Anything you say at this point is just hyperbole. After the first weekend people were already describing this tournament as the best ever and with the completion of week 2 you can see those sentiments being officially cemented into history. This is the greatest tournament I have seen in my lifetime. It's not just the upsets or the fact that a mid-major is playing in the final four in their hometown. It's that everyday of this tournament has had a game that was capable of taking your breath away. This weekend alone we saw Butler upset Syracuse, KSU win a double overtime thriller, OSU get upset, Kentucky fall and MSU reach it's second consecutive final four with a 1 point win.
Yet I woke up this morning thinking about college football and it's BCS championship system and I wondered what the BCS defenders thought of all this. We know that a team seeded 5th in the tourney will play for the championship. We almost had zero #1 seeds reach the final four and the #1 seed that did reach the final four was universally considered to be the weakest of the #1 seeds. When the tournament is over what will we be able to say about this year's national champion?
Of course, the BCS folks are quiet this time of year. People are excited about college basketball and they have no interest in hearing people blindly defended their ideas for a playoff. But if properly provoked, I imagine they would be beating their chest and pointing out that this year's college basketball champion won't be college basketball's best team and that only the BCS gives you a battle of their respective sports best teams.
That's right, the BCS would have you watch Kansas vs. Kentucky. Two of the sports elite programs and each team sporting several future NBA players including two players from Kentucky who will likely be drafted in the top five of this summers draft. The two teams finished the regular season with records of 32-2. They play in big conferences and won their conferences regular season and post season titles. It's a no brainier that these two teams should face off for their sports national titles.
But that's not going to happen. Kansas didn't even it make out of the first weekend losing to a directional school in the second round and Kentucky looked like a team lead by freshmen constantly turning the ball over and shooting below 50% on free throws in losing to West Virginia in the regional final.
This is one of things BCS people will point to in arguing against an 8 or 16 team tournament for college football. They believe it is better to take the two teams who stand out during the regular season and give them a pass to the championship. I will spare you the details of how I would like to see such a tournament formatted, but I would say that home games until the final would be an important aspect of my plan.
So the question becomes whether or not the greatest tournament of all time is providing us with a worthy champion. In answering that question I first want to air my grievances with college football's system as simply as I possibly can. That grievance would be that it determines it's champion through subjective means. Like figure skating, gymnastics or competitive cheer the eye test can be just as important as the actual performance. The final outcome in gymnastics is a combination of peoples opinions which may include a U.S. judge giving a U.S. performer a 9.9 while the Russian judge gives that same performer a 9.7. In college football a coaches poll voter from a Big Ten school may vote OSU number 1 while a coaches poll voter from the Big 12 may vote for Texas. Complicating matters further for the BCS are the teams like Auburn, Utah twice, and Boise State twice who have managed to go undefeated while winning BCS bowl games but where never deemed worthy enough to be given a chance at a national title.
Which brings me back to the greatest tournament ever. As I mentioned before we are guaranteed to have a team seeded #5 play for the national championship. When a team is given a #5 seed in the tournament it is because a panel of judges using a variety of measuring techniques have determined that these teams represent the 17-20th best teams in the tournament. So a BCS defender would look at that and say that even if you had your 16 team college football tournament teams in college football who preform similarly to Butler or MSU still wouldn't get a chance. They might even use that as an attack on the NCAA tourney by saying that you are not determining a real champion and they surely will throw in the fact that the tourney devalues the regular season.
I say it shows the true brilliance of the NCAA tournament. That brilliance lies in the fact that it recognizes people are in charge of seeding and determine the field of 65 are all human. As much as they may try to avoid it, subjective qualities such as the eye test still factor in, but they do not unfairly limit. When you look at the NCAA tournament and you see teams seeded fifth, you see teams for which a committee does not believe they will make the tournaments second weekend. But, because the tournament is actually played out, those teams still have a chance to prove those committee members wrong. And in Butler and MSU we may have the two best arguments in history for teams being unfairly seeded. In Butler you have a mid-major level school who went 28-4 on the season, beat Ohio State, Xavier, Northwestern and UCLA before going undefeated in their conference and bring a 20 game winning streak with them into the tournament and a #11 ranking in the final AP poll. In MSU you had a team that was steaming roll through the Big Ten before and injury to a star player sent them on a three game losing streak (two of those games were road games) and the team still managed to finish tied for first in conference play. Their final regular season ranking in the AP poll was #13 and their regular season record was 24-8.
I am not a hard-core basketball fan, but looking at this information it is easy to see that perhaps these teams are more deserving of the success they have had than their seeds would imply. And judging from the amount of buzz this year's tournament has created I would argue that deciding a champion is an objective manor certainly seems to draw in more casual fans than the BCS and it's subjective means of telling people we believe these are the only 2 teams that deserve to play for the championship. Of course, I am not alone in believing that the college basketball tournament is a better way of determining a national champion than the BCS. Even the NCAA would agree with me on that. After all, the NCAA does not and never has recognized a national championship that was not decided by a tournament format.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
The Constant Gardner
The life of a film snob is not without it's pitfalls. Sure, being a film snob allows me to look down on films I will never see like All About Steve and pass judgement on garbage like Good Luck Chuck which, again, I never saw. But then there are films like The Constant Gardner that are out there to frustrate me and cause me to question my film snob status.
This film belongs to my wife and she just told me that if she were a man she would marry Rachel Weisz. It is arguably one of the most high brow films we own. It is the definition of an indy film with a message against one of the 21st centuries real life villians (drug companies) that requires you to leave your brain on and features a cast that you could never see selling out by doing a Michael Bay movie (shame on you Frances McDormand). It scored an 83% on rottentomatos, was filmed by the acclaimed director of City of God Fernando Meirelles and Rachel Weisz won an best supporting actress Oscar for her role.
And it frustrates me because I couldn't care less. In the last ten years I would rank this film right alongside Children of Men for films that I know I am supposed to love but got little to nothing out of. It's well acted, moves at a good pace and has a meaning that is relatable to real life. And I slept through at least 40 minutes of it while watching it this past week.
