Wednesday, March 31, 2010

MOTHERHOOD (a review)

This movie has made history recently as one lowest grossing movie in history. Apparently, the distribution company decided to release it on dvd and pay-per-view at the same time as in the theaters and it made around $100/theater. Anyway, I thought I'd give it a watch to see if it was that bad or if it was just that the ad budget was that close to zero. So how was it? It was okay. Not great, but not the worst either.

The story: Eliza Walsh (played by Uma Thurman) is a stressed out mother-of-two. We follow her on the day of her oldest daughter's sixth birthday as she tries to get everything together for the party, running herself ragged and frustrated. To make matters worse, she has an oportunity to enter a contest by writing a 500 word essay on motherhood that could land her a job, but it is due that night and she struggles to find the time and focus for a winning essay that will give her a paying job as a writer.

That synopsis should give a good idea of what the movie does well and where it falters. There are elements of the movie that are very honest and very relatable. What parent hasn't felt the stress of a child's birthday party or a holiday event? What parent hasn't felt the exhaustion of running around, doing errand after errand, getting more and more frustrated as things go wrong until you just want to scream? In that the movie has a lot of scenes that are very grounded, very relatable, very real.

What the movie doesn't do well is focus. Eliza is stressed about her kid's birthday party, but she still has time to go shopping for herself. She is struggling to write the essay, but she has time to dance around with the delivery man. I was over an hour into the movie and still wasn't sure what it was trying to say. It's like it wanted to deal with everything -- the relationship of husband and wife, how the responsibilities of being a mom run you ragged, the frustrations of life in New York, the woman who moved away from writing and wants to get back to it...it's all there in the giant jumble. An hour into the movie, Eliza has her husband read her essay and he asks her "What are you trying to say?" That was the exact question I had for the movie too.

Compare that to WHEN HARRY MET SALLY which very directly asks the question "Can men and women be friends or does the sex always get in the way?" (And the answer is no, funny how people forget that. They had sex, remember? Bow chika bow-bow.) Or CHEAPER BY THE DOZEN where a man is struggling to balance a demanding dream job with the responsibilities of a a houshold with twelve children.

Even at the end, I'm not sure what MOTHERHOOD was trying to say other than, yes, motherhood is a demending tazing job and it is made better by having a caring husband with a $24,000 check. (Not making that up.) It does feel like the writer is trying to say something, but I wish someone had sat her down and forced her to answer that question -- What are you trying to say -- and do another draft of the script to make sure she is saying it in as powerful way as possible.

SLIGHT RECOMMEND FOR MOMS (and those who empathize with them).

More highly recommended family movies: Cheaper by the Dozen (with Steve Martin), Parenthood (with Steve Martin), Father of the Bride (also with Steve Martin), Adventures in Babysitting (not with Steve Martin...probably a typo), Three Men and a Baby (I think Steve Martin is in a background somewhere, maybe a as waiter), and Mrs Doubtfire (which doesn't have Steve Martin...or does it? No, it doesn't.)

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

R.I.P. Dick Giordano


Dick Giordano (born (July 20, 1932) passed away March 27, 2010. He was a long time artist and editor at DC comics, working on Batman, Green Arrow, Wonder Woman, Justice League and many, many more. Best know for his art work on Batman and as a prolific inker. He had a wonderful classic comic book style. I had the pleasure of meeting the man at three different comic book conventions, and even was able to a get a sketch from him. He has always nice, friendly, and loved telling stories about the people he had worked with over the years, people he seemed to have deep affection for. He will be missed.








FAME (2009, remake) (a review)


Um...why?

I mean I get that remakes are the thing, but, um...why?

Because the thing is that now we have all these reality shows -- American Idol, So You Think You Can Dance and X-Factor, etc, etc -- where we meet real people and see them struggle and get to know them as some succeed and some fail, and touching life stories, etc, etc. So why would you think that the telling of a bunch of FICTIONAL people would be more compelling than the stories of a bunch of real people that we see on tv week after week? I mean, you would think the only reason to do that would be if there was some story that was incredibly compelling that all those talent shows just hadn't found, something personal and emotional and that would just land a huge emotional punch, because otherwise there just wouldn't be a reason to bother with, right? So does FAME have that?

No.

So aside from the idea that they thought the remake would be an easy way to cash in I have no idea at all why the hell they made this movie.

(another attempt to cash in on American Idol)

Now that isn't to say that the movie is horrible. It just feels very blah. There's nothing compelling about it. Sure, there are some musical numbers that are okay, but it doesn't have any of the energy, any of the passion, any of the pain of the original.

The story: we follow a group of students as they enter a prestigious New York School for the Arts as they struggle through their high school years to graduation.

So right away, we know it's an ensemble piece, all connected by people's passion for the arts. The school deals with all the major arts -- music, dance, theater, and the fourth one (you know, the one that's named after a mineral, rhymes with desconstructionist...okay, maybe there isn't a fourth one). I wish I could talk about the different stories of the characters, but most of them made so little impression that I can't even remember them. There was a girl who was supposed to be learning classical piano, but decides she also wants to sing and becomes involved in a hip-hop group and has to confront her strict father about it. There's a kid who wrote an independent film and meets a producer who wants him to raise the money for it, then skips out with his cash. There's a girl who meets a famous actor and goes to his trailer, where it turns out (gasp!) he's trying to screw her. There's a guy a teacher doesn't think is good enough to dance professionally. There's a girl who gets a job on Sesame Street and drops out of school. Maybe a couple others. Some romance stuff. and then they graduate.

Yikes. For me there are two major, major, MAJOR problems with all this. (1) None of those stories are compelling. The girl who wants to sing is fine, but we've seen it a hundred times before and this doesn't have anything new to add to it. And (2) most of these stories have NOTHING TO DO WITH SCHOOL!!!! The whole concept is that we are following not just a bunch of kids who want to make it in entertainment, but that we are specifically following these kids through school. Did you notice how almost all of these stories are about things that have NOTHING to do with school? WTF!

Now let's compare that to the much better original 1980 film directed by Alan Parker.



Again we have a group of students entering the acclaimed school for the arts and seeing their struggle through four years until graduation. And what are their stories? Well, there's the kids who is a brilliant dancer, but can't read and is in constant danger of being expelled by his English teacher. There's a music student who clashes with his teacher because instead of learning a piano, he wants to use his synthesizer to play an entire orchestra. There's the girl forced out of the dance department so she switches to acting. There's teen pregnancy/abortion. There's the girl who dates a black guy to shock her parents. There's a gay guy who comes out. The original uses the concept -- it sets stories in the school, it tells stories of teens, it attacks the highs and lows, the euphoria of success and the despair of failure. It is an intense and personal and powerful film.

The remake...not so much.

Now that isn't to say the remake is horrible. It's just blah. Maybe if you've never seen the original and are looking for a movie to see with kids it would make sense. Certainly they sanitized it from any shock elements in the first movie. But even then, the movie should have some highs and lows. It should be more intense than an episode of AMERICAN IDOL. Personally, while a couple of the musical numbers were good, the rest bored me.

FAME, the remake -- PASS.

FAME, the original -- MUST SEE.

If you want another movie as good as the original, try THE COMMITMENTS. If you want even more, watch GLEE (the first couple episodes are a little rough, but by the 6th episode the show is awesome.)

If you want a musical to watch with younger kids, try HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL. I'd even give FROM JUSTIC TO KELLY the nod over this one. (But then I'm a big Kelly Clarkson fan.) In fact, I'd probably give GREASE 2 the nod over it. (But then I'm a big Michelle Pfeiffer fan too.) And of course there's always AMERICAN IDOL.

NEVER CRY WEREWOLF (a review)

Did you watch DISTURBIA and think "This is a pretty good movie, but it'd be so much better with bad acting, weird lighting and werewolves?" Then this is the movie for you!

The story: Loren (played by Nina Dobrev of the VAMPIRE DIARIES) sees a mysterious new neighbor arrive and soon after people start disappearing. Loren becomes convinced the neighbor is a werewolf. Of course, everyone thinks she is crazy except the pizza delivery boy, who thinks she is hot (which is true: she is hot). Meanwhile, the mysterious neighbor becomes obsessed with the girl since she reminds him of his dead wife. He becomes jealous and decides to take out the pizza boy. During the attack where he sicks his hellhound on the boy at a local hunting store, a local celebrity who has a failing hunting show gets involved as they team up and kill the hell hound. The celebrity is excited because the news channels now want to talk to him and he joins the girl to hunt the werewolf, but the pizza boy was bit. Now the girl, with the help of the celebrity, must kill the werewolf before he transforms completely even as the werewolf is coming for the girl.

Did I say it was like DISTURBIA? Maybe I should have said FRIGHT NIGHT, because that's almost the exact plot of F-N, except with vampires instead of werewolves, right down to the celebrity hunter. But where DISTURBIA was a cool little thriller and FRIGHT NIGHT is must see classic horror/comedy, this movie just falls flat. I wish I could say what's wrong, bu it's just everything. The plot doesn't work, the relationships don't work, the horror sequences are bad, the special effects are bad, the comedy isn't funny, there are no cool moments, no wow, no laughs. And, as often happens in hybrids that don't work -- the tone is all over the place with actors hamming it up and others playing melodrama and the comedy not working and the horror not working. Unfortunately, it's not even campy enough to be a fun B-movie.

