Saw Mission:Impossible 3. Don't think I'll have the energy to review it. It just wasn't that good. I love JAbrams, but there's a reason he does well with TV. It's fun, it's loud, and then it's completely disappointing. If you're up for that, it's not completely unworthy of your eight or nine dollars. But don't get your hopes up.

Anyway...

This is how I feel now. Think I might be done with mainstream sports, and perhaps even newspapers. We'll see. Lots to think about.

The Office is a WONderful show. But tonight's episode, wow. Knocked me off my feet.

United 93

United93, originally uploaded by MertWindu.

United 93
Directed by: Paul Greengrass
Produced by: Working Title/Universal/Canal
Rated: R
Time: 111 minutes

Grade: A

Forty minutes pass from the beginning of "United 93" until the first plane hits WTC 1. During that 40 minutes, we know what is going to happen, and so it is difficult not to be nervous. During this time, as is the case with a lot of the movie, there isn't much valuable dialogue. That's not a knock, and I'll explain why in a bit. Then, the plane hits, and waves of realization hit different characters. First, the FAA and air traffic controllers who have been trying to nail down the facts in possible hijackings start to see that their fears may not cover just how bad things actually are. Then, the military begins to kick into gear. Finally, the people on United flight 93, from the crew to the passengers to the terrorists themselves, start to find out in short bursts of information just what has happened in New York.

And during that 40 minutes, there really isn't a whole lot happening. There is a lot of time given to the procedures performed by the pilots and crew on the flight, and eventually we get around to the hijacking scenarios on a few flights in the Northeast corridor. However, even those revelations come through the lack of something - namely, contact and on-screen information from the flights in the air traffic control centers in Boston and New York. The action centers, though, on the National Air Traffic Control Systems Operations center Herndon, Va. where director Ben Sliney begins the day being congratulated (we aren't told why, don't worry about it), but soon finds that it's the worst day of his life. Sliney plays himself in the movie, and if there were a person to add to a "starring" list at the top of this review, he'd be the one. He is central to the plot until the final half-hour, and it is through him that we experience the early parts of the day.

Going into a plot synopsis seems useless here, since there is quite literally nobody old enough to read this blog who doesn't know the general plot points. And that is the ultmiate dilemma of the film. Sure, films have been made about actual events before, even recent ones. But there is quite simply no way to fudge the details with 9/11. We know almost everything there is to know about what happened, why, and the result. In the very small window of things we don't know are the last 91 minutes of the lives of Flight 91's crew and passengers. We have some good ideas, and can make some strong assumptions. But what we haven't done is to go all the way through what happened between the passengers and crew and the terrorists they fought against.

So that is what Greengrass does here. And he does it very well. Part of the reason for that, and I'm surprised this hasn't raised more eyebrows, is that he almost entirely avoids portraying the terrorists as villains. In fact, they begin the movie much as we do, with trepidation and fear about what's about to happen. They go on their own journey during the story, and while you don't necessarily relate or sympathize with them, it's not that difficult to see them as human. That's something that has never ever been done in any writings or other portrayals of the day's events.

And that gets to the reason this film is so good: It is not by any means a story of good vs. evil. Viewers will go into it thinking that way, and some will certainly come out of it thinking that way. But anyone who can really allow themselves to be immersed in the story will see that it's about will, courage, and fear. In the end, it is very much a tribute to the day, and especially the folks on the flight who decided that countless other lives were important enough to save. However, it does so without making either the heroes the central focus, or the villains any sort of caricatures. They are people, and it is their interactions that are ultimately depicted. It's not an action movie, and it's not so dramatic as to depict Todd Beamer as a Bruce Willis-type hero or any of the terrorists as moustache-twirling evildoers.

There are important juxtapositions made, and they are made well. For instance, the film begins with an Islamic prayer, and there are many of those at the end as well. However, the ones in the climactic scene collide with Christian prayers as well, and I found it very difficult to make any distinction in the emotions and motives. While they are still terrorists, and basically the enemy, the muslims in the movie are people as well, and they are asking for the power of God to be with them. Another bit of filmic comparison to watch for is the hesitation by the terrorists before they storm the cockpit, and the actions of the passengers before they fight back. That's an important corollary as well.

Greengrass did what most want to do (and what I'm hoping Oliver Stone can do with "World Trade Center"): memorialize 9/11 in a way that is stirring, entertaining, and still respectful. But he does it gracefully, without asking you to cry. That's important. The only scene where I felt any sort of tears arising was the one where the passengers call their loved ones. But even that is not treated as typical movie schlock. It has a documentary feel, and that helps us maintain a certain distance while still feeling intensely like a part of what's going on. Nobody needs to be reminded to cry for 9/11. But Greengrass goes through the events in such a way that has us thinking and feeling all at once. Ultimately, he causes us to look at a day we all shared in a somewhat different light. It doesn't feel like the political and cultural event that it has become. It feels the way it did during those early hours on an otherwise beautiful Tuesday in September: Like a series of moments that forever change our lives.

Inside Man

inside_man, originally uploaded by MertWindu.

Inside Man
Directed by: Spike Lee
Produced by: Universal/Imagine/Forty Acres & A Mule
Starring: Denzel Washington, Clive Owen, Jodie Foster
Rated: R
Time: 129 minutes
Grade: B-minus

Take another look at the running time. Now subtract about seven minutes from it. That’s the amount of time Spike spent on build up in this movie, and the remaining seven minutes is what he gave us for resolution. That is the main, and perhaps fatal, flaw in an otherwise entertaining film.

First of all, let’s just make a few things clear: It’s Spike, so it’s got a great feel, an interesting and different point of view from most mainstream films, and a message at the end. Spike wants us to think, sometimes more than he wants us to understand the plot. His motives are often more important to him than the execution, and this is a perfect example.

Washington plays Detective Keith Frazier, and while I love Denzel, Frazier could pretty much be Herman Boone, Lincoln Rhyme, Anthony Hubbard, John Hobbes, or any of several other characters Denzel has played. He does what he does very well, but he does it awfully similarly in every film. Still, it’s Denzel, and I’d much rather watch him just be him in another incarnation than most other actors of his style and type. Frazier is a cool, passionate, intelligent cop, who sees every angle while everyone else around him focuses on just the obvious. See what I mean? Anyway, he’s called in to a robbery at a big-time Wall Street bank, and away we go.

Owen is the bank robber, which you know if you’ve seen previews. He’s the head of a team of four, and the only one we really learn anything about. He begins the movie with a monologue delivered on video, from some tiny little room at an anonymous location. He tells us to pay strict attention to his words, because he chooses them carefully, and won’t repeat himself. Don’t worry, though, because a. he does repeat himself near the end of the film, and b. even if you do miss it, there’s nothing there that’s going to prove all that revelatory. He tells us that he has planned the perfect bank robbery, and while it’s not entirely clear at the time, he seems to be saying so after the fact. So we can be relatively certain that he lives, though the cell-like atmosphere of the room makes us wonder if he did it.

