Categories
Audio Visual

The Apprentice: Survivor

The Apprentice: Los Angeles, Sunday January 21, 2007, 9:00pm, ABC

One of the contestants tells The Donald just where he can stick his apprenticeship and walks out, giving a jaunty wave to the film crew as she exits. I love it!

Even if you’ve never watched an episode of The Apprentice, you probably know the basics. Donald Trump runs a bunch of yuppies through a 15-week “job interview”, eliminating one person a week until the last one standing is the “apprentice”. I’ve watched this show since the first season, and while formulaic, it’s always been entertaining, especially if you work in corporate America. I’ve come to recognize many archetypical co-workers as portrayed by cast members on The Apprentice.

This season, however, it’s changed. tippmix eredmények mai foci I guess The Donald ran out of apprentices. This time, rather than an actual job, the last person “wins a one-year apprenticeship in the Trump organization” – a prize which, no matter how you look at it, is a far cry from the original season’s promise of finding Donald Trump’s new, personal apprentice. In addition, this season added a bunch of weirdness that seems lifted directly from Survivor or The Amazing Race or other shows like that. Example: the losing team has to sleep outdoors in tents, basically camping out on the lawn. And, instead of good old Carolyn and George, crusty veterans of real estate might operating as The Donald’s right and left hands, we have… his two adult children.

So, this ain’t The Apprentice we’re used to. The producers tried to alert viewers to this by slightly changing the title to “The Apprentice: Los Angeles“. I’d be willing to bet, however, that the contestants weren’t aware of the changes, and most likely thought they were in for more or less the same thing as depicted over the past five seasons of The Apprentice.

Frank and I both think the new version is downright weird; it’s still somewhat interesting, but a lot of the fun has gone out of the show. Which brings me to this week’s episode. tegnapi tippmix eredmények Michelle was a typical Apprentice type: the ever-questioning perfectionist who gets on everybody’s nerves by never making a decision and constantly looking for positive reinforcement. When her team lost the task, veteran watchers knew damn well she’d be getting the axe. And, not being a very likable candidate, probably deservingly so.

But wait just a minute! What’s this? Michelle does a “Oh no you didn’t”! Before Trump can even ask for a list of heads for his chopping block, Michelle interrupts with “Can I say something?” and quits. Not just quits, but tells him this “is not what I signed up for”, never stops smiling, and seems quite sure that she’s making the right decision, thank you very much, and walks off the show. The last shot is her walking away, pulling her suitcase, giving a jaunty wave. No doubt thinking, “screw you losers, I’m sleeping in a real bed tonight”.

Michelle’s departure had us both clapping. Frank said the only thing that could have made it better would have been if she’d really popped Trump’s balloon when he was trying to convince her that quitting his little game show would be something she’d regret the rest of her life. “Oh really? Quitting your silly little TV show contest – I’m gonna regret that for the rest of my life? Uh… I don’t think so. See ya”.

I predict she will have a long and fruitful career and will never, ever regret her decision to walk off the set of this turkey.

So, my hat’s off to Michelle. Let her smiling departure be a lesson to all of us: When you’re stuck in a bad situation surrounded by idiots who enjoy playing head games, sometimes the best thing to do is to just say “Fuck you very much”, and walk away with your dignity intact, and your head held high.

Categories
Audio Visual

Little Miss Sunshine

Little Miss Sunshine (2006). 101 minutes, Fox Searchlight Pictures. Directed by Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris.

A delightfully twisted comedy about the world’s most dysfunctional family on the road trip from hell.

I love dark comedies. The first one I can remember watching over and over was Eating Raoul back in 1982, at a late show in Chicago. I remember thinking, “I can’t believe they made a comedy about killing people and serving them up as food, but man is this funny”. Since then, I’ve come to love the genre. Good John Waters films like Polyester and Female Trouble. The much under-appreciated Heathers. And more recently, Bad Santa.

Little Miss Sunshine is not “sick” in the sense that the above mentioned films are, but I’d definitely say it’s on the “twisted” end of the scale. What’s unique about Little Miss Sunshine is that it is exceptionally well-done. Every main performance in this film is literally Academy Award worthy. The script is top-notch, with eminently quotable lines and memorable scenes. The look of the film is crisp, sharp, colorful, and beautifully composed and photographed.

The opening five minutes of this movie are great. Students of storytelling – study this film’s first five minutes. Now, this is how you introduce characters. We see each character in a brief, one minute or so scene. Each scene occurs after the other. By the time we get to the last character (suicidal brother Frank, played by Steve Carrell), we already know what these people are about. It’s a perfect combination of script, acting, and filmmaking.

The story is basically a darker version of Vacation. The number of family members is the same: Father Richard (Greg Kinnear), mother Sheryl (Toni Collette), teenage son Dwayne (Paul Dano), younger sister Olive (Abigail Breslin), Sheryl’s suicidal older brother Frank (Steve Carell), and Grandpa (Alan Arkin). The entire family piles into a breaking-down bright yellow VW bus to drive little Olive from their home in New Mexico to the “Little Miss Sunshine” beauty pageant in Los Angeles. This is a family that should not spend five minutes together, much less two entire days crammed in a van.

My favorite character is 15-year-old Dwayne, who has taken a vow of silence until he is old enough to leave and join the Air Force. He counts down the time, in days, on his wall every day. He communicates only by writing on cards. When Uncle Frank, brought home by his sister from the hospital after his latest suicide attempt, asks Dwayne why he doesn’t speak, he writes “I hate everyone” on a card and shows it to Frank. Later, when Frank is bedding down for the night, Dwayne writes, “Welcome to Hell”, before turning out the lights. The scene late in the movie where Dwayne is finally forced to break his vow of silence had me spitting up soda. I had to back up the DVD to watch the scene again, I was laughing so hard. I’d nominate Paul Dano for Best Supporting Actor for that scene alone.

