In the latest development in unclehood for me, my sister recently came to me with news of my niece's christening. My brother-in-law was raised Catholic, and wanted my niece to be christened in the Catholic church. I thought it's a good idea, and I'm glad they're going ahead to doing it.
I was originally raised Catholic, and my family left the Catholic church when I was 12 to convert to Baptist. I won't go into great detail over the differences between the two denominations, but I will say I didn't set foot in a Catholic church from the time we left until my cousin's wedding in 2005. It was a weird feeling for me being back in a place that I hadn't seen in a long time, but there was also a sense of familiarity.
Anyways, since my niece will be christened in the Catholic church, they need godparents. What I didn't realize was that the Catholic church requires the godparents to have been confirmed Catholic at some point in the past, which shrank the pool of candidates down significantly for my sister and brother-in-law. Fortunately, I was confirmed Catholic shortly before we left the church, so now I will be my niece's godfather.
Cue The Godfather theme.
This is another honor that I never had expected coming at all. I'm wondering what kind of leeway I'll have during the reception in order to have fun with the title of godfather. I'm debating speaking only in quotes and accent that Marlon Brando had used in The Godfather for the entire day, but my accent needs a lot of work. I guess this would be the perfect opportunity to watch the entire trilogy, since that was one of my tasks on my list too.
Funny how things work out like that, isn't it?
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
I Hope the Baseball Writers of America Read This
I've never been to the Baseball Hall of Fame. I've always wanted to go, and nearly went when Cal Ripken was inducted a few years ago. One of my best friends went with his dad and brother to Cal's induction ceremony and told me how awesome the sight was of seeing 100,000 people there for Cal and Tony Gwynn's speeches as they were added to the Hall.
Visiting the Hall is on my list of things to accomplish, so hopefully I'll get an opportunity to get there this summer. I have no definite plans to do that yet, mainly because I'm trying to save the cash for my trip to the Grand Cayman Islands in May. Still, it's always been a place I've wanted to see and experience.
My point is concerned with the voting process to get into the Hall. Barry Larkin was just voted in after having to wait several years to get a high enough percentage of the vote (players need at least 75% of the Baseball Writers of America to vote for them to gain admittance). Last year, Larkin had around 68%, so he was expected to get enough votes this year to get in. He ended up getting 86%, which is a ridiculous jump in votes.
Every year, talk strikes up on which retired players are eligible to be voted upon entering the Hall for the first time. Every now and then, a truly great player whose career is so memorable for what he had achieved is expected to be voted into the Hall in his first year of eligibility. Some recent examples of first year candidates are the aforementioned Cal Ripken and Tony Gwynn, along with Rickey Henderson, Ozzie Smith, and Kirby Puckett. More often than not, players have to wait a year or more before they're voted in.
Question: What exactly is the point of making most players wait a couple years before they are voted in? In Barry Larkin's case, he was eligible for the Hall in 2009, so what point are the writers trying to make in having him wait three years before he could enter? I know that some of them are biased and say that the likes of Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, and Ted Williams didn't get 100% of the vote during their first year of eligibility, so no player should ever get 100% on the first go-round, but that's not really my point (though that is really stupid logic).
The Hall of Fame is for the absolute creme de la creme, right? Is there a layout to the players that I'm not aware of, where there's a special section for the guys who got in during their first year, versus those who had to wait a few years? When it's all said and done, who really remembers or cares about who got in when? Do we scoff at people like Bert Blyleven who had to wait 14 years before he finally got enough votes to get in? If the Hall's purpose is to celebrate the best players of all time, who exactly wins by having many players wait years before they get in?
And in the case of Barry Larkin, how did the voters magically decide, "Okay, after looking at Barry's body of work during his career for three years now, he deserves to get in the Hall"? His stats were his stats; they didn't change for the better since last year or the year before. Actually, the answer to my question about Larkin is pretty easy; the writers chose to vote him in because no other first-year candidate really blew them away, which goes back to my previous argument.
Maybe I'm being too simplistic with my view about the Hall of Fame. The way I see it, if a player's career was special enough to qualify him for the Hall of Fame, he should be voted in. He shouldn't have to wait 14 years to get enough votes to get him in. I'm not saying Bert Blyleven was as great a pitcher as Nolan Ryan was, but the fact of the matter is they're both in the Hall now. Their careers can certainly be evaluated differently - especially considering Ryan was a starter and Blyleven was a reliever - but fans touring the Hall won't think any less of Blyleven or his career because he had to wait 14 years before the writers voted him in. I could sort of understand players whose careers were somewhat borderline (the likes of Curt Schilling and Andy Pettite come to mind), but cases like Blyleven are extreme. Still, there are plenty of players who people make comments like, "Well, he may not be a first-ballot Hall of Famer, but he should get in eventually." What on earth does that mean? He's either great enough to be in the Hall or he's not!