Foster plays the most aggravating character of all, and a perfect embodiment of the problems with the film. Madeline White is a professional problem solver, I guess. She somehow handles situations that can’t be handled by more conventional means. We’re introduced to her as she brokers a real estate transaction involving the nephew of someone important, and perhaps notorious. This is what she does. Is that enough definition for you? Good, because it’s all you’re going to get. Just as with the film as a whole, there are lots of little glimpses at reality with Madeline White, but no final declaration of her identity.

Owen’s robbery rapidly becomes a hostage situation. This does not seem like a problem at all for the robbers, and although it will nag at you at first, it should make a little more sense at the end. After several hours of hostage crisis drama, Frazier begins to realize that there’s more to the robbery than the obvious characteristics. In fact, as you’ve seen in most previews, he decides that it’s no longer a bank robbery at all. Remember that scene? Remember how it made you instantly want to see the movie to find out what it is??? Don’t get your hopes up. Spike decides not to really follow through on that thought. If you twist your mind a certain way after the conclusion of the film, you can maybe see it as something more than a robbery. A statement, perhaps. But a weakly-made one, and one that shouldn’t leave any moviegoer with half a brain stunned as the credits roll. Unless it’s just that wide-eyed look of someone who wonders if their theater got a bad print of the movie with the last 15 minutes cut off.

That’s not to say it should have been longer. More than two hours is just fine. But you’ll probably find yourself glancing at your watch, wondering just how in the hell there hasn’t been any sort of resolution an hour and 45 minutes into the thing. I like movies that challenge my ability to decipher a mystery. I don’t like movies that don’t actually have a solution to the puzzle.

Again, it’s Spike, and so it has a great sense of space and time. I particularly liked the use of an Indian song called “Chaiyya Chaiyya” at the beginning and end. It’s a real toe-tapper, a random but welcome nod to Bollywood. Spike does this sort of thing really, really well. He can dress up a weak plot with wonderful scenery, dialogue, and tension. Denzel deserves some of that too, because his slow boil is far more enjoyable than the kind of high-wire suspense we’re accustomed to with hostage pictures. There aren’t a lot of screaming scenes, no investigators getting tired of the hostage-takers B.S. and slamming the phone down, no bulletproof vest-less Christ poses in front of the bank doors. It’s a very cerebral version of the robbery/hostage plot, but it just doesn’t deliver.

Should Spike have tacked on a few more minutes? Absolutely not. It doesn’t feel like he ran out of time; it feels like he ran out of story. The motives and causes for the robbery just don’t measure up to the sheer weight of the execution.

Stuff a...cap in it?

So, a vintner in Portugal is joining the recent trend of doing away with corks to top its wine bottles and instead going with a twist cap. This is apparently causing some serious hand-wringing in Portugal, which has a huge cork industry. I probably wouldn't have bothered linking, but it's kind of interesting and apparently the Portuguese cork, y'know, empire is using Jose Mourinho, manager of my Chelsea Football Club, to advertise for the continued use of corks. OK, I don't think I'm enough of a winey (yet) to write the word cork so many times in one paragraph. Anyway.

Sorry I haven't been updating much. I work in a four-person department, and our sports editor just took ill a few weeks ago. So a four-man crew that was already pretty much doing the work of five is now down to three. There hasn't been a lot of free time in my life, and most of that has been spent sleeping or decompressing. Anyway, I wrote an Inside Man review, so I'll post that above (which means that by the time you read this, you've already seen that. Making this sentence, and the one before it, useless. Good stuff.) Anyway, I'll try to swing by here every once in a while, but don't expect much until, like, June. Yikes.

Hello again...

Hi there. Long time no blah blah blah. Just saw "V for Vendetta." Got plenty to say about it, but it might have to wait until I see it again and can process some of the things in it. I'll say now that I thought it was amazing.

For now, just wanted to clear a few things out. Ebert's review of V is pretty confusing. Other than the three stars he gave it, I really have no idea what he thinks of the movie. All I can gather is that he didn't like the result of the climactic scene for wholly personal reasons, and that he doesn't like the fact that V wears a mask, because as he says, "if something talks, its lips should move."

Uh, OK Roger.

Anyway, that was kind of disappointing, because no matter what he thinks of it, I always get something out of Ebert's reviews. He looks at movies a lot like I do, and reviews them not for the quality of what they depict, but the quality of how and why they are depicted. I believe he made the point about "Armageddon" that I truly agree with, which is that it was a good movie because it accomplished what it was supposed to. Moving on...

I had this story in my favorites for about three months, and finally got around to reading the whole thing the other day. It follows a casualty assistance officer in the Marines, whos job it is to notify and then assist a family whose loved one died in service overseas. It's very touching, very eye-opening, and far too powerful for anyone to read who has gone through this, or who has a loved one overseas. If you don't fit either of those categories, I wholeheartedly recommend that you read it. It will not affect your feelings on war, or at least that's not its intent, nor is that my intent in posting it. It's about humanity. Enjoy.

A day befitting a legend

Saturday was a very cool day. At halftime of the UMass-Dayton basketball game, the court at the Mullins Center was dedicated to Jack Leaman, the former UMass coach who built the program into a Division I contender, and helped the Minutemen "go bigtime" long before John Calipari and Marcus Camby came to town. Leaman is, as many have said, the face of UMass basketball. The night he died, I met up with a few friends, and we spent the whole dinner telling stories and remembering the funny and wonderful moments from our time with Jack. It's a night I'll never forget, which might sound too reverential for a man's death, but if you knew Jack, it makes sense. I have written twice about Jack since his passing. I'm posting them here, not to promote myself, but so that I can hopefully explain how important the guy was, to me and to anyone who ever cared about the Maroon and White.

here's my story from Sunday's Eagle, just a quick feature on the dedication, etc.

And, here's my column from the Collegian written shortly after Jack's death. Sorry for the alignment, looks like the ol' MDC is still working out some kinks on the new website design.

If you'd like to read writers with a little more talent and cachet than me, check out Marty Dobrow in the Globe (thanks for burying that story on the website, Globe), Ron Chimelis in the Republican, and of course Matt in the Gazette, who I know will have something for Monday's paper, and I'll try to remember to link him when I get to it.

You'll notice in all of the stories that Calipari made it to the ceremony, which was a surprise since his Memphis Tigers had a game that night. But a welcome surprise, of course. IT's very interesting, Cal creates a buzz around him when he shows up in Amherst. As someone who followed the Minutemen pretty closely from 1993-1996, it was cool to listen to the guy talk, to get to know him that little bit. Anyway, the day was very nice, and I'm glad my alma mater finally made Leaman's legacy a visual part of the experience at the arena.

