Double Feature Duel: Midnight in Paris vs. You Again

Double Feature Duel:
Midnight in Paris vs. You Again

Bout #29: An Oscar-nominated Woody Allen film vs. a get the actors together and then we’ll figure out a plot... thing.

Midnight in Paris: Owen Wilson and Rachel McAdams are back together again in the long-awaited sequel to Wedding Crashers. This was a really fun movie. They talked too much – especially in the beginning, which is typical of Woody Allen movies, but once Owen Wilson found himself transported back in time, the real story began and the conversations seemed a lot less contrived. Which is weird, because he was talked to dead people from another time period. The film definitely sported a few annoying writer’s contrivances and inconsistencies, including Gertrude Stein’s pronunciation of the word “lititure.” And they happened to run into another couple visiting Paris at the same time? I don’t even run into people I know at the Wheaton Mall and I have over 1500 facebook friends. I realize that complaining about this traveling coincidence when people are transported back in time to parties with T.S. Eliot and Hemingway seems picky, but without getting too into too much detail, I’m right. (Ed note: that was actually no detail at all) In addition to the fun at the heart of it, the movie had a working purpose. While Owen Wilson loved his past, the people of that time wished to go back further, and so this would continue until the universe was a singularity (this was cut from the movie for time). But the message goes deeper, and not where you’d expect, when Woody turns the tables on romanticizing the past. 8.5 bugs (out of 10)

You Again: This was your standard “get the right actors on board and then figure it out” movie. The script could have been written on the back of a napkin that said “Kristen Bell, Jamie Lee Curtis, Sigourney Weaver, Betty White.” It was fun in parts, however unoriginal and predictable. It tried to be the hilarious all-girl comedy that Bridesmaids was with big names instead of big talent. And they checked all the boxes. They had the “we’re wearing the same dress” scene and of course the “we’re both somehow throwing each other into the pool together” scene, which was the only use of slow motion in the entire movie by the way. And the director couldn’t even bother to ask the officials from the high school basketball game to tuck their shirts in. Really? That’s the level of attention to detail you have for your product? At least pretend to have some pride in this film. Or was it just a paycheck? 3.5 bugs (out of 10)

Title: Midnight in Paris is descriptive and romantic all at the same time, but You Again can be said with so many different intonations, it’s worth the point for versatility. (Point, You Again 0-1)

Funnier: Both were actually funny, but Woody’s was more introspectively funny. Still, Midnight lost a crapton of points when they had the “same dress” gag and the hot chicks throwing slime on each other. (Point, Midnight 1-1)

Better Turn: I almost immediately assumed getting transported back in time in a 1920s car was going to win this, but then I remembered the scene where we found out that Kristen Bell’s nemesis actually remembered her was quite awesome. Yeah, sure. Why not? (Point, You Again 1-2)

Better Ending: Saving ink. (Point, Midnight 2-2)

Better Message: Midnight teaches you to appreciate the time period you are in. We all romanticize the past. You Again teaches you that if you’re a bitch, don’t get caught. And if you catch someone being a bitch, don’t tell people about it. The movie tried a little too hard to make both of them wrong. (Point, Midnight 3-2)

Better Acting: They didn’t necessarily ask Jamie Lee Curtis, Sigourney Weaver, Kristen Bell and Betty White to act, in their defense. They were just asked to show up. (Point, Midnight 4-2)

More Creative: Ink. (Point, Midnight 5-2)

Poster: The night sky in Paris turns into A Starry Night by Van Gogh. Very nicely done. (Point, Midnight in Paris 6-2)

Watch again: You Again wasn’t horrible, but I’d like a second run at Midnight someday. (Point, Midnight 7-2)

Overall: Down early, a 6-point run to end it was just for show toward the end. Winner: Midnight in Paris (7-2)

Double Feature Duel: Limitless vs. The Tree of Life

Double Feature Duel:
Limitless vs. The Tree of Life

Bout #28: A movie I really wanted to see that turned out to be just OK vs. a movie I thought would be interesting that turned out to be the most boring however many hours of my life in this millennium.

Limitless: I don’t know why I expected more from the sexiest man alive. Not all of them have the balls that Brad Pitt does. Toward the end of the movie, when we find out that this smart pill has fatal side effects, the movie decides to skirt the problem by having Bradley Cooper somehow conquer the illness, maintain the intellectual effect of the drug without taking it anymore… and… well, it just pretends that whole whore murder in the hotel room didn’t happen. Because the one limitation the movie had was making the sexiest man alive out to be an imperfect guy at the end of the movie. It’s unfortunately enough to make you forget about the good parts, which were really just high-budget more serious versions of Psych episodes – and instead focus on the plot holes, like why would this guy give Cooper the pill in the first place and why Cooper wasn’t smart enough to pay this Russian gangster back in time. And why the heck did he settle on helping with this big financial merger? Curing cancer or HIV too boring for you, smartypants? So in the end, the movie didn’t have any balls. But like the teacups, you get a few good spins for all that uncoordinated rocking back and forth. 5 bugs (out of 10)