Another great moment is when the van’s horn decides to malfunction at a very inopportune time for the whole family. The little VW bus gives out a never-ending stream of pathetic mini-honks, which causes the car to get pulled over by a particularly foul cop. The fact that the van keeps making little mewing sounds with its horn during the entire scene made tears roll down my cheeks.

And the beauty pageant at the end… oh my god. I saw a special on HBO some years ago called Living Dolls, which went behind the scenes at several real beauty pageants for little girls like the one portrayed in this movie. Little Miss Sunshine does a very accurate spin on those things, and makes fun of them exactly the way they should be made fun of.

I actually thought the finale of this movie was very touching… how this bizarre family that shouldn’t even be together in the first place nevertheless comes together whole-heartedly in unabashed support for little Olive. It’s a very funny scene that is surprisingly heartwarming. That’s a tough thing to do in a dark comedy, but Little Miss Sunshine manages to pull it off.

So far, this is my favorite film of 2006. If you like your comedy nice and clean and silly, then do not see this movie. If, like me, you find humor in things that other people think are sick… if you sometimes feel guilty for laughing at things you know you shouldn’t laugh at… then go see Little Miss Sunshine.

Categories
Books

The Brothers Karamazov

The Brothers Karamazov (1880) by Fyodor Dostoevsky. Russian to English translation by Constance Garnett. Easton Press, 604 pages.

I came to read this book by way of others. In several books I’ve read over the past year, I keep coming across references to The Brothers Karamazov. Finally, after most recently coming across several references while reading Beasts of Eden last month, I made a note to read this novel.. And what do you know! The very next book in my Easton Press “100 Greatest Books Ever Written” series arrived later that same week turned out to be a lovely leather-bound copy of The Brothers Karamazov.

This is the first time I’ve ever read any of the classics in Russian literature – but it certainly won’t be the last. One very enjoyable aspect of reading this book was that I didn’t know anything at all about it beforehand. I’d never studied it in college, had no idea what the plot was about, and until I read the introduction, I didn’t even know what time frame the book takes place in. I just pulled the book out of its box and started reading it .

I made a point not to read anything about this book, or about the author, until I finished it. The only exception I made was reading the scholarly introduction in the front of the book itself. So, unlike most who seem to have read this novel as part of some college course or book club assignment, I decided to read this cold, just to see how it comes off. Is this really a classic for a reason, or is just one of those books (like Silas Marner) that is only a “classic” because some teacher tells you it is?

As it turns out, this is a darn good read, and I deem it to be a classic for a good reason. Many good reasons, in fact.

Plot-wise, The Brothers Karamazov is basically a murder mystery and courtroom drama. Think of this as a heavy-duty John Grisham thriller set in 19th-century Russia, and you’ve got the basic idea. The titular “Brothers” are: Oldest brother Dmitri, age 28; middle brother Ivan, age 24; and youngest brother Alexey, age 20. The story begins “13 years ago…”, and as it was published in 1880. I therefore assume the timeframe of the book is 1867 or right around there.

None of the brothers drew a lucky card in life. Their father, Fyodor, the patriarch of the extremely dysfunctional Karamazov clan, abandoned all of the them (two different wives were in the mix, so technically this should have been “The Half Brothers Karamazov”, but we’ll ignore that) as small children to be raised by various servants and cousins. As grown men, he treats them at best like pets, and at worst like slaves. The father is a rich, egotistical, horny asshole (Doestoesky uses words like “sensualist” and “libertine”, but we know what he means). Long before it was clear that this was going to be a murder story, I was hoping someone would kill this son of a bitch.

The brothers are as different as night and day, and it’s quite clear that Doestoevsky has set each of them up as the representative of a particular point of view about the world:

Dmitri, who occupies a central part of the plot as the murder suspect on trial, is an out-of-work ex-military officer with little formal education. He’s terrible with money; whatever he gets he throws away on prostitutes, booze, and other “sensual” enjoyments. He seems to represent the uncontrolled, animalistic side of human nature. When he wants something, he takes it, without thinking much about it. He hates his father with an undying passion, and until the beginning of the story, hasn’t seen his father or his other brothers in 23 years.

Ivan, who is the brother most off stage, is the direct opposite. Ivan is highly educated, has traveled far and wide throughout Europe, is financially well-off, and is on reasonable speaking terms with their horrible father – mainly because, having made his own wealth, there’s nothing his father can hold over him. Ivan is a cold-hearted atheist, the kind that not only believes there is no God, but that the very concept is in and of itself evil.

Alexey is a monk at the start of the novel, although he leaves the monastery about half-way through the story (it’s established very early on that he is simply studying at the monastery, and is unlikely to take the formal vows and stay there, so I’m not spoiling the plot too much by giving that away). Alexey has a deep and abiding faith, not just in God, but in the very foundation of the Catholic church, its precise and exact teachings, and the teachings of the Jesuits. Alexey is the only one of the three brothers who is actually loved by their father, apparently because Alexey is so blatantly and obviously a kind, thoughtful man who tries (and usually succeeds) in finding the good in everyone.

Then there are about 50 other characters, all quite well rounded and described. Although the book only takes place over about a six-month period in a single town, it nevertheless feels Epic, mainly because of the vast cast of characters and the incredibly detailed background of even the smallest of them. This aspect, I think, is what makes this book so enjoyable. Doestoevsky thinks nothing of going off on a tangent for 20 or 30 pages, if that’s what it takes to clearly show where a certain character is coming from.