Baseball is certainly not the only sport that does this, either. Every other major sport's Hall of Fame voting process is just as silly for all the same reasons as baseball, particularly football. I realize that there is a gray area in a lot of players' cases, namely who won championships during their career versus who didn't win any rings, but a player who was considered dominant at his respective position for a significant enough period of time should be eligible for being voted in the Hall without having to wait an extended number of years to get in. I know I probably opened a whole new can of worms by mentioning the phrase "for a significant period of time," but that's a separate debate all together. Either way, I don't understand the so-called logic of making a player wait several years before they're finally considered acceptable into the Hall.
Visiting the Hall is on my list of things to accomplish, so hopefully I'll get an opportunity to get there this summer. I have no definite plans to do that yet, mainly because I'm trying to save the cash for my trip to the Grand Cayman Islands in May. Still, it's always been a place I've wanted to see and experience.
My point is concerned with the voting process to get into the Hall. Barry Larkin was just voted in after having to wait several years to get a high enough percentage of the vote (players need at least 75% of the Baseball Writers of America to vote for them to gain admittance). Last year, Larkin had around 68%, so he was expected to get enough votes this year to get in. He ended up getting 86%, which is a ridiculous jump in votes.
Every year, talk strikes up on which retired players are eligible to be voted upon entering the Hall for the first time. Every now and then, a truly great player whose career is so memorable for what he had achieved is expected to be voted into the Hall in his first year of eligibility. Some recent examples of first year candidates are the aforementioned Cal Ripken and Tony Gwynn, along with Rickey Henderson, Ozzie Smith, and Kirby Puckett. More often than not, players have to wait a year or more before they're voted in.
Question: What exactly is the point of making most players wait a couple years before they are voted in? In Barry Larkin's case, he was eligible for the Hall in 2009, so what point are the writers trying to make in having him wait three years before he could enter? I know that some of them are biased and say that the likes of Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, and Ted Williams didn't get 100% of the vote during their first year of eligibility, so no player should ever get 100% on the first go-round, but that's not really my point (though that is really stupid logic).
The Hall of Fame is for the absolute creme de la creme, right? Is there a layout to the players that I'm not aware of, where there's a special section for the guys who got in during their first year, versus those who had to wait a few years? When it's all said and done, who really remembers or cares about who got in when? Do we scoff at people like Bert Blyleven who had to wait 14 years before he finally got enough votes to get in? If the Hall's purpose is to celebrate the best players of all time, who exactly wins by having many players wait years before they get in?
And in the case of Barry Larkin, how did the voters magically decide, "Okay, after looking at Barry's body of work during his career for three years now, he deserves to get in the Hall"? His stats were his stats; they didn't change for the better since last year or the year before. Actually, the answer to my question about Larkin is pretty easy; the writers chose to vote him in because no other first-year candidate really blew them away, which goes back to my previous argument.
Maybe I'm being too simplistic with my view about the Hall of Fame. The way I see it, if a player's career was special enough to qualify him for the Hall of Fame, he should be voted in. He shouldn't have to wait 14 years to get enough votes to get him in. I'm not saying Bert Blyleven was as great a pitcher as Nolan Ryan was, but the fact of the matter is they're both in the Hall now. Their careers can certainly be evaluated differently - especially considering Ryan was a starter and Blyleven was a reliever - but fans touring the Hall won't think any less of Blyleven or his career because he had to wait 14 years before the writers voted him in. I could sort of understand players whose careers were somewhat borderline (the likes of Curt Schilling and Andy Pettite come to mind), but cases like Blyleven are extreme. Still, there are plenty of players who people make comments like, "Well, he may not be a first-ballot Hall of Famer, but he should get in eventually." What on earth does that mean? He's either great enough to be in the Hall or he's not!
Baseball is certainly not the only sport that does this, either. Every other major sport's Hall of Fame voting process is just as silly for all the same reasons as baseball, particularly football. I realize that there is a gray area in a lot of players' cases, namely who won championships during their career versus who didn't win any rings, but a player who was considered dominant at his respective position for a significant enough period of time should be eligible for being voted in the Hall without having to wait an extended number of years to get in. I know I probably opened a whole new can of worms by mentioning the phrase "for a significant period of time," but that's a separate debate all together. Either way, I don't understand the so-called logic of making a player wait several years before they're finally considered acceptable into the Hall.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
You Know What Happens When You Make Assumptions...
First of all, I hope everyone had a safe and happy holiday season.
Now, I have to share an odd and funny story from over the weekend. I really don't know what to make of it at all, but it's definitely a good laugh.
