A Man Who Reports the News Right: Jon Stewart

1 Reply

Dismiss him as nothing but a comedian all you want, but “The Daily Show”‘s Jon Stewart deserves to be the most trusted name in news. He truly knows how to report the news and not just that, but dig deep into it and get true, thought provoking answers. For proof, watch his interview with Mike Huckabee last night. Stewart challenged Huckabee on his strong opposition to gay marriage and nearly left the man speechless.

See parts 1&2 of this fantastic piece of investigative reporting through interview here:

Movie Review: Slumdog Millionaire

Leave a reply

Exhilarating. Enthralling. Heartbreaking. Stunning. Shocking. Breathtaking. Heart-stopping. These are all cliches. The words journalists loathe and hope their readers do too. However, I unfortunately have a thing for using cliches, and everyone of these words represent “Slumdog Millionaire.”

Danny Boyle’s “Slumdog Millionaire” is brimming with energy. Every shot, every second, invokes the highest amount of different emotions. Whether it’s shock, suspense, sadness, or laughter; “Slumdog Millionaire” takes every emotion up to eleven.
“Slumdog Millionaire”‘s flashback flash to present is barely new, but Boyle plans to pull it off in an innovative way. The movie begins in Mumbai, India in the present day. A teenage boy named Jamal (Dev Patel) has for whatever reason, been granted a once in a lifetime opportunity to compete in an Indian version of “Who Wants to be a Millionaire.” How has he gotten zero question wrong. Did he cheat? Only the flashbacks can tell.
The rest of the film traces Jamal’s story through flashbacks that come from the questions he is asked. He began as nothing but a boy in the slums (a “slumdog”) with his brother Salim (Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail). The two go from destitute orphans to traveling con artists making money off of tourists and such. Along the way, Jamal falls in love with, and then loses a beautiful girl named Latika (Freida Pinto). He devotes the rest of his life toward finding her again and somehow ends up competing for 20 million rupees on “Who Wants to be a Millionaire.” How does he get there? How does he find Latika again? Only the past will tell.
The best way to describe the style of “Slumdog Millionaire” is Tarantinoesqe. It is told in a way that the flashbacks come together to form some sort of coincidences in the future/present and all together fate in the end.
The entire film takes place and was shot in Mumbai. Mumbai is a city that holds over 13 million people crowded into one space. Much of it, are the poorest slums you’ll ever see, the kind you could never imagine. Boyle captures the shoddy slums perfectly in stunning air and tracking shots which capture the slums close-in and see the mass scale of them from high above.
As I said, the poverty level is beyond anyone’s wildest imagination. For a film about such poor and terrible social conditions, you’d think the director would’ve chosen a much more gloomy and depressing tone. Maybe something along the lines of “The Constant Gardner.” Instead, it’s shot with lively colors, a hip soundtrack (“Paper Planes”!!), and fast-paced cinematography. Even the subtitles are bright. Because of this, the movie is never boring, and Boyle shows us that even some of the worst places still have the potential to be alive with energy and optimism. Especially after the very recent terror attacks in Mumbai, that city could some optimism, and this movie would bring it to them. Not to mention, it also has a much bigger sense of humor than I expected. Yes, a movie that has the potential to be a Best Picture nominee contains one of the funniest poop jokes I’ve seen in a long time.
“Slumdog” is not all joyous however. Along with the brutally honest images or poverty terrible living conditions there are also extremely disturbing stories of violence, sacrifice, and corruption. Boyle manages to mix this together and you can feel the bad morphing into the good. It is that which makes this one of the most uplifting (in a non-schmaltzy way) movies I’ve seen.
Here is the paragraph where I should say that “Slumdog Millionaire” is far and away one of the best movies of the year and no doubt deserves a best picture nomination. Both of these things are very true. But I don’t need to tell you this; you should be telling yourself this, and you will be as the final credits role. 
In these dark times, “Slumdog Millionaire” offers the definition of escapist entertainment for it allows us to escape yet makes us face the real world at the same time.

Recommended for Fans of: City of God, GoodFellas, The Constant Gardner, Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, Snatch, Mean Streets, Born into Brothels

Movie Review: Wall-E

Leave a reply

The empire has been established for almost two decades, but not until I saw “Wall-E” which was just released this past summer did I realize that Pixar is officially the greatest creator of animation in Hollywood since Walt Disney. And with “Wall-E” they have created their most adult film, for kids.

