It's the Impression That I Get

It's a hundred and six miles to Chicago, we've got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses.

Sometimes I wish I could stay a kid forever. I could ride across the neighborhood in my little red tyke, hand paint with all the acrylics of my youth and climb trees and eat bananas to my hearts content; or at least until my parents put me back in the cage. But as they say, there comes a point to put away childish things and become the man you're going to be for the rest of your life.

Life can make you blue sometimes

Since after college I had come to some pretty solid conclusions on what I wanted to do, or at least what I didn't want to do. Still I felt stuck in a permanent state of arrested development for over a year, clinging to the hope that a big boy job would come my way. In the meantime it was like every night I would die then start again at the last checkpoint I saved from. Everyday blurred together. Then a few months ago I answered the call to become a tutor and mentor to the youth of Metropolitan Chicago. A job which may just be the jump-start I need.

I don't know exactly what's in-store for me but I know whatever experience and knowledge I gain it will be beneficial and help me shape my life just as the last few years have. It's the close of a chapter and the beginning of another in my heroic journey. Like Odysseus, Achilles and Luke Skywalker, I take the journey of a lifetime not knowing where I'll end up but knowing somewhere in the recesses of my mind I am headed towards greatness. Or at least towards better-ness.

Who needs walking when you have one of these?

My introduction to Chicago involved getting hopelessly lost in the pubic transit system (CTA) the first day. While I've been here before, I have always had the luxury of a car. Now I have to walk to get almost everywhere, a skill I have yet to master since putting one foot in front of the other for me usually involves a TV remote in the mix. It's surprising how easy it is to get lost around here even when the city is a very simple grid of cross-streets.

While first impressions can and do change, I have come to the conclusion that there is no better American city to live in than Chicago. From the North Shore to the Loop, the city is full of positive energy pulsating through the clangs and bangs of the El train and supported by all walks of active, friendly life. Like the city, everyone here seems so young, vibrant and full of hope. And yet while Chicago is young even in comparison to cities in the western hemisphere, the culture, music and food is laced with the heart and soul of age old traditions.

The basement from Adventures in Babysitting...

Being the film nerd I am, I walked downtown spotting the different landmarks I've seen in movies throughout the years. There was the government building from the Dark Knight (2008), the bridge from High Fidelity (2000), the sculpture from the end of Source Code (2011), the crowded streets featured prominently in the street parade in Ferris Bueller's Day Off (1986); all this in addition to the major landmarks we all know Chicago has to offer.

At the meet and greet for my job I realized just how hard it is going to be to make new friends. I find that people are at their most truthful when you first meet them, and when they're drunk. We all know first impressions matter so we purposely put ourselves in the best possible light and dilute all of what we are into an easily digestible package. That's why I tend to tense up when first meeting people. I don't want them to know how stark raving mad I am. I attached myself to a group of people after the meet and greet and we went to the center of the city where I observed their dynamics carefully. This is going to be a fun year. We walked down the street singing showtunes distracting, delighting and repulsing everyone in ear shot. It was fun despite the fact that getting a small drink from McDonalds in downtown requires taking a number and waiting ten minutes. We ended the night at Millennium Park and took our respective trains home.

I'm not quite sure what impression I made. Being largely an observer last night, speaking only when I felt the need, I ran the risk of coming off as anti-social and rude. That's certainly not my intention as most people who have gotten to know me see me as a social butterfly. Oh well. While first impressions do matter, I have a whole year to make a lasting impact. Maybe next time I meet up with a group I should be a little more proactive. That or I can always get drunk.

The Dark Knight Rises

Year: 2012
Genre: Superhero Movie
Directed: Christopher Nolan
Stars: Christian Bale, Gary Oldman, Tom Hardy, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Anne Hathaway, Marion Cotillard, Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine, Matthew Modine, Alon Aboutboul

Production:

Warning: here ye be spoilers! Do not read beyond this point if you have not seen Dark Knight Rises (2012).

First I want to give a special message on something that has to be addressed:

To all those effected by the tragedy in Colorado,

The streets of heaven are filled tonight with the angels, dreamers and fans who's only crime was going to the movies last night. Many of those killed or injured no doubt enriched the lives of others with their enthusiasm not only for the Batman phenomenon but in life itself. My hopes and thoughts go out to you.

The only man who looks good squatting

In 2008, movie audiences got to see the absolute zenith of a pop-culture phenomenon started way back in 1939. It's hard to believe that a character inspired by flying mammals can have such a long-lasting influence on generations upon generations of people. No one is too cool to not like the caped and masked shadow of the night. Like all heroes he stands as an example, a symbol of our highest aspirations.