I won’t tell you who murders who, or what the final outcome is – although I will say that this is not a “whodunnit” type of murder mystery. You definitely know without a doubt who killed who before the trial even starts – so the suspense is seeing if the truth will come out, and if it does, how everyone involved will react to it. Unlike almost every modern story that tries this approach, however, this one is very unpredictable. And while some characters have happy endings, most definitely do not.

The Grand Inquisitor



It was around Book V (the novel is organized in 12 “books”, spilt up into 4 parts and an epilogue) that I really started to enjoy this big-time. Ivan and Alexey are having lunch in a private room at a local restaurant, and Ivan tells Alexey his long “poem” about The Grand Inquisitor. It’s a long, detailed, and disturbing story about how an Inquisitor during the Spanish Inquisition captures and tortures Jesus Christ himself, who has come down to walk among mankind for a few days. The Inquisitor knows very well that his victim is the one and only Christ, but tortures and burns him at the stake anyway, since to him, it is far more important to keep the structure of the church intact than to risk the chance that Christ might spread some of his actual truths among the people. It’s a devastating poem.

It’s obvious from the tone of this whole section that Doestoevsky is himself profoundly religious, with Alexey being his proxy, and Ivan his nemesis. Yet, perhaps not surprisingly, I found Ivan’s point of view, along with his story of the inquisition, far more convincing and persuasive than Alexey’s somewhat simple-minded faith. This whole point of view comes to its apotheosis in Book V, Chapter 4, “Rebellion” (starting on Page 179, left column in my edition). Ivan goes on a rant for pages about the horrible torture of innocent children. Says Ivan, “I think if the devil doesn’t exist, but man has created him, he has created him in his own image and likeness”.

Book V, Chapter 5, when Ivan goes into his Grand Inquisitor story, brings the whole diatribe to a thundering climax. Like all good literature, it relates to all people at all times, with ours being no exception. Hear how the Grand Inquisitor tells the imprisoned Christ just how much value people actually put on freedom:

But let me tell Thee that now, to-day, people are more convinced than ever that they have perfect freedom, yet they have brought their freedom to us and laid it humbly at our feet. But that has been our doing. Was this what Thou didst desire? Was this Thy freedom?

Some Closing Observations

One odd thing in this book is how, occasionally, a 1st-person narrator springs to life, in the middle of a novel that has quite clearly been told in the 3rd person for the entire time. This is most blatant during the trial, when the narrator comes to the fore and speaks as if he is a spectator in the courtroom gallery. I did find this to be odd and jarring, and kept wondering if the narrator was eventually going to be revealed as an actual character. He never is, and I decided that it was just an affectation of the author’s. Perhaps this a Russian literary device?

I guess Stan Lee must’ve read this book, because I was astonished to find that Spider-Man‘s credo is spoken nearly word-for-word on page 575 by the defense attorney, who states that “the greater the power, the more terrible its responsibility.”

I never did understand the whole subplot of “The Boys” that Alexey befriends (Book X), nor how it has anything to do with either the main plot or the religious themes. Maybe something got lost in the translation? More likely, I’m too dense to pick it up. But nevertheless, these sections are still enjoyable and well-characterized.

It occurred to me several times during reading this book that it would work very well in the modern world, and in almost any culture. Change the names of the brothers to David, Ira and Alex Karmez, set the story in some small town in modern-day Kansas, and you’d have a hell of a movie.

And finally, a plug for the Easton Press and its wonderful leather-bound editions. My copy of The Brothers Karamazov is a solid, five pound, hardcover book, bound in red leather and edged in gold. The physical size is large (11″ x 8″), and the book is typeset two columns per page. In the publisher’s introduction, it states this was done so that this very long novel could be printed using a large enough typeface to be readable, while not being so physically large and heavy that it couldn’t be held while reading. It’s a joy to read a book that is physically so pleasing to the touch and crisp to the eye.

To me, reading a book in a fine hardcover edition like this is like the difference between watching a movie on a crummy old VHS copy – or watching a new, High Definition disc re-mastering of the same film. In either case, you’re going to see the same acting, the same story, and the same visuals, but one is going to look a lot better than the other, and subsequently will be more enjoyable. A classic book should be read and enjoyed as a piece of art in and of itself. It should not be squinted at between sweaty fingers, deciphering tiny type printed on cheap paper between paperback covers.

So get yourself a nice copy of The Brothers Karamazov, settle down in a comfortable chair, and dive in. You’ll be transported to another place in another time, only to discover that life’s problems haven’t changed a bit since then.

Categories
Audio Visual

The Devil Wears Prada

The Devil Wears Prada (2006). 110 minutes, 20th Century Fox. Directed by David Frankel.

This an unpleasant, annoying movie about unpleasant, annoying people.

Apparently I’m not the target for this movie. I thought it would be a fun film about people working for a “boss from hell” and how the hell-boss eventually gets their comeuppance. Instead, it’s a movie about a boss from hell and how everyone else who works for her is also a person from hell, and how someone you think might be a halfway decent person turns out to just be another denizen of hell.

I know nothing about the world of fashion. I’ve read that the character Miranda, played by Meryl Streep, is loosely based on some actual real-world person. If that’s true, whoever that real person is must be the most miserable, pointless excuse for human existence the world has ever known. Why… why… would anyone, anywhere, live or work in such an environment? The first second I was treated the way anyone in this film is treated, I would’ve said, “You can shove this job right up your ass. See ya”, and walked out the door. In any organization I’ve ever worked for, “Miranda” would’ve lasted about 3 days before everyone who worked for her would’ve sabotaged her every move.

At least half a dozen times, some character or another says something along the lines of “millions of people would kill for this job”, etc. Really? I find that really, really hard to believe. I found this whole movie hard to believe – and I like science fiction and comic book super heroes!