The Tree of Life: In film school, I was made to feel stupid when I didn’t understand things – experimental structures, installation art, Jackson Pollack. Since then, I have come to realize that I may have been duped, lied to by the creators of this art and the circle jerk community they all live in, to believe my own mind to be immature and brainwashed, simply incapable of “getting it.” Maybe I overcorrected myself and I really don’t get things that should be gotten by the greater populace and I am indeed in the lower 16% on the intellect-meter. Occam’s Razor would suggest this to be the case. But after years of research, I’ve determined that I am indeed not the problem. I get it just fine. And this film was boring, flaky and tried all too desperately to be the transcendental film that was in Terrence Mallick’s head. Props to those who bought into it, but just because something is different doesn’t make it good. And just because you don’t understand it, doesn’t make it art. Sometimes when you don’t know what’s going on in a movie, it’s because it wasn’t explained well enough – not because of you. Who died in the beginning? What’s with all the different narrators whispering? Why are there dinosaurs in this movie with more screen time than Sean Penn? What the hell is the point of the dragon head nebula other than to make us go “Wow! It’s that thing from the Morgan Freeman show?” Malick is a magician, showing you an empty hand while he splatters paint on a four-dimensional canvas with the other. And somehow, he got 84% of the Tomatometer critics to applaud the empty hand. Not me. I’d sooner watch a reel of projects from my Film I class back before we learned why jump cuts were bad. I would have thrown the DVD in the trash, but then I doubt Netflix would have sent me another. 0 bugs (out of 10 – though I guess it doesn’t matter how many it’s out of)

Title: The Tree of Life seems to reach for a cliché already, while Limitless feels like a cop out. I’ll at least give Tree the benefit of doubt. But that won’t last. (Point, Tree 0-1)

Funnier: Limitless didn’t really try to make you laugh. Tree of Life wanted to make sure you didn’t. (Point, Limitless 1-1)

Better Turn: Finding out that the drug is illegal and the dealer is dead vs. 25 minutes of the earth’s creation capped by poor CGI dinosaurs feeling remorse. Ugh. (Point, Limitless 2-1)

Better Ending: I still don’t know what happened in The Tree of Life. But it was still better than the way Limitless ruined itself, Adjustment Bureau-style. All of a sudden, and with no transition, Bradley Cooper can manage the drug to the point where he doesn’t even need to take it, whereas everyone else died from withdrawal. No balls. (Point, Tree 2-2)

Better Message: There is something to that “the way of grace vs. the way of nature” stuff in The Tree of Life, however horribly it’s framed. (Point, Tree 2-3)

Better Acting: Bradley Cooper is good, but nothing really special. Brad Pitt is a good, stern father. But Jessica Chastain was great and should have been in the film much more than she was. (Point, Tree 2-4)

More Creative: Holy crap! A 0-bug movie is getting dangerously close to a victory. And though it might seem that a movie with this much randomness and jump cuts is creative, but in the same way Jackson Pollack is – and I’ve already mentioned how little I care for that type of work. (Point, Limitless 3-4)

Poster: Sadly, I like The Tree of Life poster better. And I’m a little ashamed that a 0-bug movie, openly called the biggest waste of my time in 11 years, has now made it to the second round. Wowsers. (Point, Tree 3-5)

Watch again: No way I will ever watch The Tree of Life again. Not even if it comes out on Blu-Ray. (Point, Limitless 4-5)

Overall: Well, Limitless shot itself in the foot really, with the spray cheese ending and the boring poster. Man. Winner: The Tree of Life (5-4)

Double Feature Duel: Super 8 vs. Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stanger Tides

Double Feature Duel:
Super 8 vs. Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stanger Tides

Bout #26: J.J Abrams’ follow-up to Lost vs. Johnny Depp’s latest paycheck.

Super 8: Substitute the plane for a train and this movie is basically the pilot of Lost. J.J. Abrams is very good at drawing you in with really exciting and well-edited action sequences, alluding to a supernatural threat to the human race, painting himself into a corner and over-revealing said creature to disappointment the audience in the end. But he also paints some great characters. I know my dating history should preclude me from saying this, but I really like Elle Fanning. Purely in a young actress kind of way, of course. And the witty banter between the young film wannabes was brilliant, and I don’t often say that about dialogue. All the i’s were dotted and the t’s were crossed. It’s just a shame he can’t figure out how to tackle the pesky plot issue. 7 bugs (out of 10)

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides: Well, it’s better than the third one. I think. They always manage to sneak in some weird, interesting magic-type stuff, but this is starting to look like Johnny Depp’s day job. I really like Geoffrey Rush as Barbosa, but Penelope Cruz and whoever that new goodie goodie was were no match for Keira Knightley and Orlando Bloom. The franchise has been content with the same recipe that has made for its Blockbuster success, critics be damned. And as long as they keep putting them out, I get to keep wearing my Capt. Jack Sparrow hat, so I’m content. 3.5 bugs (out of 10)

Title: Brilliantly simple, intriguing, foreshadowing and you don’t have to go to a second hand in charades. (Point, Super 1-0)

Funnier: There was some very well written and acted dialogue in Super 8 by the four main adolescent characters that is worthy of note. (Point, Super 2-0)

Better Turn: This movie made its money on the turn. Maybe the train crash rivaled the ridiculousness of Final Destination 2, but it didn’t feel like it at the time. (Point, Super 3-0)

Better Ending: Truth time. I was unable to pay much attention to Pirates. But I know the ending of Super 8 sucked, so congratulations. I guess. (Point, Pirates 3-1)

Better Message: Super 8 is another one of those stereotypical flicks teaching people not to stereotype using aliens. I forget how Pirates ended, but I know it had something to do with people looking for the Fountain of Youth. But it did have a Christian/mermaid love story in it. (Point, Pirates 3-2)

