Not What Warner Is Releasing This Summer

I almost feel like this would have worked as a series in the 80's. Certainly would have been much better than the Christmas Special:

It has all the good stuff about Star Wars (Han/Chewy, fights, some irreverent humor, etc.), without all the crappy stuff (Han/Leia). Certainly, under this premise, there never would have been a Jar-Jar Binks.

Avatar

IMAX. 3-D. Furniture store...what?

All the non-museum (ie commercial) IMAX theaters in Boston are housed within Jordan's Furniture Stores. Weird phenomenon (and smaller screen sizes). On the bright side, all the chairs on the theater are tempur-pedic.


-- Posted from my iPodPhone

We Only Care About Ourselves

It's true. Civic engagement in this country is in the crapper and has been for a while. Everyone was really excited about the turnout in 2008, but the final number was 57%...57%! I shouldn't be surprised that people are uninformed about issues that truly are important to them: they either don't have time to learn or don't care enough to. Those who are engaged seem to be protesting things that don't actually exist. Though we may all care about about issues that are important to us (or more directly impact people's lives), it's really ourselves we care about the most:

Now, there have been a lot of recent posts about depressed enthusiasm among Democratic voters combined with more passion on the Right potentially leading to Republicans recapturing the House next year. That would be a travesty. I'm pretty down on the current state of HCR, Climate Change legislation, Financial Services reform, etc., myself. Voters can get engaged: make phone calls, write letters, donate/withhold money, call Joe Lieberman a douche, etc. But if they really want a bill that makes sense...if they want real reform...then the President has to do something about it.

He may need the votes congress to get reform passed, but he still needs to reform something on the other end of it. Someone please move this to the top of Barack's Netflix queue.

Super Talented

I had tickets to see The Swell Season when they were in Boston earlier this year, but ended up traveling for work and missed the show. I'm glad to see that they are still touring. Apparently, at a recent LA show, Jason Segel came up on stage and performed. Pretty good stuff:

I stand by my earlier contention that Jeff Zucker absolutely destroyed NBC and its long-term future and it's absurd that he a) still has a job and b) is likely to get some kind of major pay-day from the Comcast/NBCU/GE/Vivendi deal. Horrrrrrrrrrrendous.

Greatest Action Figure Ever

-- Posted from my iPodPhone

Between Two Ferns

I think this might be my favorite one yet. In honor of the "Mad Men" Season 3 premiere:

Funny People and Grill's Favorite Lazy Idiot

I saw Funny People yesterday and quite liked it. It's been getting some fairly bad reviews for being too serious and not "Apatow" enough and containing some fairly blah acting performances. But I think it's been unfairly criticized. This, apparently, puts me in the same camp as Grill's favorite lazy idiot, Ross Douthat. (His commentary can be found here). I'll save my general feelings about the movie until the bottom, but first, a little bit of a response to what he had to say...

First:

"No recent movie has made the case for abortion look as self-evidently awful as "Knocked Up," Apatow's 2007 keep-the-baby farce."

REALLY?

I find it hard to take anything he says seriously after a comment like that. A "keep-the-baby farce?" While I think it was pretty ridiculous that that movie mentioned abortion once (because clearly anyone in that situation - ESPECIALLY a reporter in Hollywood - would at least broach the subject), I have a hard time believing that was an intended purpose/message of the movie (i.e., "keep the baby"). In fact, I would go so far as to say that Apatow likely left out that discussion specifically to appeal to a large portion of this country who would have written it off on principle if that discussion had gotten to direct, serious or graphic. To take the fact that they did keep the baby, which - as you know - like DROVE THE PLOT OF THE ENTIRE MOVIE and suggest it was a sign of social conservativism is (to take grill's line/complaint) both quite lazy and reeks of backwards rationalization/reasoning.

More goodies (baddies?):

"Tolerate a much more abortion regime" (emphasis mine). Posted without comment, but with nausea. (Which I guess means I posted with comment. So sue me).

"We wring our hands over stem cell research." We do? Who are the "we" here, exactly? Know your audience, at least a little, even if you are the conservative op-ed voice at the Times.

Douthat uses this all as support of his argument that, "we’re conservative right up until the moment that it costs us," and again, I think I will ask: who are the "we?" America? Because I'm not in that camp, and - judging by our most recent election - I'm certainly not alone. In fact, I would argue that people are liberal up until the moment that it costs us. Last time I checked, it's generally more expensive to be a liberal, what with our paying for more services, higher taxes and everything else that we get accused - somewhat rightly - for doing.
< /Douthat criticism>

Onto the movie itself:

As I said, I really liked it, although I'm still feeling pretty deflated about it, which is how I was feeling when leaving the theater. It paints a pretty gray picture of everything, which I think is probably a more accurate depiction of many aspects of life and relationships than what usually gets shown to us in movies, but that doesn't generally leave you feeling warm and fuzzy inside. I think the fact that the movie descended into something of a Greek Tragedy in the second half was actually kind of refreshing. Yes, it was a little schizophrenic, but I think that life and relationships (especially marriages) are all over the place and clearly full of conflicting feelings and situations, and the movie did a good job of giving that feeling. Coupled with the fact that the first half was legitimately hilarious, and I genuinely liked the movie.