Also, if you're interested in learning more about Leaman, Cal, and UMass basketball, please check out Dobrow's excellent book, "Going Bigtime: The Spectacular Rise of UMass Basketball." I finally got around to starting it, and it's been great so far. Marty's also a pretty cool cat, so there's that, too.

Taking a break

Heading off to Loon Mountain for a few days, so no Olympians of the Day (or anything else, for that matter) until Tuesday night. Fortunately, the entire U.S. team, with the exception of Joey Cheek and Pete Fenson's curling rink, has given me no reason to feel like I'll be missing out. Oy.

And yes, I realize Shani Davis won a gold medal. And I also realize the historical significance of what he did (first African-American to win in an individual event). But because he acted like a complete assclown afterward, he's disqualified. Sorry Shani, there's a reason they didn't put your name on the back of your uniform.

Best of the Best

Sorry I skipped a day, but let's be honest, Wednesday was a really nondescreipt day for the Olympics. When the biggest story is a tied hockey game, yeah, maybe I feel OK taking a one-day hiatus.

The first few Olympians of the Day were rewarded for overcoming adversity, or for being the embodiment of the athletic spirit by putting in their best effort despite having no chance at victory. Today's OotD is a little different. Evgeny Plushenko is, without any doubt or debate, the best male figure skater in the world. He proved it last night, with a performance in the men's free skate that pretty much just blew away the rest of the competition. Put it this way: 11 points separated the silver medalist and fourth-place. Twenty-seven points separated Plushenko's gold from the silver of Switzerland's Stephane Lambiel. Quite simply, Plushenko reminded us that the Olympics, in addition to being a fun diversion from the normal, everyday nature of sports, it's also a gathering of the finest athletes in the world. People who, like Plushenko last night, are just better at one thing than most of us will ever be at anything.

Besides, he skated to the theme from "The Godfather." I mean, that should have been the end of it right there. I really applaud the rest of the competitors for not just quitting there. When a Russian is doing anything with mob music in the background, you're probably lucky to wake up the next morning without any animal heads in your bed.

By the way, no, I'm not happy with having two figure skating Olympians of the Day in such a short amount of time, but I don't think there's any arguing either choice. And trust me, unless Tanith Belbin loses a leg in the middle of her routine and still wins the gold medal, there WILL BE NO OLYMPIANS OF THE DAY FROM ICE DANCING. (And no, that doesn't mean I won't consider posting pictures of Tanith Belbin.)

Honorable mention: Evan Lysacek, who skated with flu symptoms and pulled off a very good routine; and American Seth Wescott, who made a little history by being the first-ever winner of men's snowboardcross, the only extreme-sport olympic event that really feels like it belongs in the games; and finally Australian Michelle Steele, who placed 13th in the women's skeleton competition less than 18 months after the Australian skeleton team was created. Kinda cool.

Also, I just wanted to direct everyone to the NBC Olympics site. My boy Petey is doing the yeoman's work over there, getting shit posted on a regular basis and keeping the front page fresh for the rest of us Olympi-philes. So go give him a few more hits, will ya?

And keep checking out Dan Steinberg's blog from Turin. There's a particularly surreal story from fellow Postie Mike Wise in there tonight (might not be the first thing you see by the time you get to it.)

And, oh hell, why not. Y'all deserve it. Here's what to watch for today/tonight.

• The big event in terms of an American story comes in the women's combined skiing final, where Lindsey Kildow tries to bounce back from a horrific crash just a few days ago. She's got a legitimate shot to medal here, even after the accident. That'll be on NBC in primetime (8-11 p.m.)
• I'm making you all watch curling. The U.S. women have their backs against the wall, and have to win their next four matches just to have a chance at the medal round. The first of those four matches will be shown live today at 8 a.m. on USA. Thank god I have DVR. Also, CNBC will have the U.S. Men against Switzerland at 5 p.m. Pete Fenson's the man, watch and you'll see why.
  
• At 11:05, USA will have the U.S. women's hockey team in a semifinal game against Sweden. A win likely puts the Americans up against the Canadians in the final. Also, it increases the likelihood of you getting to read a neat story about U.S. goaltender Chanda Gunn.
  

Little miracles

Today's Olympians of the Day are losers. Big, BIG losers. I'm talking about losses so bad, you question the idea of them being involved in the Olympics. I'm talking about a hockey team that lost its first two games by a combined score of 27-0 (let's not even talk about the shot total, other than to say that their opponents had nearly 100, and they had fewer than 10.) You might not have heard too much about just exactly what the above-pictured woman did, because, well, it wasn't an American or Canadian, and the feat didn't really change much.

Except it changed everything. That is Sabina Florian, a forward on the Italian women's hockey team. She's celebrating the biggest goal in the history of Italian women's Olympic hockey. That's because, as of this writing, it's the only goal in the history of Italian women's Olympic hockey, which stretches all the way back to the beginning of the 2006 Turin Olympics. A dedicated but wholly overmatched team of women, for a few minutes during yesterday's game, held a 1-0 lead over Russia, one of the better teams in the tournament. Mike Berardino of the San Jose Mercury-News wrote about what Florian and her teammates had to do to get their hands on the most valuable - and only - piece of their team's history: the puck Florian put past Russian goaltender Irina Gashennikova eight minutes and 20 seconds into the game.

Russia went on to win the game 5-1. The Italian women will not pull off a miracle of Lake Placid proportions. They will not win a game all tournament, more than likely. They are true amateurs, no North Americans with Italian heritage. They are, perhaps, the biggest winners of the day. The Italian Women's Hockey Team, your Olympians of the Day for Valentine's Day, February 14th.

Honorable Mention: Ted "Ligety Split" Ligety. Way to go, Ted. Turns out you have to actually SKI WELL TO EARN ANY REAL CREDIT. Hear that, Bode? Also, Chanda Gunn, who held the fort while the US Women fought back from a second-period deficit and overwhelmed Finland. I'll have plenty more on her one of these days, believe me.

Bouncing back...

Today's Olympians of the Day are co-OotDs. And there's four of them. I think figure skating has become more hype than substance, but occasionally you get a few truly good stories, like the ones above. The first picture is of the Gold Medal winners, Russians Tatyana Totmiyanina and Maxim Marinin. It's possible, if you have one of those "I gotta see this" itches that makes you watch graphic video on the internet, that you've seen this pair before. Back in October 2004, at an event called Skate America, Marinin lifted Totmiyanina high into the air, and started spinning. But as he completed his first revolution, he hit a rut in the ice, tripped, and dropped Totmiyanina to the ice. She fell on her face, and sustained a concussion strong enough to erase all memory of the incident. It was a truly horrifying crash, bad enough that I really don't want to post a picture of it here.

Anyway, "Tot and Max" as they are known in skating circles (and which I will call them from now on because spelling her last name is more challenging than most of the things I did in high school algebra) put together an unbelievable performance last night. I don't really know how judges, um, judge figure skating, but I think their free skate last night was good enough that you didn't need a strong technical background to see that they just had it. Sure enough, they won the gold.