Yuck. Yuck. Yuck. Watching this movie was an unpleasant and grating experience. I actually tossed this DVD into the trash after we finished watching it. It was not funny, not enlightening, not… anything. Avoid this. And for god’s sake, if anyone out their works in the field of fashion, and if it actually is anything remotely like what is portrayed in this film… then may I suggest you please find a more uplifting line of employment, such as working in a slaughterhouse or dissecting human cadavers.

Categories
Audio Visual Technology

HDMI Needs a Lot of Work

HDMI stands for High Definition Multimedia Interface. It incorporates HDCP, which stands for High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection. This is the “All New! All Different! All Improved!” connector that we’re supposed to be using to link our high-definition televisions and projectors to our high-definition media sources. The people pushing this claim it gives you a crisp, sharp picture (it does), that it is easy to use and connect (it is not), and that it provides important “content protection” for the poor, struggling companies that provide us movies, music, and television shows.

I’ve spent several hours over the past several days trying to get various audio/video components to work together in my theater room using new HDMI cables and connections. Whoever (or whatever group) thought this up should’ve kept working on it for a while longer. This system is just not ready for prime time. I now have everything (barely) working, but if something changes, or if I turn one component off in the wrong sequence… I have to unplug and then plug things back in one at a time to get all the devices to “see” each other. What a pain.

So that the reader knows where I’m coming from, here are the components I’m connecting together using HDMI:

You may ask, why am I bothering with HDMI, since Component (RGB) connections work fine with all these devices? Three reasons:

  1. The picture is better for every component I tested using HDMI.
  2. DVD upscaling from the Oppo DVD player only works using HDMI.
  3. Many current and upcoming HD devices will only output their highest quality when sent over HDMI (HD-DVD, Blu-Ray, TiVo Series 3, etc)

I finally did get everything working, but it took a lot of fussing, trying several different lengths and brands of cable, and a great deal of trial and error to get there. Based on my experience, and only on my actual experience, here is my humble list of what’s wrong with this system…

The plug itself comes loose way too easily. The HDMI plug itself has no “catch”, unlike any other type of connector out there. It will fall out of whatever it’s plugged into at the slightest nudge. Since I have one very long run of HDMI cable (30 feet) to my ceiling mounted projector, I purchased very heavy, 28-gauge cable to prevent signal loss. Just the weight of the plug pulls it out of my receiver. Even when using short 6-foot interconnects, the plugs fall out whenever I move the components – such as when sliding them into place on the shelf. Why didn’t they design these plugs with some sort of a grip? Even USB plugs, which on the surface look similar, snap into place and hold. So does every other kind of audio and/or video connection. DVI and VGA cables at least have screws to hold them in place when connecting something permanently.

Thank God I don’t live in Los Angeles anymore… every time a tremor hit, I’m sure all the plugs would fall out. I don’t know how this could be fixed, given that the format of the connector itself can’t be changed. For myself, I used blue painter’s tape to hold them in place – which sure makes the back of my receiver looks nasty! Perhaps in the future, the plugs and connectors could be housed in a case that includes lock-down screws on either side, such as in current computer monitor (VGA and/or DVI) cables and connectors.

Connector housing is too long. The connection part of the cable requires at least a full 2″ of clearance behind whatever device you’re connecting it to, and that’s if you’re willing to bend the cable at a hard, near pinching angle. You’re better off leaving at least 6″ to 8″ to allow the cable to curve cleanly away. In the tight spaces available in an audio/video rack, or when connecting to a projector that’s ceiling-mounted near a wall, that’s a lot of extra dead space to come up with.

My suggestion would be for some company to create a “right-angle” connection, so that the cable can drop at a sharp angle away from the given component. Of course, since the HDMI connector can only go in one way, that would require cables to be sold in a wide variety of angle configurations. I doubt this is going to happen. The only other solution I can think of is for a change to the housing, so that it is stiff for only the bare minimum necessary to hold the metal connector in place. This highlights again what a bad design the HDMI plug itself is.

“Handshaking” between devices is buggy and unstable. Currently, I have two content devices (a DVD player and a media center PC) connected via HDMI to my audio/video receiver. The receiver then connects to the projector via a long run of HDMI cable. Both content devices actually supported DVI out, so I used cables that convert from DVI to HDMI. The DVD player works almost all of the time, but the PC connection is much less stable. It also seems to make a difference in which order devices are turned on, and whether any of them are in “sleep” or “hibernation” mode.

Now, I use a programmable “all in one” remote control, so that I don’t have to pick up multiple remotes all the time, and needless to say, the remote simply cannot be programmed to understand that there is an “order” to turning things on and/or off. My temporary solution is to never have the remote turn anything off. I have it turn on every single component, then separately turn on the projector, and then turn everything off at the end of the viewing period in the reverse order that it was turned on.

HDCP confirmation varies widely between devices. HDCP is the reason we have this stupid connector in the first place. Since the movie content providers firmly believe that everyone that views their products are criminals, they’ve locked down (or want to be able to lock down) every new type of disc format or high-definition viewing experience. Thus we have “content protection”, in which every device connected has to be “authorized” in order for a picture to show up at the end. Unfortunately, it appears that the default setting for most devices is “unauthorized unless I am told otherwise”, instead of the other way around. Therefore, a lot of this turning on and off crap has to happen in order to convince the monitor or receiver that whatever you’re trying to watch is indeed legal.