“Wall-E” takes place over 800 years into the future but takes the queue from other classic dystopia films and makes the future, maybe unrecognizable, seem frighteningly like the present.
In these 800 years into the future, Earth is unlivable and has been completely abandoned by humans. All of the green fields and blue oceans have disappeared and the skyscrapers of giant cities have shaped into giant piles of garbage and the remains of a giant Wal Mart like corporation.
Humans have left Earth on a giant space station called Axiom that’s a dystopian utopia. Humans have now gotten so obese and lazy that they can’t even walk anymore and instead move from place to place via hover chair. Human interaction is sparse and thanks to robots, you don’t even need to get out of bed. All of this is thanks to the Buy N Large, which provides meals to everyone via giant cups that looks like something you’d get at Robeks. Hmmm, this seems relevant.
Back at Earth, the only living things are a few cockroaches, and a robot named Wall-E. Wall-E is a robot that was part of a failed project to clean up the Earth. He now wanders the deserted planet, compacting trash and watching old videotapes. He wanders the Earth in agonizing loneliness until one day another robot named EVE (religious undertone, perhaps?) comes to Earth for unknown reasons. Wall-E immediately falls in love.
Pixar has always been great at giving life to the inanimate and to animals all while dehumanizing people. The toys of “Toy Story” could speak and interact and the mice of “Ratatouille” could outsmart the people around them. The robots of “Wall-E” can love while humans can’t even move their legs. However, by the end, “Wall-E” ends up showing sympathy for humans which plays a part in its ultimately hopeful message.
But with all of the religious and political themes, the true heart of “Wall-E” lies in its love story. Director/writer Andrew Stanton (“Finding Nemo”) creates a love story between two robots yet makes it seem human by pumping it with life, energy and humor. I am not much of a crier when it comes to movies but the story of Wall-E and Eve nearly had me reaching for a tissue box. Making a relationship between two people in a movie seem believable in a movie is difficult. But making a love story between two robots seem believable, well, takes a lot of talent.
The character of the title, Wall-E, is truly the most lovable part of the movie. In one of the best sci-fi films in years, the robot is quite possibly the most endearing sci-fi character since E.T. No surprise, Wall-E’s voice sounds like a mixture of E.T. and R2-D2. Also, like “E.T,” “Wall-E” proves that the science-fiction drama isn’t all about aliens, predators, and terminators. There is a large amount of room for heart, even if a robot doesn’t have one.
“Wall-E” is innovative in everything from its extremely realistic animation to its irregular story structure. It drops the witty banter that is typical of a Pixar film and replaces it with extremely long silences. Most of the time, it feels more like “2001″ than “Finding Nemo.” Despite the long, dialogue-free sequences, the movie never feels boring. In fact, it is the imagery that makes the movie captivating and where it finds most of its humor. Pixar has found a way to make intelligent humor out of slapstick and visuals. Genius.
“Wall-E” is a definite nominee in the Best Animated Feature Oscar (and probably win) but is good enough that in a perfect world, it would get a Best Picture nomination. Why? Everything. The writing, the story, the characters, and the political messages. It is hard to say which film about the future will become most accurate, but I believe “Wall-E” will come pretty close. And this is coming from a generation of children’s films that include such glaring historical inaccuracies as “Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs.”
“Wall-E” may be rated G but it will probably appeal more to adults than kids. But the message it teaches is crucial to the audience of children it should attract. In fact it is a message universal to any person of any age. It proves that love can exist between any two things, and the promise of hope is very real. Yes, even in an unforgivingly consumerist culture.
The same production company that’s poisoning our country with “High School Musical,” Miley Cyrus, and the Jonas Brothers is also responsible for a film that could maybe make our world a little better. Maybe they should make more films like this because after all, kids are capable of being mature enough to see a film that doesn’t involve a bunch of high school kids dancing and singing.
For sure I can say this: “Wall-E” has earned a true place in my heart. And less your heart is made of nothing but wires and computer chips, you will love it too.
Recommended for Fans of: Toy Story, Ratatouille, Finding Nemo, Monster’s Inc, Star Wars, E.T., Blade Runner, A Clockwork Orange, Children of Men, 2001: A Space Odyssey 

For Your Consideration

1 Reply

During the months of December and January, I will post some people/movies that deserve Academy Award recognition in February. So, if any Academy members are viewing this blog, please take this post into consideration…


With my first “For Your Consideration” post I decided instead of starting big, I’d start small. That’s why I’m starting with a category often overlooked: Best Original Song. While it may unfortunately be passed over in all of the main categories, here is the Academy’s chance to honor “Forgetting Sarah Marshall.” It offered not one, but three fantastic, hilarious, and catchy songs. Oscar is never kind to comedies in the categories that matter, but they have often been kind to them in the song category (ex: “Blame Canada” from “South Park Bigger, Longer, and Uncut”).
Here are the three songs from “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” worthy of a nomination:
Dracula’s Lament
 
We’ve Got To Do Something

Inside Of You

Movie Review: Quantum of Solace

Leave a reply

Two years ago, the ailing Bond franchise, held down by ludicrous plots and over-the-top gadgets, was revived in a big way with “Casino Royale.” “Casino Royale” held back on the gadgets, created a more believable story, and most importantly, brought audiences a darker, vulnerable Bond.

