They Come from the Land of the Ice and Snow

It's not often that one can find a character driven mystery thriller that works on both levels. David Fincher has achieved this, though, with his adaptation of the best-selling novel, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. The film follows journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) as he investigates the murder of a young girl nearly 40 years ago. As he continues to investigate the victim's family, and comes closer to an end, he enlists the help of Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara), a computer hacker in need of money, and attention. The two are set off on a path that leads them into a grotesque world of odd family values, and secrets that may end up killing both of them.

The film is not so much a murder mystery as it is a study into the mind of a disturbed, lonely, and misunderstood 20-something hacker; someone without a place to truly call home, or people to call friends. She is continually surrounded by men whom she cannot trust on any level. She wears her piercings and tattoos like battle scars; each one reminding her of wounds that have taken far too long to heal. Many have argued that the film's rape scene takes too long to end. While it is graphic, it is also necessary. In order to understand Lisbeth's motives, we need to know what drives her throughout the film. The scene doesn't just make us hate the character who commits the crime, but understand Lisbeth, and because of that, we are not shocked at her actions in the scenes following. Even towards the film's end, when she craves the satisfaction she has never quite had the chance at, her opportunity is taken away. Later, we yearn for her to find peace, only for it to be thrown away like trash (figuratively and literally). This is a complex character that can't be fully understood, but can be appreciated.

Fincher is a very meticulous director. While The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is based off a best selling novel, Fincher is able to bring his own style into the story, and place his own touch on these characters. He's a director who loves to play with camerawork; one of his favorite shots being a close up from behind a character's head. Instead of focusing on character's faces, he'll focus on something considered otherwise insignificant: an earring, the way one scratches their head, the smoke from a cigarette. It's an effective way of drawing us into the characters more than we could have been otherwise.

Rooney Mara and Daniel Craig talking murder over coffee and cigarettes.

In his second stab at score composing for a major motion picture, Trent Reznor once again hits all marks, as he did with last year's Fincher flick, The Social Network. His score is haunting and beautiful, much in the way Lisbeth is throughout the film. He is able to capture the moods of scenes so well, and I look forward to his further collaborations not just with Fincher, but other Hollywood directors as well.

The film keeps a steady pace throughout. The first hour or so is well conceived and executed, as it cuts back and forth between Lisbeth and Mikael, that it works not only to advance the story, but also draw us in to these two characters as they dance around, and toward, each other. However, this does present the film's most lingering issue, and that is the development of its secondary characters. While Mikael and Lisbeth are both fully fleshed out, it makes the more insignificant characters suffer a bit. Many of them do not need much development, but I wanted to know more about the family members Mikael and Lisbeth were investigating. I wanted to learn more about Henrik and Martin as Mikael went deeper into their past. When the film gets to its twist climax, it's not as powerful as it probably could have been.

Despite that, however, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is a terrific thriller, and even better adaptation. It makes us realize that the procedures of a murder investigation, which has lately been the backdrop of a myriad number of television dramas (most of them routine cop shows), can make for a compelling, dark, character-driven film, unlike many we've seen for some time.

A-

Jim Thome Gets a Statue; Somewhere, Larry Doby Screams, "What about me?!"

Yesterday, the Indians honored its all-time franchise leader in home runs, Jim Thome, with a ceremony before the game highlighting his achievement of 600 career home runs. It's a milestone that ensures the clean ballplayer's enshrinement in the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, New York on the first ballot, a feat not many other players can be sure of in an era when steroids have placed an enormous black cloud over baseball. Although players can no longer choose which uniform they go into the Hall wearing, Thome has requested that, if he is in fact to be inducted, that he go in as an Indian. Given the amount of accomplishments he had here, there's almost no doubt this will come to pass.

Knowing that this may very well likely be the final week Thome will ever wear an MLB uniform again, the Indians did something extraordinary to honor him: they revealed plans to erect a statue in center field near Heritage Park, where he hit the longest home run in Jacobs/Progressive Field history at 511 feet. The statue will have him in an Indians uniform, with his signature high socks, pointing his bat out to right field, a gesture he borrowed from the character "The Whammer" (who was modeled after Babe Ruth) in the film The Natural.