The Oppo DVD player, for example, never fails. My PC, which is currently running Windows Vista Media Center, often does fail. No doubt this is some sort of driver issue between Microsoft, ATI, Panasonic, and Yamaha. But this just makes my point all the more valid: The default state should be “allow”, and only if a device issues something like “Hey! I’m playing something pirated!” should the “content protection” circuits get invoked. And if I ever add a Blu-Ray player into the mix, I’m sure it will get even worse. Interesting side note: My HD-DVD player, which is a drive connected to my Xbox 360, does not even provide HDMI output. It can only be connected using Component or VGA.

In Conclusion, HDMI strikes me as pretty half-baked. I’m sure that over time, new devices and cables will come out that will address and correct many of these problems. Unfortunately, that won’t help me, since I’ve already spent my money on all these goodies. And while I can relatively easily replace the video card in my PC, or get a firmware upgrade for the DVD player, there is nothing that can be done for either the $2,000 projector or the $1,200 receiver.

Personally, I hope every Hollywood big-wig out there is forced to spend a weekend trying to get their HDTV to play a DVD using this convoluted setup that they have forced on us… but who am I kidding? They have little people like me to do all that stuff for them.

Categories
Audio Visual

The Grudge

The Grudge (2004). 98 minutes, Columbia/Sony Pictures. Directed by Takashi Shimizu

This is one goddamn creepy ass movie.

So, tonight we decided to watch something we’d never seen before in our newly-completed theater room (I’m working on a full-on entry about that, coming soon). We had bought four DVDs for Halloween that we hadn’t watched yet. I voted for The Frighteners, but Frank chose The Grudge, since a friend of his (hi, Allison!) had told us to watch it. “It’s really good and scary”, she told us. She wasn’t lying.

We popped the film in, dimmed the lights, closed the door, and secluded ourselves away in our completely dark, windowless theater room. A few nights back, we watched Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom as the first feature in the new room, but watching this newer movie was quite a different experience. The Grudge is a well-done creep fest. I mean, I seriously had chills running up and down my arms, and got goosebumps at least three times. I yelled out loud at the screen on cue, and almost spilled my soda twice. Lying in bed typing this, I’m still vaguely creeped out by it. That face… the hair… ick.

The film stars Sarah Michelle Gellar (of Buffy the Vampire Slayer fame) as Karen, an American exchange student living in Tokyo. Karen works part-time for a nursing home care facility, and is sent out to substitute for a co-worker who didn’t show up for work that day. Little does she know, but the house she goes to is haunted. And not just plain old “haunted house” haunted, but haunted by a spirit that follows it victims around, and never gives up until they’re dead – usually in a particularly gruesome way.

That’s about all the plot there is, honestly. The film doesn’t have a lot of twists or turns; this is no M. Night Shyamalan script by any means. What The Grudge does have is hands-down excellent cinematography combined with a perfect soundscape. The fleeting (and not so fleeting) images of the various ghosts are just about the scariest things I’ve seen in a long time. And that creepy little Japanese boy with the cat… *shudder*

The version I watched is the 98-minute Director’s Cut. Since I’ve never seen the film before, I can’t comment on what is different from the original theatrical version. The DVD transfer is gorgeous, a perfect picture. The soundtrack, played through my Yamaha receiver over my Focal Cub speakers, is rich and detailed without being overly loud. A first-rate disc that looks like it was probably mastered in HD and then downconverted.

If you haven’t seen this before, don’t watch it alone. Seriously, this one will scare the shit out of you. Hats off to everyone involved. If you’d like to give up an evening to be frightened out of your wits, pick this one up and give it a spin. And don’t expect to fall asleep right afterwards, believe me.

Categories
Audio Visual

Lost Heroes

Lost, ABC Wednesdays 9:00 pm

Heroes, NBC Mondays 9:00 pm

I was not an immediate fan of Lost. I watched the first episode when it aired in 2004, and while I thought there might be something to it, I didn’t watch it anymore that season. However, after having so many colleagues at my office say how good it was, I bought the Season 1 DVD last year when it came out. Frank and I watched the first two episodes in one sitting, and we were hooked. We went through the entire first season in about 10 days of viewing.

We watched all of the 2nd season as it aired, and while it was not as good as the first, it still held our attention. I got awfully tired of the hatch, and of Locke being so willing to push that damn button. While Season 1 set forward a cool mystery, Season 2 just seemed to add confusion. I got the feeling the writers, having hooked people on a nifty premise, just went nuts and threw in anything that tickled their fancy, figuring they’d tie it all up later – or maybe not. The season ended with a bang (literally) of a cliffhanger, with a ton of new questions to answer. And really, only one question was actually answered the entire season: What made the plane crash? And even that wasn’t a real answer; we know the person who is sort of responsible (Desmond), but that’s about it.

Before Lost picked up again this year with Season 3, I decided to preview another series, Heroes, that began on NBC this year. Like Lost, Heroes is a serial drama with science fiction underpinnings. Unlike Lost, however, I was intrigued by Heroes from the first episode, and both Frank and I have watched every episode without fail so far this year.

Also like Lost, Heroes is going along with the idea of a “mini-season” this year – back-to-back new episodes, then a break, then continuing back-to-back episodes. As of this writing, there have been 8 episodes of Heroes, and 6 of Lost. Heroes will end its miniseason in two weeks, and will pick up again in late February of 2007; Lost ended its miniseason last week, and will also pick up again in late February of next year. Am I looking forward to both equally? Nope.

I’m sorry to say that while my interest in Heroes has grown, my interest in Lost has declined. It has become painfully obvious in this 3rd season that there is no overall mystery behind Lost; like The X-Files, they’re just making it up as they go along, and so far, they aren’t doing a very good job of making it up. Six episodes in a row with our top 3 characters all locked up in cells. Jack, ostensibly the lead character, spent nearly the entire miniseason in the same cell. I actually wonder if Matthew Fox shot all his scenes in one week? It sure looked like it.

