Changing Horses In Midstream

I watched Hancock earlier this week, and while it had its moments and solidified my high regard for Will Smith as an actor, I did not like the film. It had a lot of potential. Perhaps too much, as by the end it seemed to be pulling in multiple directions.

In fact, halfway through it complete shifts both plot AND tone. Initially, I thought this was its major fault. And while that definitely let to my dissatisfaction, I later realized the mere fact it changed so quickly and so significantly wasn't the problem.

Million Dollar Baby does a very similar thing, as its plot and tone take, if not a complete 180, still enough of a turn to throw you off. But I liked it. A lot.

In trying to analyze the differences in how the films handle these changes, I was surprised at the similarities I found.

Obviously to discuss these I'll need to go into some detail about both films' plots, so here's a warning: THERE BE SPOILERS!

Both films begin with a plot that is exactly what you'd expect from watching the previews. Hancock follows a superhero who's kind of an asshole as he tries to rebuild his image. Million Dollar Baby follows a tough female boxer as she convinces a retired boxing coach to train her, leading to the formation of a very loving, father-daughter sort of bond.

The latter film's tone during its first half is pretty easy to define. It's a realistic, gritty, yet upbeat mood of yearning for the underdog to make it. Basically, Rocky with a girl.

Hancock is a little harder to define, which is what kept me interested for awhile. While it's definitely comedic, there's a sense of sadness permeating from the title character; you can feel his loneliness and desire to be loved. And the humor itself, while slipping into over-the-top country a couple of times, stays fairly tongue-in-cheek. There are elaborate special effects, but they aren't meant to inspire awe. They essentially say, "Yeah, I'm a superhero. Here's the kind of shit I can do."

Even as Hancock tries to reinvent himself, the film avoids being too sappy (for awhile). It has a bit of fun with the idea that he can still be an asshole as long as he's a lovable asshole. (But don't get my started on how much I hated the "call me an asshole one more time" motif.)

I would hardly call the revelation that Mary (Charlize Theron), the wife of the PR agent (Jason Bateman) helping Hancock change his image, also has superpowers a plot twist. From the first moment she and Hancock see each other, it's annoyingly, painfully obvious that they share some kind of secret. Then it just becomes a matter of how long the film drags on before finally getting to it.

Though it turned out to be too good to be true, I loved Hancock's simple explanation for why he was the way he was. He didn't know. He woke up in an emergency room in Miami eighty years ago (He doesn't age.) with a crushed skull and amnesia. The skull miraculously healed itself, and he discovered he was invincible.

Wham, bam, thank you ma'am. Since this wasn't an origin story, I didn't care to know all of the intricate details about how he got his powers. (Actually, I generally don't care to know them even when it IS an origin story because they tend to focus on them too much.)

But after Mary reveals her secret, we're treated to some of the most convoluted backstory possible. I've tried to sort out the details to make it easier, but believe me when I say it wasn't explained nearly as concisely as I've done here.

1. Thousands of years ago, a number of "things" like Hancock were put on Earth to protect the people and watch over them.
2. For some reason, they were created in pairs, which meant they were forever linked and predisposed to being together. Whenever they're apart, they are drawn to each other, sometimes without knowing it (like when one has amnesia).
3. This is an especially bad idea because when the pairs are together for two long, they start to become mortal. This leaves them vulnerable to attacks and death by old age, which is how all the others died.
4. Distance is the only thing that helps them keep their powers, so Mary has tried to stay away, but Hancock keeps being drawn to her .
5. They were together a number of times in the past, but since they were vulnerable, they were attacked. I'm assuming that they were then apart for long stretches of time, otherwise they'd be much older.

Before all of this came out, I thought the revelation was going to be that Mary was actually a super villain, and that she and Hancock would have to fight. That ain't great, but it's a lot more straight-forward than what they went with.

A bit of a side note: My initial guess was that Mary had gotten her powers from sleeping with Hancock in the past. But perhaps the implications of that are beyond the bounds of PG-13 territory.

This isn't to say that I don't want a complicated story-line. It just don't want a convoluted one. There is something incredibly tragic in the idea of a couple that is separated for hundreds of years at a time in order to keep the other one safe. That reminds me of The Time Traveler's Wife in a way. But having Mary simply talk about it wasn't enough to get me emotionally invested.

The biggest problem was all of the explanation that became necessary after the plot changed. It went from a movie that didn't need to explain anything to a movie that still didn't make sense after seemingly endless discussions.

While Million Dollar Baby dramatically shifts plots as well, we know exactly what's going on. One of Maggie's (Hilary Swank) opponents fights dirty and punches her after the round ending bell has sounded, catching her off-guard. She's knocked down and lands on her stool in such a way that she becomes completely paralyzed, save for above the neck.

It definitely grabs you from out of nowhere, pulling you into the depths of hell. But even though it's a surprise turn, you know exactly what's going on. The only questions that need to be asked are moral ones, and the film doesn't really ask them for you, much less attempt to answer them.

While they still would have needed to cut down on all of the exposition, Hancock would have been a lot more interesting if the story had changed to something we were familiar with, such as an affair between Hancock and Mary. At least that would have thrown us off of the real secret for awhile.

The tonal shift in Million Dollar Baby isn't significant, but it's there. While the film stays gritty and realistic, it loses that uplifting hope that it starts with when you think you're going to watch Maggie rise to greatness. Instead, you're filled with agony and despair.

Hancock's tonal shift is much more pronounced, and the really unfortunate thing about it is that while the plot gets more serious and dramatic (or at least attempts to), the tone becomes campier and more cookie-cutter blockbuster action movie.

Mary doesn't want Hancock to expose her secret. When he flies off to do so, they have a huge chase, destroying everything in their path and eventually fighting in front of Mann's Chinese Theater, which is kind of a stupid move on her part if she wants to keep her powers a secret. In addition, the special effects are now meant to dazzle us, including a tornado and snow that shows up for some reason.

This could have been really powerful and dramatic. A woman desperate to keep her secret hidden in order to keep the man she loves. Instead it becomes a pointless action sequence.