Wait, I thought you were leading

He's the quintessential American hero topped only by the villains and difficulties he faces. Diluted to their core, the menagerie of colorful foes were the stuff of nightmares symbolizing all the things we would hide under covers as children for. The most popular of the Batman's malefactors, the Joker is a man who is meant to represent chaos in its most sinister form. Played beautifully by the late Heath Ledger, The Joker of The Dark Knight (2008) will never be topped. But if asked who I would rather find myself in a darkened alley with I would pick The Joker over Tom Hardy's Bane any day. For unlike the Joker who remained unpredictable to everyone but himself, Bane has a mission and that mission is pain.

Thus one of the major themes of Christopher Nolan's final chapter of his near perfect Batman trilogy. According to the film, it has been eight years since the events of The Dark Knight and the death of Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart). In that time, the streets had been all but cleaned up thanks to new law enforcement tools and the leadership of Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman). In that time however Batman disappeared from the limelight and Bruce Wayne has been spending his time as a recluse mourning the death of Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal).

Enter Bane (Tom Hardy), a masked terrorist who according to Alfred (Michael Caine) was kicked out of The League of Shadows for being too radical. Think Occupy Wall Street times a thousand and you have a sense of his twisted sense of justice. Wayne dawns the mask and cape once more to find out what he's up to in the sewers of Gotham. His only clue a minxy catburgler by the name of Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway). Supporting characters also include Batman's armory expert Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), Wayne Enterprises board member Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard) and a young beat cop named Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt).

On the whole The Dark Knight Rises was a near prefect film but a crappy comic-book superhero movie. What do I mean by this? The acting and drama is topnotch as is the deceptively labyrinthine story. Its a beautifully shot movie taking full advantage of its urban and underground settings. The themes were big, grand, frightening and original. The third act was 98% exhilaration, 5% adrinaline, 4% awesome and 3% butterscotch ripple. If you forget the fact that the film is a "Batman" film you might be able to enjoy it.

But this is a Batman movie, or at least I think it is. Bruce Wayne and his alterego get surpsingly little screen time in comparison to the Blake character or Commissioner Gordon. The action sequences sans the third act seemed shoehorned at times and unlike Batman Begins (2005) or Dark Knight, didn't have a sense of wonder or humor. Also from a strictly nitpicky point of view, Bane was at times too hard to understand.

Fans of comic-book superhero movies from a conditioned consumer point of view will no doubt be disappointed if not downright angry with the results of this movie. Never mind that the characters of the Batman world have been interpreted and re-interpreted so many times, devotion to a specific trait or storyline is completely pointless.

I only wish that Christopher Nolan went all in. Dark Knight was part superhero part crime drama, Dark Knight Rises should have been 100% dystopian morality play of biblical proportions and an R-rating. Afterall, Bane basically makes Gotham his bitch kneeling to the whims of his twisted idiology. Make that the focus of the film, not Bruce Wayne and his inability to move on from life tragedies.

The most powerful and most poignant scenes were also the simplest. When Alfred confronts Bruce over the note given to him by Rachel, the scenes where the rich and decatent were forced to walk on ice, an army of police staring down the bad guys before an all out melee and finally the scene where Batman knowingly sacrifices himself for his people; that's what I wanted to see more of. None of this Bruce Wayne stuck in a well in Jodhpur.

Final Grade: B-

A Trip to the Art House

When people hear the phrase art house theater they automatically come up with an idea in their head and it's usually not a good one. Artsy, pretentious, slow moving, special effect-less, foreign or dead languages; not exactly words that conjure up the image of high quality entertainment.

But here's a trade secret: art house movies don't really differ that much from mainstream entertainment. Halloween (1978) was an art house title of sorts. So was Reservoir Dogs (1992). More recently Little Miss Sunshine (2006), Drive (2011), and Raid: Redemption (2011) made significant splashes in recent years and they're considered “art house.”

Sometimes they can actually be pretty dumb

An art house movie can have a small budgets with big names. Conversely they can have mid-to-large budgets with no name actors. They can have unconventional plots or run of the mill plots; good cinematography, crappy cinematography. Some people may feel superior in some way because they've seen these movies but the truth is they're no better or worse, nor smarter or dumber than any big blockbusters.

The only difference is the marketing. If advertising were free I have a hunch that just as many people would come out to see Moonrise Kingdom (2012) as they did The Amazing Spider-Man (2012); maybe even more! Stack the acting chops and notoriety of Edward Norton, Bruce Willis, Frances McDormand and Bill Murray up against Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone any day and see who comes out on top.

Stop! Or Wes Anderson will get melancholy all over you!