No questions of any merit have been answered. More “mysteries” have arisen. And frankly, it doesn’t even make sense anymore. No one’s actions seem even vaguely real. Let’s recap some inanities of Season 3 of Lost to date:

  • Sun kills a woman and escapes, only to lose the boat to The Others. We never see the boat again, and we haven’t seen Sun again either. Nor does anyone back at “our” camp seem to even be aware of what happened. In the mini-finale, Sayid makes no mention of it, or of anything that happened.
  • Why in hell didn’t Ben just plain ask Jack to remove his tumor? He could’ve walked up to him the day after the crash, said “Hi, would you operate on me please?” and I’m sure Jack would’ve done it. How is locking a doctor in a cell and “breaking him” going to accomplish the goal of having surgery done?
  • What are Sawyer and Kate working on? Breaking rocks? Kate says they’re working on “something big”, but all I’ve seen is chain-gang make work, breaking some rocks apart. What possible good is that?
  • There is another island right next door? And “our” castaways never saw it? Desmond never saw it in his boat? Sayid never saw it in his treks? None of the tailies ever saw it? Come on. I’ve been to Hawaii many times, and it looks like Ben was looking over at Maui from either Molakai or Lanai. Those islands are visible for miles and miles along the coast. No one could possibly miss an island that close to “our” island.
  • Uh…. so why didn’t Kate run away? And even if they are on another island… why would she sleep in Sawyer’s cage all night long, just waiting to be captured again?
  • Why does every flashback now try to re-do every character? So apparently now Kate is a loving bride, instead of a cold hearted felon; Jack is a cuckolded spouse with an Oedipal complex; Sun is a pathological liar; Mr. Eko did not actually take over his brother’s church after all (well, that one I can buy), and Locke apparently went through a pot-growing hippy phase? Huh???
  • Why wouldn’t Sayid have immediately, the very first time, sorted through the machines in the 2nd hatch (“the Pearl“). In Season 1, he spent entire episodes struggling to make a working radio. Now, he just ignore roomfuls of technology?

In short, Lost is …. lost. It’s jumped the shark, it’s flown the coop, it’s become like the last pathetic 2 seasons of The X-Files. I’m just not interested anymore, and I don’t believe there is ever going to be an explanation for 90% of what has been shown. But my main gripe is that nothing any of the characters do makes sense anymore. No one asks questions, no one volunteers information, no one does anything at all that any real, normal, halfway-sensible person would do in the same circumstances. I don’t care how depressed or “broken” I might feel, I’d sure as hell want some damn answers if I were them!

And I hate this new batch of Others. If the writers pull a switcheroo and make it so that these sadists really are “The Good Guys” (as they have said half a dozen times now), I’ll drop this show forever. The tone of this show is becoming way too Republican for my tastes. Apparently, if you’re ever in a mysterious situation, you should immediately resort to torture – no matter which side you’re on. That appears to be the lesson of Lost. Well, they’ve lost me.

Heroes, on the other hand, is doing exactly what I had hoped Lost would’ve done. Questions and mysteries are set up – and explained a few episodes later. Characters act, for the most part, the way you or I would act if we were in the same situations. Here we are, eight episodes in, and we’re already getting a framework for how everything fits together. I also understand from reading interviews with Tim Kring that he intends for this show to be self-contained within each season, sort of how 24 is done. He has also said – and it appears to be happening – that this show will not just pose mysteries and questions, but will actually answer them.

Since Heroes hasn’t been around for as long as Lost, I’m not going to go into details. If you’re not watching it, or if you haven’t seen any episodes yet, buy them on iTunes or catch up with the season so far once they start re-running it in December. And remember:

Save the Cheerleader. Save the World.

Categories
Audio Visual

X-Men: The Last Stand

X-Men: The Last Stand (2005). 104 minutes, 20th Century Fox. Directed by Brett Ratner.

Normally I don’t bother writing reviews of things that I think suck. This is an exception. This movie stinks to high heaven, and should be avoided by anyone who enjoyed the first two entries in the X-Men movie franchise. It should also be avoided by anyone who has every read, or who was ever a fan, of the X-Men comic books in their original form. If you want to see Beast, Colossus, Angel, and Kitty Pride in action, just watch the trailer. You’ll get far more enjoyment from a preview than you will from this movie.

So why waste my time talking about a movie that reeks? Mainly because there is a kernel of a good movie in here. Watching the film, I kept feeling like I was watching an abridged version – plot points and characters are introduced (or sometimes just shown) and then dropped or ignored for the rest of the movie. Now, if you haven’t seen the movie, and don’t want to have it spoiled, stop reading, because I’m going to rip various parts of this film, including the pathetic ending and “surprise” end twist after the credits.

What was so good about the previous two X-Men movies was that you didn’t need to know anything about the series or the characters at all – the movies themselves explained everything you needed to know. The first, X-Men, is the best in this regard. The introductions of Rogue and Wolverine are detailed and perfect. The exposure to the other mutants later is likewise well done. In that film, each time a new mutant is shown, there is some clever exposition that lets you know what the character’s name is, what their power is, etc.

