Crushed by Inertia

Untitled

2012-02-04T21:24:00.001-08:00

Taken at Gallery Bar

Posted via email from Lon Harris

Untitled

2012-02-04T21:23:00.001-08:00

Taken at Gallery Bar

Posted via email from Lon Harris

WILCO!!!

2012-01-25T21:19:00.001-08:00

Taken at The Wiltern

Posted via email from Lon Harris

How do I get this Companion Cube trapped under the fountain?

2012-01-22T11:32:00.001-08:00

Taken at Pershing Square

Posted via email from Lon Harris

Untitled

2012-01-19T22:19:00.001-08:00

Taken at Redwood Bar And Grill

Posted via email from Lon Harris

Segway parade down Wilshire. Just as MLK could have wanted.

2012-01-16T10:54:00.001-08:00

Taken at Ranker.com

Posted via email from Lon Harris

These guys have always been the caretaker here.

2012-01-14T20:36:00.001-08:00

Taken at Millennium Biltmore Hotel

Posted via email from Lon Harris

Old school DTLA weirdness... It's like Rapture in here.

2012-01-14T20:15:00.001-08:00

Taken at Gallery Bar

Posted via email from Lon Harris

Johnson breaking in the new sheets

2012-01-13T23:53:00.001-08:00

Posted via email from Lon Harris

Sunset over Los Angeles

2012-01-13T17:02:00.003-08:00

Taken at Ranker.com

Posted via email from Lon Harris

Sunset over Los Angeles

2012-01-13T17:02:00.001-08:00

Taken at Ranker.com

Posted via email from Lon Harris

I wasn't aware Umbrella Corp. had gotten into the tea business...

2012-01-11T10:38:00.001-08:00

Taken at Ranker.com

Posted via email from Lon Harris

Conventional dog beds can't contain him!

2012-01-10T19:58:00.001-08:00

Taken at Downtown Los Angeles

Posted via email from Lon Harris

California Christmas

2011-12-25T15:59:00.001-08:00

Posted via email from Lon Harris

Good night sweet prince

2011-12-03T13:10:00.001-08:00

Posted via email from Lon Harris

After so much Arkham City, feel like I should be hitting these with pulse guns and sliding underneath.

2011-11-21T20:30:00.001-08:00

Posted via email from Lon Harris

Mike Mine Muppet

2011-11-21T09:02:00.001-08:00

Let me preface by saying that I like the Muppets, have a tremendous amount of respect for the artistry and creativity of Jim Henson and his team and already have tickets to the new "Muppets" film for later this week. Having said that...

You really have to give it up to Disney for marketing the shit out of this property over the last couple of years online. I'm old enough to recall nobody really giving a crap about Muppets any more and feeling like the loss of Henson killed the franchise. There is more excitement for this upcoming film than any Muppet property I can recall, and this includes Henson projects when he was still alive, like "Dark Crystal," "Storyteller" or "Labyrinth."

I also got a chance to revisit Season 1 of "The Muppet Show" not too long ago, and was surprised to see that it mainly consisted not of brilliant, savvy, highbrow comedy, but of a lot of puppets rhythmically swinging side-to-side, with the occasional one-liner thrown in for good measure. (They were very big on the "this Muppet/human guest star is stealing the spotlight but I want it for myself!" bit in those early days.) I know the show picked up in later seasons, but we also have a tendency to just remember the classic "Mahna Mahna" moments. Likewise, "Great Muppet Caper" is really the only film in the franchise to hold up the entire way through. "Muppet Movie" is good but kind of drags, and even the remembered-as-a-classic "Muppets Take Manhattan" is pretty flat and oddly-serious (almost creepy) in its final half hour.

Not sure what, if anything, has actually changed, aside from a brilliant YouTube campaign and some killer tongue-in-cheek TV spots. But it occurs to me that Jason Segal and the new filmmakers and cast have the challenge of not just updating the Muppets but also making it actually live up to the somewhat unreasonable expectations the marketing has created. I hope they get there.

[Photo is Kermit and Piggy with Avery Schreiber. How could kids NOT be into this?]

Posted via email from Lon Harris

Black Francis. Believe this was shot during "Vamos."

2011-11-20T14:27:00.001-08:00

Posted via email from Lon Harris

That's the Pixies!

2011-11-19T21:25:00.001-08:00

Taken at The Music Box

Posted via email from Lon Harris

Ice skating in Downtown LA

2011-11-18T21:22:00.001-08:00

Taken at Pershing Square

Posted via email from Lon Harris

An Open Letter to the Film/TV Crew That's Shooting on Park View St. in Los Angeles

2011-11-16T20:11:00.001-08:00

Hi Team -

You seem like a busy, industrious group of professionals, so I'll get right to the point.

You're taking too long. I have no idea what film you're shooting, but you have been camped out at this single location for weeks now. If this is a movie shoot, that movie is going to be seriously stagnant. (Was it based on a play? I still recommend breaking up the dialogue-heavy scenes with more interstitial action, at this point, or you're likely to only get attention if you have some mega-watt stars in there and it opens in late December.)

Unless Stan Kubrick has risen from the grave to make an "Eyes Wide Shut" follow-up, or the entire next season of "The Walking Dead" concerns the gang looking for Sophia on this one street (granted, this is a possibility), I can't imagine your project is really going to require this much coverage. We're talking about the entrance to one building and a side of MacArthur Park.

Normally, this wouldn't really bother me. (Or, it might, but I'd keep it to myself.) But the frankly ludicrous amount of trucks, equipment, parked period automobiles and people standing around that you have brought with you are clogging up the nearby streets, and thus unnecessarily extending my commute home each night. One evening, I was at a dead-stop for over 10 minutes while you filmed some kind of shootout (probably to prevent anachronistic cars from appearing in the background of the shot.) As a cinema-lover, I'm willing to indulge a passionate filmmaking collective and put up with a certain amount of inconvenience... but I have my limits.

Also, isn't this location kind of cliche and overused? I've seen MacArthur Park in a ton of other movies and TV shows lately. It figures prominently into this season of "American Horror Story." Didn't you see "Drive"? That's right where Ryan Gosling met Christina Hendricks for the first time. Is it just because there's that famous song about the cake in the rain set there? I gotta level with you - most people hate that song, and I'm betting the majority of you're audience doesn't even know what the hell I'm talking about right now.

The point is, there are any number of interesting LA parks that are not directly on my way home, and thus would be preferable for you to use as a setting for your latest opus. If you're interested, I'd be delighted to take on the role of "emergency last minute location scout" and provide some helpful suggestions for a small fee. Which you can clearly afford because you're shutting down whole city blocks in Los Angeles for weeks at a time.

In closing, let me just say that if this anything related to the next season of "Mad Men," the forthcoming "Batman" film or anything associated with David Fincher, Martin Scorsese, Terrence Malick, the Coen Brothers or any other filmmakers I respect and admire, I withdraw my argument. But I doubt it.

Posted via email from Lon Harris

Sometimes at night, things get really quiet, and it's weird to be Downtown...

2011-11-15T23:32:00.001-08:00

Posted via email from Lon Harris

Christmas in LA

2011-11-14T20:38:00.001-08:00

Taken at Pershing Square

Posted via email from Lon Harris

The Ladies of Lutefisk

2011-11-12T19:58:00.001-08:00

Taken at Norrana lodge

Posted via email from Lon Harris

Talk about appointment TV...

2011-11-12T19:26:00.001-08:00

Taken at Norrana lodge

Posted via email from Lon Harris

Untitled

2011-11-12T14:36:00.001-08:00

Taken at Pershing Square

Posted via email from Lon Harris

Stuck in the couch. This is the Johnson version of "127 Hours."

2011-11-06T12:51:00.001-08:00

Posted via email from Lon Harris

I bet you thought they were only famous for the swamps...

2011-11-03T21:58:00.001-07:00

Posted via email from Lon Harris

Untitled

2011-10-30T09:59:00.001-07:00

Taken at Angels Flight Railway

Posted via email from Lon Harris

Johnson's a land shark!

2011-10-28T20:05:00.001-07:00

Posted via email from Lon Harris

Game of Thrones Project CONCLUDES! Episodes 8, 9 and 10 reviewed!

2011-10-23T12:51:00.001-07:00

Was thinking of splitting this all into two posts but... screw it, this has gone on long enough. Time to wrap up this epic retelling of the entire first season of "Game of Thrones" and move on to other things, like rewatching the entire series "The Larry Sanders Show" on Netflix Streaming. (Not going to copiously take notes on that one for fear of carpal tunnel... That show was on for 100 years.)

Forgive my Episode 9 round-up... I lost about half of my diligent notes made while watching the episode by stupidly forgetting to sync Evernote. (My own fault, not Evernote's. Still love and highly recommend that app.) But I have managed to reconstruct most of my thoughts from memory, and with a bit of help from Wikipedia's episode summary.

So here we go...

EPISODE 8: THE POINTY END

Episode 7 ended with Ned Stark refusing to recognize Joffrey Baratheon (but really Joffrey Lannister) as the new King, after being betrayed by Petyr Baelish. Now we find he's been accused of treason, and Lannister soldiers are coming after Arya Stark, who's still at King's Landing, under the watchful eye of her swordfighting maestro.

We learn a bit more about Syrio and his people - the Braavosi - in this episode, including that they never run away from a fight, no matter how hopeless. So, obviously, he's dead soon enough, and there's a great moment where one of the soldiers orders another to "Kill the braavosi, kill the girl" and you REALLY hope he finishes with "take the cannolis," but alas, it is not to be.

Arya manages to get away, and in doing so, accidentally kills a fat kid. This is never really referenced again, and I can't help but feel like it would have more impact if I knew who the kid was. (I'm pretty sure he's never been in the show before, and is just some stable boy.) But there you have it.

(QUESTION: Would have upset audiences more if the victim was a random skinny kid? Less? The same? Discuss.)

Meanwhile, we see that Ned is being kept alive in a dungeon, with Lord Varys as his only visitor. Varys brings him water and gives him vague updates of the news outside. Varys also implies that he's the only one in King's Landing who actually wants to do what's best for "the Realm," while all the others squabble over petty rivalries. It's absolutely an accurate characterization of this world and its politics... the question never arises of who would be the best monarch, and what would represent the best interests of the civilization as a whole. No one seems to care about much save the "honor" and reputation of their house. It's part of what makes "Game of Thrones" so hard to get into emotionally - nearly all the characters, save possibly the Starks (more on this in a bit) - have the same toxic worldview. Who do you root for when everyone's a sick perverted shit?

We cut to Sansa Stark, who is being blackmailed by Queen Cersei and her new bestie, Petyr Baelish, into selling out her family. She's being instructed to write to her mother and Robb Stark, telling them to swear fealty to Prince Joffrey. Otherwise, she won't become Queen and her father will be killed. Sansa agrees.

Robb, on the other hand, clearly seems to want a war with the new King, and is calling up an army. We get a scene where Catelyn Stark goes to her weird sister, Lysa, asking for her personal army's help in the coming war, but Lysa refuses. We're also quickly getting a lesson in the politics of the area Lysa presides over, known as "The Vale." Also, we're once again being reminded that her grown son likes to breastfeed. You know, just in case we momentarily forgot that everyone who lives in the Westeros has some bizarre kinky fetish.

SPEAKING OF PERVERTS (easily my most-used segue in this entire series of posts), Tyrion Lannister and his new "champion," Bronn, wander in The Vale (hey, that place from before!) after escaping Lysa Arryn's castle. They are set upon by a mountain tribe called the Stonecrows, who seem to want to rob and/or rape them, until Tyrion offers to bring them to his father and turn over the entire Vale to the "hill tribes." (See, lords like Lysa Arryn have long presided over The Vale and made things unpleasant for the hill folk. Possibly by referring to them as "hill folk," which no one really appreciates, even dirty guys with big stone hammers who live on hills.) The Stonecrows take the bait.

Jon Snow is still at the Wall in the Night's Watch when he gets the word about Lord Stark's arrest. He gets into a fight with a guy Wikipedia tells me is named Alliser Thorne, who calls him a "Traitor's Bastard." (Oooooh, that guy I had to look up! He's incorrigible, apparently!) Snow is confined to his quarters.

MEANWHILE IN PENTOS

The Dothraki are getting ready to sail for the Westeros, and to finance the trip, they've started pillaging villages and raping the women. (I humbly suggest we start just referring to this behavior, in shorthand, as RR Martining. Just for the sake of ease, because it comes up so often. As in: "The Dothrakis enter the village and start RR Martining all over the place. Pretty much every house gets RR Martined.")

I'm also starting to see how George RR has done the Tolkein thing of having different parts of this world obviously represent different areas of Earth. Like how Braavos is home to crude Italian stereotypes who accept challenges from 8 guys with actual swords while armed only with 1 wooden sword. This area (unnamed in the show, near as I could tell, but Lhazar on the wiki) has a Middle Eastern flavor.

We also get insight into just how central Spirit Animals are to every culture in this world. The Dothraki are horse people, the Lhazari are sheep people, so the Dothraki feel superior. (They only rape Lhazari women, for example, and don't marry them, because a horse would never marry a sheep. A horse would probably not marry another horse either, because they don't do that sort of thing, but stop being such a stickler.)

It's interesting that the animal motif is important on Westeros as well - every house has its animal emblem, and some, like the Targaryans and their 'dragon blood,' take it more seriously than others - but in a slightly different, more overtly symbolic way. Anyway, subtext! Always good.

The Khaleesi sees all the RR Martining going on and feels like that's more a Showtime thing than HBO, so she tries to call it off. Mago, however, a Dothraki lieutenant (or whatever) feels strongly that the men should be allowed to rape as a reward for serving the Khal so nobly in battle. Also, I feel I should point out that Drogo specifically said, in front of his wife, that they were going to go do some RR Martining just last episode, so I fail to see how this is a huge surprise.

Anyway, even though Khal Drogo backs up Khaleesi, the decision doesn't sit right with Mago. He was REALLY looking forward to the rape. He's like that guy, when a group of dudes agree to go to a strip club, who is clearly TOO excited about the decision and sort of weirds all the other guys out.

Mago challenges Drogo and, um, loses, but not before wounding the Khal pretty badly. One of the non-raped sheep ladies - who may or may not be a witch - agrees to heal The Khal, and the Khaleesi agrees. She has no choice, because if the Khal dies, she doesn't actually have any power over the Dothraki and will most likely get RR Martined. Oh, you Dothraki and your constant excuses to rape. Let's make a show about you.

Back in Winterfell, Robb Stark gets into an animated argument with Greatjon Umber about who will lead the vanguard of his new army. The argument gets so animated that Robb's wolf leaps across the table and bites off two of Greatjon's fingers, after which they all have a good laugh. Maybe start, I don't know, keeping the wolves outside? These maulings seem to keep happening. We're up to like 3 an episode.

Bran and the weird forest lady from north of the Wall have become fast friends. So they're just letting her roam around the castle now? Anyway, she's upset that everyone's distracted by the fight over succession when the soldiers should really be heading North, to fight the mysterious White Walkers who turn you into some kind of creepy frost zombies. While they're talking, mentally disabled stableboy Hodor stumbles into the frame, nude, saying "Hodor" for no good reason. Subtext? Or just random wang? We'll see if this pays off later.

[Image from here]

Back at the Lannister camp, Tyrion introduces Dad to his new friends, the hill folk! Tywin, who has just been appointed the new Hand of the King, agrees to turn over The Vale to them if they fight by his side. The Hill People insist that Tyrion ride into battle with them, so they can hold him to his deal. They drive a hard bargain!

The, the episode ends on kind of a weird, muted note considering all that has come before. Sansa is begging for mercy for her Dad, arguing that he was being treated for his leg injury with "milk of the poppy" (the Game of Thrones version of being hopped up on goofballs.) Joffrey agrees to be merciful if Ned Stark confesses and confirms that he is the real king. And that's it.

This episode itself felt kind of off in general. It's an obvious bridge needed to set the stage for the really big, sweeping, dramatic final two episodes... but not nearly as compelling in general as the previous few. It was reminiscent of the show in its early stages, all foreboding speeches about how "Winter is Coming" and hints of the intrigue to come.

EPISODE 9: BAELOR

Once more, Varys has come to visit Ned Stark, and once again, he insists that he's the lone champion for peace in the entire kingdom. If that's true, it pretty much means he's doing a shitty shitty job. Maybe he should STOP promoting peace so much and see if that works better.

He also presents Ned with a fairly compelling argument for telling the Lannisters what they want to hear to save everyone's life. Is this the first time in the entire series anyone has suggested that anything is more important than your family's honor? Arguably so. Of course, Ned refuses such a ridiculous notion.

The Starks need to cross the River Trident, the crossing for which is controlled by the House of Frey and its... wait for it... PERVERTED Lord, Walder Frey. (He likes to feel up girls while presiding over court and says stuff like "A little flower... and her honey's all mine.")

He's also the janitor from the Harry Potter films. (No, really, not like I was saying Joffrey is "Draco Malfoy" just because there's a resemblance. Walder is actually played by David Bradley, the janitor from the Harry Potter films.)

At this point, it's like George is running a personal contest to determine which lord fo the realm is the biggest creep. Why would anyone want to be in charge of this place, and have to interact with all these whackadoos all day? (It's a good thing shaking hands never became a cultural practice in this culture or everyone would die of Hep C like immediately.)

Catelyn Stark goes to negotiate with Walder, so he will allow the army to cross, and he starts actually making a lot of sense. "Stark, Tully, Lannister, Baratheon… give me one good reason why I should waste a single thought on any of you." Sometimes, I gotta tell you... I feel the same way...

Catelyn eventually gets him to agree not just to allow the armies across the river, but to send along his own troops. And all she has to promise him as that Arya will marry his son and Robb will marry his daughter. They'll probably throw in sex with the Khaleesi as well, just because that seems to be part of most of these high-level Westeros coital negotiations.

Back at Castle Black, near the Wall, we find out that Jon Snow's commander is Jeor Mormont, the father of disgraced knight Jorah Mormont, who now serves the Khaleesi. Were we supposed to know that before this? Anyway, he gives Jon a sword that he was originally going to give to Jorah before the whole "slavery/disgrace the family name" thing.

In quite possibly the most dynamic scene featuring the Jon Snow character thus far, possibly because not much is required of Kit Harrington, Jon is confronted by the old blind member of the Night's Watch. This turns out to be Aemon Targaryen, the "Mad King's" brother. The two of them reflect on how difficult it is to be in the Night's Watch and no longer be allowed to fight on behalf of their families. (Aemon was hanging out at The Wall as his entire family was being purged.) Shouldn't he be a dragon or something?

Back at Camp Lannister (for Aryan kids who always pay their debts!), Tywin - just to be a dick - puts Tyrion and the Hill Folk in the vanguard, basically a death sentence. (Nice contrast here from Greatjon's angry insistence that he be put in the vanguard of Stark's army in the previous episode. We once again see how the modern Tyrion's attitudes contrast with nearly everyone else in his society.)

Tyrion spends what may be his last night of life playing drinking games with Bronn and a prostitute named Shae, played by Sibel Kekilli. (Side Note about Kekilli: She starred in the amazing 2004 German/Turkish co-production "Head-On," and if you haven't seen that film, you really really should. Also before that she was in porn. Just putting that out there.)

At Shae's insistence, Tyrion opens up about the fate of his wife. She was a prostitute Jamie Lannister had hired to play at being a rape victim, so Tyrion could swoop in and save her. After Tyrion married her, Tywin gave her to his troops to RR Martin, and made the kid watch. (OK, was starting to get worried we'd get an entire episode with just a child molestation and no rape. Go Tyrion with the last minute save.)

Back in Pentos, Drogo's wound from last episode is infected. He's dying. The rest of the Dothraki mutually agree it's pretty un-Khal-like. Khaleesi brings in the witch (or is she?) and begs her to save the Khal's life. She agrees, but it involves a forbidden blood ritual. The Dothraki try to put a stop to the use of dark magic but Jorah successfully fights them off. Then just as the Khal's horse is being slaughtered ritualistically, the Khaleesi goes into labor! Hijinks! Grab the suitcase! Get some hot water! Did you print out the directions?!?!?

You just know the baby's going to be healthy and strong because she was so careful with her diet while pregnant.

All the battles are disappointingly, but predictably, held off-screen. Robb outwitted Tywin Lannister, we hear, by allowing a scout to report back that the Starks had 20,000 men, only to divert 18,000 of them to go fight Jamie Lannister's army instead of Tywin's. So Tywin expends all of his force to rout 2,000 Stark soldiers (wonder if they heard about this plan in advance?), leaving Jamie's army exposed and easily overcome.

No worries about those 2,000 soldiers Robb just sacrificed, though, cause Theon says one day the bards will write songs about them. It'd be like telling Hurricane Carter not to worry about spending all those years in jail cause... hey... that Dylan song is aces.

Tyrion survived the battle, as did Bronn. Jamie Lannister has been captured by the Starks.

Finally, Ned is on the gallows, Sansa is standing by with the King, Arya is hiding out in the crowd, and he decides to listen to Lord Varys. Significantly, Ned casts aside his pride and the Stark family name, and pledges his loyalty to Joffrey, hoping to save his daughters by lowering himself. Joffrey has him executed anyway. The dastard!

Exeunt.

So Episode 9 was clearly the best episode of "Game of Thrones" to date. Does it pay off all the build-up that came before? Um... a bit. I still can't shake the feeling that we've spent a lot of time setting up things that don't really matter all that much, while leaving things that it would be good to know more about to the side. (Greyjoy Family, I'm looking in your direction.)

But at the same time, it's obvious that there's just so much going on in this world, there'd be no adequate way to set everything up and still keep the show compelling as a show. I honestly do think some sort of primer or 30 minute "Introduction to the Westeros" would have been MASSIVELY helpful to air before the series premiere and then frequently thereafter.

EPISODE 10: FIRE AND BLOOD

Ned's dead, baby. Ned's dead.

We open the season finale with Lord Stark's head being held aloft above a cheering crowd, and Arya being rushed away by Yoren. (I didn't recognize him, but apparently he was introduced early in the season as the traveling recruiter for the Night's Watch.) Yoren cuts off Arya's hair and starts calling her "boy"; he's planning to disguise her and sneak her back to the North.

The Forest Woman at this point has basically adopted Bran. He's telling her about his creepy 3-eyed raven dream, and it turns out, Bran's younger brother has been having the same visions of their father in the family crypt. Cause he's dead, folks!

Catelyn and Robb Stark get the news as well, and react with seething anger and a desire for vengeance. Catelyn: "We have to get the girls back… then we'll kill them all." Oh, if only AC/DC had done the soundtrack... this would have been their time to shine.

Joffrey, meanwhile, is clearly going to be an awesome king. His first act is to torment a man who made up a funny song about him in a tavern, by having his tongue cut out. Then he tells Sansa: "As soon as you've had your blood, I'll put a son in you." Oh, I bet you say that to all the girls.

Oh, and then he takes her outside and shows her Ned's head on a spike. Pretty standard for Date #3.

Robb's generals, meanwhile, are debating who they should back as the next king in Joffrey's place. Stannis and Renly Baratheon - the dead King Robert's brothers - are discussed and dismissed. Greatjon then nominates Robb Stark for the title, starting a chant of "The King of the North!" Really? Greatjon? That guy who, just last episode, has his fingers bitten off by Robb's wolf? I guess that's politics for you. He disagrees with his "domesticated wolf" position but likes his take on the estate tax.

Catelyn and her new prisoner, Jamie Lannister, have a heart-to-heart. Jamie talks about being an atheist, and admits to pushing Bran out the window (though he won't say why, exactly.) Catelyn hits him with a rock.

Cersei, meanwhile, is with some random non-Jamie naked guy who is talking like her collaborator. "What's our next move?" and all that. Interesting that this is just being shown in passing now. Possibly Jamie is out of the picture next season and Cersei will need a new partner in crime?

The Lannisters are also debating THEIR next move after last week's humiliating defeat. It would REALLY be helpful to have a slightly better idea for the geography of the Westeros to actually follow the conversation. I have no clue where they are in relation to anyone else.

Tywin and Tyrion both agree that Joffrey having Ned killed was the wrong move, calling it "madness and stupidity." Tywin is observing that his son - who he's always dismissed as frail and useless - has a sharp, strategic mind. He decides to send Tyrion to King's Landing to serve as Hand of the King in his stead. Sadly, he's not invited to bring his new favorite prostitute, Shae, along, but he does anyway.

Khaleesi's son was stillborn, and also freakish, covered in scales and with "leather wings like a bat." (Or a DRAGON??!??!?!?!??!) Everyone's predictably blaming the blood ritual, including the witch, who now says this was the life that had to be swapped for Drogo. (What about the horse, then? He had a wife and 12 foals!) Oh, also, Drogo's technically alive of braindead, causing the Dothraki army to move on and desert them. The witch was not exactly aiming to please.

(She confesses that she ruined everything for Khaleesi on purpose, as punishment for destroying her temple. Plus the rape. But mostly the temple.)

Snow decides he's going to leave the Wall and help his family (after we in the audience see the first big battle is over, an odd dramatic choice), then turns back when confronted by his new Night's Watch friends. It's a largely uneventful plot strand for the season finale... it ends with a bunch of the Night's Watch members leaving to go venture north of the Wall, which has the promise of excitement to come in Season 2... but I'm not exactly on the edge of my seat. They couldn't have given us a bit more beyond the Wall to whet the appetite for Season 2?

More interesting is a little scene with Pycelle, the Grand Maester who's a constant presence at court, and who is bragging to a prostitute about all the various Kings he has served. We see that he's a lot more youthful and spry than he lets on, and the "doddering old man" bit is an act. Hmm...

Petyr and Varys also have a scene that's clearly meant to set up some of the events of Season 2, in which they basically compliment one another on being shadowy, duplicitous figures working behind the scenes to get what they want. Fair enough, though it seems like a conversation that wouldn't actually happen.

Saying goodbye to Arya, we find her hiding out with a bunch of orphans heading for the Wall. So... she cut her hair slightly... and brought along her fancy sword. This is an excellent disguise.

Finally, Daenerys (no longer a Khaleesi) puts together a funeral pyre for Drogo. For good measure, she puts the dragon eggs in there, plus the shepherd witch lady. (She frees the rest of the Lhazari people.) Then, she walks into the fire herself.

In the dramatic final scene, we see her the next morning. Alive, naked and with 3 new baby dragon buddies.

What, you got a no-nudity clause for Season 2? I'm calling my agent.

This entire side of the plot - with Daenerys now feeling a real claim to the Iron Throne and possibly having the strength of will to make a play for it (plus help from dragons) - is probably the most eagerly anticipated Season 2 plotline, and arguably the only real "cliffhanger" moment in this entire finale.

The other stories are a bit more muddled. We know that the Night's Watch will proceed North of the Wall to have it out with... some kind of mortal, existential threat. But we basically knew that 5 minutes into the first episode, and that mystery hasn't really deepened since then. The enemy is such a vague menace, and has been such a background element of the show all along, it's hard to suddenly find it so threatening just because one character keeps insisting.

The war between Stark and Lannister, as well, ends on a muted note. The first major victory was the Stark's, but it has had little real-world impact. After all, Catelyn Stark has had a Lannister as a captive for most of the first season, Joffrey still has the throne, Tywin seems as intractable a foe as ever...