You have chosen poorly

But I'm a purest and just as Pulp Fiction proved in 1994 and The Social Network proved in 2011, I believe the majority of people go to the movies for the stories they tell; not for the actors, directors or special effects they utilize. You want proof of my hypothesis? Here's a thought experiment: I'm going to give you the basic plots of five movies I've seen recently which you have likely never seen. If one or more peaks your interest take a mental note of it. At the end of this exercise you may be surprised how many art house movies you'd likely dig.

Movie #1

Looking to shake up the world of wine, a surly Englishman makes his way to California to sample and bring back the best that Napa Valley has to offer for a blind taste test in Paris. Once there he meets a stubborn winemaker and his screw-up son who's winery is on the ropes. Based on true events.

No? Not your particular cup of chardonnay? How about this:

Movie #2

Can't guess the titles? Looks like you're being Kareemed!

Hilarity ensues when an inept but well meaning talent agent is tasked with bringing a washed up lounge singer's mistress to an important concert. The talent agent is then mistaken as her new Bo by an ex who happens to be a member of the mob.

Sounds like fun right? Read on:

Movie #3

Taking place in a war ravaged nation, two young boys are tasked with delivering black market goods and get caught in a web of intrigue. Once they are caught by the police, their friendship is challenged when they're sent to an overcrowded boy' penitentiary.

Not too keen on that one? How about this one:

1.21 Gigawatts!

Movie #4

Attracted by an amusing classified ad, three magazine journalists travel to track down and interview a man who claims to be able to go back in time.

Maybe that one was a bit too obvious.

Movie #5

After the strong-armed handling of a bloody prison riot, the colonel of an elite group of policemen is promoted to a high level security position. From there he declares war on the drug cartels to clean up the city. He does so however at the expense of his personal life and the growing threat of corrupt cops and politicians who have benefited from the old order.

If any of these movie plots have peaked your interest you might want to check out your local art house theater and see what else is playing. Seriously. While the trailers might not be playing on TV every five minutes, a little bit of research can go a long way. 

Oh, and by the way, Movie #1 was a 2008 film called Bottle Shock starring Snape himself Alan Rickman. Chris Pine of Star Trek (2009) fame also makes an appearance as does the President of these United States (in 1996's Independence Day anyway) Bill Pullman. Movie #2 was Broadway Danny Rose (1984) a Woody Allen film starring the neurotic nudnik himself and Mia Farrow. Woody Allen by the way has been nominated for 22 Academy Awards, won 3 of them, and has gotten awards in nearly every major film festival known to man. In addition he has written and directed at least a film a year since 1977. If you haven't given his films a chance already what the hell are you waiting for? Movie #3 was a Vittorio De Sica film called Shoeshine (1946) which takes place in Italy, has subtitles, and was shot black and white God forbid. Movie #4, Safety Not Guaranteed (2012) is actually still in theaters. Check it out if you have the chance, it doesn't disappoint. The last movie is a Brazilian film called Elite Squad: The Enemy Within (2010). A movie right up there with Scarface (1983) and The Departed (2006) as far as crime sagas go.

With Talking Animals Like These...

Twice this week I went to the theater to watch the latest animated sequels to hit the big screen. They were Ice Age: Continental Shift (2012) and Madagascar: Europe's Most Wanted (2012). Both times I went with my friend Brent, and both times he had not seen any of the other movies which led to some pretty interesting discussions afterward.

Its called inter-species erotica fucko

Our first outing we sat down and watched Madagascar. I had only seen the first one which I didn't like at all. The animation was awkward, the story just wasn't that interesting, the characters were annoying and the primary lessons was "don't eat your friends." This time around it seemed the makers wanted their public to gleefully swallow more absurd notions than a vegetarian lion. Hippos and giraffes can apparently fall in love; as can bears and lemurs, lions and cheetahs. Whatever floats your boat I suppose.

The plot revolves around the same four animals, Alex the lion (Ben Stiller), Marty the zebra (Chris Rock), Gloria the hippo (Jada Pinkett-Smith) and Melman the giraffe (David Schwimmer). This time the film starts in Africa as they await the arrival of the penguins (animals who also left the zoo from the first movie) to take them back to the zoo. Apparently in the movie I didn't see Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa (2008), the penguins had created a crude aircraft that could fly to Monte Carlo but didn't bring the main characters for some unknown reason. Fearing they were abandoned, the four, along with their lemur compatriots, make their arduous journey to Monte Carlo, which meant they would have had to walk through the thick jungles of central Africa then trek across the world's largest desert, then swim the width of the Mediterranean. But hey why focus on that when with one screen dissolve they're there! Convinient.

Hurray plot contrivances!!