I took my mom to see the musical Jersey Boys Friday night in DC as her Christmas present. She's a big theater fan, and I knew she'd enjoy it. When she opened her gift card Christmas morning with the proof of purchase of the tickets for the show, she went berzerk like a 6 year old kid who got the big toy he or she wanted all along. Her reaction alone was worth buying the tickets.
We met up Friday night for dinner before the show, and the show itself was fantastic. I really didn't know what to expect from it, but it was excellent. I actually knew a few songs performed, much to my surprise, which made the show all the more enjoyable.
Here's the point of the story: After the show had ended, my mom and I walked back to our car. She's much more of a DC expert than I am, so I followed her lead. We got to a crosswalk about a block away from our garage, talking about where our car was the entire time. A guy probably in his late 40s overhead us chatting and made a joke by saying, "Well hey, whatever the wife says it's what goes."
You read that right. He actually thought my mom was my wife.
I had to break the reality to him and said she was my mom, and he said, "Wow, that's one young-looking mom you've got!"
I honestly didn't know how to react to his comment. Really, what do you say to that? "Hey, she is actually kinda single now"? How awkward would that conversation be?
I actually felt badly for the guy briefly because he had to feel awkward and embarassed for making such an assumption. That kind of comment is right up there with making a joke about a pregnant woman directly to her, only to find out she isn't pregnant to begin with. There is absolutely no recovery for that.
Here's to 2012. Hopefully it'll provide as many awkwardly funny moments as 2011 had ended with.
Now, I have to share an odd and funny story from over the weekend. I really don't know what to make of it at all, but it's definitely a good laugh.
I took my mom to see the musical Jersey Boys Friday night in DC as her Christmas present. She's a big theater fan, and I knew she'd enjoy it. When she opened her gift card Christmas morning with the proof of purchase of the tickets for the show, she went berzerk like a 6 year old kid who got the big toy he or she wanted all along. Her reaction alone was worth buying the tickets.
We met up Friday night for dinner before the show, and the show itself was fantastic. I really didn't know what to expect from it, but it was excellent. I actually knew a few songs performed, much to my surprise, which made the show all the more enjoyable.
Here's the point of the story: After the show had ended, my mom and I walked back to our car. She's much more of a DC expert than I am, so I followed her lead. We got to a crosswalk about a block away from our garage, talking about where our car was the entire time. A guy probably in his late 40s overhead us chatting and made a joke by saying, "Well hey, whatever the wife says it's what goes."
You read that right. He actually thought my mom was my wife.
I had to break the reality to him and said she was my mom, and he said, "Wow, that's one young-looking mom you've got!"
I honestly didn't know how to react to his comment. Really, what do you say to that? "Hey, she is actually kinda single now"? How awkward would that conversation be?
I actually felt badly for the guy briefly because he had to feel awkward and embarassed for making such an assumption. That kind of comment is right up there with making a joke about a pregnant woman directly to her, only to find out she isn't pregnant to begin with. There is absolutely no recovery for that.
Here's to 2012. Hopefully it'll provide as many awkwardly funny moments as 2011 had ended with.
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Top 10 Movies I'm Looking Forward to in 2012
I studied TV and film production when I was an undergrad, so I've had an interest and appreciation for filmmaking for a long, long time. I still read movie news websites, and given a couple recent blog posts things haven't changed for me all that much in terms of my interest in movies. I don't go to theaters nearly as much as I used to, but I still try to get out to see the occasional big movie, Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol being a great example (and I still have to see Sherlock Holmes 2 and The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo).
Anyways, everybody and their uncle has a list of the movies coming out next year that they are excited to see, so I figured I'd chime in too.
Here goes...
10. Argo - This one is kinda flying under the radar compared to most of the other films on this list. It's on my top ten because it's written and directed by Ben Affleck; before you crucify me for that, don't forget that Affleck wrote and directed Gone, Baby, Gone and The Town. I don't like Affleck much as an actor, but as a writer/director there aren't many guys who perk my interest more than him. And the film is based on a true story from 1979, with what sounds like a Fargo-esque dark comedy element to it. Sold.
9. The Bourne Legacy - I loved all the Bourne movies, but this one is taking the Bourne series and running in a different direction. There's no Jason Bourne in this film, but it somehow takes place in the same universe as the three previous films. And it stars Jeremy Renner, who's quickly becoming one of my favorite actors. I don't know much else about the overall plot of the film, which is a refreshing thing nowadays with spoilers easily found all over online.
8. The Amazing Spider-Man - I was VERY ambivalent about this film at first. It's a reboot of the entire Spider-Man mythology, even though the entire series only started 10 years ago. Then I saw the trailer that featured a first-person perspective of Spider-Man flying around New York City, which I have to believe in 3D will look simply amazing. I only hope there isn't too much time wasted on Peter Parker's origins in this film, since mass audiences already know it from the first go-round and don't need to see it again.
7. Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter - Tell me you're not intrigued simply from that title. Revisionist history stories are always fun to play with, but this is about as far out in left field one could go with such an idea. Honest Abe's mother is killed by a vampire when Abe is only a boy, and then devotes his life to kill as many of the creatures as he can, all the way to when he reaches the presidency. This could be a really fun ride.
6. John Carter - The movie has about the blandest title imaginable, but the trailers look incredible for it. It's also Pixar's first-ever foray into live action filmmaking, and one of their in-house directors is making the film. It looks a lot like Attack of the Clones (not good), and one of the shots has the main character looking a lot like the Na'vi from Avatar (uh oh), but it could end up being Indiana Jones in Space. And that could be a great thing.
5. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - I loved all three Lord of the Rings films, but for some reason The Hobbit had a really odd history of being brought to the silver screen. Peter Jackson was only going to produce the film and sought a new director for it; after a couple names came and went, Jackson said, "Okay fine, I guess I'll direct it." Patience pays off, because even though the newly-released teaser mainly introduces us to all the main characters of the film, it brings back all the good memories of the LOTR trilogy.
4. Skyfall - Finally, James Bond is back! I was really hoping the new Bond film would continue the storyline laid out between Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, but according to everything I've read, this is will be a stand-alone film. That's okay though; I'm just glad it's happening. I have no idea what significance the title has, but if the movie is as catastrophic as the title implies, we could be in for another great international trip with Bond.
3. Prometheus - Speaking of great returns, Ridley Scott is finally back and making what was supposed to be a prequel to Alien. I wasn't too hot on the idea at first, mainly because I felt the Alien mythology had been beaten to an ugly pulp. To my relief, it's now an original film, but supposedly there are still some connections to the Alien films. I'm not entirely sure what to make of that, but the teaser trailer looks incredible.
2. The Dark Knight Rises - Christopher Nolan has done some amazing things with his first two Batman films. I really didn't know how he'd be able to follow up The Dark Knight, but it looks like the conclusion to his trilogy is an epic battle not seen since Return of the King. And in just about any other year, this would've been my #1 film to see, except...
1. The Avengers - It's a movie that's been over 4 years in the making, with its seeds being planted back in the first Iron Man film. Marvel went about it the right way, giving each major character his own film so audiences could get to know his backstory. I still don't know much about the overall plot of the movie, except that Loki (from Thor) is the main villain and may wreak havoc on the Earth in a similar way to what happens in the comic books. From the footage that's been made available so far, every character gets something important to contribute in the film, so hopefully no one will outshine the others in the group.
Anyways, everybody and their uncle has a list of the movies coming out next year that they are excited to see, so I figured I'd chime in too.
Here goes...
10. Argo - This one is kinda flying under the radar compared to most of the other films on this list. It's on my top ten because it's written and directed by Ben Affleck; before you crucify me for that, don't forget that Affleck wrote and directed Gone, Baby, Gone and The Town. I don't like Affleck much as an actor, but as a writer/director there aren't many guys who perk my interest more than him. And the film is based on a true story from 1979, with what sounds like a Fargo-esque dark comedy element to it. Sold.
9. The Bourne Legacy - I loved all the Bourne movies, but this one is taking the Bourne series and running in a different direction. There's no Jason Bourne in this film, but it somehow takes place in the same universe as the three previous films. And it stars Jeremy Renner, who's quickly becoming one of my favorite actors. I don't know much else about the overall plot of the film, which is a refreshing thing nowadays with spoilers easily found all over online.
8. The Amazing Spider-Man - I was VERY ambivalent about this film at first. It's a reboot of the entire Spider-Man mythology, even though the entire series only started 10 years ago. Then I saw the trailer that featured a first-person perspective of Spider-Man flying around New York City, which I have to believe in 3D will look simply amazing. I only hope there isn't too much time wasted on Peter Parker's origins in this film, since mass audiences already know it from the first go-round and don't need to see it again.
7. Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter - Tell me you're not intrigued simply from that title. Revisionist history stories are always fun to play with, but this is about as far out in left field one could go with such an idea. Honest Abe's mother is killed by a vampire when Abe is only a boy, and then devotes his life to kill as many of the creatures as he can, all the way to when he reaches the presidency. This could be a really fun ride.
6. John Carter - The movie has about the blandest title imaginable, but the trailers look incredible for it. It's also Pixar's first-ever foray into live action filmmaking, and one of their in-house directors is making the film. It looks a lot like Attack of the Clones (not good), and one of the shots has the main character looking a lot like the Na'vi from Avatar (uh oh), but it could end up being Indiana Jones in Space. And that could be a great thing.
5. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - I loved all three Lord of the Rings films, but for some reason The Hobbit had a really odd history of being brought to the silver screen. Peter Jackson was only going to produce the film and sought a new director for it; after a couple names came and went, Jackson said, "Okay fine, I guess I'll direct it." Patience pays off, because even though the newly-released teaser mainly introduces us to all the main characters of the film, it brings back all the good memories of the LOTR trilogy.
4. Skyfall - Finally, James Bond is back! I was really hoping the new Bond film would continue the storyline laid out between Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, but according to everything I've read, this is will be a stand-alone film. That's okay though; I'm just glad it's happening. I have no idea what significance the title has, but if the movie is as catastrophic as the title implies, we could be in for another great international trip with Bond.
3. Prometheus - Speaking of great returns, Ridley Scott is finally back and making what was supposed to be a prequel to Alien. I wasn't too hot on the idea at first, mainly because I felt the Alien mythology had been beaten to an ugly pulp. To my relief, it's now an original film, but supposedly there are still some connections to the Alien films. I'm not entirely sure what to make of that, but the teaser trailer looks incredible.
2. The Dark Knight Rises - Christopher Nolan has done some amazing things with his first two Batman films. I really didn't know how he'd be able to follow up The Dark Knight, but it looks like the conclusion to his trilogy is an epic battle not seen since Return of the King. And in just about any other year, this would've been my #1 film to see, except...
1. The Avengers - It's a movie that's been over 4 years in the making, with its seeds being planted back in the first Iron Man film. Marvel went about it the right way, giving each major character his own film so audiences could get to know his backstory. I still don't know much about the overall plot of the movie, except that Loki (from Thor) is the main villain and may wreak havoc on the Earth in a similar way to what happens in the comic books. From the footage that's been made available so far, every character gets something important to contribute in the film, so hopefully no one will outshine the others in the group.
Monday, December 26, 2011
Review: Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol
I've enjoyed all the previous Mission: Impossible films. They've ranged a bit in quality, from flawed but exciting (M:I-2) to exciting but nearly incomprehensible (the first Mission: Impossible). The first Mission came the closest to the team aspect that made the series so memorable, but its plot was so focused on misdirection and convolution that none of the characters could be developed.
For the first time, we now have a Mission: Impossible film that has both a strong plot and some decent character development. The film starts off with an escape from a Russian prison and leads straight to massive sequence at the Kremlin. Next thing we know, Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) is on the run with his teammates Benji (Simon Pegg, coming back for more after Mission: Impossible 3) and Jane Carter (Paula Patton). Also in tow is Brandt (Jeremy Renner), an IMF analyst who has a few secrets of his own.
This IMF team gels in a way that no previous IMF team ever worked together before. Carter has a personal stake in this mission which comes into play when the team get to Dubai. Brandt has his own agenda the entire time, and Benji provides a good amount of welcome comic relief while still contributing to each stage of the film. And Hunt is still the leader calling the shots, but he knows he needs his team to work together the entire time. The first Mission: Impossible came close to this type of success, but by the end it still was a Tom Cruise Show.
The film was directed by Brad Bird, who is making his live action directing debut in this film. He came from the world of animation, mostly with Pixar's animated films. One of his previous films was The Incredibles, which worked perfectly in helping him prepare for this project. He knows how to build a real action sequence with a team atmosphere, and even though The Incredibles was animated, it still had some fantastic stunt work.
That leads me to the action sequences. All I can is, I hope anyone who sees this film sees it in IMAX, because that's how these action sequences are meant to be seen. When the team gets to Dubai, they find themselves at the Burj Khalifa building, the tallest building in the world. When Hunt has to climb up to the 130th floor and then swing his way back down, I found myself reliving my childhood fear of heights. There's real tension in the entire sequence, and I realized I was holding my breath with Hunt's every reach up the side of the building. I don't know how that sequence was shot (or how the studio allowed Tom Cruise to do that stunt on his own), but it's definitely the best stunt I've seen in a film in years.
As great a set piece as the Dubai sequence was, there's still more. The opening break in at the Kremlin was marvelous, and immediately following the Burj Khalifa climb is a massive car chase through a sandstorm in Dubai. Director Bird may have saved the best sequence for last though by staging a fist fight in a parking garage with the cars constantly moving around on conveyors.
If there's one failing in the film, it's a relatively weak villain. A man wants to start an all-out nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia because....because....well I don't really know why. The stakes are incredibly high though, so it's easy to pass over that minor gripe and focus on how Hunt and his IMF team will stop a war.
I'd highly recommend this film to anyone looking for a fun two hours in an IMAX theater. It's definitely the best Mission: Impossible film to date, and I'd love to see this team brought back together for another go-round.