Better Acting: Geoffrey Rush is always outstanding. You can’t picture Johnny Depp without picturing Capt. Jack Sparrow. But those four kids are terrific in the conversation scenes. Penelope Cruz didn’t ruin the movie for me. But I added like 3 movies to my Netflix queue with Elle Fanning because of Super 8. (Point, Super 4-2)

More Creative: It’s tough not to pick Pirates in this category with the three-team race to get to the Fountain of Youth. But having the camera pick up the footage was a fun move I haven’t seen since Blowout. However, they really bunked it up in the end with the alien reveal. Epic fail, as they say. (Point, Pirates 4-3)

Poster: For those that don’t know, the Super 8 camera fell sideways, which is why the poster is sideways. Brilliant, right? (Point, Super 5-3)

Watch again: I enjoyed Super 8 so much, I watched it on two consecutive nights. I liked Pirates so much, I don’t even remember watching it once. (Point, Super 6-3)

Overall: A film with half as many bugs scored half as many points. Funny how that works out. Winner: Super 8 (6-3)

Double Feature Duel: Cars 2 vs. Swimming To Cambodia

Double Feature Duel:
Cars 2 vs. Swimming To Cambodia

Bout #25: Pixar’s latest vs. a documentary of a one-man show. Hmm. Don’t think we’ve done that yet.

Cars 2: Even if cars could talk, I don’t think they’d come up with a plot this ludicrous. The gimmicks aren’t as funny and the shtick is old now. Sadly, we have gotten to a point where we see flying animated cars talking to each other and it doesn’t wow us anymore. If this was Pixar’s first movie ever, I’m sure my jaw would be on the floor and my eyes bugging out of my head, possibly with one of those “a-ooooga” sounds from old Warner Brothers cartoons. But unfortunately, it’s not. And Owen Wilson played a bit part in this movie for some reason, yielding way to Larry the Cable Guy. And a little Larry the Cable Guy goes a long way. Sorry, Pixar. It took ten feature length movies, but it turns out you are human. 4 bugs (out of 10)

Swimming to Cambodia: This is a not a documentary. It’s a documentary squared. It’s a movie documenting a one-man show by Spalding Gray in which he takes you on a cerebral roller coaster, touching on Asian politics, how to buy and treat a Taiwanese whore and how to talk to people on trains. It’s funny, intriguing and he speaks in the style of a boxer who refuses to let you up off the mat, pounding you with sentences so well constructed, I’m reasonably certain he has every word of the entire 87 minute monologue in its proper place and nails it perfectly each time. Or at least this time. So how interesting can a movie shot solely of a man sitting in a chair behind a very plain desk be? Well, about as interesting as the performance. Which was about as good as I’ve ever seen. But not enough to make you realize it’s just a guy sitting at a desk. 7 bugs.

Title: The intrigue starts with the title. Who is swimming to Cambodia? When are we going to find out about this? Where the hell is Cambodia? (Point, Swimming 0-1)

Funnier: I don’t blame you if you completely disagree. It’s not everybody’s sense of humor. But if you like dry wit, you’ll approve. (Point, Swimming 0-2)

Better Turn: Maybe if I watched it another 4 or 7 times, I’d find some assemblance of a plot, which will in turn help me find the turn. But Cars 2 had a turn. Literally and figuratively. (Point, Cars 1-2)

Better Ending: See “Better Turn.” (Point, Cars 2-2)

Better Message: The thing about documentaries that are shot of just one man telling a dialogue about random things is that they tend to have a lot of thought-provoking messages. Unlike movies about animated Cars made strictly for profit. (Point, Swimming 2-3)

Better Acting: This was as good a single performance as there has ever been. Probably. (Point, Swimming 2-4)

More Creative: More daring? Absolutely. More creative? Hard to justify that. (Point, Cars 3-4)

Poster: Swimming To Cambodia is as simple as the movie, which is a good formalistic technique. But if you look closely at the map of the world, the continents are in the shape of cars. Kinda neat. (Point, Cars 4-4)

Watch again: I’m actually looking very much forward to ingesting more of Swimming to Cambodia. If Cars 2 came on cable, I’d probably find a rerun of SVU instead. (Point, Swimming 4-5)

Overall: Close one! No matter how high rated a single person 87-minute performance is, it’s still going to just lose a lot of categories. But not as much as a meandering, overthought sequel to a mediocre movie. Winner: Swimming To Cambodia (5-4)

Double Feature Duel: The First 48

Double Feature Duel:
The First 48

And so after 7 Planet of the Apes movies, one finally rose to the challenge and made it to the final four. Congrats to the Rise of the Planet of the Apes for joining Big Fish and The Nines in the Final Four, making it three 10-bug (or above) movies. And this was certainly the easiest quadrant to do it in, with a Quadrant Bug Average of 4.91, down over a point from the Philadelphia Quadrant. The four movies it needed to beat to get here only had a bug average of 5.63, compared to the 6.88 and 6.63 that The Nines and Big Fish collectively had to hack their way through. The competition gets a little tougher now. Well, maybe. We’ll see in another 16 movies.

A few things of note from the Cincinnati Quadrant:

Low QBA: Maybe it was the mood I was in over the month of the Cinci Quadrant, but there were 5 movies with a 3-bug rating or less in this, including two that didn’t crest the 1-bug mark (The Weight of Water and The Good Shepherd).

