Movies at 8: Twins

I have always said that if I ever wrote an autobiography there would be an entire chapter devoted to watching the 8 O'Clock Movies as a kid on the old WPIX 11. It wouldn't be a huge chapter or anything. It would cover about the first 2/3rds of the 90's up to my middle school years before my parents got cable and WPIX phased out its nightly movies for original programming after becoming WB 11 (and now CW), a time when the nightly 8 o'clock was my main exposure to the medium of film.

The movies I saw then, a pretty good mix of mainstream blockbusters (though they did play "Howard the Duck" quite often) generally from the 80s to the early 90s (I think maybe 1991's "Terminator 2" was the most recent movie I ever saw on there), are the movies that will forever be burned into my mind; the ones I will remember 50 years from now. I also can't help but think they had a big, although indirect, affect on my artistic sensibilities. Anyone who knows me will attest that the kind of art I enjoy (music, TV, film, literature) and create myself (hey, I've been known to create a little art here and there on rare occasions) steer towards the mainstream, the populist, the generally crowd pleasing. You know, for all its negative consequences I think we're better off that "Jaws" and "Star Wars" killed New Hollywood. It's not to say I'm against thing high culture, I like smart, original work but really most times I rather be entertained than challenged, be clever than intellectual.

Where was I? Oh right, 8 O'Clock Movies, they were great, I watched a ton of them. I figured I'd go back and give some impressions on some of my favorite films of the era. I don't want to jinx this by calling it a series, given my history of not posting for weeks at a time. I would like to revisit this topic again in the future but also don't be surprised if this turns out to be one of one.

So without further interruption I present tonight's feature presentation: "Twins"

"Twins", the well known 1988 comedy film directed by Ivan Reitman and staring Arnold Schwarzenegger and Danny DeVito is the 8 O'Clock Movie I remember seeing the most. Maybe the distribution rights were cheap or something but it just always seemed to be on; especially during the weekends when they'd throw in an extra movie in the afternoon.  

As a kid I found the movie to be straightforward fun. The juxtaposition of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Danny DeVito as twin brothers is so extreme in every way that it can't help but be at the very least amusing. Thinking about the plot of the film now however as an adult, I realize that it's batshit insane!

For those of you not familiar with the movie, just viewing that linked trailer, what would you think this movie was about (at this point I suppose I should drop a 25 year old spoiler alert)? That intro is pretty strange right? Some kind of government created perfect man (Schwarzenegger) finds out he has a weird little brother, they meet up, hangout in matching suits, and beat some guy up. It gives no insight at all into this film with the broad title "Twins".

The trailer makes it look like this film is a 105 minute sight gag, sort of like a feature length movie version of that picture of Manute Bol and Mugsy Bogues. To the filmmakers' credit there is much more to this movie than that, in fact the film has so many disparate genre elements that it becomes a fascinating Frankenstein of a story...in a mostly good way.

Let's start with how the titular twins came to be. Yes, instead of them just being wildly disparate, natural fraternal twins; their existence is due to a top secret U.S. government experiment. Off the bat you have a science fiction movie, an extremely terrifying sci-fi thriller even, about the U.S. government developing a highly unethical eugenics program where they attempt to engineer a perfect man using sperm from multiple donors (given Arnold's background and accent, it might have made more sense if we was a German product). We later find out that after the experiment concluded Arnold was sent off to be raised on some freaky Dr. Moreau island, DeVito (essentially the unexpected leftover crap from the experiment) was tossed into an orphanage, and their mother was told they both died at childbirth, so yeah that's horrifying.

When Arnold finally learns about his brother, he catches up to him in LA where he's some kind of shady conman with a side business in stealing cars. From their initial meeting until DeVito ends up stealing a car with an extremely valuable MacGuffin (more on that later) it becomes a buddy picture with fish out of water elements involving the sheltered Arnold being introduced to modern 1980's American life (like driving a car and using microwave ovens) by the street smart DeVito. Along they way Arnold beats up some loan sharks who are after DeVito. Some love interests are thrown in with a pair of blonde sisters falling far the two brothers (the one that's into Arnold is played by Kelly Preston).

Now this could have been the whole movie and it would have been perfectly adequate, but "Twins" doesn't stop there. The second act of the story and the main conflict begins when DeVito discovers some kind of stolen prototype fuel-injector engine thing (that MacGuffin I mentioned) in one of the cars he stole. As it turns out is was supposed to be delivered to some shady industrialist in Houston (the late great Trey Wilson playing basically the same character he played in "Raising Arizona" the previous year ). DeVito negotiates a deal with him to deliver the thing to him for a cool $5 million. Unfortunately he's forced to bring along Arnold who wants to stop over in Los Alamos to track down one of the original scientists and possibly locate their mother. The girls tag along too for fun I guess. So now it becomes a road picture.

Things get even more complicated when the original delivery man, Webster (Marshall Bell who would memorably star with Arnold in his next film "Total Recall" as Kuato), a remorseless professional killer/MacGuffin delivery man, starts to track the group down. The movie starts to oddly resemble the 2009 Best Picture winner "No Country For Old Men". They both involve a long chase through the American Southwest in the 1980s between an unsuspecting holder of stolen millions and a psychopathic hitman (Bell's character actually has a code of killing any associate who has seen his face, you would never guess that this movie has a body count of at least 5) bent on retrieving his lost package. Plus, in both cases the hitman is hired by an industrialist in Houston. This turns into an action/chase/thriller with maybe a little suspense thrown in.

To make a long story short (too late?) Arnold saves Devito from Webster, they do the right thing and return the stolen thing to the original owners, meet their long lost mother, and simultaneously marry both women who (of course) both give birth to TWINS! Nothing in a innocuous looking movie poster hints at the kind of intense cinematic experience one would experience. It's no wonder it took four people to write this thing!

Also, if the insane rumors turn to be true, there may be a sequel in the work "Triplets" with Eddie freaking Murphy playing another long lost twin. Considering the obvious race and age differences I don't know how it could be explained (alien? robot? alternate dimension?) but when it comes to "Twins" I have learned that there are no storytelling boundaries. If it does happen I eagerly await whatever new genres get modified and combined to form a perfect sequel.

Two Tragic, Yet Fascinatingly Freakish Stories I Read On Yahoo! News That Tangentially Reminded Me Of Scenes From Famous 80s Action Movies

No doubt the first in a series...

Couple Badly Injured After Bodybuilder Attack

Your clothes. Give them to me. Now.

Model Loses Hand In Plane Propeller Accident

Unfortunately I couldn't find a good copy of the original scene so I had to go with the crude Lego reenactment; but you all know how it goes.

Now if only there was an article about a distinguished Detroit cop who was left in critical condition after a gang shooting or a group of terrorists taking over a Los Angeles office building and holding its residents hostage.

I Said No, No, No

As a Netflix subscriber, I am quite diligent and thoughtful when it comes to rating the movies or TV shows I've viewed. Like many, Netflix has sort of turned the once leisurely activity of watching entertainment into a task bordering on a chore and I often find myself putting in extra effort to consume enough media to get the best of my monthly subscriber fee (this is especially the case with unwatched mail-in DVDs which just sit on the counter as a conspicuous red faced reminder of my laziness). So when I get through a title, I find it to be a triumphant ritual to give my immediate one to five star impression of it. Additionally, constant feedback is what allows the cutting edge Netflix personal recommendation algorithm to continue to give me astoundingly accurate and spot on suggestions.

