Analog This: The Emmy Snubs of 2012

1 Reply

Emmy nominations came out this morning, and I’m celebrating them the same way I celebrate every awards ceremony: honoring those who didn’t get nominated! Yes, I understand at this point that these awards ceremonies are all politics, but it’s still fun to complain. 


I am going to do my best to be nice and not call out any specific, undeserving nominations right here. Instead, you can all get right to reading my list of the most egregious snubs after the jump:


Happy Endings


Perhaps the snappy, pop culture reference-laced dialogue was too much for voters to handle. However, in its sophomore season, “Happy Endings” defied all expectations and became one of the funniest shows on television. While so many shows have tried so hard to rip off “Friends,” “Happy Endings” instead became a part of the post-sitcom wave. It is also the rare showin which there is an argument for any character being the funniest character on the show. Maybe next year will finally be The Year of Penny.


Parks & Recreation

A nod for Best Comedy seemed inevitable, and this snub is probably the most surprising one of all. While I still think that season three was best, wide consensus hailed season four of “Parks & Rec” the best in the series so far. And yes, it did hit so many high notes, both comically and emotionally. Season four took some big gambles, including leaving the parks department for some real world parody of the campaign trail. It is pretty incredible to see how far this show has come since its first season. What was once a spinoff of “The Office” has now taken on a life of its own, with the fictional town of Pawnee being just as funny a character as Ron Swanson and Tom Haverford have ever been.

Jack Gleeson (Game of Thrones)


I think it can be agreed upon by all “Game of Thrones” fans that Joffrey Baratheon is the most hated character on this show, and perhaps on all of television and film. However, an actor must be this good to make a villain so clearly evil, yet so compelling to watch. Joffrey’s most memorable scene this season involved two prostitutes. It is as painful to watch as it is hard to erase from memory. Gleeson plays it completely straight, never offering an ounce of sympathy to him. Seeing him get slapped in the face felt all the more satisfying.

No video of Joffrey could possibly be safe for work.



Jim Rash (Community)


Sometimes, when a comedy gives a standout side character more screen time, viewers come to realize that they were better in small doses. However, this is not the case for Jim Rash, who was worthy of carrying multiple episodes as the hilariously flamboyant Dean of Greendale Community College. In “Documentary Filmmaking: Redux,” he flawlessly channeled both Coppola and Brando. A psychotic director has never been this funny. He can also deliver every sexual innuendo he is given with more subtlety and cluelessness than irony. Sexual confusion hasn’t been this funny since Tobias Funke, but with his undying love for his dysfunctional community college, Rash secretly gives the show its heart.


Gillian Jacobs (Community)


Yes, this list gets two members of the “Community” ensemble. Since the Emmys decided to devote almost an entire category to “Modern Family” actors, I’ll call it even. The “Community” writers have altered Jacobs’s Britta Perry more than any other character on the show since season one, and Jacobs has perfectly kept up with the change. In fact, in one episode this season, Jeff (Joel McHale) says, “you seemed a lot smarter when I first met you.” Britta is the well-intentioned political activist of the show who is constantly wrong about everything. Jacobs is a great comedic actress because she seems willing to do just about anything, and she delivers every line she gets as if she is not thinking before she speaks. But for a truly great example of why she should have been nominated, look no further than “Pillows and Blankets,” one of the show’s top five episodes. In an episode that was supposed to be about Troy and Abed, she stole it with less than five minutes of screen time and not a single line of dialogue.

And

Other Snubs: Nick Offerman (“Parks & Rec”), Adam Scott (“Parks & Rec”), John Slattery (“Mad Men”), Matt Walsh (“Veep”), Anna Chlumsky (“Veep”), “Louie,” “Archer,” every member of the “Happy Endings” ensemble, Cougarton Abbey

Note: There is no point in mentioning the “Community” snub in the Best Comedy category. I would pretty much be re-iterating what I said last year. 


Let me end this on a somewhat more optimistic note: “Veep” and “Girls” are both getting the love that  they deserve. Louis C.K. got nominated for Best Actor. “Curb Your Enthusiasm” got nominated for what was possibly its best season yet. “Breaking Bad” cleaned up. “Community” scored its first nomination ever, and of course it was for Best Writing for the episode “Remedial Chaos Theory.”

Analog This: Live Free or Die, Breaking Bad Season 5 Premiere

1 Reply
You’re not the boss of me now.

Warning: Spoilers ahead! So if you don’t like spoilers (and based on the Internet buzz around “The Dark Knight Rises,” I can tell that people really don’t), read on with caution.

It is fitting that the first episode of the final season of “Breaking Bad” would begin the same way that the pilot did. In the pilot, Walter White (Bryan Cranston) looks at the number 50 spelled out in his bacon. In the season five premiere, entitled “Live Free Or Die,” Walt was digging on swine and turning his bacon strips into the number 52. During this mysterious flash forward, Walt had aged two years and since that time, he has gone from caring, mild-mannered chemistry teacher to downright evil meth cooker Heisenberg.

I may not be qualified to say that “Breaking Bad” is the best drama ever on television. After all, I still haven’t seen “The Wire,” and I’ve only seen “Sopranos” and “Six Feet Under” episodes here and there. However, I can say this: “Breaking Bad” is the best drama I have ever seen on television, and it shows no signs of slowing down.
While “Breaking Bad” shows no signs of slowing down, the season premiere was rightfully toned back after the heart-stopping season four finale. The stakes were high, but not as high. This was classic “Breaking Bad”: Walt had to clear his name, and Jesse (Aaron Paul) got one very memorable declaration of his favorite five letter word that begins with a “b.” 



However, things are noticeably different. Now that Gus is gone, moral ambiguity doesn’t stand as strong. Walt is officially the show’s villain. He officially earned this title after breaking the one moral he had left by poisoning a child (to be fair, he also let Jesse’s girlfriend die in season two). Jesse, meanwhile, is somewhat starting to become the man Walt once was. He’s now just as good of a cook as he is, and he’s even getting into science. He comes up with ideas, such as that magnet one, right off the top of his head the way Walt used to be able to. Now, Walt’s ego is too high to let that brilliant brain of his actually work.