PASS

Recommend instead: if you want something fun Fright Night, Goonies, Eight Legged Freaks, Return of the Living Dead, Tremors, The Blob (90's remake with Kevin Dillon), Zombieland, Gremlins and Gremlins 2, Arachnophobia, and Army of Darkness (aka Evil Dead 3)

SHUTTER ISLAND (a review)



Did you like IDENTITY with John Cusack? How about STAY with Ewan McGreggor? How about this season of LOST which makes absolutely no sense and in fact contradicts tons of things from the first three seasons (which were actually good)? How about all those other sort-of detective movies where everything gets kind of surreal and you wonder what could be behind all this wild, cool stuff until the end where they explain it and...

Okay I won't ruin it (yet). Except to say that if you don't like those movies you probably won't like SHUTTER ISLAND and if you do then maybe you will.

The story: a us marshall, Teddy Daniels (played by Leonardo DiCaprio) and his partner Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo) go to an island that houses the most violent of the criminally insane to solve a mystery of a woman who went missing, apparently just walking through a wall and vanishing. Teddy has another reason to investigate the island -- he thinks the man who murdered his wife is there and he wants to find him. It's one of those movies where everything keeps twisting and changing, where each step leads to another mystery. Are they experimenting on the human mind for some kind of war experiment? Is there a government conspiracy? Were Teddy and Chuck lured there so they could be trapped on the island as inmates? What does this have to do with Teddy's weird visions of girls being drowned and of his time as a soldier in WW2 when he helped free the people at a concentration camp? And what about that hurricane that is hitting the island and threatening to drown everyone?


Now, since it's a mystery I'm not going to completely spoil it here, but I will say that this movie has the problem that a lot of similar movies have. The problem has to do with the concept of "mystery." Now, in writing mystery can be a very powerful force. Now in tv, you can strong people along for years (see: LOST). But in movies everything has to end and you have to either (1) explain what the heck is happening, or (2) just never explain it and hope you don't piss off your audience (ala CLOVERFIELD or MI:3). Now SHUTTER ISLAND does explain what is going on but it's the explanation that's the problem. You see, most of the movie is this build up of big, weird stuff -- conspiracy and medical experiments and weird visions -- and the explanation basically just pisses all that away. So you have this big build up of weird and cool and the answer is just so...blah.

And that's the problem with mystery. It turns out most people are better at building the mystery than in coming up with actual interesting, compelling solutions. So you have this big build up and the ending is...blah. As a rule of thumb, I'd think you would want the ending to be cool enough so that even if you started with it, people would still want to see the movie because the idea itself is so cool. Here, by the end I felt totally jipped. In fact, I wanted to go through the movie again just so I could count all the b.s. red herrings and all the scenes that didn't make sense and how it was just a lot of weird atmosphere and lame ending. But then I realized I'd have to watch the movie again and that really wasn't going to happen. Movies like this just piss me off.

PASS

If you want a good mystery/thriller: SILENCE OF THE LAMBS (but of course who hasn't seen that one by now?), DEAD OF WINTER, ANGEL HEART, NAME OF THE ROSE..yikes, there really aren't that many I can think of. Maybe that's why there are so many procedural tv shows?

THE PROPOSAL (a review)

This is the other big smash hit that Sandra Bullock had last year (the other being The Blind Side, reviewed earlier). Whereas BLIND SIDE was an interesting take on a sports film, side-stepping many of the cliches to use the story of a football player to tell a story about family, instead of a story about sports, THE PROPOSAL is a very by-the-numbers, follow every rule and cliche, romantic comedy. Which makes it even more surprising that it's actually pretty good.

So what are some romantic comedy cliches? First there is the creative lie. This lie comes about because the protagonist wants something and so creates a lie to get it. Usually this lie will make it so that the protagonist and the love interest will be stuck together. Also, while trying to keep up this lie, the two people will have wacky adventures. At first they will hate each other, but through these wacky adventures they will come to know and even love each other. There, of course, will be a third person in the mix -- a love interest of the love interest -- to give some romantic competition. Then just when it seems the protagonist is going to get what they wanted, the creative lie is exposed (gasp!). Trust is broken. Everything is in shambles. But then, because their love is now true, they find a way to reconcile and the movie ends with the two of them together, usually getting everything they wanted.

Now let's see if we can name the beats in this movie, THE PROPOSAL:

The movie is about Margaret Tate (Sandra Bullock) who is a major ball busting, cold hearted, witch of a boss at a publishing company and Andrew Paxon (Ryan Renolds), who is her beleagured assistant. Then Margaret finds out she is going to be deported and will lose her job, so she lies and says she and Andrew are engaged. Andrew goes along with it since as an assistant, his future is tied to hers and because she promises to publish a book her found and make him an editor. Of course, the immigration oficial is suspicious and will have to interview them to make sure they are a real couple. They have the weekend to learn everything about each other or she will be deported and he will go to jail. This weekend is Andrew's grandmother's 90th birthday so off they go to Alaska to meet the wacky family and have lots of funny adventures while they fall in love. Which they do. Then his parents suggest they get married that weekend in Alaska and of course the immigration official is coming to check on them and everyone is gathered at the wedding and...

Okay, I don't want to spoil it, but yeah, it's based on a creative lie so what do you think happens. Like I said, it is a very by the numbers rom-com. Still, this movie does a lot of things right. First and foremost is it does a good job with the comedy. In many ways this movie plays closer to WEDDING CRASHERS than any recent film starring Jennifer Aniston or Sarah Jessica Parker). The other is they have some nice reversals to play against cliche. The first is Bullock playing an abrasive boss instead of the dorky girl people probably expect her to play in comedies. The second is that when they fly off to Alaska to meet his family, instead of being a bunch of hicks they are actually a well off family. And they seem pretty normal. This isn't something where they make everyone wacky just to throw in wackiness, which can be good in small doses but is almost always overdone. (Here the main wackiness is Oscar Nunez (Oscar from The Office) who plays Romone, a man with many jobs including male stripper, which is all the kooky any movie needs.) It is nice that the characters seem to have a certain intelligence that most characters in rom-coms lack and that there isn't the typical "evil" character who sabotages everything. Even the competing love interest isn't really played up. Of course, they don't miss all the cliches and it's in the third act (the final 20 minutes) that things start to feel routine, very been-there-seen-that.

The problem that most romantic comedies have is that they don't really have anything to say about relationships (other than don't tell this huge lie because you are screwed when you get caught). So when you get to that final twenty minutes, the time when the characters really need to face whatever it is they need to deal with...there just isn't anything there. Then you get a happy ending, which feels more like a contrivance of plot than a real happy ending and it's over. I think THE PROPOSAL does try to get at something -- certainly they try to make it that Margaret is affected by meeting Andrew's family and seeing how much they love him and tying it to the fact that she has been alone most of her life...but it's a moment that isn't really earned. Unlike BLIND SIDE which is all about family, this movie didn't have that same feel, so when that final reconciliation moment comes...it just fell a little flat for me.

Still, overall a very good movie.

RECOMMEND (but not as much as BLIND SIDE)

A must see documentary...

A friend of mine made this docu. Looks pretty cool, especially if you're a Gleek like me. It revolves around the Freddy awards, a big award for best high school musical. Check it out.

(Unfortunately there isn't a Youtube trailer that I can embed yet, so you'll have to click on a link like some paleolithic troglodyte from late-to-mid July 2008)

MOST VALUBLE PLAYERS

Monday, March 29, 2010

Quote of the day:

"Any time Duke is doing well, it hurts my heart." -- North Carolina basketball player, Marcus Ginyard.

Baylor beats Duke, goes to Final Four instead.

Yes, I'm talking about the women's basketball teams. (Although according to most of the messages posted at Rivals and ESPN people think the men's team was robbed and should go too. Maybe I should post about the Duke-haters and how every game Duke wins is just because of the refs?)

The Duke women were up most of the game, but Baylor rallied and took the lead in the final minutes. (#4) Baylor 51 upsets (#2) Duke 48.

Congrats Lady Baylors.

(See, that's sportsmanship. When someone wins you congratulate them instead of whining about the refs. And that's why Duke fans think of the haters as a bunch of pussies.)

And congrats to Duke team too. You had a great year. I'm sure it must be frustrating not getting the recognition that the men's team does, but it could be worse. You could be stuck playing soccer.

Duke vs Baylor part 2...

Now that the Duke men have won, we have to root on for the Duke women's basketball team (a #2 seed), which weirdly enough, is also playing Baylor (a #4 seed) for a chance to go to the Final 4.

Go Duke...again!

Sunday, March 28, 2010

NCAA ELITE EIGHT Day 2

DUKE WINS!!! DUKE WINS!!! DUKE WINS!!! DUKE WINS!!! DUKE WINS!!! DUKE WINS!!! DUKE WINS!!! DUKE WINS!!! DUKE WINS!!! DUKE WINS!!! DUKE WINS!!! DUKE WINS!!! DUKE WINS!!! DUKE WINS!!! DUKE WINS!!! DUKE WINS!!! DUKE WINS!!! DUKE WINS!!! DUKE WINS!!! DUKE WINS!!! DUKE WINS!!! DUKE WINS!!! DUKE WINS!!! DUKE WINS!!! DUKE WINS!!! DUKE WINS!!! DUKE WINS!!! DUKE WINS!!! DUKE WINS!!! DUKE WINS!!! DUKE WINS!!! DUKE WINS!!! DUKE WINS!!! DUKE WINS!!! DUKE WINS!!! DUKE WINS!!! DUKE WINS!!!

DUKE WINS!!!