Also, because so much of the landscape, and the strategic victories that would have to be won to truly take control of the Seven Kingdoms, remain unknown, I have no concept of how this war will develop. Are there more rivers to cross and lords to negotiate with? Do the Tullys need to be involved? Other families? Other warlords and tribes? Who at King's Landing must be turned in order to win control of the government? I'm sure there are answers to these questions, but I'm not even sure which are the right questions.

I will say this: The show's willingness to kill anyone and everyone, seemingly at random, in order to keep viewers guessing is admirable. After watching this entire season, I legitimately feel like anyone could be killed in any episode, which is a much more realistic way to approach a scenario like this than in most TV shows, where you can be relatively certain the most likeable characters and main characters will be okay. (Imagine if Tony had died in the second-to-last episode of the first "Sopranos" season. Or if the first season of "Curb Your Enthusiasm" involved Richard Lewis being gored to death in a boar hunt. That would be a totally different show!)

But the final verdict on my revisiting of "Game of Thrones"? I have a clearer idea for why people liked it, and now that I've really done the hard work of watching this season attentively and following up on characters and plotlines that confused me... I'm duly sucked in and will have no choice but to watch Season 2. You win, Internet. You always win.

Posted via email from Lon Harris

She looks angry...

2011-10-22T13:50:00.001-07:00

Posted via email from Lon Harris

Today's featured parade on my street: Panamanian

2011-10-22T11:53:00.001-07:00

Posted via email from Lon Harris

DYLA

2011-10-21T22:44:00.001-07:00

Posted via email from Lon Harris

I'm going to need closure on this...

2011-10-18T21:44:00.001-07:00

Posted via email from Lon Harris

Game of Thrones Season 1: Episodes 6-7 Review

2011-10-18T01:23:00.001-07:00

Back again with a double header of "Game of Thrones" reviews as we now inch ever closer to the dramatic close of the first season. Am I finally being won over to Team Stark, embracing the sometimes overwhelming Westeros Universe and letting go of my petty "this is basically just softcore with more piping hot alloys being melted over main characters' faces" complaints? Let's find out...

EPISODE 6: A GOLDEN CROWN

As you'll recall from Episode 5 (or at the very least, my recap of Episode 5), Ned was stabbed in the leg by one of Jamie Lannister's personal soldiers. Now we cut to him convalescing in bed, only to find both the King and Queen staring him down. Cersei is still feeling vindictive over Lady Stark's arrest of her brother Tyrion, but King Robert feels more sympathetic towards Ned and, before all is said and done, he gives the Queen a good smack. (Hey, he apologizes later for being "not kingly"! That's about as good as you're likely to get from this guy, ladies.)

Anyway, there's some genuinely well-written dialogue here between Ned and the King. For the first time, we're starting to understand just how dependent Robert's entire reign is on his wife's family and their wealth. He's massively indebted to the Lannisters; he has no choice but to keep them happy or risk losing his throne. He's practically begging Ned to have Tyrion released, but disguises it with his usual bluster. ("I'm the king. I get what I want.") Anyway, Mark Addy plays it just right, and it works.

Switching over to Vaes Dothrak, the Khaleesi is again obsessing over her family's ancestral dragon eggs. This time, she's resting them on some hot coals. (I guess she really is tired of eating horse meat!) When she's able to pick up the flaming-hot dragon eggs without burning her hands, it becomes clear that... I'm not sure... she's somehow connected with the dragons? Like Harry Potter with snakes? I'm sure this is going somewhere, but it sure has been a long time developing this "the blonde lady really likes preserved fetal dragons" sub-plot with not much payoff so far. (OK, OK, it does get paid off later in this very episode, but I didn't know that while I was watching it, you guys.)

We're going to need an assload of Tapatio. And maybe some shredded cheese.

Back in Winterfell, Bran Stark yet again dreams of that creepy three-eyed crow. This time, in his dream, it's perched atop the head of a wolf statue. This seems like a bad omen, what with the dire wolf being the symbol of the Stark Family and all. I mean, sure, I'm making a leap here and assuming that a three-eyed crow is a BAD omen rather than a happy omen. (The whole "third eye vision" thing suggests that we're seeing an omen of SOME kind.) Maybe it's a happy crow - like one of those racist crows from "Dumbo" - and it's just coming around to cheer Bran up. This is high fantasy... George RR can do whatever the fuck he wants!

Anyway, Bran tries out the special saddle Tyrion suggested, and it works beautifully. But it does lead him into the forest where he's set upon by creepy forest people. His older brother Robb attempts a rescue but it doesn't come off so well, and it eventually falls to Theon Greyjoy (who secretly hates the Starks and has been pulling for a Stark/Lannister conflict) to save the day. He does, and wants to kill the last remaining woman from the Forest People group... but Robb stops him.

(As an aside, I didn't have to learn Robb Stark's name or anything about him until this episode. Up until now, I've been calling him Stark Jr. in my notes and I never had to actually look it up. It's Episode 6.)

Back at King's Landing, Arya has another swordfighting lesson with Father Guido... uh, her swordfighting instructor who is not at all a crude-a Italian stereotype-a. The Situation of Swashbuckling is full of little gems of wisdom like "There is only one God, and his name is Death." Which is all well and good, but Bill O'Reilly would argue that still doesn't explain the tides going in and out.

Back in Vaes Dothrak, the Khaleesi is performing some kind of weird pregnancy ritual that involves eating - and not throwing up - an entire horse's heart. Which is every bit at unpleasant as it sounds. Plus it comes with a site of bleu cheese fries, and those are so good that you can't eat just one, even if you also had an entire horse's heart. Khaleesi keeps it all down, once again proving that she is kind of a badass. She also decides during the ceremony that her baby will be named Rhaego, which is a shame, because Buster Khal really does have a nice ring to it.

Viserys, clearly growing concerned about his tenuous position with the Dothraki, makes the case to Mormont that the baby won't be "a real Targaryan." (It's totally not going to be invited to play on the softball team at the family reunion next month. )

Viserys is also trying to make a case for stealing the dragon eggs, and offers Mormont his sister's sexual favors in exchange for letting him escape with them. This is basically Viserys' only currency. He doesn't believe in paper money or coinage at all. Just offers of sex somewhere down the road with his sister. It makes going to the market a considerably more awkward task, especially on double coupon day. Mormont refuses the generous offer.

Back at the castle of Lady Stark's creepy sister, Lysa Arryn, Tyrion Lannister is being held in a "sky cell," of which he's not a huge fan. To get inside, he claims to want to confess, but ends up just telling disgusting stories instead and making a mockery of the proceedings. (That rogue!)

Next comes, honestly, one of the silliest scenes I can recall seeing in an otherwise dramatic series. Tyrion argues that he wants a Trial by Combat, which I guess means he gets to just fight someone and if he wins, he's innocent. But then, he argues that he should be allowed to pick someone else to fight on his behalf, to which Lysa agrees. Really? She agrees to letting him order some other guy to fight for him, and if that guy wins, he gets set free? If the goal was just to get a bunch of strangers to kill each other for no good reason, then yes, I'd say this is a perfect way to dispense with justice.

But if the goal is actually to figure out if someone is guilty of something, and maybe prevent them from doing the same thing over again with impunity... then this won't do at all. Why even hold a trial if you're willing to just replace the outcome with random strangers trying to kill each other?

Honestly, this whole bit just feels like the writers were in a corner and needed a way to get Tyrion Lannister out of this situation, so they invented a legal code that proceeds about as orderly and rational as a game of Calvinball. Anyway, Tyrion's champion wins the fight and thus, he walks, which is the sort of thing that probably happens all the time in this universe.

Next, we're back at King's Landing where a whole string of fairly confusing things happens all at once, and I had to look up what was going on just to be able to write a summary.

Basically, Ned fills in for the King at court, while the King is out on a hunt. Ned hears a grievance against Ser Gregor "The Mountain" Clegane (the big guy who fought with his brother at the tournament in Episode 5), who has apparently been attacking villages we've never seen before. Through research online, I was able to piece together that Ser Gregor is loyal to Tywin Lannister, the father of all these other Lannisters that have populated the show, and Gregor's attacking these places (called "The Riverlands") in retaliation for Tyrion's arrest by Lady Stark.

I'd argue there is no possible way anyone could have put this together just from the material as presented in this episode. It all is described too quickly and the references are all to obscure things never depicted previously on screen.

This guy is Ser Gregor! You might remember him from that ONE OTHER TIME we've seen him, in the whole show, when probably someone might say his name aloud I bet!

Anyway, Ned orders him stripped of all his titles and property and orders him brought in to face justice. This seems to be playing in to what everyone wants, which is for the Lannisters and Starks to fight it out, thus creating a vacuum on the throne that someone else can come in and fill. But who knows... maybe Ned has another plan in mind.

We get a scene where Prince Joffrey goes to Sansa Stark to apologize for his behavior up until now and give her some jewelry. This interaction would be almost sweet if they weren't already established as the two worst people in the world.

Speaking of horrible people, we cut back to Theon briefly, who's seeing his favorite prostitute leave him en route to King's Landing. He gives her a coin to see her vagina one last time. This is romantic by "Game of Thrones" standards.

Back in King's Landing, Ned studies the lineages of all the great houses of the Westeros, focusing his attention on the King's House, Baratheon. (This book seems handy. They should really give out a copy to everyone who subscribes to HBO.) He then notices that... wait for it... all the Baratheons have BLACK hair. And Prince Joffrey has BLONDE hair, which apparently he never noticed before. So this means Joffrey ISN'T ROBERT'S REAL SON!

This is, without a doubt, the dumbest scene in the show so far. It make the "I want that random guy to fight for my innocence" bit feel like "Inherit the Wind" in comparison. No one ever noticed before that Joffrey was the only one in the family with blonde hair? ROBERT, his supposed father, who obsessed over maintaining his family's hold on the throne, hadn't picked up on it? No one thought anything of it until Ned got this book out?

The episode ends with Khal Drogo holding a feast in honor of the Khaleesi, which Viserys interrupts, drunk. Worst of all, Viserys openly threatens young Rhaego. Drogo reacts the only way he possibly could, by coating Viserys with molten gold, killing him in the most ghastly manner imaginable. Khaleesi looks on, coldly... "He was no dragon."

See? Now it makes sense why she has the dragon eggs and can hold them and stuff. She... is a dragon? Hang on, I think I missed something...

EPISODE 7: YOU WIN OR YOU DIE

We get our first look here at Papa Lannister, played by Charles Dance, whom acute film fans will remember from his roles in classics like "Alien 3," "Ali G In Da House," "Scoop" and "Last Action Hero." Yeah, he's really in all of those. When we first see him, he's gutting a stag. Is this symbolism, because the stag is the symbol of House Baratheon? Or is it just gross to be gross? You decide.

Tywin's giving what is, by now, such a recognizable "Game of Thrones" stump speech, they really don't even need to bother writing them any more. Just have a chime go off and we'll imagine someone talking about how individual lives don't matter, but it's the family name that lives on. We also gather from this discussion that, even before the grisly events of Episode 6, the Targaryans were seen as a "nothing house." The whole system is really starting to remind me of college fraternities. ("So, you guys pledging Tully House?")

Ned and the Queen have a real heart-to-heart following his blonde hair/black hair revelation. (Seriously... still not over what a stupid plot device this is. Does the entire kingdom have a learning disorder?)

The truth finally comes out... Jamie and Cersei Lannister are brother and sister, but they have sex to preserve the purity of the family bloodline (and, let's be honest, because they dig it.) Prince Joffrey is their child, not Robert's. Cersei also gets in some taunts at Ned, implying that, following the death of the Mad King, he had a chance to take the throne and passed on it. She explains: "When you play the Game of Thrones, you win or you die." Hey, that's the title of this show!

It honestly doesn't look all that comfortable. You think, if you sit down wrong, one of the points of those swords might poke you in the ass?

We cut to the brothel of Petyr Baelish, where he's giving seduction lessons to two naked prostitutes in a scene that clearly has a great deal of relevance to the main plot and isn't at all gratuitous. We do get a little backstory mixed in with all the candelit sideboob. Petyr was in love with Lady Stark, but she had put him firmly in the Friend Zone, opting instead for Ned Stark's brother. When Ned's brother died, she jumped beds and ended up with Ned himself. And now Petyr's the Medieval version of butthurt about it.

Next we get another terribly silly scene in which Theon Greyjoy hangs out with the mysterious woman who attacked Bran in the woods. She refers to the northern home of the Starks as "the south," and claims to be from north of the wall. She also fails to understand the traditional concept of "lordship" and together, they re-enact the "Constitutional Peasant" sketch from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail." But taking it all SUPER seriously.

"Ooh, Theon, there's some lovely filth down here!"

Also, big surprise, forest woman brings news from north of the wall that there is an evil there that was sleeping but has now awoken. No duh. They've been saying that since Episode 1, lady. Where you been?

Meanwhile, the King has been mortally wounded by a boar during the hunt. He appoints Stark as Lord Regent to rule in his stead until Joffrey's old enough to become king. Acting quickly, Stark puts "rightful heir" on the document instead of Joffrey's name, thinking that he can resolve the situation without having to tell Robert the boy isn't his. Poor dumb Robert signs without reading. He also tells Ned not to have the Khaleesi and her baby killed, and asks him to train Joffrey to be a better man. Then, dead.

Up at the Wall, Jon Snow was hoping to be named a Ranger, which is really what you want to be, but instead he's made a steward. This is basically dooming him to a life of servitude, where he will be a ranger's squire. He's clearly depressed and humiliated by this turn of events - it's the Night's Watch version of being put into Hufflepuff.

Back at King's Landing, now we're concerned with who will ascend to the throne in Robert's place. There's a lot of talk all of the sudden about a guy named Stannis Baratheon, who has not been shown yet, but who is apparently next in line for the throne. The King's other brother, Renly Baratheon, asks to be put in charge until Stannis can be located, but Ned doesn't go for it.

Petyr also makes his play for power, arguing that Ned should take the crown for himself, and kill Joffrey when the boy comes of age.

Back in Vaes Dothrak, we see an assassin posing as a wine merchant, trying to poison the Khaleesi but failing miserably. Drogo, incensed by this attempt on his beloved's life, now finally seems convinced and decides to make a play for the Iron Throne. He also promises to rape a bunch of women in front of his wife, which is certainly a big thing to just throw out there.

But before any of these other people can throw their hat in the ring, Joffrey jumps the gun and has himself declared king. He and his mother demand fealty from Stark, who refuses, thinking he has the palace guard on his side. But alas, it appears that Petyr has double-crossed him. And... SCENE!

Things are certainly heating up a bit here, as we're now starting to see how the actual power play for the throne might come together. Sure, it's a bit convenient that Robert just happened to get gored by a boar right at this moment when all the other situations with other potential monarchs was just coming to a head... but I'm willing to forgive that, if only because things are finally starting to HAPPEN. With 3 episodes left, there may be hope for this show yet... goofy missteps and all.

Posted via email from Lon Harris

Why does Pershing Square have a Beethoven statue? Not sure... But here we are...

2011-10-17T19:25:00.001-07:00

Posted via email from Lon Harris

Thoughts on the "Walking Dead" premiere

2011-10-16T10:15:00.001-07:00

Tonight is the second season debut of the AMC zombie series "The Walking Dead." I got a chance to see the first two episodes of the season a few weeks back (yes, legally... a friend loaned me an advance screener...)

Some quick thoughts:

The show is exceedingly well-made. The art direction, make-up effects, music, cinematography... all top drawer, pretty much as good as anyone can reasonably expect from a TV series. You can't really tell this wasn't made for, say, HBO, except in the general reluctance to impressive sets or crowd scenes. But the show is deft enough in how it develops to distract from that.

Here's my issue, and it's less a problem with the show "The Walking Dead," I suppose, than with horror TV in general. The story doesn't ever go anywhere. The basic premise of "Walking Dead" - the episode-to-episode plot arcs - has remained completely unchanged since the first episode. Honestly, I don't even need to put a spoiler warning on this review (not that I'd summarize what actually happens specifically in this episode regardless.) It's still about a group of survivors of a zombie apocalypse who have banded together for the common defense even though there are lots of little personality clashes and conflicts along the way.

These people are essentially wandering around aimlessly, and the show has by now fallen into a rhythm that's considerably, noticeably repetitive. And it's starting to impact my enjoyment of the series. The group wanders around, thinks they come up with a good idea for a new location to settle, they head there, run into trouble along the way, stop and make friends with a new group, then get attacked and watch a few people - particularly their new friends - get picked off. These cycles take about 2 episodes or so, usually, to play out before we're on to the next destination.

The character development and interpersonal relationships on the show have utterly stagnated. We've got the same weak love triangle playing out as always, and then the sort of forgettable "we should hold up here vs. we should go take the fight to them" arguments you'd see in any zombie genre film. Over and over again.

I don't mean to sound churlish. I get that people just love seeing well-executed scenes of zombies attacking and killing people, and "Walking Dead" has at least 1 or 2 of those per episode. And that's enough. And yes, I do prefer it to a good many shows on television right now, and like the atmosphere and zombie effects enough to stick with it. But in terms of being compelling - "appointment TV," as they used to say - the show doesn't even remotely compare to the best dramatic series of TV, many of which surround it on AMC's schedule. (Can't be easy to draw immediate comparisons to "Breaking Bad" and "Mad Men," in my opinion the two best contemporary series on television.) It's good at being a zombie show. But so far, that's about it.

Posted via email from Lon Harris

Game of Thrones Season 1: Episodes 3-5 Review: The Catchupening

2011-10-09T17:33:00.001-07:00

After vowing I'd return to blogging regularly and catch up on all of Season 1 of HBO's epic fantasy smash hit "Game of Thrones"... I completely got distracted and dropped the ball.

Here's what I discovered. When watching a certain TV show entails writing copious notes along with it, and watching other TV shows entails staring ahead blankly and eating 8-12 cookies... I will usually watch that second show.

BUT I'M BACK! Sheer mental fortitude and gritty determination have urged me to push on and complete my task. I may even only eat 5 cookies while I'm writing. Because I'm in control here, people.

What I am going do to make things easier on myself is condense the project a bit. Rather than writing blog posts roughly the length and scale of a Dostoyevsky novel about each episode, I'll write a bit less and push through a few episodes at a time until we're all caught up.

EPISODE 3: LORD SNOW

The third episode opens with Ned Stark arriving in the capital to serve as the King's Hand, and meeting immediately with the king's inner circle. As is the show's custom, we get a BIG chunk of backstory all at once here, and considering how important all of these characters and their various positions of power will become in the rest of this episode and the next, it's weird that we speed through the introductions so quickly. If this first scene with them had been a bit more patient at revealing who these guys were, I think I'd have enjoyed a lot of subsequent encounters with them more.

A prime example is Aidan Gillen as Petyr Baelish, a guy who has a big role to play in Season 1 and who also really looks a lot like an older, Medieval version of Cameron from "Ferris Bueller."

Pardon my French, Prince Joffrey, but you're an asshole!

The gist of it is this: The King is an idiot and has bankrupted the kingdom through a series of needless, self-aggrandizing extravagances. This includes a tournament he wants to hold in honor of Ned Stark's appointment as his Hand. Like I said, kind of an idiot, this king.

Meanwhile, the Queen and her son, Prince Joffrey (who continues to look a lot like Draco Malfoy) have a heart-to-heart. He's feeling bad about being a big weenie and getting attacked by his girlfriend's pet wolf, you see. But the Queen assures him that he's got to focus on more long-term evil, like revenging his enemies once he becomes king, rather than petty short-term evil. It's sort of a super-villain pep talk, and it's all a bit much; the whole scene feels like it was written with a sledgehammer, or that it's made up of lines originally written for Sith to say in a "Clone Wars" episode. I know were contrasting the effete, elitist, entitled Lannisters with the noble, hardy Starks but this is over the top. They already killed the little girl's pet just last episode... They suck ass. We get it.

Jon (the "Lord Snow" of the episode's title) and Tyrion Lannister arrive at the great Northern Wall - with Jon staying on permanently as a member of the Night's Watch, and Tyrion basically stopping by out of curiosity. They get an earful from the First Ranger about the intense, spooky dangers on the other side and the importance of the enlisted men's commitment. The very first scene in the series, located on the other side of the wall, was definitely one of the most exciting thus far, so I get why they wanted to keep it where they did... but I can't shake the feeling that it kind of spoils scenes like these a bit. We in the audience already know the First Ranger is at least somewhat correct - there definitely do seem to be monsters in them thar forests. It's still an above-average scene just because (now Emmy-winner) Dinklage is so great as Tyrion and brings a bit of personality to a show that can sometimes be very dry. But there's not a lot of actual tension in this debate; we've already seen the White Walkers. They exist, unless the show was blatantly deceiving us. Which wouldn't be very nice.

We cut to the Dothraki Army marching along and find that the Khaleesi has become preggers, which seems pretty quick, but hey... they were making eye contact during sex... So what did you expect? We discover this information in the course of a long, drawn out conversation about how the Khaleesi shouldn't have to eat horse meat, as is the tribe's custom. Which sounds unpleasant, but some fresh tomato, maybe a couple avocado slices... not terrible. It helps to distract yourself by staring longingly at some dragon eggs while you eat it, though.

This episode also FINALLY gives us some insight into exactly how seasons work in the "Game of Thrones" universe. Up until now, we've heard vague discussions of how "winter is coming" (and believe me, there's yet more of that this time around), but now we actually get a sense for the unpredictable nature of this world's climate, as seasons can last a short while or extend to years, even decades. Kind of a... <sunglasses>... chilling notion.

EPISODE 4: CRIPPLES, BASTARDS AND BROKEN THINGS

Episode 4 is significant in these blog posts, because it is the last episode I watched the first time around. After this, we're in unexplored territory, people. Savor the moment.

The episode opens with young Bran Stark having a dream in which he sees a crow with 3 eyes. So... that happens. As with most HBO series, dream sequences seem to be a chance for the director to kind of show off and give us a weird, creepy moment that will look good in the commercials for the show's latest season. It's moderately effective here.

Next up, we get a lot of backstory all at once about a character I had previously assumed was, in fact, a member of the Stark family. Wikipedia tells me that this is Theon Greyjoy, whose family tried to rebel against the Starks and who is now a servant in their house.

This is a PRIME GRADE-A EXAMPLE of what's wrong with "Game of Thrones," people. We start the show getting occasional glimpses of this guy, but not even enough to get a sense for who he is, and certainly not enough to learn his name. Then we're expected to follow a conversation other characters are having about his FATHER, and to connect that to the original person, all without seeing him for more than a moment? Why should I care about his father when I don't even know who he is? I know there's a lot of characters but surely they can do better than this.

You're certain we've met before? Are you the kid who looks like Draco Malfoy, grown up and dying your hair brown now, maybe in an attempt to look less like Draco Malfoy? You're sure?

We cut to Jon Snow now in training at the Northern Wall. In a bit seemingly inspired by "Full Metal Jacket," he takes an overweight fuck-up under his wing and defends him from his abusive cohorts and commanders. Again, not sure if this is a failure of the writing or Kit Harrington's performance, but I feel like we get very little insight into who Jon Snow is or what his motivates are for acting this way. Does he take pity on this kid? And why? (The guy is so pathetic, it's near impossible for even the audience to root for him.) It certainly doesn't SEEM like Snow sympathizes, and yet we intuit that he must because he's behaving that way. But I want to see him care, not just go through the motions. It's like we're waiting to find out his REAL motivation but it never comes.

Now across the sea, where the Dothraki army returns to their capital city, Vaes Dothrak. The little snot Viserys, who apparently thought he was marrying his sister into a race of Beaux Arts-inspired architects, rather than barbaric horsemen, expresses his disappointment, reminding us again that he's a little snot.

We also get some backstory about Jorah Mormont, who has been advising Viserys and the Khaleesi and we know learn was a knight exiled by Ned Stark for selling slaves. (As one does...) He continues to worry, as we have heard before, that the Dothraki will refuse to cross the sea. Got to wonder if this is going to be an issue down the road... <reaches for sledgehammer>

Then Viserys has an almost human moment with the prostitute who also serves as the Khaleesi's lady in waiting, and who is apparently really turned on by dragons. The show is now at least 2/3rds of the way to making Viserys an almost mildly sympathetic character, but then has to go ruin it by being randomly cruel and evil. Ooohhhh, you guys were so close to three dimensions! It was RIGHT THERE!

Back at court, there's a lot of intrigue surrounding the death of the PREVIOUS guy who had Ned Stark's job, Jon Arryn. It's confirmed that King Robert has a bastard son who is now working as a blacksmith, and Arryn may have had to die because he discovered this secret potential heir.

OK, I'm calling it. This episode is officially a slog. The story is totally DOA, especially as it pertains to the Jon Arryn mystery, which is totally obscure and concerns a bunch of characters we haven't even seen before. Plus, the council is obsessed with a tournament that sounds awesome but that we see none of, and every conversation is pure backstory. (There's even more random chatter about Theon Greyjoy awkwardly shoehorned in in the episode's second half.) This is precisely why I tuned out. 6 month ago Lon, I take back everything bad I've said about you.

The episode ends with its best moment, Lady Stark having Tyrion arrested, believing that he hired the assassin who tried to take Bran's life. It's a good scene, an example of how women can wield power in this world. (A theme for the whole episode really, which is about how women can negotiate with and turn the world of knights and soldiers.)

We need more like this, giving us a shorthand understanding of this world in a way that's exciting as well as informative. I'm pressing forward this time, and really really hoping things pick up from here...

EPISODE 5: THE WOLF AND THE LION

First observation here: We really get no sense for what the king actually does, and the method in which he actually governs his kingdom. The only thing we've yet actually seen him do is boss people around in his immediate circle. We get no real sense for his power. Seeing as the entire series revolves around everyone wanting to be King, you'd hope there was more to it than just a license to be a drunken, womanizing boor. Perhaps that really is the gist of it. Each kingdom only has the wealth to provide one man at a time with the drunken, womanizing boor lifestlye, and King is it, so everyone wants to be that. (No, wait, Tyrion also lives that lifestyle and he's just the Queen's brother. So never mind.)

We finally get an actual look at the tournament that we've heard discussed repeatedly by the council in full-on "Civilization" mode.

"Sire, a tournament would raise the citizen's happiness level, but we'd have to raise taxes to fill the treasury. What would you like to do?"

Two brothers fight after one of them slays one of the competitors' horses and goes after him, but the king puts an end to it. Can't have something exciting happen, after all. It might interrupt the backstory! (Oh, I'm kidding around with the "Game of Thrones"! Ha ha, we've having fun!)

We see Lady Stark on the road with her new prisoner, Tyrion Lannister, and it's basically made clear that everyone already thinks he's innocent. Later, Bran Stark - back in Winterfell - is getting a lesson in all the different Houses of the kingdom. Normally, I'd whine about this being YET MORE backstory, but this was actually quite helpful and fills in a lot of gaps that were troubling me up until this point. We also find out that Lady Stark was a Tully. Where have the Tullys been all this time? They're like the Hufflepuffs of Westeros.

Also we've got to catch up with Theon Greyjoy, who now appears to be a main character by a force of sheer will. He's bragging about his family to a prostitute and it's clear that this character is, yet again, an angry egomaniacal narcissist obsessed with his family's name and honor. Seemingly the only kind of character Mr. R. R. Martin cares to write, at least judging from this adaptation. It's all kind of tiresome. Tyrion is essentially the only male character who doesn't spew this hateful claptrap whenever the script gives him an opening. By embracing that character so whole-heartedly, aren't audiences basically saying they find the rest of the series' male characters to be charmless oafs?