The real twist of the plot (that is, the only thing that really surprised me) comes soon after this when Hancock is injured. For some reason, Mary told him everything except how them being together makes them slowly become mortal.

This scene is done pretty brilliantly, as it seems to be about Hancock slipping back into his alcoholism. He stops by a convenience store to buy some drinks and winds up thwarting a robbery. He gets shot in the process, and the bullets actually wound him. (Though to what degree is never clear. He's not entirely mortal because he gets shot A LOT later and doesn't die.)

So as you see, both films feature serious injuries that take you by complete surprise. And afterwards, the majority of the film takes place in a hospital.

In Hancock's case, the hospital serves as an action set piece when some "villains" return to settle the score after a prison break. While I'll admit that Hancock is more vulnerable now, these bad guys were previously NO THREAT WHATSOEVER, so it's hard to be worried for him. Add that to the fact that they have no plan except to show up at the hospital with guns. Considering that they don't know why Hancock was injured (for all they know it was a special kind of bullet that they don't have), this is really stupid.

Both films end with the main character making a decision to do what he thinks is best for the female lead. In Million Dollar Baby, Frankie (Clint Wastwood) euthanizes Maggie, and though this has lead to a lot of debate, it's definitely what her character wants.

The decision in Hancock isn't nearly as tough to make. He leaves. It's supposed to seem tough because Hancock has been shot and has to stagger away, leap out a window, and get further and further away so that he and Mary can become immortal again. (As he's attacked by the bad guys she suffers the pain right along with him, so by the end they are both on the brink of death.)

That is, I think they are. But it's never clear exactly how close he is to dying or how much he even feels the pain. Granted, I didn't want more explanation. But it would have been nice to have had some idea of how heroic his actions were.

With both of these films, I knew there was a "twist" before I saw the movie. No one called the turn of events in Million Dollar Baby by the name "plot twist" though, perhaps because it was a freak occurrence and not a revelation that had been true all along. And I wouldn't call the first reveal in Hancock a twist simply because it was so inevitable from the very beginning.

One I loved. One I didn't like. Obviously other things in the films besides how they handle the major change affected those decisions, but I'm sure not having to listen to countless questions be answered helped me become much more engrossed with the drama in Million Dollar Baby.

Can anyone else think of any other films that shift so dramatically in either plot, tone, or both? And what did you think of them?

This Was Your Life

The other night my roommate and I attended a screening of the soon to be released film American Teen. It’s your typical high school film. There’s comedy and drama. People are mean. There’s a nerd who wants to find a girlfriend. There are relationships that start and end. There’s a subplot about the basketball team. More or less everything you’d expect.

One major difference though: it’s all real. Nanette Burstein, director of the documentary The Kid Stays In The Picture, followed a group of high schoolers in Warsaw, Indiana for their senior year. While the film isn’t anything groundbreaking, it is an interesting look back into the whole high school experience, a nostalgic jaunt down memory lane.[1]

It’s interesting how closely some of the storylines resemble Hollywood films. There’s a group of popular girls who take down one of their own, a la Mean Girls, though what they do is infinitely crueler. There’s a jock who dates the free-flowing artistic girl only to break her heart. Though Freddie Prinze Jr. isn’t a jock[2], it reminded me of She’s All That, minus the happy ending.

After the screening, four of the featured teens (now two years older[3]) answered questions about their experience with the film, including what it was like to look back on documented evidence of their senior year. That is, eight months of their lives.

This got me thinking about what a strange experience this would be. It’s not reality TV, where years down the line you could see how you acted in a certain competition. It’s not even a documentary about a specific event, like Spellbound or The King of Kong. It’s merely following their normal everyday lives, much like the show “This American Life” focuses on a particular aspect of someone’s daily life that, while normal to them, might seem strange to outsiders.[4]

Most of us look back on our teenage years and laugh at certain aspects and feel bad about others. But they can literally watch themselves. It’s as if they had a crazy documentarian for a Dad.[5]

All of the people involved with American Teen have changed significantly, which is to be expected, but they each found it fascinating to look back on themselves. While I wouldn’t relish having a camera crew follow me around, I can’t deny how much I’d love to see movies scrapped together from previous years of my life.

What about you? Do you think you’d learn anything from it? Would you enjoy it? Or do you want to leave the past in the past?

---

[1] I actually identified most with a friend character that was barely featured. I didn’t really learn enough about him to know if we were alike, but I have a feeling.

[2] Summer Catch doesn’t count.

[3] So probably not teens anymore, for the most part.

[4] But even this is more specific than American Teen. No one would call anything in the lives of those teens out of the ordinary.

[5] I bet there is years’ worth of footage of Werner Herzog’s kids.

Women Wear Pants Too: The Ladies of "Man Stroke Woman"

From time to time, I'll highlight a lady that gets to do more in Hollywood than just play the wife/girlfriend/romantic interest.

THE LADIES OF “MAN STROKE WOMAN”

Amanda Abbington

Daisy Haggard

Meredith MacNeill

First, let me clarify that this show isn’t as risqué as the title makes it sound.[1] It airs on BBC, and in American terminology it would more accurately be described as “Man Slash Woman,” that is, men & women and their various interactions. It’s a sketch comedy show featuring the three women above plus three men. The most famous of the bunch is Nick Frost, costar to Simon Pegg in both Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz.[2]

The show has a number of things going for it, all of which have to do with keeping things small. Each episode is only a half hour long, so you can race through a few episodes (or the entire disc) without feeling too guilty. The first series (as “seasons” are called in the UK) is only six episodes, so while all of the sketches might not be hilarious, it never feels as if they ran out of ideas. And perhaps most importantly, the sketches are only as long as they need to be. Some are only a few seconds, while others are longer, but rarely does one go past two minutes.[3] No one can accuse the Brits of overstaying their welcome.[4]

I rented it from Netflix and promptly went through it in two sittings. Though my roommate and I repeat some of the lines from time to time, and I would love to show many of the sketches to other friends, I can’t advocate buying it because I felt it was a bit uneven.