Two games today --

(#5) Michigan State def (#6) Tennessee -- Michigan State played in the national championship game last year and was preseason #2. But they struggled during the year and then their star player, Kalin Lucas tore his acl. Now they have a chance to play (#5) Baylor for a second straight shot at the national championship.

And the big game, the important one, the one that made it hard to sleep and kept my stomach so nervous I couldn't eat all day --

(#1) DUKE def (#3) Baylor -- wow. How the he** did they win this game? Baylor is big, athletic with quick guards. They got in the lane, they blocked shots, the had fast break points...they did just about everything and looked awesome doing it. There was one point early int he first half where Duke really seemed to have the Baylor zone figured out and were scoring each trip down and Duke built a lead. But Baylor battled back, got turnovers and fast break points and took a lead into halftime. The second half seemed more of the same. The Duke turnovers stopped, but Baylor was getting into the defense for easy shots while the Duke team was struggling. Zoubeck was in foul trouble. Singler didn't hit a shot from the field (he finished 0-10 for the game). More blocked shots for fast points for Baylor. But then Duke hit the offensive glass -- on three consecutive possessions they got offensive rebounds and kicked them out for 3's. Zoubek got an O and put it in with a foul. Lance Thomas got an O and put back with a foul. And suddenly with 3 minutes left Duke had an 8 point lead and Duke was able tot hold on for the big, big win. Duke ended up with 17 offensive rebounds (11 in the second half) and shot 11-23 (.478) from 3.

Duke 79, Baylor 71

Duke goes back to the Final Four!!!!

Now let's look at the Final Four--

(#1) Duke vs (#2) West Virginia
(#5) Michigan State vs (#5) Butler

On paper it looks like Duke/W. Va is almost the game for the championship. I don't think a seed lower than #4 has even won the title, so history would put the big, big odds against the #5's. Except these aren't normal #5 seeds. Michigan State played in the championship game last year and was preseaon #2 (although that was with top player Kalin Lucas) and Baylor is a big, athletic team on a 22-game win streak that includes beating Syracuse and Kansas State. Baylor might be from the Horizon League, but they are big league now!

I don't know much about West Virginia, except that game against Kentucky was crazy -- WVa bombed from 3 and Kentucky could hit one to save their season. WVa doesn't seem like a big team, but they have that Bob Huggins toughness. Still, I like Duke in the match-up and am just grateful that Duke won't have to play Kentucky.

Next stop Indianapolis, where Duke won their first national championship in 1991 (a game I was at!).

Next stop, the Final Four!

Saturday, March 27, 2010

NCAA ELITE EIGHT - DAY 1

UPSET UPSET UPSETS!!!

Two games for the right to play in the Final Four and two big upsets!

(#5) Butler def (#2) Kansas State -- Go Horizon League! I hate to say it but I didn't get to see it all. I saw Butler go up early and I had to run some errands. I wish I could have seen it. K-St was a #2 seed, but many people thought they had deserved a #1. But now it is the time of the little guy! This also means that a #5/#6 seed with play for the national championship! Go little guy! Go Horizon League!

(#2) West Virginia def (#1) Kentucky -- HOLY %^*@!!! Kentucky goes down! The most talented, scariest team in the country and they are taken out bya WVa team that lost its starting point guard to a broken foot. Amazing. I don't think WVa made a single 2-point shot int he first half -- 28 points, all from 3-pointers and the free throw line. Kentucky, on the other hand, was 4-32 from the 3- and most of those 4 makes came in the final three minutes as WVa had built up a big double digit lead and were hanging on. CONGATS TO WEST VIRGINIA!!!

Yes, that means the two teams I picked as favorites to win it all lost today! Another #1 seed goes down! A #2 team is upset! Now the title is really up for grabs! Can Duke make it past a tough, tough Baylor team? We find out tomorrow!

THINGS WE LOST IN THE FIRE (a review)


The second half of my double griefure last night. THINGS WE LOST IN THE FIRE is the 2007 movie from acclaimed original screenplay by Allan Loeb. This script, in fact was the top script in the Hollywood Blacklist in 2005 -- a list of the best unproduced screenplays in Hollywood, beating both JUNO and LARS AND THE REAL GIRL, which later were nominated for Oscars for Best screenplay. So what happened? Why did those two movies get noms while TWLITF didn't? I'll compare the movie and the screenplay, as well as comparing this movie to the previous film, BROTHERS. And I'll do it while tap dancing. Yes, I'm breaking out the tap!

This is the story of a woman (Halle Berry) whose husband dies unexpectedly. In her gried she reaches out to one of her husband's oldest friends -- a heroin addict (Benecio del Toro). He comes to live with her and her children where he will help her and her children through their grief and they will help him with his addiction.

So how was the movie? It was okay. There are a couple nice moments, but a lot of it felt by-the-numbers and the big emotional scenes at the end didn't work for me. One (the friend's slip back into addiction) felt random and the other (the wife's big scene) didn't feel earned, and to be honest I didn't really get what she was saying. See, the title of the script -- Things We Lost in the Fire -- is about a house fire that burned up a bunch of photos and memory-stuff (which happened while the husband was still alive). Her big moment is telling the addict-friend that in that fire they had lost her husband. Not literally (he was shot outside an ice cream shop), but in some other way I didn't really understand. It's hard to make a drama and have the two big moments not work, and it probably says a lot about why LARS and JUNO got more attention at the big awards shows that year. It's the problem that permeates the movie -- and BROTHERS too for that matter -- that it just never seems to dig into the drama. For a movie that is supposed to deal with some deep stuff -- death, grief and addiction -- by the end it feels surprisingly shallow.

Of the two I guess I would recommend BROTHERS more. It at least seemed more interesting and the second half has some tension as you see Maguire go into meltdown. At the same time, TWLITF felt a little more complete -- while BROTHERS is fractured, even down to the question of protagonist, there is a consistant arc in FIRE that is being explored that we see to the end. But without depth, it lacks the zing that puts BROTHERS ahead by an inch.

Still, if neither of these seem to bring on the grief, try these: FINDING NEVERLAND (the story of J M Barrie writing Peter Pan to help three children cope with their dying mother -- yes, I cried), FORREST GUMP, GHOST, UP, THE BIG CHILL or maybe even GARDEN STATE (which is kind of grief-lite compared to the others, but still a wonderful movie).

*** HEAVY SPOILERS ***

So what happened? How did one of the most acclaimed movies of the year fail to become one of the most acclaimed movies of the year? Let's look at the script vs the movie. In the movie, there is one scene with the husband and his child, maybe a minute long, and then we jump forward after the husband's death and quickly to the funeral where we meet his addict friend. These are our first impressions of them -- grieving for a man we have never seen them with. We don't know anything about their marriage. We don't know anything about their friendship. We also don't see the firend as an addict. He says it at the funeral, but it's different to hear someone say it vs seeing them in the midst of their addiction. Now compare that to the script -- the father/child scene is still there, but now we see the husband and wife together. They argue because he wants to leave to go visit his friend. The wife doesn't see why he hasn't given up on the friend who is an addict, but the husband hasn't given up on him. He visits his addict friend and we see their friendship. Then the husband goes back to his wife who is still angry at him. It is only after that that the husband is killed and now we see them struggle with grief -- not struggle with some abstract grief, but struggle with the grief of losing this man that we have seen them with. How much more do you feel the loss now? Instead, in the movie they take all those scenes and put them after the funeral while the wife is struggling with her grief. Why? Maybe they wanted to get to the grief sooner. Maybe they wanted to bring in the friend sooner. But part of storytelling is moving the audience -- the emotional ups and downs. In the movie we start down -- as far as we know all these characters know is grief. In the script we start up -- with love and friendship -- and then get slammed down with his death. And showing those scenes in flashback? Why would anyone think that would work? Maybe they figured that since THE BIG CHILL started post-death then this could too. Except The Big C is an ensemble film -- we spend the rest of the time seeing these friendships, hearing them talk, etc. It's about relationships and people questioning themselves. That isn't what's happening in ...FIRE. This isn't really a movie abou relationships, especially not between the wife and addict, which never gets beyond friendship. This really about two seperate people (or more if you include her children) as each of them struggle with their grief and addiction. Not starting with her and her husband, not showing us first him in the swell of his addiction is just a huge mistake. And again I can understand that quick thinking -- the movie is about these two people, let's get them on screen together as soon as possible, and the movie is about grief so let's move that up as much as possible -- but by detroying that up and down arc you are destroying the emotional power of the film.

Bruce Rubin, the writer of GHOST, once said all movie start in the light, move into darkness, and then struggle to get back into the light. It's a shame the makes of ...FIRE hadn't heard that too.

BROTHERS (movie, 2009) (a review)


Yes, last night I have a griefapalooza watching two films dealing people trying to deal with the death of a loved one. I'll start by Talking about BROTHERS. I was thinking of starting with the other movie, THINGS WE LOST IN THE FIRE, because that is a more straight-forward movie, but since I read the original spec and wanted to compare a bit, I decided instead I would talk about this movie, the screenplay of which I haven't read. I haven't seen the original movie (it was originally a Dutch film, 2004).
So how was it? Will it be griefalicious? Or will is it a griefappointment? You'll have to read the next paragraph to find out. Now let's get ready to GRRUUMMMMBBLLLLEEEEE!