The foursome manage to sneak into a Monte Carlo casino where the penguins and their monkey friends are winning it big. Things get hairy. The fuzz is called and we are introduced to our main villain Captain DuBois

Will stop at nothing to get John Connor

(Frances McDormand) a psychotic, seemingly unstoppable animal control agent. From there the movie just throws everything including the kitchen sink at you in fast procession. A nuclear reactor, a flying machine, an Edith Piaf song that can cure broken bones, a flying circus with a new glut of characters is introduced Jesus movie! Can't you slow down enough to explain anything?
Now don't be thinking I have a lack of imagination here because I don't personally believe a hippo can fit through an air-duct. All I'm saying is if you want to violate the laws of physics that much you should keep it consistent. Why don't the animals simply swim to New York? Why don't they use the nuclear reactor they just happen to have to go back in time before they ever left? Why not break into the CERN Hadron collider in Geneva and make their particle mass resemble that of an electron then travel to New York near the speed of light? They're in the neighborhood after all.

Ice Age 5: Extinction

A few days after the traumatic events of Madagascar we ventured into the theater again last night to see the midnight premiere of Ice Age: Continental Drift. Unlike the Madagascar movies, I've actually seen all of the Ice Age movies and on the whole, I like them. I do find it kind of funny how the the films have progressed over the years and yet the same three characters are always forced to be with each other with the largely mute Scrat character always underfoot. The scale also seems to be widened every damn time too. The first one was about bringing a human child back to its tribe, the second was about saving the whole herd from imminent doom and the third was about being trapped in the land of dinosaurs. In this one literally the entire planet shifts its continents to serve as a plot device. How much you want to bet the next one they're unfrozen in modern times.

In this one, Manny (Ray Romano), Diego (Denis Leary) and Sid (John Leguizamo) are once again separated by friends and family by a massive continental shift. While the trio are bobbing precariously on a piece of ice

Ice Pirates!!!

on the ocean, the herd (which include the voices of Queen Latifah, Seann William Scott, Keke Palmer & Josh Gad) must outrun the shifting continent before they're crushed by debris or forced into the sea. While out in the ocean the trio run into a band of pirates (Peter Dinklage, Jennifer Lopez et al.) who will stop at nothing to bring them down. Also Sid's granny (Wanda Sykes) is with them.

There's nothing too bad about Ice Age in comparison to Madagascar. I could give you some data that proves the continental shift in the story is impossible but at this point, my suspension of disbelief is at an all time high. A lot of the jokes worked very well and while much of the dialogue felt stilted, the main three remain the best part about these movies.

Too...many...characters...can't...feel...face!

I guess the largest problem this Ice Age has is also true of Madagascar. Both are flooded with new characters to interact with placing too much chaos on the screen. Its not like these are tragic or overly dramatic movies, they're animated family films, so they can't really kill off anyone, though sometimes I wish they did. In Ice Age: Continental Drift we have the sloth, his grandmother, his parents and siblings, the mammoth, his wife and daughter, the sabretooth, the two possums, the squirrel, the molehog, the four other mammoths that have lines, the monkey, the other sabretooth, the rabbit, the elephant seal, the badger, the hydraxes, the narwhals, the whale, the kangaroo, the crow...you realize the first one only had seven characters with lines right? So many characters, so little time to dedicate to them and too many of them are dead weight or annoying.

Here's to hoping the next batch of Ice Age movies improve. I do still like the characters and I want to see them at least one more time before they start getting embarrassing. The Madagascar series on the other hand needs to end. Thankfully I think it will.

The World According to Liberty Valance

Late one night/early one morning, I had a pretty deep political conversation with one of my friend's new boyfriends. After the night's festivities he couldn't drive home so I offered my roommate's couch to sleep on. We spoke about a lot of things including religion, civil rights, gun control and of course healthcare. It became obvious we held beliefs on the opposite ends of the modern American political spectrum.

Near the end of the night I summed up the conversation in the same contexts I usually do; by alluding to movies. I asked him if he's ever seen The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962). He said no, then I explained that he was like John Wayne and I was like Jimmy Stewart.

For those of you who don't know the movie, it's a western starring Jimmy Stewart as a Senator famed for killing a notorious outlaw in self-defense. Returning to the birthplace of his political career, he attends the funeral of an apparent nobody (John Wayne) and tells the local reporter his connection to the man.

Be honest, is the flag too much?

The rest of the movie is told in flashback with Jimmy Stewart first getting to town and being beaten and robbed by the outlaw (Lee Marvin). Saved by John Wayne and nursed back to health by a young Vera Miles, Jimmy is shocked to find the whole town lives under the constant threat of Liberty Valance and his gang of thugs. To anger them or the rich ranchers they serve meant harassment and death. The only person quicker on the draw than Valance is of course John Wayne.