Still, it’s an impressive feat for a cast of six, another aspect that makes the show so interesting. Only when it’s essential to the sketch do any of the performers change appearances, so sometimes it’s fun when a recurring character makes a surprise appearance in a sketch that you thought was going to be about something else entirely.[5]

Having such a small cast could be a negative factor if there was a performer you just couldn’t stand, but I seriously doubt that will be the case, as each person more than pulls his or her own weight. Since I’ve talked before about how a number of people think women aren’t funny, let me just say that the women on this show are INCREDIBLY funny. Each one is equally adept at playing the “straight man” or the comical centerpiece. And it doesn’t matter if it’s a pair, the three ladies, or the whole group on screen…no one gets pushed to the background.

There are a number of sketches to be found on Youtube if you care to peruse. In fact, many of my favorites from online turned out to be from series two, which already aired in Britain but has yet to come out on DVD. I’m eagerly anticipating its release.

Every episode of the first series ends with the same sketch, the three women playing rude, annoying workers at a make-up counter in a department store. Each features a customer that grows impatient with the juvenile antics of the two workers and asks to speak to their manager. The third woman comes over and pretends to show a real interest in the complaint before then engaging in the same child-like behavior.

Though they all follow the same pattern, each one is unique and produces a great deal of laughs. (At least from me.) So I’ll leave you with my favorite of the six (the moment 44 seconds in kills me every time):

---

[1] That said, since it’s from the BBC, it does use language and discuss topics you aren’t going to see on “SNL.”

[2] One of my favorite comedies ever. If you don’t have a problem with the occasional gory death played for laughs, check it out immediately.

[3] It’s a benefit to being a single camera show filmed on location. No skits that are beaten to death, buried, dug back up, and beaten some more.

[4] If you ignore British Colonialism, that is.

[5] Some sketches/characters appear just throughout a single episodes, while some appear throughout a few (or all).

Friends On TV

Last Sunday some friends and I staged a reading of an episode of “30 Rock” that I wrote for a contest.[1] Based on their feedback and comments I’ve gotten from people who read it later, I did a good job capturing the voice of the show. And I have to say: it was easy.

That doesn't mean it didn't take a lot of effort. I spent countless time outlining, struggled through a first draft that I knew wasn’t great, and then spent three or four late nights rewriting scene by scene.

But compared to writing my own material, it was a breeze. And I believe that ease comes down to one simple fact: Once you know the characters, the story almost tells itself.

Two years ago, I wrote an episode of “My Name Is Earl.” It was my first time writing something not completely original, something I hadn’t created every aspect of. The first season had just ended, and I had only seen one or two episodes. But it was hot and fresh, plus the concept easily lent itself to creating scenarios. Combining that with the fact that a friend had given me a good idea for something Earl could complete for his list, I decided to write an episode.

While I could have read plot descriptions online to make sure I wasn’t repeating anything, I wanted to see more of the show to get a feel for the characters.

So I downloaded[2] the first season and began to watch it. I wound up watching the ENTIRE first season in one day. Perhaps not the healthiest exercise, but it gave me a great advantage. I now felt like these characters were my friends. I felt like we had hung out, so I knew what they were like and how they talked and how they acted.[3]

From there, I was easily able to create a detailed outline that allowed me to write the entire 30+ page script in one day. And, unlike the one for “30 Rock,” I didn’t have to change that much.[4]

I later did the same thing for “Heroes.” And when I say “the same thing,” I mean it as literally as I can.

This was during the long break of the first season, after the 12^th episode or so. I now needed a drama show to write an episode of, and a number of friends had told me I would probably like "Heroes". So I downloaded all of the episodes, and watched the pilot while vacationing with a friend. Upon returning home, I spent the next day watching the rest of the episodes.[5]

Based on that I created an even more detailed outline, and once again I was able to write the entire draft in one day, meaning 50+ pages this time. I did have to go back and rewrite it, but I never made any major changes to it.

While I didn’t connect with the “Heroes” characters on as deep of a level, (We weren’t “bestest buddies.”) I was able to get a flow for how the show worked and what sorts of things to expect each episode. Still, the action wouldn’t be as interesting if not for the characters, and though I didn’t like all of them, there were a number I was quite fond of.

I’ve only had the luxury of feeling intimately connected with my OWN characters two times that I can recall. One was while doing the third (or maybe fourth) rewrite of a sitcom pilot that I wrote a year ago. I was getting pretty frustrated because it was close but not quite there, and a friend sat me down and asked me questions about my characters. He also had me compare and contrast different characters from various shows, which highlighted the fact that even characters that could be lumped together with simple descriptions (jerk, sweet, depressed, etc.) are actually very different. That difference comes from what’s underneath their personalities (Why are they acting that way? What’s their ultimate agenda?), and how they manifest that personality (their actions).

Once I was able to pinpoint the personalities of my characters, the writing was much easier.

The second time, which actually happened earlier chronologically, is when I was rewriting a comedy script I had written along with the friend mentioned above. Granted, there were only three main characters, but we knew them so well that dialogue would just roll out of us.[6]

I want to reiterate that I’m in no way saying that writing for TV is easy. If the episode I wrote was actually being written for the show, it would have had to be completed much faster.[7] But when it comes to writing things on spec, existing shows are much easier for me to dive into because I already know the characters so well.

Still, the ultimate goal is to always reach that point with the characters from my original work, no matter how long it takes to get there.

---

[1] Well, actually it's for the ABC Writing Fellowship, but it’s quicker to just say “contest.” (Unless you then explain it in a footnote.

[2] Back then you couldn’t view them online, and the DVD hadn’t come out yet. Since it was for “research,” I felt justified.

[3] Yes, this was a little freaky.

[4] Of course, it’s not nearly as good as the “30 Rock” one either.

[5] A little math shows that the “Earl” watching actually took more time, but "Heroes" felt worse because each episode was such a commitment. Plus the fact that, in retrospect, it wasn’t as good.

[6] Which is why we spent countless hours debating about this line versus that line.

[7] Maybe twice as fast. Or maybe even more than that.

Category Five: 5 Actors Who I Can't Believe Haven't Been Nominated For An Oscar

You know the old saying: "It's an honor just to be nominated." Obviously, it’s more of an honor to win, but for the most part, I think these statements are genuine. In the acting categories especially, there's often a favorite to win. If you aren't that favorite, you should still be pretty happy of the fact that you were in the running with them. In the end, you are still being hailed as great.