But before I go further, I have to go back. Or should I say forward. No show since the glory days of “Lost” has used the concept of flashbacks and flash forwards as effectively as “Breaking Bad” does. Based on this flash forward, we now know that “Breaking Bad” takes place over a period of at least two years. We also know that something bad enough will happen that will draw Walt to change his identity. I believe this is part of the last resort plan that Saul Goodman (Bob Odenkirk) told Walt about in the season three finale. Walt is now a man from New Hampshire. A close up of the state’s license plate focuses in on the state motto, “Live Free or Die.” This motto is basically the declaration of Walter White and eventually Heisenberg. This is a man who will do anything as long as it allows him to keep his freedom, even if that means constantly shifting his identity. This is a man who once gave up money for cancer treatment because he didn’t want charity. Walter White wasn’t always evil, but he has always been filled with the hubris that is leading to his downfall.

Classic “Breaking Bad” shot

“Live Free or Die” was essentially a heist film condensed into one hour. As far as heist films go, it was a very good one.  This caper involved Jesse, Walt, and Mike (Jonathan Banks) trying to get a hold of a laptop found in Gus’s office containing hours of security footage. Even with Gus gone, his cold and ever watchful presence is always felt. It was locked up in a DEA evidence room and since they couldn’t get it from the inside, they instead got it from the outside using a giant magnet. Walt gets away safely, for now.

Seeing as even the show’s own creator doesn’t feel sympathy for the character, I think Walt’s luck will eventually run out. Hank (Dean Norris) looked pretty sure of something we didn’t know while searching through the remnants of the meth lab. Did he already look at those security tapes and know who Heisenberg really is. Maybe he, like many have already proposed, switched out the laptop and has the real one in his possession. It’s a move that only Hank could pull off.

The posters promoting the latest seasons touted the tagline, “All Hail the King.” This can now be seen as somewhat ironic, because despite all of his wealth, Walt isn’t quite on top of the world. It makes more sense to say that he thinks he is king. At one point in “Live Free or Die,” he claims he is right simply because “he says so” and later he tells Saul that “it’s not over until he says it’s over.” And there Walt is again, too stubborn to ever let someone try and tell him how to live his life.

And as much as I liked this episode, it just felt a tad too short. This might have to do with the fact that this is the first time I’ve ever watched an episode of “Breaking Bad” live with commercials as opposed to streaming on Netflix. I am sure that I am not the only one who feels this way so next time Gilligan, don’t be afraid to go long. But as far as setting up the next two years goes, we have a hell of a lot to look forward to from the most intense drama on television.

Side Observation:


I feel as if every character on “Breaking Bad” is worthy of their own spin-off. Maybe with the exception of Marie (Betsy Brandt), just because I don’t think I can sit through another spoon stealing ordeal. And while I always thought the spin-off would go to Saul, I think Mike deserves his own at all. He kills it with his many deadpan zingers (“Keys scumbag. It’s the universal sign for keys”) and his mysterious way of living. Seriously, I actually want to see more of his friendship with those chickens.

And in case you were wondering, this is what it said behind Gus’s picture in the cracked frame:

Cayman Islands… definitely important
And how could I forget: 
As always, leave it to “Breaking Bad” to screw with our expectations. 

Movie Review: Beasts of the Southern Wild

Leave a reply

For a film about struggle after a hurricane, “Beasts of the Southern Wild” is surprisingly as life affirming as it is tragic. Then again, “Beasts of the Southern Wild” is the only film of its kind you’ll see that also has prehistoric creatures randomly roaming around.

Hushpuppy, the six-year-old protagonist of “Beasts of the Southern Wild” is more curious than precocious. It’s nice for a change to see a young lead who’s willing to learn more about the world as opposed to simply thinking they know everything about it. As Hushpuppy, newcomer Quvenzhané Wallis is, as many before me have already said, a force of nature. Such a label is not an exaggeration. I will say this now so I don’t have to repeat myself later: Wallis is on her way to becoming one of the youngest actresses ever to be nominated for an Oscar.


Hushpuppy grows up in that part of America that we often pretend doesn’t exist. The Bathtub, where Hushpuppy lives, looks like a slum in Mumbai. It is located in a part of Louisiana that is south of New Orleans. On one side of the levees lies a protected city made ugly by industry. On the other side lies The Bathtub, which is basically under water already. Hushpuppy and her father Wink (Dwight Henry) typically get around in a boat made out of a pickup truck. Bathtubians (is that what you would call them?) are a strong and resilient people who live off of whatever the land has to offer them, and make do even with the very little that they have. Indeed, they even learn how to fish without bait and tackle. 

Hushpuppy’s mother died when she was much younger, and she has only her father to raise her. Consequently, she raised somewhat like a boy, with Wink always asking her to suppress her tears and show her strength (one of the funniest scenes involves her shouting “I’M THE MAN!”). Yet, all the suppression of tears cannot stop Hushpuppy’s true emotions, and her quest to find her mother (or at least, the spirit of her) guides her journey.

“Beasts of the Southern Wild” contains one of the most moving parent-child relationships a film has had in a long time. Of course when the hurricane strikes and gets stronger, Wink runs out into it to prove that he is stronger than it, as opposed to quelling his daughter’s fear. Walking in, I was expecting a tale of Magical Realism along the lines of “Pan’s Labyrinth.” However, “Beasts of the Southern Wild”is more about a young girl who has a lot to live for in her own life, but uses fantasy as a way to understand reality, as opposed to just escaping from it.

This is just too harsh and demanding of a reality to simply escape from. After all, what can you do when a hurricane is coming and you’re stuck on the wrong side of the levees? Something that struck me most about The Bathtub is that despite the extreme poverty, it seems like an amazing place to grow up in. Because it is cut off from the outside world, Bathtubians form their own rituals and traditions to guide them. The film opens warmly on a festival, rather than on a disaster.