Next we get a lot of intrigue at the King's Court, most of it having to do with Lord Varys (or the bald eunuch guy, as I have come to know him). Check out this guy's typical day:

- First, he tells Ned that the person who killed Jon Arryn also hopes to poison the king, and it could be Ser Hugh.

- Then Arya Stark also overhears Varys speaking with Illyrio Mopatis about a plot against the King, counting on an upcoming war for power between the Starks and Lannisters. Dun dun duuuuunnnnnn.

- WE ALSO learn that Varys knows about Petyr Baelish's illegal brothel in town.

- PLUS Varys then returns to the King's council to ensure that King Robert pushes for war against the Targaryans, whom he knows have a new baby and heir on the way uniting their family with the Dothrakis.

Basically, it's a busy afternoon. But he has no genitals! So there are few distractions.

Ned's so disgusted with the goings-on, he quits his position as Hand. King Robert is not pleased.

We then follow Lady Stark as she brings her prisoner, Tyrion, to her sister Lisa's castle. Lisa, it turns out, is crazy now, which we discover when she starts breastfeeding her grown son. (Say it with me now: "As one does...") Tyrion is locked in the high tower, which is realized in a very pretty, cinematic manner. (Maybe the most visually pleasing sequence in the show thus far, honestly.)

We then meet up with the Knight of the Flowers (whose exploits we followed at the tournament) to discover that he has a gay lover - whom he's in the process of shaving - with a reasonable claim to the throne. (He's 4th in line, apparently.) The scene ends with the Knight of the Flowers telling his beloved "you would be a wonderful king" before giving an implied (though off-screen) blowjob with realistic sound effects. I think we can all agree that all oral sex should really begin this way.

We get a nice scene with King Robert and Queen Cersei looking back and coldly summing up their miserable, failed marriage. It's well-written, and Eddy does a nice job, though Lena Headey plays the entire scene with one arched eyebrow, and it gets SUPER distracting. She's giving probably my second-least favorite performance thus far, after Kit Harrington as the laconic Jon Snow.

Finally, Jaime Lannister ambushes Ned Stark, killing all his men. One of Lannister's soldiers stabs Ned in the leg with a spear, injuring him but leaving him alive. Jaime then punches the guy out and we fade out.

Overall, this was an above-average episode with some really nice moments. (Everything at Lisa's castle with her creepy son was solid. Nice to see characters behaving in ways that are unpredictable, mixing up all the more heavy, droning "Winter is Coming" tone of the rest of the show. Still, we're halfway through the season by now... really feels like things should be picking up at a faster clip, certainly by Episodes 6 or 7.

Posted via email from Lon Harris

Game of Thrones Season 1: Episode 2: "The Kingsroad" review

2011-08-31T23:12:00.001-07:00

We're back for the second installment of my return to the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros, watching all of Season 1 of "Game of Thrones" and seeing if I can figure out why it worked for so many people but not me. At least, not me the first time around. (If you missed the introduce and the review of the pilot, they're both right here.) Once again, I would be remiss if I did not include a spoiler warning:

WARNING: I fully intend to spoil each episode along the way as I go. This blog is designed for people who have (1) seen "Game of Thrones" Season 1 already or (2) intend to watch along with me as I go. So from now on, THERE WILL BE SPOILERS.

OK, on with Episode 2, "The Kingsroad," which on the whole, I found much more interesting and dramatically satisfying than the first episode. It's, naturally, still bogged down with exposition and backstory, and I noticed something else about the way the show handles all the odds and ends and details that fill in the corners of George R. R. Martin's world: It's clunky.

To put it another way, the show is obvious and sort of plodding about getting as much of the history and custom of this place in to each hour-long episode as possible. Worse yet, for all the copious detail that gets brought up and explained during the episodes, there's a ton of vital information that's simply left out. This is one of the first series I've seen that absolutely requires Wikipedia to follow everything, unless you have already read and digested the source material. (But don't read TOO MUCH Wikipedia, as there's spoilers-a-plenty.) Even the OPENING CREDIT SEQUENCE is complicated and requires some backstory.

I know this is high fantasy and the crazy worldbuilding detail is part of the charm... but the show sort of had to choose between just being dull for those unfamiliar with the world but faithful to the books, or disappointing hardcore Martin fans but keeping us n00bs in the loop. It's pretty obvious which decision was made.

The episode itself begins with the Dothraki horde on the move. I now know they're headed for their hometown of Vaes Dothrak, but it's not very well established where they're going at this point, and I only know their final destination because I'm a few episodes ahead of this by now. The new Queen (known as a Khaleesi) is still a bit sore - literally and figuratively - after the whole "being sold by her brother into sexual slavery and then repeatedly raped by a guy who looks like The Rock starring in 'Aladdin on Ice'" thing. What a Drama Khaleesi she is.

Beginning with this episode, it starts to become clear that the show is kind of getting off on watching this fair-haired, very pretty actress being repeatedly raped on camera. The plot excuse is that she begins to distance herself from the experience by fantasizing about dragons, leading to a conversation about dragons with her new lady-in-waiting, Doreah (Roxanne McKee), who just happens to be a former prostitute. Hence, Khaleesi learns to better please her new husband, thus encouraging him to treat her more tenderly, like a wife, rather than a slave. Symbolized by turning her around to look at her during sex, and also by buying Raisin Bran at the local Horde Mart, even though he personally prefers Frosted Flakes.

Some dragon eggs, a little butter, maybe a piece of rye toast or something... Not bad. Just because we're riding with a barbarian horde doesn't make us SAVAGES.

The subtext here is genuinely creepy, and not particularly sexy at all, though the scenario unfolds with the sort of dewy, overripe premium cable eroticism you'd expect from a title like "The Busty Cops Go Hawaiian Part 3." At least the sex scenes from this point on (at least, as far as this couple goes) can get away from the ickiness of Emilia Clarke being tormented and softly weeping, which was kind of killing my buzz.

But it's not all braids and dragon eggs and abrupt doggy style-to-missionary conversions in "The Kingsroad." This is also the episode where Peter Dinklage's Tyrion Lannister, the cynical, blunt dwarf brother of Queen Cersei, became everyone's favorite character, providing a sardonic and significantly more modern take on the events than the rest of the stuffy, defiantly Medieval-minded characters.

We find out early on that Bran, the youngest Stark who was shoved out an open window at the end of the previous episode, has lived, though he will most likely never walk again. The Queen - whose twin brother/lover was responsible for the crippling - shows up at the boy's bedside to offer her condolences, and actually seems to reveal a bit of genuine grief over her own lost child to Lady Stark. It's arguably the most interesting scene in the entire series to this point, because we know enough about the scenario and the characters to start asking questions and thinking more deeply about the subtext and the character's motives. Is the Queen genuinely opening up to Lady Stark, mother-to-mother, or is this all a fake show of sympathy to deflect any suspicions that she might be responsible? Is she just using it as a pretext to start a conversation, and get more information about what the boy remembers and what exactly he saw? Usually, I'm too busy trying to connect all the pieces and figure out who's who to even look for this kind of thing, so it's refreshing to get a scene that plays more straight-ahead as drama and less like a history lesson about a fake universe.

There's also an fun sequence in which Ned and King Robert first learn about the unification of the House of Targaryen with the Dothraki horsemen, and debate the severity of the threat to the throne. One peculiar bit of dialogue, though... Just as the two finish discussing the threat that may be growing across the Narrow Sea, the King says “There’s a war coming, Ned. I don’t know when, and I don’t know who we’ll be fighting, but it’s coming.” Which is odd because they've only really been discussing ONE threat this whole time. From the Targaryens, who still feel they have a justifiable claim to the throne and who now have the power of a massive army on horseback on their side. Why would The King feel the need to add in another bit about not knowing who he's going to be fighting?

Meanwhile, Jon Snow - the bastard son of Ned Stark - is preparing to head off to The Wall to dedicate the rest of his life to protecting the Seven Kingdoms from the monsters that live on the other side. Snow is arguably the series protagonist, and yet I find it hard to really take a strong interest in his fate. He's not really COMPELLING, and though it's not entirely the fault of actor Kit Harington, he's not really helping matters. The character, after two full episodes, remains almost entirely defined by his bastardy. He doesn't have much of an inner life. Other characters will occasionally challenge him about his decision-making, and he always demurs. I sense this was meant to express his mysterious, unknowable nature, but it comes off like he doesn't know why he's doing what he does, and just isn't particularly introspective. (In future episodes, this trend continues, and he basically seems to act heroic at times because it is required of him due to his role in the story, not because he's actually brave or heroic by nature.)

Needs no education nor thought control.

Finally, this episode makes the case both for and against the whole "give a wild dire wolf as a gift to each Stark child" scheme from Episode 1. When young Arya Stark and her commoner friend are play-fighting with wooden swords, the foppish Prince Joffrey decides to teach them a lesson and ends up getting mauled by one of the aforementioned wolves, only to see the beast escape and its brother executed for its crimes. Oooooh, that Prince Joffrey! So, anyway, one anti-wolf point. But then, an assassin attacks Lady Stark and tries to kill young Bran, before being thwarted (and gruesomely murdered) by another wolf. So, one point in favor. The jury's still out on this particular parenting maneuver.

So, all in all, a far superior effort to Episode 1, but I don't know... I remain unconvinced. There's far more incident and dramatic heft this time around, which makes the proceedings far more entertaining. But I'm still not really loving any of the characters, save possibly the witty Tyrion Lannister. Even the Arya Stark character - who's played in lively, spirited fashion by Maisie Williams and who clearly is one of the more likable characters in the novels - comes off as more of a "type" (the headstrong girl who wants to be a hero, not a wife) than a three-dimensional person.

I will naturally continue to press on, but I was really hoping this episode would sell me on the show this second time around, as I remember it being the highlight of my initial "Game of Thrones" experience. We shall soon find out...

Posted via email from Lon Harris

Game of Thrones Season 1: Intro and "Winter is Coming" review

2011-08-29T22:02:00.001-07:00

HBO's "Game of Thrones" debuted to great acclaim and excitement from the critical and online nerd communities this past Spring. I was one of the few people I knew who gave it a try and didn't really enjoy it.

But let's back up...

I'm a casual fan of fantasy, as a genre, but had not read the George R. R. Martin novels upon which the show is based. It's not from a lack of familiarity. I spent many years working in book stores and would come across the "Song of Ice and Fire" novels from time to time. But like Robert Jordan's "Wheel of Time" series, I always kind of dismissed these books as sub-Tolkein rip-offs that weren't worth the serious commitment it would take to read a full cycle of 6+ lengthy novels. Of course, that was many years ago and I'm perfectly willing to admit that it was wrong to judge books by their covers (although it works more often than not.) Anyway, I awaited the TV adaptation with great anticipation.

[Quick backstory for young people: Once there were places called book stores that primarily existed to give homeless people a convenient place to use the restroom. They also provided coffee and terrible scones and occasionally would sell people physical, bound versions of e-books that they could lug around with them. Weird, right?]

ANYWAY, I got about 4 episodes in to "Game of Thrones" during its initial HBO run before tossing down the remote and declaring, aloud, "That's it! I'm out!" It was progressing, I felt, at an excruciatingly slow clip. I can be a very patient TV viewer when I feel like a show is earning my attention. Many of my favorite series take a "slow burn" approach, particularly in early episodes. But "Game of Thrones," to me, felt like the Tristram Shandy of episodic television. Obsessed with world-building and lineages and backstory, uninterested in moving any of its various plot strands forward.

At times, I'll also admit to feeling kind of embarrassed to be watching this with my girlfriend around. Every time she'd enter the room, there would be some glossy, lovingly-shot Aryan nudity. It was like I had just recorded 48 solid hours of some white supremacist offshoot of Cinemax and was purposefully watching it only in mixed company. I'm not prudish by nature, but the sex and nakedness in "Game of Thrones" felt prurient, and even a bit trashy. Like when Penn and Teller randomly invite naked women to the "Bullshit" set and then spend an entire 4 minute segment celebrating the fact that Showtime lets them get away with standing next to naked women. But less tasteful.

After I had already given up the show and missed a few weeks of episodes, I discovered that nearly everyone I knew whose televiewing tastes I respected was loving the show. "You should have stuck with it" was a common refrain. As was "I can't believe you didn't like this! What's wrong with you!" I would have suggested "How can you possibly defend making time for 'Jersey Shore' every week but not giving 'Game of Thrones' a chance?" But amazingly, no one called me out on my bullshit. Perhaps they were looking out for my feelings.

Which brings us to my little "Game of Thrones" project. I will watch each episode of the show's first season, starting over at the beginning, and blog my experiences with each episode.

Starting with the pilot.

EPISODE 1: WINTER IS COMING

The series opens with a group of soldiers from the Night's Watch, who have traveled to the mysterious lands north of the wall they are duty-bound to protect. One of them looks a lot like Matt Damon, and then he dies pretty much right away, leading me to question - when I first watched it - whether it really had been Matt Damon. It wasn't.

You have to admit, it's sort of uncanny...

They're all killed by the monstrous White Walkers, save one soldier who escapes back to the other side of the wall, and civilization. But it's not TOO civilized, because as soon as he gets back home, Lord Eddard "Ned" Stark (Sean Bean) declares that he's a deserter and orders his execution. Stark - the head of the Stark family, which rules the northern land of Winterfell - then requests that his youngest son watch as he personally beheads the guy. It's a pretty tough way to introduce the hero of your new TV series, showing him cut off a guy's head in front of his kid for the crime of almost getting eaten by monsters. But the fact that it's Sean Bean doing it pretty much makes up for the nastiness factor. The guy's just likable.

Next we see Stark and his sons happening upon a litter of orphaned baby dire wolves. The kids all split them up, one wolf per Stark. Ned's illegitimate son, Jon Snow (Kit Harington), gets the runt of the litter, which is treated like some sort of cruel insult, overlooking the fact that HE WAS JUST GIVEN THE GIFT OF A WILD, UNTAMED WOLF. You'd think a smaller one might be preferable, no?

Next, King Robert (Mark Addy) comes to Winterfell to ask Ned to become his "hand," or chief advisor. He brings along with him the conniving Lannister family. They include the king's wife, Queen Cersei (Lena Headey), her twin brother Jaime (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) and their younger brother Tyrion (Peter Dinklage), a dwarf known as "The Imp." Plus they bring the king and queen's children, including heir to the throne Prince Joffrey (played by Draco Malfoy.)

OK, it's a lot of names. Everybody keeping up so far? This is basically the experience of watching Season 1 of "Game of Thrones." It's like those parts of the Old Testament where you're just reading page after page of names that begat other names, and you start to actually wish they'd get back to obsessing about which meats are okay just to break up the monotony.

I will say, I didn't notice my first time through that the names of these two houses mirror those of the English War of the Roses. That war was fought between the Lancaster and York families. Lannister/Stark, Lancaster/York. I see what you did there, Martin...

OK, then we get a little MEANWHILE IN PENTOS! graphic and we're off across the Narrow Sea, to where the very very blonde and very very evil Viserys Targaryen (Harry Lloyd) is plotting to overthrow King Robert and return his house to the throne of whatever the hell country this is. In order to achieve this goal, he has arranged for his very very blonde and very very frequently nude sister Daenerys (Emilia Clarke) to marry the shirtless and muscular warlord Khal Drogo (Jason Momoa), who will then in exchange provide Viserys with his army of Dothrakis.

Daenerys is afraid to have sex with Khal Drogo, and it's pretty understandable. He looks like he probably has a penis the size of a George R. R. Martin novel. (Yes, hardbound.) But Viserys doesn't seem too concerned, and explains matter-of-factly that his own ascension to the throne is more important than the sanctity of her lady parts.

The show, during the Winterfell segment, does a halfway decent job of presenting characters who seem at least somewhat nuanced. Ned Stark is obviously a hardened man in a lot of ways, but he loves his wife and children, and he seems rational and humane enough to root for in a pinch. Viserys is basically just a dueling scar or German WWI helmet away from cartoonish super-villainy.

Soon enough, Daenerys and her barbarian are married, and we get a look at a Dothraki wedding. It involves a live sex show, snakes, fights to the death and ample piles of rotting meat, which you've got to admit does sound more appealing than a beer-and-wine-only open bar, a dry overcooked chicken breast and The Electric Slide. (We also learn in this segment that "there is no word for 'thank you' in Dothraki," which sounds like a nice little bit of detail enhancing your understanding for this complex warrior culture... until you think about it for a moment and realize it's totally fucking stupid. "Hey, brother, I saved you a piece of rotting meat." "Um... I have no linguistic way to respond to this gesture. I suppose we should fight to the death.")

In case you didn't catch what was coming from the previous 15 minutes of the show basically repeating the idea on a non-stop loop, Khal Drogo then basically rapes Daenerys on screen. Cause pics or it didn't happen, I guess...

Finally, the youngest Stark is enjoying his favorite pastime, climbing. (This kid and I don't have a ton in common, I can tell right off the bat.) He accidentally spies the queen and her twin brother having sex, which apparently is kind of taboo even in the "anything goes" world of "Game of Thrones." So to protect their dirty, dirty little secret (which would have probably been even better protected by just not committing incest next to an open window in the home of a key political adversary), Jaime Lannister pushes the kid out the window, presumably to his demise.

Annnnnd scene!

OK, it's at least moderately entertaining as a show, and some of the performances - particularly Bean's and Dinklage's - are not without their charm. But I have to say, I'm still not LOVING this first episode. It certainly sets up a lot of different plotlines, and it's clear how these three dynasties are going to be pulled closer and closer into conflict over the course of the season. So it's getting the job done as a pilot, I suppose. But most of the characters are just kind of flat, and there's this tendency to paint a lot of these conflicts in black-and-white. Which works for, say, "Lord of the Rings," but that doesn't ask you to emotionally invest in Sauron's incestuous romance with his sister.

I have to believe that further episodes deepen these characterizations and add more nuance into the mix that I'm not seeing now. Because how else would everyone be getting so into it? Just going to have to give it more time...

Posted via email from Lon Harris

Originality is Overrated

2011-08-23T20:41:00.001-07:00

Many of you have probably already seen podcaster and commercial director Dan Trachtenberg's "Portal" fan film, "No Escape." It made the rounds today and won near-universal acclaim. Deservedly! It's really well put-together for a "fan film," with impressive effects and a setting that felt very authentic to the Aperture Science HQ fans of the games have come to know. Here it is:

After it became the toast of Twitter this afternoon, blogger Devin Faraci of Badass Digest wrote a post criticizing the film for borrowing a conceit and a setting from the "Portal" video games rather than coming up with an original idea.

Here's the key graph:

It also looks like a zillion other movies and all of the best parts are just lifts from the game Portal. It probably cost a dollar and a cent to make this short, but you know what? It doesn’t cost anything at all to come up with a new idea. This, to me, is just as bad as Battleship from Universal or the remake glut or whatever else. Isn’t the whole point of making some small short to showcase your own creativity?

Trachtenberg isn’t even making a comment on Portal, or using Portal to address another interesting issue or idea. It’s just a straight up Portal movie. There’s no deeper thought than ‘This is what a Portal movie would look like.’

I responded briefly on Twitter, explaining that I didn't feel an Internet short had to aspire to much more than "No Escape," and that it would likely be an effective "calling card" or showcase for Trachtenberg's abilities as a director.

But I wanted to unpack my thoughts a bit more, because I feel like - Dan's film and Devin's post aside - this is a discussion that I see going on every day in some way, shape or form.

The idea that "there are too many remakes" or "Hollywood is out of ideas" has become a cliche, and there is some truth to the statements. I'm as sick of the never-ending retreads of established brands and franchises as anyone, mainly because these films tend to be flat and unimaginative, slaves to the built-in fanbases and owners of those properties rather than exciting new takes on classic material. But "Hollywood is out of ideas" is a HUGE oversimplification of what's really going on, and the idea that a movie has to have an original story or setting to be good is a fallacy.

After all, how many movies - even classic movies - are truly ORIGINAL. What does the term even mean? Christopher Nolan's Batman films are based on a character with decades of established backstory, but it's hard to criticize "The Dark Knight" for being derivative. The Indiana Jones films are revisiting the classic style and tone of adventure serials, yet you rarely hear anyone dismiss "Raiders of the Lost Ark" as a lame retread. Hell, the iconic Humphrey Bogart version of "The Maltese Falcon" is an adaptation of a novel that had already been filmed TWICE before - in 1931 as "The Maltese Falcon" and again in 1936 as "Satan Met a Lady." Was John Huston being unoriginal? Should he have instead made a comment on "The Maltese Falcon" or used Sam Spade to address another interesting issue or idea? Of course not.

[This isn't limited to cinema either. Any medium based on narrative storytelling is going to be filled with ideas that have been cherry-picked from other people's ideas. Shakespeare wasn't the first person to tell the story of King Richard II. It's just the nature of creative expression - people are frequently influenced to create art after experiencing other art made by their peers.]

This is acceptable to audiences because movies (and TV shows and books and video games and music...) are about so much more than just the story. Otherwise, hearing someone quickly summarize a film would be as satisfying as watching the film yourself.

I don't mean to pick on Devin, who is a writer whose work I enjoy and value (which is how I found the post in the first place!), but this sentence is just baffling to me:

It’s just a straight up Portal movie. There’s no deeper thought than ‘This is what a Portal movie would look like.’

But there has NEVER BEEN a "Portal" movie! There is no way to define "what a Portal movie would look like." Trachtenberg had to invent it from scratch! That's sort of the whole idea!

Dismissing him with a wave of the hand is taking hundreds of hours of work for granted, and ignores the thousands of decisions that had to be made on every level in order to produce the finished film "No Escpae." How does a Portal Gun look in a real three-dimensional world? What would a fleshy Chell do upon waking up in a cell? How would Aperture Science guards be dressed? This isn't automatic. You don't wake up and say "I want to make a Portal movie," fire up your XBox and then just export all the details for your finished film. It had to be written, cast, storyboarded, filmed and then edited together. A person BUILT that Portal Gun. Someone else fashioned those costumes. Just because they had a video game world to model it on doesn't mean their work required no skill, or has no inherent value, artistry or even insight.

That stuff IS the deeper thought. It's how "Hey, I should make a Portal movie!" becomes "Here is my Portal movie!" Maybe you think it's a stupid idea to make 'Portal' into a short, or that the tone was wrong, or that the sets were designed poorly, or that the pacing was off. But to dismiss it entirely just because the basic scenario is taken from a popular video game title makes no sense. It's valuing the initial, conceptual stage of filmmaking ("Hey, let's make a ______ movie!"), and ignores everything else.

In this same way, people who claim "Hollywood is out of ideas" just because there's another filmmaker adapting the "Conan" novels or doing "Clash of the Titans" is missing the real point. It's not the stories themselves that matter. It's how you tell them. (In the case of "Clash of the Titans"... POORLY!)

Devin ends his piece with the statement: "Originality is king." I respectfully disagree. Skill, craft and artistry are king. Originality is overrated.

Posted via email from Lon Harris

"Rise of the Planet of the Apes" Review

2011-08-08T00:32:00.001-07:00

SPOILER FREE VERSION:

"Rise of the Planet of the Apes" is far, far better than it has a right to be considering the potential for extreme camp. A prequel to the classic '70s sci-fi franchise, "Rise" has the unenviable task of setting up a rather ludicrous premise - a planet that was once our Earth but is, in the future, devoid of humans and ruled by talking apes - while also having to take itself at least semi-seriously. (A previous film in the franchise - "Conquest of the Planet of the Apes" - also flashed back to when the apes took control, but told a totally different story and didn't fare quite as well.) "Rise" succeeds admirably, linking up neatly to the other "Planet of the Apes" films while also telling a satisfying, thought-provoking narrative of its own. Having said that... I think the hype we've been hearing lately about the film is a bit over-the-top, though, and is more about the motion-capture animation used on the titular primates and how far the technology has come rather than anything about the film itself.

The plot in broad strokes: James Franco plays a researcher for a pharmaceutical company, working on a treatment for Alzheimer's that he hopes will help his ailing father (John Lithgow). Testing on apes leads him to conclude that not only can his new gene therapy be used for its intended purpose, but it can also cause the animals to become super-intelligent. At first, it seems great, and he brings one of the intelligent apes - Caesar - home to live with him as a regular member of the family. However, after Caesar is treated cruelly by humans, he begins to have second thoughts about his station in life, and the treatment of the other apes around him.

Caesar is portrayed by motion-capture veteran Andy Serkis (perhaps best known for inhabiting Gollum in the "Lord of the Rings" films). The Serkis performance here and the resulting animation on Caesar is tremendous, and probably the best use of CGI this year. Not just because the Caesar character and a few of the other apes are giving a full-fledged, emotional performance (though they are). But also because now this is Serkis inhabiting a believable real-world creature. We know how an ape looks and moves around, so seeing animators and Andy Serkis capture that essence, while also exploding it to make an ape do things an ape WOULDN'T do, impresses in a way that most movie effects don't.

(John Lithgow also has a really natural ability to interact with the "ape." There's a shot that's partially in the trailer of him comforting a scared and confused Caesar that's remarkable - you TOTALLY believe what you're seeing, and that these two characters have a backstory and a relationship. It's great stuff.)

The movie surrounding these effects is capably made, though better when it's a more conventional sci-fi story about science run amok than an action/horror film. The Third Act has a major lack of direction. We don't have a strong sense for the parameters of the "battle" between the apes and humanity, so it's hard to get too caught up in their success or failure. Also, the film WAY overuses the same basic pattern in these late scenes. An ape startles a human. Said human reacts angrily, striking or threatening the ape. The ape then reacts to the human's display of aggression with even greater anger, raising the stakes and attacking the human.

The need to get a PG-13 rating also hurts the film a lot in these later scenes. We get a feeling early on for the POWER of these creatures, so we wonder why they only ever seem to knock humans over, or slap them around. It's hard to envision a scenario whereby super-intelligent, ferociously angry and terrified primates armed with military strategy, spears and other weapons just mildly injure unprepared human civilians. It'd be a fucking BLOODBATH. (Remember that woman who got attacked by a chimp who had normal intelligence and no weapons? She needed to get a new FACE!) There's just no way to accomplish this and make it feel real without earning that R rating, I'm afraid.

OK, NOW THE SPOILER PARTS

It all goes wrong, basically, once the apes escape. Yes, it's sort of fun to see them lay waste to Draco Malfoy (though the symbolic gesture of having him electrocuted using not one but TWO devices he had used to torment Caesar was a bit much). But after the escape, they've sort of won. There's no real need to have them face off against humans a few more times en route to the forest. I get why the movie wanted to have a big action climax where the apes get to give humans what for after an entire film of being tested, prodded and abused. But the film doesn't do a good job of establishing their goal, and their need to have this standoff against the SFPD. And again, the lack of visceral violence kind of hurts the film - it starts to feel a bit cartoonish because no one's actually ever dying, save a few folks being tossed gingerly off the side of the Golden Gate.

Also, this is perhaps the first film ever made in which the total annihilation of the human race is an overlooked, disinterested B-level subplot. Such a lazy afterthought, and a cheap device. I get that it's a prequel and they need to figure out a way to deal with both the "super-smart apes who can talk" storyline AND the "humankind is all but exterminated" storyline. But the decision to make a movie that's 99% "super-smart apes" and 1% "virus that kills every human" just makes no sense towards the end. Why should I care about a few people getting knocked around on the Golden Gate Bridge when the movie has made it abundantly clear everyone will be dead within a matter of weeks?