About BROTHERS: I was disappointed. This movie stars Jake Gyllanhaal, Natalie Portman and Toby Maguire and sets up an interesting situation -- a husband/father (Maguire) goes to Afghanastan, where his helicopter is shot down and he is presumed dead. While dealing with their grief, his wife (Portman) and neer-do-well brother (Gyllenhaal) start to be come close. But it turns out the husband wasn't killed. He was catured, where to survive he had to do horrible things, like beat one of his best friends to death. When he is returned home, he is changed. He is dark and brooding, haunted by the guilt of what he has done. He is also suspicious of the relationship between his wife and his brother, and that suspicion begins to push him over the edge.

Now that has the makings of a good thriller, maybe even a great thriller. A modern SHINING, with modern themes and a more meat on the husband-wife relationship. Unfortunately, it isn't a thriller. And as a drama it's fairly weak. The problem isn't that they aren't dealing with interesting things, the problem is that they aren't dealing with them enough. Everything is played on the most superficial level. I've said before stories are about fascination. So what is this movie fascinated with? Is it about the way two people can come together and heal after the death of a loved one? Well, not really since that aspect end my midpoint. Is it about jealousy? Well, not really since we know the wife and brother didn't actually screw and both accept the husband coming back. Is it about guilt? It doesn't seem to be. It certainly didn't reach any powerful grief-point for me and the climax of the movie isn't really about some sort of acceptance with what the husband has done.

Part of the problem is structure. The first act (the first quarter of the movie) is about the husband leaving for war and being killed. The next quarter of the movie has the husband catured by the enemy as the wife/bother become closer and closer, the brother helping the wife and her children deal with their grief and that in turn helping the brother, who is a neer-do-well just out of jail, turn his life around as well. Then it is only over halfway through the movie that the husband comes home. The next quarter of the film is the husband losing his grip, becoming more and more violent, until (the final quarter) when things finally explode.

So as a thriller, it doesn't become thriller-ish until well into the second half of the film. Now this could have been fine if the movie really committed to being a thriller and went the full Shining. But it doesn't. And as a drama, well, it just seems to lose focus moving from people dealing with grief to a man tormented in war, to a man haunted by what he has done, to a thriller as a husband loses it.

There are good things in the movie. Having three actors as good as these guys are is almost always interesting, and the movie does a good job keeping things active. But ultimately, this movie felt like it was split between several different movies, and that, coupled with the lack of depth to any one story-angle, make this a dissappointment.

NOT THE GRIEFIEST.

Next Up: DUELING DRAMAS!

Next I'll have two reviews: BROTHERS (starring Toby Maguire, Jake Gyllenhaal and Natalie Portman) and THINGS WE LOST IN THE FIRE (starring Halle Berry and Benecio del Toro). Both movies involve women struggling with grief, so this will be like a grief-off. Which movie is the griefier? Are either of them more griefier than ORDINARY PEOPLE, or is O-P still the griefiest of them all? Reviews coming tomorrow. (I've also read the original spec script for Things We Lost in the Fire, so there will be a bit about how that story changed as well.)

Friday, March 26, 2010

NCAA SWEET SIXTEEN DAY #2

First...

DUKE WINS!!!!

(#1 seed) Duke toughed it out against a very tough (#4) Purdue team. The first half Prudue caused Duke to turn the ball over and Duke never got into the offense except for Singler, who kept them in the game. Half-time was Duke 24, Purdue 23. But in the second half Duke pulled away as Scheyer and Smith got hot for a 70-57 win. It was very much like the first Duke-Clemson game where the game was tied 23-23 at half time then Duke pulled away to win it 60-47.

So DUKE IS IN THE ELITE EIGHT!!!!

Their opponant will be Baylor (#3) who destroyed fan favorite St. Mary's (#10). Baylor looked awesome. It will definitely be a tough match up for Duke. While Duke has had a big size advantage against their opponants so far (although they didn't really go down low against Purdue often on offense, they dominated the boards), this Baylor team is big and deep and good. Should be a heck of match.

Other games --

(#6) Tennesee upset (#2) Ohio State. A close game, Oh-St had a chance to tie, but Evan Turner's game tying 3 was blocked and the Vols won. A great game.

(#5) Michigan State def. upstart (#9) Northern Iowa. Northern Iowa actually had a 29-22 halftime lead, but Michigan State pulled it out with a big second half.

So let's see where things are going into the Elite Eight:

In a year where people talked about three teams being dominant (Kansas, Syracuse, Kentucky), only Kentucky is still around. People thought of the three teams KY would be the most vulnerable to an upset since they played in a weaker conference and relied on freshmen. Instead the SEC actually is the only conference with two teams still playing (Kentucky and Tennessee).

Of course people also talked about parity this year and it shows in balance between the conferences: 1 ACC (Duke), 1 Big East (West Virginia), 1 Big 10 (Michigan State), 1 Horizon League (Butler), 2 Big 12 (Baylor, Kansas State), 2 SEC (Tennesse, Kentucky)

And how great is it to see a non-Big 6 team get in there with Butler representing the Horizon League?

The two sides of the brackets are an interesting contrast. On one side, the brackets have held close to seed. (#1) Duke will play (#3) Baylor and (#1) Kentucky will play (#2) West Virginia. On the other side it has been all upsets as (#5) Michigan State will play (#6) Tennessee and (#2) Kansas State will play (#5) Butler. So automatically a seed below a #4 will make the final four.

So who has the best chance now to win it all?

Kentucky. They just look head and shoulders above everyone else. But they will also have a tough road, playing West Virgian, then Duke/Baylor just to make it to the championship game.

After them, I would say Kansas State. I think Baylor and Duke might be just as good as K-St (although K-State looked VERY good), but K-State definitely has the easier road. In fact, they won't play a team higher than a #5 seed until the final game. And if they get upset in either the Elite 8 or the Final Four, it means a #5/#6 will be playing for the National Championship.

Only two games tomorrow. The two games Sunday.

Go Duke!!!

CHERRY CRUSH (a review)

CHERRY CRUSH (a review)

Well, I guess this is supposed to be a thriller. Kind of. Maybe? Here's the story: after getting kicked out of one school for taking nude pictures of girls and posting them on the net, Jordan Wells (played by Jonathan Tucker) goes to a new school where he meets the sexy and alluring Shay Bettencourt (played by Nikki Reed). He becomes entranced by her. So when she suggests that he take pictures of her with the older man she is screwing as some sort of insurance policy. See this older guy said he would help get her a scholarship to this exclusive music school and she wants to make sure he goes through with it. Jordan takes the pictures, but the scholarship doesn't come through. She decides to confront him. Things get physical and they end up killing the guy. Now they have to hide the body and try to protect themselves. Yeah, and it turns out he has a box with a bunch of money in it too that the girl just happens to know the security combination for. So now we have a cat and mouse game -- the boy wanting to stay out of prison, the girl who wants the money, and a detective who can put them away or go for the money.

On some level it feels like it could be a good thriller. My description of it at least reminds me of BODY DOUBLE, a movie both under-rated and over-rated (being both good and unintentionally cheesy at the same time). But that movie this movie isn't good. Not at all. First, thrillers have to thrill. There needs to be a sense of danger. First there is the part where the protagonist gets trapped. Here it's so obvious that it's boring, and it just makes the protagonist look dumb for not realizing it. Second in thrillers is the reversal, where the protag realizes he is screwed and starts to fight back. Except here that never quite happens. There never seems to be that airtight case. The detective has some evidence, but they should be piling on the problems. Here it's a couple pictures. Then there's the cat-and-mouse part, which here is woefully thin. Nothing interesting, nothing smart. Then you have the final reversal. Again, boring and lame. Then there are the stakes -- what is at risk? Sure, the characters are after money, but if they don't get it then what? Nothing. The whole thing was as boring as the lame voice overs. What's more frustrating is that they have a bunch of name actors. Tucker and Reed have been in a lot of movies, and there are other actors in this with long resumes. This wasn't some yokel with a camcorder. But the whole thing was lame. I could go on -- with the acting, and everything else -- but why bother?

AVOID.

If you want to see some good thrillers, I'd recommend: Body Heat (good but overrated), Shallow Grave (early Ewan McGragor), Body Double, Dead of Winter, The Descent (horror/thriller), Silence of the Lambs, Shoot to Kill, Disturbia, El Mariachi, Taken, The Stpefather (the original with Terry O'Quinn), Dead Calm (with Nicole Kidman), The Others (a good ghost story with Nicole Kidman), and Open Water.

Thursday, March 25, 2010

NCAA - SWEET SIXTEEN DAY #1

A great day, a sad day.

Sad because there were only four games. Was it really only a week ago that we had a jam packed 16 games day of upsets and excitement? It feels like a month!

The great was the basketball. Starting with the upset --

(#5) Butler defeats (#1) Syracuse. That makes two of the three teams most people said were the best in the country gone before the elite eight. And another Big East school goes doooooowwwwwwnnnnnn

(#2) Kansas State over (6) Xavier in double overtime. Yes, double overtime. So many amazing plays. If you didn't see this game you missed one of the greatest games of the year. Big play after big play. Phenomenal.

(#1) Kentucky over (#12) Cornell. Yes, the Ivy League run is over but it was fun. Kentucky was just too good, especially on defense where they shut down Big red. Any other team and Cornell would have had a chance. Not Kentucky who is just head and shoulds beyond anyone else.

(#2) West Virginia over (#11) Washington. A Pac-10 team goes down. A Big East team survives. I never root for the Big East, but this sets up a match-up with Kentucky. If anyone in this bracket was going to have a shot at taking down Kentucky it was West Virginia. Saturday's game should be good...or a blow out for Kentucky.