Still, it must not feel great to lose, especially if you are nominated lots of times and never get to take home the statuette. "Oscar nominee" just doesn't have quite the same ring to it as "Oscar winner."

But what about those that don't even get nominated? There have been numerous performances that deserved a nomination; however, I understand the selection is limited. Sometimes a great performance doesn't make the cut.

So instead of dwelling on specific performances, I'm going to talk about five performers that I'm shocked have yet to receive a nomination despite their numerous worthy performances. I'm not necessarily saying they deserved to be nominated for each of these roles, but I provide them as an example of their body of work.

#5: Dennis Quaid

Notable Performances in: In Good Company, Far From Heaven, The Rookie, Traffic, Wyatt Earp

Unfortunately I think most people know Quaid as the ex-husband of Meg Ryan. That’s a shame because he’s a very talented actor and continues to mix up commercial films with interesting fair, occasionally combining the two.

Other than his exceptional portrayal of Doc Holliday,[1] he excels at playing the “every man.” What keeps that from being generic is that he is the every man searching for what comes next in his life. That might be returning to an old love or confessing a new one, but either way, he wants something more out of life.

Of particular note is his role in Far From Heaven, where he plays a closeted homosexual husband. He brings a quiet passion to the role, and the entire time, there’s a pain behind his eyes. It’s never quite clear whether he’s upset at what he’s done to his wife or at himself for not having the courage to be who he really is.


#4: Bruce Willis

Notable Performances in: Twelve Monkeys, The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, Sin City, 16 Blocks

In the late 80's to early 90's, there was a boom of action stars that we haven't seen since. Many faded away. One is busy running California.

Of all of these stars, Willis stands out for one particular reason: He's actually a good actor.[2]

Even as John McClaine, he has great comic timing. You laugh at him not because he kills bad guys and follows it up with an atrocious pun[3] but because he's genuinely funny.

And he has range. Along with his other action roles, he's played goofy, crazy, and depressed.

That last one is where I'd like to focus. In a way, all five of the notable roles that I mentioned are similar characters: depressed, hallowed-out, searching for meaning in life. Willis plays this type of role so well because there's something disarming about seeing him depressed. It doesn't feel natural for him not to be smiling, so you immediately sympathize with him.

I’m especially surprised he wasn’t recognized for The Sixth Sense. Toni Collette and Haley Joel Osment give great performances, but Willis is the anchor of the film. It’s his relationship with the boy that brings about the powerful scenes between mother and son.

And that world famous twist wouldn’t have worked if not for the horror Willis conveyed at realizing the truth: The only way he could help his wife was to finally let go.

#3: Guy Pearce

Notable Performances in: The Proposition, The Count of Monte Cristo, Memento, L.A. Confidential

Maybe it’s because of The Proposition (and his attachment to The Road), but when I think of Pearce, I think of “grit.” He’s not a guy I’d want to mess with.

And yet, behind that grit, there’s a perpetual longing to find answers to his questions. More often than not, the answers he seeks are about his own mind and moral compass.

Can he bring himself to kill? Is he happy with what he’s become? How important is the truth?

Grittiness may be a part of his performances now, but it was noticeable absent from his role in L.A. Confidential, where he played a straight-laced, by the book detective that waits until the end of the film to make the right (not the legal) decision.

Maybe if that role had come after all the others, people would have seen how talented he was.

#2: John Cusack

Notable Performances in: Grace is Gone, High Fidelity, Being John Malkovich, Grosse Point Blank, say anything…

Perhaps Cusack was before his time. He was quirky when quirky wasn’t cool.[4] Really, Lloyd Dobler is no different than Juno[5] (seemingly mature for their age but having striking moments of vulnerability; having a plan and sticking to it despite what outsiders think; not a part of the “in” crowd but still far from a loser).

But while Juno deals with a pregnancy, all Lloyd does during say anything… is fall in love and do whatever it takes to stay in love.[6] Yet by the time the film is over, you feel as if you know him better than some people you actually went to school with.

Even when playing a nostalgic hitman or a earnest puppeteer, Cusack brings a serious intensity to his roles that makes you momentarily forget about the absurdity going on around him. Or, in the best moments, connect with him on an emotional level despite the events being unrealistic.

#1: Jim Carrey

Notable Performances in: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Man on the Moon, The Truman Show

I don’t list as many notable performances for Carrey simply because he doesn’t have that many. But he takes the number one spot on this list because he should have been nominated for each of them.

He’s the only actor to win back-to-back Best Actor awards at the Golden Globes and yet not receive an Academy Award nomination.

I honestly don’t know what more they want from him. First he played a subdued version of his persona in The Truman Show, a likeable goofball who just happens to be the center of a reality show all about him.[7] While it’s definitely a comedy, Carrey avoids the manic actions of his normal routine, keeping Truman on an even keel until he discovers the truth of his situation. His reaction to the information, and the choice he makes once he knows, stick with me each time I see it.

He followed this up with a spot-on portrayal of Andy Kaufman. There were a few juggernauts in the running for Best Actor that year, but I’ll continue to be baffled at how Carrey slipped through the cracks. Forget the fact that he becomes Kaufman, and just look at the range showed in the film itself: anger, sadness, pure joy, depression, etc.

The only possible explanation is that people thought it wasn’t that far of a stretch from his own bizarre personality. He then blew that out of the water by playing one of the meekest love interests of recent years in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, a hapless (and hopeless) romantic that just wants to love, and when that doesn’t work, just wants to not hurt anymore.

If the pain and suffering he shows after love’s gone bad doesn’t get you, and the emptiness he portrays as he realizes he’s about to lose the only thing he has left of love doesn’t get you, then just wait until the end where he decides to go through all the pain all over again just for the chance to love.

Carrey shouldn’t just have been nominated by now; he should have a couple of Oscars on his mantle. Right next to a picture of him talking through his ass.

---

[1] This role was overshadowed by Val Kilmer’s fantastic take on the same character in the previous year’s Tombstone. If you forced me to pick between the performances, I would go with Kilmer.