As far as my grading tendencies go, I'm a relatively soft grader. The way I see it, the fact that I had enough interest in the TV series or movie to select it to watch should give it at least a presumptive 3 star rating. In the end it all sort of works out to a curve with the great majority of titles residing in the 3 to 4 star, ok to good, territory. It takes an exceptional film to get a 5 and it takes a pretty lousy piece of cinema to get a 2 (1 star is exclusively reserved for my all time, truly terrible, eighth circle of hell, films of which there are only currently eight; I may cover these in another post but to give you an idea one of them is "Nothing But Trouble"). Since an exceptional 5 film or a poor 2 film are both equally rare, it's always a notable occasion when I run across one.

Unfortunately, this time around the latest outlier was a 2 rating for the 2000 Sandra Bullock dramedy (although it really fails on both levels) "28 Days". I had the absolute lowest of expectations going into this movie since I just needed something to watching while trying to get to sleep, yet it somehow failed to even live up to these low stakes. Actually, if the film was even duller and it instantly put me to sleep, I may have given it the gentleman's 3 for getting some beneficial reaction out of me. In the end though, the film turned out to be so muddled in its content and middling its delivery that it failed to entertain even as a failure (which is truly the worst kind of failure).

The brief as possible summary is as follows: Sandra Bullock is an alcoholic along with her jerky enabler boyfriend (Dominic West in actual English accent mode); she gets drunk at her sister's wedding and ruins the whole affair (although the ridiculousness of her actions and the damage she causes makes it look like alcohol causes her to go temporarily insane); which gets her sentenced to a rehab retreat populated by a bunch of "quirky" addicts including Mike O'Malley (playing the same cap wearing laid back dude roll he has played in everything), Viggio Mortenson (as the possible love interest), the guy who played Poppy from "Seinfeld", and some vulnerable looking teenage girl who I immediately (and correctly) predicted would die later on to lend the story some tragedy; after some initial friction Sandra comes to grips with her problem, makes friends, makes amends with her sister, leaves rehab and her boyfriend, and looks ahead to a clean and sober future.

The main problem with the film is that it is indecisive on whether it's going to be a black comedy or gritty drama about addiction and fails at being both. You know the old joke about "28 Days" being the prequel to the zombie horror film "28 Days Later"? That is funnier than any of this film's attempts at humor. O'Malley is supposed to be the sarcastic comic relief but he's had better material in his cable commercials. There's another resident, Gerhardt, whose fey eurotrash German-ness is apparently supposed to be inherently funny. Once again the indecisiveness of the filmmakers when assembling the supporting cast of residents sinks the film. They apparently didn't want everyone to be one joke caricatures but they also didn't want everyone to be complex, grimly realistic depictions of addicts so they found this bland medium of lame partially formed characters that the audience isn't really compelled to care about. As for the drama, every time things start to get serious or we start to learn about the sad history of a resident, the film tries to be light and immediately reels back. As for Sandra's character there are all these flashbacks and implications of a traumatic childhood for her and her sister involving their alcoholic mother and her untimely death, but it gets resolved so quickly after one quick heart to heart chat between the sisters towards the end that you wonder why they never got around to this prior.

In addition, the film also doesn't seem to know what to do with Viggio Mortenson's character. Even though he's probably the most fully realized supporting character and has one of the more interesting back stories in the film, he's a famous baseball pitcher currently in rehab, they never really go into it all that deeply nor do they show him making progress with his addictions at the clinic. From the outset you think she's going to fall for him when he makes his first appearance in the film by heroically carrying her into the rehab center after she nearly kills herself trying to escape through her window. There is obvious tension between them throughout and they do have an awkward kiss and he has a confrontation with the boyfriend but then he sort of disappears for a while down the final stretch. Even all the way at the end when she's leaving the facility and he chases her car down to have a big final confrontation with her, they make their peace but it doesn't end with them falling in love. She just goes back to her life, decides to leave her boyfriend, and that's how it ends. I guess it's commendable that the filmmakers were trying not to go with the cliche ending but the alternative seemed incomplete.

Oh, and I also forgot Steve Buscemi is also in the film as Sandra Bullock's counselor. As you can tell, his character was just as forgettable as most of the others.

Put it all together and you have the makings of a ultimately forgettable 100 minutes and a textbook example of how to become a 2 star film in my account; neither memorably awesome or memorably awful. There's a reason you probably haven't thought about the film since around 2001 and that this review is probably the detailed discussion of the film since then.

Power Play

One can only ponder the sort of mysterious machinations and manipulation of metrics that go on behind the curtain of Netflix's rating and suggestion system, all to suggest to you to watch "The Larry Sanders Show" based on your viewing of an episode of "The Office" or that "Stripes" tops their list of suggested "Raunchy Underdog Satires". One particular film that often comes up when Netflix generates any list for me involving the phrases "Political", "Thriller", "Action", or "Steamy" (Steamy Political Action Thriller?) is the above forgotten straight to video flotsam from 1997 "Executive Power".

While I would have, like most of America when it came out, totally overlooked and forgotten about this inconsequential piece of cinema (so irreverent that it couldn't even muster a wikipedia entry), I just could not ignore the eye catching shoddiness of its cover every time it popped up on the site. There is no shortage of poorly designed and ascetically questionable covers on Netflix, arising mainly from but not limited to low budget straight to video fare, but something about the "Executive Power" cover really makes it stand out among its fellow bad cover contemporaries. Mainly the cover makes it look like the main protagonists (that high profile pairing of Craig Sheffer and Andrea Roth) are being literally chased by the White House, like it's trying to eat them or something. Of course if there was a horror film about a cannibalistic White House it would obviously be called "Executive Power". As for the title, it's weirdly subdued and taken off center and stuffed in the top corner for seemingly no good reason (show off that sweet shot of the White House?). Additionally why two separate fonts? Don't really see the need to change it up like that. On a subtle level, I think the lack of a tag line or critic quote or even credits on the front (you mean you're not going to capitalize on the high profile pairing of Craig Sheffer and Andrea Roth?) also throws you off.

In the film's defense, the above terrible cover may have been a hastily created alternate for the original cover. The VHS copy of the film on Amazon shows a completely different, more "traditional" (got the names up top, taglines and consistent font title front and center) albeit more risque cover. I suspect that the prudes over at Netflix opted out of this original cover, which looks like a Harlequin novel written by Tom Clancy, to the more vanilla yet aesthetically unpleasant alternate.

On an interesting side note, the basic premise of "Executive Power", male and female protagonists (the high profile couple of Craig Sheffer and Andrea Roth) trying to uncover the truth involving the cover-up of a sex scandal turned murder by the President (noted 80's asshole William Atherton) while being pursued by dangerous shadowy individuals within the administration (John Heard), is quite similar to another 1997 political thriller "Absolute Power" where male and female protagonists (Clint Eastwood and Laura Linney) try to uncover the truth involving the cover-up of a sex scandal turned murder by the President (Gene Hackman) while being pursued by dangerous shadowy individuals within the administration (Judy Davis). This shouldn't be confused with the other 1997 film "Murder at 1600" where male and female protagonists (Wesley Snipes and Diane Lane) try to uncover the truth involving the cover-up of a sex scandal turned murder by the President (other noted 80s asshole Ronny Cox) while being pursued by dangerous shadowy individuals within the administration (Alan Alda).

Was there something about the second Clinton Administration that fostered such fantasies of the President being a lecherous murderer? The Lewinsky scandal which eventually broke the following year showed he was sort of a sleaze, but a murderer? Well...

The Numero Uno "Numero Uno" Shirt

I suppose the following post does contain spoilers for the documentary "Pumping Iron" so look away if you don't want to know about the results of the 1975 Mr. Olympia Bodybuilding Competition or if you haven't gotten around to watching your 36 year old DVR of it. Although can one really spoil a documentary about a public event? I mean the records are right there: the Union wins the Civil War, global warming continues unabated, McDonald's is bad for you. Regardless you have been warned.