Finally, the camp factor. The movie does a good job at being sincere and genuine and deeply-felt, such that things which would ordinarily get laughs in the first half (like a chimp going for a walk on a leash) don't. But by the conclusion, the pace has quickened and things get pretty over-the-top and the audience I was seeing it with was busting up at how ludicrous a lot of it was. (Particularly once Caesar starts talking.) If the whole movie was like the last 15-20 minutes, I don't think the reviews would have been nearly as good. I think some critics are taking the first 45 minutes or so and pretending that's the movie.

Posted via email from Lon Harris

Did Roger Waters Get Inceptioned?

2010-11-30T01:24:00.001-08:00

So, after seeing "The Wall" on stage tonight, I was checking out some of the animation on YouTube. And I came across this sequence from "Empty Spaces":

I noticed a segment of the animation, at around 1:57, looked oddly familiar. It featured an endless city skyline stretching off into the horizon, on a shoreline, under some dark clouds. Where did I know this image from?

Then it occurred to me. It's very similar to the a shot from "Inception" that was used a lot in the marketing. Here are the two shots side by side:

Weird, right? So, you tell me...Is this just an odd coincidence? Is it an intentional tip of the cap to the 1982 film version of "The Wall"? Or am I just seeing things?

Posted via email from Lon Harris

LonsTV Episode #2: The Expendables

2010-11-24T00:21:00.001-08:00

Below, find the second full episode of LonsTV, in which I review "The Expendables" and note the ridiculousness of recording one of these videos at night, when the lighting is bad and my dog is alert and noisy.

Posted via email from Lon Harris

LonsTV Episode 1 is Out Now!

2010-11-22T11:48:00.001-08:00

Just put up the first regular episode of my new daily YouTube show, LonsTV. It's a review of "Fable 3" and a lot of meandering discussion about trying (unsuccessfully) to redesign my YouTube channel.

Came out a big longer than I was hoping. In my head, this was a 2-3 minute show, and I managed to keep the "Introduction" video nice and lean. But now this one has ballooned to 5 and a half minutes. Not HORRIBLE, but it should be tighter. Gonna work on that tomorrow.

Any other thoughts or feedback are, of course, welcome.

Posted via email from Lon Harris

Hey, it's my new YouTube channel!

2010-11-21T13:00:00.001-08:00

So, at the urging of a few friends on Twitter, I have decided to start up my own YouTube channel dedicated to doing daily reviews. I'll pick a different thing every day - a movie, a TV show, a book, an album, a song, a nice piece of fish - and throw a video of me chatting about it up on the Web for all of you (well, 3 of you) to enjoy! Maybe I'll occasionally just post rants or other stuff I want to talk about there as well, but it's not gonna be one of these Ze Frank-style Vlog Of 10,000 Cuts things. Because I don't really have the talent or dedication to do that 5 days of week, and all these Blu-Ray's I bought despite not having any stable income aren't going to watch themselves.

Here's my brief intro to the project:

Find the channel here:

http://youtube.com/lonstv

Thanks!

Posted via email from Lon Harris

The Social Network review

2010-10-03T01:41:00.001-07:00

Before we go any further, a small and probably obvious but still essential clarification...This review will deal with "The Social Network," which is a fictional movie based on some real incidents, as recounted in a popular non-fiction book by Ben Mezrich called "The Accidental Billionaires." I have read this book, and the movie does not diverge from its account of events significantly, but still, who besides the key players can really attest to its accuracy? So when I say things like "Mark Zuckerberg is an asshole," I don't mean the actual person Mark Zuckerberg, who created the actual site, Facebook. I've never met the guy. Maybe he's a non-stop delight and Mezrich's book/Sorkin's screenplay are full of lies, contemptible lies. I mean the character of "Mark Zuckerberg," played brilliantly in the film by actor Jesse Eisenberg. Ditto when I reference other characters in the movie who are based on real people. OK, let's move on.

"The Social Network" is not a movie about building a website. "The Accidental Billionaires" recounts, in detail, how Facebook came to be, the backstories of those who were instrumental in making it a reality and, finally, the disputes regarding ownership of the site. Many of these people and incidents find their way into the movie, but they are not its focus. Instead, screenwriter Aaron Sorkin and director David Fincher have made a film about loneliness and isolation. Mark Zuckerberg's inability to relate to others made Facebook possible, they seem to argue, but also made enjoying or benefiting from its success impossible. Multiple times in the film, we're told that "money doesn't matter to Mark," and there seems to be no reason to doubt his assertion. (He also tells us, flat out, that he once turned down an offer from Microsoft to purchase one of his sites, only to release it to the world for free.) But if he's not in it for the money, or his co-founders, or the trappings of success (like girls or parties or drugs)...what's in it for Mark? Is it possible to invent something that's beloved the world over and changes the way we see ourselves...for no good reason?

We learn two things quickly about Mark in the film. He's too focused on himself and his own inner monologue to carry on a proper conversation, and he has no idea how the things he says will be interpreted by other people around him.

When we first meet Mark, he's on a date with Erica (Rooney Mara), who sticks around for a surprising amount of time, considering that Mark talks non-stop, mostly about how he doesn't respect her or the school she attends (Boston University). When she finally does leave, he's surprised. Not only surprised, but hurt! Not only surprised at hurt, but angry! And it's this anger that spurns him to create FaceMash.com, a snide little website that presents Harvard men with two photos of female students and asks them to choose the more attractive one. (He also blogs about how Erica is a bitch, how her family changed their last name, and how he finds the notion of comparing women to farm animals amusing.)

FaceMash brings Mark some amount of infamy on campus, which in turn attracts the attention of wonder twins Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss (both played by Armie Hammer), and their business partner, Divya Narendra (Max Minghella).

[A small aside here...the clearly, visibly Caucasian Max Minghella has been cast as a clearly, visibly Indian-American man for no apparent reason. Were no talented young actors of Indian descent available? Fincher is typically such a stickler for strict authenticity in his films. (It's said that, in the San Francisco Chronicle set from his movie "Zodiac," the desks were all outfitted with authentic '70s supplies and equipment, even though this would never be visible on camera). Surely, he must have cast Minghella in this role for a REASON, beyond just liking the guy's take on the character...but I'll be damned if I can puzzle that reason out. Personally, I thought it was distracting, and one of the film's few real missteps.]

The Winklevosses - privileged, attractive, confident - and Narendra have an idea for a website, and they need a talented programmer. The genius behind FaceMash seems like just the guy, so they sort of informally hire Mark to help him with their site. In his own inimitable, purposefully frustrating and distant way, he agrees. At around the same time, he comes up with his own idea for a social network called TheFacebook, which builds off of the Winklevosses concept while adding some elements of MySpace, Friendster and even FaceMash. Whether or not these two circumstances were directly related will form much of the conflict of the film.

More incidents from the founding of Facebook occur - Zuckerberg brings in his friend Eduardo Savarin (Andrew Garfield) to help fund his new project, he begins bringing in roommates and fellow coders to lend their talents, the site grows and comes to the attention of Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake) and other Silicon Valley types, etc. We start to wonder how someone who seems to lack an understanding of what "friendship" means can have such an intuitive understanding of its mechanics, and how these could be applied to the Web. Does Mark truly grok interpersonal relationships because he has spent so much time OUTSIDE them, studying their intricacies?

Many well-observed little moments all reinforce the central observation that Mark can't understand people, and that he resents them for it. His mannerisms, his body language, even his words seem to express the notion that "I don't like you, and that's your fault." We sense perhaps this is a defense mechanism gone horribly, horribly wrong. Mark feels incapable of truly "fitting in," so he has convinced himself that people are loathsome and stupid and not worth fitting in with anyway. But clearly, he's not entirely won over to misanthropy. A part of him still wishes he could be a part of something; he just doesn't know how, aside from building a website that everything wants to use. Something "cool."

Eisenberg's pretty magnificent here, ably suggesting Mark's awkwardness, his rapid-fire but clumsy speaking style, his arrogance tinged with insecurity, without going too far and turning the character into some kind of savant. It would have been easy to go "Rain Man" on Mark, present him as some kind of stunted genius, but Eisenberg keeps things level and balanced. His Zuckerberg is not mentally ill, or cartoonish or villainous. For all his apparent flaws, Eisenberg makes it hard to actively dislike Mark Zuckerberg. We're baffled by him at times, and pity him at others, but he remains a believable, three-dimensional human being in every scene.

Much of the credit for this also goes to Sorkin, who deftly anchors the film's narrative in not one but two simultaneous lawsuits. We see bits of Zuckerberg's deposition in the Winklevosses intellectual property suit, and moments from his deposition in Savarin's suit for part-ownership of Facebook. It's a clever device, not only because it helps to explicate and clarify the sometimes-complicated goings-on in the span of a fast-paced 2 hour film, but also because it gives us a flavor of Mark's experience of the world. In his mind, he's always facing off against a panel of hateful peers and disappointed elders. His whole life to this point has been one long deposition.

Fincher, who has made a career out of studying frustrated, isolated, claustrophobic characters, turns in possibly his most careful and subtle work to date. Gone is the showy provocateur of "Seven," the hyper-kinetic mindfuck artist behind "Fight Club" or "The Game" and even the detail-obsessed cinephile of "Zodiac." Instead, he's sort of turned this entire movie over to Mark himself, letting the character and his work speak for themselves. (Perhaps he's TOO subtle here? It took me a while before I even realized how frequently the movie cuts back and forth between shots of large groups of people and shots of Mark alone, even though the second sequence in the whole film is a montage cutting between a lonely dorm room and a bus full of drunk co-eds.)

Finally, I have to stop and praise the excellent score by Trent Reznor (who previously collaborated with Fincher on "Seven") and Atticus Ross. The film is graced by warm, piano-heavy, but vaguely sinister electronic music that beautifully offsets Zuckerberg's personal desperation, the frigid Boston setting and the cruel rivalries of the central characters. (It's oddly fitting for an examination of a fun, engaging site for friends created by a cold, calculating, largely humorless genius.) Interestingly, the music seems to clash with the Harvard setting of the film's first half, only to then compliment the San Francisco scenes towards the end. Is the implication that Mark truly belonged in Silicon Valley all along? Or that as his work on Facebook gains more ground, he becomes a bit more confident in his own skin, the drive to create a social network finally supplanting the drive to simply be social?

Though we all really know how this story turns out (Zuckerberg pays off his enemies to go away! Facebook gets really really popular! He's a billionaire now!), I'll still avoid "spoiling" the movie's last scene. Suffice it to say, it's beautiful and heartbreaking, and includes possibly the best closing song choice of any movie in recent memory. "The Social Network" overall is a movie that's more thought-provoking and interesting than emotional or wrenching...until that final scene. Then all bets are off, and Fincher decidedly goes for the gut. The result is about as close to perfection as movies get, and worth the price of admission alone.

Posted via email from Lon Harris

Inception review

2010-07-17T14:30:00.001-07:00

The worlds of writer/director Christopher Nolan and science-fiction author Phillip K. Dick blend seamlessly in "Inception," a cerebral summer entertainment that will almost assuredly require multiple viewings to pick up on all its careful details and clever asides. (The film's not actually based on a Dick novel, but the author's influence bursts through every confused, layered, mind-bending sequence.) The story of a brilliant but troubled thief who invades the minds of his marks via a process called "group dreaming," "Inception" combines pretty much every film genre into one tangled, complex, provocative 160-minute experience. It's a well-executed caper, an over-the-top action film, a trippy science-fiction fantasy, a brooding romance, a psychological thriller and even, at times, a far-out comedy. All Nolan really needed was a cowboy and a hockey game and he'd have every category of American filmmaking represented.

If all that sounds like a recipe for an overcrowded film, well...it is. And part of me thinks that this is actually a far superior screenplay than it is a film. But at the same time, the intensity of the viewing experience, the excitement of seeing so many brilliant ideas brought together and the polish that Nolan and his more-than-capable crew (particularly cinematographer Wally Pfister, composer Hans Zimmer and editor Lee Smith) bring to the material completely won me over. This is destined to be the most ingenious, and quite possibly the most entertaining, film of summer 2010. (Which is really saying something, as "Toy Story 3" was significantly ingenious and entertaining.)

The aforementioned thief is Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio), the world's foremost expert on group dreaming who has been using his skills at invading people's dreams to steal corporate secrets for profit, a process known as Extraction. That is, when he's not being haunted by visions of his mysteriously absent wife (Marion Cotillard) and the children he left behind in America. Cobb is then approached by a Japanese energy tycoon, Saito (Ken Watanabe), who asks him to use his team and abilities for a far more complex task than Extraction. Saito needs his main corporate rival, Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy), to make a business decision running contrary to his own financial interest, and wants Cobb to "plant" this idea in Fischer's head. This is known as Inception (hey, that's the title!), and most in the field of group dreaming (a surprisingly large field, now that I think of it) consider to be impossible.

This sets the stage for the 'heist' storyline I alluded to earlier - in which Cobb must assemble a team to design and execute a layered dream for Fischer that will lead to the executive changing his mind about the direction of his company - and it also leads to the film's extended conclusion, in which the inception must actually be carried out.

This is a complicated idea, and Nolan somehow manages to continually make it more complex and demanding, while keeping everything fairly brisk and relatively easy to follow. I wasn't 100% certain I always knew exactly what was going on in every moment of the film, but I rarely found myself having to go back and "get my bearings." The dream Cobb and his crew design for Fischer involves 3 different "levels" - an initial stage in a rainy city, a deeper dream set in a large hotel, and a final sequence set in a snow-capped mountain fortress - and Nolan cleverly allows the sets and costumes to visually cue us to which portion of the dream we're currently viewing. The layered dream conceit also allows for the film's best action sequences, in which the physics of one dream level (such as a van in which the characters are sleeping plummets off of a bridge) impacts the physics of the next dream level (causing people running down a hotel hallway to suddenly fly up into the air).

To avoid spoilers, I can't fully articulate the inventiveness of Nolan's screenplay, one of the most intricate pieces of writing I've seen brought to the big screen in years. (Nolan surely only got the budget to make this movie because he is Nolan.) There's a lot of talking and exposition in the movie, which I know has turned off some reviewers, but the ideas here are so fascinating and so well-established and considered, it really didn't bother me.

Take a sequence in which Cobb and his new "dream architect," Ariadne (Ellen Page), discuss the nature of the tactile world of dreams while sitting at an outdoor cafe. It takes a bit of chatter just to explain all the concepts that Nolan needs to get across in this scene - what it means to "create" the world of a dream, who these people are that are populating the dream world, what happens when someone is injured or dies in a dream, and so forth - but the dialogue itself is advancing our understanding of things we've already seen, and it all builds to a visually dazzling sequence in which the dream world itself begins to collapse. (This is a recurring motif in the movie - dreams crumbling and imploding on themselves - that's in some ways reminiscent of Alex Proyas' similarly-brilliant "Dark City" from 1998). It's heady and takes a while to get everything across, but it's nonetheless compelling, and there is a certain amount of brevity and efficiency in the explanations. Nolan doesn't take the time to tell us about anything he doesn't bring back later in the film for dramatic effect.

And even when the film is just two characters talking, there's a lot to love about "Inception." Hans Zimmer's score, for starters, is completely captivating, exquisitely framing both the unthinkable scale and the underlying sadness of Cobb's day-to-day life. It's his best work in years. The cinematography by Wally Pfister (Nolan's collaborator on the similarly beautiful "Prestige" and the Batman movies) is simultaneously elaborate and stark. The "dream worlds" are each given their own personalities, but there's also a gray, claustrophobic urbanity that runs through the entire film, as if Cobb is stuck in an endless, inescapable city, with unknowable secrets hiding behind every door. The effects work is also tremendous, and surprisingly subtle, considering this is a movie in which city streets fold in on themselves and skyscrapers crumbling in the background become an expected, almost quotidian, sight. The sound design also warrants mention. Part of the conceit behind entering and exiting dream states in the film has to do with repetition. Hearing dialogue and sound from reality will often jar people out of dreams, and small noises like the breaking of a wine glass or the spinning of a top take on great significance within the movie. All of this is handled delicately and with an attention to small observations that's unexpected from a big summer entertainment of this size.

Having said all of that...the final "inception" scenes tended to feel a bit long-winded, particularly in terms of the action. Putting together an effective action sequence has always been Nolan's Achilles Heel. (My one fault with his two "Batman" films is that the action never quite lives up to the visual flair of the movies around them.) He fares better here, and at least 2 of the action scenes here - a foot chase through the streets of Mumbai and the fistfight down the zero-gravity hotel hallways I mentioned before - are among the movie's highlights. But there's an awful lot of random punching and gunplay as the inception wears on (largely used to break up scenes of expository dialogue down the stretch), and it feels a bit unnecessary. The movie starts to drag a bit just as it should be picking up steam. Though we're always clear, as viewers, on which level of the dream we are seeing at any time, we're jumping between dreams so frequently that it tends to kill the tension of the shootouts or car chases. (How can you stay involved with a car chase if you're only seeing 2 out of every 10 minutes of that chase? That's one kind of action set piece you can't really "pick up" in the middle.)

There's so much that's great about "Inception," I feel like this is something of a minor quibble. Still, it's a 160 minute movie that probably would have been tighter as a 140 minute movie. And delightful as Tom Hardy is as Cobb's "forger" (and the film's comic relief), I don't really need to see him take out 30 dream soldiers when 10 would have done just as well.

"Inception" feels both like a natural extension of the major themes that have dominated Nolan's films up until this point - particularly in how it explores the subjective, even fraudulent, nature of what we perceive as "reality" - and a major step forward for him in terms of scope. If he wasn't already on the list, it ranks him among the most significant, interesting Hollywood directors of the moment. And though it's only July, I predict this will EASILY be the best, most imaginative screenplay we'll see brought to the cinemas this year, if not necessarily the best overall movie.

Posted via email from Lon Harris

"Predators" review

2010-07-10T01:13:00.001-07:00

The original 1987 action/science-fiction film "Predator" doesn't really lend itself to sequels. There's no specific REASON you couldn't make more good stories about military-trained humans being hunted in a jungle environment, per se, but unlike a lot of other films about clever, technologically-sophisticated aliens, the Predators don't really have much of an inner life or much backstory to explore. That's the whole point...they kick major human ass because they have the element of surprise on their side. If their human prey ever began to really understand them - who they are, where they come from, what makes them tick, how their peculiar body suits work - it would just make them easier to kill, and thus less compelling adversaries.

"Predators" - the new edition in the series produced by Robert Rodriguez and directed by Nimrod Antal - gets around this by basically just redoing the first film with two new twists. Rather than pitting a group of commandos against a Predator in a Guatemalan jungle, the film pits a group of commandos against 3 Predators on a distant alien world that just happens to look exactly like a Guatemalan jungle. Boom. Done. It's largely unadventurous, and comes to resemble the original film quite a bit, but as a reboot with updated special effects and some younger actors, it's certainly serviceable. "Predators" certainly fares better than the ridiculously terrible "Predator 2," which for some reason decided the best setting in which to place the Predator was a dystopian Los Angeles policed by Danny Glover, and it's also a significant improvement on the stupid "Alien vs. Predator" movies, which manage to suck all the fun out of not 1 but 2 fantastic science-fiction franchises at once!

But being better than "Predator 2" is hardly aiming high, and I can't help but wish that "Predators" was a bit bigger, bolder, more energetic and more exciting. Often, it has a feeling of going through the motions. The original movie and many of the other classic action films of the 1980s had a real sense of FUN to them. Sure, many of them, "Predator" included, play today as camp. (Carl Weathers and Arnold Schwarzenegger's manly forearm clench in the opening moments and Jesse Ventura's scenery-chewing performance - which gave rise to his lifelong catchphrase, "I ain't got time to bleed" - are often cited among the most nostalgic, memorably goofball moments from mainstream '80s cinema.)

But director John McTiernan and screenwriters John and Jim Thomas were holding nothing back. There was some emphasis on making their lead characters seem cool and badass, but above all, the movie was about packing in the most amount of entertainment value per minute of screen time as possible. Antal doesn't bring this new film the same "go for broke" sensibility (surprising when you consider the involvement of Robert Rodriguez, who tends to bring boundless enthusiasm - if little else - to his action films). To give just one example, his action hero has a big, iconic moment after besting a particularly ferocious enemy, and we get a shot that PERFECTLY lends itself to a little '80s-style action movie quip. A modern version of Arnold's classic "Stick around!" from the first film.

Instead, the hero just sort of shrugs and limps off screen, exhausted. Now, I get that a funny little one-liner might have taken the viewer out of the moment a bit, and wouldn't seem 'realistic' or work to make the character 'cooler.' But it would have been fun, and probably would have elicited cheers and been a real crowd-pleasing moment from the film. I'm not sure if the writers just couldn't think of anything good there, or if they were overly concerned with making the hero appropriately stoic and steely and cool (in the contemporary "Matrix"-inspired sense of the word)...but it was just a mistake. This is a movie about aliens in crazy suits who kidnap humans and then chase them around the jungle shooting bursts of electricity at them. Let us have a silly good time with it, would you please?

The story:

A bunch of nameless soldiers (played by Adrian Brody, Alice Braga, Danny Trejo and others) - and one nerdy doctor (played by TV's Topher Grace) - find themselves mysteriously transplanted to a jungle and have no idea how they got there. At first, they fight among themselves until it becomes obvious that they are, in fact, on an alien planet that functions as a sort of "game preserve," and they are being hunted by a trio of bloodthirsty Predators.

The action then proceeds much as it does in the first movie. One by one, their ranks are picked off by the Predators, and the survivors slowly get smarter about how the Predators hunt and what can be done to evade/kill them. Laurence Fishburne also shows up in a small role as a soldier who has figured out a way to avoid detection by Predators and stay alive on the planet for a good long while.

Screenwriters Alex Litvak and Michael Finch certainly came up with a clever way to reinvent the series without really changing much of what makes "Predator" Predator, and I really admire how the movie just sort of opens and jumps right into the main action without a lot of dilly-dallying or unnecessary exposition. However, there's still a lot of room for improvement here. I feel like one or two more drafts could have tightened up some elements of the story that just don't make much sense, and could have come up with some better pay-offs.

For example, early on it becomes apparent that, though the hunted humans share a military background, they all hail from different parts of the globe and exist on different sides of the law. There's a Mexican drug cartel enforcer, an American mercenary, a member of an African death squad, a member of the Yakuza, a convicted murderer who was awaiting execution on Death Row, etc. And yet, with the exception of the Yakuza guy who stars in the film's most fun, compelling and interesting sequence, NONE of these people are seen using their unique experience to their advantage. They all just behave like soldiers, operating under the same training and possessing largely the same skills. Why even bother to establish where they come from if you're not going to USE this information in any way? As well, the Topher Grace character - the only castaway without military experience, and a guy who seems oddly out of place for the entire movie - doesn't hold together at all. It's partially because Grace is actually a pretty terrible actor, but the character's also just a victim of bad writing. You don't believe for a second that he'd make the choices he's making, and even though he's given an extended sequence in which to basically deliver a monologue explaining himself, his behavior still doesn't actually make any sense. This whole portion of the Third Act needed a SERIOUS rewrite.

So, yeah, it's a mixed bag. Huge "Predator" fans or people enthusiastic enough about '80s-style R-rated action films to overlook some rough patches will probably enjoy the hell of this. But I feel like the bulk of the American filmgoing public would probably be better served by waiting for the DVD/Blu-Ray release. It's definitely the best film about Predators since the original 1987 "Predator," but that's not actually saying much...

Posted via email from Lon Harris

Rejected @Smosh Blog Post Submissions

2010-07-05T10:58:00.001-07:00

Recently, I became aware of an available position to blog for the official site of the YouTube sketch comedy duo, Smosh. Here's a sample of their work:

Though I have a regular job - as the Creative Director of the ThisWeekIn web television network, and the host and creator of This Week in YouTube - such a position seemed simply too golden to pass up. Regrettably, and for reasons beyond my grasp, my submissions were rejected. I really felt that I had captured the "Smosh Voice" in the below posts. I have posted them here to allow the public to decide on my qualifications themselves...]

Submission #1: Duuuuuuhhhhhhh Duuuuurrrrrr Duuuuuuuhhhhhhh

Duh. Duh duh der der duh duh dur. Duuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrr!

Der de doobly doobly dur dee dur dur duh. Duuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrr!

Duuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrr!

Submission #2: You Have a Hat on Your Butt, Butt-Hat-Face-Butt!

Hey, look, it's a hat.

[Puts hat on his butt]

Wooooo! I have a hat on my butt!

And my butt looks like my face!

I have a hat on my butt-face-butt!

[Fart noise]

Duuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrr!

Submission #3: Attack of the Twilight Bieber Pokemon Ke$ha iPad Miley Cyrus Monster

You guys, look out! Behind you! It's a collection of up-to-the-minute pop culture references that would likely appeal to our target demographic of 11-year-old girls exploring their first awkward stirrings of adolescent sexuality! It's coming right for us!

AND IT HAS A HAT ON ITS BUTT-FACE-BUTT!

[Loud clanging]

Duuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrr!

[Seriously, come on, you guys...This stuff is pure gold...]

Posted via email from Lon Harris

"Today, we celebrate our Independence...That's it, just Independence..."

2010-07-04T22:26:00.001-07:00

Bill Pullman's big, iconic line from the movie "Independence Day," has always bugged me. And today seems like the perfect day to talk about it.

The line is:

"Today, we celebrate...our Independence Day!"

Pullman says it as the President to rally the troops. Then everyone cheers and goes up in fighter plans to speciously kill supposedly technologically-superior alien beings who, for some reason, have never heard of Norton Utilities.

But the line is FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED. Because we don't celebrate our Independence DAY on July 4th. We celebrate our Independence. Period. As in, becoming independent from Britain.

To celebrate our Independence DAY implies there was a single day in which we became an independent nation, and each year, we go back and commemorate that one day in which we became independent.

That's a really fucking stupid way to approach the holiday. The amazing thing isn't that we declared independence. Anyone can declare that they are independent. It's that we actually won a fucking war to make ourselves independent. And that's, of course, what we're celebrating. The founding of our nation, not the signing of a piece of paper.

Come on...anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of American and European history knows that independence didn't happen in a single day. We declared independence from Britain on July 4, 1776, but it wasn't like independence was immediately conferred on the Colonies with the signing of that document.

The line even sounds better if you drop that word.

"Today...we celebrate...OUR INDEPENDENCE!"

Now that's rousing. The only reason to throw the word "day" in there is so you have one of those cheesy lines you can put in a trailer where a character actually says the name of the movie in the movie. And no one really likes that, ever. The only movie I can think of where that moment works is "Back to the Future," when Doc Brown says "Marty, we're sending you BACK TO THE FUTURE," and even then, it only works because (1) Christopher Lloyd sells it and (2) the line, out of context, seems like it doesn't make any sense, but then you hear it in context and it does.

Posted via email from Lon Harris

Snap Review: "LOST Finale"

2010-05-24T01:29:00.001-07:00

Warning: CRUSHING, SERIES-RUINING SPOILERS AHEAD. DO NOT READ BEFORE WATCHING THE LOST FINALE.

OK...In spite of my better judgment, I liked the "Lost" finale. It was sad, epic, funny and it felt emotionally satisfying. In the end, it was about the people who landed and how they learned to live together, not about the island and its special brand of baffling magic. I get that, and overall, it was probably the right decision. A finale that was more focused on explaining away all the fantasy elements and minutae wouldn't have really worked dramatically. (A lot of people got obsessed with stuff like Walt's powers in the early seasons, or why everything was influenced by Ancient Egypt, or the Dharma food drops...but I knew they'd never bother to go back and explain that stuff. Just no way to do that and make it an actual episode. Like in a David Lynch film, the surreal touches are just there to be surreal, and really exploring them robs them of their appeal.)