On the other hand...

I thought that Seth Rogen kind of sucked (he's just not a good serious actor...his idea of acting appears to be making lots of different uncomfortable faces to convey various emotions), and I also thought that Jason Schwartzman, who I generally like, was pretty thin. BUT, Adam Sandler was fantastic, and while I think many people will probably think that Eric Bana's character was supposed to be fluffy and despicable, I actually thought he was pretty good and redeeming [ducks lightening bolt].

My biggest gripe about the whole movie was the big fight between Leslie Mann & Eric Bana. That she slipped into that Aussie accent annoyed me so much. What the hell was the purpose of that? Was that her suddenly standing up to him, when she never would before? Was she trying to throw something back in his face? It just struck me as totally out of place and unnecessary. She was finally, although somewhat misguidedly, revealing her true feelings and yet it came across as trying to get a cheap laugh.

And speaking of Leslie Mann: I found it pretty clear that Apatow is madly in love with his wife...the way that he shoots her is pretty intense. Lots of closeups and very flattering lighting. While she did a serviceable job, I don't know that I needed all of that. Then again, it's not about me.< /disjointed criticism>

2 Videos: She & Him and More Dawes!

She & Him, Zooey Deschanel's band (with the fantastic M. Ward) and vehicle for further entrancing indie guys, has lent a song to a (500) Days of Summer-related music video. It's my favorite song of theirs, "Why Do You Let Me Stay Here?" and the plot line of the video kinda sorta maybe a little matches the trajectory of the relationship in the movie. Either way, good stuff. And, as SMcG points out, Joseph Gordon-Leavitt is becoming the straight Neil Patrick Harris...Enjoy.

And for those of you unconvinced about Dawes, I offer the following. Covering Joe Cocker covering The Beatles...I wish they would have played this at either of the 2 shows of theirs that I was at.

6 Hour Energy

You can't do six minute abs. The seventh minute is key!

-- Posted From My iPodPhone

(500) Days of Summer & the Birth of a Film Genre

Well, birth might be a strong term, but I'm officially "naming" a genre of films that, to this point, has seemingly been un-categorized. A movie genre bris/baptism, if you will.

My girlfriend and I went to see "(500) Days of Summer" last weekend.

We both thoroughly enjoyed it for a mixture of reasons. Good acting, awesome music, clever time-bending narrative, a bashing of the greeting-card industry, Zooey Deschanel's eyes, a friendly take on the unfriendly downtown LA, Zooey Deschanel's name, etc.

We exited the theatre, rehashing our favorite parts of the film. She mentioned that she really appreciated that the film was told, pretty honestly, from the male point of view; something atypical of a romance/date movie. Thinking about it, I replied, "yeah, sort of like Almost Famous." When she gave me a blank stare, I explained:

The movie shows how guys are typically uncomfortable expressing emotions, except in big swings or when it's too late. We typically listen to music that will exactly complement (ie exacerbate) whatever mood we are in. We are most attracted to females that we can have or can't figure out, but who show a slight interest in us and some common interests. We talk to our guy friends about all the goings on in our personal lives, just in a less emotionally open and honest way (ie, we joke...a lot). When the time comes for us to do the hard things/make the hard decisions, we can...just sometimes with it takes some prodding. At the end, we may or may not get the girl, but we generally come away feeling like we'll be ok. When we're really lucky, there's another one out there.

I jokingly said that there should be a specific genre/name for these type of movies. With the Apatow crew having mastered the "Bromance," I came up with "RoMENce movies."

Must have a male main character who is likable, but fully capable of being an ass. Not an asshole. There is a distinction. An ass could worry that his new girlfriend isn't as interested in him as he is in her and maybe say some stupid things. An asshole would sleep with her best friend.

Movie must be about/contain/have a soundtrack with ridiculously awesome music. It can be from that era, a previous era or a mix. The music should not only be of high quality, but it must be finely tuned to the tone of the scenes in which they appear and the overall movie. This is much harder than you think. It's really easy to be too obvious here.

There can't be too much deus ex machina unless it fits into the story line. This also means that boy doesn't always get girl. Guys can't relate to a romantic movie that always has a perfectly happy ending. The ending can be happy, just not too happy.

Generally, the female love interest should be attractive, but not too attractive. I know this is splitting hairs considering we are talking about Hollywood actresses, but hear me out. While guys may sit around talking about which actress/supermodel/athlete is so incredibly attractive, dating that kind of person is sort of like dating an alien (unless you are also an alien/Brad Pitt). Normal guys are looking for a female they are attracted to that is also "attainable." If we are going to sit in a movie theater and relate to a relationship on screen, it can't be between Martin Starr and Bar Refaeli because the writers thought it would be clever to have them meet on J-Date.

The movie must make you think. And it can't just be, "This movie is so right, all guys are insensitive pricks who only want to get laid," or "why doesn't he see who she really is behind those glasses," or "if guys were only more like women wanted them to be, they wouldn't screw up all the time." This is true for both males and females in the audience.