Below them are China's Zhang Dan and Zhang Hao (Dan's the girl, just go with it), who had a similar bit of adversity to overcome, but on a very immediate level. Early into their free skate, the Zhangs (who I swear I heard aren't related...hmmm...) attempted a move that is apparently their trademark, a throw quad salchow. For those of you who don't speak figure skating, it's a move in which the guy hurls the girl up into the air and completes four revolutions (the standard for difficulty is three). The salchow part has to do with footwork, and I don't really care to find out the details. Anyway, the attempted quad throw didn't work, and Dan crashed hard to the ice, her legs splaying out in opposite directions like a newborn deer. The music stopped, and Hao came over to help her up. She was clearly in some serious pain, and the pair skated over to the entrance to talk to their coach and a trainer about whether or not they should continue. After five minutes of Dan sobbing, and finally composing herself, they started up again. The rule in the pairs competition (maybe just the free skate, I don't know), is that if you have to stop for injury, you can restart from where you left off without penalty. So they did, and completed a very, very good performance, with Dan showing no signs of taking a fall that would have had me in bed for a week. They took the silver medal, China's first in the pairs competition. Quite stunning to see them pull that off. Hopefully this will be the last time I give OTD to figure skaters, although I reserve the right to post pictures of Sasha Cohen's performance to, y'know, brighten up the place.

Just doing an Olympian of the Day for now. If you don't recognize the guy, that's understandable. He's a Norwegian Cross Country Skiier named Frode Estil. In Sunday's 30-kilometer Men's Pursuit, Estil, one of the top skiiers in the race (and a gold medal winner in 2002) tripped and fell, taking out several skiiers with him. One of those skiiers broke one of Estil's skis on the way down. Afterward, Estil got up, and actually stood for a few seconds trying to decide whether or not it would be worth it to go on, with the pack growing increasingly distant. He decided to go, and after getting a new ski, was on the hunt. Two of his teammates got out in front of the pack to slow it, and nobody passed them, realizing that an Olympic champion had fallen, and deserved to have a shot. Estil hustled back to the pack, and seemed never to tire as he eventually caught the leaders, before earning a silver medal. In the movies, perhaps he would have won the race, but as the TV announcers said, perhaps on Sunday that silver meant even more than the gold.

Olympian of the Day

Gonna do a new thing here. Every day, well, at the end of every day, I'll pick a new Olympian of the day. The criteria isn't too specific, just someone who captures my attention, someone whose story, performance, reaction, success, or failure in some way makes them even more exceptional. We'll start with U.S. Speedskater Chad Hedrick who, I hope, is making his first of at least two appearances here. Hedrick won the men's 5,000 meter race Sunday, an event that was dominated forever, it seems, by the Norwegians (remember Johan Olaf Koss?) Even better, this is just the start for Hedrick. He wants to win five gold medals, equaling Eric Heiden's massive haul.

Also, the Washington Post's Dan Steinberg is running a blog from Turin (note, if you ever see the word "Torino" appear outside of quotation marks on this site, you are within your rights to punch me.) He's had some interesting notes so far, including an account of a day at the Oval Lingotto in a section full of Dutch maniacs. Good times. God I love this stuff.

That's all of the five-rings stuff now, but since I'm a serious Olympic nut (I have had the NBC Olympic theme running through my head nonstop since Friday night), expect to see more

Non Olympic stuff: Phil Mushnick wrote yesterday about the tragic death of a young boy, and how his memory is coming to mind after the debut of a new Nike commercial. It's a good little read, and one more reason to utterly detest the swoosh.

Oscar Nominations Announced

Oscar, originally uploaded by MertWindu.

UPDATE: I've now caught up on pretty much all the movies I'm going to get to in time for Oscar Night. If I happen to catch Munich and it affects any of my picks, I'll update again, but that's going to be tough since I live on Mars. Updated picks bold and italic, updated remarks bold.

The nominations for the 2006 Oscars are out, so I thought I'd post my picks. Hah, beat you to it Jim, this is the benefit of staying up until dawn!!!! (Wait, that's not something to be proud of. Nevermind). Three disclaimers: I have to catch up on a whole lot of movies, so I reserve the right to change my picks. In fact, I think I'll probably plan on redoing them right before the big night, might be interesting to see how things have changed. Two, I have not seen any of the films in several categories. I opted not to guess on any of those until I get a chance to put some effort into seeing those movies. Three, these are the films I would like to see win awards, not the ones I think will. Until I see a few more of the nominees, I'm going to hold off on the want/will distinctions. My picks are in bold.

Best Picture:
"Brokeback Mountain"
"Capote"
"Crash"
"Good Night, and Good Luck"
"Munich"
I've now seen four of the five Picture nominees (minus Munich), and while my pick remains the same, my thoughts are a little different on what may happen. I think that this category could be whittled down to Capote, Crash, and Good Night, and Good Luck. That's not to say that Brokeback and Munich don't belong there, but I feel Brokeback's a small step below the three I just mentioned, and from what I'm hearing about Munich, it's just a little too inconsistent in its effect to win. I'll be reviewing Brokeback, Capote, and GN&GL above shortly, but to put it briefly, they are three of the most complicated movies I've ever seen - Brokeback in an emotional sense, and Capote and GN&GL in an intellectual sense. Bruce thinks Brokeback is going to grab the Academy because of its theme of forbidden love, and I'm worried it's going to grab the Academy simply so the Academy can thumb its nose at conservative America. It's sort of contradictory I guess, but if gay relationships were less controversial, I'd be happier with Brokeback winning. But I'll hold off on the rest of my thoughts until after the Awards, since there's no point wasting more words on what might not happen. For what it's worth, Ebert picked Crash too.

Actor:
Philip Seymour Hoffman, "Capote"
Terrence Howard, "Hustle & Flow"
Heath Ledger, "Brokeback Mountain"
Joaquin Phoenix, "Walk the Line"
David Strathairn, "Good Night, and Good Luck."
Honestly, I could see myself changing this pick before the Oscars, and that's kind of amazing for me to think about, considering how much I loved Joaquin. I think the thing that's keeping him bolded here is the fact that he did his own singing in the film, as well as guitar playing. But after seeing Strathairn, I'm nowhere near positive about it.

Actress:
Judi Dench, "Mrs. Henderson Presents"
Felicity Huffman, "Transamerica"
Keira Knightley, "Pride & Prejudice"
Charlize Theron, "North Country"
Reese Witherspoon, "Walk the Line"
Reese was unbelievable. Simply unbelievable. Even better than Joaquin, I felt. The only other nominee I plan to see before Oscar time is North Country, so I'm betting this pick won't change.