[2] Yes, Stallone was nominated for a Best Actor Oscar for his role in the original Rocky, a damn fine movie. But his performance in First Blood shows his limited range. Rambo is really just Rocky with a (more pronounced?) mental disorder.

[3] Sure, I’m guilty of laughing at these from time to time, but I would never call them well-acted.

[4] Which is what made him cool.

[5] Except, I would argue, MUCH more believable.

[6] Actually, now that I think about it, that is a pretty big deal. And the film treats it as such.

[7] This film has only gotten more relevant.

In Defense of "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom"

I was extremely disappointed by the latest Indiana Jones movie. While I wouldn't go so far as to call it "terrible," I did leave the theater feeling let down and kind of angry, though a large part of that was due to the fact that the stuff I disliked the most was at the end of the film.

However, a number of people I know thought it was pretty good and a few others loved it. But I hope that they can understand my side of things. While most fans of the movie would argue that people are only critiquing it so heavily because it's an Indiana Jones film, I take the opposite view. People are only letting stuff go because it's an Indiana Jones film.

If you were watching a film about entirely new characters and all of that stuff started happening, you'd be complaining as much as I was. While I didn't quiz each person that enjoyed the film about why, the general consensus seems to be that they love Indiana Jones so much that they didn't care what happened; they were just happy to see him again.

I can understand that. I loved seeing him again too. But I wanted him to be the same (more or less) as the great character I remembered from the past films. The amazing Raiders of the Lost Ark. The highly entertaining Last Crusade. And the mediocre but still Indiana Jones Temple of Doom.

At least...that's how I used to feel. But after seeing Temple of Doom again for the first time in many years, I owe it an apology.

Sure, it's different from the other films. But it's jam-packed with action. It never slows down, which can make even a bad film highly entertaining. Temple of Doom, however, is not a bad film.

One of the biggest critiques (and one that I associated with it) is that it's much darker than the other films. The scene that stands out in everyone's mind is the beating heart being pulled from the man's chest. In reality, this scene isn't as gruesome as I remembered from my childhood. There's no blood, as the hand passes through the chest by way of magic (or mysticism).

Then the man being sacrificed is lowered into the lava where he burns alive. Sure, it's dark. But no darker than people's faces melting (Raiders) or a man rapidly aging to the point of decay (Crusade).

While there's straight gore (yes, extremely light gore compared to, say, a horror film, but still technically gore), Temple has other dark elements as well, such as Indy being brainwashed through drinking the blood and the voodoo doll that's used to injure him.

Really though, this isn't any darker than the greed and sinister plans of the Nazis in the other films. It's just a different type of darkness. And while those other films don't dwell as much on the sinister elements, the fast-paced, non-stop action of Temple more than makes up for the creepier moments.

Truth be told, I think a lot of the criticism comes down to the fact that its "magic" isn't based on Biblical elements like the other two films. While I enjoyed that aspect of them, there's nothing wrong with branching out and including mysticism. It sure as hell beats aliens.

The other major point of contention is the sidekicks. A lot of people find them annoying. Short Round either works for you or he doesn't. It's that simple. But when you think about it, he's really just a feistier, scrappier (Come to think of it, Short Round is a lot like Scrappy-Doo, though much less annoying.) version of Indy's dad, mostly just along for the ride but contributing to the cause every now and then. (I'd agree that Indy's dad is decidedly NOT annoying, but you'd have to concede that his interactions with Indy become a lot sappier than Short Round's.)

And then there's Willie Scott. Pretty much everyone finds her annoying. Good. That's the point. She's an anti-Marion. She contributes as little to the action as a character can without being dead. While I like Marion much more as a character, it would have been worse to create another tough girl character that paled in comparison to her. Better to make the female lead a complete 180.

While I still say it's my third favorite Indiana Jones film, I'll never again brush it aside when discussing the Indiana Jones legacy. (That "luxury" is now reserved for Crystal Skull.)

It deserves tons of credit for the mining car chase sequence alone. Seriously, that still holds up 24 years later. And can somebody tell me why this isn't a theme park ride somewhere? (I know there's an Indiana Jones ride, but I found it lackluster.) There could be another car chasing you with animatronic characters shooting at you. And there could be a point where you go over a hill and they make it look like the track disappears, so that you're jumping (The car could shake.). And finally, they could change things so that the water filling the tunnel happens while you're still in the car, and you barely outrun it, water misting down on you.

That would be awesome.

Liveblogging A Terrible Movie

I recently rented National Lampoon's Cattle Call. Though this was strictly for research purposes, I’m still ashamed. And since I was going to have to watch this thing anyway, I figured we should both get some entertainment out of it. So I liveblogged it.

As it turns out, it was far from the worst comedy I’ve ever seen. That’s not to say it was good. It was horribly put together, featuring lots of shots but very few actual scenes. Still, it genuinely made me laugh a couple of times.

Here’s a brief description of the plot to get you started: Three friends start a fake production company to audition hot women to find potential mates. (So really, it’s a comic turn on the uber-disturbing Japanese horror film Audition. Seriously, if you watch that, don’t say I didn’t warn you.)

10 seconds: The opening credits actually have some decent production value. For some reason, the font reminds me of Abercrombie & Fitch.

1 minute, 44 seconds: The film opens with a guy (Richie) on the computer. My guess was he would be looking at porn, but it turns out to be a video dating service. Girls talk to the camera. They go with the “shotgun” technique and throw about twenty at us, hoping some are funny. And in case we don’t understand what’s funny about their personalities, their ridiculous screennames drive home the point.

3 minutes, 31 seconds: While playing basketball, Richie’s friend Sherman tells a “story” about how he was at the casting agency where his sister works and tried to call a girl who they had rejected by using her headshot. But the most disgruntled janitor ever shows up demanding to throw it away because “that’s his job.”

Richie makes a joke that they should create a casting agency to meet girls, and Sherman thinks it’s a great idea. So the first act was four minutes long, apparently.

4 minutes, 54 seconds: In the very next scene, they are getting responses to their ad. But they haven’t found a space to hold the auditions. Good planning, guys.