But having said all that, it's still quite bold of Cuse and Lindelof to even try to get away with such an obvious trick. They made up an entirely new story for Season 6 as a pretext to abandon the main narrative that has dominated the entire series up until that point. By inventing "alternate reality" at the beginning of 6 and then focusing almost the entire final episode on it, Cuse and Lindelof escape the corner they painted themselves in over 5 seasons. To torture the metaphor, they basically said..."Well, this whole room is painted, but look next door! A room without any paint at all! What's going on over there?" And because they thought up a nice ending to THAT story, one that gave them an excuse to explore all the main love stories that have played out over 6 seasons, the audience is tempted to overlook the fact that essentially NONE of the main questions get answered, and none of the big plot points of the first 4 seasons are dealt with in any way.

(Seriously, imagine trying to tell people watching the Season 3 finale or something what happened in the last episode. "So, um, they were all in this parallel universe, or it seemed that way, but it's actually where they all go when they die. And the island is a cork holding in an evil presence." Not a single thing that would have seemed really relevant to the show back then - like the significance of Walt and Aaron, or island's ability to heal people and hurtle them through time, or the strange experiments of the Dharma Initiative, or Libby's peculiar backstory, or the meaning of the "numbers" and their origin - means anything or gets any sort of conclusion.)

I don't know...this was a great episode of "Lost," but I sort of feel duped. It feels more like a season finale than the end of the show.

If you think about it, you could start Season 7 really easily in the Fall and it would still totally make sense.

- Rose and Bernard wake Jack up in the jungle. (Presumably, Vincent wandered over from their camp.) He's injured but he'll be fine.
- Hurley is now figuring out what they need to do in order to continue "protecting" the island. Hurley begins to discover he has Jacobian powers, but hesitates about using them. There's now tension between Hurley and Jack over who is really calling the shots.
- Ben gets jealous, maybe starts plotting how he can get rid of Hurley and Jack and run the show himself (?)
- Sawyer, Desmond, Kate, Claire et. al. return to the US. Kate and Claire discover that they will need to bring Aaron back to the island, as he's the rightful heir to Jacob, not Hurley. Unless they bring Aaron back...mysterious unspeakable bad things will happen. (Possibly involving Alvar Hanso, the founder of the Hanso Foundation, which funded the Dharma Initiative? Remember him?)
- We follow Richard as he struggles to begin a new normal life in the real non-island world.

And so on. My reasoning is, if this were truly going to be a FINAL episode that would give us all ACTUAL closure, there should have been a bit more of an effort to give it a real END. The island is destroyed or de-magic-ified, or a perpetual motion machine where these events are just going to repeat themselves ad infinitum. Either of those would be an ending.

Ignoring the lion's share of the show's genuine existential questions while setting most of your main characters off on new adventures, after assuring that they will all eventually meet again in the afterlife? I guess that's an ending, but it's not a real ENDING ending, if that makes sense. Part of me almost feels like they've intentionally left themselves with a loophole in case they ever want to do a follow-up movie or mini-series. I know they SAID they wouldn't ever do this...but then why not really close the sucker out?

Posted via email from Lon Harris

Iron Man 2 review

2010-05-08T15:55:00.001-07:00

It's not that "Iron Man 2" is a bad film, or even a poor example of the contemporary "Marvel Film" style. I sense that my disappointment with the movie, which grew progressively as the film unspooled last night, was heightened by my great enjoyment of the original "Iron Man" movie, along with a general awareness that comic book films, as a genre, have essentially fallen into a rut. "Iron Man 2" follows the formula just fine, I suppose, but it's not surprising, innovative or inspired. It doesn't enhance my appreciation for or understanding of the Tony Stark/Iron Man character. Though the action is executed well enough, it's never more than par for the course for this kind of film, and it didn't really even seem to try to exceed or upset my expectations.

10 years after "X-Men" massively renewed the general public's interest in seeing Marvel characters on the big screen, it's time someone threw us a curveball with one of these movies. I feel like we've now established that it's possible to adapt a comic book into a genuinely original, exciting cinematic experience. Now it's time to figure out how to take these stories in another direction, to make the material feel fresh again. Obviously, we've seen this story before...I'm not saying anyone needs to reinvent the wheel here, and there's only so much you can do with these Stan Lee backstories. But does the movie have to make it so OBVIOUS that we've seen this story before?

The plot: Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is a conflicted hero whose own fame and powers may prove to be his undoing. So in order to save the world, he's going to first have to save himself, along with a woman wearing a body-hugging, largely ridiculous outfit (Scarlett Johansson). You know, for a change.

Stark's facing challenges on a number of fronts, actually. His corporate arch-rival, weapons maker Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell), has hired a brilliant but insane Russian physicist (Mickey Rourke), to create an "Iron Man"-inspired robot army. At the same time, Stark has discovered that the arc reactor in his chest, the device that's not only powering his Iron Man suit but also keeping his heart healthy, has started poisoning his blood, threatening his life unless he can find a cure. Also at the same time, he's being investigated by a cynical Senator (Garry Shandling...for real...), watched closely by the agents of SHIELD (including Samuel L Jackson's Nick Fury) and hounded by his friend James Rhodes (Don Cheadle, stepping in for Terrence Howard) because he won't turn the Iron Man suit over to the US Government.

Whew. It sounds packed with incident, but all of these stories develop in a pretty labored, exposition-heavy fashion, making the movie feel surprisingly tedious. The first movie also had a lot of conflict and different plotlines going on, but Favreau and his various screenwriters (5 are credited in total) approached them with a loose, comic attitude. There was a lot coming at Tony Stark, but it wasn't really about terrorists or Jeff Bridges' evil plot or Gwyneth Paltrow's reticence to get involved with her boss romantically. It was at heart a simple, entertaining romp about a very snarky guy named Tony Stark becoming Iron Man, and whenever the narrative threatened to get bogged down in plot details, they'd throw in a couple of jokes to smooth over the rough spots and keep everyone's attention. The sequel doesn't seem to know where to focus amidst all the chaos, and Justin Theroux's screenplay lacks a lot of the witty rejoinders that populated the first movie. (The decision to have the once-charming rogue Tony Stark think that he's dying for the entire film, and therefore too depressed to behave like his usual "self-aware selfish prick" persona, was a poor one. Downey Jr's usual snarky joie de vivre doesn't really mesh well with chronic depression. So the whole film becomes something of a slog.)

We get a lot of new characters, but Sam Rockwell as the sleazily incompetent Hammer is the only one who makes any sort of real impression. He's easily the funniest character, and Favreau wisely gave Rockwell enough room to sort of overplay the role and infuse it with a lot of his trademark goofiness. (His little silly dance while presenting his new weapons at the Stark Expo is one of the very few moments in the film that feels personal and human.) I'm not sure why they decided to make Hammer so glaringly poor at building weapons. Sure, the film gets some cheap jokes out of the fact that his inventions never work, but he'd be a lot more threatening as a nemesis if he was able to build something - anything - that could actually hurt Iron Man, right?

This is important, as the shockingly lame performance by Mickey Rourke as the villainous Whiplash renders Hammer the film's lone serious antagonist. Rourke clearly connected with the role of Randy "The Ram" Robinson in "The Wrestler" only 2 years back, but he's sleepwalking through "Iron Man 2." Not only do we never for a second believe his character could possibly be a brilliant physicist, but there's honestly not a single scene in the film where I genuinely invested in the character's reality on any level. It's just Mickey Rourke with a variety of stupid-looking haircuts, fake prison tats and a bad Russian accent, not a real character who presents any sort of actual immediate challenge to Iron Man. I've always liked Rourke as an actor and want to root for him now that he's experiencing this big career revival, but I can't excuse the mess that he makes of the Whiplash character here. (It's not entirely his fault...The design on the character and his electrified whip weapon is sub-standard all-around. He looks like a homeless Star Trek villain.)

Other characters don't fare much better. Gwyneth Paltrow's Pepper Potts, one of the great surprises of the first film, seems on the verge of tears for this entire movie. I wanted to give her a hug and a muffin, and maybe tell her to take a nap, but not watch her in a film. Don Cheadle makes zero impact as James Rhodes, and it almost feels like Favreau purposefully keeps him sidelined during the bulk of the movie. Like he was embarrassed that they swapped out actors between films, and kept him in the margins so no one would notice. I forgot he was in this for 20 minute stretches at a time. Scarlett Johansson shows up to look hot but has essentially no character, and after her big "reveal" at about the halfway point in the film, she remains in the movie without anything to actually say or do. Sometimes, she's just in the background to be hot, or make for a better publicity still or something. It's obvious they just threw her in here as a further teaser for the forthcoming "Avengers" movie and didn't really think about whether she had a role to play in this story.

Actually, now that I think about it, this whole movie sort of feels like a promo for "The Avengers." Even the final post-credit scene (which I won't spoil here) serves more as an "Avengers" teaser than a capper for the movie we've actually just watched. I know Marvel execs and creative types (and maybe even fans) are all excited to have all these interconnected movies coming up, leading up to a massive "Avengers" film, but the rest of us still want the individual movies to entertain on their own merits, not as commercials for the REAL movie coming in a few years. It would be a shame if they muted the public's interest in the "Avengers" movie when it finally arrives by releasing a string of lazy, middling shitkickers beforehand.

Okay, so I feel like I'm harping on the film now and being overly critical. There's good scenes and fun little asides to be had here. The main action set pieces, particularly the final fight with Stark and Rhodes facing off against Hammer's robot army, work well and the Industrial Light and Magic effects are solid. Sam Jackson's clearly enjoying the chance to play Nick Fury, and has a lot of chemistry with Downey Jr. As I said, it's not a bad film. It's just a mediocre one, and coming on the heels of arguably my favorite Marvel film to date, that's a big letdown.

Posted via email from Lon Harris

Friday is My Last Day at Mahalo

2010-05-05T21:58:00.001-07:00

Congratulations on being employee number 2 at a growing company.

Do come back to the office and do email the team list.

I'm absolutely thrilled with you.

Best j

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

From: Lon Harris <lonharris@mahalo.com>

Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 21:46:17 -0700

To:

Subject: Friday is My Last Day at Mahalo

Hello Team Mahalo -

I'm assuming by now most of you have heard the news, particularly as we told the community during tonight's "This Week in Mahalo," but just to make sure...

Jason and Mark have generously offered me the position of Creative Director of ThisWeekIn.com, and I have accepted. So, Friday will mark my last day as Mahalo.com's Director of Community. Of course, I will still be in the office every day, and available should anyone have questions or need anything from me. But my attention will now be largely, if not entirely, focused on ThisWeekIn Studios on a day-to-day basis. So if there's anything you need to run by me or loose ends we need to tie up, please bring it to my attention whenever you can.

It has been a distinct pleasure working with all of you, and I can honestly say that in my 3+ years working for Mahalo, I've never felt as confident as I do today that the project will be a grand success. Thanks to all the developers, admins, salespeople, chefs, designers, product managers, CEOs, directors of strategy and, of course, my fellow community team members for all that you have taught me, for being such positive, productive collaborators and generally for making it such a pleasure to come in to work each and every day. I'll still be seated in your midst, so this isn't really goodbye, but it felt like a good opportunity to let you all know how thankful I am for your tireless efforts, and how proud I am to have been a part of such a talented team. Also, I'm buying my stock options, and I'm pretty sure I still get to come on this Vegas trip, so feel free to keep right on kicking butt and taking names.

Thanks again. See you tomorrow.

Lon

Posted via email from Lon Harris

Mark Zuckerberg doesn't believe in privacy. But he does believe in irony.

2010-04-29T20:26:00.001-07:00

Posted via email from Lon Harris

What do our tweets say about us? Our outlook? Our intentions?

2010-03-31T02:10:00.001-07:00

Posted via email from Lon Harris

Here's the thing about mandating health insurance...

2010-03-21T22:21:00.001-07:00

The health insurance system only works right if everyone buys in. If you just have old, sick people buying insurance, every account pays out. Insurers can't earn any money.

You could theoretically solve this by just socializing the entire health care industry, and making it a not-for-profit wing of the US Government. But Americans don't really care for that idea. To be honest, though this is probably the version of health care reform I'd prefer, I share some of their concerns.

If, instead, you want to base the system on the continued existence of private, for-profit health insurance companies, the only way to make the system solvent and universally applied is to guarantee young, healthy people - who won't actually cost serious money to insure - pay in. I kept hoping that someone would propose a third option - a way to guarantee basic, affordable health coverage to every American through private insurers but without a legal mandate for all who were able to pay in to the system - but I've never heard one. If you have, please suggest it in the comments below.

These systems don't exist in a vacuum. Public policy has to work in the real world, not in the hypothetical world of ideological purity. I feel like that's where most Americans, at least the outspoken ones I've been speaking with and reading on Facebook, Twitter and blogs, lose the thread. They begin the discussion based on what's "right," the abstract way in which they would prefer America to function. They speak in moral terms and absolutes. They harken back to particular interpretations of Constitutional law. And, sure, they make compelling points now and again. But unless you're willing to sacrifice living, breathing human beings, suffering from a lack of health coverage or crippling medical debts, to ideology and argumentation, you have to think about how these things actually play out day-to-day.

Posted via email from Lon Harris

Is it just me, or are Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes starting to look alike?

2010-03-20T14:36:00.001-07:00

One of us, one of us! Gooble gobble, gooble gobble! One of us!

(Image via Gawker)

Posted via email from Lon Harris

God of War 3 Walkthrough

2010-03-20T14:25:00.001-07:00

Oh, how I wish "God of War III" were not a PS3 exclusive. Seriously, I love love love my Xbox, but sort of feel like the PS3 exclusives pwn the Xbox exclusives, especially now that the "Bioshock" series is available for everyone. (I like the "Halo" series, but I don't really LOVE it, and I don't know...can't build up enthusiasm for "Mass Effect").

Anyway, the idea of a kickass action game set in the world of Greek Mythology intrigues me. I've been following along the development of the GOW 3 walkthrough and HD walkthrough videos of the game for Mahalo and would really like to try it out. Anyone got a used PS3 they're looking to sell? To eBay!

Check out the in-progress Mahalo God of War 3 Walkthrough here:

http://www.mahalo.com/god-of-war-3-walkthrough

Posted via email from Lon Harris

Thee Vicars, "Back on the Streets"

2010-03-20T13:47:00.001-07:00

via youtube.com

Really loving this song at the moment. Apparently, these guys are at SxSW. Read a blog post on Pandagon that featured this video, and I've had it in steady rotation since. Have these guys been around for a while and I've just missed the boat? Really awesomely retro sound.

Posted via web from Lon Harris

Roger Ebert Speaks!

2010-03-02T11:14:00.001-08:00

Roger Ebert, who had a portion of his jaw removed after a prolonged bout with thyroid cancer, will appear on "Oprah" today to show off his new voice, made possible by a Scottish company that designs text-to-speech programs. Basically, hours and hours of archived footage of Ebert's TV appearances have been cataloged, allowing him to type out language and have it repeated in his own speaking voice. The program can even do inflections, so if he writes an exclamation, his "voice" will shout what was typed.

Obviously, it's not perfect, but it's still fairly effective, and does at least simulate the effect of hearing the guy speak. Ebert's always been one of my favorite writers about film, and the few times I met him in person or corresponded with him, seemed like a genuinely good person. It's pretty inspiring to see him pushing on after all that tragedy...Hard to even fathom what it would be like to lose the ability to eat normal foods, speak, etc., especially for such an outspoken and active individual.

We're working on the Mahalo page right now. Check back here for more updates and info:

http://www.mahalo.com/roger-ebert
http://www.mahalo.com/roger-ebert-oprah

Posted via email from Lon Harris

New "Nightmare on Elm Street" Trailer

2010-02-25T11:57:00.001-08:00

The latest, and most detailed, trailer for the new "Nightmare on Elm Street" has debuted online and it's not without its charm. Definitely less jokey and ridiculous than some of the other entries in the series. (I see no indication that anyone will be jerked around, puppet-style, by their veins.) Just watch out for those micro-naps.

Makes me wonder if Jackie Earle Haley ever intends to act in a movie using his regular speaking voice, rather than the gutteral post-Bale whisper-voice.

Also, can we stop the "using children's nursery rhymes in the background to heighten the tension" trick? Starting to feel a bit overdone.

http://www.mahalo.com/a-nightmare-on-elm-street-trailer

Posted via email from Lon Harris

Sarah Palin, like all other uptight people, hates Family Guy

2010-02-19T09:05:00.001-08:00

"Family Guy" did an episode this past week about a girl in Chris' class who has Down Syndrome. The episode included a humorous line where the girl reveals that she's "the daughter of the former governor of Alaska," an obvious reference to Sarah Palin and her son, Trig. So Palin is apparently quite upset about the whole thing, because of course, SHE owns the exclusive rights to exploit Down Syndrome for personal gain, goddammit!

Anyway, the voice actress, Andrea Fay Friedman, has struck back, declaring what we all pretty much already knew - Sarah Palin has no sense of humor.

Here's the full "Family Guy" episode:

Jay-Z Grows Tired of Your Shenanigans

2010-02-18T14:01:00.001-08:00

One person who's clearly no longer delighted by parodies of the "Single Ladies" video? Beyonce's husband. Here's Jay-Z and Diddy looking on as Chicago Bulls mascot Benny the Bull performs the infamous "Single Ladies" dance. Sigh...

Posted via email from Lon Harris

Gary Coleman Wigs Out on Set of "The Insider"

2010-02-18T11:32:00.001-08:00

"Diff'rent Strokes" star Gary Coleman stormed off the set of "The Insider" the other day after a loud, angry confrontation with one of the panelists. Honestly, Coleman's obviously a bit unstable, but I'm not 100% sure this is all his fault, or just another example of him being all crazy. This woman really ambushes him and starts just yelling at him. It's less an interview than a wind-up. His only two options were to basically admit to being a spouse-abusing piece of crap (which, okay, he probably is) or to storm off the set. Although, granted, telling her to walk a plan and drown in the ocean may be a bit BIG considering the circumstances:

More info here:

http://www.mahalo.com/gary-coleman-the-insider

Posted via email from Lon Harris

Austin pilot leaves behind insane manifesto

2010-02-18T11:03:00.001-08:00

Joseph Andrew Stack has been identified as the pilot who crashed a small plane into the Echelon Building in Austin, Texas. He left behind a suicide note that could only be considered, um, extensive. More a manifesto than a note, really. It's always fascinating to me when suicidal people have this much to say. You'd think that, if you had all of these ideas to get off your chest, you would want to spend more time writing and speaking and expressing yourself, rather than taking the cowardly way out and ending it all.

The manifesto is as compelling as it is dumbfounding. A lot of blather about the evils of capitalism, the medical system, politicians and corporate greed. You can read the whole thing on our Mahalo page:

http://www.mahalo.com/joseph-andrew-stack

Posted via email from Lon Harris

RIP Doug Fieger

2010-02-14T14:52:00.001-08:00

It's hard to even conceive of the ubiquity of The Knack's "My Sharona." This is a song that every human being in the West over the age of, say, 10 has heard eleventy bazillion times. You hear it so much, it becomes kind of shrill and annoying, when in reality it's a pretty ingeniously simple, catchy little pop song. An ideal radio single.

Anyway, the man behind that song, singer-songwriter Doug Fieger, died from cancer today at age 57. He wrote some other popular songs, too, but none of them were THIS big. Once Weird Al has parodied you, that's how you know you've truly arrived.

So maybe it's time to give the song another listen, with fresh ears.

http://www.mahalo.com/doug-fieger

Posted via email from Lon Harris

Is Kevin Smith Too Fat to Fly?

2010-02-14T11:35:00.001-08:00

This is an issue that, of course, hits home for me, not only because Kevin Smith is a great guy who should not be disrespected in this way, but because he and I share a similar...um, girth. So it's pretty much inevitable at this point that I will, some day, be asked to remove my oversized ass from a Southwest flight.

Here's the story: Smith was already seated on a Southwest flight from Oakland to Burbank before being approached by a flight attendant and asked to leave the plane. Apparently, the captain felt that Smith was too large to fly on the plane and posed a "safety risk" to other passengers.

This just seems ridiculous, both because Smith is clearly not a morbidly obese individual who could actually prevent the flight from arriving safely, and because he was already sitting in the seat. What could go wrong at that point? He'd get up to use the restroom and put on an extra pound, thus making it impossible for him to sit back down?

It's one thing for airlines to set weight policies as a matter of safety and logistics. But it's another for them to publicly abuse and discriminate against people due to their size without merit. Hard to say, without knowing all the details (I'm judging the entire situation based on Kevin's Twitter feed at this point), but this seems like a case of pretty extreme overreach by Southwest, and a decision they'll probably regret soon enough now that everything is public.

Bonus question for Smith fans: Which is the more hilariously cringe-inducing Smith weight-related confessional? Getting kicked off a plane because he's too fat, or breaking the toilet at Laser Blazer, the DVD store where I used to work? You decide!

Read more about the incident here: http://www.mahalo.com/kevin-smith-southwest-airlines

Posted via email from Lon Harris

BioShock 2 Walkthrough

2010-02-11T11:19:00.001-08:00

We're hard at work right now filling out our BioShock 2 Walkthrough over on Mahalo. Looks like our writers have reached about the 4th Area, "Pauper's Drop." Can't believe this game has been out all this time and I still don't have it yet. The first one is seriously among my favorite games ever. So much atmosphere, and such a great narrative...It may be the single best written video game of all time.

Anyway, I love the ability to use plasmids and weapons simultaneously in the new game,a nd it looks just as creepy and intense this time out. Can. Not. Wait.

http://www.mahalo.com/bioshock-2-walkthrough

Posted via email from Lon Harris

Best Ads of Super Bowl 2010: Simpsons for Coca-Cola

2010-02-07T15:23:00.001-08:00

Here's my next favorite early Super Bowl 2010 commercial: A bit based on "The Simpsons" in which billionaire C. Montgomery Burns falls on hard economic times. He takes a walk in the park and discovers everyone enjoying Coca-Colas, only to be given one for free by shopkeeper Apu. Can Coca-Cola turn even the most misanthropic miser around? Let's find out together!

http://www.mahalo.com/coca-cola-super-bowl-ads-2010

Posted via email from Lon Harris

Best Ads of the 2010 Super Bowl: Yo Gabba Gabba for Kia

2010-02-07T13:17:00.001-08:00

We've got pages on Mahalo for every single Super Bowl ad, so I've either seen the ads or at least extended previews for them at this point. And I have some predictions about what the best ones will be. So I'm going to post them throughout the day.

First up, this ad for the Kia Sorento, featuring the stars of Nick Jr.'s "Yo Gabba Gabba".

http://www.mahalo.com/kia-super-bowl-ad

Posted via email from Lon Harris

The Lovely Bones review

2010-01-17T03:17:00.001-08:00

Peter Jackson's "The Lovely Bones," based on a popular novel I have not read by Alice Sebold, tells two parallel stories. In the first, a typical 14-year-old Pennsylvania girl named Susie Salmon (Saorise Ronan) is murdered by a creepy neighbor and finds her spirit in limbo, stuck between the world of the living and Heaven. She watches with the audience as the second story, about the impact of her death on the rest of her family, unfolds. It's a technique that almost assuredly works better in prose than on screen. Any narrator in any work of fiction enters a sort of limbo, if you think about it, perched between the real world (in which they are telling you, the reader, a story) and the make-believe realm in which the story's events take place. So it's probably not very challenging to accept Susie's situation, occupying a magical heavenly afterlife of her own creation while relating events she witnesses on Earth, in print.

In a film, though, the device simply falls apart. Susie's predicament, by its very nature, is internal. We follow her story, and get a sense of her mental turmoil (do you have a mind in limbo?) as she struggles between lingering affection for her old life and a desire to move on to Heaven. But she now lives in an environment and a situation that's almost entirely random and intangible, that seems to operate independent of logic or consequences. Limbo is erratic; rules are established for Susie's life there, but they all seem more or less fluid based on the concerns of the plot. (For example, she tells us that there is no "time" and nothing ever changes, and then later says she has the same dream "every night." How is there an "every night" if there's no time? How does a dead person even dream, anyway?)

Anyway, it's nearly impossible for Jackson to provide this half of the story with any sort of real narrative momentum. The afterlife he depicts is certainly beautiful and imaginative, as relics of Susie's life on Earth (like the "ships in a bottle" she once built with her dad, or the charms from her old bracelet) reappear in impossible or outsized ways. One particularly memorable, decidedly eerie shot sees Susie and a young friend named Holly (Nikki SooHoo) whom we presume has also died, running through a field of grass that's actually its own, tiny, spherical planet. But the Limbo sequences almost never drive the story forward, and none of them really build to a satisfying climax. Susie can have or do anything she wants; if she can imagine it, it will appear before her. That might be nice for a while, but it certainly isn't the sort of conflict that can drive a film.

Perhaps if Jackson were interested in exploring some of the metaphysical and spiritual questions raised by Susie's story, the film's afterlife sequences could have developed more of a sense of purpose. For a vision of the next world that's so aesthetically pleasing, this is also a cruel turn of events for Susie. After being murdered at 14, she's given a chance to communicate and interact with her beloved parents, but then told she's not supposed to. She's provided with horrifying visions of her own killer, informed that he has killed before and will likely kill again, but is completely unable to confront or stall him. Save for some visits from Holly, a stranger who speaks cryptically about the Heaven that awaits her once she agrees to turn her back on her family, Susie is entirely alone. She's even taunted by visions of a boy she once dreamed of kissing (Reece Ritchie), who has now taken up with a different girl, and images of her younger sister getting the first kiss she was denied. And this is where you go if you're bound for HEAVEN! I'd hate to think of what awaits the rest of us.

Considering how much time is spent in Limbo, I wish Jackson had more intellectual curiosity about the place. How can we exist eternally in a state of bliss and perfection if we've retained our human consciousness, our memory and our sense of time? No matter how perfect a world we'd created, wouldn't we still get horribly bored and lonely? How does Susie know about world events that happened after her death, and why does she care? (At one point, she laments that her story took place "before missing kids were printed on milk cartons," but how does she know that would happen? Are there newspapers in Heaven?) I'm not trying to poke holes in the movie, really, but to look at all of the avenues that Jackson and the his script (written along with frequent collaborators Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens) could have possibly explored to make the scenes of Susie in Heaven more compelling. Instead, they exist mainly to compliment the main story, which follows Susie's family, and which doesn't really need the abstract dead-girl fantasy elements. Susie is at the center of the film, but she comes to feel like little more than a distraction.

The real-world narrative lacks the rich visual majesty of the afterlife scenes, but holds together as drama far more successfully. There's very little here that dozens of other movies haven't already explored - how the death of a child so thoroughly devastates parents and rends families apart, how a lack of closure can prevent people from moving on after a tragic loss, how pain and tragedy can bring people together, how survivors feel guilty that their lives continue after others' have ended - bit it's still undeniably well-executed. Jackson's ease with building tension serve him well, as always, and he and DP Andrew Lesnie create a rural Pennsylvania town that's both believably real and strikingly impressionistic. (I hope no children are currently growing up right behind a cornfield this sinister.)