The biopic of Amelia Earhart, starring Hilary Swank and Richard Gere. This is an okay movie but with the problems that many biopics have -- we already know the coolest part, so to make a movie work, especially when dealing with a famous person that everyone knows, the question is going to be the approach, the context of what they did that will give added meaning to it. Unfortunately, that's where this movie comes up short.

So Amelia Earhart was a famous female pilot, the second person to fly across the Atlantic, who disappeared as she was trying to fly around the world. This movie takes us from a very young Earhart in Kansas to a young woman who is recruited by a publisher to be the first female to fly across the Atlantic. Except she isn't going to really fly. She's going to be more of a passanger, then they will publish a book and make lots of money. It works. Earhart crosses the Atlantic (with a man actually flying the plane) and she becomes the most famous female pilot in the world. But she is frustrated that it is fame she hasn't earned. Then while helping her write the book, the publisher falls in love with her. The rest of the movie builds to the final flight where she disappears as she struggles with her marriage, with her place in aviation as another female pilot challanges her, as she struggles for money to pay for her flying, and as she struggles to accomplish something that she thinks will be worthy of her fame.

The movie really has all the parts of a powerful tragic story. Even the events of the final flight -- an uncharged battery, communication problems, a navigator who got drunk the night before -- all seem like that tragic storm of circumstance that should work. But it doesn't. The movie feels episodic and cold. The main problem is that they don't get after it enough. Stories are about fascination -- so what is the fascination with this story? Is it about a woman who gets fame she doesn't feel she deserves and then pushes herself more and more to accomplish something worth her fame? Is it about a woman who screws things up with the man she loves only to regain him but too late. Is it a Titanic-like story of the way circumstance can overwhelm us? And the problem is it is kind of all of them, but it never feels like it gets beneath the surface. None of these are explored with nearly the intensity that they need, since we already know how the story will end.

For woman looking for a Titanic-lite with Richard Gere as the man who lives and Hilary Swank as the woman who doesn't, then maybe this will be enjoyable. Or if you have a special interest in Earhart. Otherwise, while it could be a good story, it just isn't told with enough passion for it to be engaging.

IT'S COMPLICATED (a review)

This is the latest romantic comedy by Nancy Meyers (Actually it's not. Meryl Streep begins sleeping with her ex-husband (Alec Baldwin), then she meets another man (Steve Martin) and she decides to break things off with her ex- to be with this new guy. Simple. Sure, there are some layers thrown in -- Streep's kids are moving out and she's alone in the house for the first time, her ex- married the woman he was cheating on her with so now she's doing to her what the other woman did to her -- but for the most part it is frighteningly simple.

And for the most part it's pretty good. Not great, but decent.

There were a couple problems for me. One, the people don't talk like people. When you watch a Judd Apatow movie and the people are sitting around talking it sounds real. You believe in those people. Here, the dialog just never felt genuine. It gives everything a corny feel that makes it hard to get involved in the story. And the other problem was that it never felt like it was about anything. She fools around with her ex- -- fine and kind of funny (I actually had an idea using that idea too, which of course is now blown, dammit!) -- but so what? How many people haven't had a rebound booty call with an ex-? So what? A movie like WHEN HARRY MET SALLY is so good because it has something to say about love and friendship. This movie seems like it has more material to work with (divorce, getting over the ex-, the familiar vs the new, being with someone vs being alone, the thrill of an affair vs dating...not to mention the change in life when the kids are gone and you enter that next phase of your life) and yet Meyer's never seems to use it to say anything. Part of our engagement with a movie is about hope and fear -- what does your protagonist want, what do they fear, what are they trying to do, will they succeed or fail? -- and here there just aren't any strong answers to those questions, which leaves the movie feeling flat. Which is strange -- a movie about love and sex that actually has so little passion.

It isn't a bad movie. It's a nice movie. A pleasant movie. But it's also not great.

SLIGHT RECOMMEND

BLIND SIDE (a review)




Yeah, okay, this seems a little stupid. I mean the movie has become a smash hit, grossed over $200M and was nominated for an Academy Award. Is it really something I need to talk about or is everyone who is going to be convinced already planning on seeing it? Well, since it just came out onvideo I guess I might as well say it:

SEE THIS FILM.

Now, yes, the movie is about everything you would except -- a little too cute, a little too cheesy, and it does hit some corny beats, and Sandra Bullock is constantly sassy -- but what it does well, it does really, really well.

The best part comes early. We meet Michael Oher, a giant of a young black man from the projects who gets into a Christian school because the coach thinks he will be great for football, but he doesn't seem ready for the academics. Everything is piled on Michael as we see him quietly struggle. He isn't angry, he doesn't lash out -- he is just a fish out water who doesn't know what to do. He's never had anyone who would be there for him and now he is even more alone. Then one night while driving home, a family sees him walking along the side of the road in the freezing cold. They are the Collins, led by the fiesty matriarch, Leigh Anne Tuohy (Sandra Bullock). They take him in and become his family. We also see the first couple hints of what will make him special on the football field (aside from his size!) and that's his protective nature for the people he loves. They help him with school and, well, everything.

Then he begins to play football. At first he struggles. Not because he can't play but because he doesn't seem to want to. He doesn't want to slam people to the ground. It is only when the fiesty Leigh Anne storms onto the field during a practice and explains to him that he should think of the football team as his family (the Collins) and protect them. Now we see him start to excell in football...and well, you get it.

The interesting thing about the movie probably isn't what it does, but what it doesn't do. First, we spend the first half of the film focusing on Michael and the Tuohy's taking him in. There's also no big game, no final play to win the championship, no other sports cliche that I can't think of right now. And that's because this movie isn't really about football -- it's about family.

It's not a perfect movie. I liked the first half a lot more than the second half. And there were some story beats (mainly in the second half) that felt a little cliche. A few too many witty lines. And the whole little kid who says funny things was a bit overdone for me. Things also set up a little too well, so there were definitely places where it was too pat. (Like they tell us that Michael scored poorly in all his evaluations except in his protective instincts that were 98%. Really? They test for that???) Life has a little more choas in it and it wouldn't helped the movie to feel a little less slick. The other problem is that while Bullock gets him to play well by telling him the football team is his family, we never see him bond with the team. In fact, I don't think we ever really meet anyone else on the team. This, and the fact that he doesn't seem to particularly like football, kind of undercuts what he eventually accomplishes on the football field.

Still, like I said, this isn't really a movie about football. It's about family. And if you are looking for a fun, good hearted movie about family this is a pick I can completely recommend

--Paul

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Looking forward to...

This trailer just hit the web and this officially becomes one of the top movies I am looking forward to.
This is the latest movie directed by Luc Besson, director of THE PROFESSIONAL and producer of TAKEN, ARTHUR AND THE INVISIBLES series, and many more.


I remember reading several of the adventures of Adele Blanc-Sec (by Jacques Tardi) years ago when they were serialized in the comic book Caliber Presents. Wonderful, fun, and different. The trailer has an Indiana Jones feel with that wonderful rush of adventure. There's no USA release date yet, but I'll certainly put it here when I find one.

HIGH PLAINS INVADERS (a review)

Did you watch those old, cheesy sci-fi movies on Saturday afternoon? Usually from the 50's or 60's with cheap special effects, lousy scripts and bad acting? And did you secretly love them more than all those boring character driven, depressing as heck, Oscar movies? Well, HIGH PLAINS INVADERS is like a modern version of those fun, cheesy sci-fi movies.

The idea is simple: aliens invade the old west and now a group of people have to fight them off. (If this sounds familiar, Jon Favreau, the director of IRON MAN, has a big budget project lined up called COWBOYS AND ALIENS.) The story centers on a train robber, Danville (played by James Marsters, aka Spike from BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER tv show), who is about to be hanged when weird space aliens invade the small town and begin killing people. Danville with a handful of people (the girl he jilted, a female bounty hunter, science guy, etc) first run for their lives, then realizing that the creatures could take over the world decide to try to blow up them and their ship.

The film is okay. The aliens are weird and different (very non-humanoid, weird insect-like burrowing things). The movie doesn't have the humor of the vastly superior TREMORS and it's a bit by the numbers, but in an okay way. This isn't a great movie (and is barely good really), but if you miss those cheesy sci-fi movies or if you need a fun creature movie the whole family can watch, this movie can work.

SLIGHT RECOMMEND

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

PARANORMAL ACTIVITY (a review)


Do you like scary movies? Not horror movie, but scary movies? Movies that make you feel like you are sitting in the dark and that something wrong is happening, something that sends chills up and down your spine...something very, very wrong? Then PARANORMAL ACTIVITY is the movie for you.

The story is simple. A young couple think there is a supernatural presence (i.e. ghost) in their house. They decide to set up cameras to catch evidence on film. Things get worse so they bring in an expert who tells them that it isn't a ghost it is a demon and trying to engage with the entity will only make it worse. The man decides to try anyway...and things get worse.

Now this isn't a movie about a demon. This isn't EVIL DEAD or any other monster movie. This is about being in that house as things start to happen and how it affects this couple. It's a movie about the sounds you hear when you are alone, about a picture that has been moved, about something happening that doesn't make sense that you can't seem to stop which is even worse because it is happening in your house.

If you want a fun creature feature movie, this is not is. If you want a good scary film like the classic 60's film THE HAUNTING, this is the best film in a long, long time.

HIGHLY RECOMEND

****** SPOILER *****

Okay, so let's talk writing. I mean, a haunted house story? Geez, how many of these things have there been? How the heck can a haunted house story be a buzz movie? How can it feel fresh even moreso when it's a 60's style haunted house story????