Supporting Actor:
George Clooney, "Syriana"
Matt Dillon, "Crash"
Paul Giamatti, "Cinderella Man"
Jake Gyllenhaal, "Brokeback Mountain"
William Hurt, "A History of Violence"
I can finally make a pick here, but it's still not easy. Having seen the whole group, I'm going to go with Clooney, but I'm fine with any of the first four getting the nod. I think the Academy screwed up on this category. The fifth nominee is the right movie (History of Violence), but the wrong guy. Ed Harris might not have been better than Clooney, Dillon, Giamatti, or Gyllenhaal, but he was definitely better (and more important) than Hurt.

Supporting Actress:
Amy Adams, "Junebug"
Catherine Keener, "Capote"
Frances McDormand, "North Country"
Rachel Weisz, "The Constant Gardener"
Michelle Williams, "Brokeback Mountain"
Everyone is loving Williams here, and I can see why. But I feel like her performance was a little one-dimensional. She went from content to angry, and that was about it. Meanwhile, Keener made me want to learn more about Harper Lee, and to read "To Kill a Mockingbird" again, without the restraints of youth and a book report deadline. That's saying something.

Director:
Ang Lee, "Brokeback Mountain"
Bennett Miller, "Capote"
Paul Haggis, "Crash"
George Clooney, "Good Night, and Good Luck."
Steven Spielberg, "Munich"
My upcoming review will explain it a little more, but Clooney managed to turn what could have been a dull history picture and made it riveting. When I checked my cellphone's clock after I got out, I was absolutely stunned to find that the movie was nearly two hours long. As you can probably guess, though, I'd love for Haggis to get the nod here. He did a terrific job as well. I just think Clooney needs to be rewarded for his efforts, and since his work as Fred Friendly wasn't quite prolific enough to earn a supporting nod, I'm giving it to him here.

Foreign Film:
"Don't Tell," Italy
"Joyeux Noel," France
"Paradise Now," Palestine
"Sophie Scholl - The Final Days," Germany
"Tsotsi," South Africa.
I'm picking Tsotsi because I think it could end up being my first favorite movie of 2006, once it comes out. Joyeux Noel looks very good too.

Adapted Screenplay:
Larry McMurtry & Diana Ossana, "Brokeback Mountain"
Dan Futterman, "Capote"
Jeffrey Caine, "The Constant Gardener"
Josh Olson, "A History of Violence"
Tony Kushner and Eric Roth, "Munich"
Now that I've caught up, I can make a decision here. Brokeback was very good, just very, very well-spun. But the methodical and mesmerizing pacing of Capote owes to the intricate work of Futterman. If Capote or Brokeback win best picture, then it ought to win screenplay too, because the quality of both movies was so heavily based on the writing.

Original Screenplay:
Paul Haggis & Bobby Moresco, "Crash"
George Clooney & Grant Heslov, "Good Night, and Good Luck"
Woody Allen, "Match Point"
Noah Baumbach, "The Squid and the Whale"
Stephen Gaghan, "Syriana"
I just can't decide. I really can't. They're both so tremendous. GN&GL has some Murrow broadcasts to go on, so maybe that should be a knock against it for this category (Murrow's direct attack on McCarthy is just amazing, but it obviously wasn't original. Should that matter?)

Animated Feature Film:
"Howl's Moving Castle"
Tim Burton's "Corpse Bride"
"Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit"
I'm hoping for W&G: TCotWR here, but I haven't seen any of them yet, so I won't pick.

Art Direction:
"Good Night, and Good Luck."
"Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire"
"King Kong"
"Memoirs of a Geisha"
"Pride & Prejudice"
The monkey movie simply HAS to win this category (as well as the other one I picked it for). If the Academy doesn't pick it, P. Jackson needs to sit them all down and make them watch his serialized production diaries from the kongisking.net website, so they can see what went into the visuals.

Cinematography:
"Batman Begins"
"Brokeback Mountain"
"Good Night, and Good Luck."
"Memoirs of a Geisha"
"The New World"
I read that GN&GL was filmed in color on a grayscale set. That really helped, because despite the lack of color, the film, the visuals, just stand out in this incredible way. And some of the framing tricks (which I know are considered more gimmicks than award-winning traits) do such a great job in making us focus on who we're supposed to focus on.

Sound Mixing:
"The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe"
"King Kong"
"Memoirs of a Geisha"
"Walk the Line"
"War of the Worlds"
I wanted to go with the Ape here, but among the great things about Walk the Line is the pure experience of music found within. It's like a concert film, wrapped up inside a biopic. In fact, that's almost exactly what it is. Got me to blow a whole bunch of money on Cash albums, that's for sure.

Sound Editing:
"King Kong"
"Memoirs of a Geisha"
"War of the Worlds"
No-brainer here. War of the Worlds had neat sound work, but not Oscar-level sound work. Sorry Tommy and Steve, but WOTW has no business winning any Academy Awards.

Original Score:
"Brokeback Mountain," Gustavo Santaolalla
"The Constant Gardener," Alberto Iglesias
"Memoirs of a Geisha," John Williams
"Munich," John Williams
"Pride & Prejudice," Dario Marianelli
Really beautiful work, such a great base of emotion upon which to put the film.

Original Song:
"In the Deep" from "Crash," Kathleen 'Bird' York and Michael Becker
"It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp" from "Hustle & Flow," Jordan Houston, Cedric Coleman and Paul Beauregard
"Travelin' Thru" from "Transamerica," Dolly Parton
A heartbreaking song from one of my favorites of 2005. I'll be pretty angry if it doesn't win.

Costume:
"Charlie and the Chocolate Factory"
"Memoirs of a Geisha"
"Mrs. Henderson Presents"
"Pride & Prejudice"
"Walk the Line"
I've actually only seen Walk the Line, but I can already tell that Memoirs is going to be the favorite here. Seems like a no-brainer, but we'll see.

Documentary Feature:
"Darwin's Nightmare"
"Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room"
"March of the Penguins"
"Murderball"
"Street Fight"
Penguins is the only one I've seen, but I liked it a lot. I'll admit, though, that I have no idea how to pick the best doc, so this isn't exactly the pick I'd put money on.

Documentary (short subject):
"The Death of Kevin Carter: Casualty of the Bang Bang Club"
"God Sleeps in Rwanda"
"The Mushroom Club"
"A Note of Triumph: The Golden Age of Norman Corwin"
Haven't seen any.

Film Editing:
"Cinderella Man"
"The Constant Gardener"
"Crash"
"Munich"
"Walk the Line"
I hated picking against Walk the Line and Cinderella Man, and frankly I'm betting Cinderella Man wins it. This pick might change when I get a little more perspective, but the reason I went with this is that Crash manages to pull off many different stories without shortchanging them or dragging (like I feel, unfortunately, Magnolia did at times).

Makeup:
"The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe"
"Cinderella Man"
"Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith"
No real superstars here, because I think we've pretty much seen everything we got in SW III before. But it was still well done, and helped put us in that universe. Hell, the job they did with Palpatine/Sidious is enough to garner the award here.