I recently got around to watching the influential 1977 bodybuilding documentary (although I actually prefer wikipedia's characterization of it as a docudrama) "Pumping Iron". It was really quite entertaining. The insight into the seemingly alien subculture of competitive bodybuilders was interesting enough but the film's real strength was the deft editing and creative license of the filmmakers to craft compelling narratives between the competitors. This is really crucial for any sort presentation of a competition whether it be "Spellbound" or "American Idol". Some personalities came off as villains, some as heroes and it really raised the tension by the time the final results scenes came around.

Of course the film is most known for really raising the public profile of one Arnold Schwarzenegger (sorry "Hercules in New York") and he is the best part of the film. It's easy to say it now but hearing him talk, watching him train, seeing him play mind games with and completely psyching out his arch rival Lou Ferrigno, you just know that this is a dangerously ambitious individual that can essentially will himself to whatever he wants to achieve. There is a strong parallel to fellow icon Michael Jordan in that, in addition to being supremely talented and skilled and being the greatest at their sport, they are both psychotically competitive assholes. Both appear to have an unhealthy burning desire to win at everything at all costs that sets them apart from the merely great, but also ultimately alienates them from almost everyone as well. These character faults just continue become more fascinatingly pronounced as they age and move farther from their competitive primes. Some indications imply that Jordan has gradually become the NBA's Daniel Plainview while Arnold has been recently profiled as being proud of his achievements but deeply repulsed at his own frailty.

So going back to the movie, it comes as little shock at the end when Arnold defeats the younger and larger but not as mentally tough Ferrigno (whose overbearing stage father/trainer also helps) and captures his then record 6th consecutive Mr. Olympia title and retires as the greatest bodybuilder of all time. He celebrates his victory backstage with his fellow bodybuilders, a meal of fried chicken and cake, and a fat blunt. And as an exclamation point on this grand moment of triumph Arnold is seeing wearing a white ringer tee simply proclaiming "ARNOLD IS NUMERO UNO". It is one of the more famous scenes from the film (that and the scene where he explains how bodybuilding makes him feel like he's constantly "cumming").

As I later discovered to my surprise on the internet, the shirt's fame is apparently so great that an entire website and e-merchant exists that exclusively sells replicas of the "numero uno" shirt (and also making custom "[insert name here] IS NUMERO UNO" shirts). Now I know money is made in the most interesting and esoteric of ways on the internet, but I found this to be even more peculiar than most. I recall buying my replica Nigel Tufnel shirt from "This is Spinal Tap" off the internet but the site also specialized in a whole assortment of retro replica shirts. There are plenty of CafePress style custom stores that sell one off generic replicas of the "numero uno" shirt but this site is really dedicated to crafting as accurate a copy was possible right down to the material. It's really the authority for authentic replica shirts. I can't recall any other business devoted to just one shirt from one scene from one movie.

That being said it is a pretty sweet shirt and, if my thrifty immigrant upbringing did not preclude me from paying more than $15 for a simple t-shirt, I would consider ordering a custom made "VICTOR IS NUMERO UNO" to wear on birthdays, anniversaries, and Mr. Olympia victory parties

Picture This!

I had just recently finished watching my Netflix copy of 1958 Best Picture Academy Award Winner (and overall poor man's "My Fair Lady") "Gigi" and was about to put it in the return envelope when I noticed something about the the iconic title font that I had never noticed before.

Now am I crazy or is a title font like that better suited for a disturbing "Saw"-like horror thriller than a lavish, G-Rated, period piece musical? I guess with a winking Leslie Caron head doting the "I" it never looked all that menacing on the poster, but really in this context it reminds me of a grittier version of the title font for "Cujo".

Perhaps in another universe "Gigi" is actually a gruesome piece of unsettling torture porn where it turns out that, in addition her striking beauty and youthful, charming personality, the title character hides a unquenchable homicidal blood lust; a secret that her handsome, love stuck beau Gaston (among many others) figures out far too late.

Any producers out there who feel like desecrating a classic, get in touch. I'll whip up a treatment in no time.

What Happens When the Money Runs Out!

Anytime I see a fairly respectable, Academy Award winning actor with a history of generally prudent film choices star in some questionable high concept fare or carry a one week and done cheapie or some mindless live action Disney drivel or have a pointless role in some creatively bankrupt sequel, I always suspect that they secretly have some severe financial problem. I'd like to think that these are generally intelligent people with enough aesthetic discretion to know what is a decent script and what is a total embarrassment. Maybe it's serious tax issues or ruinous divorce judgments or severely misplaced investments or a cripplingly costly cocaine addition; whatever the unknown reason it may be I give them the benefit of the doubt that at the end of the day their hand is being forced by the overwhelming need of the paycheck.

How else could you explain Sir Ben Kingley in "BloodRayne" or "Lucky Number Slevin"? Something had to give when Jack and Diane signed up for "Something's Gotta Give". Was Dame Judy Dench really that blown away by the script for "The Chronicles of Riddick" that she had to get on board? How desperately in debt was Jon Voight in 2004 that he was forced to play the villain in both "Superbabies: Baby Genisues 2" and something called "Karate Dog"? Have you seen what Kathy Bates has been up to for the last five years? What sort of extended financial quagmire could be the reason for the last ten or so years of Cuba Gooding Jr.'s career?

So with the recent news of the staggering financial problems of one of the biggest Oscar winning offenders, Nicholas Cage, my pet theory may actually have gained some credibility. Looking at his career after winning the Best Actor Oscar for "Leaving Las Vegas" in 1995, it's pretty obvious that he had drifted away from his more humble cinematic roots (pretty sure he won't be doing any Coen Brothers movies anytime soon) and fully embraced his new career as a blockbuster actor. Sure every once in a while he'd flash some of his acting chops like in "Adaptation" but for the most part it was popcorn action flicks ("The Rock", "Gone in 60 Seconds", "Con Air", the "National Treasure" movies) or slick studio comedy-dramas where he essentially plays himself on auto-pilot ("The Family Man", "Matchstick Men", "Lord of War", "The Weather Man").

On the whole it was a pretty fine career, the sort of generally accepted work that you'd expect from a popular a-list actor. You knew he was in it for the money but he obviously had enough clout to choose his scripts. However as his spending started to spiral out of control and his financial troubles started to mount, you can clearly see that his discretion was starting to take a severe slide as more and more questionable roles kept trickling in. It think you can trace it back to his all time ludicrous performance in the completely unnecessary "The Wicker Man" in 2006. Next came "Next" in 2007. His lone feature for 2008 was the offensively terrible "Bangkok Dangerous" (was he supposed to be an Asian guy here?). 2009 has thus far shaped up to be another banner year with "Knowing" (Cage sees into the future yet again) and voice over work in "G-Force" (that guinea pig movie) and "Astro-Boy".

As his serious financial problems grow, the fear is that he will really start to lose more and more discretion with his movies choices and eventually be driven completely by the needs of his mountainous debt. According to IMDB 2010 and beyond already don't appear all that promising (looks like "Ghost Rider 2" is in development). If Mr. Cage doesn't start taking better care of his personal finances and cuts back on the dinosaur skull bidding wars, he might perhaps one day find himself actually making a snuff film for 8mm 3 (yes they actually made a 2!).

Double Feature

One of the minor fringe benefits of watching a movie on its opening weekend is the fact that in addition to the poppin' fresh feature, you get to see the latest poppin' fresh previews. It's a minor thing, but I really do notice the difference when I go to a film that's been in the theaters for a month or two and see nothing but outdated trailers of currently running features. For some people, the preview is sometimes reason enough to go into a particular movie. I remember a few years back, a significant number of die hard fans paid the full fare to see the forgettable "Dreamcatcher" just to see the first previews for the Matrix sequel and walk out. It might have even won its weekend because of it.