This is where they do two smart, smart things that make the story work. First is the concept of the couple setting up cameras. I mean, if you thought your house was haunted wouldn't you set up cameras? So right away the movie starts with the characters being smart. How many horror movies start off with people being smart? In the last five years, one. (Two is you include CLOVERFIELD.)

Second, it isn't a ghost story. Around the 30 minute mark (about the end of act one, right?) the couple call in an expert who tells them that it's not a ghost...it's a demon. Now in practical terms what changes? What is different from this "demon" from the story as a ghost? Nothing. Not a damn thing. But even so, that moment when the couple learns this isn't a ghost is a game changer. Up until then the audience kind of knows what to expect, but that change that it's not a ghost and now it's a demon...that means anything is possible and now those noises, those moving objects, those footprints become scary because we don't know what to expect.

It's such a small change and yet it might be the reason why this movie worked when so many other haunted house movies fail. If you want to make a movie that actually scares people, you have to find a way to break out of audience expectation, to change things so the audience can't get ahead of the story...to make them not know...because that's when they begin to feel scared.

Sunday, March 21, 2010

NCAA Day #4

Another fun day, but not quite the excitement of yesterday.

First...

DUKE WINS!!!! DUKE WINS!!!!

The big news is actually that Cornell (#12) beat Wisconsin (#4) (sorry mom!) -- the first time an Ivy league school has gotten to the Sweet 16 in...well, a long, long time.

Duke (#1) easily beat Cal (#8), the regular season champion of the Pac-10.
Unfortunately, Maryland and Georgia Tech both lost. So Duke is the last of the ACC.

Duke will play Purdue (#4) who beat Texas A&M (#5) in overtime. Just a great game!

From the Big East -- Pittsburgh (#3) lost to Xavier (#6) in a close game. Syracuse (#1) and West Virginia (#2) won, so the Big East -- supposedly the toughest conference in the country (according to them, anyway) only gets two teams in the Sweet 16, the same amount as the Pac-10 which was supposed to be the worst of the big 6 conferences.

In all, there are four temas #9 seed to higher make the Sweet Sixteen. Of the four regions, only the South has 3 of 4 top seeds still in it. People were saying Duke had the easiest bracket (some went so far as to call it a walk to the final four). Instead Duke is the only team that could have to beat a #4 and #3 seed to make the Final Four. The next toughest is the West where all the remaining teams are $6 seed or higher. In the East, Kentucky will play a #12 (Cornell) and either a #2 or #11, and in the midwest the highest seed left is #2 seed Kansas State. The other seeds are all #5 through #9 -- upsets winners all.

So a couple days down time. Four games tip off Thrusday, but it's not the same. After the amazing overabundance of games of this first weekend, the Sweet Sixteen feels a little empty. Let's just hope the games are good! (Except for Duke's which will hopefully be a blow-out.)

--Paul

SURVIVAL OF THE DEAD (a review)


This is the latest of the zomibe film by the legend George Romero. Now, I'm a huge, huge, hue fan of the first Romero zombie trilogy (Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Living Dead and Day of the Living Dead made in 1968, 1978, 1985). The latest three movies (Land of the Dead, Diary of the Dead, and Survival of the Dead) has been less than impressive. The thing is the original three movies seemed to reach beyond just being zombie films to really say something about the culture and the world, and even though the world is different today that feeling that you were watching something more is still there in those films. They weren't just zombie films, they were art.

Now, let's talk about SURVIVAL OF THE DEAD. This movie takes place just a few days/weeks after the dead have started coming back to life. The main story takes place on Plum Island, a very pretty and very isolated island whose population is dominated by two clans, the Muldoons and the O'Flynns. The O'Flynns think the zombies should be killed immediately. The Muldoons believe that loved ones who are "infected" should be kept alive in the hopes of finding a way to live with them. At the beginning, the O'Flynns are in charge, but then the Muldoons take over, kicking the O'Flynns off the island. Then in wanders a group of national guards who have gone awall and are looking for a safe place. They like the idea of holing up on Plum Island, so they head over with the O'Flynns back to the island...

Now some of that feels hokey to me, but the idea of this group of people that see the zombies totally differently -- still view them as loved ones and want to keep them alive -- is pretty cool. I don't think I've ever seen that as a centerpiece for a movie. And I think that if the movie really had focused on that more then it could have been one of Romero's best movies ever. It's this great way of using zombies to talk about the people we love and how we want to hold onto them, to say something about love and grief and probably a lot of other things. Unfortunately, once the rogue national guards take the O'Flynns back to the island the movie seems to focus more on the war between these two sides rather than the really cool metaphore the original concept suggested. It isn't that there isn't anything to say about the clan vs clan sitch (namely that it's stupid and people get so used to fighting they forget what they were fighting for), but it just didn't nearly interest me as much as the original concept. So for me the movie was okay, but because it veered away from the best ideas it never really had any oomph.

SLIGHT RECOMMENDATION (especially if you are a Romero fan).

--Paul

Saturday, March 20, 2010


SO I didn't watch the initial four eps of V when it first aired in the fall. I didn't for a few reasons -- (1) I never watched the original, so didn't really care; (2) then I heard mixed things about it and that ABC had changed their minds from the initial series to a mini-series that they would maybe pick up -- not a vote of confidence. (3) the cast -- not that the actors are bad; it's just that the casting felt very manipulative -- Elizabeth Mitchell from LOST, Morena Baccarin from FIREFLY, Laura Vandervoort from SMALLVILLE, Scott Wolf from PARTY OF FIVE (the same show that people remembered Matthew Fox from, now the star of LOST). See? It's like casting for Comic Con! Now I'm not going to say it isn't smart -- once geeks love we love forever, so throwing in a bunch of actors from fan-fav shows make the show a draw...but there was just something about it that seemed to cynical. It was the final straw. (Plus I was probably watching something else...) So I didn't watch.


("Hey, did you have fun at Comic Con." "Oh my God, I go every year!")

So why did I watch it now? Well, funny story. I was selling off swag on eBay when I got a message from someone wanting to buy a couple posters. Turns out it was one of the actors from the show, David Richmond-Peck. He was in LA for a couple days and was going to swing by and pick them up. I figured I might as well watch the show since I was going to meet one of the actors.

So how was it? Well, it was a little uneven. The story starts in spread out fashoin as we meet all the major people right as the building start shaking. A giant ship flies over the city and the visitors announced they have arrived in peace and want to be friends. And they are all really hot. Plus, they can cure diseases (but mainly they are really hot). Now, some people don't trust them. Some people do. This sets up a lot of the early action as people struggle with their feelings about the visitors and people are set against others they are close to. Then we find out a few things -- (1) the visitors are really reptiles, but they have covered themselves in human skin and (2) they have already been on Earth for a while infiltrating us and finally (3) they apparently want to kill us all.

Overall, it was pretty good. There are a few odd questions that a show like this is always going to have that I guess you either willingly ignore or you turn the channel. Q's like -- if they have giant spaceships and advanced tech, why not just kill us all? And if they can impersonate people then why are the overt visitors acting so weird? And how did they come before without of noticing in their GIANT spaceships? Maybe they will get to those questions. Maybe not. But they are odd questions that you would think would have been addressed in the first few eps.

The bigger problem is the show doesn't really seem to know what it is about. The initial episode has an FBI agent chasing a terrorist sleeper cell . Then we realize the sleeper cell was really a cell of aliens -- so there's this parallel to the aliens and terrorism. So it's like the show is a parallel for terrorism? Except that isn't really continued. There's nothing in the later ep's that makes me feel like they are talking about terrorism and the effect it has on people or where it comes from or blah blah blah. The great thing about DISTRICT 9 was they really hit home the metaphore they wanted -- the aliens in these slums, like the way the blacks were treated in South Africa. Now eventually D-9 became more an action more, but that's fine because they strongly established the metaphore. In V (2009), everything is more scattered -- they bring up an idea then drop it, bring up something else then drop it. It just doesn't feel cohesive. In good storytelling, you want the feeling that you are being led, that the teller has a reason for telling the story and they are leading you down a path. The path might be long and dangerous, but that only makes it more exciting and we (the viewer) feel okay because we know the teller will be an excellent and sure-handed guide. Here, it feels more like kids playing in a sandbox -- they play with a toy, they drop it, play with another toy, drop it, wander around... And it isn't that the toys aren't good toys -- they have a lot of good ideas in the show -- but no one really wants to be led around by a kid week after week. Hopefully, this is just because they are in the early stages and getting their feet under them. Lots of tv shows take a bit to grow. And there is a lot of good in the show, so I'm willing to give it a bit of slack.

RECOMMEND.

(I assume the first four episodes are available to rent or on Hulu or something. The show returns for real March 30. )

--Paul

#1, #2, #3...

NCAA's DAY #3 --

And what a day it's is!

#1, #2, #3 seeds go down!

Start the day with St. Mary's (#10) beating Villanova (#2)
Then... #1 in all the land, #1 seed, #1 ranked Kansas goes down to Northern Iowa (#9 seed)!!! Butler (#5) barely surviving Murray State (#13) 54-52
And #3 New Mexico falls to Washington (#11) #3
Some other good games too --
Baylor was close in the second half, but pulled away from Old Dominion (#11)
BYU (#7) kept it close with Kansas State (#2), but not enough to make them worry.
Unfortunately, Kentucky (#1) crushed Wake Forest (#9)

Lots of fun. Another Big East team falls. Unfortunately so did another Big East team. Three teams #9 seed or higher maed the Sweet 16! And more coming tomorrow.

