! From Shawshank to...

A Streetcar Named Desire

Note: This turned out to be a lot longer than I was expecting. Cutting corners somehow just seemed criminal for this one. Expect future installments to be more brief.

I don't care who you are or where you are-- you've heard of this movie. Streetcar lies in the canon of cinematic greats, with career-defining turns from Marlon Brando and Vivien Leigh. Adapted from the play by Tennessee Williams, Streetcar continues to dazzle audiences on the stage and garner awards and acclaim for its featured performers. Most recently, Rachel Weisz picked up an Olivier award (the British equivalent of a Tony) for playing leading lady Blanche Dubois, while her costar Ruth Wilson nabbed a supporting statue as Blanche's sister Stella.

So what did Adam think? Adam thought a lot of things. Streetcar gives you a lot to think about.

He-- err... I will say that I had a lot of problems with the film. In fact, I probably found more to criticize than to praise. That said, my overall impression of Streetcar is overwhelmingly positive. I have to believe that my hesitations are reflective of the thick and layered narrative out of which the film is constructed: in a less complex setting, I couldn't possibly find so much to think about. On the same token, Streetcar offers no fewer than two moments of pure cinematic bliss-- absolute filmmaking perfection-- in the deft hands of the astounding Vivien Leigh. So Streetcar is indeed a marvel in movie-making. It's just not, as many insist, a flawless one.

Let's get to it, shall we?

The Facts:

Release date: September 15, 1981
Directed by: Elia Kazan
Written by: I'm not entirely sure. Tennesse Williams definitely wrote the original play and, in turn, the dialogue for the film. However, Oscar Saul is credited with the "adaptation." Perhaps he just tweaked things here and there for the screen version, while most of Williams' play remained intact?
Starring: Vivien Leigh as "Blanche DuBois," Marlon Brando as "Stanley Kowalski," Kim Hunter as "Stella Kowalski," Karl Malden as "Harold 'Mitch' Mitchell"
Below the line: Music by Alex North, Cinematography by Harry Stradling, Art Direction by Richard Day, Set Decoration by George James Hopkins
Box Office: Heck if I knew! I found an $8 million figure at The Numbers, but no one seems to know for sure. Or maybe it's just that priceless!

Why is it a Classic?

An astounding 12 Academy Awards nominations, including wins for Leigh, Malden, and Hunter, and Art Direction (Brando lost out to Humphrey Bogart in The African Queen)
It made Marlon Brando a star.
Features Vivien Leigh and Marlon Brando in career-defining roles. Their performances are considered among the best in cinema history.
Everything I said in the intro: ubiquitous title, still winning awards, dense and layered narrative, etc.
Quotables: "Stella!" and "I've always depended on the kindness of strangers."
Broke boundaries with its complicated themes and subtexts: abuse, rape, homosexuality, nymphomania, perversion, psychosis, and pedophilia are all in play. The MPAA had a conniption, forcing changes to the screenplay and even the final cut.

About that "conniption"...

TCM gives a great rundown. First, the MPAA found "three principal problems" in the script: (1) the "sex perversion" of Blanche's late husband (it is implied that he was gay); (2) Blanche's "nymphomania"; (3) the inference of rape. They even suggested alternative scenarios to remedy the perceived problems. (I wonder if they lobbied for a writing credit?) Williams was forced to rewrite parts of his script, including its pivotal ending. I'd say more, but I don't want to introduce too many spoilers. Head over to TCM for the full account. Fascinating stuff.

Let's talk about...

Layers. I'd say that Streetcar is like an onion, but I don't want to sully the film's intricacies with a tired cliche. How about a novel? A rich, involving novel-- where every turn of the page digs a little deeper. The stories in play are like snapshots: mere moments of longer histories carefully revealed throughout the film.

What we learn about the past enriches our understanding of the present: how Blanche and Stella were raised in the same environment but responded to their upbringings in polar opposite fashions; how both Stella and Stanley thrive on their tragic and abusive relationship; how Blanche's marriage was crafted with more deceit than that of her sister's, and how Blanche responded to her husband's death-- why she responded that way.