Susie's entire family is, of course, devastated by the loss of one of their own, but none seem to take it quite as hard as her father, Jack (a solid, understated Mark Wahlberg). His obsessive need to find Susie's killer and punish him drives away his fragile wife, Abigail (Rachel Weisz) and frustrates the detective assigned to the case (Michael Imperioli). His investigation eventually leads him to George Harvey (Tucci), an eccentric loner who lives a few doors down, and spends his days in his basement, building doll houses. Tucci completely disappears into the guarded, quick-tempered Harvey. It's a chilling performance that's probably a bit TOO convincing; this guy's such a creep, it's hard to believe he wouldn't be everyone's prime suspect. (If Christoph Waltz weren't such a revelation in "Inglourious Basterds," I'd probably be behind Tucci for Best Supporting Actor.) Susan Sarandon also appears, mainly for comic relief, as Susie's boozy grandmother, who shows up for a bit to help the family through the healing process. There's a montage of her trying to help out around the house despite a lack of parenting and homemaking experience that's kind of funny, in a sitcom sort of way, but also brings the momentum to a screeching halt.

Jackson also (and some of this might be Sebold's fault, I don't know) completely belly flops the ending. He's getting worse and worse with endings all the time. I personally thought "Lord of the Rings" ended on a dry, emotionally inert note, with its 12 different, equally dull, conclusions, and the hacky final third of "King Kong" unfolds almost entirely in slow-motion, trying to turn a simple story about a giant ape who gets loose in New York into a "Schindler's List"-esque catharsis. Here, he resolves essentially all of the stories on a sour, predictable or unsatisfying note. Susie explains the meaning of the title "the lovely bones" to us in a voice-over at the end, and basically implies that the story of her time in limbo was REALLY the story of her family's path to healing and recovery, but the only story that Jackson truly manages to wrap up is Susie's. Jack, in particular, gets the short shrift; he's the film's only driven, passionate character and he gets essentially sidelined for the entire third act. And let's not even get into the fate of George Harvey, whose final scene in this film represents one of the absolute low points of Peter Jackson's entire film career. This is an embarrassingly cheap, utterly fraudulent way to finish one of the film's key plotlines. If Jackson, Walsh and Boyens care so little for what happens to George Harvey, why follow up with him at all? Ambiguity is better than a lazy cop-out, any day.

What I'm saying, in the longest, most drawn-out way possible, is that the Salmon Family stuff could really be its own passable (but not great) movie, without the need for what essentially amounts to a gimmick. Perhaps, in the book, the connections between Susie's reality and Earth are handled with more subtlety and care, but Jackson repeatedly insists on drawing attention away from the story that's actually interesting (the family struggling to get over a violent, horrifying death) and towards the vague, scattered, ultimately pointless and frequently silly "Limbo" bit. Yes, yes, we get it. Susie was killed in a cornfield, and saw a picture of a lighthouse before she died, and now these icons serve as Limbo landmarks. There are bird sculptures on the walls of her dad's den, so the leaves on the Limbo trees turn into birds. George is obsessed with houses, and we see him menacingly stare in the windows of the small dollhouses he builds like a perverted Brobdingnagian. (I mean, come on...a middle-aged unmarried, childless suspected child killer, a who builds doll houses as a hobby? The cops weren't at least a little suspicious of this guy? No one felt like they were laying this on a bit thick?) A bit of this goes a long, long way.

And why bother with tons of those sorts of asides when there's such an interesting situation to explore going on elsewhere? It feels like Peter Jackson got distracted by the special effects and the aesthetics of Susie's world, and failed to focus on the real emotional core of the story - the living human beings. I'll end with a prime example. There's a very important, very sad scene in which Jack goes to get film shot by Susie before her death developed, against the wishes of his wife, who can't bear to think about and remember her lost daughter. And Peter Jackson chooses that moment to give himself a goofy cameo, jerking around a very '70s video camera in the background. (Get it? Har!) Perhaps this is just modesty - he figured no one would recognize him - but it totally pulled me out of the scene for no good reason to see him back there. He just kind of didn't care so much about what could have been a significant and above-all HONEST scene about the horror of losing your child. The very thing his movie's supposed to be about.

Posted via email from Lon Harris

The 50 Best Films of the Decade, 20-1

2010-01-12T00:19:00.001-08:00

It's already more than a week into the new decade. Time to finish this sucker up. Sorry, again, that it has taken me so long. I guess I decided to write too much about each film and turned this into a greater commitment than I really had ample time to see through. But I have persevered!

20. The Incredibles (2004)

I read a "decade wrap-up" blog post recently knocking Brad Bird's riff on superhero movies and spy flicks, and even after the well-written and clear review, I still don't quite get how anyone can dislike this utterly charming, 100 mile-per-hour blend of action, fantasy and comedy. I'll admit, I had my doubts at first, mainly due to it's sort of creepy motif about championing the stronger and more intelligent, and allowing them to lord their gifts over inferior beings. But the film is just so relentlessly fun and exciting, so clever in how it rewires pulp imagery and some very adult genre films into something accessible to mass audiences and children, so packed full of incident and spectacle and humor...it just overwhelms you with goodness until you completely forget your reservations about its "Ayn Rand for Beginners" theme. This is PIXAR's greatest triumph out of a decade in which they rarely faltered. (I mean, wow, "Cars"...Seriously, what the hell happened? Why did they have shelves if they were talking cars! Cars can't reach shelves!)

19. The Devil's Backbone (2001)

Forget the over-rated, disjointed "Pan's Labyrinth"; this is the best film Guillermo del Toro's ever made, and the decade's best horror film. During the Spanish Civil War, young Carlos finds himself at a strange orphanage, haunted by a ghost named Santi. Del Toro is, on one level, making a creepily effective conventional ghost story, as Carlos and his fellow orphans get increasingly bold in their paranormal investigations. But "Devil's Backbone" is also more serious film about the terror inherent in childhood, borrowing liberally from the surreal Spanish drama "Spirit of the Beehive." Carlos, a sensitive and perceptive young man, is fully aware of his surroundings, and knows things well before most of the adults in charge figure them out, but is thoroughly unable to affect genuine change...Over time, this reality gets far more dangerous and upsetting to him than the spirit who may or may not be roaming the grounds. The way Del Toro gradually builds tension during the film is nothing short of masterful, typified by the undetonated, defused bomb planted in the center of the orphanage's courtyard. This place, we come to understand, is not IMMEDIATELY threatening, but bad things have happened here, and very likely will again.

18. Borat (2006)

In 500 years, no film will offer a more compelling, clear depiction of who the Americans of the past decade were, how we lived and how we saw ourselves than "Borat." We're just going to have to deal with that. Sacha Baron Cohen's crude, mean-spirited and gut-bustingly hilarious pseudo-documentary takes his Kazakh TV host character on the road, meeting an assorted variety of rubes, misogynists and bigots and tricking them into revealing their true natures to a global audience. The film became an international phenomenon on the back of Cohen's skill as a comic performer - his fearlessness, his way with a catch phrase, his quick wit in the face of massive idiocy - but he's also a frequently insightful and cutting social critic. A scene where Borat discusses dating and sex with some intoxicated fraternity brothers gets some laughs, but soon enough becomes deeply troubling, even stomach-turning, and far more revealing than anyone appearing on camera (Cohen included) probably realized at the time. I like!

17. No Country for Old Men (2007)

After back-to-back disappointments ("Intolerable Cruelty" and the reprehensible "Ladykillers"), the Coen Brothers returned in fine form with this cold-blooded, nihilistic modern-day Western. The film hits on all the Coens' greatest strengths - colorful dialogue, enigmatic characters, a carefully consistent aesthetic, unexpected bursts of violence, expert use of repetition - and it's easily their most suspenseful film to date. From the moment the fiendishly clever, totally intractable hitman Anton Chigurh (an almost-unnaturally, inhumanly laconic Javier Bardem) is introduced, "No Country for Old Men" refuses to let the viewer relax, plunging us into a relentless pursuit that could only end tragically. Chigurh is chasing some misplaced drug money that has accidentally come into the possession of welder Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin), and is himself being pursued by the largely apathetic, contemplative Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones), but Bardem constantly remains the driving force at the film's center. Consider a shootout in which Chigurh pursues Moss out of a hotel room and into the city streets. We barely even need to SEE Bardem in this sequence at all. He has established Chigurh's menace so convincingly in previous scenes, just a faint shadow against a nearby wall, or the sound of him busting through a door by blowing a hole through it with an air gun, is panic-inducing. In many ways, "No Country" is more concerned with the nature of Chigurh's chase than the specific incidents, or where everyone ends up. What could possibly motivate him to keep going, despite hopelessness, defeat and injury? Why push forward, even though he doesn't seem to need the money or care about what happens to him? He's capable of great acts of cruelty and brutality, but what's most chilling about Chigurh is his total lack of motivation. He just kills. It's what he does.

16. Inglourious Basterds (2009)

Quentin Tarantino's thrilling WWII saga is wonderfully cinematic, and filled with innovative, beautifully realized images, but I almost feel like it would work just as well as a play. This isn't true of any of QT's other work, which is so tied to the cinema and its history that it wouldn't even make sense in another medium. But "Inglorious Basterds" is really a series of long scenes about liars and the slow, deliberate, methodical ways that their lines are undone. The script is sometimes reminiscent of mystery plays, such as Anthony Shaffer's "Sleuth," in which a game or puzzle is introduced, and we follow a character gradually untangling everything in real time. Only in "Basterds," the man working out the mystery is a Nazi known as the "Jew Hunter," and we're firmly on the side of those attempting to conceal the truth. Christoph Waltz is a revelation as the villainous and brilliant Nazi, Col. Hans Landa, who seems to delight equally in toying with his victims and reveling in his own powers of deduction. Probably Tarantino's best-written film since "Pulp Fiction," and the one that best marries his love for film history and his unerring knack for genre dialogue with his preternatural ability as a storyteller.

15. What Time is it There (2001)

When I say that Tsai Ming-liang's ingenious, impenetrable "What Time Is It There" isn't for everybody, I mean it's for hardly any people at all. A sometimes-funny, sometimes-depressing but always self-conscious and deliberate "art film," the movie's slow pace, frequent digressions and ambiguity are sure to thwart any filmgoers who don't have the patience to just experience the cinema without having to figure everything out. There's really no clear statement I can make with confidence about what Tsai's film actually "means" - the story concerns a lonely street vendor (Hsiao Kang) who sells his watch to a woman (Chen Shiang-Chyi) on her way to Paris and thereafter becomes oddly obsessed with this encounter. But these incidents are just a jumping off point for Tsai's amusingly dark (or darkly amusing?) observations about the disconnectedness and cold isolation of modern urban life, and how we're most alone when lots of other people are around. He suggests, by the end, that we are all more in sync than we realize, but that to behold and appreciate this synchronicity would destroy it. Which is a depressing thought...but also kind of funny.

14. Minority Report (2002)

Here's a word you can't often use to describe Steven Spielberg movies: Under-appreciated. But I'll be damned if "Minority Report" missed out on its fair share of accolades for including some of Steve's best-ever action sequences EVER, a twisty, unpredictable noir-inspired script, a perfectly-realized and detailed near-future setting and gorgeous, hallucinatory cinematography from Janusz Kamiński. "Minority Report" just keeps upping the ante, getting more intense and provocative and imaginative as it goes along. This is a relative rarity in the science-fiction genre, where the best ideas are usually explained by some opening text before the main action even starts. "Minority Report," conversely, is overloaded with clever, well-thought-out little touches, from experimental (and gruesome) future eye surgery to mechanical retinal-scanning spiders to realistic vomit sticks and jet packs to cereal boxes that play their own commercials. There's enough material here to power five conventional, mainstream sci-fi films.

13. Head-On (2004)

Fatih Akin's "Head-On" is a romance set in Germany's Turkish immigrant community that builds to an absolutely devastating climax. Why does the conclusion hit me so hard each time I watch the film? I think it's because Akin cleverly opens the movie with comedy, winning us over to the character's perspective by letting us laugh at their rough-edged humanity. Then, once we're committed, he injects tragedy to their lives. The film opens with a premise that could be played completely for humor...Aging addict Cahit (Birol Ünel) crashes his car into a wall (on purpose) and is taken to a psychiatric hospital. There, he meets the equally suicidal Sibel (Sibel Kekilli), and the two of embark on a marriage of convenience, allowing her to escape from her overbearing, traditional father and brothers and party to her heart's content. The unlikely love that develops between them is handled with humor and honesty, and Akin's script and his actors rarely hit a false note. And, of course, it builds to one of the saddest endings of any contemporary film. This is the sort of honest conclusion that most American directors, even iconoclasts like Alexander Payne or Wes Anderson, repeatedly prove too timid to explore, a recognition that even things which seem destined to work out sometimes don't, and that life is about surviving the disappointments and coping with the failures as much as anything else.

12. Ghost World (2001)

Terry Zwigoff's film takes feelings of alienation and isolation that you may have never been able to put into words, and sets an entire film around them. The film's intelligent introverts have accepted as inevitable the idea that they will always be all alone, forever, and it has made them utterly unable to connect with other human beings even when the opportunity presents itself. But it's, you know, a comedy. Just as cynical, geeky recent high school graduate Enid (Thora Birch) finds herself outgrowing her friendship with her classmate Rebecca (Scarlett Johansson), she encounters another lost and lonely soul, record collector Seymour (Steve Buscemi). They embark on a tentative friendship that largely reveals a lack of experience with the ritual on both sides, but also a mutual intelligence and respect that sets them apart from the dullards around them, before eventually drifting apart. The haunting final sequence finds Enid leaving it all behind for good - Seymour, Rebecca, her father, her former life - and bound for nowhere in particular. She's a bit older, and a bit wiser, but not really any happier.

11. Zodiac (2007)

David Fincher's gripping police procedural about the never-solved Zodiac Killer case contains more raw information about the real murders and the major players than you'd likely get from a 2 hour History Channel documentary. But though it covers all the names and dates, all the leads and false positives and blind alleys that kept the case open and the killer walking the streets for decades, the film's not about Zodiac the person or his motives. As in real life, those remain beyond the film's grasp...Even when suggesting whom the killer might be, "Zodiac" never even pretends to understand who he really was, or why he did what he did. Fincher's focus remains squarely on the men who grew obsessed with catching the Zodiac, what drove them, and how their eventual failure to actually get their man wrecked havoc on their lives. He also finds time to give a fascinating behind-the-scenes look at how the police investigation unfolded, and to offer a compelling theory on the identity of the actual Zodiac Killer. And it's impossible to talk about the genius of this film without mentioning the obsessive realism and attention to detail, in particular the stunning recreation of San Francisco in the '70s. (One of my favorite moments is the amazing time-lapse recreation of the Transamerica Pyramid being built, a perfect visual encapsulation of the passage of time and a poignant reminder that, though the Zodiac investigators were running around in circles, the city picked itself up and moved on.)

10. The Dark Knight (2008)

After the grandiose, incident-packed "Batman Begins," which got the Christian Bale Batman series off to a fresh but largely conventional start, co-writer/director Christopher Nolan really elevated the superhero genre with the follow-up, "The Dark Knight." No longer a movie about sacrifice, duty and heroism, as you typically expect with Batman movies, Nolan was now making a film about the corrupting nature of power, the sinister appeal of Fascism and authoritarianism, the way fear and anger spread virally, infecting whole populations overnight, and the nature of madness itself. That the film also has the feel of a crowd-pleaser, and contains sufficient spectacle to rank among the most popular movies of all time, is a testament to Nolan's gift for storytelling and for balancing high-minded themes and explosions without diluting either. Heath Ledger, unrecognizable under grotesque make-up, gives one of the decade's most frightening, transformative and memorable performances as The Joker; through unfortunate circumstance, he essentially disappeared into the role and was never heard from again.

9. The Royal Tenenbaums (2001)

"Rushmore" will probably always be my personal favorite Wes Anderson movie, but "Royal Tenenbaums" is the one that distills his idiosyncratic style down to its most essential and clearly-expressed form. As much a word-of-mouth family history as a story, Anderson careens around through time and between the Poles, giving us just enough of a sense for who the Tenenbaums are to appreciate the next sequence we're about to see. Gene Hackman gives my vote for the Best Comic Performance of the Decade as patriarch Royal Tenenbaum, whose lifelong selfishness and duplicity have not exactly endeared him to his family, but who is now determined to unite them all under one roof. In later Anderson films, like "The Life Aquatic," his familiar quirks - the '60s British Invasion music and folk songs, frequent montages focusing on details and minutae, labels and titles that emphasize the "written" aspects of the story, deadpan humor - feel like gimmicks, shorthand that he's contractually obliged to use to remind people they're watching a "Wes Anderson movie." But here it feels accurate, like he's not overwhelming us with Wes Anderson's favorite things but channeling the Tenenbaum Family's style and personal taste.

8. Oldboy (2003)

"Oldboy" is like a nightmare you remember well enough to talk about later, with images you can't shake out of your head for days and a strange, internal logic all its own. Mild-mannered Oh Dae-Su (Hwang Jo-yun) is kidnapped from off the street and imprisoned in a spare hotel room for 15 years with no explanation. When he gets out, he's determined to find out who kidnapped him and why...but when he eventually pieces it all together, he doesn't like the answers much. Director Park Chan-wook directs with a manic energy that viscerally simulates his hero's mounting paranoia and desperation. He will do anything to find the person responsible for what happened to him, a task that's more important to him than the people around him, than his own health and well-being, that may even be more important than his freedom itself. One virtuoso sequence of Oh Dae-Su sacrificing his sanity in the service of his revenge plot follows another - the incredible single-shot hammer fight, eating the live squid, the tooth-pulling - all of them infused with an off-kilter, dreamlike quality that makes everything seems somehow unreal, too brutal and purposelessly cruel to have actually happened.

7. Gangs of New York (2002)

Yes, I know, this is probably the single most controversial film on the entire list, and it's here in the Top 10. To all the haters, I say...bring it. Martin Scorsese's "Gangs of New York," his best film this past decade, is a constantly entertaining and artful illumination of a largely-obscure period in American history, highlighted by the expressive, sweeping photography of Michael Ballhaus, the massive eye-popping Dante Ferretti sets and a perfect, scenery-chewing performance from Daniel Day-Lewis. Amidst all this awesomeness, to think that people have the audacity to complain that supporting player Cameron Diaz was miscast, discounting the entire film on the basis of her sometimes-unrealistic accent. clear skin and pretty face. As if the distraction of seeing a well-known starlet reasonably acquit her way across a few dramatic sequences were enough to undo brilliant sequences like the feuding fire fighting companies, the scores of immigrants pouring off of arriving ships, the knife-throwing demonstration or the Draft Riots. Scorsese wisely realizes that the main narrative, a revenge story about a kid who infiltrates the gang of the man who killed his father, was mainly a frame on which to hang his real subject - the community that grew up around New York's "Five Points" in the mid-19th Century, and how events at that time shaped the urban American landscape we know today.

6. Children of Men (2006)

It's such a cliche to say that something "works on so many levels" that even Homer Simpson has been known to adopt the phrase. But Alfonso Cuaron's ingenious, dystopian sci-fi thriller "Children of Men" genuinely deserves such praise. The story of a world where humans have lost the ability to reproduce, and thus have resigned themselves to impending extinction, is a haunting examination of how the present only has meaning when considered as one incident in a larger narrative, and how human beings process tragedy while clinging to hope. It's also a social commentary on how fear makes us turn against the weakest and most helpless people around us, and how governments and regimes (from both sides of the political spectrum) hold on to power by perpetuating this fear and scapegoating minorities. Plus it's a tender and involving human drama that pays close attention to small character details, and manages to fold in more than its fair share of surprising comedy. And finally, it's one of the best action films in a generation, turning the loud, flashy, quick-cut style of faux-auteurs like Michael Bay on its head in favor of deliberate, immaculately-realized single-take sequences that put the audience directly in the midst of gruesome, chaotic violence.

5. City of God (2002)

Pretty much every young international filmmaker with a lot of energy and a fondness for contemporary music gets compared to Martin Scorsese, but Fernando Meirelles' relentless, ceaselessly inventive crime epic really does warrant consideration alongside Marty's classics. This is mainly because Meirelles embarks on a similar project to Scorsese - the dissection of a particular neighborhood, how it functions, the individuals who fill various roles and how these shift and change over time - and does so with a personal flair and a puckish, child-like desire to subvert expectations. The film demands our attention from the first moment; it opens with blurry, frenetic footage of a chicken darting through the streets of the Rio slum known as 'City of God,' trying to avoid having its head chopped off. Its characters will essentially replicate the bird's behavior for the rest of the movie. Though the neighborhood has its resident stone-cold killer (Lil' Ze, played with ferocity, but also sympathy, by Leandro Firmino da Hora), most of the characters are laid-back and likable. They go into crime not because they relish the thought of breaking the law, but because it is the best (and in many cases, only) opportunity presenting itself to them at the time. The film spans decades and eventually gives you the sense of familiarity with your surroundings, but it's not familiarity with the twisty, multi-faceted and overcrowded neighborhood itself. That would take much more than one film (even the follow-up TV series wasn't up to the task). Instead, it's a familiarity with the rhythms of life there, and the complex choices faced by those the City's residents. "City of God" was the most audacious, brave and purely entertaining film of the decade.

4. Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

Peter Jackson's last great film, and easily the crowning achievement of his "Lord of the Rings" adaptation project, "The Fellowship of the Ring" was everything its sequels yearned to be but weren't. Let's face it...Some time between this film, the ponderous final half of "The Two Towers" and the bombastic, overlong and punishingly maudlin "Return of the King," Peter Jackson started believing his own hype. He stopped making larger-than-life, exciting, risky genre movies (of which "Fellowship" is the best example) and started making "serious cinema." Now his movies are 4 hours long and exhausting, and not nearly as fun as they should be. "Fellowship" is everything you'd ever want from a Tolkein adaptation, and really seems to "get" the timeless appeal of the books. Sure, the monsters and swordplay and sorcery are fun, but it's really a eulogy for humanity's pre-Industrial way of life, when we were just finding our way as a species, and were, by necessity, still in touch with the natural world around us. Jackson infuses every scene in his film with a sort of quiet, stoic melancholy, a sadness at seeing innocence drained from the lovable main characters that permeates the whole film from the first scene onward, but somehow never gets in the way of the spectacle. I don't want to be too hard on the following films...They both have their strong points (particularly Gollum, still the most compelling and life-like motion-capture animated character in film history), and the trilogy taken as a whole is a remarkable achievement. But watching the other two can, at times, feel like a chore. "Fellowship" is thoroughly enjoyable, a sweeping, effects-driven, continent-spanning adventure that's still quirky, intimate and oddly personal.

3. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)

Charlie Kaufman understands the mechanics and shifting emotions of relationships better than any other screenwriter working today. He (along with director Michel Gondry and Pierre Bismuth) could have written a straight-forward, chronological movie about the love affair at the center of "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind," and it would probably still appear somewhere on this Top 50 list. Instead, he sends us hurtling through Joel and Clementine's life together backwards then forwards again, jamming the awkward moments of dysfunction right up into the first kisses and pillow talk. The result is a head-trip that feels instantly relateable, the kind of movie that seems to crystallize thoughts you've always had but just never seriously entertained before. Kaufman's premise resembles those in Philip K. Dick's more caustic satires - Joel (Jim Carrey, in his best performance to date) pays the somewhat questionable Dr. Howard Mierzwiak (Tom Wilkinson) to erase all memory of his previous relationship with the moody, eccentric Clementine (Kate Winslet) from his brain. Joel experiences the process of "forced forgetting" as similar to time travel. He's whisked backwards through his time with Clementine, seeing incidents unfold and then disappear forever into the void. Simultaneously, we see scenes of Dr. Howard's assistants, one of whom (Elijah Wood) is stealing Joel's moves from his memories and using them to seduce Clementine, who has also had a procedure to erase her memory of Joel. And this gets to the heart of Kaufman's concept; the fading relationship of Joel and Clementine, just like the budding relationship of Patrick and Clementine, is doomed to end in failure, but that does not mean it was not real love, and that the experience of it wasn't authentic. Even if Joel and Clementine wound up repeating the pattern forever - dating, forgetting one another, then getting back together - that could itself prove to be a certain kind of happiness, with the thrill of finding one another outweighing the heartache of being torn apart. I'm realizing now that I just got through an entire discussion of the wonders of this movie and didn't even talk about Jon Brion's amazing score, Michel Gondry's wonderfully light touch with the film's sometimes surral visuals and brilliant use of repetition and visual patterns or Ellen Kuras bright, kinetic, even disorienting cinematography, which reinforces Joel's feelings of sensory overload and fatigue! Crap!

2. There Will Be Blood (2007)

There was no more complicated, fascinating, inscrutable, iconic film character in the '00s than Daniel Plainview, and this is a movie that's entirely about him. Therefore, it's #2 on the list. Oh, sure, it has other attributes. In more than a century of gritty Westerns, the cinema has rarely portrayed the American frontier as a more dark and menacing hellscape than cinematography Robert Elswit and director Paul Thomas Anderson present here. The depiction of the early days of the American oil industry and the outlines of how the business was conducted in the early part of the 20th Century is fascinating and relevant to our own moment in history. In order to power our machines, we must send men literally deep into the bowels of the Earth, at great risk to their personal safety, and this movie makes that decision horrifyingly, palpably real. The character of Eli Sunday (Paul Dano), a small-town pastor who will resort of Machiavellian tactics to achieve his goals, is compelling enough to warrant a movie of his own. But this is Daniel Day-Lewis' film all the way, embodying a man who's as much a force of nature as a character. Somehow, Day-Lewis was able to gain an understanding about this man, who scarcely seems to understand himself. Plainview speaks in calm, measured tones to disguise his impulsive, reckless temperament. He surrounds himself with colleagues and family despite a professed hatred for people. He will allow himself to be humiliated in front of a large crowd of people, but will rage at minor perceived slights. It's a bit like seeing a fearsome monster playing at being a person, afraid to upset the natural order of things. It's a thrilling, classic performance.

1. Mulholland Drive (2001)

No film this decade was more intriguing, and no film demanded rewatching, further speculation and discussion more than David Lynch's masterpiece. I think it's his greatest film, which is saying something, because the guy's responsible for a number of fantastic movies, as well as one of my favorite TV series of all time. In addition to its puzzle-box structure, that rewards careful attention and repeat viewings, Lynch manages to perfectly balance between comedy and suspense for over 2 hours. The movie can be SCARY and hilarious, almost at the same time, which both enhances its dream-like quality (because dreams, as we all know, can shift moods in a moment) AND makes it just an extremely entertaining way to pass a few hours. The film's first hour coalesces roughly into a sensible story (really a few interconnected stories, as these scenes were designed as a pilot for a TV show): Betty (Naomi Watts) has come to LA with stars in her eyes, and lands an audition for a big movie role; the film's director, Adam Kesher (Justin Thoreaux), loves Betty but receives a variety of not-so-subtle warnings that he must cast a different goal in the part; Betty's new roommate Rita (Laura Elena Harring) has been in a car crash and doesn't remember who she is; and all the time, a vague conspiracy involving a cowboy and a little man in a wheelchair and a homeless man behind a dumpster and a scruffy hitman is forming, with Kesher's film at its center. The second half follows people who resemble their alter-egos in the first half, but are clearly different individuals (Betty is now "Diane," Rita is now "Camilla"). Soon enough, attentive viewers will sense the connection between the two stories, how we've seen one view of reality as it exists and one alternate depiction of reality from within a character's subconscious mind. Throughout, Lynch uses stock Hollywood techniques and allusions to classic cinema, mixed with absurd dialogue and surreal imagery, noting the way that movies (and the industry that creates them) recreate our dreams and then slowly dismantle them. By the time it's all over, he's built up the central conceit so deftly and with such fascinating ambiguity, you want to go back and watch it all again just to pick up what you missed. That still happens to me, and I've seen the movie at least 12 times.