“Quantum of Solace” manages to bring back all of these fantastic new qualities of Bond for a satisfying new movie.
While most 007 movies started from the beginning at each movie, “Quantum of Solace” is the first one to pick up from directly where its predecessor left off. Last we saw, James Bond (Daniel Craig) was torn apart by the death of his love, Vesper (Eva Green) and is now swearing a quest of vengeance. 
While tracking down some enemies and conspirators in Vesper’s death, Bond finds out that his enemies go far beyond Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen). It’s something called Project Greene run by a man named Dominic Greene (“Diving Bell and the Butterfly”‘s Mathieu Amalric) who acts like a giving philanthropist but is really sucking the earth dry of many of its resources. The rest of the plot (without giving too much away and showing what I comprehend) has to do with oil. But despite the intimidating Greene, Bond’s greatest challenges are M (Judi Dench) and his own recklessness.
Once again, Craig steals the show and proves himself a Bond almost as good as Connery. His comic timing allows him to deliver great one liners and sarcastic remarks perfectly, making him the funniest Bond without making him corny. Beyond the comedy, Craig helps show Bond beyond a man who simply defeats the bad guy and gets the girl at the end. Here is a man who is now seen as human. He can fall in love. He can be hurt. His mission is not always about saving the world, sometimes it’s about fixing his broken heart.
Just like “Casino Royale,” “Solace” contains no high-tech gadgets or giant rays that can harness the sun’s power and melt the earth (or whatever happened in “Die Another Day”) but instead contains a plot about a man exploiting all of South America’s unstable governments and using them as a way to harness control of all of the world’s oil. Sounds more like something ripped from a CNN headline than a Hollywood action movie.
“Quantum of Solace” like its strange title, can sometimes be a little odd and extremely confusing. Viewers looking for a typical simple Bond plot should instead wait for the next Michael Bay movie, because this one won’t be for them.
“Solace” doesn’t live up to “Casino Royale” for several reasons. Despite its more realistic plot and attention to character like its predecessor, “Solace” lacks the breathtaking action sequences that made up “Royale.” The beginning sequence of “Royale” was crazed and everywhere, but it was filmed at a pace so the viewer could take it all in and follow every single movement. That is what made the scene one of the greatest chase sequences ever filmed.
“Solace” contains some great action sequences, but they aren’t filmed with the same carefulness and grace as those in “Royale”. Instead, the camera jerks too much and everything happens way too quickly. The viewer can barely appreciate any action going on and therefore the movie is nowhere near as thrilling as previous Bond chapters. A big reason for this was the fact that “Royale” was directed by a man who had directed several big Hollywood blockbusters while “Solace was directed by Marc Forster, whose known for directing dramas like “Finding Neverland” and “Monster’s Ball.” Forster does excellent on the drama and character parts of the movie, but he still needs experience in directing action sequences. If he sticks on for a few more movies, Forster should be able to improve in his action sequences.
“Quantum of Solace” is the next part in not only the revival but transformation of James Bond. And it does well on that. Unfortunately, it lacks some of the grittiness and brilliance that made “Royale” an instant classic but it’s an extremely sufficient and even thought provoking two hours of entertainment.
 In a world of brain dead action movies filled with explosions, “Quantum of Solace” gives the world a blockbuster not only with a brain, but also a big, cold heart. If only the action was bette done, “Quantum of Solace” could’ve been “Dark Knight” of the holiday season.

Worst Job Ever=Best. Movie. Ever

1 Reply

Director Greg Mottola (“Superbad”, a few episodes of “Undeclared” and “Arrested Development”) is riding his deserving wave of “Superbad” success (yes, someone besides Judd Apatow was involved) for a new movie called “Adventureland.” It’s based partly of Mottola’s real life job he had working at Disneyworld after college. And it stars such new age comic geniuses as Martin Starr (“Freaks and Geeks”), Kristen Wiig (SNL) and that kid from “The Squid and the Whale.” Like “Superbad” it looks like it’ll mix hilarious gross out humor with a sweet coming of age back story. Also, it’ll most likely be a more realistic account of teen life than “The Hills”, which I cannot stress enough.