I won't be little this film because it is very much worth seeing. For me, it is simply one of those films that does not resonate with me and I can not even explain why. Everything about this movie screams "if you see me, you can brag about your good movie taste" and yet I can't get excited for it. It simply remains one of those films that makes me question my status as a movie snob.
This film belongs to my wife and she just told me that if she were a man she would marry Rachel Weisz. It is arguably one of the most high brow films we own. It is the definition of an indy film with a message against one of the 21st centuries real life villians (drug companies) that requires you to leave your brain on and features a cast that you could never see selling out by doing a Michael Bay movie (shame on you Frances McDormand). It scored an 83% on rottentomatos, was filmed by the acclaimed director of City of God Fernando Meirelles and Rachel Weisz won an best supporting actress Oscar for her role.
And it frustrates me because I couldn't care less. In the last ten years I would rank this film right alongside Children of Men for films that I know I am supposed to love but got little to nothing out of. It's well acted, moves at a good pace and has a meaning that is relatable to real life. And I slept through at least 40 minutes of it while watching it this past week.
I won't be little this film because it is very much worth seeing. For me, it is simply one of those films that does not resonate with me and I can not even explain why. Everything about this movie screams "if you see me, you can brag about your good movie taste" and yet I can't get excited for it. It simply remains one of those films that makes me question my status as a movie snob.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
The NCAA Tourney
Perhaps I am getting cynical in my old age but it seems to me that everyone in sports is trying to ruin things just when they reach their highest points. The NFL will play the up-coming season with the potential for a strike or lockout looming when the season ends. The NBA will have it's own labor problems in the summer of 2011 and the NHL is still airing Stanley Cup finals games on Versus despite the spike in popularity for hockey from this years Winter Olympics.
And this brings us to the single most "perfect" sporting event of them all: The NCAA Tourney! 65 teams, 4 Brackets, 3 big weekends of basketball and more casual fans involved in some form of gambling than any other sporting event this side of the Super Bowl. This year alone we have seen some of the best tournament action of my life time. At the start of play today 8 teams have punched their ticket for the sweet sixteen and of those only 3 were given a seed that would suggest that they should be there. The rest have fulfilled the promise of the underdog and lead to thousands of facebooks posts regarding someone having to burn their bracket. It truly has been something special to watch.
So lets add 31 more teams! YEAH!!! That's how you improve on perfection! This is the way to get more student/athletes a once in a lifetime opportunity to participate in something life changing ... like an opening round game half way across the country in front of 500 people who won tickets from a local radio station. Feel the excitement.
Of course the cynics in the media will tell you that this is a combination of coaches trying to save their jobs (we made the tournament as a #20 seed, you can't fire me) and the NCAA trying to make more money off their student/athletes while maintaining a focus on education for the players who will now be asked to travel more and miss more class time. And they would be right. You can also point to the fact that people resisted expanding the tourney from 32 to 48 and from 48 to 64 and because of that expansion we now have our "perfect" sporting event.
So why should you care if the tournament expands. Maybe it will be more exciting and maybe someday we will have a #17 seed win it all, but I doubt it. In the last 21 years the lowest seeded team to win was a #4 and only once has a double digit seed even made the final four. Add to that the fact that #16 seeds are a combined 0-104 in tournament play and I find it hard to believe that there are teams being left out of the tourney that could actually win it if they were included in a 96 team field.
Then there is the real problem that comes from expanding the field which is how do you format the brackets. Currently we have four brackets seeded 1-16 and it seems illogical to add to brackets because when you get through it all your left with 6 teams to play it out and that's not going to work. Now I haven't heard of logical suggestion relating to how the tourney would be formatted with 96 teams but I'm guessing the format that makes the most sense would be to take the current 9-16 seeds and make them play the 31 new teams in what would essentially be and entire round of play in games.
At the core of this issue is the NCAA's ability to opt out of it's TV deal with CBS before the end of July what I think is completely plausible would be the NCAA striking a deal with ESPN to carry 2 days of play in games that would determine the traditional field of 64. ESPN already carries the play-in game in which two teams that no one has ever heard of compete for the right to be slaughtered by a #1 seed in the actual tournament. Considering the season long coverage ESPN provides for college basketball I imagine they would like a bigger piece of the post season pie. CBS meanwhile would simply renew the deal they have with the NCAA to reflect any adjustments the play round would bring, but ultimately carrying the 63 games to typically carries.
So it's easy to see why this would work for the NCAA (more money), for CBS it should be business as usual and for ESPN it would get a to carry a bigger piece of the NCAA tournament. Had they had that this year it might have included schools like UNC, UConn, UCLA and U of I which would all draw respectable ratings for ESPN.
So what's the problem? It all depends on what you love about the tournament. For me, I love the fact that we already have 2 double digit seeds in the sweet sixteen and 5 teams that aren't supposed to be there. There is no way to predict the future, but I imagine those numbers would be considerably lower if seeds 9-16 have to play an additional game before joining the field of 64. Which is one of the motivations for expanding I am shocked people aren't talking about. Along with the motivations for expansion I have already mentioned, how about the motivation for members of the big six conference's to want to make it more difficult for small schools to upset them in the tournament. How would the Big East feel today if they had gone 7-1 in the first round instead of 4-4 with 2 six seeds and a 3 seed losing. How likely would it be for Northern Iowa to beat Kansas yesterday if they had to win a play in game on Tuesday before beating 8th seeded UNLV on Thursday. It's hard enough for me to watch the big six conferences box out everyone else from competing for a national title in college football with the BCS, now they want to make it more difficult for smaller schools to pick off their teams in the NCAA tourney. When you think about it, it's just pathetic.