Go Duke!

--Paul

Friday, March 19, 2010

NCAA Day #2

DUKE WINS!

More fun, but not quite the excitement of yesterday. Only four games were close and we didn't have any buzzer beaters, although two people hit half court shots right before half.

Cornell wins! First time an Ivy league school has won in a long time. Jay Bilas picked them to make the Elite 8. let's see if they can do it.

The ACC went 3-2, making us 4-2 for the first round.

The Big East went 3-1, making them 4-4 for the first round, but most notably only their top seeds won (and one #2 just barely won). All the surviving seeds are 1-3 seeds. All the lesser teams lost, supporting what I've said all year -- they are a top heavy league with a couple good teams a lot of overrated, mediocre teams.

Tomorrow: round of 32!

--Paul

Thursday, March 18, 2010

NCAA day #1

What a great day of basketball. Sixteen games all day long.

Three games went into overtime. Five more games decided by under 3 points. Two more that were close with under a minute to go.

Big East -- who bragged and bragged about how great they were. And how great were they? 1-3 and it should have been 0-4. Villinova was bailed out by the refs. How do you spell Big East? O-V-E-R-R-A-T-E-D.

And the ACC? 1-0!

Can't wait for tomorrow. Go Duke!

--Paul

Want to live forever...?

Then better hope you are part jellyfish...

From Yahoo news--



The turritopsis nutricula species of jellyfish may be the only animal in the world to have truly discovered the fountain of youth. Since it is capable of cycling from a mature adult stage to an immature polyp stage and back again, there may be no natural limit to its life span. Scientists say the hydrozoan jellyfish is the only known animal that can repeatedly turn back the hands of time and revert to its polyp state (its first stage of life). The key lies in a process called transdifferentiation, where one type of cell is transformed into another type of cell. Some animals can undergo limited transdifferentiation and regenerate organs, such as salamanders, which can regrow limbs. Turritopsi nutricula, on the other hand, can regenerate its entire body over and over again. Researchers are studying the jellyfish to discover how it is able to reverse its aging process. Because they are able to bypass death, the number of individuals is spiking. They're now found in oceans around the globe rather than just in their native Caribbean waters. "We are looking at a worldwide silent invasion," says Dr. Maria Miglietta of the Smithsonian Tropical Marine Institute.

Pretty cool, right? Now just imagine the story uses. Living forever...transdifferentiation...reverting to youth... let's get those stories going!

--Paul

Cheri (a review)



Michelle Pfeiffer is a wh*re. Not really, but in this, my second in a row of Michelle Pfeiffer movies that have gone basically straight to dvd, she plays a retired courtesan in 1900's France who begins an relationship with a much younger man. This movie is the second teaming of director Stephen Frears and Pfeiffer, the first being the amazing Dangerous Liasons, which was also about a twisted romance in France. That movie was fantastic -- brilliant acting by John Malkovich and Glenn Close and a wonderful, twisted tale of morale decay, seduction, and redemption. This is not. I'm not really sure what this is. It is actually closer to another one of Michelle's historical romance movies, Age of Innocence, a movie that was also about denied love back in the 1870's. So if you liked that then maybe this is worth a try. If not...

At the start of Cheri, we are told that at this time in France courtesans, if they were good, were able to become ridiculously wealthy and that Lea (played by Michelle Pfeiffer) had been very good. Now she seems to be retired with her mansion and wealth. Then one day visiting another retired courtesan, she becomes intriged by the courtesans son. Thus they begin a long affair, seeming to do little but sleep and enjoy each others company. Then one day Lea finds out Cheri's mother has arranged for him to marry the daughter of another wealthy courtesan. It is an odd time. I'm not sure I really thought they cared for each other, what with the quips and banter, but now they are genuinely sad, although again hiding it behind lots of quips and banter. (I guess that's just France in 1900, slight jokes and good manners to cover any real feelings.) Cheri gets married and goes off with his wife. They spend nine months apart, both of them miserable and trying to deal with the situation. Finally they both return to France. Cheri comes to see Lea and tells her he loves her and Lea thinks that it means they will run off together. But no. He has come back to get the strength to go be a husband. He remembers how Lea told him to be kind to his wife and how she is good and so he is going to do the right thing and he leaves her.

That's it.

Um...for me it didn't do much. There are parts with the banter and everything that was good. Pfeiffer is great at playing one emotional surface, yet showing you a completely different emotion going on underneath. Kathy Bates is in it too and she's good. But the story was just...not much. I'm not sure if it's meant to be a tragedy -- two people who love each other but can't be together -- except it's hard to feel for them because they never really fight for their love. Much like AGE OF INNOCENCE, they resign themselves to do the right thing. I'm not sure what I was supposed to take away from it. Personally I would rather see people fight for what they love then resign themselves to unhappiness. Whereas DANGEROUS LIASONS has a tragic end it is necessary to save the woman he loves and gives him a kind of redemption, here it just felt like they quit.

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

I Could Never Be Your Woman (a review)

(MORE COMING AFTER LUNCH)

The latest movie written and directed by Amy Heckerling (Clueless). This is about a forty-two year old woman, Rosie (played by Michelle Pfeiffer) who begins a romance with a twenty-nine year old man, Adam (played by Paul Rudd). The movie really is about Rosie and her struggles with the relationship because of her insecurities about dating a much younger man. There is also subplot with her daughter, Izzie, a girl around ten who talks with the insight of a forty year old in that funny way kids do in movies. Izzie likes a cute guy at school -- you know, like, likes-like -- and there is a story about her trying to get the cute guy to like her and Rosie, of course, as the loving mom trying to help her land her man. And that's pretty much it. There's some stuff about Rosie's job as the executive producer of a struggling tv show, but the focus really is on Rosie and Adam and her trying to date a younger man. Or I should say, her trying to deal with her insecurities because there really are no other problems -- Adam is crazy about her, her daughter likes Adam, her ex-husband likes Adam. The only person who has a problem is Rosie.

Now, I'm going to start breaking the movie apart in a minute, but I want to say here that there's a lot of good stuff here. The relationship between Rosie and her daughter is very good and that's definitely where Pfeiffer shines. The daughter has some good stuff too, like these parody songs that are fun (but clearly not written by a ten year old). And for the most part I liked seeing Michelle Pfeiffer and Paul Rudd together. He has this dorky, silly, sweet charm that is a nice counterpart to the overworked tv producer. I think, while there's too much inside tv references, the rest is very relatable and I can see a lot of people liking the movie and even some people really loving the movie.

So what happened? Why did this movie not even get a theatrical release in the US?

The biggest problem is the movie is that it becomes repetitious. The only problem between Rosie and Adam is Rosie's insecurity. So we get hit again and again -- she's insecure, she thinks he'll leave her, there are girls younger than her, yada yada yada. Now, I'm not saying that she shouldn't be insecure, but there needs to be more to the situation than that. There are no problem with her child, no problems with her ex-husband, no problems from work (even though he's an actor on her show so she's dating an employee). Even then it might be okay if it said something about WHY women are insecure. But there really isn't anything there. She isn't a dork, she doesn't have weird habits, she isn't a control freak...there's just nothing there to suggest why she's insecure. And by insecure I mean insecure for the whole movie.

Now let's compare that to WHEN HARRY MET SALLY. This movie revolves around the question of Can men and women be friends or does sex get in the way? So at first these two people meet and don't get along. Then they meet while both are going through bad break-ups and now they confort each other and become friends. So right away it's saying something about friendship -- people don't just become friends because they are put together, people become friends when they bond over something. Then as they become better friends we see the way it twists and turns. We see them their friends try to push them together, we see them date other people and become jealous, we see them talk about dating and sex so we see each sides POV, and finally we see them deal with their ex-s, the people who broke their hearts before, which both pushes them together and after one night when they do have sex, tears them apart. (So sex does get in the way.) Now, it should be obvious that WHMS is really dealing with this, with friendship and love and hurt, showing this relationship from all sides, and really getting at something about friendship and dating and love.

What does ICNBYW have? Well, Rosie is self-conscious to go out to a bar with Adam, then she is insecure that he will leave her, then she is insecure that he might be flirting with a younger woman, then she is insecure again about another younger woman, and then she gets over it and they are together. There just isn't much there.

So right away there is this big problem -- what's the story about? Well, not much. Then there are a bunch of little problems. Now stories are like rowing -- you've got a bunch of different things going on and when they are all in sink it can help push the story in a very powerful way. Power is important -- you need power so that the story will make as much impact on the viewer as possible. But when elements are out of sink, even a little, they can throw off the rhythm of the whole story, causing it to have less impact. The more elements thatr are out of sink, and the more each element is out of sink, the worse and worse it gets, until at its worse the story isn't even moving forward, but just spinning around in confusion.

So what are some of the out-of-sync in ICNBYW? (And am I the only one who loves it when I can use all initials for a movie?) First, Pfeiffer is 50+ but her character is 42 and Rudd is 40+ but his character is supposed to be 29. Is that on purpose? Are we supposed to really think Rudd is 29 and Pfeiffer is 42? Or is that part of a joke? Then Stacy Dash plays the star of the teen show Rosie runs, but Dash is also over 40 playing a teen actor. Again, is that a joke or are we supposed to buy into it? Gotta be honest -- I didn't really get it. Then there's Adam and Rosie. What works is that Adam is funny and he gets Rosie to have fun. He dances silly, he makes jokes, and acts goofy all the time. He makes her laugh. Except she works on a comedy tv show. Really? She's never met anyone else who was funny while working on a comedy tv show? Also, the idea that he gets her to have fun and play is fine, except she already does that with her daughter -- she loves playing and being silly with her, so it's not like she's forgotten how to be silly. And it's not like she seems incompetent around men. She certainly has no problem steering her daughter so she can get the cute boy she likes.