Upset: The 4-bug Man Who Wasn’t There figured out this game, beating two movies at least rated at a 6.5. Largely behind the strength of its title, the very boring black and white Coen Brothers film bested the much more lively Tower Heist and Shrek Forever After on its way to a 1-point loss in the Sweet 16 to Bucket List.

Romantic Comedy Time: I was applauding Definitely, Maybe as the first romantic comedy to make it to the Sweet Sixteen against the odds. Then I went back and realized it’s the first romantic comedy actually in the tournament. The Invention of Lying and Stranger Than Fiction were comedies with a romance aspect, but it’s not the same.

The Cincinnati Quadrant (33-48)

Lastly, thanks for reading this. Whoever the hell you are. I’m assuming it’s either me from the future or maybe, just maybe, I’ve finally made it so big that somebody found this blog and is obsessed with me. In which case, sorry, but I’m married. Well, I hope I’m still married.

Double Feature Duel (Rd4): Rise of the Planet of the Apes vs. The Bucket List

Double Feature Duel (Rd4):
Rise of the Planet of the Apes vs. The Bucket List

Bucket List may have had the easiest road to the Elite 8 in the tournament. It gets a lot harder now.

Title: I really wanted to see Bucket List before I died [joke recycled from last MvM]. (Point, Bucket 0-1)

Funnier: Jack Nicholson goes potty humor. Nice. (Point, Bucket 0-2)

Better Turn: Best turn of the tournament. And I don’t say that lightly. (Point, Rise 1-2)

Better Ending: There was a lot going on at the end of Rise. And all of it was good to awesome. (Point, Rise 2-2)

Better Message: Both of these had decent messages to convey, but I think Bucket’s was more poignant, where Rise’s was more gratuitous. (Point, Bucket 2-3)

Better Acting: It takes a lot to knock down Morgan and Jack. But Golem dressed up like a monkey is just the guy to do it. (Point, Rise 3-3)

More Creative: Saving ink. Even in the Elite 8. (Point, Rise 4-3)

Poster: Haunting. (Point, Rise 5-3)

Watch again: Once again, it’s one of two DVDs I have from Netflix right now. And I just told Tony tonight that he has to watch it. (Point, Rise 6-3)

Overall: Well, it was a fun run, guys. But just like in the movie, Apes triumph over humans. Winner: Rise of the Planet of the Apes (6-3)

Double Feature Duel (Rd3): The Man Who Wasn’t There vs. Bucket List

Double Feature Duel (Rd3):
The Man Who Wasn’t There vs. Bucket List

After beating a 7-bug and a 6.5-bug movie, the 4-bug Coen Brothers film is up against another 6.5-bugger. Will the dream die here or live on to the Elite 8?

Title: The Man Who Wasn’t There. Where was he? Who was there? Why wasn’t he there and should he have been? So many questions is just the title. (Point, Man 1-0)

Funnier: (Point, Bucket 1-1)

Better Turn: This is where Man usually makes its move. (Point, Man 2-1)

Better Ending: Truth be told, I had to struggle to stay awake to the end of Man. Bucket List had a fun message at the end and a fun twist at the very end. (Point, Bucket 2-2)

Better Message: In addition to the obvious messages about living life to its fullest, there is a message in there about friendship and classism. Much more than the jumbled mess Man presented us with. (Point, Bucket 2-3)

Better Acting: I will love Tony Shaloub unitl I die, but he’s up against 4 Oscars, and Brian Haley isn’t going to help enough. (Point, Bucket 2-4)

More Creative: Not much to Bucket’s plot, though it had its moments of creative spark. But it wasn’t the period piece mood-setting triumph that Man was. (Point, Man 3-4)

Poster: I guess I should like it more for its simplicity, but I just don’t. (Point, Man 4-4)

Watch again: And finally, it met its match. I guess it’s just got a good set of characteristics for this game, though not enough to get to the Elite 8. (Point, Bucket 4-5)

Overall: Okey dokey. Glad that’s finally over. Hell, even Tim Tebow won a playoff game. Winner: Bucket List (5-4)

Double Feature Duel (Rd3): Rise of the Planet of the Apes vs. Definitely, Maybe

Double Feature Duel (Rd3):
Rise of the Planet of the Apes vs. Definitely, Maybe 

The newest of the Ape movies is the last of the sequels I spent most of this tournament watching. Can it represent the franchise in the Final Four or will the overachieving romantic comedy pull off the upset?

Title: If I have to go onto a second hand in charades, you’re disqualified. (Point, Definitely 0-1)

Funnier: Two words. First one is romantic. Second one… (Point, Definitely 0-2)

Better Turn: I can’t describe to you all enough about how awesome the scene in the little ape jail was. It was badass, emotional and just awesome. (Point, Rise 1-2)

Better Ending: I did enjoy the divorced couple and their daughter show us what it’s really like. But the beginning of the end of the human race was noticeable, yet not overplayed. (Point, Rise 2-2)

Better Message: Don’t tell your middle school daughter about all your sexual escapades from your early 20s. (Point, Rise 3-2)

Better Acting: Tough one. I love Ryan Reynolds. And Abigail Breslin. And Rachel Weisz. But I think Andy Serkis should be talked about in the Oscar race as an ape. But I opened for Adam Ferrara and I’ll let that be the tie-breaker. (Point, Definitely 3-3)

More Creative: Definitely framed a romantic comedy in a new and creative way, but the story and the references to the original series were the most creative movie of 2011, if I get a vote. (Point, Rise 4-3)

Poster: The poster represents the badassery to a tee. (Point, Rise 5-3)

Watch again: As I mentioned in the last entry, I currently have the Netflix DVD in my possession. Kinda hard to beat that in this category. (Point, Rise 6-3)

Overall: Well, good for you, romantic comedy. You made it to the second weekend. Now go home and let the big boys play. Winner: Rise of the Planet of the Apes (6-3)

Double Feature Duel (Rd2): Bucket List vs. Platoon

Double Feature Duel (Rd2):
Bucket List vs. Platoon

Can Oliver Stone’s signature film take out two Jack Nicholson movies in a row?