First A-Team Trailer is BIG, but sort of underwhelming...

2010-01-08T11:48:00.001-08:00

via mahalo.com

I'm not sure exactly what to think about this new A-Team movie. I have pleaseant, nostalgic memories of the show. I like a lot of the cast members. I really enjoyed Joe Carnahan's first big movie, "Narc." But I'm also aware that, as a big-screen adaptation of a classic action-oriented TV series, it doesn't have a very promising pedigree.

Is "The Fugitive" the ONLY time this concept has ever actually worked? I can't think of a single other example.

Posted via web from Lon Harris

Honestly, it'd be surprising if Mariah Carey accepted an award NOT drunk...

2010-01-06T10:55:00.001-08:00

via mahalo.com

Here's Mariah Carey, accepting an award for her role in the film "Precious" with all the seriousness and dignity that the art of the cinema demands. This is so amusing, I'd like to see more. Can we get Paula Abdul a major role in a hot indie film this year?

Posted via web from Lon Harris

The 50 Best Films of the Decade, 30-21

2010-01-03T18:54:00.001-08:00

We're getting to the point on this list where I personally love every movie on here, and distinguishing between which ones I prefer to others becomes more or less random. These sorts of decisions are always in flux, and if you asked me to compile the same list 6 months or a year from now, at least some of the rankings would have changed, I'm certain. So consider this a snapshot in time more than anything else, and a convenient way for me to spread the word on 50 great movies, some of which you may not have seen, more than a definitive list of anything.

Also I sort of cheat below and include 2 films as one item in the list. I think it's fair, though, for reasons that should become clear.

30. Overnight (2003)

"Overnight" is like a morality play for our troubled times. One of the decade's most compelling and hilarious documentaries came together as a happy accident. Writer/director Troy Duffy got a shot at making his own Hollywood film after getting a script into the hands of Miramax chief Harvey Weinstein. Naturally, he brought his friends along for the ride, some of whom decided to film the entire experience. Little did they know when embarking on the indie crime thriller "The Boondock Saints" project that Duffy would proceed to burn every bridge in town, thus ruining lifelong friendships and decimating his chances of future success as a filmmaker. (10 years later, he's still working on resurrecting his prospects following the "Boondock" debacle.) The result is a brilliant, insightful and darkly comic showbiz tragedy, and also one of the most direct and essential statements about the importance of humility, and the dangers of, as Scarface might say, "getting high on your own supply," ever set to film. (Is it a coincidence that one of the directors is also named "Tony Montana"?)

29. Songs from the Second Floor (2000)

"Songs in the Second Floor" is comprised of a series of amusing, precise sketches about hopeless, adrift individuals, abandoned in an urban dystopia. This visionary, harrowing collection of small, disconnected stories from Swedish director Roy Andersson, could be broken up into a series of short films and still prove enlightening, worthwhile and frequently hilarious. But taken together, they ultimately develop into a devastating statement about the panic that runs beneath the surface of most human interactions, and the paranoia of metropolitan life at the change of the millennium. The motif of feeling "stuck" by circumstances and a claustrophobic downtown environment comes up over and over again in Andersson's world, in this film and its almost equally-brilliant 2007 follow-up, "You the Living." An endless, inexplicable traffic jab snakes through the unnamed setting, characters are seen entering the disorganized tangle of train stations and airports without ever actually getting anywhere and Andersson's motionless cinematography (almost every scene is depicted from a single, fixed perspective around which the characters move) remains permanently rooted in place, unable to effect any change or move out of the increasingly disturbing, surreal locations.

28. Match Point (2005)

Woody Allen revisits the themes of his 1989 masterpiece "Crimes and Misdemeanors" in this cerebral drama, his finest work of a very prolific decade. A meditation on the nature of justice, and the sociological ramifications of a guilty person evading detection, it's above all a clever, calculating, unpredictable crime thriller. Allen, who's of course best known for comedy, proves he knows how to time a sequence perfectly for maximum suspense (particularly a sequence in an armory where the anti-hero is trying to cover his misdeeds). Caddish tennis pro Chris (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) romances shy heiress Chloe (Emily Mortimer) while having it off with fiancee Nola (Scarlett Johansson) on the side. When this situation becomes untenable, rather than risking the loss of his career prospects and meal ticket, Chris resorts to some pretty shocking, unthinkable maneuvers. Allen's film looks at the role that luck plays in all of our lives - as Chris continually avoids punishment for his crimes purely by chance - but I think it makes the larger point that, regardless of how things work out, we live in a world where the moral codes exist only inside our heads. Getting away with any breach of the social contract or taboo is simply a matter of good planning and hoping the situations outside of your control happen to turn in your favor. In Allen's view, accepting this reality is both comforting and terrifying.

27. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007)

The historical character of Jesse James, probably the single most famous, iconic outlaw in the history of the American West, bears pretty much zero resemblance to the man himself. Even in his own time, the public's notion of Jesse didn't really reflect the man's genuine character. Andrew Dominik's haunting, eerie and, yes, fictional look at the last few months of James' life, examines the impact fame (infamy, really) may have had on the man and his ability to relate to the world. It's that same notoriety that attracts the awkward, vaguely sinister Robert Ford (Casey Affleck) to James. He wants nothing more than to insert himself into James' circle, to assume a small portion of the man's reputation and celebrity, and when dismissed and turned away, his desperation quickly turns to rage. Andrew Dominik's Western becomes almost like a lamentation for an era we collectively dreamed about, but that never really existed. Even Roger Deakins' crisp but faded, ghostly pale cinematography drains all the color out of the Old West of popular myth, leaving only the faint, blurred outlines of gaunt, calloused pioneers we recognize from old-timey photographs.

26. Kill Bill 1 and 2 (2003-2004)

Yes, yes, it's actually 2 movies, but Tarantino's "Kill Bill" series builds and unfolds like a single film, and was originally conceived that way, so I figure it counts. The logical endpoint of Tarantino's ongoing fascination with post-modernism and cult cinema, "Kill Bill" is that rare mash-up (either in film or music) that coheres into a single, unified whole. The entire idiosyncratic, unpredictable saga is, at its core, a fairly straight-forward revenge story: A former assassin in the employ of her teacher and lover, Bill (David Carradine), The Bride (Uma Thurman) ran off to lead a normal live as a Texas record store clerk and wife, only to be hunted down and (almost) exterminated by her former comrades. Now, awaking from a coma, having lost her husband and the baby she was carrying, she sets about tracking her fellow assassins down one by one, and so on and so forth. What's staggering and exciting about Tarantino's work here is about how he can hack up the narrative into achronological, fast-paced segments, reference dozens of films from a variety of eras and genres, and still produce a finished film with its own unique attitude and style. It's almost as if QT saps these old forgotten films and genres of all their energy, and infuses it all into his own work. There's a massive amount of seemingly-impossible shots, hilarious or badass bits of dialogue, dazzling action sequences and little touches throughout, enough to keep even the most observant, attentive viewer bewildered for the first few viewings.

25. George Washington (2000)

David Gordon Green's lyrical, picturesque coming of age drama/thriller "George Washington" follows a group of 12-year-olds in the rural South as they face the harsh realities of life for the first time. There is a conventional plot here - about a tragic mistake made by the kids and their half-hearted attempts to cover it up - but Green's film is as much about this specific, often-overlooked place in America and the daily rhythms of life there. His North Carolina is a realistic but almost dreamlike vision, a land of sun-swept beauty but also encroaching decay. Some of the settings are stunningly beautiful, but seem to be wasting away before our eyes. Rather than a film made by an outsider attempting to explain the South and its understanding of race, Green speaks with experience, and also tremendous compassion, about the life of protagonist George (Donald Holden) and his friends, capturing their manner of speaking and adolescent impressions of the world beyond their town with patience and a practiced, archivist's ear.

24. Donnie Darko (2001)

Far more influential than it's given credit for, Richard Kelly's fusion of science-fiction, psychological horror and '80s teen comedy remains just as fresh, funny, convention-shattering and quietly terrifying today as it did 9 years ago. The movie predicted the rush of '80s nostalgia that would come to dominate pop culture in the last decade, it toyed with the same metaphysical fascination with time travel that JJ Abrams has exploited in his "Star Trek" movie and on "Lost," and it reminded us of the magnetic, movie star quality of Patrick Swayze before we all remembered how great he was. Ignore the "Director's Cut" that was eventually released for DVD; it robs the movie of its central mystery and ambiguity, trying to "explain away" the strange conundrums of the narrative, even though they are, when all is said and done, the entire purpose of the enterprise. Strange things are happening to the bright, perceptive but troubled adolescent Donnie (Jake Gyllanhaal, in the performance that made him famous). He's seeing things, like a 6-foot-tall evil-looking apocalypse-predicting rabbit named Frank and gelatinous blobs that come out of people's chests and point at where they will go next, and then he comes across a book written by the town's resident old crank that seem to explain it all via time travel. All that remains (in the preferred, theatrical cut, at least) are intriguing questions. Is Donnie just a schizophrenic and we're seeing the world from his perspective? Is he a rebellious kid with nothing in his squeaky-clean suburb to rebel against, so he's turned on the universe and its natural laws? Or is he the Christ-like figure, mandated to sacrifice himself for the well-being of others, that the book seems to imply he might be?

23. Grizzly Man (2005)

Documentarian Werner Herzog presents footage shot by a guy named Timothy Treadwell over the course of a few years while he camped near wild bears in Alaska and also uses this footage to tell a larger story about man's relationship to nature. Treadwell, it's clear, was going to Alaska and spending his time watching bears to escape his own troubles, frustrations and, we start to sense, mental illness. But in addition to escaping, it seems like Treadwell was trying to impose some kind of order to his surroundings. He named the animals, concocted an entire conspiracy about threats to them and their habitat by the National Park Service (casting himself as the hero, of course), and narrated their lives into a camera, essentially creating a documentary of his own, without a need for an audience. Herzog's film, on the other hand, is something of an anti-nature documentary. Instead of mythologizing and romanticizing the natural world like such films so often do, and like Treadwell himself was prone to do, Herzog accepts nature for what it is: disinterested, cruel and violent. His interest remains keenly on Timothy and the other human characters, how Timothy inspired or troubled them, and their feelings at his eventual demise at the hands of the creatures that so fascinated him.

22. Munich (2005)

In this era of endless conflicts fought without battlefields, Steven Spielberg's "Munich" is what a war movie looks like. It contains all the intensity and spectacle of combat, all the sober, clear-eyed examination of the horrors of mass violence and all the pleas for rationality and diplomacy that you'd expect from a war film, but the action is brief and contained, the emotions repressed and bottled-up, and the wounds covered and hidden away, never examined and scrutinized. In the aftermath of a terrorist attack on the Olympic Village in Munich in 1972, Israel unleashes a motley crew of various experts and Mossad agents to assassinate the 11 Palestinians they believe were involved. As the team travels around carrying out their mission, and hopelessness about completing their task or moving on with their lives afterward begins to set in, their faith in the righteousness of their calling seems to waver a bit, without ever really giving way. Spielberg has made a critique of serving patriotism and ideology without thinking, but it's a compassionate criticism, never harsh or biting. He's working here at the height of his prowess as a storyteller, commanding our attention through a variety of expansive, note-perfect set pieces and filling his cast with expressive but restrained character actors, whose uniformly stoic turns reflect the morally impossible choices set before them.

21. The Wrestler (2008)

Sure, "The Wrestler" represents something of a creative peak for Mickey Rourke, and thus a return for a star of another era who has been lost in the woods for a few decades. But there's a lot more going on here than a compelling, realistic and wrenching lead performance. Darren Aronofsky's character study starts in a small-scale, low-key manner, giving us a feel for the quotidian details of aging pro wrestler Randy Robinson's life before piling on the crises and new experiences. Rourke's terrific here as the broken down but still sanguine former superstar, struggling to get by on physically-punishing local gigs and the fading promises of a big-time comeback. Aronofsky so slyly and gradually turns up the heat on his hero, pulling him back out into the world via a romance with a stripper (Marisa Tomei) and a renewed connection to his daughter (Evan Rachel Wood), that we don't realize how high the stakes are and how invested we've become in Randy's health, well-being and relationships until the shattering conclusion. "The Wrestler" ends on exactly the right note, and the effect is sort of mildly pulverizing. It's one of a number of daring choices made by Aronofsky (such as showing us, in gruesome close-up, Robinson's wounds and scars) that really pay off, making this one of the most simple but effective dramas of the '00s.

The 50 Best Films of the Decade, 40-31

2010-01-03T13:02:00.001-08:00

Now that I'm seeing a lot of other people's Top Films of the Decade lists, there's the inevitable second-guessing. "Oooh, that was a good movie, should it have been on my list?" "Roger Ebert said Hurt Locker was #2 of the decade? Was #49 on my list too low? I have only seen it once, after all." And so forth. But here is my promise to you...What you are seeing is my unchanged, unaltered original list, made over the course of the past month and a half, written without consulting any other "Best of" lists. Here we go...

40. Battle Royale (2000)

The final completed film of Japanese "outlaw" master Kinji Fukasaku (who died while preparing to direct the sequel) takes the themes that dominated his entire career (ultraviolence, individuals stuck in cruel, authoritarian bureaucracies), and detonates them with a fistfull of C4. In a dystopian future Japan, one entire middle-school class is selected each year to participate in a competition known as Battle Royale, in which they must all kill each other until only one student remains alive. We follow one group of kids through the entire "BR" process, beginning with a chilling monologue from the game's organizer, played by actor Beat Takashi (also known as director Takashi Kitano). The movie is gruesome, provocative and, yes, exciting, even though it feels SO wrong to watch children behaving in such a brutal fashion. For a veteran like Fukasaku, who cut his teeth on yakuza and samurai pictures back in the '60s, pulling off a tense, thrilling action sequence is second nature. What's so surprising about "Battle Royale," and what makes such an outlandish premise work as a dramatic feature, is the eerie, wrenching performances he gets from his young actors, whose reactions to the experiment range from dazed and horrified to fascinated.

39. Casino Royale (2006)

No Bond movie feels more like a Bond movie than "Goldfinger." It represents the creative and stylistic pinnacle of the super-spy sub-genre. But, speaking purely in terms of filmmaking and consistent entertainment value, I think "Casino Royale" may be the best Bond movie ever made. Strong words, I know. But "Goldfinger," though a thoroughly engaging and charming adventure film with a genuinely cutting, dry sense of humor, lags in some spots, and isn't exactly notable for Guy Hamilton's ace direction. (We remember the iconic concepts - a nude woman coated in gold, a derby hat with a blade in the brim, a timer stopping at exactly 007 - more than the specific images.) "Casino Royale" offers a bevy of beautifully-orchestrated, memorable action set pieces, a rather brilliant reimagining of the character from the ground up by Daniel Craig and enough classic Bond-isms to put even the most old-school fan at ease. Thoroughly recreating a character as iconic as Bond while still making the movie feel like it fits with the previous incarnations is no easy task; just look at Marc Forster's utter bungling of the same sort of high-wire act in this film's follow-up, "Quantum of Solace," as evidence of this fact.

38. Batman Begins (2005)

Another bold reinvention of a classic movie hero, Christopher Nolan's "Batman Begins" touches on essentially EVERYTHING that makes the character cool over the course of 2 and a half intense, self-assured, relentless hours. We get Batman the detective, the wounded boy, the terrifying vigilante, the corporate schemer, the ninja, the victim of corruption, the billionaire playboy and as the city's last line of defense against organized crime. Nolan transitions with ease from classic adventure film swashbuckling in the snow-capped mountains of the Far East to rooftop car chases to comic-book fistfights in a burning Wayne Manor. The end result is provocative, thoughtful and exhilarating, and easily one of the best superhero films ever made.

37. Broken Flowers (2005)

There are a lot of movies about loneliness, but few of them ever really capture what it's like to actually feel isolated and alone. Cheap, fraudulent films like "Up in the Air" (in theaters now!) depict loneliness using essentially stock footage to stand in for real observation - a person standing by themselves at an airport as happy couples embrace, say, or a person standing in a bare studio apartment with nothing on the walls and few furnishings. Jim Jarmusch's "Broken Flowers" really understands loneliness, because its hero, the aging cocksman Don Johnston (Bill Murray, as good as he's ever been in a film), really understands what he has lost. Only a film with such a sharp ear for dialogue and such a warm understanding of friendship and love (witness the bond between Murray's character and that of Geoffrey Wright, who only share a few scenes together!) could so heartbreakingly express the sensation of helplessly watching other people drift out of your life forever.

36. American Splendor (2003)

As a guy, "American Splendor" creator Harvey Pekar is not really all that likable, and he knows it, which is the basic contradiction at the heart of his work and this film about him: He writes about himself, but it's mostly about how he's not all that interesting and his suspicion that no one really cares what he has to say. This observation alone, though, IS sort of interesting, making us want to hear more. And so on. Writer/directors Shari Springer Berman and Robert Pulcini have made the film using an odd, Pekar-inspired touch - in addition to documentary-style interviews with the man himself, we see re-enactments of major events in his life featuring Paul Giamatti (in one of his signature roles). It's a testament to how well this gimmick works that we stop noticing it after a while. Just like the cartoon Pekar hero in the "American Splendor" comics, Giamatti and the real Harvey Pekar sort of blend into one another, creating an amalgamation of the man and his heightened, fictional alter-ego.

35. Made (2001)

It's a testament to just how good Vince Vaughn is in this film as an irritating loudmouth that it turns most people off from even watching the movie. Ricky is so horrible to be around, and creates such havoc wherever he goes, even the film's AUDIENCES try to get away from him. Jon Favreau's hilarious un-buddy comedy works on a number of levels - the improvisational dialogue from great character actors, from Peter Falk to Vincent Pastore to Sam Rockwell, the sweetness and humanity that runs just beneath the more outrageous underworld antics, the lived-in realism and chemistry evident in Favreau and Vaughn's relationship. But it's Vaughn's performance that elevates the material to "Best of the Decade" caliber. It's one of the two or three best comic performances of the decade. (I have a few other nominees in mind. Maybe a separate post?)

34. Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (2003)

I'm sort of a sucker for historical realism in movies. Not in a nitpicky, looking-out-for-any-anachronisms-in-the-background, nebbishy way. I just appreciate real effort, when it's obvious a filmmaker poured himself into the world and the little details of the period. Peter Weir's seafaring adventure, "Master and Commander," is one such film; it seems to know everything about life in the Royal Navy during the Napoleonic era. This lends the movie a tremendous amount of atmosphere and keeps it compelling on repeat viewings, but you also just feel like you learn a lot by watching it, and gain a greater understanding of the mechanics of fighting wars at sea. (It helps that the sound design - which rightly won an Oscar - is among the best ever, lulling us into this world with every creak of the ship, gust of wind and clank of metal-on-metal.) The film also boasts a surprisingly fleshed-out relationship between the legendary Captain Jack Aubrey (Russell Crowe) and naturalist Dr. Stephen Maturin (Paul Bettany) and some ripping, epic-scale battle sequences.

33. Unbreakable (2000)

M. Night Shyamalan's only GREAT movie (I like "Sixth Sense," but it's really only great the first time you see it), "Unbreakable" reinvented the "comic book movie" about 8 years before it was cinematically fashionable. The film translates every aspect of comic storytelling into a precisely-observed real world setting, and the result is a thought-provoking, layered and beautifully directed film, bursting with small but meaningful detail. This is one of those movies that would NEVER get nominated for something like Best Costumes or Best Cinematography, because the work is contemporary and reserved and subtle, but when you see Bruce Willis in a rain slicker closing in on his prey, there is no doubt as to who he is and what he represents. And it's all done visually, with no dialogue and only a shot of him from behind, from the knee down. Shyamalan, to me, demonstrates a real gift for universally-relatable, mainstream visual storytelling that's almost-Spielbergian in it imagination and simplicity. What the hell HAPPENED? How did he transform into the witless, egomaniacal turd behind "Lady in the Water" and "The Happening"?

32. Punch-Drunk Love (2002)

Paul Thomas Anderson's peculiar, unexpected romantic comedy finds Barry Egan (Adam Sandler) embarking on a tentative romance with a co-worker of his sister's (Emily Watson) while fighting long-distance with a mattress store owner and scam artist in Provo, Utah (Phillip Seymour Hoffman). In order to force an audience to relate to Egan, an insecure, introverted guy suffering from intense anxiety, writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson uses skewed angles, odd color combinations, strange interstitials, lens flare and a loud, chaotic musical score, that sometimes gets so loud it intrudes on the dialogue. The effect is somewhat disconcerting at first, until Barry starts to calm down and the film relaxes around him, but by this time, we're already right there with him, determined to see things go his way. This is the kind of quirky comedy I can get into...Barry's peculiarities aren't there to make him amusing or more interesting. They define him and what his life has been about, and the process of letting some of them go comes to define this movie about him, too.

31. The Man Who Wasn't There (2001)

"I don't talk much," says barber Ed Crane (a mesmerizing Billy Bob Thornton, doing a ton with very little), at the beginning of "Man Who Wasn't There." And he's our narrator and only window into the story! That means we don't get a lot of direction from writer/directors The Coen Brothers as this neo-noir unfolds, not a lot of hints as to how we're meant to interpret Ed's eventful but emotionally distant journey from husband to blackmailer to convict. The film centers, as do so many other Coen thrillers, on an amateurish crime gone horribly wrong, in this case Crane's attempt to extort money from the married department store owner (James Gandolfini) who's sleeping with his wife. As the noose tightens around Crane and circumstances catch up to him, we see him taking a number of risks and making some odd personal decisions, but we never get any answers to the central question of what's really driving him, why he does the things he does. And that ambiguity is what makes the film fascinating, even after multiple viewings, along with Roger Deakins's gorgeous, spot-on black-and-white cinematography. It's also notable for the Coens' uncanny ability to disappear into the style of other artists, in this case the noir directors of the '40s and '50s, and novelist James M. Cain.

The Complete #YouTube2009 Best-Of Video Collection

2009-12-31T19:23:00.001-08:00

Here's my full list of 2009's Best YouTube videos. I've been sending them out slowly, one by one, via Twitter, but I barely made a dent in the list. So now here's the entire thing, put together at last, for your continued enjoyment. Use it wisely, kids.

Foar Everywun Frum Boxxy
Aretha Franklin Crazy Inauguration Hat

Christian Bale Freak-out:

[PARODIES: Charlie Loses it, Michael Cera Freakout on the set of "Youth in Revolt", Christian Bale meets David After Dentist]

David After Dentist
Crazy Asian lady misses flight
32 songs in 8 minutes
Twouble with Twitters
Snakes on a Plane (TV Edit)
Prop 8: The Musical

Play him off, keyboard cat:

[PARODY: Super Keyboard Cat Bros.]

"Blame It" Spoof with Barack Obama
Stephon Marbury Crying
Billy Mays: The Rap Tribute

2012: It's a Disaster!:

I'm Not Here to Make Friends '09
Teen Girl Falls in Open Manhole While Texting
Do You Wanna Date My Avatar?
Understanding Automatic Door Fail
8-bit trip
Inglourious Plummers
Taylor Swift VMA Award Moment Ruined by Kanye West

Roman Polanski on To Catch a Predator:

Jon LaJoie: I Kill People
Best drunk dude ever attempts to buy more beer
Cat Ladies trailer
Bat (Remi Gaillard in a Bat Costume)

Poker Faces (Lady Gaga vs. Cartman vs. Christopher Walken):

Pigeon: Impossible
JK Wedding Dance
Evian Roller Babies
Bizkit the Sleep Walking Dog
Forklift smashes massive vodka stock

Auto-Tune the News #8:

Tosh.0 Why Must I Cry Remix
DJ Steve Porter: Slap Chop Rap
DJ Steve Porter: Press Hop
Goldberg calls Beck "lying sack of dog mess"

I'm on a Boat:

[PARODY: I'm in a Box]

Two Guys Who Spend Too Much Time Together
Vanilla Ice Apology
Celtics Jumbotron Fan Dance
911 Eucalyptus Call
Nunchuk Fail
Saturday Morning Watchmen

Flight Attendant Rap:

Patrick Duffy and The Crab
P Twitty
Paris Hilton Loves Things and Stuff
Star Wars-Dallas Opening
Jesus Pwn3d U

C Me Dance Trailer:

Let Me Twitter Dat
Learning Guitar to Get Laid
PS22 Chorus Eye of the Tiger
Moms on the Net
My Little Pony: Live Action Trailer
Obnoxious Groundhog
Wanda Sykes White House Correspondents Dinner
Paulina Wild and Crazy Nights

Mr. T Take Me Out to the Ball Game:

The Boyfriend Experience
Han Solo PI
New Moon Trailer Reaction
Sarah Silverman Webby Awards
Bret Michaels Tony Awards

Jay-Z Cure Mash-up:

World of Warcraft Freakout
Hamster in a Wok
Squirrel in Woman's Cleavage
White Girls Bill Cosby Impressions
Nirvana vs Rick Astley
Shake Weight

Make The Girl Dance:

[PARODY: Naked Girls Get Interrupted]

Biz Markie Just a Friend Literal Video

Hitler Subtitle Meme: FriendFeed, Avatar, Balloon Boy
While I Was Away
It's Time for the Percolator
Mad Men in 60 Seconds

Paper Towels Infomercial:

56-Year-Old Virgin
Bus Fight Chinatown San Francisco
Breakdancer Kicks Cat
Parachute Fail
Sittin on Tha Toilet
Jones' Cheap Ass Prepaid Legal and Daycare Academy

Puppy Snooki Punch:

Sex Offender Shuffle
The Juggalo Gathering 2009
Sasquatch Festival Dance Party
inspector Gadget theme song played on beer bottles
Hammer Pants Dance
Redneck Wants to Impeach Obama
Hey! Jurassic Park Video

Amazing Ball Flip:

Danny MacAskill Inspired Bicycles
Kutiman ThruYou
Her Morning Elegance Oren Lavie
Deadline Post-It Stop Motion

Grizzly Bear - Ready, Able

Voca People
100 Greatest Hits of YouTube in 4 Minutes
The Golden Age of Video (Ricardo Autobahn)
Scrumdiddlyumptious

Posted via email from Lon Harris

There's always room for vodka encased in gelatin!

2009-12-31T13:28:00.001-08:00

Mahalo's page on How to Make Jello Shots is blowing up the spot right now. I guess a lot of you are still into these things? Personally, I'm not much of a fan...I like my alcohol drinkable, and without a lot of preparation time required. But that's just me.

One other thought...Has anyone ever considered making, like, frozen cocktail treats? Like how you can make those orange juice pops by freezing OJ in an ice cube tray with some toothpicks? You could do a whole variety. Frozen Daiquiris. Frozen Margaritas. Frozen Greyhounds and Sea Breezes. The possibilities are limitless. Think about it.

http://www.mahalo.com/how-to-make-a-jello-shot

Posted via email from Lon Harris

The 50 Best Films of the Decade, 50-41

2009-12-31T00:29:00.001-08:00

If you missed the start of the list, which opened with Honorable Mentions and other introductory material, it can be found in all its overly-long, needlessly-complex glory here. Now on to the proper list...