The film, as mentioned previously, has a fantastical element to it. Early on, Hushpuppy learns in school that major environmental changes are coming, and that the only thing everyone can do is stick together. This is quite a tough lesson for a six-year-old to learn, it felt similar to when Max learned that one day the sun will burn out in “Where the Wild Things Are.” She also learns about the Aurochs, a giant creature that was once top of the animal kingdom during the ice age. Based on pictures I could find, the real Aurochs looked like cattle. The Aurochs that Hushpuppy sees looks more like pigs with horns. That’s fitting, as pigs are a common sight in The Bathtub. Hushpuppy’s fantasies don’t come totally out of her imagination, but rather as a kind of culmination of everything she sees.

Hushpuppy is at too young of an age to be on a journey of maturity, but she is in the kind of environment where that kind of thing is forced to come about early. The Aurochs must symbolize her coming of age in some way I am still trying to figure out. That has been the part of the film has frustrated me and fascinated me most since I last saw it. I believe it fits in to Hushpuppy’s final words (which I am not spoiling, as they are in the trailer), that every piece of life is meant to fit together perfectly to create a whole of the gigantic universe. This might be known more commonly as the Butterfly Effect. If the Aurochs had never died, Hushpuppy could not have lived. The ultimate truth behind “Beasts of the Southern Wild” is that death gives way to life. That is a profound thing for a six-year-old to learn and to me, is sad, optimistic, and even beautiful.

“Beasts of the Southern Wild” is the directorial debut of Benh Zeitlin. At such a young age, he is already a visionary with an exciting career ahead of him. At times, it feels like he doesn’t even want to direct a story, but rather explore the lush scenery of the surrounding world. There are some very strange choices made by the characters. For instance, Wink at one point refuses medical treatment. Yet, Zeitlin never passes judgement when so much could have been. He becomes a true fly-in-the-wall in this very foreign culture that is right here in America.

I actually had the rare opportunity to meet Zeitlin while at Cannes. It was at the beach screening of “Jaws,” and I remember he remarked that “Jaws” was like his muse. I could see some of the influence rubbing off here. This is not a horror film, of course, but the scenes in which the locals talk with each other reminds me of the scene in “Jaws” in which the men discuss their scars. During conversations like this, it is as if both directors, usually very present, walked away for a few minutes, because they knew the magic going on between the actors could not be disturbed. For a director, knowing when to shut the f**k up is just as admirable a quality as knowing which angle to use at which moment. As the end credits began to role, the first thing I thought was that I could not wait until Zeitlin’s next film, whatever that may be and whenever it may come out.

For a film that is only 91 minutes long, “Beasts of the Southern Wild” tells an expansive story. After screening at Sundance and Cannes, Zeitlin’s film immediately captured the hearts of all who viewed it. However, I don’t know if a second viewing is enough. Another venture into the “Southern Wild” would be helpful, just so I can delve into the brooding images a little longer, and get lost in Hushpuppy’s delicately delivered voiceover.

Movie Review: To Rome with Love

Leave a reply

Besides a few new shooting locations, Woody Allen hasn’t changed a lot during the span of his career. Not that he has to. Every one of his films open with the same white font against a black background as classical music plays. It never gets old.

“To Rome with Love” opens in this same way. However, this time around, classical music will become a pertinent part of the film. The film opens with a crossing guard on a busy street in Rome, who is the first narrator introduced. As is the typical narrator in a Woody Allen film, he directly addresses the camera while in front of it, instead of only existing as a voice offscreen. This makes sense, as Allen’s films seem to be a way of letting his odd subconscious run wild. “To Rome with Love” doesn’t come near the same territory that “Midnight in Paris” dwelled in, yet it is almost always exciting and funny. “To Rome with Love” is told in four vignettes which never interlock, and never should. Three of them thematically fit together. Another one is kind of just there and has just a few inventive moments. 


The film opens as a young Italian couple (Alessandro Tiberi and Alessandra Mastronardi) get off of a train and get ready to start their new life together. Antonio (Tiberi) is hardworking businessman who is always nervous about something. While his wife Milly just wants a haircut that will make her look young and hip, Antonio worries that she won’t make it back on time to meet his family. She gets the same terrible directions to the salon from every Roman she encounters, and ends up lost and without a cellphone. While wandering the streets of Rome, she bumps into her favorite actor, dines with him, and then faces a moral dilemma. Antonio, meanwhile, is involved in a classic mixup, and a prostitute with a sharp and dirty sense of humor named Anna (Penelope Cruz) is sent to his room. She poses as his wife, since his family has yet to meet Milly. However, Anna doesn’t look like much of a Milly, but she plays along. Milly’s story becomes one of the story’s most amusing. Of course Anna is on speed dial for every businessman at a fancy party Antonio attends. Both Antonio and Milly learn how to be better lovers from other lovers. Antonio and Anna’s story feels inconclusive, but Allen definitely doesn’t take it down the predictable road.



Another vignette stars Allen himself as Jerry, a now retired music executive with too much ambition who is itching to go back to work. Allen is a welcome presence after being absent from the screen since last acting in “Scoop.” It is only natural that he enters this film complaining about turbulence. Despite Jerry’s claim that no psychiatrist has ever been able to diagnose him, it is easy to see where some of his neuroses come from. His wife (Judy Davis, in deadpan glory) is constantly trying to analyze him. In a very Woody Allen joke, the typical Freudian model of id, ego, and superego doesn’t work on him because he is a man with three ids. But I digress. The couple heads to Italy to meet Michelangelo (Flavio Parenti), the new boyfriend of their daughter (Alison Pill). The interesting story is not the budding Italian love affair, but rather the hidden talent that Michelangelo’s father possesses.