Title: Whether the word “platoon” was a big part of our culture or not before the movie came out is somewhat irrelevant because the movie now pretty much owns the word. (Point, Platoon 0-1)

Funnier: Saving time and ink. Not that anyone is going to print this out. (Point, Bucket List 1-1)

Better Turn: Getting terminal cancel and deciding to go skydiving was a great turn, but it’s up against the brutal and unpredictable murder of a fellow platoon member. (Point, Platoon 1-2)

Better Ending: Surprisingly charming and thoughtful for a movie I thought would have just been a collection of funny scenes with old guys. (Point, Bucket List 2-2)

Better Message: Since you’re alive, you may as well live. (Point, Bucket List 3-2)

Better Acting: Four Oscars go up against a talented cast with only one Oscar. No, not Tom Beringer, Willem Dafoe, Johnny Depp or even Charlie Sheen. Forest Whitaker. Yeah, talented cast. But not as talented. (Point, Bucket List 4-2)

More Creative: Oliver Stone forced his cast to sleep out in the jungle working 18-hour days to try to replicate the mood of war. I’ll give him his due credit. (Point, Platoon 4-3)

Poster: Platoon had not one, but two iconic posters to choose from. Which certainly beats a picture of a half smiling Nicholson and Freeman. (Point, Platoon 4-4)

Watch again: I really want to see Bucket List one more time before I die. (Point, Bucket List 5-4)

Overall: Well, Nicholson gets his revenge against the movie that knocked out About Schmidt. Can they stop the biggest Cinderella of the tournament next round? Winner: Bucket List (5-4)

Double Feature Duel (Rd2): The Man Who Wasn’t There vs. Shrek Forever After

Double Feature Duel (Rd2):
The Man Who Wasn’t There vs. Shrek Forever After 

A movie that shouldn't have gotten this far against a movie that I didn’t even realize I hadn't seen. Next ticket to the Sweet 16 goes to…

Title: I love how Shrek turned “Shrek 4” into “Shrek Forever After,” but it’s unfortunately matched up against the best title in the tournament so far. (Point, Man 1-0)

Funnier: Saving ink. (Point, Shrek 1-1)

Better Turn: The Coen Brothers know how to turn. (Point, Man 2-1)

Better Ending: The Coen Brothers do have a way of closing out a movie that not only twists around and turns back in on itself like a Mobius strip, but also isn’t a musical montage to a Carpenters song. (Point, Man 3-1)

Better Message: Shrek actually had a message. It’s not the Coen Brothers’ strong suit. (Point, Shrek 3-2)

Better Acting: Live action that doesn’t completely suck > animation. (Point, Man 4-2)

More Creative: The Man Who Wasn’t There was a triumph of mood that put me back in that time period and I can’t believe it’s going to pull off another upset. Cinderella is dancing. (Point, Man 5-2)

Poster: It ain’t ogre til it’s ogre. I’ll take that over the overly slanted text. (Point, Shrek 5-3)

Watch again: I think I may need to watch The Man Who Wasn’t There again just to remind myself how much I didn’t like it so it doesn’t win the whole damn thing. (Point, Shrek 5-4)

Overall: I can’t believe this 4-bug movie beat 7 and 6.5-bug movies to get to the Sweet 16. Winner: The Man Who Wasn’t There (5-4)

End Around

End Around

Sure, I’ll dance around this mine field for a while.

Joe Paterno passed away yesterday at 85, two months after being fired amidst allegations of his involvement in a child sexual assault scandal. I must first say that I in no way condone his mishandling of the sexual assault situation, be it for reasons of ignorance or apathy. What I will miss about Joe is an idea.

Before we all knew about the Sandusky case, Joe Pa represented everything decent about college sports. In a time where college athletes care more about endorsement deals, fantasy stats and signing bonuses, Penn State football was a vision of integrity and teamwork, continually posting the best graduation rates of all big market teams. They still don’t put names on the back of their jerseys for the sake of team unity, which is a tough sell to the increasingly more individualistic world sports is becoming.

The world of sports has been sliding down a slippery slope of self-interest since we started to market the individuals more than the teams. The average player would rather get paid than be a champion now – or at least that statement is truer and truer every year. The media, the fans and the athletes all feed into each other like an evil flux capacitor and keep this ball rolling down the aforementioned slope. As the media are giving the fans what they want and the fans are being told what they want based on what sells tickets and jerseys, it’s really up to the athletes to help change the culture. And it’s an unlikely scenario. Kobe was a good candidate until his own sexual assault scandal. As was LeBron until his hour-long nationally televised ego trip. And on the college level, USC and Ohio State are getting sanctioned for abuses of the system, and that seems like just the tip of the iceberg. At least we had Penn State to look to as a role model.