It was a stunning moment not just for Thome, but for the crowd in attendance as well. Almost 37,000 fans were in awe when the statue was first revealed, which quickly turned to cheers, and a standing ovation. This is an unprecedented moment not just in Cleveland sports, but baseball history as well. I cannot think of another time when an active player in any sport was honored with a statue at their respective teams stadium; only one stands in Cleveland, and that is for the late great Bob Feller.

My initial reaction to the statue was positive. Thome was a huge part of the Indians success in the '90's; in a 2003 poll, Thome was voted the most popular sports figure in Cleveland history. He was the cause of the "socks up" rally that dominated the late '97 season and post-season. This is not to mention the numerous benefits, charities, and donations he made to Cleveland foundations over the years. The idea of honoring him with something more than just a retired number seemed like a given, and a statue was, it seems, a clear choice for the Indians organization.

But, after having it sink in for a few innings, and after, my initial thought began to wander. The only two sports figures, that I can think of at least, that have their own statues in Cleveland are Bob Feller, and Jesse Owens. Both men, in their respective sports and in different ways, are not just great athletes, but American heroes. Owens overcame the tribulation of race and hatred during the 1936 Olympics in Berlin, where Hitler was determined to show the "superiority" of the white race. Owens won four gold medals that summer and is arguably the best athlete in history. Feller signed up for active duty in the U.S. Military on December 8, 1941, becoming the first athlete to do so after the attacks on Pearl Harbor the previous day. He sacrificed four years of the prime of his career to serve his country, losing out on statistics that, barring injuries, with consistency, could have gotten him another 100 wins, or so.

Feller is the more important story for Cleveland here. Not to discount Owens achievements, but there are numerous memorials for him around the country. Also, he attended Ohio State University, not exactly close to Cleveland, Ohio. Feller, although born in Iowa, was, and always will be, a Clevelander. He spent his entire 18 year career in an Indians uniform, and was an active figure in the club right up until his passing in December. Honoring him with a statue outside of the stadium was the right and honorable thing to do.


Thome thanking the fans at the ceremony.

Thome no doubt had some terrific seasons here in Cleveland, both on and off the field, but to put him in the same class as Bob Feller, at this point, seems a bit...much. Thome was never a flashy player; never had the endorsement deals that other players like Derek Jeter had. He simply showed up and played the game as hard as he could every day, and he did it without the use of performance enhancing drugs (presumably, we don't know, and probably will never really know, the actual truth). The only other power hitter that can truly say that from his era is Ken Griffey, Jr.

I suppose one of the main reasons the Indians honored Thome with the statue is that Thome was considered, during the prime of his career, a sort of successor to Feller. Both were born and bred on farm houses; both were discovered by the Indians, and grew up right before Cleveland's eyes. Of course, the biggest difference is that Thome left, and Feller stayed.

But this is not as big a deal to me as it is to many in Cleveland. After the 2002 season, Thome asked the Indians for a 6 year deal. This would have essentially been his last contract, enabling him to retire at the end of the 2008 season, if he so desired, or ask for another 3-4 year contract, for less money. The Indians offered him 5 years/$60 million, and refused to budge. Thome decided to sign with the Phillies instead. Granted, they offered him $15 million dollars more than the Indians, with the 6 years he wanted, but I put just as much blame on the Indians for not giving him the extra year as I do for Thome leaving. Back at his first press conference with the Phillies, he was visibly shaken by not being with the Indians, coming to tears at several points. I always respected Thome, and welcomed him back with cheers every time he returned to Cleveland, whatever uniform was on his back.

In a way, I think it's difficult to justify honoring Thome with a statue, when his number is not even retired yet. Of course, there's no doubt that will happen almost immediately after he retires, but still. It also is kind of a slap in the face to the other great players the Indians had in the '90's. One could argue that Sandy Alomar, Jr. had just as much of an impact on the Indians as Thome. Alomar was, after all, the MVP of the 1997 All-Star Game, which was held in Cleveland. Ironically enough, Thome was in the Home Run Derby that year. He didn't hit a single one out. Alomar now resides as the first base coach for the Tribe, and (wouldn't this be something?) has hinted at the idea of being a manager one day.