What I love about the tournament now is two things. First is watching my favorite team (MSU) go as deep as possible and the second is seeing which small schools can make it to the second weekend. It is a considered a fact that when the tournament begins there are at most a dozen teams with a realistic shot at winning. But that does not mean there is nothing for the other teams to play for. Making the sweet sixteen can be a huge boost for a program like St. Marys and Northern Iowa. For the next week they will be included in the discussion of who still has a shot at winning the national title and the exposure their programs will receive will be a benefit to their recruiting efforts. No one ever says it, but making the sweet sixteen for a small school is like making the final four if your a team from one of the big six conference's. You don't win a championship, but you do give your program a boost that can lead to continued success. It's in this way that I feel expanding the tournament is direct attempt by the big conferences to keep the smaller schools down and will potentially rob casual fans of one of the tournaments most endearing qualities: The Headline grabbing upset. Of course, I have nothing to offer anyone in regards to stopping this. I can only hope that it doesn't happen. If it does my recommendation is simple: pick all teams seeded 1-8 once it gets to the field of 64. It's not exciting, but it seems to me that, along with more money, it's what the NCAA wants.
And this brings us to the single most "perfect" sporting event of them all: The NCAA Tourney! 65 teams, 4 Brackets, 3 big weekends of basketball and more casual fans involved in some form of gambling than any other sporting event this side of the Super Bowl. This year alone we have seen some of the best tournament action of my life time. At the start of play today 8 teams have punched their ticket for the sweet sixteen and of those only 3 were given a seed that would suggest that they should be there. The rest have fulfilled the promise of the underdog and lead to thousands of facebooks posts regarding someone having to burn their bracket. It truly has been something special to watch.
So lets add 31 more teams! YEAH!!! That's how you improve on perfection! This is the way to get more student/athletes a once in a lifetime opportunity to participate in something life changing ... like an opening round game half way across the country in front of 500 people who won tickets from a local radio station. Feel the excitement.
Of course the cynics in the media will tell you that this is a combination of coaches trying to save their jobs (we made the tournament as a #20 seed, you can't fire me) and the NCAA trying to make more money off their student/athletes while maintaining a focus on education for the players who will now be asked to travel more and miss more class time. And they would be right. You can also point to the fact that people resisted expanding the tourney from 32 to 48 and from 48 to 64 and because of that expansion we now have our "perfect" sporting event.
So why should you care if the tournament expands. Maybe it will be more exciting and maybe someday we will have a #17 seed win it all, but I doubt it. In the last 21 years the lowest seeded team to win was a #4 and only once has a double digit seed even made the final four. Add to that the fact that #16 seeds are a combined 0-104 in tournament play and I find it hard to believe that there are teams being left out of the tourney that could actually win it if they were included in a 96 team field.
Then there is the real problem that comes from expanding the field which is how do you format the brackets. Currently we have four brackets seeded 1-16 and it seems illogical to add to brackets because when you get through it all your left with 6 teams to play it out and that's not going to work. Now I haven't heard of logical suggestion relating to how the tourney would be formatted with 96 teams but I'm guessing the format that makes the most sense would be to take the current 9-16 seeds and make them play the 31 new teams in what would essentially be and entire round of play in games.
At the core of this issue is the NCAA's ability to opt out of it's TV deal with CBS before the end of July what I think is completely plausible would be the NCAA striking a deal with ESPN to carry 2 days of play in games that would determine the traditional field of 64. ESPN already carries the play-in game in which two teams that no one has ever heard of compete for the right to be slaughtered by a #1 seed in the actual tournament. Considering the season long coverage ESPN provides for college basketball I imagine they would like a bigger piece of the post season pie. CBS meanwhile would simply renew the deal they have with the NCAA to reflect any adjustments the play round would bring, but ultimately carrying the 63 games to typically carries.
So it's easy to see why this would work for the NCAA (more money), for CBS it should be business as usual and for ESPN it would get a to carry a bigger piece of the NCAA tournament. Had they had that this year it might have included schools like UNC, UConn, UCLA and U of I which would all draw respectable ratings for ESPN.
So what's the problem? It all depends on what you love about the tournament. For me, I love the fact that we already have 2 double digit seeds in the sweet sixteen and 5 teams that aren't supposed to be there. There is no way to predict the future, but I imagine those numbers would be considerably lower if seeds 9-16 have to play an additional game before joining the field of 64. Which is one of the motivations for expanding I am shocked people aren't talking about. Along with the motivations for expansion I have already mentioned, how about the motivation for members of the big six conference's to want to make it more difficult for small schools to upset them in the tournament. How would the Big East feel today if they had gone 7-1 in the first round instead of 4-4 with 2 six seeds and a 3 seed losing. How likely would it be for Northern Iowa to beat Kansas yesterday if they had to win a play in game on Tuesday before beating 8th seeded UNLV on Thursday. It's hard enough for me to watch the big six conferences box out everyone else from competing for a national title in college football with the BCS, now they want to make it more difficult for smaller schools to pick off their teams in the NCAA tourney. When you think about it, it's just pathetic.
What I love about the tournament now is two things. First is watching my favorite team (MSU) go as deep as possible and the second is seeing which small schools can make it to the second weekend. It is a considered a fact that when the tournament begins there are at most a dozen teams with a realistic shot at winning. But that does not mean there is nothing for the other teams to play for. Making the sweet sixteen can be a huge boost for a program like St. Marys and Northern Iowa. For the next week they will be included in the discussion of who still has a shot at winning the national title and the exposure their programs will receive will be a benefit to their recruiting efforts. No one ever says it, but making the sweet sixteen for a small school is like making the final four if your a team from one of the big six conference's. You don't win a championship, but you do give your program a boost that can lead to continued success. It's in this way that I feel expanding the tournament is direct attempt by the big conferences to keep the smaller schools down and will potentially rob casual fans of one of the tournaments most endearing qualities: The Headline grabbing upset. Of course, I have nothing to offer anyone in regards to stopping this. I can only hope that it doesn't happen. If it does my recommendation is simple: pick all teams seeded 1-8 once it gets to the field of 64. It's not exciting, but it seems to me that, along with more money, it's what the NCAA wants.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Shutter Island, Crazy Heart and The Hurt Locker
I'm not going to spend a ton of time on these, but I wanted to throw up something on them each as I recently saw them in theaters.