For the first time, we now have a Mission: Impossible film that has both a strong plot and some decent character development. The film starts off with an escape from a Russian prison and leads straight to massive sequence at the Kremlin. Next thing we know, Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) is on the run with his teammates Benji (Simon Pegg, coming back for more after Mission: Impossible 3) and Jane Carter (Paula Patton). Also in tow is Brandt (Jeremy Renner), an IMF analyst who has a few secrets of his own.
This IMF team gels in a way that no previous IMF team ever worked together before. Carter has a personal stake in this mission which comes into play when the team get to Dubai. Brandt has his own agenda the entire time, and Benji provides a good amount of welcome comic relief while still contributing to each stage of the film. And Hunt is still the leader calling the shots, but he knows he needs his team to work together the entire time. The first Mission: Impossible came close to this type of success, but by the end it still was a Tom Cruise Show.
The film was directed by Brad Bird, who is making his live action directing debut in this film. He came from the world of animation, mostly with Pixar's animated films. One of his previous films was The Incredibles, which worked perfectly in helping him prepare for this project. He knows how to build a real action sequence with a team atmosphere, and even though The Incredibles was animated, it still had some fantastic stunt work.
That leads me to the action sequences. All I can is, I hope anyone who sees this film sees it in IMAX, because that's how these action sequences are meant to be seen. When the team gets to Dubai, they find themselves at the Burj Khalifa building, the tallest building in the world. When Hunt has to climb up to the 130th floor and then swing his way back down, I found myself reliving my childhood fear of heights. There's real tension in the entire sequence, and I realized I was holding my breath with Hunt's every reach up the side of the building. I don't know how that sequence was shot (or how the studio allowed Tom Cruise to do that stunt on his own), but it's definitely the best stunt I've seen in a film in years.
As great a set piece as the Dubai sequence was, there's still more. The opening break in at the Kremlin was marvelous, and immediately following the Burj Khalifa climb is a massive car chase through a sandstorm in Dubai. Director Bird may have saved the best sequence for last though by staging a fist fight in a parking garage with the cars constantly moving around on conveyors.
If there's one failing in the film, it's a relatively weak villain. A man wants to start an all-out nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia because....because....well I don't really know why. The stakes are incredibly high though, so it's easy to pass over that minor gripe and focus on how Hunt and his IMF team will stop a war.
I'd highly recommend this film to anyone looking for a fun two hours in an IMAX theater. It's definitely the best Mission: Impossible film to date, and I'd love to see this team brought back together for another go-round.
Sunday, December 25, 2011
Life Goes On
I knew this Christmas would be and feel a lot differently than years past, and I wasn't wrong. That's not to say my Christmas sucked; far from it, in fact. It was just....different.
Christmas Eve was fairly typical, centered around my brother-in-law's family party. We eat, we drink, we laugh, we chat, and we exchange a few gifts. Since we're all sports fans to some degree, we made sure to find some sporting event on TV and left that on in the background. There was no feeling really that anything had changed at all.
Today was quite different. My dad wasn't around for us to open gifts this morning, and he had asked me to deliver all the gifts he had bought for everyone. He said he was on call to go to work this morning, but I can't help but wonder if he was using that as cover to avoid being around my mom. Anything's possible I suppose, but this was my niece's first Christmas. I would've thought that would be the kind of event he wouldn't ever miss for the world. Suffice to say, his absence was very noticeable.
The upside was that, like I said, it was my niece's first Christmas. I've always looked forward to exchanging presents with my family every Christmas, but buying presents for a niece added a whole new dimension to the holiday. Christmas shopping for her was more fun than words could possibly express, and it's the kind of joy that I look forward to for her birthdays and future Christmases to come. I normally already have fun with holiday shopping as it is, but there's nothing quite like watching her open her presents and seeing her play with her new toys for the first time (okay, so my sister opened all her presents for her, but you get the point).
The point is, despite the tough times going on in my family, life still goes on. We didn't have a Christmas dinner like we always had in the past, and I don't know if that will continue to be the case in years to come. Even if we don't have a Christmas dinner anymore, that's okay; there's still a great reason to look forward to Christmas every year, and her name is Gianna Ignozzi. She won't remember her first Christmas, but when she gets older, seeing her reaction to opening her presents every year will make up for it.
Christmas Eve was fairly typical, centered around my brother-in-law's family party. We eat, we drink, we laugh, we chat, and we exchange a few gifts. Since we're all sports fans to some degree, we made sure to find some sporting event on TV and left that on in the background. There was no feeling really that anything had changed at all.
Today was quite different. My dad wasn't around for us to open gifts this morning, and he had asked me to deliver all the gifts he had bought for everyone. He said he was on call to go to work this morning, but I can't help but wonder if he was using that as cover to avoid being around my mom. Anything's possible I suppose, but this was my niece's first Christmas. I would've thought that would be the kind of event he wouldn't ever miss for the world. Suffice to say, his absence was very noticeable.