Don't forget about Omar Vizquel, arguably the best defensive shortstop in the history of baseball this side of "The Wizard", Ozzie Smith. Or Kenny Lofton, who thrilled the fans with his awesome speed night after night. Who could ever forget him stealing second base, then proceeding to score from second on a passed ball two pitches later, in Game 6 of the 1995 ALCS? Even Manny Ramirez, who, granted, probably wouldn't be welcome in any ballpark at this point, displayed one of the sweetest swings in all of baseball, beginning at the tender age of 21.

The list goes on. Albert Belle ("I've got your power right here!"), Roberto Alomar (part of the best 2B-SS defensive duo probably, ever), Orel Hershiser ("Take that! Take that!"), Jose Mesa (His saves, and blown saves...), Eddie Murray (getting hit #3,000), Carlos Baerga (all those chains!). Even good ol' Wayne Kirby, who maybe didn't have as big an impact these other players did, but can say for the rest of his life that, in a stadium where walk-off wins make up a part of its history, he had the first, in the first ever regular season game played at Jacobs/Progressive Field.

I could argue that many of those players deserve a statue in Progressive Field as well. This is in no way to discount what Thome did for the Indians, but how can someone like Kenny Lofton feel? Or Omar, who was probably the fan favorite for all the years he was here. He was never booed when he left, and still gets cheers every time he comes back. In a way, the statue almost felt a little like an apology to the years of boos Thome recieved when he came back, rather than a thank you.
Also, to me, statues are reserved for the true legends of the game. Feller was that without a doubt in anyone's mind. Can we truly, without conviction, say the same about Thome? Can we justify having a statue of Thome, and not of say, Frank Robinson, who in 1975, became the first African-American manager in baseball? Or Larry Doby, who was the first African-American ballplayer in the American League? That list of Indians legends could go on for hours.

But, I really cannot sit here and say it's "wrong" to give Thome a statue. Maybe I'm also overanalyzing it a bit. He will no doubt be remembered as one of the greatest Indians in history, and will be remembered as a slugger who, in a time when steroids were a huge part of the game, played the game the honorable way. He's the kind of hero Cleveland needs at this point, and one that we can look up to for the many years to come. Unlike the Feller and Owens statues though, Thome's is not a definitive 'yes', but a resounding 'oh, that's nice'.

What do you think of the Thome statue? Is it a good idea, a bad one, too soon, or the perfect send off?

Rising to be Seen: The Dark Knight Rises Shows Its Face for the First Time

What a month it's been for Christopher Nolan's next feature film, and finale in his Batman trilogy, The Dark Knight Rises. We went from knowing hardly anything about the film, to images of Bane and Selina Kyle, to a teaser poster, and a trailer, all in a matter of a few weeks. I'm going to dissect everything we've learned and been given hints at so far, and then reveal what my plan is for the inevitability of more trailers and posters as July 20, 2012 nears.

Anticipation for Nolan's third Batman flick has been stirring ever since The Dark Knight was released. There were so many questions surrounding the film before it was even written, and if you haven't seen The Dark Knight yet (what is wrong with you?), then skip to the next paragraph......last chance.....okay, many were wondering mostly about the villain situation in Nolan's third film. After the sudden, and tragic death of Heath Ledger, rumors flew that the Joker would appear again in the next feature, but played by a different actor. Then, it was that he wouldn't appear at all; then, there was the idea that he would be shot from a distance, so as to look like Ledger playing the character; then, the rumor started that Nolan was going to use footage from The Dark Knight that wasn't previously released. This all came to a halt when Nolan flat out stated that the Joker would not be in the follow up, at all. Period. Nolan stated he simply wasn't comfortable with the idea, and I applaud him for it. Next, there were rumors that Harvey Dent/Two-Face, portrayed brilliantly by Aaron Eckhart, would be back, as The Dark Knight made it fairly ambiguous as to whether he perished in the films conclusion. Both Nolan and Eckhart both shot this idea down as well, simply stating the character was dead. I applaud this as well, as it gives The Dark Knight such a variable comparison on who is really the main subject of the film, Batman or Two-Face? But that's another topic for another post.