During my recent opening day trek out to see "Watchmen", I got to observe the latest and greatest features Hollywood had lined up in its pipeline. While I have nothing amazing to report from my glimpse of the future, the above pictured, upcoming Seth Rogen vehicle "Observe and Report" did catch my attention for different reasons. These reasons may become more obvious after viewing the recent trailer for yourself. Notice anything familiar?:

• A large mall setting?
  
• Doughy mall cop protagonist with a comically over inflated sense of duty and importance?
• Attractive female mall employee love interest?
• A sudden opportunity for said mall cop protagonist to become a hero?
• Slapstick physical comedy?
• Condescending law enforcement officials that look down on said mall cop?
• Plenty of comical shots of said mall cop cruising around in a personal transport?
• Fat guys falling down?
  

Looks an awful lot like another recent film.

It appears indeed that the ever unpredictable Hollywood movie machine has inexplicably cranked out two "Mall Cop Hero Comedies" in the same year! Despite modern technology providing endless avenues of expression via the cinematic medium and the infinite amount of stories to be told of the human condition, we find ourselves with two films coincidentally following the incredibly narrow topic of "Mall Cop Hero Comedy". While this may seem like a once in a life time cosmic event, like a sort of cinematic syzygy; it's actually more common then you think.

Just three years ago we had a double Victorian era magic act with vastly superior "The Prestige" trumping the "The Illusionist". Only about four years ago we experienced two biopics about Truman Capote ("Captote" and the criminally underrated "Infamous" coming out in about a one year span). The year before that we had the dueling first daughter romantic comedies "Chasing Liberty" and "First Daughter". In 2000, we experienced two separate unsuccessful manned voyages to mars in "Mission to Mars" and "Red Planet". Even a seemingly unique and creative concept like "The Truman Show" had an eerie thematic doppelganger in "EDtv" in 1999. There was the CGI showdown between "A Bug's Life" and "Antz" between 1998 and 1999. An even more unlikely duo of biopics about 70s long-distance runner Steve Prefontaine ("Prefontaine" and "Without Limits") came out between 1997 and 1998 (to this day I still confuse Jared Leto and Billy Crudup movies). Also in 1998, summer asteroid films Deep Impact and Armageddon hit theatres within two months of each other. That double dose of disaster stuck while we were trying to recover from havoc released the previous year when Dante's Peak and it's flashier, less scientifically accurate brother Volcano erupted within months of each other.

Unavoidable coincidences based on the large number of yearly mainstream movie releases? Or just an indication of Hollywood's creative bankruptcy? You can draw your own conclusions on that. One thing I noticed about these twin billings is that in nearly all cases, one film is usually vastly superior to the other (Forrest Whitaker's direction in "First Daughter" clearly gives it the edge). While we're all aware about my (and America's) inexplicable affection for "Paul Blart", the trailer has given me zero indication that "Observe and Protect" will even be a watchable film let alone the superior picture. The film seems to have taken the Blart story and sucked out all the likability and charm. Where as Kevin James' character had a sympathetic, everyman quality to him, Seth Rogen's mall cop seems downright cruel and sadistic. I find his personal monologue in the trailer, creepy and unsettling rather than funny. Both characters seem to find themselves unexpectedly thrusted into a heroic situation but while Blart does his best to save the day, Rogen's just seems all about manipulating the situation for his own unscrupulous gains. Even the casting of the always delightfully bubbly Anna Faris fails add enough for me to want to see this film, even on a lark. I didn't recall anyone laughing at any point in the trailer which is always a bad sign. Perhaps we're just about approaching critical mass in our tolerance of Seth Rogen and his unchanging schlubby stoner persona. In any case, it'll be interesting to see who comes out on top in this twin rivalry and goes down in history as THE definitive "Mall Cop Comedy".

Victor Watches the Watchmen. But Who Watches Lee Iacocca?

The other day I got around to watching the "Watchmen." The fact that it was on opening day itself was significant enough. The last time I saw a movie on opening day was "Rush Hour 2" (which was also the last movie before "The Dark Knight" where I actually got excited watching the trailer) during the tail end of my legendary pre-freshman year of college Summer of Victor where I somehow managed an unexpected streak of catching the number one box office film for about four or five straight weeks.

The reviews for "Watchmen" thus far seem to run the gambit from bloated, melodramatic drivel to a remarkable, next level, achievement in the comic book movie genre, and everything in between. As for me, on the whole I found it to be generally positive. Of course, I have to add the fact that I went into the movie with a fairly low standard of expectations. My one genuine bit of praise for director Zack Snyder, it that at least he was ambitious. He was ambitious to even attempt to affix such an iconic, sprawling, difficult, story into film. There's a reason co-creator Alan Moore still considers the story unfilmable. Not only do you have to some how tell this dense, multi-layered, chaotically presented story in one feature length film, but you have to walk this impossibly fine line between satisfying the cult fan base by maintaining fidelity to the original material while trying to make a unique piece of cinema that isn't just a rote motion comic. It was bound for disappointment.

Given this unwinnable situation, it looks like the filmmakers relied more on the path of least resistance and stayed conservatively true to the material. At points during the film, I could literally recall the specific panels from the comic, as if they just exclusively worked off them as the storyboards. There were obviously some variations from the source material but, like the excising of the whole pirate story, it seemed more out of the constraints of keeping the film under 3 hours than really for any original artistic merit. Is all this necessarily a bad thing? Not really. Given the unfair situation, falling back on the material seems like a prudent choice given the high quality of the original material. Speaking of the source material, one of the other major reasons against making a "Watchmen" film now is that it is just not as relevant as it was in 1986. The whole nihilistic Cold War destruction themes just don't have the power in today's new world order. For the people of 1986 the spectre of Nuclear holocaust was a legitimate one, where as the concept of global thermonuclear war for my generation and beyond is as unreal as Dr. Manhattan's giant CGI dong. Given that, the "Watchmen" (much like with Iron Maiden's "Two Minutes to Midnight") loses a lot of its power.

Oh yeah and the film's music SUUUCCCKKKEEED. It was just a baffling collection of pop music (with one too many Leonard Cohen tunes) injected into the film at the worst times with the subtly of a punch to the face.

Despite these drawbacks, however, I still think the good outweighed the bad and in the end it kept me enthralled for the nearly 3 hour run time (definitely not an easy task for any film). It was still a fascinating, commendably ambitious exercise in storytelling. As just a guy who's not usually into comics who read the "Watchmen" and enjoyed it, just a hybrid of the fanatical comic book lover and the complete neophyte, it was satisfying.

Having said my two cents about the film, I also wanted to mention the above, bizarre Lee Iacocca impersonator cameo in the film. Given his status as one of the great icons of business and industry in the 1980s, it was a nifty piece of artistic license to include him within the rich tableau of the alternate 1985 created for the film. I noticed the film had a noticeably large cast of famous impersonators ranging from the prominent character of 1980s Richard Nixon to a faux McLaughlin Group panel (finally an opportunity that one Eleanor Clift impersonator to shine!). The sweeping title sequence to the film (which was actually quite an ingenious way to cover the enormous back story and efficiently provide context for the present plot; hands down the best part of the entire movie) itself employs almost half a century worth of famous faces and figures.