Blanche herself is a lady of layers: her complex personality as detailed and extravagant as the fancy clothes and adornments piled high in her suitcase. On the surface-- as she strives to appear-- she is a debutante, superstar: a woman of high class and higher society. Further down, we see how she is broken up over the loss of her husband and how she desperately seeks companionship. Further still, she is self-conscious, fearful, needy-- constantly requiring attention and affirmation. Below that, she is manipulative, a pathological liar, a fraud. Even further down, she lapses into complete delusion: unrestrained psychosis. And below that? Yes, there's even more: a suppressed identity-- a sexual deviant. A pedophile, perhaps?

That much is certainly up for interpretation. But what's so fascinating here is that in the creation of Blanche's character via Williams' script and Vivien Leigh's performance, all of these layers are in play at the same time. Be it with a quick line of dialogue or vocal inflection, Blanche's complexity is always apparent.

On the other hand, Stanley has virtually no layers at all. He is a pure and unapologetic simpleton, and a brilliant contrast to the multi-faceted Blanche.

Even the scenery feels constructed with layers. Stella and Stanley's hole-in-the-wall home melts into the street, and delusions intensify as you go deeper: every step inside is a step toward confinement, while salvation lies outside in the streets-- with fog and shadows splaying across every frame.

What's good?

VIVIEN FRICKIN' LEIGH. Not a second of screen time is wasted by this woman. She maximizes every expression and every line of speech to build and characterize Blanche DuBois. It is entirely because of her dedication that the film achieves two moments of pure genius.

During the first, Blanche lures a young door-to-door charity worker into the house. He, no older than 17, is completely enchanted by her. This is the only time that Blanche is unburdened by scrutiny or suspicion. She can behave as she pleases without hindrance or hesitation. What's so brilliant about this scene, and about Leigh's performance, is that every single layer of Blanche DuBois is visible at the exact same time: both her utmost charade as a high-class sophisticate and her ultimate truth as a love-starved partial-pedophile are in full bristling force.

The second moment of genius comes at the film's end. Just as Blanche existed without restraint in the previously described scene, here no layer of hers is able to thrive. Confronted now by Stanley, Stella, Mitch, and a medical team, Blanche has nowhere to turn. She implodes, convulsing as if being exorcised, as, cornered, she tries to escape herself. Flailing about is a common component of a dramatized nervous breakdown, but here, Leigh gives a startling purpose to her apex of insanity.

All of the leading players give solid performances, though only Kim Hunter as Stella comes close to Leigh's accomplishment. Though Stella is not nearly as complex as Blanche, Hunter gives a more consistent and humanized interpretation.

What else is good? Did I mention those layers?? Like a scrumptious, towering cake!

What's not so good?

A chronic problem with stage-to-screen adaptations, the film has several extended scenes of dialogue that feel overlong and tiresome. Considering the time period during which Streetcar was made, I don't hold this against the film as much, but as a motion picture, I wish we got to see a lot more of what we were being told. When it comes to film, it's always better to show rather than tell.

Otherwise, the narrative-- though built on rich and involving layers-- doesn't offer many surprises. I found myself anticipating nearly every event, even as the film's own characters acted in shock.

Though Vivien Leigh is complicated, profound, ingenious, she has a little trouble oscillating between mania and restraint. I found her unconvincing as she suddenly lashed out and then withdrew into timid gasps just as quickly. The same goes for Brando, whose wild tantrums and subsequent fits of pitiful wallowing felt too mechanical. Stanley himself didn't quite add up either: both a cavemannish brute and somehow astute enough to pick apart Blanche. Finally, Karl Malden is mostly generic as Blanche's potential beau Mitch. Malden doesn't give his character any dynamic twist. He's not gentle enough to be the ultimate nice guy, and he's not tough enough to stand out alongside Stanley. As such, Mitch lands somewhere close to vanilla.

Modern Match-Ups:

I could readily think of only one:

Rachel Getting Married. Sisterly bonds run deep. In both films, one sister responds and adjusts to the other's dysfunctions (and in each, the "stable" sister is the supporting player). Ultimately, no matter the injustice, family is family-- and family is more important than anything else. Streetcar adds an extra dynamic by giving the stable sister her own set of flaws, whereas Rachel in Rachel Getting Married is somewhat dubiously saintly.

Final Rating:

It's not perfect, but it's awfully profound. And, yes indeed, a deservable "classic."