Okay, spoilers done, we now arrive at The Dark Knight Rises. There's first the issue of the title. I personally do not have a problem with it, but many have called it shallow and/or weak, which is such a stark contrast to the "ooohs" and "aaahs" when The Dark Knight was named. Perhaps Batman Rises may have worked better (and not have been such a mouthful), but I'm not going to dwell so much on a film's title. Next was the issue of the villain, or villains. Nolan announced the two "main" "villains" as being Bane (played by Tom Hardy) and Selina Kyle/Catwoman (played by Anne Hathaway). Groans were heard almost immediately. Bane hasn't been seen in a Batman film since the disastrous Batman & Robin, so needless to say people had terrible flashbacks. People are also skeptical that by announcing Hathaway is playing Selina Kyle means that she won't be Catwoman in the film. Also, and I can't believe I'm saying this, people have argued that Hathaway isn't "sexy" enough to play Catwoman, and that Hardy can't put on enough muscle in order to play Bane. To that, I have this to say:

                                                             

Really?

I can't help but remember people who questioned Nolan's casting of Ledger as the Joker for The Dark Knight; at the time, I thought it was a terrific choice, but who knew the outcome would be so extraordinary it would earn him an Oscar? I'm not saying that Hardy or Hathaway will be on that level, but these are two terrific actors given roles that they are excited about, and I have no doubt both will give great performances.

We then come to the pieces we've been given in the past month. The first is a tease photo of Hardy as Bane, seen below:

If anyone still had doubts about Hardy's training ability, this photo puts those questions to rest. It's obvious he's bulked up quite a bit since we last saw him on screen in Inception. What I love about the photo is that, like all of the other villains Nolan has had in his trilogy, he's very realistic looking. You can see what appears to be camo pants, and that mask. I can only imagine how terrifying this Bane will look when we see him for the first time up close and shot from the front. But one thing that intrigues me about this photo more than anything else: what's up with the light directly to the left of Bane? It could just be an error when the picture was taken, but Nolan is too methodical of a director to let something like that be just an error. It could be the light at the end of his tunnel per say, as in the comics Bane breaks out of prison to begin his reign of terror. I really have no ideas on it, but I find it really interesting.

Next we come to the teaser poster:

Nailed it. Completely on target. This is by far one of the best teaser posters I have ever seen. The entire concept is something I can't get over. It's obvious the theme of escalation in damage control and darkness will still be present in Nolan's trilogy, and will come to its breaking point in the final film. It's also apparent that before the Dark Knight can "rise", Gotham must "fall". The crumbling buildings, which give way to the bat symbol outlined with a clear sky, give the idea that the sun may shine on Gotham at some point. Even the idea of looking up to see the symbol, which is such a stark contrast to the bleak teaser poster to Batman Begins, which had a silhouette of Batman looking down, set against a scorched red sky:

Fittingly enough, that red and yellow color scheme was used dominantly in the film. The case was the same with the teaser poster for The Dark Knight, which gave the idea of a blue color scheme, that was prominent in the movie:

The black, white, and gray color seen in the Rises poster gives me the thought that the film will be shot in that way, with a very bleak and dark tone; darker than we've seen with the first two.

There is also the first image of Anne Hathaway as Selina Kyle, also known as Catwoman:

Honestly, I don't mind the costume. At this point we really don't know if this is in fact the final costume, but it is obvious that Nolan will be taking a much more realistic take on the character, shying away from the Michelle Pfeiffer costume of Batman Returns. An outcry happened almost immediately, but to be honest, I don't see this as a finished costume. Maybe Kyle won't ever take on the Catwoman nickname in the film, yet, I can't see that happening. Set photos have recently leaked of a mask being carried around by Hathaway stunt doubles, which hint at the iconic Catwoman ears. If that is the case, then this is perhaps early on in the film, and we'll see a complete Catwoman about halfway into the film, kind of like Two-Face from The Dark Knight. 