Will this be the next “Superbad?” Judge for yourself with the trailer below:

"Sunny" Season 4 Comes to a Close

Leave a reply

Watched it or not, “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia” had its season finale last night. A bittersweet one, I must say. While I was enthralled to see a musical made out the Dayman and Nightman songs in last night’s episode, no more “Sunny” for who knows how long. Nothing at 10 PM every thursday to follow “The Office” and “30 Rock”.

But, I’m sure none of you care about my suffering. You want to hear about this season. And what a great season it was. Blessed with a bigger budget and a certified following (which grows bigger by the day), creator/star Rob McElhenney was able to create new stories a bring the gang to new places that could never have been done with the budget of the show’s pilot (which was between $85-$200). In this season, the gang sunk to new, strange levels of depravity. They ate and hunted people, waterboarded each other, faked their own deaths, kidnapped multiple people, took advantage of the homeless and worldwide crisis, and even managed to go back in time. These, amongst many other events this season, while tending a bar.
Season four didn’t exactly reach the perfection of season three, but that’s not to say this season was a new step up for the show, despite some flaws. Some things that bothered me this season was an absence of the McPoyles and an absence of jokes about Charlie’s blatant illiteracy (however, Charlie’s idiocy was not totally forgotten, thanks to some cat food and a mail conspiracy). As this season progressed, we saw the once successful Frank (Danny DeVito) sink lower and lower). He went from a once successful businessman opening sweatshops in Vietnam to a man disguising himself as Rambo not long before he began pooping everywhere and landing in a mental hospital (a fantastic inside joke on “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest”, which DeVito starred in). Nothing however will ever reach his lowest level of depravity in season three when he married his own daughter to get his hands on his wife’s will.
Of the cast, I believe this season truly belonged to Kaitlin Olson. As Dee, the only woman of the gang, she managed to stand out and really bring both the character’s craziness and vulnerability into full swing. I cringed in painful laughter (yet felt a little bad for Dee) as she dry-heaved her way through a pathetic attempt at standup. If the Emmys ever decide to lighten up a little and consider “Sunny”, I think Olson should be a true contender for best actress. Seriously.
So season five, please come soon. If I have any advice for the show, it’s that they bring back Charlie illiteracy jokes along with the McPoyles and Bruce Mathis, hit political/social themes even harder, keep bringing the Waitress back, and please bring “Nightman Cometh” to Broadway. But most importantly, please come back soon.
It’s difficult to choose the best clip from this season, but here are three scenes that nearly brought me to tears:
value=”http://www.hulu.com/embed/-VfkuLpoUvfwRZJX8QSONA”>
value=”http://www.hulu.com/embed/wGVfz2SJU29LQOPx219Bdg”>
value=”http://www.hulu.com/embed/5NG1bWL2qnjpKxMnrSHMNA”>

To See or Not to See: Amores Perros Edition

Leave a reply

Usually when I write a review, I have a clear opinion of it to provide the audience; whether it is good or not. Whether you should see or not see it. Today I’ve hit a dilemma, and that dilemma is “Amores Perros” (which translates to “Love’s a Bitch”, not “Love Dogs” as I originally thought). I am so shooken up and split up by it that I thought I’d try something new. I’m gonna tell you my two-sided opinion on it, and I want you as a reader to decide for yourselves whether or not you should see.

To See: “Amores Perros” was the first feature by Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu (“21 Grams”, “Babel”) and it’s a hell of a debut film. Set in smoggy, sprawling, Mexico City it tells interconnecting stories that range from the rich to the homeless. Some characters include Octavio (Gael Garcia Bernal) whose in love with his psycho brother’s kind and gentle wife (Vanessa Bauche). Octavio wants to get away with her, but first he must raise money through dogfights (more to come on that) for the trip. There’s also a homeless man with strange motives behind a strange murder and a rich model whose been tainted by a car crash. “Amores Perros” contains heartbreak and beauty. The imagery is stunning; from spilled blood sizzling on a grill to that final image. It portrays themes of hope and hopelessness, along with the possibility of change and forgiveness in such a cruel world. It asks us to look beyond stereotypes and into people’s hearts. Inarritu’s debut film shows the prominance in Latin American filmmaking which has arised this decade and is perfect for those of you who love interconnecting stories like “Crash” (minus the preachiness). But what is that essential flaw in here?
…or Not to See: Each seperate story of Amores Perros contains dogs as an essential part of the story. I love dogs, to a huge degree. So, why am I so hesitant about the use of dogs here. It was those cringeworthy dogfights. Now, I’m not for censorship and I understand the director wasn’t condoning dogfighting. But I have a soft spot for animals (especially dogs) and watching them tear each other apart in bloody masses was just too depressing for me, and it’s possibly the thing that may prevent me from watching this movie again. So animal lovers, beware.
There are also many flaws in the story itself. For one thing, it’s a bit muddled. The lines between who is who can get a little confusing (follow those subtitles carefully, audience). Also, I was extremely bothered by how many characters who seemed so important at first were suddenly dropped and barely had anything to do with the end of the movie. Basically, the stories don’t tie together well. While with Inarritu’s masterpiece “Babel” not a single character from each story ever met each other, they all still reached some sort of conclusion at the end and you really felt a close connection between each story. Each characters purpose made sense. “Amores Perros” also lacked “Babel”‘s stunning epic sweep.
That is the Question: Readers, decide for yourselves whether or not you should see this movie. Filmophiles, dig in. PETA members, step back. And for those of you who have seen this movie, am I right? Or does my love for dogs make my opinion a little biased and unfair? And if you like this movie, it doesn’t necessarily make you Michael Vick.