Next, there is John (Alec Baldwin), a renowned American architect who has sold out and now builds mini-malls. Instead of seeing the ruins for the hundredth time with his wife, he decides to go for a stroll. Going for a stroll and finding something unexpected seems to be a big theme in Allen’s European chapter in his career. On a side street, John meets Jack (Jesse Eisenberg) a student studying architecture in Rome with his architect girlfriend (Greta Gerwig) and living in the same place John once lived. John becomes quite interested in retracing his old footsteps, and finds that Jack is making similar mistakes he once did, as he falls in love with his girlfriend’s best friend Monica (Ellen Page). The conversations between John and Jack at times appear to only be happening in Jack’s head. However, if this is his subconscious, then the other characters at times seem to have the ability to communicate with it. However, this is one of those outlandish elements that is never explained and doesn’t need to be, like the time-travel in “Midnight in Paris.” As John constantly criticizes Jack and gives him life advice, they talk to the audience without directly addressing them, saying that they know as well as we do that this story will not end well.


This unaware self-awareness might be Allen’s way of saying he knows that this story has been played out. After all, this vignette contains a very similar story to “Match Point,” which was already basically the same story as “Crimes & Misdemeanors.” This definitely feels like the most familiar Allen story, and it even contains one of the archetypes that he basically invented (the pseudo-intellectual). The kind-of inner monologues and speaking back-and-forth to the audience between Jack and Jessie never do carry quite the same spark as, say, Marshall McLuhan’s drop-in in “Annie Hall.” Allen is at his best when he is expanding on his most common ideas, rather than just repeating them.

The fourth story follows Leopoldo (Roberto Benigni), an average, middle class Roman. You can tell from his gleeful strut to work everyday that he is totally satisfied with where he is. As long as he can eat breakfast with his children, gaze at the beautiful young woman in the office, and understand movies slightly better than his friends, life can’t go wrong. Then one day, he is pulled out of obscurity, put on a newscast, and becomes the most famous man in Rome. He is pestered by swarms of paparazzi all day long and is constantly asked to make a statement on subjects such as the weather and shaving. Leopoldo comes to realize that it’s not always so good to be in the public eye.
Leopoldo’s story is not necessarily the most complex nor the best of the four stories. However, in the end, it feels the most satisfying and leaves no loose ends dangling. Benigni gives his best performance since “Life is Beautiful” all those years ago. And yes, it does make sense that an ordinary schmuck (his words) like Leopoldo could end up becoming famous over night for doing nothing at all. He’s not much like a Hilton or a Kardashian. He is more like Joe the Plumber, as he is famous simply because he has an opinion on whatever you ask him about. Newscasters want everyone’s opinion but what “To Rome with Love” shows is that not everyone’s opinion actually matters.
“To Rome with Love” is at its best when it embraces visual slapstick that is oddly philosophical. For example, it asks why people sing under the shower with the obvious answer that everyone sounds better under a shower head. This observation is then taken to the next level when Michelangelo’s father becomes a renowned opera singer by bathing himself while onstage during shows. Things like this work because it fits very well into the world that’s been invented, where everyone becomes fully exposed in the public eye. Woody Allen is the quintessential intellectual everyman.
Still, the greatest pleasure of “To Rome with Love” is seeing Woody Allen act again. Before he is even seen, his recognizable voice is heard, and the whole audience I experienced the film with immediately burst out into laughter. It was a familiar kind of laughter, the kind that welcomes back an old friend who can make our lives just a little more entertaining. 
If you liked “To Rome with Love,” then you should check out these similar Woody Allen films: Sleeper, Crimes & Misdemeanors, Annie Hall, Small Time Crooks, The Purple Rose of Cairo

Movie Review: The Amazing Spider-Man

1 Reply

After the disaster of “Spider-Man 3,” which all but destroyed the hero that made superheroes box office gold, the world wasn’t exactly craving more Spider-Man. “The Amazing Spider-Man” isn’t the superhero movie we needed, but we got it, and it’s actually a stellar installment of the myth of a man in red spandex.

To compare “The Amazing Spider-Man” with Sam Raimi’s “Spider-Man” is to tiptoe on a tightrope, as saying that the new one is better than the old one would be potentially putting down something that I deeply cherish. “Spider-Man” was one of the first movies I watched multiple days in a row when it first arrived on DVD, and it spurred an interest in comic books that led me to a giant box full of them in the attic (benefits of having an older brother). But then again, what makes “The Amazing Spider-Man” work is its ability to build on and improve the flaws of its predecessors.


“The Amazing Spider-Man” seems most similar to the fantastic, revisionist Ultimate Spider-Man graphic novels. However, “The Amazing Spider-Man” also takes on a life of its own. It starts at the very beginning, during one of the crucial moments of Peter Parker’s life. As a child, Parker’s father, a brilliant scientist with a controversial view on genetics, is under constant threat. In order to keep Peter safe, he is to go and live with his Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and Aunt Mae (Sally Field) in their working class Queens home. One thing remains constant throughout the evolution of the Spider-Man Story: poor Uncle Ben can never catch a break.

Years later, and Peter is the nerd we always knew. Except this time, he’s more of brilliant punk than a plain old brainiac. Spotting a skateboard, square glasses, and an old jacket, he looks more like the new generations definition of cool kids as seen in “21 Jump Street” (hint: reduce, reuse, recycle). Andrew Garfield plays him with just the perfect amount of teenage awkwardness that is uncomfortable and funny all at once. Because of this, him and Emma Stone, who portrays Gwen Stacy, bounce off each other well as love interests.

“The Amazing Spider-Man” is very slow to start. However, there is a lot of necessary world-building that goes on which does not pay off until later in the story. But really, the movie could have done without the scene in which Peter researches the mystery of his father’s death by searching on the Internet. Obviously, this is the way research is done nowadays. However, there is nothing interesting about watching someone typing words into a search engine, nor does it make someone look any smarter.