First up is Shutter Island. If you like gritty films that contain disturbing images I recommend this one although as time goes by I'm not sure how great it was and some of the images were enough to ruin the movie for me. The film itself is Scorsese attempting to make a Hitchcock style and does so admirably with an incredible score. The island itself quickly becomes one of the films most dynamic characters and the psychological battle between Leo and Gandhi is terrific. The films twist might be predictable to some, but I think the message behind it is awesome. I just wish the film could have avoided a few of the images related to small children. I suppose it's only natural, but sense I became a parent I can't handle watching anything that involves harming of children.
Crazy Heart I went into with a cynical attitude and walked out thankful that I gave it a chance. The reason to see the film is Jeff Bridges and he does not disappoint. The music is surprisingly good considering the genre is country. The supporting performance's are also great. In truth, I could say a lot more about this film but sense my enjoyment of it was added by low expectations I will just leave in the must see category and not go into too much more.
And we come to The Hurt Locker. I have often said that I will never see The English Patient because I could never be convinced that it's better than Fargo. Like wise I have never seen Shakespeare in Love because I could never believe it was better than The Truman Show. So when The Hurt Locker beat Inglourious this year not only for best picture but also for best screenplay I immediately became skeptical in regards to whether or not I could truly give this film a shot. When I realized though that I could still see it in theaters, I decided to give it a chance.
The film itself is a solid piece of work. It avoids tackling the Iraq war from any political standpoint and instead focuses on the issue of war as a drug. At the films center is a team of three soldiers whose responsibility is to disarm bombs in combat zones. Following the death of their team leader the team gets a new leader who is brash and seemingly fearless. There is tension between the men, but the goal remains the same every time out. The film focuses on war as a reality instead of a curse. There is no evil or good, just incidents that are filled with tension that is on a par with any other great war film. The cinematography is fantastic and the acting is great. The film did not deserve to win for best screen play, but it is a worthy best picture winner and truly captures the essence of war as a drug.
First up is Shutter Island. If you like gritty films that contain disturbing images I recommend this one although as time goes by I'm not sure how great it was and some of the images were enough to ruin the movie for me. The film itself is Scorsese attempting to make a Hitchcock style and does so admirably with an incredible score. The island itself quickly becomes one of the films most dynamic characters and the psychological battle between Leo and Gandhi is terrific. The films twist might be predictable to some, but I think the message behind it is awesome. I just wish the film could have avoided a few of the images related to small children. I suppose it's only natural, but sense I became a parent I can't handle watching anything that involves harming of children.
Crazy Heart I went into with a cynical attitude and walked out thankful that I gave it a chance. The reason to see the film is Jeff Bridges and he does not disappoint. The music is surprisingly good considering the genre is country. The supporting performance's are also great. In truth, I could say a lot more about this film but sense my enjoyment of it was added by low expectations I will just leave in the must see category and not go into too much more.
And we come to The Hurt Locker. I have often said that I will never see The English Patient because I could never be convinced that it's better than Fargo. Like wise I have never seen Shakespeare in Love because I could never believe it was better than The Truman Show. So when The Hurt Locker beat Inglourious this year not only for best picture but also for best screenplay I immediately became skeptical in regards to whether or not I could truly give this film a shot. When I realized though that I could still see it in theaters, I decided to give it a chance.
The film itself is a solid piece of work. It avoids tackling the Iraq war from any political standpoint and instead focuses on the issue of war as a drug. At the films center is a team of three soldiers whose responsibility is to disarm bombs in combat zones. Following the death of their team leader the team gets a new leader who is brash and seemingly fearless. There is tension between the men, but the goal remains the same every time out. The film focuses on war as a reality instead of a curse. There is no evil or good, just incidents that are filled with tension that is on a par with any other great war film. The cinematography is fantastic and the acting is great. The film did not deserve to win for best screen play, but it is a worthy best picture winner and truly captures the essence of war as a drug.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
The Dark Knight
Sometimes the hardest thing for me to do is to not over sell a film. So trust me when I say that The Dark Knight is a potentially revolutionary film that I am honestly trying not to oversell the film.
The film itself is likely best known for the performance of Heath Ledger as the Joker. In writing about Tim Burton's Batman I mentioned that I don't compare Jack Nicholson's portrayal of the Joker to Heath Ledger's because the vision behind them is so drastically different. But I will say that in each case the actor portraying the Joker is seemingly consumed by the character to the point that they are unrecognizable. Ledger's performance won the Oscar for best supporting actor, a rare win of a performer in a "cartoon" film.
Of course, the revolutionary aspect of the film is that I believe it totally blurs the lines between comic book world and reality in a way that is considerably more successfully than any previous comic book film. In some ways I actually believe the film fits squarely in the cops vs. gangsters category with some similarities to The Untouchables. The Joker is the ultimate bad guy who even the other bad guys would like to see go away. Batman is the ultimate good guy who the dirty cops would turn on in a heartbeat in order to go back to the way things were. It's a battle between good and evil with plenty of coverage of all the people who fall between the lines of good and evil.
I've been asked by my wife "why do you like this movie so much?" First of all, it's a film! Secondly, I believe this film represents film making and story telling at there very best and inside this world of good vs. evil we see Batman defined as a force for good whose is seen as unrelenting in regards to his moral convictions. In regards to the film making I would love to address the stark contrast here when compared with the works of someone like Michael "Boom Boom" Bay. How can I not look at the work of a Christopher Nolan and not take a shot at Boom Boom. In films like Transformers the audience is assaulted by colors and loud noises that are intended to make you forget the story. Of course when your focus is on style over substance there is no need to focus on the story. In the Dark Knight, not only is there a heavy focus on the story, but even the action sequences begin with a chilling silence and camera shots that set a mood and convey a feeling of tension that is far superior than Boom Boom's shiny toys. Nolan is a master at taking detailed material and presenting it in a compelling way without relying on cheap tricks to hold the audience's attention. To this day I remember seeing a special on TV before Transformers was released regarding how the movie was intentionally louder than any previous film because that's what Michael Bay was concerned with. Nolan's concern was to seemingly blur the lines between reality and fiction with the Dark Knight to the point were I'm not even sure it counts as a comic book movie.