Within a few years Stewart's character becomes a man of distinction, setting up his law practice, helping to teach the locals to read and write and eventually becoming a delegate for the statehood convention to the agitation of Valance and the powers that be. He does this all without ever holding a gun but as we all know from the title, eventually Liberty Valance and the future Senator have to duke it out.

This is what non-violence looks like

I tell you all this because it is a great American western that should be seen by all. But when I say the statement “you are like a John Wayne, I am like a Jimmy Stewart,” you can probably guess my meaning even if you've never seen Liberty Valance. Like in Destry Rides Again (1939) and It's a Wonderful Life (1946), Jimmy Stewart fights to do the right thing while holding to a strict code of ethics and conduct. He endures many abuses and humiliations at the hands of Liberty Valance but his staunch determination pays off through direct non-violent action.

Like Jimmy Stewart, John Wayne also fights to do the right thing in his movies but in a much different way. Like in True Grit (1969) and Hondo (1953), John Wayne is the self-appointed protector of the innocent in Liberty Valance. Even at the cost of his personal happiness he, at times begrudgingly, helps those who need it the most in the best way he can; through the power of a cocked Winchester. As represented by his everlasting screen persona, he's a man's man. The best representation of a strong-willed, plain spoken, American male who can be called upon to kick ass and take names. In that order.

Face upon hearing his brother died

Both characterizations can have their drawbacks. I, like Jimmy Stewart have a doltish naivety when it comes to many things including the human inclination towards violence and self-destruction. Conversely if you consider yourself a John Wayne, you may only see the negative side of human nature and are suspicious towards anyone besides yourself and God.

So how do we plug this all into today's political landscape specifically towards the subject of healthcare. While I'm not a big fan of Obamacare, I feel it is better than what we had ten, five even one year ago. I believe everyone should be insured. Everyone should be able to afford the healthcare they need and anyone with preexisting conditions shouldn't be denied coverage period.

Any reasonable opponent of Obamacare would probably agree with those statements, they just don't believe government should be a part of the solution. Fair enough. They are naturally suspicious of the federal government and fear the system may be abused by politicians who will mismanage funds and by those who don't contribute to society. After all, why should my premiums go up because someone who has had two triple bypasses can't get his lazy ass off the couch or lay off the bacon flavored lollipops?

I wish I could make a living talking out of my ass

The majority of the people who make those points are the same people who donate their time and money to charity on a regular basis and the same people who would gladly help a neighbor in need. I say this to underline the fact that those who don't share your point of view aren't necessarily idiots or monsters despite what talk radio says. We live in a time when the conversation is dominated by those who care more about stirring the pot than actually solving problems. They are not John Waynes or Jimmy Stewarts, they are the Liberty Valances of the world.

If I have a point its this: with the election season heating up we need to realize that at the end of the day we all need each other to solve the problems we face. We need the John Waynes of the world for they see our society for what it is, flawed. We need the Jimmy Stewarts of the world for they see what society can become.

The Amazing Spider-Man

Year: 2012
Genre: Superhero Movie
Directed: Marc Webb
Stars: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, Denis Leary, Martin Sheen, Sally Field, Irrfan Khan, Campbell Scott
Production: Columbia Pictures

Remember in 2002 when everyone hotly anticipated the blockbuster season? It was the year Lord of the Ring: The Two Towers and Star Wars: Attack of the Clones made huge wads of cash for their respective franchises. Likewise Harry Potter got its second installment, Austin Powers got its third and James Bond got it’s 20th. While today we roll our eyes and suck our thumbs every other time another cynical franchise building sequel is released, back then we saw them as fresh and special. Well, maybe not but at least the summer was also bedizen with original ideas like Minority Report, Ice Age, My Big Fat Greek Wedding and The Bourne Identity. Somewhere in the middle of it all emerged what would become the third highest grossing film of the year and changed the face of comic-book superhero movies forever. I’m talking of course about Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man.

...and with these hands I killed the Blade franchise

Before 2002, comic book adaptations were largely moody modest budget affairs ala The Crow (1994) and X-Men (2000). The only franchise at the time whose popularity was enough to invest beaucoup bucks was Batman (1989). But by the beginning of the new millennium, that franchise was ice cold dead. Suddenly Spider-Man popped up with its populist sensibilities, bright and colorful cinematography and operatic story. Not since Superman (1978) has so much good ol’ fashioned cheese come to the screen with such panache.

Today many in my peer group lambaste the now dead franchise as derivative. The actors, especially Tobey Maguire and Kristen Dunst have gotten the brunt of recent criticisms for a multitude of reasons and some of them valid. I would argue that while Tobey Maguire was not smart-alecky enough for the role of Spider-Man he was the ideal Peter Parker. He was shy, a bit of a goof and kind of plain-looking, he evoked immediate sympathy from the audience and me. Kristen Dunst as the love interest next door I felt was likewise the perfect embodiment of the role she portrayed.