Once Peter is bitten by the radioactive spider and starts to experience symptoms does the story really take off. It starts off with a series of ingenius sight gags, directed to comedic perfection by Marc Webb. Webb, who previously directed “(500) Days of Summer,” shows off flashes of self-awareness that first established his talent. After all, we are dealing with a man with spider-like powers who wears a tight red body suit. There is something inherently silly about that. Webb plays around with the humor, but without ruining all seriousness in the story. This was the biggest problem in “The Avengers,” and it does not get the best of the new “Spider-Man.”

Unlike many blockbusters, the action here is well shot and edited. It moves at a pace that anyone can follow, and it doesn’t alternate shots every millisecond. Webb’s indie sensibilities, overall, bring a much more humanized feel to the entire movie. However, there is a major action set piece towards the end, coupled with some emotional backstory, that comes off as quite trite. All I will say is that it involves crains, and I can picture the writers saying something like “we need an easy way to get Spider-Man from one place to another. I know: deus ex machina!”

The fact that “The Amazing Spider-Man” at all had me thinking about the nature of superheroes and comic books shows just how different of a superhero movie this is. It all stems from the creation of a “new” Spider-Man and Peter Parker. Putting a mask on is a way of being two different people at once, and then gaining the ability to do what you couldn’t without a mask on. The old Peter Parker is timid and clumsy, while the old Spider-Man will climb up the tallest of buildings without fear. Meanwhile, the new Peter Parker and Spider-Man are almost one in the same: they are both brilliant, sarcastic, and sometimes too proud and too much in need of getting even. As Peter Parker, he gladly shows off his new ability to jump by playing basketball and smashing the backboard. As Spider-Man, he spends a large chunk of time trying to track down Uncle Ben’s killer.

In addition, Spider-Man is not just a superhero here. Rather, as Police Chief Stacy (Denis Leary) describes him), he is an outlaw, roaming the city with his own code of justice, while hiding behind a mask. When he swings through Manhattan alone on silk ropes, it now feels more like a cowboy walking off alone into the sunset.

While the Spider-Man of the 2000s gained the ability to shoot webs from the spider bite, the Spider-Man of Stan Lee’s creation had to create the web blasters himself. This makes a big difference, as it reveals even more how smart Parker is. No more of that “Go web go!” stuff. Unfortunately, the movie forgets to include what happens when Spider-Man runs out of his webs, which was always one of the more interesting elements of the comics. Seeing Spider-Man fight bad guys without his webs is like seeing Samson without his hair. Only this Samson can jump much higher.

Superheroes, in general, were created to pull of the physical feats that humans could not. The first villains of Captain America and Superman were Nazis. “The Amazing Spider-Man,” in a way, is about what makes a hero. Peter can be a hero with or without the mask. If superheroes are made to do what humans are incapable of, then the point of one armed Dr. Connors’ (Rhys Ifans) cloning experiment was to prove that humans on their own are weak, and only with the help of the genetics of others can they truly excel. Maybe this is foolish, as the experiment goes awry and turns Connors into an evil lizard monster (not as ludicrous as it sounds). Humans might not have the strength or ability to grow back dismembered body parts that other life forms have the ability to do. However, they do have the ability to distinguish right from wrong.

I might be overanalyzing a bit here, but the fact that “The Amazing Spider-Man” at all put these thoughts into my head shows that this reboot runs deeper than one might imagine. It is in line with “Prometheus” as smartest blockbuster of the summer. The real difference between this Spider-Man and Spider-Mans past is character. By adding motivations to every action, the story no longer feels like a bunch of set pieces of a teenager having fun with his magical powers. “The Amazing Spider-Man” is far from perfect, but I truly appreciate its ability to take long stretches of time without blowing something up. The superhero movie has truly come a long way since its humble rebirth ten years ago.

Sidenote: Don’t see this in 3D. 

Top 5: Films to Watch on the Fourth of July

Leave a reply

This list was almost going to be a list of the top 5 “America Movies.” It made sense in my head, but not on paper. Then, it was going to be the most patriotic movies. However, every movie that came to mind seemed to involve Mel Gibson. Instead, I’ve decided to make a list that is a little bit of both. The following list contains films that may either evoke a deep sense of patriotsism, or just portray everything America is capable of in the best way possible (that can be in either a positive or negative light). Some involve criminals, bloodshed, and comically excessive vomiting. Here is a list of five great movies (presented in alphabetical order) to watch on the Fourth of July:


Back to the Future


“Roads? Where we’re going, we don’t need roads.” And so “Back to the Future” ends with the greatest sequel teasing line of all time. This sci-fi comedy from 1985 has only improved over the years into what people do not feel ashamed to label as a masterpiece. “Back to the Future” is a fine example of just how good American storytelling can be, and shows off our ability to create smart genre benders (Tarantino wasn’t the first one, apparently). It provides a great, finely detailed view of how this country changed from the 1950s to the 1980s, and we get to beat the Libyans. Plus, there are a few very good jabs that are still very relevant today. For example, the farmland being replaced with a shopping mall, and Marty McFly being mistaken for Calvin Klein because the brand name is written on his underwear. Great Scott, indeed.



Once Upon a Time in America


It’s got the name of our home and native land right in the title. “Once Upon a Time in America” is a time commitment, and you may not have enough time to see it all and have a barbecue all in one day. But sit through it at least once in your life, it is well worth the four and a half hours of your time that must be invested in it. I include it above many other American gangster movies, even those that I believe are superior, because this one challenges everything that feels right about a film. Through its span, it chronicles the rise and fall of criminals, and the rising and falling cycle of America. I guess it took an Italian director to best capture this idea.


Rocky

I talk about a lot of downers on this website, but “Rocky” deserves a spot on this list because it actually follows the basic premise of the American Dream: in America, if you work hard enough, you can become successful. However, it shows that success doesn’t always come in the form of winning, something that underdog stories tend to forget. Call it a lot of blind optimism, but “Rocky” still has the power to make you want to run up the steepest staircase you can find.