Other Notable "RoMENce" movies:

Almost Famous - As mentioned, this might be the movie that defined the genre (if it's a modern phenomenon. William Miller (aka Cameron Crowe on film), aptly played by Patrick Fugit, loves music, loves a girl, loves a band whose lead guitar player is also in love with the girl. He's conflicted and confused by his love for these things and his desire to write about them honestly. He's voice of sanity is an insane music writer (my favorite Philip Seymour Hoffman performance). He goes on the road, exploring all of these relationships, with his story (and his actual experiences) narrated by a rich mix of music of the era: Elton John, The Beach Boys, The Who, Simon and Garfunkel, Led Zeppelin and Rod Stewart. The music mixes well together in the film and the film doesn't work without the mix of music. Every male who sees the movie can empathize with William's heartache, earnestness and desire to score Goldie Hawn's daughter. Credit to Frances McDormand for playing every Jewish mother ever without actually playing a Jewish lady.

High Fidelity - This one is sort of a cheat, because it was based on the terrific book by Nick Hornby. The book, set in England, hits all the notes perfectly: music to match emotional moods (doesn't every guy sulk with sulky, emotional British pop?), never feeling quite satisfied that everyone in a relationship is just as perfect as it could/should/might be, never feeling like you have any control of the relationship and, most common, overthinking all of the possible things that your girlfriend/wife/significant other might be thinking/doing/enjoying after you have a fight? I think Cusack (who originally optioned the book rights) and Director Stephen Frears did a really job staying true to the "RoMENce" aspect of the book while translating it for American audiences. They left certain music the same and made some appropriate changes to help make it more relatable to American audiences. The story is told entirely from the point of view of Rob Gordon (Cusack), a record store owner who is just trying not to get in the way of his own happiness. He's honest about things that are his fault, both before and after the fact (we often know when we are being idiots...well, sometimes). Watching this, I cringe at the awkward scenes/interactions, not just because they are awkward, but because I can specifically remember doing similarly awkward things. Special props to Tim Robbins for his role as "Ray" the upstairs neighbor and potential love interest for Rob's ex/current/on-again/off-again girlfriend.

What are your thoughts? Other movies that fit into my new genre? I totally forgot "Garden State!" I feel like you could make the argument for some classics (Casablanca?). Also, I would argue that John Cusack went from the star of the "RoMENce" era (Classic Cusack Trio: "The Sure Thing," "Better Off Dead," and "One Crazy Summer") to a regular RomCom whipping boy (Not-Classic Cusack Trio: "America's Sweethears," "Serendipity" and "Must Love Dogs") overnight. Who might take his place?

Crawford

So, my friend David Modigliani has made a terrific documentary about the residents of a small town in Texas by the name of Crawford. Crawford, TX is not the town that many people assumed (ie, it's not just the bike-riding, brush-clearing, summit-hosting vacation home of our soon-to-be-former President).

Crawford has been accepted into the South by Southwest Film Festival (SxSW) and it needs a little help. Because the film features footage from television newsreels, they must raise some money to keep this original (and essential) footage in the film. In truth, I feel like my introduction is sort of a ramble, when I am posting with a real purpose. I will leave the details to Modig:

It's been great news for CRAWFORD -- first we got into SxSW, then we were given 3 screenings, all at the Paramount -- the 1300-seat Theater downtown.

Check out the trailer:


Exciting stuff. Been working 18 hrs. a day to knock out the final cut -- bringing the project from standard def. back into HD (which we shot it in) for the big screen, mixing audio at a professional studio for the 5-1 speakers in theaters, and - this has been the hardest - licensing about 7 minutes of archival news footage at $80/sec. The networks nail you on that.

I'm really proud of the movie and this is the final push -- we give SxSW the master on March 1. We need to raise $50K and we've raised $38K. Getting close. A contribution (tax-deductible) would be a huge boost. You can contribute online -- here or you can write a check to Refraction Arts with "Crawford" on the memo line and send it to me at:

Crawford Movie
1312 Willow St.
Austin, TX 78702

It looks like we'll have a chance to screen the film in NYC this summer.

So please give if you can. It's really important to support independent filmmakers, particularly a filmmaker like David who has really captured an amazing story. Give if you can!

Oscars

I don't know if it was because the writers' stike didn't allow enough time to come up with funny stuff or not, but I found tonight's Academy Awards to be pretty boring. I enjoyed when Jon Stewart brought Marketa Ingvar out to let her say thank you, but it seemed pretty un-memorable otherwise. Too bad, pefect night for some major upsets or surprises. Where's the streaker or the freaking out actor (paging Cuba Gooding Jr.) to liven things up a bit?  I did think Stewart did a good job, though.

-------------------------
Sent using BlackBerry Wireless

Ummmm, More of This Please

I was a little nervous, with George Lucas (post IJ: QFtHG) involved that this might end up like the disastrous "Phantom Menace," but I think Spielberg is a force for good. The title is so-so to me, but it looks like Indy is back and older than ever:

"Damn, I thought that was closer." Classic.