I could go on bu I have work to do. It was just a very frustrating experience. For stories to work you need to know what you want to say and then you brainstorm characters and situation and ideas that will help you say it in a way that makes the most impact. This felt like a hodgepodge. What I wish it had been...a woman working in an industry obsessed with youth, who begins dating a much younger guy and realizes that the most important thing about youth isn't age, but about being willing to play and enjoy life.

And that story is there in the movie. It's just muddled. And it's still a good movie worth watching, but if that story could have been told really clearly and powerfully it would have been amazing.

--Paul

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Afterschool (2008) (a review)


Huh?



Have you ever finished a movie and just not gotten it.

Huh?

Now sometimes that's because I multitask, and even with this movie I was working on the computer the whole time. In this case that didn't hurt the movie because without a distraction I would have stopped it after ten lame minutes. Multitasking actually got me to watch the whole thing.

But when it was over...huh?

The story starts slowly, focusing on a student, Rob, at a boarding shcool who is miserable -- no friends, etc, all the normal high school loneliness and awkwardness from someone who isn't in that alpha/cool group that dominates every school. It's filmed in almost a cinema verite style with long takes, using silence, and really making you focus on the characters. Then about 20 minutes in, while he is filming an empty hallway for an assignment, two of the most popular girls in school stumble down the stairs and die of a drug overdose right in front of him. The rest of the film deals with the school's reaction to their deaths. At times it feels like he is trying to go for something very grounded and very real. At times it is almost dark satire, ala Heathers. And then it ends.

Huh?

Ultimately, I have no idea what the film was about or what he was trying to do. HEATHERS was very focused -- the mean cool kids vs the rest of the students, the switch that when the mean kids were killed they suddenly became liked, the phony hypocracy all told through this intense, wonderfully inappropriate dark humor that cut into the phoniness of high school life like a hot knife. This movie had...I don't know. It didn't seem to want to say anything, it didn't seem to be a slice of life, it was just...there.

Ultimately, it would have felt like a waste of my time except for three moments which were pretty cool -- one was a discussion between the boy and a girl where she explains that being a virgin is different for girls than boys (which is true), the second was an awkward sex scene (which was probably closer to most people's first time than any ridiculous Twilight-crap) and a hiralious moment after when the boy tries and tries to convince a firend that he really just had sex and it turns out the girl is sitting next to him the whole time, and the third is at the end which has a revelation about the boy that was jarring and different and at least interesting.

Three moments isn't enough. Even if you are working and just looking for something to play in the background, this movie just doesn't give enough.

PASS.

Earthquake

Wow. Felt the building shake last night around 4:05AM. This morning they're reporting a 4.4 quake in Pico Rivera , which would mean something if I knew where Pico Rivera was. Wait, just read it's 11 miles east of downtown. Why would anyone go east of downtown? You have to go west to get to the beach and north to get to Hollywood. Now all this is sounding like a publicity stunt.

Monday, March 15, 2010

The Road (a review)



Do you enjoy watching post-apocalyptic movies but think they are still too optimistic? do you ask yourself why hy can't someone make a post-apocalyptic film with 80% more darkness, 90% more dispair, and 150% more depressing stuff? Then THE ROAD, the film adaptation of the Pulitzer Prize winning novel by Cormac McCarthy might be for you. Otherwise it's about the most bleak thing you will see outside of the director's cut of REQUIEM FOR A DREAM.

The story takes place as some horrible event that has destroyed basically all humanity -- almost all people are dead or cannibals, trees are dying, no living thing is around. The Man's wife committed suicide after giving birth to the boy and so the Man is taking the Boy to the Pacific Ocean. The Man remembers a time before the apocalypse, back when his wife was alive, but the boy doesn't. Along the way they encounter other people along the road. The Boy wants to help them, but the Man is distrustful -- people steal, people kill, people are cannibals; you have to protect yourself from others. They walk through bleak landscapes, everything is dark or gray, they have their possessions stolen, they encounter cannibals, and the father gets shot in the leg. Also, the Man is dying, vomitting blood, and eventually dies.

Yikes.

I do want to compare this movie to The Book of Eli (reviewed earlier) -- another post-unexplained-apocalypse-journey-to-the-Pacific-for-some-reason movie -- but first I want to talk about The Road on it's own merits.

First, I'll say I haven't read the book. I'm just not a Cormac McCarthy fan. There seem to be people that think his sparce-but-pretty prose is a path to some great beauty and wisdom and depth or something. It actually kind of annoys me. It's like the adult version of "See Dick Run." Overall, I thought ALL THE PRETTY HORSE was okay, but way overrated. Still, I can see how his prose style would have captured the bleak yet fascinating landscape well. So maybe the book is the perfect "Let's take the book and throw it on screen" experience, but I'll just be judging it on how the movie works by itself.

So does it work?

Sort of. What I think the movie is supposed to be about is about how fathers want to protect their children and teach them to survive after they are gone. It is a beautiful sentiment, and there are a couple moments at the end as the Man is dying when some of that comes through, but for the most part that whole message is very muddled. What has he taught him? He seems to want to teach the son so the son can survive, but I'm not sure what he is trying to teach. Certainly nothing about finding food or growing food or getting fresh water, which I'd think would be pretty important. He spends most of the time warning him away from other people, but after the farther dies the boy meets a guy and after two minutes goes off with him and it seems to imply that it is a happy (or slightly hopeful) ending. So was the father wrong all that time? Should they have been more trusting of people? Was the Man supposed to realize he had been wrong, that in his fear he had been trying to strip away his son's humanity when in fact he should have been embracing it?

Again, that idea of how fathers want to teach their children, etc, is a powerful one and while it's there it feels muddled in the movie because I'm not sure what he's trying to teach his son, and so ultimately I'm not sure what it's saying about that relationship, about that emotion, other than saying that it is there and powerful thing. Which is true, but I didn't need 120 minutes of bleakness to know that. I would like to think father want more for their sons other than to leave them alone, in a world without trees or life, or sunlight or anything. A lot is made about suicide in the movie -- the wife commits suicide and the boy talks about joining his mom too -- but there really isn't anything that talks to why holding onto life is important and good. When you are surrounded by darkness and death and starvation, what are you holding onto? So is it about hope? But there really isn't much hope int he movie and there's no sense of what the Man is hoping for other then that his Son will be able to survive alone in this hellish landscape. If the Man had been looking for other people that would be able to care for his son it would make more sense, but there wasn't a sinple time in the movie where I thought he was trying to find other people to join them or to help him care for the boy.

Maybe that's a difference between the book and movie, that the book could get into the Man's mind a bit more, show his point of view a little clearer. In a movie, which almost always has more distance from the characters than a book, it just wasn't clear. Just like the cause and nature of the apocalypse which is never explained, at the end we understand the Man's desire to teach the boy so that he can survive after the man is gone, but what he is supposed to be teaching him or how it will give the boy a good life is unclear.

It's late, so just a quick comparison between THE ROAD and BOOK OF ELI. Now these are both post-apocalyptic movies where the apocalypse is never expalined and the protagonist is headed to the Pacific Ocean for some reason. First, Book of Eli is more of a fun kick-a** sort of film. It also comes off a lot more hokey, almost laughable at times, while The Road seems very ernest in its message and tries to keep everything very real so the message will be as powerful as possible. Ultimately, for me, Book of Eli succeeded more because the WHY of his journey is much clearer. We know he is carrying a book (later revealed to be the Bible) and that the antagonist wants it thinking it will help bring people to his town, thus making him more powerful. So the meat of the story -- act two, from 1/4 in to about 3/4 in -- is clear even if it doesn't really make sense. (Like why would no one remember the Bible if the apoc only happened thirty years ago?) But still, having two sides, each with an agenda makes the motivations of the character clear, which makes the conflict clear. We know what they WANT, what they HOPE for, and so we understand their actions. In The Road, I had no idea what he was hoping for. The idea of "teaching" his son is fine, but there didn't seem to be a lot of teaching, just telling him not to trust people (when in fact trusting people is what seems to save him at the end). There is no real point to going to the Pacific. There's no specific thing that will help the boy with the rest of his life. So it just felt like a lot of wandering and hopelessness.

See having a clear idea of what your characters want and having the audience understand that what they are trying to accomplish will help them achieve what they want is part of what gives structure to a story. It gives us a framework so that now we can see all their actions, their successes and failures and understand them in the context of what they are trying to accomplish and why. Without that, their actions have no real meaning. Instead of meaning, we get just stuff.

Oddly, I think The Road actually comes closer to accomplishing what it set out to do. In the end we understand the Man's desire to protect and teach his son, and he is rewarded (post-mortem) by his son finding a new family of decent people. So the ending of The Road finds its meaning, even if it wasn't clear through most of the journey. In Book of Eli, however, while the journey is clearer I don't really get anything from the ending. He eventually does deliver the Bible, but so what? The worl dis going to be okay because we have the Bible now? Didn't people blame the Bible for the start of the apocalypse-that-is-not-explained-so-we-don't-really-know-what-it-was? So that means the ending is...good? Bad? No idea. But at least the journey was entertaining.

I hope that made sense and I didn't ramble with too many typos. Time for bed.

--Paul