Finally, there is the teaser trailer that was shown before the final Harry Potter film, and released in HD a week later:

This trailer does what I think it should. I like it more than the teaser for The Dark Knight, but at the same time I feel it gives just a bit too much away for a teaser. Unless this all happens within the first fifteen minutes, I think we've discovered too much for a teaser trailer. From this trailer, we can understand that Commissioner Gordon has been badly injured somehow, perhaps in a fight with Bane, and that the person he is speaking with is not Batman, but in actuality is Bruce Wayne. I only assume this because that is in fact Christian Bale's voice we hear speaking with Gordon, and the dialog, which points to Batman in the third person, with Bale saying, "What if Batman doesn't exist anymore?".

Also, we get a clear shot of Bane, if only for a split second, and if you can pause it, his mask looks just as terrifying, and realistic, as I think it could. There's no mention of Catwoman in the trailer, but that will be coming I'm sure in the first full trailer, due, I would assume, some time in December.

There's a lot here to digest, and I think we've been given more than enough to whet our appetite until the full trailer hits sometime in December.

However, I won't be covering it. If you read my earlier post about why I hate trailers, you'll understand my reasoning here. I am planning on not even viewing the full trailer when it is released. I do not want to know more about the movie than I already do; finding out that Batman reveals his true identity to Gordon, and seeing Bane up close, is more than enough to keep me satisfied until next summer.

Okay, maybe I'll watch the trailer once, but I won't be dissecting it on here at all, so this shall be my final post on The Dark Knight Rises until the inevitable review of the film next summer.

Why I Hate Movie Trailers

They're almost as timeless as the films they're associated with, and in some cases, are just as anticipated. In many respects, a film's trailer can make, or break, its success at the box office opening weekend. This is a fact that has become increasingly true as the years have gone on, as Hollywood has become more interested in the profit a film makes rather than how many awards it recieves.

Which is why I despise them. Sure, I admit that I watch them just like anyone else, and give an early judgment of the film based on its trailer (it is footage from the movie after all), but for the most part, I can't stand them, for a number of different reasons.

For one thing, and this is my biggest complaint, movie trailers show us far too much of a movies plot. This is a trend that I see happening more and more. One of the biggest examples of this is the trailer for the anticpated mixed martial arts film, Warrior, starring Tom Hardy and Joel Edgerton:

The trailer shows us pretty much everything about the movie, except which brother wins at the end. This is a film I am really looking forward to seeing. I love Hardy's work in films like Bronson and Inception, and Gavin O'Connor is an intriguing director (he's previously done the forgotten but worth-a-look crime film Pride and Glory, and Miracle, the story of the 1980 U.S. Hockey team). Obviously I know that just about every synposis you read for the film mentions that the brothers fight in the championship bout, and that it would probably be pretty obvious early on in the film that they will, but why bother putting that in the trailer? Why not let the audience see it develop on the screen as the film occurs?

I feel also as if, when you see a trailer, and you maybe see it a few times before the film is released, whether it be from screenings of other films or TV spots, that you remember the scenes they show. This is pretty obivous, but consider this: You're in a suspense or mystery film, about twenty minutes away from the ending. The protagonist is in a tight spot, they may or may not live...and you remember a scene from the trailer that has yet to make it into the movie. So the suspense of the scene is runied, because you know the protagonist will somehow get away. I recently had this happen with Cowboys & Aliens. One of the main characters had a touching and emotional "death", but I remembered seeing that character in a scene in the trailer that had yet to show itself in the film, so the emotional resonance, and shock when that character wasn't dead, was taken away.


Cast Away, starring Tom Hanks is the quintessential example of showing far too much footage for trailer. If you haven't seen it, Hanks plays a FedEx man who gets stranded on a deserted island. The trailer tells us that he gets back home. Let me say that again: The trailer tells you he makes it home safe:

It's as if Dreamworks didn't want audiences thinking they'd leave Mr. America Tom Hanks on the island, or worse, kill him. Although I suppose not revealing that Wilson wouldn't make it would have been much easier on audiences to take.