Don't know how this could possibly fail

A lot of the criticisms about the two young actors I feel stem from both of them being unable to shed the franchise. Neither have done anything remotely as impressive from a financial or acting point of view before or since. Willem Dafoe’s performance while infinitely more cheesy hasn’t gotten the same ire from finicky fans partially because he will always have Platoon (1986) and Shadow of the Vampire (2000) under his belt. Add to all that the fact that Spider-Man 3 (2007) was a narrative mess and people get that sour taste in their mouth when they discuss the old franchise.

Which brings me to the new franchise. I was lucky enough to catch an early screening with a small group at the theater. It was actually a pretty interesting case of serendipity as I had just got out of a screening of Moonrise Kingdom (2012) and was told after exiting the theater the screening for the new Spider-Man was about to start. By the way if you get the chance to watch Moonrise Kingdom you definitely should. it’s a movie that works despite Wes Anderson’s idiosyncratic directing.

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) tries to recreate and remold the titular hero but does so with diminishing

This uncle Ben is next!

results. Like a radically different cover of an old standard tune, the notes are different but the words are the same. A crazed villain tries to wreak havoc on the city, Uncle Ben still dies, and the love story is still left unfinished and open ended. There are of course differences but they don’t have enough flair or pop to really stand out.

It has been only five years since the last installment of the Raimi trilogy and it seems that the lesson the studio learned from Spider-Man 3 was don’t give the director too much freedom. Sam Raimi's pop sensibilities and ego admittedly got the better of him resulting in disaster. So to compensate for Sam Raimi’s too much muchness, they got very green director Marc Webb

If this guy's in high school I'm Madonna

(of 500 Days of Summer fame) willing to play by the rules at least for now.

There were aspects of the film I did like. Much of the impetus of the story revolves around the mysterious disappearance of Peter’s parents which brought new elements to the story. Spider-Man comes home with multiple scabs, bruises and welts from the night’s action which is much more realistic when you’re leading a life of a crime fighter. Emma Stone’s Gwen Stacy was an instantly likeable character as was her no nonsense police commissioner father played by Denis Leary. Emma Stone is one of those lucky popular young actresses who can find universal recognition and praise. She has multiple sides to her which shines in the majority of her performances and makes her incredibly likable. Had the movie been about her I might have actually enjoyed it much more.

Which brings me to probably the biggest complaint I have about The Amazing Spider-Man. I do not like Andrew Garfield as Spider-Man. Not at all. At 28 the actor looks too old to be in high school and much too good looking to be the nerdy, mild-mannered Peter Parker he should be. Once in the suit, he spends an awful lot of time without his mask; likely so people will be distracted by the fact that the costume makes him look like a deflated Voight basketball with legs.

Can you hear me now? Good

You may have noticed I haven’t really mentioned the primary villain The Lizard (Rhys Ifans) in this review. This is largely due to the fact that the character is ultimately treated as inconsequential. An almost compulsory character thrown in because every superhero must have a super villain. His motivations are tenuous at best and nothing in his scenes while transformed really leave an impact. Also as an aside, the New York water filtration systems seem to have an awful lot of exotic looking lizards and great phone reception. Someone should really check into that.

Final Grade: C-

And You Thought It Was Just a Cartoon

You're upset about an arranged marriage? What, are you gay?

There was an article written about the new Pixar film Brave (2012) which caused a bit of stir this past week. Seems somewhere in the bowels of the increasingly tabloid-esque pages of Entertainment Weekly a staff writer interpreted the main character Merida's unwillingness to shack up with one of three dingus male suitors as an indication that she might be gay. He then used its release date which coincided with Pride Week in New York and San Francisco as further evidence of her sexual orientation.

Apparently it does matter

Having seen the film about a princess wanting to drive her own path instead of the one meticulously set-up by her mother, I can tell you first hand that sexuality has absolutely nothing to do with it one way or another. While the reviewer put it in the best of terms by saying that Merida should be considered a “proud” example of gay pride, and while I have absolutely nothing wrong with the homosexual life style, all I can really say to this interpretation is...really? Have we seriously gotten to the point where we're giving sexual labels on kids cartoons? Does it matter that much?

If that's the way you want to read it, fine. As far as you know Merida is a bow touting redheaded Amazonian who will likely run away with Katniss from Hunger Games (2012) and open a used book store in the sequel. But for those of us who don't have an over-reactive gay-dar, we get to enjoy the movie for what it is; a moving tale about the evolution of a mother-daughter relationship and a princess willing to forge her own path. The latter lesson is rather uncommon in today's blockbuster dominated movie landscape. We like to think that sexism is on the retreat and yet annoying little gender stereotypes specifically towards women still remain; especially in mainstream film. At best they are treated as intelligent spewers of exposition. At worst, they are window dressing meant to give the required T & A to a demographic of horny middle schoolers.