So the Sandusky scandal is just another reminder that we can never be sure. There was no better role model in college sports or sports in general than was Penn State football. So when I speak of Joe Pa and when I wear my Penn State jacket around this week, it’s in honor of the integrity and teamwork that Penn State preached to the nation for some 60 years – the idea that maybe somewhere, there is a savoir for my future child’s concept of team sports.

In poetic, storybook fashion, Joe Paterno died yesterday of lung cancer two months after being fired from the job he’d had for 60 years. But he really died back in November. His legacy will forever have that unforgiveable asterisk next to it. I am not so much mourning Joe Pa as a person, for it’s clear now that we didn’t know him like we thought. But I’m mourning the concept that a hero will rise among us to stop the landslide of egotism that is being fostered in professional sports, down to college, and all the way down to youth sports. I’m not saying it can’t happen. But if there’s dirt on Joe Paterno, that role model is going to be hard to find.

Double Feature Duel (Rd2): Brothers Bloom vs. Definitely, Maybe

Double Feature Duel (Rd2):
Brothers Bloom vs. Definitely, Maybe

Wowsers. This one is too close to predict. Normally I can predict the outcome beforehand. Two evenly matched 7-bug movies take the ring. Place your bets.

Title: I do love the punctuation, but the more I read it, the more I read it, the more I think it’s maybe a little cheesy. Definitely. (Point, Brothers 1-0)

Funnier: Hey. Two comedies. I feel like this doesn’t happen too often. But Brothers Bloom was too strong, even for Ryan Reynolds. (Point, Brothers 2-0)

Better Turn: Brothers did make a bunch of turns, but Definitely didn’t have a turny enough turn. Advantage goes to the turnier turns. (Point, Brothers 3-0)

Better Ending: Brothers Bloom reminded me of the Maverick in the way that it kept ending over and over, which isn’t necessarily automatic disqualification. But it was r

efreshing to see a realistic relationship between a divorced father, divorced mother and child. (Point, Definitely 3-1)

Better Message: Again, I’ll cite the realistic nature of the divorced relationship for this category’s sake. (Point Definitely, 3-2)

Better Acting: Rachel Weisz cancels herself out. But in a movie where you were supposed to guess which of three women would end up with the main character, the casting directors did a great job of finding three women who weren’t villainesses. (Point, Definitely 3-3)

More Creative: Definitely was a modern day Princess Bride with Abigail Breslin playing the role of Fred Savage. But it’s also about a guy telling his daughter about all the women he’s been with, which is weird. And Brothers Bloom pulls off a period piece with style. (Point, Brothers 4-3)

Poster: Not really a strength in either case, but I like how in Definitely’s poster, all three women are looking at Ryan Reynolds, who is looking up at his shoulders to the star of the movie, Abigail Breslin, who is the only person looking at the camera. (Point, Definitely 4-4)

Watch again: I’d watch either of these movies again, but I’ll go with the movie that finally told a romantic comedy from the guy’s point of view. You don’t see that often enough. Plus, I own Brothers Bloom on DVD, so I’m a lot less likely to watch it. (Point, Definitely 4-5)

Overall: First Brothers Grimm, then Brothers Bloom. This movie is not kind to brothers. Good thing Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly aren’t in this bracket. Winner: Definitely, Maybe (5-4)

Double Feature Duel (Rd2): Rise of the Planet of the Apes vs. Battle for the Planet of the Apes

Double Feature Duel (Rd2):
Rise of the Planet of the Apes vs. Battle for the Planet of the Apes

Two movies about the battle between apes and humans for a planet, set 600 years apart, filmed 38 years apart and separated by 7 bugs on a scale from 0ish-10ish. Well, they have a lot of other stuff in common.

Title: If I was the type to hand out draws, this would be the most likely candidate yet. I am, however, the type to flip a coin. Heads it is. Sorry Battle, this was probably your best shot. (Point, Rise 1-0)

Funnier: Don’t expect either to really make you laugh, as pointed out in the round of 64. But Rise was certainly less painful, which has become this category’s default. (Point, Rise 2-0)

Better Turn: Caesar closing the cage in Franco’s face is just so gangster. (Point, Rise 3-0)

Better Ending: In Battle, So there were these good apes and these evil war apes and the evil mutant humans and they were fighting one war against each other. I don’t think they knew what they were doing toward the end. (Point, Rise 4-0)

Better Message: If you’re going to perform testing on aninals, make sure it doesn’t make them smarter than us. (Rise 5-0)

Better Acting: I really think Andy Serkis deserves an Oscar nomination as his role, albeit aided by lots of CGI, as the main ape in Rise. (Point, Rise 6-0)

More Creative: Battle tried really hard to put together the pieces of two very different puzzles into something. (Point, Rise 7-0)

Poster: 1973 vs. 2011. (Point, Rise 8-0)

Watch again: I actually currently have Rise at home on DVD waiting for me. (Point, 9-0)

Overall: I should have called that fight back after the Title. Battle couldn’t even win a coin flip. Winner: Rise of POTA (9-0)

Quick Inside Slant: Divisional Playoff Weekend

Quick Inside Slant:

by Dustin Fisher
Impressions of the 2011 NFL season as perceived by a Creative Writing grad student, part-time amateur stand-up comedian and collegiate intramural flag football legend (all same person).