Animated Short Film:
"Badgered"
"The Moon and the Son: An Imagined Conversation"
"The Mysterious Geographic Explorations of Jasper Morello"
"9"
"One Man Band"
You know what I hate? These shorts are what, five, 10 minutes in length? Why in the hell don't they cut out some of the B.S. from the ceremony and show them instead? I mean, seriously!

Live Action Short Film:
"Ausreisser (The Runaway)"
"Cashback"
"The Last Farm"
"Our Time Is Up"
"Six Shooter"
Same deal here, or hell, make these two awards the first of the show, and then show the winner sometime later on. Wouldn't be that hard.

Visual Effects:
"The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe"
"King Kong"
"War of the Worlds"
Again, the Monkey Movie's gotta win here. I haven't seen Narnia, but it looked like it was full of the run-of-the-mill visual effects we've come to be spoiled with in the digital age. Also, Kong went above and beyond the sense that you were watching graphics. I was saying to Bruce a few weeks back that I remember a scene with Ann and Kong on the cliff on Skull Island, and I was looking at Kong's nose, admiring the way the sun glinted off his skin. And at some point, I completely forgot that it was artwork. I was just examining the leathery skin for the sake of examining it, not to appreciate the quality of the CG. That's why the film absolutely HAS to win this. It's a damn crime if it doesn't.

Crash (A)

crash, originally uploaded by MertWindu.

Crash
Directed by Paul Haggis
Produced by Bull’s Eye Entertainment, DEJ Productions, Bob Yari Productions, Harris Company
Starring: Don Cheadle, Matt Dillon, Terence Howard, Sandra Bullock, Jennifer Esposito, Chris Bridges, Michael Pena Brendan Fraser, Thandie Newton, Larenz Tate, Ryan Phillippe
Rated: R
Two hours, two minutes

Grade: A

I see a lot of movies. Not as many as Jim, but still, plenty. And because I’ve made a commitment to writing about them here, I look at them very differently. In fact, I’ve looked at movies differently for a while. I was talking to a friend a few weeks ago, and we were talking about how we watch movies. The point I made is that we are able to appreciate films more than some other people because we watch a movie, and rather than just enjoy the story or the performances, we also try to think about the question, “what is the filmmaker trying to tell me here?” I think, for this reason, people who really love movies look at them very differently than people who simply think of movies as a diversion, something fun to do on a Saturday night.

The downside is that I sometimes find myself quite detached from the films I see. For instance, there are some who would find themselves rooting for Texas Western during the climactic game of Glory Road. I couldn’t do that. My mind was already busy with examining the plot, the use of the characters, and the pacing (not to mention many other intangibles that I won’t go into here).

So, I’m always a little surprised when a film truly grips me. When it grabs me, shakes me, puts me down, and lifts me back up. King Kong did that to some extent, but on a more superficial level. Garden State did it, although that was a very personal thing, and not something I could ever truly describe. Crash, more than any film in recent memory, has accomplished this. It is, above all, powerful. But that is not all it is. It is gripping, it is painful, it is suspenseful, it is, in a word, complete.

On one hand, there is no single plot to the film. On the other, there is a very important and personal plot with which we can all identify. The topic of race in the United States, perhaps more than anywhere else, is among the most talked-about, yet least understood of all of the things in our national conscience. This film provides no answers. It merely, and possibly for the first time in movie history, asks the right questions, of the right people: you and me.

The first words of the movie, spoken by the amazing and highly-regarded Cheadle as a detective named Graham, serve as the Greek Chorus, the preamble of Haggis’ treatise on race and interpersonal relations. “In any real city, you walk, you know? You brush past people, people bump into you,” he says. “In L.A., nobody touches you. We're always behind this metal and glass. I think we miss that touch so much, that we crash into each other, just so we can feel something.”

Perhaps more than anything, the trajectory of this movie is about collisions. Collisions of people, automobiles, ideals, misconceptions, and stereotypes. It begins with an apparent accident scene, though that becomes something more. Graham, along with Esposito’s Ria, are there to investigate a homicide. But from the very beginning, we are thrust into the harshness of the film, when Ria begins to argue with an Asian woman who rear-ended her car. The racial epithets being hurled are the sort of superficial, vicious words we think of as being bigoted, horrible, and ugly. By the end of the film, it’s surprising to feel like they are almost a good thing, because they eventually lead to change. What Crash does is rip open a seam in the blanket of political correctness, exposing the reasons and results of racial tensions. To try to recap the plot here would be fairly difficult. Much like one of my favorite films, Magnolia, there are simply too many stories involved, and I also think it would be harmful for me to write about it here, particularly if you haven’t seen the movie. But to cover the main points:

— Cheadle is a virtuous, idealistic cop, but he has his skeletons. Among them are a mother with a heroin addiction, and a brother who is missing, and likely getting himself into trouble. He and Esposito are also having an affair, which only lasts on screen for a few seconds before being rended by Graham’s own racial prejudices.— Dillon, whose story is probably the strongest of the film, plays a cop who is introduced via his racial prejudices. They are far more overt than anyone else’s in the movie, though we begin to see that they are only on the surface, and when the time comes, he is human, both in his care for his ailing father and his heroic efforts to save another. His partner (Phillippe) has a sidebar story with a heart-breaking end.
— Howard plays a television producer whose blackness is called into question by his wife (Newton), after they are pulled over and subjected to a violating, insulting search. This flips a switch in him, and the reticent, easy-going man gives way to a violent, desperate person at the end of his rope. Newton’s reaction is much quicker, and her feelings of betrayal by Howard are what ultimately set him off. She, eventually, must give way to her own hardened notions on race and the role of the police in the city.
— Bullock is the wive of the Los Angeles District Attorney, played by Fraser, and after two young black men (Bridges and Tate) carjack them, a wound is opened, and the deep-seated flames of her anger are fueled to the point where she cannot escape it, even as Fraser is trying to balance the need to be a strong public figure and yet not make the carjacking a catalyst for a racial firestorm (and a lost election).
— Daniel (Pena) is, to put it bluntly, the picture of trouble in an inner city. But that is only a picture. We find him to be the most forgiving, least dirty person in the whole ensemble. He is not a dynamic character, and yet his is maybe the most warming story of them all. He is a father, a hard-working man, and a person to whom, it seems, only bad things can happen in a movie like this. His penultimate scene had me in tears.
— Finally, Bridges and Tate are traveling companions, whose thoughts on race (specifically those of Bridges, better known as rapper Ludacris) make for a running commentary throughout the movie. Their individual ends in the film are the reverse of the expectation, much like those of every other character.

It is that last point that becomes the message-carrier of the film. Each character experiences a change, whether it is a more open mind, an acceptance of the status quo, or the realization of deep, dark, horrible truths about him or herself that seem to have been hiding in plain sight all along.