The interesting thing about the Lee Iacocca impersonator was how, in stark contrast to reality, he ends up meeting a grisly end by getting caught in the crossfire during an unsuccessful assassination attempt on one of the Watchman, Ozymandias. It was a bit jarring to see the lovable Chryster pitchman and former "Lee of the Month" winner on my long running facebook group, get one right between the eyes (apparently Lee wasn't a fan of his alternate dimise as well). It also made me think if there were any other films out there where impersonators of real life, living public figures were killed on screen.

There have been plenty of movies with alternate histories where certain figures were implied to have lived or died (like Hitler or JFK). But I really couldn't think of too many movies off the top of my head where a then currently living figure was killed on screen. In fact the only movie I could think of was "Hot Shots: Part Deux" where Lloyd Bridges dispatches a ridiculously fictionalized version of the then living Saddam Hussein. Leslie Nielson delivers a comically severe beat down on numerous world leaders in the first "Naked Gun" movie, but none of it appears to be fatal. If it weren't for the fact that public figures have a much higher standard for defamation, you'd think they'd have some case for their reputation being hurt by being shown to be killed or beat up on screen.

Anyone else have any examples of famous fictional film deaths?

"So do you think they got shrunk down, or is it just a giant sack?"

The early months of a new year are a strange and fascinating time when it comes to movie releases. The emerging award season and the general slowdown in business of theaters nationwide lead to an unpredictable movie release landscape. On one hand you have your prestige pictures; some held over from the previous month, others entering wide release to capture the crest of the Oscar buzz. On the other hand you have the glut of held over cinematic trash from the previous year that the studios are hoping to quietly and unceremoniously dump out at multiplexes during the slowest time of the season. There is no other time of the year that comes close to the sort of wild cinematic clashes where potential Oscar winners compete head to head with potential Razzie winners for the hearts and wallets of the ambivalent movie going public.

Now while I haven't see the new Kevin James vehicle "Paul Blart: Mall Cop", I'm sure most will agree with me that it is closer to the latter Razzie category of January pictures than the former. The whole movie just screams cheap January laughs. You know what you're going to get when you buy your tickets to "Mall Cop", about two hours of: a fat guy looking ridiculous on a Segway (lol!), a fat guy taking his petty job as a mall cop far too seriously (haha!), a fat guy falling down a lot (ho ho!), fat guy saving the day at the end and getting the hot girl (rofl!). Just to ensure the laugh factor they slapped on a goofy mustache (hilarity), gave the main guy a silly name (Blart? That rhymes with fart) and set the whole thing in Jersey (the only state whose setting itself can be a joke). The whole thing looks by the book and destined for brief, inconsequential, quick change run in the theaters. I should hate it, or at the very least not even be thinking all that much about it, however as you can tell this is not the case.

I have a personal pantheon of watchability interest when it comes to movies. At the very top is the movie I am willing to spend money on in theaters to see ("The Dark Knight"), right below that is a movie I am willing to rent a copy on (I just recently rented 'The Philadelphia Story"), below that tier is a movie I am willing to watch on TV even with commercials (any time they play "Starship Troopers" on TNT I have to stick it out), under that are commercial free movies on premium channels (like the time I saw "Threesome". Was it a particularly good movie? No, but it was commercial free and had some nudity), and finally there are movies I have no interest in seeing unless paid too (oh, how about "The Sex in the City Movie"). This wacky version of "Die Hard" should be in that bottom rung of watchability interest with such similar January/February fat guy comedy releases as "Code Name: The Cleaner" and the Larry the Cable Guy epic "Witless Protection". However, I'm don't find myself automatically disgusted by "Mall Cop". While it is no where near the top of my pantheon, I might go as far to watch it with commercials on TBS a year or two down the line, perhaps even rent it if my Netflix queue gets a little light.

There's really no concrete reason why "Mall Cop" seems mildly amusing to me. It's sort of like when Elaine wanted to see "Sack Lunch" over the "English Patient". Sometimes you just want to see a movie about a family in a giant sack over some overwrought Oscar bait. Between global economic meltdown, Somali pirates, the fighting in Gaza, and ongoing wars abroad, the world's in a pretty shitty place right now. Sometimes I just want to see a fat guy falling down over "Doubt".

And if I am going to see a fat guy fall down, you really can't get better these days than Kevin James. From all the "King of Queens" episodes I've seen on planes and rained out ballgames, the guy is quite agile for a big man, like a Kirby Puckett or Bam Bam Bigelow. He definitely has some notworthy physical comedy talents. In the end isn't the only real thing that separates the fluff films of Kevin James and the "culturally significant" work of noted heavyweight silent film star Fatty Arbuckle is about seven decades of nostalgia (and a murder trial). A quality fat guy falling is a fat guy falling.


Note: As of the conclusion and posting of this entry, the latest weekend Box Office returns seems to indicate that a great number of the movie going crowded preferred some lighter fat guy fair. The previous week's number one film it beat out? The critically acclaimed "Gran Torino".

What's the deal with Basic Instinct?

A few days back I found myself re-watching "Basic Instinct"; the commercial zenith of what I like to consider, my all time favorite director, Paul Verhoeven's classic "American films period". While watching this iconic cornerstone of 90s pop culture, I suddenly noticed for the first time an unexpected connection with another 90's cultural touchstone: "Seinfeld".

I discovered no less than 5 actors in the film who have later on appeared on the series. This interesting collection of connected character actors ranged from the extremely obvious to the trivially obscure. I guess it shouldn't be all that shocking with a long running series with the large and diverse cast of supporting characters and one off guest actors (the list of women playing Jerry's weekly girlfriends alone is a varied who's who of notable 90s ladies from metal babe Tawny Kitaen to pre-fame Courtney Cox to the ever mousy Jeanine Garofalo) like"Seinfeld"; similarly there may be a flick out there with 6 eventual guest actors on "Friends". However, for now, I have yet to notice any such coincidences.

I guess I should mention that the list below probably contains some moderate spoilage for anyone who hasn't seen "Basic Instinct" (and I guess to a far lesser extent certain episodes of "Seinfeld"). Also for those people who haven't seen "Basic Instinct" yet: shame on you; it is one of the great cinematic documents of the fascinating,wild, confusing times of the early 90s, as the decade tried to forge itself a new identity separate from the 80s. In addition, for all those eternally teased by "Big Love", you actually get to see Jeanne Tripplehorn naked (and about 15 years younger). How can you lose?

Wayne Knight
"Newman"

This is the obvious one everybody remembers, and what I thought until recently was the only Seinfeld cast member in the film. Aside from his reoccurring role of Jerry's antagonist Newman, this is the most memorable Wayne Knight role (just edging out his evil Dennis Nedry role in Jurassic Park). That uncomfortable, fat, sweaty scene of him along with the other detectives interrogating Sharon Stone will (for better or for worse) be forever linked to the movie's infamous beaver shot.

Daniel von Bargen
"Mr. Kruger"

Prolific character actor Daniel von Bargen played Det. Nielson, the asshole Internal Affairs detective that had it out for Michael Douglas's character. He later gets murdered and everyone suspects Douglas did it. Of course I will always remember him as George's idiot boss Mr. Kruger. Every one of his four guest appearances was a home run. This is further supported by the fact that every one of his episodes made it onto Andrew U's definitive top 50 George moments: "The Slicer"(#43), "The Maid"(#39), "The Burning" (#28), "The Strike"(#23). Personally, my dream job scenario would be working for a boss as clueless and utterly negligent about the quality of my work as Kruger.

James Rebhorn
"D.A. Hoyt"

It was really no shocker when I noticed Hall of Fame "That Guy" James Rebhorn was in both "Basic Instinct" and "Seinfeld", he's basically been in every movie and television series for the last 25 years. Look up "douchey, white collar, antagonist in suit" in the dictionary and you get James Rebhorn. In "Basic Instinct" he played the only mildly douchey Dr. McElwaine, a police psychologist who questions Michael Douglas's guilt after the above Det. Nielson is found dead. On the TV side, Rebhorn played the pivotal role of the prosecuting D.A. who puts Jerry and the gang in prison for violating a good Samaritan law on the two part series finale of the show. Douchey indeed.