Divisional Playoff Weekend:

This weekend is a rematch of the most poorly officiated game in NFL history. Luckily for the league and the entire officiating profession, Jeff Garcia’s 24-point comeback to lead the 49ers to a 39-38 victory over the Giants overshadows that hurricane of ineptitude. But the Giants should have won that game. And no, I’m not a crazy Giants fan claiming the refs were biased. I’m an officiating fan.

The last play of the game was a 41-yard field goal attempt with the Giants down by one point. It was 3^rd down with 6 seconds on the clock and the Giants had one time out. Trey Junkin, who became the Bill Buckner of this game, botched the snap after having signed with the team four days before the game. In most jobs, he’d be lucky to have an e-mail address after four days. Why not make him the scapegoat for the entire season? Heck, he’s still under his probationary period. Probably wouldn’t even have to meet with HR.

But there were 6 seconds left. And it was 3^rd down. And they still had a time out. Now I know it’s not your best-case scenario to rely on your punter to do some quick thinking, but here is a list of actions Matt Allen could have taken when the ball wasn’t snapped to him perfectly.

1. He could have run out of the pocket and threw it away. Out of pocket=no grounding. Caveat: He would have had to throw the ball away in less than 6 seconds. Not very difficult.
2. Don’t leave the pocket but still throw it away. You get called for intentional grounding and have to now attempt a 48-yard field goal. Better than what he actually did.
3. Throw any incomplete pass. Just don’t take 6 seconds to do it.
4. Give yourself up and call a time out. You lose the yardage, but get to try again.
5. Nothing! Let them tackle you. One of the other 10 guys or the coach is bound to try to call a time out, even if they don’t know if they have one or what down it is.

As long as a field goal is not actually attempted, you get to try it on the next down. That’s why people line up to kick them on 2^nd and 3^rd down. Again, relying on the punter to think of anything other than run for my life and throw the ball as far as I can is not your best-case scenario, but he should have been prepared for the bad snap from the insurance salesman. Oh, and the defense maybe could have stopped them from scoring 25 points in the last 17 minutes.

Back to the refs. After that fire drill of a play, a couple flags were thrown. It looked to all the world like it was going to be pass interference on the 49res and they were going to lose the game on a 25-yard field goal during an untimed down. But one of the flags was for an illegal man downfield on the Giants. They waived off the pass interference penalty because the man who was interfered with was downfield illegally and had he not been downfield illegally, he wouldn’t have been interfered with.

Que?

This is not a rule. This is stuff I make up when I don’t know the rules. The unfortunate thing is that he’s right. The logic follows that the reason he was interfered with is because he was downfield, where he shouldn’t have been in the first place. This is how you enforce the rules of Magic the Gathering, not American Football. If someone punches me in the face, it follows that I should be able to then kick them in the junk with impunity, because it wouldn’t have happened if the face-puncher hadn’t done his wrong thing in the first place. The penalties should have been offsetting and the down should have been replayed as an untimed down from the previous spot (the original line of scrimmage). This obviously doesn’t guarantee that the Giants would have won by any means, but I’d take those odds.

Oh, and here’s a cherry for your bullshit swirl sundae. The guy they claimed was downfield illegally – wasn’t. Rich Seubert, offensive guard, had checked in as an eligible receiver for the field goal attempt. The official’s saving grace is that there was a different illegal man downfield during the play, so that flag was merited. HOWEVER, that guy wasn’t interfered with. SooOOOoo, there goes their justification logic. The man that was interfered with was downfield legally and a different guy was downfield illegally. Replay the down, any way you slice it.

When intramural teams wonder why I don’t have a protest system at the University of Baltimore, this is the game I point to. If the highest paid officials in the world can bunk up something this bad and the NFL doesn’t do anything about it, your 5v5 coed indoor soccer game score is final. 

Standing Back Up

Standing Back Up

Hey blog friends. This Friday, I am standing back up on stage for the first time since early October. Well, for the first time since yesterday really, but that was kind of an accident. ANYWAY, I'm performing a ten-minute version of a memoir I wrote/am writing about my father. Below is a promo for the show so you can all check out the other performers and such. For more details, check out the info on the right under "upcoming gigs." Thanks everybody. I love you all. :)

Better Said Than Done Promo for Jammin Java 1/13/12 Show

Review of Hugo

Review of Hugo

What started out as a whimsical kid’s movie turned into another PSA for Scorsese’s “Save the Film” foundation. I half expected him to come on screen at the end and try to solicit donations from us working class Americans who were just seriously questioning the financial implications of buying the large diet sprite. Screw you, Hollywood. You spend more on one dinner than I make in a month. Restore your own damn films.

It must be an off year for this film to be a serious front-runner for the Best Picture award. Scorsese can’t seem to get out of his own way. He sets the scene for this to be a fun-loving kid’s movie and then bunks it up with this kinda true based on real life story of this artist upset because he had to give up his dream and get a real job. I doubt any child is going to give a crap about George Melies and how true to real life his film studio was. If it’s a kid’s movie, there are other ways to involve the adults than a history lesson on early 20^th century film. If it’s a biopic on George Melies, there are other ways to frame it. But Scorsese’s need to indulge his passion for film restoration left the whimsical world of Hugo behind for this new storyline to develop. Don’t cross the streams, Martin. NEVER cross the streams.