So what are we to make of the film? What was Haggis trying to tell us? Perhaps his point, or at least his goal, is found in a quote from the making-of documentary on the DVD extras: “Once you get people angry, you get them talking. Once you get them talking, they resolve issues.”

This film certainly does, and will continue to, make people talk. If there is a flaw, it is in the film’s inability to fully support the weight of all of the stories. But the only way that could be done, as far as I’m concerned, is to make it a three-day miniseries. It works better as a very high-level, provocative, and inspired movie. It will most certainly grab you, and make you question your own beliefs. Let it.

Glory Road

GloryRoad, originally uploaded by MertWindu.

Glory Road
Directed by James Gartner
Produced by Glory Road Productions/Jerry Bruckheimer Films/Walt Disney Pictures
Starring Derek Luke, Josh Lucas, Al Shearer, and Damaine Radcliff
Rated PG
One hour, 46 minutes

Grade: B

I'm going to start this review with an admission. I wasn't all that excited about this movie going in. As a sports fan, I've seen nearly every sports movie ever made (discounting the really terrible ones, such as the whole Air Bud milieu, or The Jackie Robinson Story, etc.). I know what happens with sports movies. Main subject begins with a good life. Main subject hits adversity. Main subject overcomes adversity to either win, or learn a lesson as important as winning. This is how most all sports movies work, and that's fine. In a life-art parallel, just like a good basketball team does all the same things as a bad basketball team, but just does them better, a good sports movie does certain things better than a bad one. Very little room for ingenuity or innovation. Or at least, no history of it.

So I say that as a preface to this review. "Glory Road" is not a great sports movie. Most sports movies are not "Great Sports Movies" (I smell a Top 10 coming this week...). "Glory Road" is, however, a good sports movie, and if you like the genre (or the sport of basketball), then it's certainly worth your time. It is an enjoyable film. But it is predictable (and anyone who is thinking right now, "OBVIOUSLY it's predictable, it's based on a true story!, stop reading right now, and go look at some pretty pictures of bunny rabbits. I'm not getting into the argument.) It is exactly how a movie like this plays out. Nothing is done that makes you go, "wow, I've never experienced something like this in a sports movie." Do not enter this film expecting to be blown away by an original piece of work.

But I revert, again, to the basketball team analogy. It does everything most sports movies do pretty well. Part of the problem, though, may lie in the fact that the film has so much trouble trying to find a focus for its story that it doesn't have time to do anything special.

There are two convergent plotlines here. Don Haskins is an idealistic basketball coach, nursed on the sport from a young age. He begins the movie as the coach of a girls youth team, somewhere on the coaching food chain between algae and, well, whatever algae eats. But he is offered a job as the coach of a Division I college team. The catch is that the team is Texas Western, a very small mining college in El Paso with little to no history of success. The catalyst for the picture is Haskins' realization that he will never attract big-name white recruits (at the time the only ones that really mattered), so he goes after good, raw, hungry black kids who would jump at the chance just to get an education and get out of their situation.

And so it begins. He recruits kids from inner cities, all talented players with little to no structure in their games. All of them are black. It is 1966, and black players, though not entirely absent, are not prevalent at all. The 1966 Texas Western Miners are known in the sports history books as the first team to start five black players in the NCAA championship game. The movie is about how they arrived there. An educated and experienced moviegoer will know going in what to expect. Scenes of racial intolerance, scenes of infighting between black and white teammates, and away from the race issue, scenes of team-building, of a tough coach trying to get the best out of his charges, of all of the players' differences being shed for the good of the cause.

Again, it's well done. But what keeps it from getting a better grade from me is that I sat through the whole movie the same way I walked away from the preview, with the thought that I felt I was watching a rehash of the stories like the one in "Remember the Titans." It is a situation where one wishes this movie was made before "Titans," because I feel it is a far superior work, but in light of what "Titans" has already done, that feeling is lessened. However, strong performances from Luke and Lucas make it a credible and enjoyable film, as do the slickly-constructed basketball scenes. Though I think some liberties were taken with the way the game was played, it doesn't feel wholly modern. Perhaps the thing "Road" does best is to capture the feel of a small gym in the 1960s, before basketball was a spectacle, before the game, even at the college level, took a back seat to the show. There were moments when I was able to simply sit back and enjoy the pace and rhythm of both the story and the sports action.

In the end, "Glory Road" is a good sports movie, one that hardcore basketball fans will take to much like football fans took to "Titans" and baseball fans took to "The Rookie." I hesitate to mention Disney's hockey entry, because I'm going to put "Miracle" at or near the top of my all-time favorite sports movies, and I don't think the comparison was fair. "Miracle" gave me shivers. "Glory Road" gave me the inspiration to read Dan Wetzel's book of the same name, hoping I'll be able to get a fuller version of the story.

My goodness, another update.

Some bad news before the good stuff. By the time you read this, the article might be out of date, but hopefully it's for the right reasons.

A UMass alumna and excellent freelance journalist has been kidnapped in Iraq. The latest news, which is in that link, isn't good. Her captors have issued a 72-hour ultimatum, demanding that all female Iraqi prisoners be released by the United States, or she dies. Please, PLEASE keep Jill in your thoughts and/or prayers. Maybe there's a black ops unit somewhere that's about to swoop in and get her out of there.


OK, on a lighter note, Ain't It Cool's Moriarty (whose taste for movies matches mine, and whose abilities to describe those tastes far surpass mine) revealed a new version of "Kingdom of Heaven". If you missed this one, it was the *other* King Arthur-period movie from early last year, starring Orlando Bloom. I actually liked the movie, but not as much as I had hoped, and Moriarty explains why. I don't remember hearing that Ridley Scott was unhappy with the original version of the film, but I can see why. It had the chance to be on par with "Gladiator," to be a more cerebral and ultimately more satisfying movie than that "King Arthur" junk. Instead it was a little confusing, a little vague. Perhaps Scott's three-plus-hour-long director's cut will bring out all the best the film had to offer. Here's hoping. (Link stolen from Jim).

Speaking of stolen from Jim, he came up with some excellent new features on his blog, including a weekly top 10 on various topics, and a film awards thing. Check it out, because as much as I wish I came up with those things, I won't copy him. He's also seen about 80 more movies than me this year, so he'll have much better perspective.

(Oh, and he linked me, so I felt guilty. :) )

King Kong (A)

KongonESBwNaomi, originally uploaded by MertWindu.

So much for tomorrow. Sorry about that. Here's your review.

King Kong
Directed by Peter Jackson
Starring Andy Serkis, Naomi Watts, Adrien Brody, and Jack Black
Universal/Big Primate Pictures
187 minutes
PG-13

Grade: A

In the history of film, there are some pictures which, no matter the technical advances of the modern age or their own flaws, retain a certain place of honor. Citizen Kane; Casablanca; Gone With the Wind; The Wizard of Oz. And along with that hallowed place in history comes a sense of vulnerability among movie aficionados. So when the idea of a remake is mentioned, the hairs go up, the pulse quickens, the eyes widen, and the doubt becomes palpable.