The Sandlot


This might be an odd choice. However, it follows the Fourth of July theme quite well. And what’s more American than Baseball? After all, it is our national past time. Baseball is to America what Cricket is to England: it’s a long, slow game with a lot of rules that don’t make a lot of sense, yet people still love it. That is why I’m happy that this childhood classic is more about a group of kids trying to get their ball back from a supposedly monstrous dog. There’s also a nice little Independence Day scene here, and a hilarious one involving chewing tobacco. Not to mention, Squints (Chauncey Leopardi) pulling the moves on a lifeguard by pretending to drown. This is a bold and admirable pickup line that no one should ever attempt to repeat.



Team America: World Police

It’s hard to believe how overlooked this was when it first debuted in theaters. I think it was misunderstood as merely a gross-out picture, rather than the extremely sharp skewering of both bloated patriotism and apologetic liberalism that it is. It does so only in a way that “South Park” creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker could, by going as far as possible and making no stops along the way. “Team America” has only gotten better with time. It is the perfect American satire, but it is also at its best when it is sending up the entire movie formula itself. Everyone remembers “America F**k Yeah” from its soundtrack, but the tracks “Montage” as well as “The End of an Act,” which questions why “Pearl Harbor” was made, show that you can draw in seemingly irrelevant pop culture references without distracting from the story at hand.

Movie Review: Safety Not Guarenteed

1 Reply

WANTED: Someone to go back in time with me. This is not a joke. You’ll get paid after we get back. Must bring your own weapons. I have only done this once before. SAFETY NOT GUARANTEED

It all starts with one of the greatest premises I’ve ever heard: a group of journalists investigate a classified ad stating, amongst other things: “Someone to go back in time with me.” No, the ad is not a joke, and while “Safety Not Guaranteed” is a comedy, it does not treat the subject matter as such. There is a big difference between being mean, and prodding delicately. 

“Safety Not Guaranteed” is a Mumblecore film that is light on the mumbles. To call it a straight-up comedy would be a disservice. To call it a dramedy also wouldn’t quite be the right word. It falls somewhere else in between.

Aubrey Plaza plays Darius, who can be added to her collection of sarcastic, anti-social sad sacks. While I feel I should be tired of it at this point, like I felt with Steve Carell in “Seeking a Friend for the End of the World,” I strangely feel like this is the only role Plaza should be playing. Every time she plays a character like Darius, it is as if she is revealing some new layer of her true self.

But unlike, say, April Ludgate, Darius has a kinder air to her, and a darker backstory. She begins the movie explaining her life story, which mainly consisted of her being an anti-social sad sack as a result of her mother’s death. It turns out she is not just explaining this to the audience, but also to a man trying to hire her for a job. Needless to say, she doesn’t get it. Darius is also a hard-working intern for a Seattle magazine, where she can be seen lifting boxes and changing out rolls of toilet paper. One day, Jeff (Jake Johnson), an overly self-assured writer, spices up a brainstorming session by bringing out the aforementioned classified ad, and then suggests turning it into a story. Jeff recruits Darius and another intern, Arnau (Karan Soni), who is only interning for the magazine because he thinks that it will look good on his resume. Can any other Biology majors attest to this?
“Safety Not Guaranteed” starts off as a detective story mixed with an offbeat road story of mismatched characters. It doesn’t veer toward sappy quirkiness or cliche in either case. The investigation takes them to the town of Ocean View. Jeff, however, has another motive for this mission: to track down his high school love interest. With this second story, the title takes on another meaning. Safety is not guaranteed, as this movie does not suffer from the cushion of predictability.

We are not introduced to the man who put the ad out for quite some time, but it is well worth the wait. The investigation leads them to Kenneth (Mark Duplass). Duplass gives such a surprisingly warm performance despite never letting a smile come across his face. Kenneth, despite being a middling supermarket employee, also may or may not be a brilliant scientist who may or may not have discovered time travel. Now, “Safety Not Guaranteed” could have chosen any of the three leading men to be Darius’s eventual love interest (they all seem possible), and gotten three very different movies. With Jeff, it would have been a brief and regrettable affair. With Arnau, it would have been a quirky yet corny mismatched relationship. But with Kenneth, it feels just right. These two outsiders who couldn’t connect with people needed to meet each other in order to be able to face the rest of the world.

However, “Safety Not Guaranteed” isn’t simply about two outsiders connecting over loneliness. “Safety Not Guaranteed” is about what we would change in our past, whether we could actually travel through time or not. The answers are not so simple. At one point, one likable character will turn out to be hiding a very big secret, and a very big lie. The movie doesn’t ask you to forgive the action, but certainly it does ask to accept the very possibility of turning over a new leaf.

For a film with such a small budget, it certainly has great ambitions to be much more than it appears to be. This is fitting, as it is about people who aspire to transcend their rough edges. It sure packs a lot of change and development into just 84 minutes. It feels long, but that is because it is slow burning, not just slow. And while “Safety Not Guaranteed” is a comedy, it is not a comedy in the way that anyone would expect. The funniest moment in the film involves Plaza trying to re-organize a shelf of soup cans while trying not to look suspicious. 


Little Miss Time Travel

While “Safety Not Guaranteed” brings out the very best of its small ensemble, there is still a lack of closure in certain areas. I wouldn’t have minded if director Colin Treverow had tacked on a few more minutes to the running time. Jeff’s story arc didn’t feel totally resolved. Also, one big late story twist isn’t really given enough time to sink in, and there seems to be something of a rush to the grand finale. For a film that takes its time to tell its story, and often gets lovingly lost in images of sun-soaked beaches, this didn’t feel right.

However, the ending is a small-scale marvel. For a film with this small of a budget, one visual feat is particulary impressive. What is really nice about “Safety Not Guaranteed” is its optimistic outlook. Films of this kind tend to view everything with through a cynical lens. However, “Safety Not Guaranteed” is not about a bunch of hipsters forever mad at people who don’t get emotional while listening to The Shins with Natalie Portman. This film does not want to punish the audience for its patience. This is now, and probably will remain, the most inspired and inventive film ever to be made based off of a classified ad. I can only hope that that the events in “Safety Not Guaranteed” played out the same way in real life. For now, I will just have to live with the notion that fiction is often a lot more interesting than reality.