Regarding the convictions of Batman, I find the most rewarding part of the film to be Batman's unflinching moral center. There are very few comic book or action films that I can think of in which the bad guy does not die in the end. I know the Schumacher Batman's kept one villain alive each but those films were soaked in comic book cliches. The way this one ends though is remarkable when you consider that The Joker is a character created to push Batman to his absolute limits. Which is why I believe that for Batman to "win" The Joker must live.
Beyond all the things I have mentioned above, I just want to add that the dialogue is stunning in this film and that the Academy Awards failure to nominate this film for best picture and Christopher Nolan's for best director is the primary reason the Academy Awards have expanded the best picture field to 10. The last thing I will say is that if you reach this point feel free to leave a comment regarding who you would want the villain to be in the next Batman and who you think should play them. I know Todd mentioned to me Guy Pearce as the Riddler and I wonder if they would do Maggie Gyllenhaal as Catwoman. I'm just curious what people would like to see, if you have no opinion it's no big deal.
The film itself is likely best known for the performance of Heath Ledger as the Joker. In writing about Tim Burton's Batman I mentioned that I don't compare Jack Nicholson's portrayal of the Joker to Heath Ledger's because the vision behind them is so drastically different. But I will say that in each case the actor portraying the Joker is seemingly consumed by the character to the point that they are unrecognizable. Ledger's performance won the Oscar for best supporting actor, a rare win of a performer in a "cartoon" film.
Of course, the revolutionary aspect of the film is that I believe it totally blurs the lines between comic book world and reality in a way that is considerably more successfully than any previous comic book film. In some ways I actually believe the film fits squarely in the cops vs. gangsters category with some similarities to The Untouchables. The Joker is the ultimate bad guy who even the other bad guys would like to see go away. Batman is the ultimate good guy who the dirty cops would turn on in a heartbeat in order to go back to the way things were. It's a battle between good and evil with plenty of coverage of all the people who fall between the lines of good and evil.
I've been asked by my wife "why do you like this movie so much?" First of all, it's a film! Secondly, I believe this film represents film making and story telling at there very best and inside this world of good vs. evil we see Batman defined as a force for good whose is seen as unrelenting in regards to his moral convictions. In regards to the film making I would love to address the stark contrast here when compared with the works of someone like Michael "Boom Boom" Bay. How can I not look at the work of a Christopher Nolan and not take a shot at Boom Boom. In films like Transformers the audience is assaulted by colors and loud noises that are intended to make you forget the story. Of course when your focus is on style over substance there is no need to focus on the story. In the Dark Knight, not only is there a heavy focus on the story, but even the action sequences begin with a chilling silence and camera shots that set a mood and convey a feeling of tension that is far superior than Boom Boom's shiny toys. Nolan is a master at taking detailed material and presenting it in a compelling way without relying on cheap tricks to hold the audience's attention. To this day I remember seeing a special on TV before Transformers was released regarding how the movie was intentionally louder than any previous film because that's what Michael Bay was concerned with. Nolan's concern was to seemingly blur the lines between reality and fiction with the Dark Knight to the point were I'm not even sure it counts as a comic book movie.
Regarding the convictions of Batman, I find the most rewarding part of the film to be Batman's unflinching moral center. There are very few comic book or action films that I can think of in which the bad guy does not die in the end. I know the Schumacher Batman's kept one villain alive each but those films were soaked in comic book cliches. The way this one ends though is remarkable when you consider that The Joker is a character created to push Batman to his absolute limits. Which is why I believe that for Batman to "win" The Joker must live.
Beyond all the things I have mentioned above, I just want to add that the dialogue is stunning in this film and that the Academy Awards failure to nominate this film for best picture and Christopher Nolan's for best director is the primary reason the Academy Awards have expanded the best picture field to 10. The last thing I will say is that if you reach this point feel free to leave a comment regarding who you would want the villain to be in the next Batman and who you think should play them. I know Todd mentioned to me Guy Pearce as the Riddler and I wonder if they would do Maggie Gyllenhaal as Catwoman. I'm just curious what people would like to see, if you have no opinion it's no big deal.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Citizen Kane
When explaining how it is that I have decided to define myself as a movie snob there are several things I can point to. One is my hatred of Michael "BOOM BOOM" Bay and the shallow offensive work that has defined his career. Another might be my willingness to see a film based on who the director is. For example, I will make an attempt to go to the theaters any time Wes Anderson, Christopher Nolan, or Charlie Kaufman direct a film. For that matter, I will go see a film even if Kaufman is only credited as the writer. I'm sure there are more examples out there such as my ability to pass judgement on films I have never seen, but the final reason I will go into today is my ownership of the film Citizen Kane.
Of course this is my film. I purchased it almost ten years ago because it was listed at #1 in the American Film Institutes's list of the greatest films of all time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFI%27s_100_Years%E2%80%A6100_Movies). For those of you who are unfamiliar with the film it is intended to be a biopic of newspaper giant William Randolph Hearst. Of course, Hearst did not authorize the film and even spent his final years fighting to prevent the film from being released. The film itself is written, directed and produced by Orsen Welles who also stars in the lead role of Charles Forster Kane.
The film opens with Kane on his death bed uttering the word "Rosebud." Following weeks of coverage for Kane's death, a reporter decides to pursue an answer to the question of who or what is Rosebud. He meets with all the principal people who knew Kane and listens to their stories regarding Kane's most infamous moments, but no one has any answers regarding Rosebud.
I mentioned before about this film being one reason I am a movie snob because I purchased it nearly ten years ago because it was ranked number 1 on AFI's 100 films list. I had never seen it before when I purchased it and I despite a few prior attempts to do so I finally watched it from start to finish for the first time about a year ago. Watching it recently was only the second time I had watched it from start to finish.