The upside was that, like I said, it was my niece's first Christmas. I've always looked forward to exchanging presents with my family every Christmas, but buying presents for a niece added a whole new dimension to the holiday. Christmas shopping for her was more fun than words could possibly express, and it's the kind of joy that I look forward to for her birthdays and future Christmases to come. I normally already have fun with holiday shopping as it is, but there's nothing quite like watching her open her presents and seeing her play with her new toys for the first time (okay, so my sister opened all her presents for her, but you get the point).
The point is, despite the tough times going on in my family, life still goes on. We didn't have a Christmas dinner like we always had in the past, and I don't know if that will continue to be the case in years to come. Even if we don't have a Christmas dinner anymore, that's okay; there's still a great reason to look forward to Christmas every year, and her name is Gianna Ignozzi. She won't remember her first Christmas, but when she gets older, seeing her reaction to opening her presents every year will make up for it.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
5 Trick Endings to Movies That Suck
I love trick endings to films. The perfect trick ending is one like The Sixth Sense or Fight Club, where once you’ve seen the film you can go back and watch for subtle hints early on that slowly reveal what’s really going on. Occasionally, a film comes along that tries such a formula but completely misfires. The trick ending completely undermines everything that’s happened before, and the film collapses in a matter of minutes.
I don’t feel like I need to give this warning given the nature of this post, but WARNING: ENDING SPOILER ALERTS ABOUND! If you haven’t seen the films listed below, don’t bother reading this post, at least until after you’ve watched the films.
Like…
1. Unknown (2011)
Liam Neeson stars as Martin Harris, a doctor who’s in Germany
He eventually does find her at the hotel they were scheduled to stay at, along with another man. This other man happens to be…Martin Harris. And his wife claims she has no idea who he is or why he’s claiming she’s his wife. Now Neeson-Harris has to find out who’s impersonating him, why he’s being impersonated, and find out What’s Really Going On.
The Ending:
Neeson-Harris ultimately finds out he’s an assassin whose target is the colleague headlining the conference. His organization takes out high-priced targets all around the world, and this assassination was designed to look like they were taking out a prince from the Middle East instead of the professor. His cover for this mission was a doctor named Martin Harris so he could infiltrate the conference and take out the professor. Knowing his true nature, he now sets out to stop the assassination.
But, Wait a Minute….
None of this reveal makes the slightest bit of sense. For starters, there’s a scene before Harris learns he’s a trained killer where he confronts his wife in a museum. He demands to know why she’s denying knowing him and figure out what’s going on. She nearly cries and tells him she loves him, but doesn’t explain what her deal is. Before he can get any more information, he has to run away after being spotted by other bad guys.
Think about this scene from her perspective. Her former partner who she’s worked with many times in the past on assassination plots is acting like a complete lunatic, buying his cover as his real identity. He’s bats**t crazy in her eyes, and yet she eggs him on into further thinking there’s a conspiracy around him. Umm…why?
Even more so, once Harris finds out the truth, why does he immediately work on stopping the assassination? Why the sudden strike of conscience? He had no problem carrying out such missions in the past, so whether this professor dies or not shouldn’t bother him at all.
Well, unless the plot needs him to care, which in this case it does.
2. Knowing (2009)
Nicolas Cage, a man who doesn’t understand the meaning of the word “subtle” when it comes to acting, stars as John Koestler, a college professor at MIT whose son stumbles onto a paper buried in a school time capsule for 50 years. The paper is covered in a series of numbers which mean….something.
Koestler eventually figures out the numbers correspond to every disaster on Earth for 50 years, including date, number of casualties, and the exact coordinates of the disaster. He realizes two disasters haven’t yet happened, so he has to act in order to try stopping the last two events from happening.
Too bad the last event involves the destruction of planet Earth.
The Ending:
The short answer: Aliens did it.
Once Koestler realizes Earth is pooch screwed, he takes his son, another woman, and her daughter to figure out a way for them to survive. His efforts lead him to a spot nearby where aliens are gathering a select few humans to take them to another planet and continue the human race.
But the aliens will only take Koestler’s son and the young girl. Daddy can’t come along for the ride to safety. They take the kids away along with the other humans they chose, leaving the rest to die in a fiery blaze.
How humane of them. Pun intended.
But, Wait a Minute…
Just where in f***ing hell did these aliens come from? Why did they only choose a small number of humans to live? What methods did they use to choose which ones lived and which ones got to burn? It’s also clear they knew the Earth was toast all along, so why didn’t they just take everyone to safety? Or better yet, since they have such superior technology, why didn’t they take people away sooner in shifts?