5 minutes, 57 seconds: They call their other friend, Glenn. It’s Oswald from “The Drew Carey Show.” He answers a Lego phone. Take that, Juno.

7 minutes, 58 seconds: They divide headshots into two boxes, one that says “Dump Her” and one that says “Keep Her.” So they literally went to the trouble of making a box and printing out fancy lettering for that.

Also, there’s a Morgan Fairchild joke. Strange. I don’t think the typical viewing audience would get that.

One of the guys declares that a headshot is like a personal ad. Not too far from the truth.

10 minutes, 18 seconds: There’s a National Lampoon’s Gold Diggers poster in the background of the “production office.” Classic.

14 minutes, 32 seconds: The girl that will wind up being Richie’s love interest (Marina) calls at the exact moment that he is looking at her headshot. Impossible.

15 minutes, 7 seconds: A HUGE line of women waiting to audition. Even if that were believable, when Glenn (who’s pretending to be the non-existent film’s director) comes out, they begin to whisper that he’s the director and then TOTALLY MOB him.

I like Oswald too, but get serious.

18 minutes: Women waiting in line for the only bathroom as Glenn is inside. They discuss listening to a guy’s pee to determine how big his dick is.

Sherman overhears this and goes in next, claiming he has to get back for the auditions. But then he can’t pee. (Gee, since you didn’t really HAVE to go, are you surprised?)

He grabs some sort of fire extinguisher that sprays water and uses it to pretend that he’s peeing. Why isn’t there a REAL fire extinguisher? And why is this one in the bathroom?

21 minutes, 56 seconds: The first appearance of a vibrator.

A woman auditioning sings a song that goes, “All men should die; All they do is shit and lie.”

23 minutes: Marina shows up for the audition with her dog in tow. She apologizes and claims that she “never does this,” but it’s also established that she just drove into town, making this her first audition.

24 minutes, 15 seconds: Glenn has an unexplained coughing fit. It’s not funny. Just confusing and weird.

28 minutes, 20 seconds: “No one in Hollywood who says they're gonna make a movie actually makes one.” So true.

32 minutes, 20 seconds: Marina doesn’t want to admit that she’s living out of her car, so when Richie asks her where’s she living, she says it’s “kind of embarrassing.” He responds, “Oh, are you in Orange County?”

That’s actually really funny.

37 minutes, 54 seconds: The first appearance of a strip club.

41 minutes, 38 seconds: Sherman “auditions” a girl at his apartment that missed the “actual” auditions. He plays electric guitar, and after his solo, she responds, “I almost climaxed.” Then she proceeds to give him the most awkward blowjob ever, as she wants him to keep playing the guitar.

43 minutes, 44 seconds: The guys get their “script” by writing down the English subtitles from a foreign film. Pretty funny idea.

44 minutes, 12 seconds: Jonathan Winters makes a cameo as a crazy, belligerent studio tour guide. This just makes me sad. Plus I can barely understand what he’s saying. And I honestly don’t know why this scene is here.

1 hour, 1 minute, 51 seconds: After Richie tells Marina the truth, she tells the other two woman that have been “cast” as leads. And one of them reveals that she’s undercover. WTF?

1 hour, 3 minutes, 19 seconds: Richie wants out of the deal, but the other guys want to keep it up. Perhaps it would be a good idea to tell them that he told Marina it was fake.

1 hours, 5 minutes, 23 seconds: The “trap” that the undercover reporter sets is that the three of them want to make the film more pornographic, so they want to film themselves having sex with the guys so that they can study it.

This is how they are luring them in. Amazing.

1 hours, 8 minutes, 32 seconds: Richie leaves, but the other two guys strip and wait for the girls in a separate hotel room. But instead, a hefty dominatrix and a biker chick come over. Then the police rush in.

Um…so who the hell sent this woman undercover?

1 hour, 12 minutes: Richie has twenty four hours to provide evidence to clear their name. My question is: why isn’t he in jail too? He conned the girls just like the other two guys.

1 hour, 15 minutes, 30 seconds: Richie storms in with his “evidence” after the judge has made the sentence. Pretty sure that makes it too late.

1 hour, 18 minutes, 26 seconds: Instead of using the footage to make a movie about guys creating a fake casting agency, which is what I thought he would do, he made a trailer that pretended like it was a reality show. Lame.

1 hour, 21 minutes, 27 seconds: Marina takes him back without him having to do anything other than show up. Lazy writing.

Shame On Me: Wipeout

I generally stay away from reality television. Sure, I've seen a couple of episodes of things here and there, but usually those were viewed with someone that had an interest in the program. Who was I to argue when there was nothing better to do? (Like having an engaging conversation, or, depending on the particular show, staring blankly at a wall for an hour.)

So I'm not sure what sucked me into checking out ABC's new summer time-waster, "Wipeout." Sure, people falling on their asses is universally funny. (Just ask Bob Saget. But if you ask him in person, expect him to say something disgusting.)

But shouldn't that ass-falling have some sort of story built around it? Otherwise, it's not very far removed from the vision of the future that the (underrated) film Idiocracy paints, where the #1 television show is called "Ow! My Balls!" You can probably figure out the "plot."

The guise that ABC came up with, the way that they collected so many ass-fallings in one place and pretended that they were worth viewing, was to call it a "game show." Contestants run obstacle courses to narrow down the field before trying their hand on the ultimate course for a big check.

I suppose I checked it out because I hoped it would help me relive those early Saturday morning glory days of watching "American Gladiators." The AG update was a huge disappointment, focusing too much on the contestant's stories and instant replays than real competition.

But at least it didn't have idiotic, inept, border-line offensive commentary like "Wipeout." When the people bouncing off things and falling into mud come off better than the announcers, you know it's bad.

In addition, I'm convinced that some of the obstacles are literally impossible to get through without falling. That takes all of the fun out of it. Watching people fall over and over gets mind-numbing really quickly.

So mind-numbing, in fact, that I watched the entire episode, unable to concentrate on anything else. When I die, I'll lament the extra forty minutes of my life that I could have spent counting the bathroom floor tiles.