50. The King of Kong (2007)

It's hard to believe that one of the most popular and enduring documentary films of the past 10 years involves a controversy over who got the highest score in "Donkey Kong." But, of course, the movie's not really about "Donkey Kong," or arcade games more generally, but the archetypal face-off between the two men competing for the high score title - lovable loser Steve Wiebe and self-described "Sauce King," massive dickbag Billy Mitchell. Wiebe's such a classic movie underdog, and Mitchell such a despicable nemesis, they at times come across like scripted characters, a nerdy incarnation of Rocky Balboa and Apollo Creed. There are plans to adapt the documentary into a fictional film, but it's hard to imagine how any actors could bring any additional resonance to this struggle or insight into these personalities that we don't already get from seeing the real people involved.

49. The Hurt Locker (2009)

Kathryn Bigelow's monstrously intense Iraq War film does 2 things extremely well - capture the chaotic, occasionally nightmarish day-to-day existence of a member of the US Army's Explosive Ordnance Disposal unit serving in Baghdad, and explore the psychological impact this experience can have on the men and women who live through it. Most war movies, even good war movies, don't really try to do either of these things. Typically, we see the life and death of American soldiers as a kind of highlight (or lowlight) reel - basic training, shipping out, bonding with brothers in arms, the carnage of modern combat and, finally, the hell of Post-Traumatic Stress or long-term injury. But "Hurt Locker" is more about the small, quotidian details, the way that even facing death by shrapnel-heavy explosion becomes a job after a while, and how some people get hooked on the adrenaline rush in spite of themselves.

48. Before Sunset (2004)

"Before Sunset" is a wonderfully humorous, melancholy romance that culminates in one of the decade's best final scenes, a perfect encapsulation of the relationship between Jesse (Ethan Hawke) and Celine (Julie Delpy) and a really potent use of dramatic ambiguity. After meeting 9 years earlier on a train to Vienna, and failing to make a pre-arranged rendezvous afterwards, the American Jesse and French Celine suddenly reconnect in Paris and spend about 90 minutes (in real time) dissecting what, if anything, it all means. Romantic comedies often have, at their core, a simple message about spontaneity, jumping in head-first when something feels right and never holding back when it comes to love. But rarely do these films ever capture the gravity and potentially tragic consequences of this sort of behavior. "Before Sunset" is smart enough to realize that it's not always as easy as "thinking with your heart," and that when adults make sudden, spontaneous decisions, lives literally hang in the balance.

47. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)

The best of the "Harry Potter" films is also a tragic story about families being ripped apart, a fleet and exciting fantasy adventure (with just a dash of science-fiction) AND something of an advertisement for traveling the English countryside. The previous entries in the series were like bloated Hollywood kiddie films; the later "Potter" films tend to get a bit overstuffed with incident and outsized, almost Shakespearean, theatrics. "Azkaban," and director Alfonso Cuaron, hit all the series' now-familiar notes just right, from the pale-green, stately grounds of the Hogwarts Academy, the ethereal wonder of the Patronus spell and the mind-bending horror of the titular prison and its Reaper-esque wards, the Dementors.

46. I'm Not Scared (2003)

In Italian director Gabriele Salvatores' gripping, virtuoso thriller, a nine-year-old boy makes a shocking discovery in a hole in the ground, near a wheat field, on the edge of his small town. It's a discovery that will forever alter the way he sees himself, his home and his family. Salvatores' story (based on a novel which itself was based on a real-life incident in Milan in the '70s) isn't so much about young Michele's discovery and how it eventually gets resolved, though he handles the machinations of the plot with ease and impeccable style. Instead, it's something of an experiment in telling a complex story entirely from the perspective of a young boy, who is himself struggling to understand not only what is happening but why and how, questions most adults would not even bother to ask themselves. Everything in Salvatores' film, particularly the cinematography of Italo Petriccione, which takes in the rough, monochromatic countryside almost exclusively from a child's height, pushes the viewer to filter these troubling, sometimes horrifying, events as they would appear to an innocent, just starting to understand that the world can not only be cruel, but also indifferent.

45. American Psycho (2000)

In the Bret Easton Ellis novel that inspired this film, decadent homicidal maniac Patrick Bateman is an insatiable monster, a maniac whose dark, uncontrollable urges push him to commit acts of savagery so heinous as to be almost indescribable in mere prose. Accurately sensing that there's no way a film audience could withstand 2 hours in the company of such a villain, director Mary Harron and co-screenwriter Guinevere Turner turn his story into a gleefully perverse satire of '80s corporate culture, misogyny and the masculine insecurity that powered both. Here, Bateman's never actually terrifying, but more a comically pathetic brute who happens to have a good tailor, particularly when star Christian Bale is delivering self-aware, caustic, "rehearsed" monologues about business cards and disaffected pronouncements of his urgent and immediate need to return some videos. Bale, dressed in a raincoat, attacking women with axes while discussing the semiotics of Huey Lewis and the News albums will forever remain one of the iconic images of '00s film.

44. Lost in Translation (2003)

Those who criticized this somber indie comedy (a som-com!) as depicting Japan and the Japanese negatively, as exotic caricatures and profoundly "foreign," basically missed the point. Sofia Coppola's film isn't so much about visiting Japan, though the country does provide a lovely and colorful backdrop for the leisurely narrative. It's about the way that travel, particularly perfunctory or enforced travel stemming from business rather than pleasure, robs us of our feeling of personal security and our sense of self. Our homes are places where we surround ourselves with creature comforts - we enjoy being there, because we've stuffed it full of things we like - and even the swankiest hotel can't really live up to that standard. For Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson) and Bob (Bill Murray), wandering around so far out of their element has an even greater and more disconcerting impact. By taking them away from their usual distractions, Tokyo won't allow them to escape thinking about their problems. Watching them take comfort in one another's (platonic) company is pretty much a non-stop delight, highlighted by Murray's more-deadpan-than-deadpan delivery, Coppola's steady, patient hand at the helm, one of the cinema's great karaoke sequences and Lance Acord's swooning, kaleidoscopic cinematography.

43. Sexy Beast (2000)

Ben Kingsley gives arguably his career-best performance in this unpredictable, frequently hilarious twist on the British gangster film. Sir Ben so completely disappears into the role of frustrated mad-dog criminal Don Logan, it's almost surprising he was ever able to pull himself back out and resume his normal life. The film opens with Logan flying out to Spain to visit Gal (Ray Winstone), an old colleague who has retired along with his ex-porn star wife Deedee (Amanda Redman), in order to strong-arm him into returning to London to pull one last heist. Logan's in the employ of the suave Teddy Bass (the always-stellar and perfectly cast Ian McShane), and they need one more experienced guy, and Gal really doesn't have a say in the matter. Just as the situation - complicated by Logan's longstanding feelings for Deedee - comes to a head, writers Louis Mellis and David Scinto cut to the heist itself, leaving us to piece together the events that transpired during the time jump ourselves. It's a daring move, but the film pulls it off, mainly because Jonathan Glazer's full-throttle pacing (the film has a relentless, almost manic energy) and the terrific lead performances don't give us time or inclination to worry about such minor details as the resolution of the film's main conflict.

42. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005)

"Kiss Kiss Bang Bang" seemed to promise a major comeback for writer Shane Black, the king of '80s action screenplays. He made his directorial debut with this film, the...wait for it...BEST ACTION-COMEDY OF THE DECADE. Instead, Black didn't go on to direct any more movies, and it was star Robert Downey Jr. who embarked on a fabulous and fully-revived career immediately afterwards. (To be fair, Downey's career is stronger than ever at this point. He's freaking Tony Stark.) There is not a film in the entire rest of the Top 50 for which the specifics of the plot matters less than this one. Suffice it to say that the movie is a send-up of buddy cop movies AND Raymond Chandler novels at the same time, and that RDJ and Val Kilmer play the unwitting partners at the film's center, solving a needlessly-elaborate crime. Black's intensely ironic sense of humor (Downey Jr. narrates in voice-over that's constantly cracking wise and calling attention to itself) and fondness for bathroom humor could have easily turned on him, but he consistently hits the perfect balance between the sophomoric and the clever, like your best friend from college after 4 and a half beers. Plus, it's exceptionally rewatchable, and really holds up to repeat viewings, a true sign of a great comedy.

41. Best in Show (2000)

Christopher Guest's improvisational ensemble comedy "Waiting for Guffman" is funny, but it's almost too incisive. Its observations about small American towns and the somewhat simple folks who live there are often funny, but twinged with mean-spiritedness. His folk rock send-up, "A Mighty Wind," was a bit too affectionate towards its subjects, and felt toothless as satire, more an excuse to write silly songs than anything else. "Best in Show" represents the high water mark for the Guest & Co. mockumentary formula, looking at the Dog Show circuit with a combination of enchantment and despair. Fred Willard's performance as the sort of clueless, increasingly desperate TV commentator, rightfully gets a lot of praise, but nearly all the Guest regulars get a chance to shine. (Two of my favorites: Ed Begley Jr. also gets a lot of mileage out of a brief appearance as the cautiously optimistic hotel manager dealing with a variety of canine-related issues, and Jane Lynch winningly captures the essence of a hyper-competitive poodle trainer.)

The Best Movies of the Decade: Honorable Mentions

2009-12-29T23:47:00.001-08:00

Okay, so now that we've got the Worst Films lists done with, it's time to move on to the good stuff. For those of you who have fallen behind, here's where the find those lists:

Worst Movies of the Decade:
1-10
11-20
21-30
31-40
41-50

So before I actually list the Top 50, which I'll do in groups of ten, the same way, I wanted to do some "Honorable Mentions." These are films that occurred to me when I was writing the Top 50 that just didn't make the final cut. I've also put some of these films into a category called "Unseen Gems." These are great little movies that didn't quite hit my Top 50, but that I wanted to highlight because I feel like they are underseen or underappreciated. So here are the best little movies from the past 10 years that never had a breakout moment, but should have.

UNSEEN GEMS

Owning Mahoney (2003)

A fascinating true story about a bank manager with a devastating, out-of-control gambling addiction who sort of backs into an embezzlement scheme. Phillip Seymour Hoffman is truly brilliant as the hapless anti-hero, whose love of risk-taking quickly turns obsessive and dangerous.

3-Iron (2004) / Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter...and Spring (2003)

Two films by Korea's Kim Ki-Duk that both rather brilliantly look at people living on the fringe of society, who seem to share a desire to disappear completely. "3-Iron" is a study of a man who squats in stranger's homes while they are away, but who ends up secreting living with, and spying on, a beautiful woman stuck in a failed marriage. "Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter...and Spring" looks at the life of a monk from childhood to adulthood through scattered sequences set during the titular seasons. Both films have such a steady, deliberate pace and such careful, intense attention to detail, they develop a lyrical, almost hypnotic quality, like a visual Zen koan.

May (2002)

When I saw "May" theatrically in 2002, it felt like the introduction of Lucky McKee as a new cult icon for horror fans. 99% of the horror films released in this past decade were generic by design, reassuring viewers that they knew exactly what to expect by borrowing the name and concept of an older film or extending an already-tired franchise. "May" relentlessly refuses to clue you in on what's coming next, or to follow pre-conceived notions about character development. The story of a deeply troubled young woman and her increasingly gruesome personal fetishes, "May" borrows heavily from '80s horror movie tropes and even classic stories like "Frankenstein," but does so in a way that's ceaselessly inventive, tongue-in-cheek and darkly hilarious. Plus it features not one but TWO breakout performances, from Angela Bettis and Anna Faris, the latter of whom was up until this point known exclusively for pretending to be Neve Campbell in the reprehensible "Scary Movie" series.

Our Brand is Crisis (2005)

Probably the most devastatingly cynical look at how exactly political campaigns go about their day-to-day business I have ever seen, Richard Boynton's harrowing documentary looks at the impact an American consulting firm (which includes well-known campaign strategist James Carville) had on the 2002 Bolivian presidential election. I have no idea why the owners of Greenberg Carville Shrum (GCS) would agree to allow their work to be filmed for posterity, as most of it consists of intentionally making things up in order to deceive Bolivian people about issues they (the consultants) only half-understand, but thankfully for film fans everywhere, they did agree. The result is as shocking and disheartening as it is entertaining.

Me and You and Everyone We Know (2005)

Miranda July's quirky, twee independent comedy-drama about love, family and relationships is like the anti-"Garden State." Whereas that film uses quirk as a replacement for actual conflict or drama, a shorthand so audiences know who are the "good guys," July sees a world in which we all suppress and hide our individuality, for fear that others will misunderstand and reject us. Which is not only more authentic, but also more engaging, relateable and charming. We come to love her anti-social misfits, each of whom is seeking a connection while simultaneously afraid to go out and make one, not because they look cute in a helmet or they like the same bands that we do...but because they remind us of ourselves and the odd peculiarities we keep hidden from one another.

Surfwise (2007)

Doug Pray's documentary about the life and family of philosopher and health guru Doc Paskowitz reminds us that madness and intelligence often go hand-in-hand, and how creative, spiritual, well-meaning people can sometimes turn out to be monsters. It's a simple film that tells a true story, but also turns into a surprisingly deep and troubling study of contradictions. Paskowitz and his large family lived for years on end in a camper, spending their days surfing, foraging and studying Dad's far-out theories on health, biology and medicine. There's a real romance to the scenario at first, but before long, it becomes clear that all of the children and their mother were permanently damaged by this upbringing, and suffered extreme hardship in service of their (unrepentant) father and husband's ideals.

Dirty Pretty Things (2002)

Stephen Frears' grim, gritty film effortlessly combines 3 genres - it's a wrenching tragedy, a gripping thriller and a thoughtful piece of social commentary about the immigrant experience in London, all at once. Nigerian Okwe (the always-reliable Chiwetel Ejiofor) and Turkish Senay (Audrey Tautou) stumble upon an illegal organ harvesting scam in the hotel in which they both work, but their second-class status and need to remain under the radar prevents them from steering clear of trouble. The great Sergi López (probably best known in America as the villain from "Pan's Labyrinth") does some fantastic scene-chewing as the heavy.

A Very Long Engagement (2004)

Another great, underseen movie with Audrey Tautou, this WWI-era epic from Jean-Pierre Jeunet may be his best work to date. Amazing visuals and a unique take on the style of the period (which has an almost steampunk, hyperreal appearance) whisk us through the story of a French couple divided by war yet desperate to reunite. Though the filmmaking itself is thoroughly contemporary, and heavily reliant on digital effects, this is the sort of sweeping, romantic storytelling that essentially died with the old studio system.

Funny Ha Ha (2002)

Okay, the so-called "mumblecore" films of Andrew Bujalski aren't going to be for everyone. (The term refers to ultra-low-budget movies with largely improvised dialogue and amateur actors, typically focused on interpersonal relationships). But if the trend has one standard-bearer against which all other mumblecore movies should be judged, it's 2002's "Funny Ha Ha." The story of a confused, sort of meek girl named Marnie who has recently graduated college and is trying to find her way in life, the movie begins as just casual, disconnected conversations, but very unassumingly and lackadaisically sort of coalesces into a pretty observant coming-of-age comedy. Sometimes, it's refreshing to see a comedy that's just about smart people saying funny things, and that isn't always hurtling back-and-forth between set-ups and punchlines.

And here's the rest of the "Honorable Mentions," films I would have included on the Top 50 List if it were a Top 76 instead. (These are not ranked...The order is random).

HONORABLE MENTIONS

Black Book (2006)

Paul Verhoeven's bold, sexy, harrowing WWII spy adventure brings back the days when war movies could be both sad and exciting at once. The thrilling (mostly fictional) tale of a woman's exploits in and out of the Dutch Resistance is unabashedly pulpy, with a zeal for foiling Nazi plots that would make Lt. Aldo Ray proud. Verhoeven's films just have a liveliness and energy that are fairly unmatched among contemporary directors, and he really sinks his teeth into this material, making for one of his very best films.

Encounters at the End of the World (2007)

Werner Herzog's travelogue chronicling his time spent in Antarctica is probably the most uplifting movie ever made about the end of the world. Herzog makes a few disarming discoveries at the South Pole - mainly, that the southernmost continent is a place of immaculate beauty and wonder, filled with lovable, brilliant eccentrics, almost all of whom believe that the human race is doomed for extinction in the near future. In between the iceberg-themed doomsday prophecies, we hear the strange, psychedelic music of the Ross Sea seals, meet a man whose fingers prove he's descended from Aztec Kings, follow a volcanologist as he explores an ice cavern created by an explosion of magma and hear Herzog dismiss a botanist as a quack and a freakshow in voice-over narration WHILE THE GUY IS STILL SPEAKING! This movie is brilliant, as one would expect from a true master and living cinematic legend. Watch it on Blu-Ray if that option is open to you.

I Heart Huckabees (2004)

David O. Russell's madcap metaphysical farce, "I Heart Huckabees," was like a Monty Python sketch stretched out to feature length, and I mean that in the best way possible. An anarchic, delightfully silly story about "existential detectives" investigating the life of a corporate-hating environmental activist, the movie, like the Python group's best work, expertly mixes the high-brow and low-brow without ever really hitting a false note. (Okay, maybe once or twice). It works as well as it does almost entirely due to the chemistry and ace timing of the fantastic ensemble of actors, including Dustin Hoffman, Naomi Watts, Lily Tomlin, Jason Schwartzman, Isabelle Huppert and, yes, Mark Wahlberg in one of his 2 great performances this decade. (The other was "The Departed.")

WALL-E (2008)

PIXAR was, for the most part, kicking ass throughout this entire decade, churning out a series of all-around great entertainments - funny movies with solid storylines, genuine emotion, memorable characters, terrific action scenes and comedy that works equally well for audiences of all ages. That's no mean feat. But "WALL-E" was the PIXAR film that packed the biggest emotional wallop, for me, and that struck me as the most daring, visionary film the studio has yet released. The story of a garbage-compactor robot stranded on a dystopian future Earth who falls in love with a visitor from another world, "WALL-E" is almost a silent film for a full half-hour. It really focuses on character development, and the use of small gestures and carefully-observed details, more than any other contemporary animated film I can name. In that way, it's closer to preserving the legacy of Walt Disney animation than anything they've done under their own brand since "The Lion King."

Waking Life (2001)

Richard Linklater's experiment into rotoscoped animation is a gimmick, sure, but it's a wacked-out, fun gimmick that's probably the decade's best "head" movie. We follow the main character (modeled and voiced by Wiley Wiggins) through a dream, or more accurately a successive series of dreams, from which he can not awake. And though each sequence is realized using the same animation technique - of having artists literally animate over digitally-shot live action film - the visuals itself take on radically different styles depending on who's animating. There's no real narrative at all, save a repeated suggestion that the character may be unable to awaken because he has died. Some of the bits are funny, some are familiar (one monologue about a shooting at a gas station is taken from the little-seen Scorsese documentary "American Boy"), some are thoughtful (in a Metaphysics 101 kind of way), some are strange and unsettling, but the final effect of seeing them all together is pretty goddamn deep, man. You dig?

Bowling for Columbine (2002)

I like Michael Moore's more recent documentaries, like "Fahrenheit 9/11" and "Sicko," but those feel more like polemics and less like real FILMS than "Columbine," a movie that's more about asking questions than providing one person's insights and answers. Moore identifies a problem, or at least a situation - a lot of people in America are getting killed by guns, despite the fact that we're not the only country that has guns - and then just sets about examining it from a variety of perspectives. Sometimes, yes, he goes a bit over-the-top and actually hurts the case he's trying to make, as when he chases down and harasses a somewhat disoriented Charlton Heston, but the majority of this film is a pretty fair-minded, even-handed look at America's gun culture. And it's also humorous and fun to watch, a rarity for political documentaries of any stripe.

Gosford Park (2001)

Robert Altman's last great film was really two movies in one - a dissection of the inner-workings of two communities occupying the same English manor house over the course of a long weekend in the '30s, and a murder mystery. It was an ideal set-up for an Altman film, as so many of his films are pre-occupied with looking into how people operate socially in groups, studying human interaction almost anthropologically, but it does mean that the Agatha Christie-style whodunit plot kind of gets the short shrift. A massive ensemble cast of legendary British actors are all given just enough to do to maintain their interest, and Andrew Dunn's elegant, understated cinematography is like a delicate high-wire act. Some movies, you can just tell that you're in the hands of a true master, and you can just relax and enjoy what comes, knowing that everything will all fit together.

Femme Fatale (2002)

Like all of Brian De Palma's best work, "Femme Fatale" is ludicrous, completely over-the-top and just a bit sleazy. He proudly combines Hitchcock's eye and innate understanding of pacing with the sensibility of an '80s Skinemax erotic thriller and I love him for it. "Femme Fatale" opens with one of the most invigorating, crackerjack sequences of De Palma's entire career, a bold diamond heist amidst a premiere at the Cannes Film Festival. We follow one of the thieves, Laure Ash (played by Rebecca Romijn) as she double-crosses her cohorts and skips the country. Years later, she will return as the wife of a diplomat...only to be recognized and thus pursued for the stolen loot. And that's just the beginning of this twisty, stylized, thoroughly ridiculous but always-amusing mindfuck of a movie. Highly recommended for people who don't need movies to always color within the lines or, you know, make sense.

Amelie (2001)

I'm not really into "adorable" movies, which are too often self-consciously trying to charm, or "cute" you to death. But I have to say, "Amelie" and its plucky, post-ironic heroine just sort of work on me. After finding a box of toys and knick-knacks that once belonged to a young boy, and tracking down its now-adult owner, Amelie decides to dedicate her life to doing good and helping others, and in the process, she learns that it's sometimes okay to help herself, too. I know, it sounds saccharine and irritating. And that's without even mentioning the use if impressionistic special effects to highlight Amelie's inner thoughts and fantasies, or the long list of quirky eccentrics that fill out the supporting cast. But the story is told with a sincerity and a clarity of purpose that makes the more "delightful" and twee aspects feel sort of earned...the characters are all whacked-out goofballs, you could say, but they are carefully thought-out, three-dimensional goofballs. Anyway, years later, it's still a charming film.

The Proposition (2005)

John Hillcoat's gritty, dark Australian-set spaghetti western recalls some of the classics of the genre, particularly Altman's "McCabe and Mrs. Miller." Essentially a story about people in impossible, filthy, hopeless surroundings who nevertheless attempt to hold on to some basic element of humanity amidst all the chaos, the film is most memorable for its violent set pieces and the melancholy soundtrack by Nick Cave (who also wrote the screenplay). Guy Pearce stars as an outlaw presented with the titular bargain - hunt down and execute his older brother (played with a barely-concealed, seething rage by Danny Huston) or see his younger brother hang. Unlike a lot of the great spaghetti westerns, the details in "The Proposition" all feel right for the period, from the ramshackle sets to the dust-coated costumes, even the once-immaculate tea sets of the villain, English gentleman Captain Stanley (an intense, brooding Ray Winstone).

A Serious Man (2009)

"A Serious Man" is the most nimble and effortlessly entertaining dark comedy the Coen Brothers have made in a long time; it's probably their best comic film since "The Big Lebowski." It's a story about how Judaism, like other faiths, offers far more questions than answers, and fails to really resolve any of the Great Mysteries of Human Life on Earth, despite elaborate promises to the contrary. Which doesn't sound like a hilarious premise, necessarily, but as we watch Larry Gopnik's somewhat idyllic suburban life slowly begin to unravel, culminating in a series of utterly defeating personal tragedies, there's really no possible reaction except laughter. Special kudos to Fred Melamed for portraying one of the most awkward, uncouth individuals in recent cinematic history, the preening Sy Ableman, with whom Gopnik's wife embarks on an ill-fated affair.

The Others (2001)

Alejandro Amenabar's atmospheric, spooky haunted house flick, "The Others," proves that a talented director with a nimble touch and an eye for the interplay between light and shadow can whip up a compelling horror movie from a whole lot of nothing. "The Others" has Nicole Kidman before she overdid the face injections to the point of resembling the Caucasian cousin of the Avatar aliens, one surefire gimmick - children who must not be exposed to natural light - and one plot twist - which I will not mention here. There's not much else, but then again, Amenabar doesn't need much besides a pretense to build a gorgeously sinister mansion set. The resulting film is entertaining and surprisingly frightening, at least for a period-set haunted house movie.

A History of Violence (2005)

David Cronenberg's idiosyncratic "History of Violence" begins with a relatively simple premise...A Philadelphia mob enforcer (Ed Harris) arrives in a small town and informs the owner of the local diner, Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen), a quiet and unassuming family man, that he's been recognized as a long-lost criminal colleague, and they have come to take him back home to answer for his varied past betrayals. The film has an intriguing first act, during which we wonder whether this same guy, who seems to mild-mannered, could possibly be the criminal these guys are after. We then move into an intense second act, where we see some consequences of Tom's refusal to go along quietly. And then, the film becomes totally unexpected and absolutely brilliant at the end, as we watch the two men, Tom and his other self, collide into each another. These scenes represent the best film acting I've ever seen from Mortensen, who instantly switches between terror and menace, and a genuinely provocative examination of the fleeting, schizophrenic nature of human identity. We are whomever we say we are, when you get right down to it, and the ability of an individual to show one face to some people and a vastly different face to others can be truly chilling.

Collateral (2004)

Okay, so the final act of Michael Mann's crime thriller/character study kind of falls apart, substituting dumb action cliches for a satisfying conclusion. The movie still earns its spot on the honorable mentions list for the dazzling nighttime LA cinematography and the terrific performances from leads Tom Cruise and Jamie Foxx. Cruise, who was not better than this in any movie this decade, save possibly "Tropic Thunder," plays a hitman who takes a cab driver captive for an entire night, forcing the stranger to assist him in making his homicidal rounds. The film could easily have turned hokey if both leads didn't play it with such sincerity, utterly dropping their typical movie star routines and just letting the material speak for itself (which is unexpected in an action film). A sequence in a jazz club between Cruise's assassin and the club's owner (Barry Shabaka Henley) is among the most stripped-down and minimalist in Mann's entire filmography, and also one of the best.

You Can Count on Me (2000)

One of the essential movies about male-female siblings, Kenneth Lonergan's "You Can Count on Me" tells a melodramatic story in such a simple and poignant way that it feels universal. Single mom Sammy (Laura Linney) reunites with her wayward brother Terry (Mark Ruffalo) after several months with no contact. Close ever since losing their parents at a young age, Sammy and Terry share a complex relationship, made even more difficult by Sammy's young son - struggling with the loss of his own absent father - and her various other faltering relationships. Yet Lonergan manages to strip away all of these specifics, using them largely as devices to drive the conflict along, and keeps the bond between Sammy and Terry at the film's core. Ruffalo kind of irritates me these days in movies...It feels like he tends to fall back on ticks and mannerisms a lot, and can't ever really disappear into a character. But he's pretty sensational here, and I defy anyone who has a sibling, or any close family member, to make it all the way through this one without getting at least a little misty.

Watchmen (2009)

Zack Snyder's "Watchmen" films does what I had thought no comic book movie could do. It accurately bring Alan Moore's epic meta-comic to life on the screen PLUS it manages to make this nearly 20-year-old material seem relevant once more. NO previous Moore adaptation, including the largely-successful "V for Vendetta," had actually done this, and I had grown cynical, scarcely believing it possible, let alone from the director of the wholly loathsome "300" working with some of Moore's most medium-specific and, yes, dated material. I think the secret, or one of the secrets, is that Snyder doesn't let the grandiose scale of the thing overwhelm the little details...The way Rorschach pulls up his mask to eat beans, or the way Daniel Dreiberg fidgets around nervously when making love without a costume on. These little touches remind you that the larger-than-life heroes are still human, which is kind of the whole point anyway, right?