In X-Men: The Last Stand, forget it. For example, right away we see two of the new X-Men, Colossus and Kitty Pride. Colossus can turn himself into solid steel, is very strong, and is nearly indestructible. Kitty Pride can “phase” through solid matter, and can do the same to anyone or anything she touches. In this film, neither character gets an introduction or description. Colossus doesn’t even get any lines, and his character is never even named in this turkey. If you’ve read the comic books, you’ll catch the throwaway references to “tin man” and him throwing Wolverine through the air, but otherwise you’re lost. To illustrate this, I watched this movie with Frank, who’s never read a comic book period. At the end, he said, “So who was the shiny guy who never said anything?” I described Colossus, and he said, “Well, that sounds kinda cool. Too bad they didn’t say anything about any of that…”

We needed a nice exposition where Professor X or Storm or somebody describes them and tells what they do. No way, Jose. The films does a slightly better job of introducing some of the new evil mutants, but only very slightly. Juggernaut (who was, as near as I can remember, not a mutant at all but some sort of guy in a mystical or bewitched costume) is particularly laughable – the phony “muscle suit” they have the actor wearing looks about as real as Hans and Franz (the “pump you up” guys) on Saturday Night Live. Come on – in Los Angeles, they couldn’t find a real bodybuilder somewhere to do the part? They have to put some guy in a rubber muscle suit? I mean, there are at least two shots where you can actually see wrinkles in the rubber. Jamie Madrox, the Multiple Man, is also introduced in a cute visual – although, like Colossus, he is never named.

The mutant cure, which the whole plot hinges on, also makes no sense at all. It’s established early on that some kid (never named) has a mutant power than cancels out other mutant powers. However, it is also clearly shown that his power is only temporary and very localized. In a throwaway line, an unnamed doctor tells us that the cure is based on this kid. Another mutant tells Magneto, “They got nothing without him”. So, I keep thinking, the cure isn’t real then. But it is. What connection does the cure have with the kid? No idea. Even after the X-Men free the boy and take them with him, the cure still seems to work just fine. So – why did they need him? No idea. The whole ending of the movie is about a battle between the good mutants and the bad mutants for the possession of this kid – and yet it doesn’t make any difference. All the people who got “the cure” are still cured. It appears that all of the chemical or whatever worked just fine, without needing the kid’s presence. At then, at the end of the film, we see this same kid now at the Xavier school! Huh? Wouldn’t he cancel out all the other’s powers?

The whole captured mutant kid and cure aspect is completely nonsensical, even within the constraints of this film. Towards the end, Frank threw up his hands and said, “This doesn’t make any sense at all. I have no idea what is going on or who any of these people are”. Even though I knew who most of the people were supposed to be, I had to agree with him – it made no sense.

The other main story is the resurrection of Jean Grey as Phoenix. I actually liked the explanation for Phoenix in the movie better than the comic book concept. Now, here’s why I’m mad at this movie. In the Phoenix scenes, you get a feeling for how this could have been a pretty good movie. Famke Janssen pulls off the Phoenix transformation quite effectively, and the scenes where she’s doing her thing are great. But then, the “cure” storyline takes over, and for the rest of the film she just walks around next to Magneto, doing nothing… until the very end, when for no reason at all, she lets loose again.

My next beef is with Angel. He is introduced with great fanfare, in a fairly neat scene at the beginning. The actor playing Angel, Ben Foster, is, I’m sorry to say, not quite right. Angel is supposed to be drop-dead handsome, and this guy looks kinda like a weasel. Yeah, he’s blond and he’s got decent abs, but he’s no Warren Worthington III. But anyway – after Angel flies away (the scene you probably saw in the trailer), that’s it – until over an hour later, when he shows up at the school, asking if he can stay. Then, at the very end, he suddenly reappears to swoop down and save his father. Huh? We last saw him at Xavier’s school – which is in Westchester County, New York, on the east coast of the United States. Suddenly, he’s in San Francisco, at Alcatraz, with no connection to anyone else. He didn’t travel with the X-Men on the jet… and we never saw him after that one scene. How did he all of a sudden magically appear during the final battle, only to do one trick and then vanish again? Pathetic.

And what’s with all the characters getting killed off? I mean, if they don’t want to do any more movies, they can just have moved away. In the comic book, the cast of the X-Men was always changing, and somethings they died (but, in true comic book form, always came back). But this is ridiculous! Cyclops is killed off screen. The last we see him, he’s kissing the newly revived Jean. And that’s it. Later, Wolverine asks “Where’s Scott?”, and she says she killed him. We never see him die, not even in flashback, not even a description of what happened. He just… goes away. Jean Grey/Phoenix did many things in the comics, but she never killed Cyclops.

The next to die is Professor X, although of course he reincarnates in the sneak “surprise end” after the credits. This is telegraphed early on, when the professor shows a video of a man “born without any brain or higher nerve functions” lying in a bed. Naturally, the perfect vessel for his mind after Phoenix destroys his body. If Patrick Stewart didn’t want to do it anymore, why the dumb reincarnation? It smells of “The Search for Spock” all over again.

Finally, the death of Phoenix/Jean Grey. What? Wolverine just… stabs her with his claws and she dies? After we’ve seen her rearrange matter, shred people in their very atoms, etc? You can’t set up a basic indestructable character – “the most powerful mutant ever”, in the movie’s own terms – who can die by simply being stabbed. In the original comic book, the only thing that could kill the Phoenix was… herself. She committed suicide, since she was the only thing powerful enough to kill herself. (Yes, I have been told that she was resurrected many times since, but the basic premise still holds).

This movie really, really annoyed me. There was such great potential here. A basically good cast, good characters, and the template for at least one or two good stories. And it’s just all thrown together in a blender. Honestly, it’s like there was no script review at all. It’s just some story ideas thrown in with some dialogue. The casting for some of new X-Men is very good. Kelsey Grammer is absolutely perfect as Beast, and is surprisingly good in the action sequences. Ellen Page as Kitty Pride also seems quite good. And as I mentioned previously, Famke Janssen does a great turn as the Dark Phoenix version of Jean Grey.