King Kong is one of those films. However, to put it shortly, the remake has been done by someone who has proven his genius, and whose whole career was essentially spawned from the inspiration he found in the original Kong (that's the 1933 version, not the craptastic one from the 1970's), and it shows. Jackson's tender loving care of the Kong legacy has resulted in one of the finest movies I've seen in a long time, especially when compared to its scale and hype.

The number that most have been talking about hasn't been the movie's gross, or even it's massive budget (a record-breaking $207 million). It's the number listed above: 187. As in minutes that you're sitting there taking in the epic. Daunting? Sure. But this is not three-plus hours of exposition, nor is it three-plus hours of mind-bending action. It is a perfect balance of the two. There is a scene with Watts and Kong (Serkis) high on a ledge atop a mountain on Skull Island, and it's about as close as we get to actual interaction between the two. I remember thinking, "this is the kind of scene that would make a movie this long feel like it's dragging," but the reality was that it was as important to the story as anything else, and I was wrapped up in the drama between the two characters.

Most have seen the 1933 version (I actually haven't - for shame), or at least know the general plot, so a long explanation probably isn't necessary. We begin in New York, with the loose strings of the story drifting through a very moving depiction of Depression-era America (though not nearly as good as the one in "Cinderella Man"). Opportunistic director Carl Denham (Black) is rapidly becoming a failure. His most recent production has the studio men so bored that they opt to scrap the whole film and use the footage as background for other projects. Denham needs a hit.

Ann Darrow needs a break. The popular performer has just lost her job after the poor economy makes it impossible for her vaudeville show to continue. She tries to get in with another stage producer, but the only thing he can give her is a card with an address for a burlesque show. She goes to the building, but her better angels get the best of her and she walks away from a lucrative but soul-sapping option. As it happens, Denham is looking for an actress. Scratch that. He's looking for an image. A woman to take a role normally reserved for the biggest and brightest female stars of the age. He finally sees it. Now he's got to convince it to take a trip to an island nobody thinks exists, to film a movie nobody wants to pay for.

The rest is the stuff of your memory (and the previews). Darrow and writer Jack Driscoll (Brody) become closer on the voyage to Skull Island, but a larger power is waiting for them there. That larger power is Kong, and of course, he's the true star. He is big, he is mean, and he is in many ways endearing. Not lovable, but endearing. We recognize that he is a beast, that his temper is that of an animals, and his capacity for destruction and death is always with us. But we also see a soul in the animal. It's not a softer side, per se, but a depth to the character. He is more than a beast, more than the animatronic character that attacks your subway car at Universal Studios. He is real.

Most of the credit for that is due to Serkis, who through an elaborate and amazing system of motion capture technology creates a being unlike any ever seen on the screen. Serkis was very, very good as Gollum in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. He is great as Kong. If you're willing, you can allow yourself to get lost in the magic and forget that what you are seeing is a computer-generated image. You begin to recognize facial features and body language the same way as if you were watching a human.

The reason this film is so good, though, is that it goes beyond the mere "wow, what a realistic-looking ape!" novelty. Because we can get beyond the initial mental block of looking for flaws in the animation so easily and early, we can connect with Kong. That's why the above picture is so evocative for me. You'll understand if you see the film.

Onto the performances. Serkis, as mentioned, is stellar. As is Watts, who updates the 1933 damsel in distress with a deeper character, one with a story, with motivation, with a connection to the ape that is real, that straddles the line between powerful and disturbing, but never goes over it. She drives the picture, makes us love Kong, and makes us ultimately feel for him as he fights for his life, confused, on top of the Empire State Building. Brody is fine as a fairly static character. We're not really supposed to feel much for him, but there is an interesting subplot to him, because he plays much of the movie as the hero, and yet at times he is an enemy to the character we are most connected to. Finally, Black is very good as Denham, and even loses the John Belushi clone image that he has cultivated quite nicely as an actor and pseudo-rocker. He works the maniacal Denham perfectly, although his last line (you know it, whether you realize it or not) feels a little false (and it should, it wasn't uttered by the Denham character in the original).

The movie is three hours long. I'm willing to bet you'll forget that by the end. It is a wonderful piece of work, with rich detail and great pacing. The environments feel wholly authentic, and most importantly, so does the creature. Peter Jackson effectively kickstarted the hype for his newest masterpiece back in April, 2005 when he began broadcasting production diaries on the kongisking.net website. More than 30 weeks of speculation and mystery is tough to justify, but Jackson did it, and did it big.

Yes, it's been longer than ever, and yes, I'm a jerk for not posting anything new. However, I just saw King Kong, and unless my next day off comes earlier in the week so I can see Munich, I'm going to review the big ape sometime in the next two days. So, hopefully that'll kickstart this thing into a more regular deal. Keep your shirts on.

Some puck stuff

Wow, it's been 15 whole days since I've posted here. Sorry about that. I only have one link right now, because I've been up since 9 a.m., and for anyone who knows me, they'll realize I was more than a little surprised that there are TWO nine o'clocks every day. Anyway, I lied, two links. Reason I'm up is to talk to Vermont coach Kevin Sneddon for an article I'm doing for
The New England Hockey Journal, so, please take a look at the site if you have any interest.

Sticking with hockey, I'm a day late, but it's articles like this one by Kevin Paul Dupont that have shaped me as a sportswriter, and make me want to take his job someday (no rush, Kev.) Just to show how prescient (or powerful) Dupont is, the next day, Sully skated the hell out of his team, and tore into them at practice. He's even threatening TWO-A-DAYS if they don't start shaping up and playing up to their potential. For those of you who don't really follow hockey, two-a-days during the season is almost unheard of. But hey, whatever works, Sully.

Who wants to be the Red Sox GM?

TheoWithTrophy, originally uploaded by MertWindu.

Not this guy, that's for sure. Had an interesting conversation with a friend tonight, in which we teamed up for some great commentary on this. The highlight was this:

Nick: This is like the alternate, alternate ending to Fever Pitch. Where the Sox win the World Series, and then they go get swept out of the playoffs, and then they win like 76 games next year.

Me: Yeah, this is the total downer of an epilogue. Like when you find out Kevin Arnold's dad dies at like 54.

I think that accurately describes a lot of people's feelings on Theo's departure right now. I'd post links now, but I really don't have the energy to watch the Globe try to cover this story as if they a. hadn't already blown it by reporting that the two sides had a deal this afternoon, and b. Don't have a very shady relationship with the Red Sox, since the Globe OWNS part of the team, and more and more each day becomes an arm of the Sox PR wing it seems. Good on the Herald, staying on top of this story, and breaking some news, and showing the people of Boston why it needs to be a two-paper town.