Stephen Tobolowsky
"Tor Eckman"

Another giant among "That Guy" character actors, Stephen Tobolowsky has cornered the market on playing bespectacled, dorky, clueless, losers. The man's got so many memorable one shot characters from Bridget Fonda's sleazy boss in "Single White Female", Ned Ryerson in "Groundhogs Day", to the flashback of Sammy Jankis in "Memento". For me the quintessential "Tobolowsky character" and everything he embodies can be summed up in that scene at the end of the trailer for "Dr. Jekyll and Ms. Hyde" ("Mr. Monkey wants to play"). In "Basic Instinct" be plays exactly to his egghead type as a special criminal profiler who is brought into hypothesize on the identity of the ice pick killer, much to everyone's annoyance. His "Seinfeld" character was as the holistic healer who George goes to after suffering what he thought was a heart attack. Interestingly, it's a little against the usual type for him as he's more of a goofy (non-bespectacled) hippie than the usual nerdish figure.

Jack McGee
"Ralph"

I claim no credit (nor do I really want to) for being as astute and extensive a "Seinfeld" fan to have noticed Jack McGee. I ended up learning about his credits when I was on IMDB trying to verify if Tobolowsky was actually in the "Heart Attack" episode. His role in "Basic Instinct" is just listed as "Sheriff" so I'm not actually sure where he came in. I think he was the random police officer (or I guess sheriff) at the end of the film that gives the main detectives more evidence that all the murders may have been masterminded by Jeanne Tripplehorn. His role in Seinfeld is equally juicy, as he plays "Ralph" (at least he had a name in this one), the surly construction worker that George borrows the jackhammer from to rescue his buried Phil Rizzuto keychain from a filled in pothole (in the aptly titled episode "The Pothole").

Rule of Three: 90s MLB Kids' Fantasy Movies

My continuing series of explorations into esoteric pop culture triplicates brings us today to the mid 90s where a trio of classic kids baseball films came to fill me and the rest of my generation with completely unrealistic expectations for success in Major League Baseball. Of course the three films I'm referring to are "Rookie of the Year", "Little Big League", and "Angels in the Outfield"; three movies with surprisingly bizarre similarities in themes and structure that go beyond the obvious "kids involved the major leagues" concept to almost make it a genre onto itself.

Breaking each movie down individually based on my disturbingly detailed memory of the films and a little help from the Wik, it becomes quite apparent that these films shared more than just the main unifying concept. Also, before I go ahead I just want to note that yes, I am ignoring that other seminal childhood baseball movie "The Sandlot." But before anyone cries foul (Get it? Baseball? Foul? Hilarious...) the movie is really all about kids playing baseball rather than kids playing/being involved with Major League Baseball. By the time the movie gets to the majors the two friends have grown up, so there's really no novelty in that. The only other kid friendly 90s movie I can think of is the 1996 Matt LeBlanc, sports monkey classic "Ed" which is left off the list for obvious reasons.

I guess I should mention that there will probably some spoilers. Although come on, it's been almost 15 years, unless you're currently under ten (do your parents know you're reading this blog?) you've either seen these films or have no real intention of seeing them in the future.

Rookie of the Year (1993)

Basics: 12 year old Little Leaguer Henry Rowengartner discovers that the tendons in his recently broken arm have healed in an unexpected manner, leaving him with the ability to throw triple digit fastballs. Under much media scrutiny, he is signed by the Chicago Cubs. He leads the last place team to a final deciding game at the end of the season for a playoff spot, and, according to the ring shown at the end an eventual World Series title (thus clearly landing the film in the category of pure fantasy/science fiction). He eventually loses his talent but happily returns to being a kid again.

Broken Home: Father abandoned the family, raised by his independent, floater throwing, single mother.

Supporting Friend Characters That Tell the Protagonist How Much They've Changed: He's got two of them.

Baseball Player on the Team who becomes a replacment Father Figure: Aging starting pitcher Chet "Rocket" Steadman played by Gary Busey who helps Henry adjust to the intimidating situation of being a 12 year old MLB pitcher. It's implied that he may possibly become a literal father figure based on the growing relationship between him and Henry's mom. Although having Gary Busey as your father figure may not be the best idea.

Evil Player that Appears as the Final Out: The slovenly NY Met and John Kruk look-a-like, "Butch" Heddo who originally hits a home run against Henry in his first game and comes back as the crucial final out in the final game of the season right after Henry loses his ability to throw heat. Fortunately Butch can't handle the off speed softball floater.

Evil Non-Playing Nemesis: Henry's mother's douchy boyfriend Jack who acts as Henry's manager. He greedily exploits Henry for profit all through the film but eventually gets kicked out after attempting to sell Henry to the Yankees.

Incredulous In-Game Commentator: The late great John Candy.

Little Big League (1994)

Basics: 12 year old Little Leaguer Billy Heywood discovers that his grandfather has died, leaving him with ownership of the Minnesota Twins. Under much media scrutiny, he fires the current manager and assigns himself manager of the Minnesota Twins. He manages the last place team to a final deciding game at the end of the season for a playoff spot, which they surprisingly lose. He eventually resigns from the team but happily returns to being a kid again.

Broken Home: Father died at a young age, raised by his independent, single mother.

Supporting Friend Characters That Tell the Protagonist How Much They've Changed: Possibly the same two goobers from the previous movie.

Baseball Player on the Team who becomes a Father Figure: Star first baseman Lou Collins played by Timothy Busfield who helps Billy adjust to the intimidating situation of being a 12 year old MLB manager. He basically becomes a literal father figure after Billy allows him to propose to his mother despite not hitting a home run to win the game as stipulated prior to the last game.

Evil Player Nemesis that Appears as the Final Out: Real life MLB star, and then Seattle Mariner, Ken Griffey Jr. who breaks the hearts of children everywhere by hitting the go-ahead home run at the beginning of the crucial final game and then robbing Timothy Busfield of the potential game winning homer with a spectacular catch at the end.

Evil Non-Playing Nemises: Hard-ass ex-manager George O'Farrell played by the always hard-ass Dennis Farina. His poor managing skills and mistreatment of the players is the impetuous for Billy's decision to fire him and step in. He possibly returns as the manager of the rival Mariners but I'm not quite sure on that.

Incredulous In-Game Commentator: Real-life Twins announcer John Gordon who, for some reason, had to play a fictional version of himself under a different name.

Angels in the Outfield (1994)

Basics: 12 year old baseball fan Roger discovers that his father has decided to abandon him in foster care, leaving him with the sarcastic response that they'll be a family again when the last place Angels win the pennant. Incapable of understanding sarcasm, Roger prays to God to help the Angels out so he could have a family again. God sends actual angels to secretly help the team cheat. Roger convinces manager George Knox (Danny Glover in full "I'm too old for this shit mode") to follow his advice. However soon people pick up on this seemingly crazy strategy and under much media scrutiny, Roger reveals his incredulous secret. The Angels stop helping the team but they still win the final deciding game at the end of the season for a playoff spot anyway and he happily returns to being a kid again.

Broken Home: Father leaves, raised by independent willed, foster parent (the always independent and motherly Brenda Flicker).

Supporting Friend Characters That Tell the Protagonist How Much They've Changed: His adorable black friend J.P.