Movie Review: Seeking a Friend for the End of the World

Leave a reply
This basically sums it up.

Don’t get me wrong, Steve Carell is one of the funniest, most likable actors working today. But with his past few features, and his latest, “Seeking a Friend for the End of the World,” he has a created a new film archetype: The Sad Insurance Salesman.

The Sad Insurance Salesman is a male in mid-life crisis. His wife will have cheated and then walked out on him because their marriage has lost all sense of excitement. Basically, the Sad Insurance Salesman might as well say, “I’m really nice, but I’m also boring.”

This, in a way, can also define “Seeking a Friend for the End of the World.” It is nice at parts but in the end, it is unsatisfying and lacks chemistry.
“Seeking a Friend for the End of the World” begins at the end. Well, the end of the world, that is. An asteroid is hurdling towards Earth, and death is inevitable. Dodge (Steve Carell), a timid insurance salesman who doesn’t take a lot of risks, is abandoned by his wife (Nancy Carell, Carell’s real life wife), who doesn’t want to spent her last days on Earth with him. Her exit is marked with The Beach Boys’ “Wouldn’t it Be Nice” playing over the radio. No matter how many times that song is used ironically over a dark scene in a movie, it never gets old.

Dodge still shows up to work everyday, despite the fact that most of his co-workers have jumped ship. Here is a man who won’t step out of his comfort zone and enjoy life, even as all life on Earth is about to end. Dodge doesn’t want to face the end alone, but he also doesn’t want to be promiscuous, as per the advice of his friends (Rob Corddry and Patton Oswalt, both criminally underused). Instead, he first seeks solace in a dog that has been abandoned by its owner. The dog might have been the highlight of the movie, even if it felt a little like pandering at times. The dog might have been the best part for me for the sole reason that it is a dog. Dodge names the dog Sorry, because it shows his regrets in life, and blah blah blatant symbolism.

One night, Dodge meets another lonely tenant in his apartment building, Penny (Keira Knightley). Penny is deeply unhappy with her relationship to a penniless musician (Adam Brody). She breaks up with him, and her and Dodge find solace in their loneliness. Unlike Dodge, Penny is spontaneous and positive. She also carries around her baggage from the past: a collection of records, without a record player to play it on. Based on Penny’s collection, which includes Leonard Cohen and Lou Reed, writer-director Lorene Scafaria must be a pretty awesome person.

“Seeking a Friend” becomes a road movie with two separate goals: Dodge wants to spend his last days with his childhood sweetheart, and he promises Penny a plane that will take her to England to see her parents. Unfortunately, one goal seems to be completely forgotten and another becomes completely unnecessary.

As Dodge and Penny, Carell and Knightley are not bad, just underwhelming. Carell is one of the most infinitely likable actors around, but I think he does better as the lovable idiot character role that he perfected in varying degress on “The Office” and in “Anchorman.” Knightley, meanwhile, doesn’t quite settle in well to the comedic potential of her character. Her role would have been much better suited to Gillian Jacobs, the “Community” MVP who shines in a minor role as a waitress who lives too close to the edge. She displays all of the zany energy that would have made Penny as impressionable a character as she was meant to be.

For a movie about a meteor hitting Earth, “Seeking a Friend” ends more with a whimper than with a bang. Without giving much away, there is a fade to white, and the only reaction that immediately came to mind was, “that’s it?” Every conflict plays out in an anti-climatic matter, and not the kind of anti-climatic that skewers your expectations for the best. “Seeking a Friend” would have been better suited as a straight up comedy sprinkled with poignant moments. The movie is supposed to be a look at humanity with typical societal constraints removed. People overlook it, but oftentimes comedy is the most truthful way to examine mankind.

Also, it would mean a lot to me if you could check out this review on The Film Stage. I actually give it a letter grade!

On A Second Viewing: Moonrise Kingdom

Leave a reply

One viewing of a Wes Anderson film simply isn’t enough. His films are like the aftertaste of a good meal that won’t go away, and you never want them to go away. Or, a painting where you notice more going on in the background with a more watchful eye. Or, an even more apt comparison here, like a symphony that sounds even better when broken down into smaller pieces.

In “Moonrise Kingdom,” young heroine Suzy Bishop (Kara Hayward) looks at everything through binoculars. She says that it makes things look closer, even when they aren’t very far away. She also believes it is her super power. I like to imagine that Wes Anderson looks at every film he makes through a pair of binoculars, and that he shares this super power with Suzy: he can see every minuscule detail of life up close in the most vivid of ways.

Through each one of his works, Anderson is inviting the audience more and more to stare into the binoculars at the idiosyncratic universe he has created. After seeing “Moonrise Kingdom” at Cannes, I immediately knew that one viewing wouldn’t suffice. And while I try my best to go in with little to no expectations, I knew I would like it better the second time around. And that I did. It is not that I didn’t like “Moonrise Kingdom” the first time around, it is just that I liked it for different reasons. The first time, I liked it because the Transitive Property of Wes Anderson* required that I like it. I liked it even more on viewing number two because I saw that once again, Wes Anderson defied his detractors and made yet another film in which the characters were more than just cutouts standing against pretty backdrops.

“Moonrise Kingdom” has had its fair share of detractors. Well, most negative reviews were actually positive, with some critical things to say. Many have complained that Anderson’s style and tropes have become too predictable. It is true that there are certain things you will find in every Wes Anderson film, but that is what makes him such a great filmmaker. He tells the same story only loosely every time he makes a film. Like his past works, “Moonrise Kingdom” is about adults who act like children, and children who think they’re adults.