The movie actually did a decent job of building some tension up for the first 100 minutes or so, but the last 15 minutes are so frustratingly awful, they destroy everything that was established earlier in the film. It was like the writers had no idea how to properly end the film, so they plucked the single crappiest ending possible out of thin air.
Oh, speaking of not knowing how to end a film…
3. The Forgotten (2004)
Julianne Moore is Telly Paretta, a woman who keeps griping to her husband and her therapist that she can’t deal with the death of her 9 year old son. Trouble is, both her therapist and her husband think she’s nuts and keep telling her she never had a son. They think she’s dealing with some other kind of trauma where she created the persona of her son in order to deal with it.
Then she meets Ash Correll (Dominic West), a man who might have had a daughter around the same age as Telly’s son. I say might have because he doesn’t remember his own daughter (which says a lot about how much movies value the relationship between a mother and her children versus a father and his kids, but that’s for another time). Eventually the two of them work together on finding their kids and figure out who or what was responsible for erasing their existences.
Before I say anything else, let me say that this plot concept is awesome. It’s the setup for a movie that can really screw with the audience’s collective heads, and when I first saw this film I was genuinely interested in finding out where it was going, because I knew the payoff HAD to be good.
And then…
The Ending:
The short answer: Aliens did it. Again.
The ending involved something about a guy who’s undercover among humans every day looking for new victims for his “employer,” whoever that is, and that part of his job was to erase his victims’ existences completely. He had to wipe out the memories of all family members, friends, coworkers, etc, and - oh, bulls**t, bulls**t, bulls**t, bulls**t, bulls**t, BULLS**T.
But, Wait a Minute…
Did I mention this was an utter bulls**t cop-out of an ending? How in the world did the idea of having aliens kidnap people and erase their existences make sense to the writer and director? They actually had a workable and interesting plot going on for a good hour before they revealed what was going on. When the time came to make the ending, they said, “Ah, f*** it,” and flipped the double middle finger at the audience.
4. Planet of the Apes (2001)
Tim Burton wanted to make his own damn, dirty version of Planet of the Apes, but he was smart enough to know that the original film’s surprise ending wouldn’t work in his remake. The general plot is still the same: Mark Wahlberg is a U.S.
The Ending:
Or is he?
Wahlberg lands on a planet that resembles present day Earth, but he finds himself somewhere in D.C. He finds what should be the Lincoln Memorial, but instead of Honest Abe’s likeness, he finds the likeness of General Thade, the main villain he had fought on the Planet of the Apes, there instead. Then the cops show up in force, and instead of other humans in police uniform, they’re all apes, too.
The end.
But, Wait a Minute…
Huh?
What just happened here? Was Wahlberg thrown forward in time to an Earth where apes ruled? Or was he thrown back in time somehow instead? Or was he thrown into some alternate dimension?
It’s possible that the producers had wanted to make a sequel in order to explain whatever the hell happened in this ending, but since no sequel has ever been made, we’re left to throw our hands in the air and curse Tim Burton’s name.
5. The Book of Eli (2010)
Denzel Washington plays yet another badass who's charged with transporting a book across country through endless miles of desert in a post-apocalyptic Earth. A group of people want to preserve as many written works as possible since they're hard to come by, and whatever book Denzel is carrying is pretty darn important. Meanwhile, Gary Oldman and his cronies want the same book Denzel has for their own monetary gain.
The Ending:
The hardcover Denzel is carrying ultimately ends up in Oldman's possession, but it doesn't matter. The pages in the book are all printed in braille, which makes the book worthless to Oldman..
Oh, the reason the book is in braille? Denzel is blind. And the book itself is a King James Bible. Denzel committed the ENTIRE BIBLE TO HIS MEMORY. When he finally reaches his destination, he recites the Bible verse for verse to a recorder, who then copies everything down for mass production.
But, Wait a Minute....
Have you ever read a book so many times you've been able to recite it word for word to someone else? I don't just mean a Dr. Seuss book. I'm talking about a book that's longer than Stephen King's The Stand. The sheer lunacy of such a man who could memorize the Bible start to finish would be more than enough to call such a twist ending absurd, but then you gotta think about the stuff Denzel does earlier in the film too.
Like get into gun fights. And fist fights. While using a sword.
I know that blind men rely on their other senses, particularly hearing and smell, but seeing Denzel manage to beat up nearly a dozen men in a bar with his sword is ridiculous once you think about the fact that he's blind. And during the climactic shootout with Oldman's goons, he uses a number of firearms to kill off the bad guys. From a good 20 yards away.
******
There are plenty more bad twist endings out there, and I'd love to hear what some of yours are. Feel free to share a couple in the comments section.
******
There are plenty more bad twist endings out there, and I'd love to hear what some of yours are. Feel free to share a couple in the comments section.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)