Movie Review: Role Models

Leave a reply

Recently, I thought I was beginning to lose faith in the comedy genre. Over the past year, the genre was completely revived. However, in the last few months we got the disaster that was “Sex Drive” and a totally unjust Apatow/Rogen backlash forming. My love of comedy was restored last night with “Role Models”.

“Role Models” succeeds because it follows a completely original idea. It only falls into cliche territory a few times, but it mainly stays on course for an inventive and inspired ending. 
“Role Models” gives the audience the usual pair of slackers. Danny (Paul Rudd) is a spokesman for a Red Bullesque energy drink company. Like Peter in “Office Space” he lives a pretty miserable existence which gets worse when he realizes that he’s gone nowhere in life. His business partner Wheeler (Sean William Scott) doesn’t seem to realize this and just enjoys prancing around in his bull costume.
After Danny starts to loose it, he tries to propose to his girlfriend (Elizabeth Banks) and does some other pretty unlawful acts that land him and Wheeler in community service. To fulfill their hours, they’re put into a child mentor program. Danny is assigned Augie (Christopher “McLovin” Mintz-Plasse), a Dungeons and Dragons/WoW geek, while wheeler is assigned to the foul-mouth Ronnie (Bobbe J. Thompson). Mischief, chaos, and a lot of heart ensue.
“Role Models” is directed by David Wain. Some may know him better as David of TV’s brilliant comedy “Stella”, also a comedy trio consisting of Wain, Michael Ian Black, and Michael Showalter. Wain shows as much charisma and hilarity behind the camera as he did in front of it. “Role Models” contains that random, over-the-top, slapstick humor with a heart that made “Stella” so great. Wain makes a too short cameo as the typical man on a camping trip who tries to play the acoustic guitar.
There are three things that make a great comedy work: writing, directing, and acting. If you have all three, you’re set. The performances in the movie make Wain’s script and directing even funnier. Rudd has proved that he has what it takes to be a leading man. He has a gift for making dramatic seem funny. He played mopey and depressed flawlessly in “The 40 Year Old Virgin” and brings it to a new level here. Scott shows a comic talent I never thought he had. He could probably make a great career if he sticks to good material like “Role Models” and stays away from any “American Pie” sequels. Mintz-Plasse pulls another fantastic performance here. It is almost identical to his McLovin performance, but two McLovins is barely enough. He brings that extreme awkwardness including stutters and long pauses to make the audience uncomfortable, but he controls it so Augie isn’t totally resentable or laughable. Thompson is a new face to look out for.
“Role Models” works better than recent comedies like “Sex Drive” because even its dirtiest jokes don’t feel too gross or raunchy. The best dirty jokes are subtle or hidden in innuendos (the best one: “I am here to service these young boys!”). If “Arrested Development” taught us anything about humor, it’s that you can never have enough innuendos. 
What also sets “Role Models” apart is that the whole time you feel like you’re rooting for the underdog. Not to mention, even if the characters do awful things, we continue to feel for them. The connections that Wheeler and Danny find in the kids they are forced to mentor is something even deeper than you’d expect in an R rated comedy with Sean William Scott.
So if you’re in the mood to hear a debate about Kiss lyrics, and see and ending that will make you remember “Freaks and Geeks”, go see “Role Models”, one of the funniest movies this year.
Recommended for Fans of: “Superbad”, “Knocked Up”, “The 40 Year Old Virgin”, “Office Space”, “Clerks”, “Freaks and Geeks” (TV), “Arrested Development” (TV), “Stella” (TV)