I enjoy the film and seeing it a second time helped me to better understand the love critics seem to have for it. I recently went through a phase in which I attempted to watch several classic films that I had never seen before in order to receive my masters in movie snobbery. I made it through Maltese Falcon, Network, The Sting Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and 12 Angry Men, but I shut off Casablanca about 40 minutes in because I simply didn't care for it. My experience with older films is that they have their appropriate place but that there is something lost generations later when you consider that the filmmakers of our generation are building on what these films started.
On a side note, one of the most fun and rewarding aspects of watching this film is realize how often it has been parodied in The Simpsons. In fact, one of the episode commentaries for the Simpsons has a producer speculating the Citizen Kane has been the most often parodied film in Simpsons history and that you could likely remake the film scene by scene using Simpsons parodies. It seems like someone with a youtube account and entirely too much time on their hands could put something like that together.
Of course this is my film. I purchased it almost ten years ago because it was listed at #1 in the American Film Institutes's list of the greatest films of all time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFI%27s_100_Years%E2%80%A6100_Movies). For those of you who are unfamiliar with the film it is intended to be a biopic of newspaper giant William Randolph Hearst. Of course, Hearst did not authorize the film and even spent his final years fighting to prevent the film from being released. The film itself is written, directed and produced by Orsen Welles who also stars in the lead role of Charles Forster Kane.
The film opens with Kane on his death bed uttering the word "Rosebud." Following weeks of coverage for Kane's death, a reporter decides to pursue an answer to the question of who or what is Rosebud. He meets with all the principal people who knew Kane and listens to their stories regarding Kane's most infamous moments, but no one has any answers regarding Rosebud.
I mentioned before about this film being one reason I am a movie snob because I purchased it nearly ten years ago because it was ranked number 1 on AFI's 100 films list. I had never seen it before when I purchased it and I despite a few prior attempts to do so I finally watched it from start to finish for the first time about a year ago. Watching it recently was only the second time I had watched it from start to finish.
I enjoy the film and seeing it a second time helped me to better understand the love critics seem to have for it. I recently went through a phase in which I attempted to watch several classic films that I had never seen before in order to receive my masters in movie snobbery. I made it through Maltese Falcon, Network, The Sting Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and 12 Angry Men, but I shut off Casablanca about 40 minutes in because I simply didn't care for it. My experience with older films is that they have their appropriate place but that there is something lost generations later when you consider that the filmmakers of our generation are building on what these films started.
On a side note, one of the most fun and rewarding aspects of watching this film is realize how often it has been parodied in The Simpsons. In fact, one of the episode commentaries for the Simpsons has a producer speculating the Citizen Kane has been the most often parodied film in Simpsons history and that you could likely remake the film scene by scene using Simpsons parodies. It seems like someone with a youtube account and entirely too much time on their hands could put something like that together.
Monday, March 8, 2010
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe
I've done 2 posts already tonight so I'm doubtful that I will have very much to offer on this one. I wonder sometimes if this film had come out before the Lord of the Rings Trilogy if it would have been received differently. Don't get me wrong, the reviews were good (75% on Rottentomatoes) and it grossed nearly $300 million domestically. But it's impossible to watch the film and not compare it to the nearly 10 hours of film related to middle earth. The primary differences I find between the two are that Narnia is geared more towards kid than LOTR and while both contain Christian symbolism, Narnia is more heavy on the symbolism than LOTR.
This is a film that I look forward to watching with my son when he is old enough. It's rated PG, but it is not one I would show him until he is a bit older. The child actors in the film are all suitable for their roles and don't detract too much from the film. Liam Nesson does great voice work as Aslan and the cast also includes Tilda Swinton, James McAvoy, Jim Broadbent, Ray Winstone, Rupert Everett and Michael Madsen. It is beautifully shot and the action is an intense as a PG movie can get. I remember greatly enjoying it when I saw it in theaters but it is a movie that I otherwise wouldn't pick up if I wasn't trying to re-watch them all.
This is a film that I look forward to watching with my son when he is old enough. It's rated PG, but it is not one I would show him until he is a bit older. The child actors in the film are all suitable for their roles and don't detract too much from the film. Liam Nesson does great voice work as Aslan and the cast also includes Tilda Swinton, James McAvoy, Jim Broadbent, Ray Winstone, Rupert Everett and Michael Madsen. It is beautifully shot and the action is an intense as a PG movie can get. I remember greatly enjoying it when I saw it in theaters but it is a movie that I otherwise wouldn't pick up if I wasn't trying to re-watch them all.
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
I have made the decision not to include animated children's films in this run through of my movie collection. I have no desire to write about Thomas the tank engine films or Sesame Street so I am leaving them out. Sadly, I am also leaving out the Pixar films such as The Incredibles, Up, Wall-E, Finding Nemo, Monster's Inc., and Ratatouille, all of which I love, but watch occasionally with the kids upon their request. I am however going to leave in the live action kids films we own. This lead to 25 minutes of pure pain with Black Beauty and the joy of Tim Burton's unfairly maligned Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
The film is an adaption of Roald Dahl's children's novel of the same name. It is also the subject of comparison's to another adaption of Dahl's book starring Gene Wilder and titled Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. That film was made in 1971 and is considered a much beloved classic. And by comparison, some people seem to think Tim Burton's film is a mess by comparison.
Burton's work stars Johnny Depp as the enigmatic Willy Wonka, a chocolateer whose genius for candy allows him to make the most desirable candy the world has ever seen.
One day while pondering his mortality, Wonka realizes he needs an heir and decides to invite 5 children to his factory. Of the five children, the one who behaves best will be choosen by Wonka to be his heir. In pursuit of this honor are a fat kid, a spoiled kid, an over-achiever, a gamer and a poor kind child named Charlie Bucket. Charlie's family is extremely poor. They live in a shack that appears to be falling apart. They eat cabbage stew for dinner and Charlie's birthday present is a single Wonka bar and the hope that Charlie may find a golden ticket.