100% Straight

Put on the make-up, get out the pumps, slather on the argan oil because if you're not constantly looking like an angel in a tube-top no gentlemen will have you. You're fat, you're ugly, you're too opinionated, change yourself now so you can eventually get a man who has is own gender stereotypes to enforce upon you. Who knows, maybe if you're passive enough you'll get a vampire!

What does this say to otherwise straight women who enjoy sports like archery, rock climbing and horseback riding? What does this say to lesbians who like to wear high heels and like to look pretty? If we have gotten to the point where gay men can join the Army and straight men can sing and dance on Broadway, why the hell can't women save themselves from harm way for once in cinematic history? 

These gender stereotypes are ridiculously outdated and ultimately as harmful as racial ones. They limit people from their potential whatever that might be. Pixar confounds stereotypes in favor of once again telling a great story which I'm sure we can all agree is a pretty brave thing to do.

Rock of Ages

Year: 2012
Genre: Musical Comedy
Directed: Adam Shankman
Stars: Julianne Hough, Diego Boneta, Rusell Brand, Alec Baldwin, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Bryan Cranston, Tom Cruise, Paul Giamatti, Malin Akerman
Production: New Line Cinema

New Line Cinema and Warner Brothers wants you to know something: they hate you. They have no respect for you and they want your money. This is the message I received loud and clear while watching Rock of Ages (2012) this last week; a movie as foul and unnecessary as the innards of my garbage disposal. But lets back up a bit.

As if you didn't already know they hate you

As you may have guessed by now I have all but surrendered to my desires of watching any movie I damn well please. My list of a hundred movies, while still a goal set for the end of the year, is not my focus for this blog. The reasons are many but the largest is the sheer amount of movies I have and will likely miss out on, not just in theaters but on Netflix as well. Since liberating myself from the shackles of my list of 100, I have watched these films not included in it: John Carter (2012), Ace in the Hole (1951), Potiche (2010), Men in Black 3 (2012), The Day of the Jackal (1973), Mona Lisa Smile (2003), The Hidden Fortress (1958) and Rock of Ages (2012). They along with Prometheus (2012) bring my total to 2971 movies. Only 29 to go before I reach my goal.

Hard to believe this man has never won an Oscar

None of the movies I had watched were particularly bad. In fact they were at least okay and I'd recommend them all with the exception of one. Which brings us back to the subject at hand; that subject being the face and inner ear rape that was Rock of Ages. Now for those of you who aren't familiar with the Broadway show let me lay some knowledge on you. Rock of Ages is a Tony nominated jukebox musical about a small town girl (Julianne Hough) "living in a lonely world" who comes out to L.A. for her big singing break. Once there she gets a job as a waitress at an infamous rock club thanks to a pretty boy bar-back (Diego Boneta) who, of course, wants to be a rock star. The club however is on the verge of bankruptcy and is being protested by local politicians played by Catherine Zeta-Jones and Bryan Cranston (You read that right Bryan Cranston). To stop the bulldozers from leveling the place, bar owner Dennis Dupree (Alec Baldwin) is putting all his cards on "legendary," but unreliable rock star Stacee Jaxx (Tom Cruise).

I stay up past my bed time like a true rebel!

I can see the movie's creators pitching the idea to investors thusly: its the perfect date movie. A heartfelt romantic comedy for the ladies, set to the tunes of 1980's classic rock for the fellas. Oh and its also PG-13 which means its diluted enough to entice the young who didn't grow up in the age of vinyl and those old enough to remember protesting outside of Def Leppard concerts. While I don't know enough about the musical to assume the same of it, the film feels like a sorry assemblage of compromises. What is a strip club without nudity? What is rock and roll without sex or drugs? What is a love story without love? This movie.

Y'all got nothing on this shit

All these plot devices and processed, squeaky-clean camp are the perfect ingredients for a mediocre movie ala Footloose (1984). But there is no redeeming this clunky, overlong waste of marquee space. The movie is simultaneously exhausting and boring. Not five minutes goes by without someone belting out a song and yet the plot has no sense of urgency so you basically sit there waiting for the song to end and the plot to begin. The songs themselves rarely fit the characters, mood or circumstances. What does Foreigner's "Jukebox Hero" have to do with losing your vinyl collection, Twisted Sister's "Were not Gonna Take It" have to do with shutting down a club or Bon Jovi's "Wanted Dead or Alive" have to do with anything? Furthermore the choreography consisted largely of actors walking in front of colored lights while extras walked behind them. I guess the days of Fred Astaire and Gregory Hines is over replaced by the days of Julianne Hough climbing a stripper pole and hanging perfectly still.