Make no mistake: "Wipeout" is not a game show, it's a reality show. And the reality is that people will watch anything if it involves people falling on their asses.

I Took The Wrong Pill

Last night I caught the beginning of The Matrix Reloaded on cable. The first thing I noticed was that Harold Perrineau of "LOST" plays Link, which means that I hadn't seen this movie since I started watching back in 2005. The second thing I noticed was...it was kind of stupid. Guess I have really moved on.

You see, I had a passionate love affair with The Matrix. It started off healthy enough. Back in 1999, I caught my first glimpse of it. It looked intriguing. I liked what I saw. So in April of 1999, I saw it in theaters. I was blown away. Completely in love. Couldn't wait to be together again. So I grabbed some other friends who knew nothing about it and dragged them to it.

Later I got the film on DVD and watched it a few more times. It always made me happy. Maybe this whole thing was a little annoying to outsiders, but really they were just jealous. This was still nothing out of the ordinary.

Then things started to get bad.

I bought The Matrix Revisited, a behind-the-scenes look at the making of the film with tons of footage. I wanted to know everything about it. But instead of making us closer, it just made me wish there was more to see. (To this day, I still haven't watched much of it. I'm not sure if that makes it better or worse.

Upon hearing that the plan was to make it a trilogy, I was beyond excited. I was...obsessed. It wasn't healthy. (I know that now.) But I liked it, and I thought that it liked me. So I went with it.

I read everything I could about The Matrix Reloaded. About the massive fight scene and the freeway chase scene. (I still think it's really cool that they BUILT part of a freeway in order to have complete freedom while filming it.) I knew that they planned for it to end with a "cliffhanger," though the ending they ultimately went with was far from one, in my opinion.

Knowing all of this impaired my initial viewing experience somewhat because I was dying in anticipation for the two huge action sequences, and near the end I kept trying to guess where it was going to cut off.

But I didn't mind. Besides, I had other viewings to make up for it. (More on that in a second.)

Prior to and immediately following the second film's release, I purchased the following things:
The Animatrix (still pretty cool, actually)

The Animatrix soundtrack (Mistakenly, as it came in a package with the above DVD, and I thought it meant the soundtrack to the first film.)

Enter the Matrix (not cool, actually)

Matrix action figures (only two)

And I wrote a review/theory blog entry so long, I'm surprised it didn't break a server.

Pretty bad, right? I didn't know what I was doing to myself. But that's not even the worst part.

I saw The Matrix Reloaded in theaters FIVE TIMES. Three of those times were in the first 24 HOURS.

And later I wrote a blog entry so long that I'm surprised it didn't destroy a server.

Yeah, it was bad. I wouldn't listen to critics (professional or my friends) who pointed out that the fight scene between Neo and hundreds of Agent Smiths was pointless because it accomplished nothing, and he just ran away at the end. I gave a far-fetched reason to try to justify it.

And I wouldn't listen to those that said it was style over substance, relying too much on its camera effects. My argument was that it INVENTED the effects, so it could use them as much as it wanted.

I'd probably still be locked in this unhealthy relationship if it wasn't for The Matrix Revolutions, which crushed my soul. Talk about a bad break-up.

I could spend pages talking about why I hated that movie, but instead I'll just say this: While seeing it in the theater, I had to pee badly for the last twenty-five minutes. After it was all said and done, I wish I had just gone to pee. That would have been much more interesting that what I saw.

So my love dissipated, and I hadn't seen anything other the first film until last night. In addition to watching the beginning, I checked out the freeway chase scene.

While some stuff is cool, I was underwhelmed. Definitely style over substance.

We had fun, Matrix, but I'm happy now. Stay out of my life.

Ode to an Ad: "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" Poster

THE POSTER

This movie has been on my mind a lot recently. First, my friend Aaron cited it as one of the 10 Best Pop Culture Love Stories of the Last Ten Years. Then I mentioned it in correlation with WALL*E, noting that they both feature the theme of love triumphing over technology.

While the trailer is fantastic in its own right, doing a wonderful job of showing the zany fun the film will have with its concept, I like the simplicity of this picture.

Once you've seen the movie (or at least understand the plot), you can spot a number of elements represented in this poster. I'll start with the obvious:
The poster is mimicking a thought bubble, the image of Joel and Clementine on the ice floating above Joel like a memory, just out of reach. The white color of the ice makes the imagery crystal clear. Although it is a great moment in the film, it was definitely chosen for how it would look on the poster, because, if you recall, this actually happens after they meet for the second time, post-memory erasure.

Even the white credits on the right side fit with the thought bubble pattern, resembling the smaller bubbles that lead to the big picture.

While many instances of the thought bubble feature the character "looking" at his/her thought (as in the cartoon image above), there's a longing in Joel's eyes that makes you immediately empathize with him. This isn't a fantasy, some scenario that Joel wishes would come true. It's an actual memory. And it's not about Joel living in the past, wanting the memory to become reality once again. He simply wants to hold onto the memory, to keep it in his brain, as a part of his life and who he is. He's desperate.

But memory is a fragile thing (even if you aren't having it erased), and the image depicts that with the multi-fissured crack in the ice. In the movie, the revelation of the cracked ice is played as a joke. Joel is nervous about being on the frozen lake. Clementine informs him that it's perfectly safe. And it cuts to an aerial shot. It's a pretty good laugh.

On the poster, however, it shows the delicate nature of memory. At any second, the ice could shatter, the memory falling into the water below, never to be seen again.

We hope more than anything that this doesn't happen, and that's why we watch the movie: to find out.

Women Wear Pants Too: Angelina Jolie

From time to time, I'll highlight a lady that gets to do more in Hollywood than just play the wife/girlfriend/romantic interest.

ANGELINA JOLIE

With the release of her latest action flick, Wanted, I figured it was high time that I talk about Angelina Jolie, perhaps the biggest female action star of the new millennium. The film opened with $51 million, making it the 7th highest debut for an R-rated film. This would be a great accomplishment at any time of the year, but considering it had to face-off against WALL*E, a G-rated family affair that took in $63 million, it's exceptional. (Wanted actually averaged more per theater than WALL*E, which kind of blows my mind.)