The movie is billed as magical. It is not. The Neverending Story and The Adjustment Bureau are magical. This had potential. The automaton could have gone somewhere and the scene where the papers flew around the room gave me hope. That box could not have possibly held all that paper and the manner they flew around the unventilated room pointed to something magical. And then the wife says “there are some things you are too young to understand.” Ben Kingsly couldn’t even look at Hugo, his nemesis, in the eye. I got excited. This story is finally going somewhere after an hour-long first act which grew weary with Hugo’s twitchy-faced close-ups and the Keystone Cops chases through the train station. Here’s where it went. An artist had to give up his artist’s lifestyle to make a living. Yippie. This happens to 99.7% of all people in the world that aren’t in the Scorsese family. I don’t think the kids were too young to understand that. Neither is the audience.

In the interest of full disclosure, I did not see it in 3D. Maybe I would have been fooled by the magic of it all to realize how slow and meandering the story was. The emotionally charged, everybody wins ending did a good job of making you forget how long it took to get there, but it wasn’t worth the payoff. Too much screen time was wasted trying to unnecessarily turn Borat into a two-dimensional character and the Melies story made me feel more like I was back in Fine Arts 306 trying to keep my eyelids open through a lecture for Intro to Film. But it looks like Scorsese’s venture into 3D will earn him enough to restore all the films he wants so I don’t have to sit through another ad with him and Clint Eastwood on any more of my Netflix DVDs. 3 bugs (out of 10).

Double Feature Duel: The Cincinnati Quadrant

Double Feature Duel:
The Cincinnati Quadrant

The third 16 have been watched and weighted and whittled down to 8. The previous two quadrants are both going to be represented in the Final Four by 10 bug films in Big Fish and The Nines. The Oxford Quadrant also has that opportunity with Rise of the Planet of the Apes, but that doesn’t necessarily make it a guarantee. After all, we’ve already seen the tournament’s biggest upset in The Man Who Wasn’t There (4) knock off Tower Heist (7) in the first round. Who the heck knows what mood I’ll be in on any given minute?

Whether it’s indicative of my grading getting harsher as we go on or maybe I’m just watching worse and worse movies, the QBA (Quadrant Bug Average) has been continually going down from 6.31 in the Philadelphia Quadrant to a 5.91 in the Baltimore Quadrant to a less-than-average 4.91 in the Oxford Quadrant. Thankfully, I’m all through with the Planet of the Apes franchise and can get onto the potential Oscar nominees in the DC Quadrant. And then hopefully, I can stop doing this for good. Because this ridiculous endeavor is eating up way too much of my damn website and writing efforts.

But for now, let the games continue.

Double Feature Duel: About Schmidt vs. Platoon

Double Feature Duel:
About Schmidt vs. Platoon

Bout #24: A character profile by one of the best character actors ever against the first war movie with guts and a war advisor to show em how it’s done. Ding!

About Schmidt: Not every movie needs a plot. This is a good character profile of a man at the precipice of his retirement. And by good, I mean completely average. If you’re looking to figure out if a movie is above or below average, figure out if it’s better or worse than this movie and you’ll have your answer. 5 bugs.

Platoon: This movie marked the first chapter of Dale Dye’s new career as war movie advisor. It had something most movies before it didn’t have. Like four Oscars. But it also cheapened it with superficial narration and overacting. 6 bugs.

Title: It’s always tough to measure the title of these iconic movies that are so much a part of our culture. I don’t know what the word “Platoon” meant before the movie came out. I guess that should mean something. (Point, Platoon 0-1)

Funnier: Not a lot funny about Platoon. Nicholson’s one-way conversation with his African foster child though the letter he sent were worth eliminating the phrase “by default” for this point. (Point, Schmidt 1-1)

Better Turn: As bad as war gets and as much as personalities clash, I like to assume that it isn’t going to be so bad that we turn on ourselves. So when Tom Berenger actually killed Willem Dafoe, it brought the movie to a new level of war. And it surprised the hell out of me. (Point, Platoon 1-2)

Better Ending: The entire movie of this man crumbling apart was framed by the letter he was sending to Ndugu. At his lowest point after a desperate attempt to get his daughter not to marry his fiancée, he finds himself completely alone in his apartment – no wife, no job and now no family. He gets a letter back from Ndugu saying that he didn’t understand English, but he thanked him and very much hoped for his happiness. It had a crayon picture of a man and a boy holding hands. It really made a slow movie worth watching. (Point, Schmidt 2-2)

Better Message: “War is hell” vs. “Retirement is hell.” (Point, Platoon 2-3)

Better Acting: As much as I loved him in Scrubs and some other things, John C McGinley has a way of acting where you can clearly realize he’s acting. (Point, Schmidt 3-3)

More Creative: I do love the frame job in About Schmidt, as I’ve mentioned. But I really like how Oliver Stone actually tried to create the same uncomfortable conditions for his actors as the soldiers endured to create the mood of the film. (Point, Platoon 3-4)

Poster: Once again, these titles and posters are iconic for a reason. That said, I do enjoy the cloud over Nicholson’s head.  (Point, Platoon 3-5)

Watch again: I don’t know that I’ll ever really watch any of these again if it’s up to me, but I have been on a war movie kick recently and I think I could see me trying to force someone else to watch Platoon and I doubt that would ever happen with About Schmidt. (Point, Platoon 3-6)

Overall: Well done, Platoon. You are apparently an above average movie. Winner: Platoon (6-3)