Baseball Player on the Team who becomes a Father Figure: Aging starting pitcher Mel Clark played by Tony Danza who ends up defending Roger and George and rallies the team around their cause. Unfortunately, unbeknownst to him it is revealed to Roger that he will be dead in 6 months so George ends up becoming the literal father figure by actually adopting both Roger and J.P.

Evil Player Nemises That Appears as the Final Out: Real life MLB semi-star Carney Lansford as the "intimidating" White Sox hitter that Tony Danza has to get out sans angel to win the game.

Evil Non-Playing Nemesis: Skeptical atheist in-game commentator Ranch Wilder, who aside from being a long time nemesis of Knox, almost ruins everything after reporting on the implausible use of Angels and jeopardizing Knox's job. Not as blatantly evil as the others in my opinion. Wasn't he just being a responsible sports journalist?

Incredulous In-Game Commentator: Double duty, see above.



One interesting note, all three films came out during the one year stretch just prior to the 1994 baseball strike. In fact, "Angels in the Outfield" debuted roughly a month before the season was shutdown. That sort of really knocks the wind out of the whole "magic of baseball" and "love of the game" messages expounded by all three films. Adding together the ill will generated post strike, the overall taint of the steroids era, the overtaking by football as the most nation's most popular sport, and the generally increased cynicism of 12 year old children today, it's fairly certain that such movies are truly a relic of our childhoods.

When Disaster Strikes!

With Hurricane Gustav, to the relief of New Orleans residents, turning out to be a fifth rate Katrina at best, there was only one (possibly two after it's all said and done with the Palin pick) major disaster of note this Labor Day weekend. Since it suddenly struck in the early morning hours of Friday the 28th it has become a true disaster on a national and soon to be global scale, hitting every state and slowing expanding into the overseas markets. Despite being warned about its arrival on a ubiquitous, daily basis for a good clear month by all the major media outlets, there was little our government nor us the average citizen could do to avoid it. That's right it was the general release of another Jason Friedberg and Adam Seltzer movie.

Just as this nation was beginning to bring itself back up and rebuild in the wake of the damage left by "Meet the Spartans" just this January. Just when were beginning to remember what it was like to laugh again; we are pummeled again by "Disaster Movie" and its all out assault on humor, plot, talent, and the art of cinema in general. I don't know if its due to the effects of worldwide global warming or deforestation, or the depletion of the ozone layer but since Date movie the rate of appearances of these Friedberg/Seltzer productions seem to be accelerating and (as unimaginable as it is) getting worse with every incarnation. While there has been plenty of critical literature concerning the growing dangers of these projects, the American movie going public continues to fuel these films in the face of the humorless truth.

The scientific and cinematic community is still not in total agreement as to how such bad movies can possibly be created, but there some common facts that have been established which may aid in someday finding the key to finally understanding and eliminating these movies forever. Some known facts:

• They are produced so cheaply that they cannot help but make money in the theaters. Even if you eliminated their primary audience of middle school children and the producers' parents, the sales generated from "tickets sold to confused old people by accident" will still ensure enough profits for a sequel.
• They usually appear at the beginning of the year (around January, February) in the deadest winter period for films. With the exception of "Disaster Movie", these movies thrive and flourish in the harshest of box office environments, where better movies wilt.
• They are short. The average length of these films top out at around 85 minutes. This is accomplished by eliminating any elements involving plot, depth, or story and inserting a string of celebrity impersonators and passing it off as a joke.
• Carmen Electra. Her mysterious involvement with the great majority of these pictures appears to be the true key to understanding the series. Perhaps containing may put an end or at least severely hinder the production of these movies.
  

Despite the research done on the field, the sad fact of the matter is that there doesn't seem to be any end to the proliferation of these films. Even as the latest incarnation rages across the movie screens of the nation, another picture is predicted for early next year. We as a nation are running out of options to turn the trashy tide. Eventually the ultimate option may be a national permanent moratorium new movies all together.

As dark as the future seems, there is still a hint of hope for the future. The previous three Freidberg/Seltzer films (Date Movie, Epic Movie, Meet the Spartans) have averaged domestically over $19 million dollars in their first weeks and usually finished at number one or two. "Disaster Movie" on the other hand, finished a positive 7th place with a $6.6 million dollar domestic haul. That's a positive development we can build on, but we will need a concentrated global effort with pledges of support from our government and the governments of the world.

We must work together to eliminate these productions, if not for us than for our children and for generations beyond. Can you in good conscience bring a child into a bleak, joyless world with twice possible trice a year releases of these films? I for one look forward to that hard fought, bright day in the future when blockbuster films need not fear crude parodies by talentless hacks, where options for quality films exist past the Oscar season, where Carmen Electra is only remembered for her acclaimed work in "The Chosen One: Legend of the Raven", where we are free to laugh again.

Until that glorious day...vigilance.

A Longshot

There is almost nothing surprising about a benign piece of cinematic fluff like "The Longshots." Every bit of it oozes formulaic, PG rated, family oriented, inspirational, film making. It's got all the elements: a plucky young protagonist (Keke Palmer of "Akeelah and the Bee" fame), a down on his luck mentor (played by a crazy, family friendly, motherfucker named Ice Cube), a team of lovable misfits, an improbable championship run, and of course the all important "inspired by a true story" pedigree. I'll even make an educated guess that there'll be an evil (possibly white) antagonist coach and a rival team of antagonists twice the usual size with half the dimensions. If I remember one ad I saw correctly the movie's promoters don't even bother feigning any suspense and mentioned that "it's the story of the first girl to win X championship." The modest run in theaters and DVD that awaits it is also a forgone conclusion.

Despite the forgettable lack of surprises that "The Longshots" appears to have; it has, without me having seen a single second outside the previews and a week before it is even supposed to be out, given me one of the most shocking cinematic twists I have ever experienced. Bruce Willis' ghost, that murderous red hooded dwarf, Keyser Soze, Rosebud, the remains of the Statute of Liberty on the beach are all ham fisted telegraphed conclusions compared to the bomb this movie dropped on me right from the promotional poster. For those who aren't in the know already, without looking it up on the Internetz, can you please identify this man, the directer of "The Longshots" as photographed at the Tribeca Film Festival:

If you haven't figured out the identity of this mystery auteur from this recent image. Perhaps this photo taken about a decade prior from his previous profession would help. That's right, it's every one's favorite late 90's relic Fred Durst. Please watch out for falling OMGs and WTFs.

For a man who for most intents and purposes vanished without a trace around the turn of the millennium, helming this rah-rah, heart cockle warming, family feature would be one of the absolute last places to find him working again. I would have thought a Surreal life appearance, or an mildly publicized arrest for weapons possession, or an unsuccessful comeback tour with a new band with the same name, or at least a niche line of personally licensed hard liqueur would have been the predicted path back. Instead here he is sharp, capless, looking like the long lost third Weinstein brother.

As shocking at it is, perhaps the most observant of his fans (all four or so of them) may have actually seen this coming. According to his wikipedia entry he has a surprisingly extensive music video filmography. He did all major videos for Limp Bizkit, a few Lincoln Park videos, Korn's "Falling Away From Me", a bunch of noteworthy Staind videos (including their immortal "I'm Been A While"), and Puddle of Mudd's megahit "Blurry". As much as I hate everything about the Nu-Metal dominance of my high school years, for better or for worse, some of these videos really defined the time for me. I unfortunately can remember a lot more about these videos then I'd care to. In a way he's sort of like the Hype Williams of turn of the millennium, angry white Nu-Metal, at least the Russell Mulcahy.

So will this be the modest first step towards a total career reinvention? From Family Values Tour to actual family values? Or will he suffer a similar fate as fellow double threat Fred Savage and his feature debut "Daddy Day Camp"? Maybe it's just a question of Faith.