What annoys me the most is that this piece of crap is the most successful of all three of the X-Men movies to date, all but ensuring that there will be another. I probably won’t see it. I suggest you don’t see this one, either. If you like X-Men, read the reprints of the comic book. At least they make sense.

Categories
Audio Visual

United 93

United 93 (2006). 111 minutes, Universal Studios. Directed by Paul Greengrass.

I hadn’t really given this movie much thought when it came out in theaters a few months ago. On 9/11/2001, I remember saying that it would probably be at least five years before they made a movie about it. My prediction seems to have been about right, since both this and World Trade Center came out this year. I haven’t seen World Trade Center yet (it’s not out on DVD, and I haven’t seen a movie in an actual movie theater in quite a while), but I just watched United 93 tonight. Wow.

This is a gut-wrenching movie. It’s very well done – it does not seem exploitative in any way, just gripping. We all know the story, so no point in going into it here. What’s so good about this film is how the filmmakers interweave what is going on around the country – the crash of two planes into the World Trade Center, the crash at the Pentagon, the communications at air traffic control and military command centers – in conjunction with what is happening to the passengers and hijackers on United Airlines Flight 93 at the same time.

Despite the fact that I knew exactly how it would end, my palms were sweating half an hour into the movie. I kept wanting to scream “Move! Get going! Kill them now!”, etc. The film makes no political statement or comments at all. Its power arises from the fact the it takes the viewpoint of all the people involved who were simply doing their jobs that day. Watching the FAA and the air traffic controllers grapple with the enfolding situation was particularly emotional. They figured out pretty quickly what was going on, but there was nothing they could do about it. Watching the military, doing everything they could to get planes in the air to intercept the hijacked flights, was also extremely compelling.

The acting is superb. I didn’t recognize any of the actors, and that works very well for this movie. There was not a single performance that struck even a slightly wrong note. Everyone disappears into their roles so effectively that it almost feels like you’re watching the best behind-the-scenes footage ever shot.

If you’re one of those who feel it’s “too soon” for this kind of motion picture, I encourage you to think again, because this really is worth seeing. As you can imagine, this is definitely not a “feel good” type of movie. I would encourage you to watch it in a single sitting with minimal pauses… the momentum is constant, and there are no breaks in the story.

Five years after the fact, it’s worth remembering how true heroes acted on the day of 9/11 itself. Watch this film, and you’ll find yourself pulled into the web it weaves. It’ll help you to forget, at least for a few hours, all of the lies and horrors that have been visited upon us by our leaders ever since that fateful day.

Categories
Books Politics Thoughts and Comments

In Praise of The Economist

The Economist. Published Weekly by The Economist Group Limited since 1843. Approximately 90 pages per issue.

I’ve subscribed to a weekly news magazine since my first week at college (that would be August of 1980, by the way). My father subscribed to Time Magazine while I was growing up, so that’s what I got as well. In 1995, I finally got tired of Time’s increasing “Time Warner Corporation” parent bent, and cancelled my subscription. I switched to Newsweek, which I still get delivered to my mailbox once each week. Incidentally, my father still subscribes to Time.

Newsweek is better than Time, but neither of them can hold a candle to The Economist – which tellingly is not owned by any giant media conglomerate. I started reading The Economist a few years ago, and finally subscribed right after the 2004 elections. I was getting so tired of the shrieking news of the mass media, where every subject was So Important That You Must Read It Now, and yet no subject was worth more than a page of coverage. I also got tired of the merger of “non-news” into my news, such as celebrity babies, pop culture happenings, etc. Hey, if I want to read about movie stars, I’ll check out People or Entertainment Weekly, thank you very much.

By contrast, The Economist is the closest thing that exists today to unbiased, unfiltered, raw, just-the-facts-please news. There is very little opinion in The Economist, and what there is is measured and very centered in its approach. The print is tiny (looks to be about 10 point to my eyes), three columns of newsprint on glossy paper, with some pages being almost pure text. It is a news junkie’s dream magazine. When graphs or tables are used, they are clean, simple, and without decoration or exaggeration. They would make Edward Tufte proud

I was prompted to write this entry because of this week’s issue, whose cover article is “Five years on”, and includes a good five pages or so of detailed “where we’ve gone since 9/11” reporting. Unlike the rest of the media, however, there’s none of the shrill tone that accompanies the various “5 Years Since 9/11” celebrations that are going on all this week. Instead, just sober reporting and clear-headed analysis. The Economist neither worships George W. Bush nor does it pillory him. In this issue’s introduction, the editors state that they agreed with the Iraq decision at first, then felt that Bush had conducted the war poorly since. This seems like a pretty reasonable assessment to me (a lot more reasonable than my own analysis, but then again, I make no pretense of being impartial).

In the pages of The Economist, you find out about all the other news that’s going on. Yes, other things have happened apart from some nut making a false confession of murdering a child beauty queen, or the surprise death of a well-liked Australian animal enthusiast. This week alone, there are articles about:

  • The U.S. economy and its relation to the upcoming mid-term elections
  • Synthetic biology
  • Presidential elections in Mexico and Brazil
  • The state of the State of North Korea
  • Europe’s Carmakers
  • The economic prognosis for YouTube

There is very little advertising in The Economist, and you can actually read 10 pages in a row without hitting a single ad. There are no inserted AOL CD’s or thick glued-in booklets advertising the latest GM cars. It is a elegant magazine, from a more civilized age. And yet it’s sharper and more relevant today than it has ever been.

The Economist is best experienced in its print form. Pick up an issue – it’s well worth the cover price. This is a magazine where each issue is almost a book in and of itself. But most importantly, this is a magazine that gives you something that is very rare and precious today: an unencumbered window into the goings-on of the world.