Like any good director, Anderson is constantly trying to improve on the template he first created. On a second viewing, I realized the opening, is more than just a tour of the Bishop household and all of its members. It serves the same purpose as the opening of “The Royal Tenenbaums.” When looking at it through that lens, it makes it even more impressive: characters, and a story, are introduced without saying a single word. Here, we learn that Mr. and Mrs. Bishop can spend their time close to each other, without saying a single word to the other. Mr. Bishop (Bill Murray) lying in a fetal position shows something of a surrender to misery. Mrs. Bishop’s (Frances McDormand) arduous routine shows a predilection toward self-preservation. And then there’s Suzy, sitting above her brothers almost in a separate sphere, reading one of her many adventure novels. Well, everyone in this family seems to be in  the Bishop household seems to be in their own little sphere, with the exception of the three little boys.

Shortly after, we are introduced to the fourth wall breaking narrator (Bob Balaban). With the narrator, Anderson has to break a few cinematic rules in order to introduce the fictional island of New Penzance to the audience, as well as the future hurricane. At this point, Anderson has earned the right to break those rules, because he does it right. 
With the exception of “Fantastic Mr. Fox,” Anderson’s other films took place in slightly fantasized versions of real places. In “Moonrise Kingdom,” Anderson invented a place that he can call his own. “Moonrise Kingdom” is a fantasy tale about two children trying to live out a fantasy of their own. 
Then, we are introduced to the Khaki Scouts, another thing that doesn’t exist, yet is a variation of something in reality. That is a good way to define much of Anderson’s work. We meet everyone from Scout Master Ward (Edward Norton), who is a Scout Master first and a math teacher on the side, to the boy with the eye patch (we never do find out his real name). That the entire troop of scouts a family, and many other characters can be so well developed in just 90 minutes is a testament to the power of great writing. Usually, an entire TV series would be needed to delve in to this many characters. Anderson has the power to define someone’s entire personality in just one line of dialogue.

Anderson has another power that is known to most, but doesn’t truly come out until a second viewing. I realized this time around that the characters in all of Anderson’s films exist loosely in a similar world that is not quite our own. This is a world where people act pretty terribly toward each other, and have trouble expressing their true feelings through words. So instead, they define themselves through the clothes they wear, the way they decorate their homes, and the culture that they consume. Look closely and you’ll notice a heavy use of the colors yellow and brown throughout “Moonrise Kingdom.” You can see it in the Khaki Scouts, as well as Sam’s (Jared Gilman) foster home, from his foster father’s yellow and brown plaid shirt, to the chocolate cake that his foster mother is covering with yellow icing in the background. Perhaps it represents a world that is ripe on the outside, yet a little dark on the outside, or a cast of characters who are “yellow” (cowardly).

I also found the second time around that the film is much funnier than I first thought it was. Once again, and I cannot say this enough, it is all about the little things. For example, notice how Sam keeps an inventory list of all of Suzy’s things, or the group of kids in the background of one scene trying to play their recorders. Also, I will mention the very hilarious irony of seeing Jason Schwartzman play a preist. And yes, it’s also funny to see that treehouse, and it’s even funnier (and makes total sense) to see a kid carry around $76 in change. Every kid at one point or another had that much change on them for no good reason.

Working on a Wes Anderson film must be an actor’s paradise. He gives them so much good dialogue and characterization to work with. He has kick-started the careers of its two incredibly promising leads, Hayward and Gilman, who bring equal amounts of heart and humor to the film. I believe one day the two of them will run off once again to become Margot Tenenbaum and Eli Cash. The boy with the lazy eye will probably become Dudley.

Sam and Suzy also remind me of a younger version of Bonnie and Clyde, minus the bloodlust. The story of “Moonrise Kingdom” also felt a little bit like a twist on Terrence Malick’s “Badlands.” The indelible image of Sam and Suzy dancing on the beach to Francoise Hardy’s “Le Temps de l’Amour,” equal parts cute, creepy, and awkward, felt like the scene where Kit (Martin Sheen) and Holly (Sissy Spacek) dance along to “Love is Strange.” Both scenes contain the childlike wonder for trying something completely new.

Anderson’s films are often criticized for not having enough heart. But “Moonrise Kingdom” is one of those films that I just wanted to give a giant hug too. It is pretty on the inside, and the outside. Its intentionally cheesy special effects never make it seem dated. While some have said this film could have taken place during any year, I believe 1965 is the perfect fit. Seeing characters chart out territory on real maps is way more interesting than someone trying to figure out where they are going on Google Maps. Perhaps New Penzance is trapped in the past, just like all of its characters, while the outside world moves on. And for that, I actually think it is better off.

One more note I believe it is proper to end on: the music. It is true that “Moonrise Kingdom” does not have the most standout soundtrack of all of Wes Anderson’s filmography. British Invasion is replaced with British Classical, and there’s a tinge more French than usual. But maybe these characters aren’t ready for The Kinks yet, at least not until they figure out how to put Benjamin Britten’s orchestra together.

How I Rank Wes Anderson’s Films:
1. The Royal Tenenbaums
2. Rushmore
3. Fantastic Mr. Fox
4. Moonrise Kingdom
5. The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
6. Bottle Rocket
7. The Darjeeling Limited

*If it includes elaborate sets and anything vintage, then it must be Wes Anderson, and it must almost always be good.

For No Apparent Reason of the Day: Bill Murray Gives a House Tour

Leave a reply

Here is a video of Bill Murray giving a tour of the house in “Moonrise Kingdom.” “Moonrise Kingdom” opened a few weeks ago, and I’ve already seen it, so there seems to be no apparent reason that I’m posting it. However, this video contains Bill Murray.

 I can’t tell if Bill Murray is joking or serious most of the time he speaks, which is probably what makes him so mysterious and so awesome at the same time. I take everything he says as words of wisdom. Which is why, after this video, I will never wear short pants again, as according to him doing so is asking to get robbed. Genius.

Also, seeing the details that go into making a set on a Wes Anderson film never ceases to amaze me. I need to see “Moonrise Kingdom” again, and as soon as humanly possible.