Next Up: The magnum opus of that prolific pedophile Roman Polanski, Chinatown, starring Jack Nicholson and Faye Dunaway.

Neglecting the Blog

2010-04-02T16:22:00.000-04:00

Please don't call Blogger Protection Services on me!

I promise I will be back to full blogging duties soon!

Coming Soon: More classics, including Streetcar, Citizen Kane, and Chinatown. Reviews for new movies like The Runaways and Date Night. Commercial culture: analyzing TV, web, and print advertisements. The Golden Apple Awards: my picks for the best of 2009 in film. And third-person coverage (i.e. I won't be there... boo/frown!) of the Cannes Film Festival!

So stay frickin' tuned!! Geesh.

Calling it Now...

2010-03-25T13:42:00.001-04:00

Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Comedy Series...

And the Emmy goes to...

Eric Stonestreet, as Cameron Tucker on Modern Family!

It's becoming clearer with every episode that Stonestreet is the standout and emotional center of the ensemble-driven Modern Family. The question is, how many members of this funky bunch will be honored by the Academy?

Aside from Stonestreet, I'd say that Sofía Vergara ("Gloria") is a shoo-in for a Supporting Actress nomination, while Ty Burrell ("Phil") is likely to join his costar Stonestreet in the Supporting Actor field. Ed O'Neil ("Jay") has a fair shot at either a Lead or Supporting Actor nod, depending on how he is campaigned I'm betting they'll put him as Lead because he's the most seasoned cast memeber, he receives top billing, and ABC will want to avoid internal competition with Stonestreet and Burrell. Julie Bowen ("Claire") is a slightly longer shot for a Lead or Supporting Actress nomination. She's certainly not the show's Lead Actress, but given the choice between the two, Vergara makes more sense as Supporting. The only headlining adult I don't see in the awards mix is Jesse Tyler Ferguson as "Mitchell." He'll have to step up his game and the writing team will have to make his character more likable to win over any voters.

The kids won't see any Emmy glory this year, but I'd keep my eye on Rico Rodriguez ("Manny") and especially Ariel Winter ("Alex") for future seasons. The girl has spunk!

I'd be surprised if Modern Family doesn't pick up at least two Guest-Star nods on top of the established categories. Shelley Long is nearly a lock for playing Jay's ex-wife "DeDe." Elizabeth Banks could score one as Mitchell and Cameron's former bestie "Sal," but I think she's got a better shot at a Guest Actress nod for her work on 30 Rock. Fred Willard has a good shot for playing Phil's father simply due to his TV-star power and industry respect. Benjamin Bratt has a very good shot as Manny's real father "Javier." Minnie Driver is an extremely likely candidate as Claire's friend "Valerie." Judy Greer's potential is just a smidgen less than Driver's as Phil's ex-girlfriend and new-found cyber-stalker "Denise." The remaining six episodes will also feature appearances by Justin Kirk and Kevin Bacon. And for May sweeps, who knows who else might show up? Reportedly, season two may or may not feature the likes of Delta Burke, Sophia Loren, and Gabby Sidibe (!).

So will Modern Family be able to triumph over Glee at the Emmys this year? Almost definitely. Yes, I know that Glee won the Golden Globe and the SAG ensemble award, but Emmy is generally less enthralled by zeitgeist or youthful exuberance of any kind. She likes to play it safe as much as possible-- and while it carries a very progressive message at its center, Modern Family stays much closer to the typical, albeit very sharp, TV comedy formula. It may seem slightly less trendy than Glee's colorful cast and pop covers, but "trendy" doesn't translate as well at the Emmys. That's why Jessica Lange won for Grey Gardens over Drew Barrymore, just as Drew went on to snag the Globe and SAG.

At the very least, with all the new and strong additions to the TV Comedy world this season, maybe Two and Half Men will be left in the dust at last. AT LAST!

The Most Talented Man on the Planet?

2010-03-23T18:43:00.001-04:00

There's little in this world I love more than television, theme songs, quality amateur covers, mash-ups, medleys, guys who can harmonize with themselves, and Charles in Charge.

So could this be the most talented person in the entire world? Possibly.

Come on! That was 22 TV theme songs in under seven minutes! The most talented person on YouTube at least?