Burton's version gets hammered it seems because of the love people have for the Gene Wilder version. Listening to people compare the two films I sometimes get the sense that people are content to believe that Burton simply never should have tried to make his version. There is a "nothing is good enough" approach to those bashing this film, but I say ignore the rhetoric. I'll be writing about the Gene Wilder version in the future and I will give it it's proper due, but I did not grow up loving that one and I have no problem saying that Burton's version is truly worthy. Burton has always brought a unique style to his films and this one is no different. From the Bucket home to the many fantastic rooms inside the factory Burton has truly put his stamp on the material and Johnny Depp's contributions as Wonka are terrific. Depp finds a way to make each character he plays unique and this one is no different. Just because Wonka is eccentric does not mean Depp will simply give you more Jack Sparrow shtick. The rest of the cast is all terrific and provides a wonderful experience for it's audience. The comparisons may be unavoidable, but if you can get past any feelings you may have that the Gene Wilder film should never have been remade than I believe Tim Burton's version is fantastic.
The film is an adaption of Roald Dahl's children's novel of the same name. It is also the subject of comparison's to another adaption of Dahl's book starring Gene Wilder and titled Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. That film was made in 1971 and is considered a much beloved classic. And by comparison, some people seem to think Tim Burton's film is a mess by comparison.
Burton's work stars Johnny Depp as the enigmatic Willy Wonka, a chocolateer whose genius for candy allows him to make the most desirable candy the world has ever seen.
One day while pondering his mortality, Wonka realizes he needs an heir and decides to invite 5 children to his factory. Of the five children, the one who behaves best will be choosen by Wonka to be his heir. In pursuit of this honor are a fat kid, a spoiled kid, an over-achiever, a gamer and a poor kind child named Charlie Bucket. Charlie's family is extremely poor. They live in a shack that appears to be falling apart. They eat cabbage stew for dinner and Charlie's birthday present is a single Wonka bar and the hope that Charlie may find a golden ticket.
Burton's version gets hammered it seems because of the love people have for the Gene Wilder version. Listening to people compare the two films I sometimes get the sense that people are content to believe that Burton simply never should have tried to make his version. There is a "nothing is good enough" approach to those bashing this film, but I say ignore the rhetoric. I'll be writing about the Gene Wilder version in the future and I will give it it's proper due, but I did not grow up loving that one and I have no problem saying that Burton's version is truly worthy. Burton has always brought a unique style to his films and this one is no different. From the Bucket home to the many fantastic rooms inside the factory Burton has truly put his stamp on the material and Johnny Depp's contributions as Wonka are terrific. Depp finds a way to make each character he plays unique and this one is no different. Just because Wonka is eccentric does not mean Depp will simply give you more Jack Sparrow shtick. The rest of the cast is all terrific and provides a wonderful experience for it's audience. The comparisons may be unavoidable, but if you can get past any feelings you may have that the Gene Wilder film should never have been remade than I believe Tim Burton's version is fantastic.
Catch Me If You can
Where would entertainment today be without Beverly Hills 90210? The courageous stunt casting of actors in their late 20's and early 30's has given casting directors everywhere the freedom to boldly to cast virtually anyone in the role of a 16 year old boy or girl.
And thus we have Catch Me if You Can, a film asking it's audience to believe a then 28 year old Leonardo DiCaprio as a 16 year old boy. Of course the film itself is highly entertaining and moves at brisk pace for being over 2 hours long. But watching it again I find myself continually reminding myself that the character Leo is playing is supposed to be a teenager and at times it feels distracting.
Then I realized that that was likely the director Steven Spielberg's intent. The film is a memoir of one of our countries less infamous criminals. Frank Abagnale Jr. is a 16 year old run away who finds that the easiest way to survive is through counterfeiting checks while pretending to be a number of things including an airline pilot and a doctor. By the age of 18 Frank had stolen millions of dollars through various forms of fraud. On several occasions he managed to slip past the FBI agents who were given the task of apprehending him before finally being captured in France and eventually being brought back to the United States.
The importance of Leo being significantly older than the character he played is that the character he played lived in such a manor that those around him believed he was significantly older than his actual age. Sure, you could argue that Leo was only casted because he helps bring in box office grosses, but I think Spielberg understood that at the heart of the Frank Abagnale Jr character was a man with the confidence and charm to convince otherwise intelligent people that he was actually much older than his real age. I don't know how long it takes to be an airline pilot, but I've heard that being a doctor requires many years of higher education and yet the people Frank meets have no problem believing he is old enough to have achieved a degree in medicine. When you think about it, the exploits of Frank are extraordinary and it makes sense that telling his story would require an older actor playing the part in order for it to be convincing.
Beyond the work of Leo the film soars on the strengths of it's remaining cast members. Tom Hanks is at the top of his game as Carl Hanratty, the FBI agent in charge of tracking down Frank and Christopher Walken is terrific in an academy award nominated performance as Frank's father. Likewise, Spielberg manages the material with a focus on the fun rather than the fiend that was Frank Abagnale Jr. He is a criminal, but not in the sense that he is a villain and Spielberg handles this fact extremely well.
This is one of my films and while it's very enjoyable it's one that I had not seen in awhile. I remember when the film was first released there was still some lingering anti-Leo sentiment out there following the success of Titanic. But, along with Gangs of New York, the release of Catch Me If You Can helped to swing Leo back to being one of the most respected actors of his generation. This film showed that Leo is more a pretty face, but instead a formidable actor whose capable of taking on a multitude of roles with this one being one of my favorites.
And thus we have Catch Me if You Can, a film asking it's audience to believe a then 28 year old Leonardo DiCaprio as a 16 year old boy. Of course the film itself is highly entertaining and moves at brisk pace for being over 2 hours long. But watching it again I find myself continually reminding myself that the character Leo is playing is supposed to be a teenager and at times it feels distracting.