I'm sure some of the audience just wanted another chance to look at James McAvoy. And maybe others just wanted to hear Morgan Freeman drop the F-bomb. Finally, there was probably a contingent that just wanted a good action film, regardless of the stars.

Still, I have to believe that a large part of its success was due to the presence of Jolie. It helps that many consider her the most beautiful movie star in the world, but more importantly is the seriousness she brings to her action roles. People can argue about whether or not she's entirely convincing as an action star, but she never plays it with a wink to the audience, as if to say, "Hey look at all of this cool stuff I"m doing...and, I'm a woman!"

Yes, Jolie has played some girlfriend/wife roles, even recently. But lest we all forget, she also played Lara Croft in two Tomb Raider movies. While the films are largely forgettable, the significance of her embodying this character shouldn't be overlooked. Whether we like it or not, Lara Croft is one of the most recognizable female action characters of all-time. Action films featuring female leads are few and far between to begin with, and Tomb Raider actually had a sequel.

In recent history, the only other character I can think of that might be as famous as Lara is Trinity from The Matrix films. Opening it up to all time periods doesn't add many more characters. Sarah Connor from The Terminator films, obviously, though truth be told she was never really the star, plus she only kicked ass in the second one. And while I wasn't around for the popular "Wonder Woman" or "Bionic Woman" TV shows, from what I've seen they seem to be a little tongue-in-cheek.

This isn't to say that a good action film can't also be humorous. It just has to achieve the perfect tone. I can't call it a great film (mainly because I read an earlier draft of the script that I enjoyed much more), but Mr. & Mrs. Smith mixes action, humor, and pure sexiness quite well. Not a great film, but definitely entertaining.

Whether she makes more films along those lines or decides to try straight action (something similar to the Bourne series, perhaps), I'm game as long as she doesn't wink at me.

Category Five: My 5 Favorite Films Of The First Half Of The Year

The year is halfway over, and I've done a pretty good job of seeing films in the theater. A few slipped by that I wanted to check out, and there are a few still in theaters that I hope to catch soon. But here's a list of my favorites so far.

#5: TEETH

It's hard to make a good horror-comedy. I've previously mentioned my affinity for Tremors, but being PG-13, it goes fairly light on the gore. And ultra-bloodfests such as Dead Alive, while enjoyable in their own right, stop being realistic once...well, they never START being realistic.

Teeth stays as realistic as a film about vagina dentata possibly can. That's right. This movie is about a girl who has teeth in her woo-hoo.

She's a high schooler dedicated to purity, so much so that she speaks at events promoting chastity. But when one of her fellow group members takes things past the making out stage, her secret is discovered.

Luckily (well, not for him), it wasn't something she wanted. It's scarring enough for your first sexual experience to result in a severed penis; just imagine how bad it would be if she had actually wanted to have sex with him.

Jess Weixler's performance is what really makes this film work. She has to play frightened believably, but if it's too intense, it ceases to be funny. She walks the line perfectly.

I'd only recommend it to certain types of people, but if you laughed while you read this, then you are one of those people.

#4: SON OF RAMBOW


I debated whether to include this or Be Kind Rewind, since they both have a very similar concept. This one wins out because it actually has a plot. (While that's a slight knock on Be Kind Rewind, I still enjoyed that film. It was refreshing to see a movie about people being happy.)

Two British kids from very different walks of life become friends while attempting to make a "sequel" to Rambo. Other students soon become involved with the project, and the results wind up changing the family dynamic of both boys as well as teaching them about true friendship.

Sure, it gets a little cheesy at times, but it doesn't feel as heavy-handed as most children films for one simple reason: British accents.

#3: IRON MAN

In general, Hollywood has always put "stars" in its superhero movies. Sometimes those stars look the part but aren't good actors. And even when they are good actors, they often think there's no need to act in this type of film (at least, that's how it seems).

To be fair to them, a lot of superhero roles aren't well written, giving the actors nothing to work with. But that trend has been bucked a lot lately, casting great actors into superhero films and giving them the chance to strut their stuff.

One could argue that three of the four great actors in Iron Man are wasted (an argument I'd mostly agree with), but there's no denying the power of the presence of Robert Downey Jr. He's so much fun to watch as Tony Stark.

It's not necessarily the most well plotted superhero movie, but I enjoyed every minute of it.

#2: FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL


Sure it's raunchy and vulgar (but not, I would argue, gratuitous), but it's also hilarious. More importantly, it's realistic. Okay, not in the sense that everything would likely happen. I'm going on a Hawaiian vacation by myself in a couple of months, and while I think it would be awesome to make friends with all of the staff, I know this won't happen.

However, if I did take the time to actually meet the staff, I'd learn that they are real people and not just workers. And this film does a great job of fleshing out each and every character, making them feel like people you know (or wished you knew).

In addition, the love story is believable because it's so messed up. A lot of the time characters don't know what they want, and while they'd tell you in Screenwriting 101 that that's a terrible thing to put in a script, it's the very thing that makes you relate to them.

#1 WALL*E

While there is other stuff going on in the movie, at its core, it's a love story. It just happens to be between a garbage collecting robot and a probe robot. That said, it's an AMAZING love story. The greatest cinematic love story of all-time? I won't give it that distinction just yet, but here's an argument for why it might be.

The film isn't just a love story. It's a story about learning to love. And I don't mean that in the sense of learning the best way to love someone. I mean that it's LITERALLY about learning what love is. WALL-E was built to collect trash, but 700 years spent alone (save for a friendly cockroach) observing various things humans left behind (including Hello, Dolly!) has shown him the joy of having others around. And while he might not have the deepest philosophical understanding of love, I think he exemplifies it in its purest form better than most people do (sadly).

They have been countless stories about people forbidden to love each other, for whatever reason. But this film goes a step further. It's not just going against the rules handed down to them and loving anyway. It's going against rules PROGRAMMED into them. In a way, it shows that love is more powerful than anything, including technology. (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, another of my favorite love stories, showed a similar thing.)

And such a powerful love story is told with characters that say less than 10 different words combined. It just proves the old saying: "Love isn't something you say. It's something you do."