I am the Bat.

Consider this just a random post script to my previous entry about the "Dark Knight." Like I've said, along with apparently the rest of the universe, the newest Batman film was definitely all kinds of awesome (blew away "Mask of the Phantasm" as my all time favorite Batman movie). It's probably not a stretch at all to say it is the greatest super hero movie ever made, however the jury's still out on if it really deserves that number one imdb ranking. I, for one, said the film was at least a few minor nitpicking criticisms shy of a flawless masterpiece.

The biggest little flaw for me in the film was actually one of the most enduring of traits of the franchise. Despite a film history of over 40 years, 8 films, live action, animation, and a handful of re-imaginings and resets, one thing still remains: that ridiculous sounding serious Batman voice! Like some sort of stubborn vestigial organ, each incarnation of the Batman will usually have some sort of extra-serious, "I'm being a Superhero", tone they use when they're under the hood.

Ironically, as outrageously campy and unrelated the Adam West Batman was, he probably had the most subtle bat-voice of the bunch. While his dialog was nowhere near subtle, the shift from his casual Bruce Wayne voice and his Batman persona was oddly nuanced...or maybe Adam West can only do Adam West. The Michael Keaton Batman voice really set the bar for contrasting badassness. I think this grew out of the darker vision of director Tim Burton along with the fact Keaton had to compensate for being the wimpiest nerd of a Bruce Wayne ever. The Kevin Conroy animated Batman had the best overall voice out of all the Batmen (makes sense since he's a voice actor). Whether he was Bruce or Batman he always sounded fairly badass, but it rarely crossed the line into outrageousness. Val Kilmer and George Clooney were both forgettably generic retreads of the old Keaton voice. One thing to note though, while Clooney may have been the worst Batman ever, in my opinion he was the best Bruce Wayne ever (Goddamn you're one suave fucker!).

In this latest entry into the franchise, Christian Bale ups the gravel to almost laughable proportions. It's all well and good and properly badass when he's just shooting out one liners ("Then you're gonna love me") while punching people or screaming orders; however when he's having serious introspective conversations about the the duality of man with Dent and Gordon or bantering with a psychotic Joker it just comes off as a bit ridiculous. Anytime where Batman had to speak more than a terse sentence, in the back of my head I kept picturing him just breaking down and laughing at how weird he sounded. The extra badass voice feels even more surreal when you see Bale as Bruce Wayne and you realize how much of a difference there is in tone and figure how much laughably needless amount of effort he's putting in to do "the voice" when talking as Batman.

One has to wonder why Batman even goes through the ridiculous charade of going through the voice. I guess it is probably part of the whole " transcending being just an individual into a symbol that strikes fear in the heart of criminals" mythology he's trying to perpetuate by dressing up as a bat in the first place (that was what basically half of "Batman Begins" was about). Maybe using the voice helps him get into that Batman state of mind that he needs when fighting crime (think Stallone turning his cap around before arm wrestling in "Over the Top"). Or perhaps it's just a practical measure, just so no one can recognize his voice and find out his true identity ("Hey, did anyone ever notice that Batman sounds a lot like billionaire playboy Bruce Wayne? I'm just saying.").

As odd as the voice seems at times, it's really no big deal overall. In fact, if you think about the Batman character as a whole it's probably one of the lesser eccentricities of a billionaire vigilante with a pro-ass kicking agenda, who wears a bat costume, drives around in an armored tank, and communicates through police via a gigantic searchlight. And this is not factoring in other crazy continuities like an adopted young ward and "Ace the Bat-Hound." It can all probably be chalked up as part of the necessary suspension of disbelief that comes with enjoying superhero movies. If I were a super hero I'd probably whip up some kind of special tone as well. In the end, I guess my question was just basically: Why so serious?

Best. Movie. Ever?

You know what the single greatest cinematic achievement by latest Batman blockbuster, "The Dark Knight" is? It's not the record breaking opening weekend. It's not the across the board acclaim from both critics and moviegoers. It's not the fact that it somehow managed to live up to and quite possibly exceed the outrageous hype and expectations of even the franchise's most devoted fans. Nor, will it be how it has transcended the genre and raised the bar for future superhero movies. It's not the early Oscar buzz for Heath Ledger's iconic portrayal of the Joker. It won't even be the rare posthumous Oscar if he ends up wining.

All of those achievements are well and good, but director Christopher Nolan and crew should take pride in the fact that they crafted a film that actually made me anticipate going to see it at the movies. Now, before you write that off, if you know me, that fact is nothing to sneeze at. Despite my love of cinema and pop culture, it takes a lot for me to actually get excited for a new movie to come out. When it comes to films I have an exceptional amount of patience (or perhaps apathy) and for about 95% of the stuff Hollywood throw out at me, I can easily just wait until they make their long, inevitable journey to TBS or TNT. The last film I actually had to see the opening weekend was in the summer of my senior year of high school: "Rush Hour 2" (I thought that trailer looked hilarious). In the seven years since that film, despite some of the biggest movies of all time coming out (Spiderman series, Lord of the Rings Trilogy, Pirates of the Caribbean Trilogy, The Harry Potter Movies, a couple of Star Wars prequels), nothing really got me excited until the "Dark Knight."

I'm not sure what it was, but something about the disturbing reimagining of the Joker and the unique, unsettling tone I got from the previews seem to indicate to me that this was going to distinguish itself from the standard explosive summer fare. I was so eager to see it that rather then waiting for a time to see it with friends materialize, or for finals to end, I embraced my love of solo movie watching and went out to the nearest theater I could find and caught the Sunday morning matinée. And like "Rush Hour 2", I was not disappointed. It was exciting, it was entertaining, surprisingly tragic, and it met all my expectations for a quality blockbuster, running just a few steps back from an overall masterpiece. Some of the secondary character could have been flushed out more, a healthy dose of suspension of disbelief was necessary at times, and I thought the film went on a little longer then it could have; but overall the positives far outweighed the negatives. Unless you have something against excitement and suspense in your summer blockbusters, this movie will not disappoint.

As good as the film was, I certainly think its current NUMBER 1 ranking on IMDB is completely insane. I've frequented the IMDB long enough to know that their top 250 list far from the most definitive, objective measure of a movie's greatness. It's got a strong populist lean and despite its complex clandestine balancing system; good, crowd pleasing, but ultimately hollow films will get artificially high rankings ("The Prestige" at 88? "Sin City" at 82? "Fight Club" at 24?). New movies tend to enter the list high and eventually recede. I think at one point "The Return of the King" was once in the Top 5. However, the top spot rank of "Dark Knight" is a shocking development. Since the dawn of internet "The Godfather" and "The Shawshank Redemption" reigned high above the top 250, forever solidly locked atop looking down at the sometimes chaotic nature at the rest of the list. Blockbusters came and went but the top remained the same. Even when the "Dark Knight" shot up to number 4 after its first midnight showings, I figured this was all just sort itself out. However when I checked again last night, it had already claimed the #1 spot with an average score of 9.5 to Godfather's 9.1.

After this game changing debut, I can only speculate as to the future of the Top 250. I would have originally said it would probably just fall back down to earth in the coming weeks, but now I don't know what to think. Maybe this shake up will destroy the legitimacy of the Top 250 and throw the list into a wild, unpredictable state of flux like the Bottom 100 got into after "Manos: The Hands of Fate" got dethroned. Maybe this is the proper mandate of the people and films with this sort of across the board success is what the Top 250 is all about. Maybe this is all just the work of obsessive fanboys, circumventing democracy. Maybe "Step Brothers" will be the new #1 next week.

In any case, "Dark Knight" was still a pretty awesome movie.