Then I realized that that was likely the director Steven Spielberg's intent. The film is a memoir of one of our countries less infamous criminals. Frank Abagnale Jr. is a 16 year old run away who finds that the easiest way to survive is through counterfeiting checks while pretending to be a number of things including an airline pilot and a doctor. By the age of 18 Frank had stolen millions of dollars through various forms of fraud. On several occasions he managed to slip past the FBI agents who were given the task of apprehending him before finally being captured in France and eventually being brought back to the United States.
The importance of Leo being significantly older than the character he played is that the character he played lived in such a manor that those around him believed he was significantly older than his actual age. Sure, you could argue that Leo was only casted because he helps bring in box office grosses, but I think Spielberg understood that at the heart of the Frank Abagnale Jr character was a man with the confidence and charm to convince otherwise intelligent people that he was actually much older than his real age. I don't know how long it takes to be an airline pilot, but I've heard that being a doctor requires many years of higher education and yet the people Frank meets have no problem believing he is old enough to have achieved a degree in medicine. When you think about it, the exploits of Frank are extraordinary and it makes sense that telling his story would require an older actor playing the part in order for it to be convincing.
Beyond the work of Leo the film soars on the strengths of it's remaining cast members. Tom Hanks is at the top of his game as Carl Hanratty, the FBI agent in charge of tracking down Frank and Christopher Walken is terrific in an academy award nominated performance as Frank's father. Likewise, Spielberg manages the material with a focus on the fun rather than the fiend that was Frank Abagnale Jr. He is a criminal, but not in the sense that he is a villain and Spielberg handles this fact extremely well.
This is one of my films and while it's very enjoyable it's one that I had not seen in awhile. I remember when the film was first released there was still some lingering anti-Leo sentiment out there following the success of Titanic. But, along with Gangs of New York, the release of Catch Me If You Can helped to swing Leo back to being one of the most respected actors of his generation. This film showed that Leo is more a pretty face, but instead a formidable actor whose capable of taking on a multitude of roles with this one being one of my favorites.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Black Beauty
This is why I knew it would be a struggle to watch every movie my wife and I owned alphabetically because there are going to be movies like this. Ones that my wife owns that is so appallingly bad that I would not be able to finish it. Thankfully in the case of this film even my wife could not make it through 25 minutes of this one.
Black Beauty is a kids film so it get some extra rope than a bad romantic comedy or mellow drama, but that does not excuse having a film narrated from the horses perspective. Let that one sink in for a minute ... now factor in that the narration begins at birth!
Of course I can't give this film a proper review since I couldn't make it through 25 minutes. The characters we meet are the definition of one dimensional, the drama I saw on a bridge in a storm was laughable and the dialogue is as dry as a Miguel Cabrera (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/spring2010/news/story?id=4956736).
I have been threatened already by my wife that I will have to watch Hope Floats and similar films the entire way through, but for now I am simply glad that I survived this one without losing 30 minutes of my life.
Black Beauty is a kids film so it get some extra rope than a bad romantic comedy or mellow drama, but that does not excuse having a film narrated from the horses perspective. Let that one sink in for a minute ... now factor in that the narration begins at birth!
Of course I can't give this film a proper review since I couldn't make it through 25 minutes. The characters we meet are the definition of one dimensional, the drama I saw on a bridge in a storm was laughable and the dialogue is as dry as a Miguel Cabrera (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/spring2010/news/story?id=4956736).
I have been threatened already by my wife that I will have to watch Hope Floats and similar films the entire way through, but for now I am simply glad that I survived this one without losing 30 minutes of my life.
Best in Show
"Excuse me if this off the subject a little bit, but just take a guess at how much I can bench press. Come on, what do you think? Take a guess. 315 pounds, at the top of my game, maxing out at 500!?"
This line essentially summarizes my love for the film Best in Show. It is completely irreverent, often off-color and hilarious in ways that very few films can compare to. This film comes from the wife's side of the collection which is sweet when you consider that that means I married someone capable of loving a great film like this.
Of course this film represents the continued genius of Christopher Guest whose other works include This Is Spinal Tap, Waiting for Guffman and A Mighty Wind and it the premise of these films that makes them so delightful. For those who are unaware, these films do not follow your standard scripts, instead actors are given character descriptions and direction but the actually dialogue is essentially improvised.
So when making a comedy in which the humor will essentially be improvised you first need to be sure that your setting will provide opportunities for humor. With Best in Show, that setting is a national dog show. We follow the characters through a mocumentary format in which we meet various couples who are presenting dogs at the show. There's everything from a fisherman to an over the top LL Bean couple, to a mis-matched Florida couple. And it all works because the actors involved have impeccable comedic timing.
If your unfamiliar with the film I urge you to give it 2 viewings. I can remember showing it to friends during my college days and some may not get the humor on the first viewing. By the second viewing the humor starts to sink in and the film quickly becomes a movie that you watch again and again catching more jokes each time ... especially if you have no life ... like me.
This line essentially summarizes my love for the film Best in Show. It is completely irreverent, often off-color and hilarious in ways that very few films can compare to. This film comes from the wife's side of the collection which is sweet when you consider that that means I married someone capable of loving a great film like this.
Of course this film represents the continued genius of Christopher Guest whose other works include This Is Spinal Tap, Waiting for Guffman and A Mighty Wind and it the premise of these films that makes them so delightful. For those who are unaware, these films do not follow your standard scripts, instead actors are given character descriptions and direction but the actually dialogue is essentially improvised.
So when making a comedy in which the humor will essentially be improvised you first need to be sure that your setting will provide opportunities for humor. With Best in Show, that setting is a national dog show. We follow the characters through a mocumentary format in which we meet various couples who are presenting dogs at the show. There's everything from a fisherman to an over the top LL Bean couple, to a mis-matched Florida couple. And it all works because the actors involved have impeccable comedic timing.
If your unfamiliar with the film I urge you to give it 2 viewings. I can remember showing it to friends during my college days and some may not get the humor on the first viewing. By the second viewing the humor starts to sink in and the film quickly becomes a movie that you watch again and again catching more jokes each time ... especially if you have no life ... like me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