And yet, I get the noise violation

And what of the love story? You know that one thing that should drive the plot but plays second fiddle to three other uninteresting subplots? Well you know how in every romantic comedy there is that "complication," where two thirds into the movie one person takes the others words or actions out of context, resulting in a twenty minute brooding period that's resolved by the time the credits roll? Yea, that happens. And it happens in such moronic way that I honestly felt these people did not deserve happiness.

Rock of Ages was down right insulting. At no time they attempt to honor the actual ethos of rock and roll, give a shout out to the people who wrote the songs they were butchering or even try to tell a discernible story. The best you can say about it is that it's like watching decent karaoke. But lets face it, unless you're the one up there singing, you know its better just to listen to the real thing.

Final Grade: F

Haters Gonna Hate

Heated discussion seems to be in vogue over the past week. With Prometheus having hit theaters last Friday, the reviews on the blogosphere has been anything but positive. Many were disappointed by its merely casual relation to Alien (1979) the sci-fi horror that put director Ridley Scott on the map. Others didn't like the open ending which left everything, cosmologically speaking up in the air. And some (myself included) just didn't like the litany of horror movie cliches.

I shall call you Cuddles

I'm partially to blame for my own disappointment with the film. The trailer and positive buzz around the movie built it up to be the go-to sci-fi of the year. Placing the ad side-by-side with The Dark Knight Rises (2012) trailer only made it look more exciting than it should have been. With friends galvanized by the thought of Ridley Scott returning to form, it seemed nearly impossible for Prometheus to exceed expectations and the hype.

Or maybe it was the other way

The fact remains Prometheus is a solid film. Not a masterpiece but if it was part of a double feature with Robinson Crusoe on Mars (1964) I'd feel I got my moneys worth. Those who have been cursing Prometheus as a monstrous failure or worse yet, a prattling and pretentious mess are only trying to defuse their own unrealized visions. The fact is Prometheus is not your vision nor mine, it stems from the expanded universe created by Ridley Scott. To put it in terms a fan-boy can understand, just like George Lucas can ruin Star Wars (1977) or Spielberg can ruin Indiana Jones (1981), so too can Scott "ruin" Alien.

But what exactly was ruined? Prometheus isn't Alien anymore than Star Trek is Star Wars. It has a completely different feel, different cinematography, different themes. Alien didn't ask a lot of cosmological questions but Prometheus at least tried. Anything that attempts to solve eternal questions while inserting facets from both faith and science is worth spending a little extra time and effort discussing.

So that's how many licks it take to get to the middle of a Tootsie pop

And I have, as should you if you've seen it. Try not to focus on the bad-decision syndrome (BDS) most of the crew seem to suffer from. Instead revel in the atmosphere, the grandeur and the various existential quandaries that excite your brain. If you watch the film with those things in mind and have a good time; bully for you. If not, watch The Tree of Life (2011) and/or 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). Both pose and answer such questions much better.

Yea, I know, totally gay right?

Its ridiculous how much of the ire seems to be directed towards Ridley Scott. One of my friends mentioned she didn't like Scott very much because of his pomposity, especially in the light of Prometheus. This reminded me of a similar argument I had with one of my managers over the work of James Cameron. He was of the opinion that Cameron is a hack who makes movies that are shallow, unoriginal and overly dependent on special-effects. I defended Cameron as best as I could. I'm in the minority here I know, few people my age, manner and gender like Titanic and fewer still like Avatar (2009). He even went further to say that Titanic (1997) is the reason for Hollywood's love affair with CGI and big budget spectacles.

Hey look a convenient excuse for good storytelling!

First off, if you want to blame CGI on someone, blame it on John Lasseter and the success of Toy Story (1995) if you want to blame anyone for big budget spectacles blame Louis B. Mayer and Cecil B. DeMille; Though my belief is if you have a movie without spectacle its not a movie its a slide show. The idea that Cameron, Scott or even Michael "bang-crash" Bay is somehow to blame for bloated blockbusters is just absurd. The basis for such arguments are mostly due to the accessibility of such films coupled with the specific auteurs' success. To some people, the fact that something is popular means its somehow bad or at least worth a sharper critical eye.

I suggest after watching Prometheus you sit down and give Titanic and Avatar another try. They're all strong movies that try to do big things. I like big things. I like it when people express big ideas and do so with a sense of style, wizardry, and yes even a little bit of hokum. Those who are overly critical of mass culture risk being alienated and can't see that these films can actually enrich them if they let their guard down. But you know what they say...