I worry that every time I see a film's trailer, I will have somehow been exposed to too much of the films plot. Could we imagine Soylent Green being as shocking if we found out in the trailer it was people? Or finding out that Planet of the Apes was actually Earth? Or that in Casablanca, Rick doesn't get the girl? Trailers far too often nowadays reveal their plot twists in their trailers, and it not only spoils a good plot for us, it may also ruin a films credibility.

One great example of this is the 2009 film Terminator: Salvation. While the film was panned by critics (33% of critics gave it a positive rating on the site Rotten Tomatoes), and performed terribly at the box office (it only brought in $125 million in the US, while it's budget was around $200 million, although making a strong opening weekend of $51 million), I personally enjoyed it, and although it's nowhere near the first two Terminator films, I feel has some amount of credibility in the series.

However, I think the film loses much of its appeal thanks to its final theatrical trailer, shown below:

By revealing that Marcus (Sam Worthington) is in fact a "terminator" per say, kind of gives away the films huge emotional side. Salvation isn't so much about John Connor's (Christian Bale) fight to save humanity from Skynet, but about Marcus' journey from a murderer, to a pawn for Skynet to use, to ultimately, a hero and savior. It's a pretty powerful story, yet when a big chunk of that is revealed in the trailer, it loses its value on screen. I'm not saying that the film is considerably weaker because of the trailer; the film has many faults, but revealing a big secret (mind you, the scene where Marcus finds out does not come until about the middle of the picture), it diminishes it's shock or awe factor on an audience.

One final thing that I notice with trailers comes with comedy movies. Let's be honest here, how many times have we seen a trailer for a comedy that has some very funny parts in it, seen them in the actual film, and just not laughed as hard, or at all? There's a countless amount of movies that fall victim to this, with recent examples being films like Bad Teacher, The Hangover Part II and even something like Horrible Bosses, a much better film than the previous two, but still, several jokes lost their appeal because I had seen the trailer so many times.

I have always found that my experiences with seeing a movie without seeing any footage of it beforehand in a trailer make it all the more enjoyable. The best example of this I can think of is Woody Allen's new film Midnight in Paris. I had not seen one trailer for it before my screening, and only saw it based on its cast, and  the fact that it was Woody Allen. I was intrigued from opening scene on. The terrific twist that comes at the end of the first act is so pleasantly shocking and wonderful that seeing it in a trailer previously would have probably weakened its awe factor. It's just better watching a film without any prior knowledge of it whatsoever.

But the big question is: what is there that we can do about it? The answer, unfortunately, is nothing. We yearn for trailers, just to get a glimpse of footage from one of our most anticipated movies of the year. Trailers have been a staple as long as movies have been around. However, they should be a way to intrigue you about a movies premise, not give away its best moments or biggest twists. The best thing Hollywood can (and should) do with trailers is have them reveal only footage from the first act of a film, or footage shot exclusivley for a trailer. That way, we get intrigued by what we see, but are not spoiled with middle and end plot twists and big action scenes. To me, there should also only be one or two trailers per movie.This idea of films having a teaser, and then a full theatrical trailer, and then one or two more full trailers is overwhelming, and, in many cases, could be viewed as a way to see most of the film.

I will no doubt be anticipating the full trailers for upcoming movies like The Dark Knight Rises, The Hunger Games, Man of Steel, and The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, but, in a way, I'll be hating myself for being exposed to perhaps far too much footage of a film, just to whet my appetite even more for a movie I know I'll be seeing opening weekend. It's tough to get away from them, especially for those of us who are constantly going to the movies, but maybe that is an excuse for us to take just a little extra time getting to the theater.

An Open Letter to Indians GM Chris Antonetti

We shouldn't be in this position. In fact, we should be about ten games out in the division, looking up at the White Sox, Twins, and Tigers, dreaming of April 2012. The date your predecessor, and now team President, told us all to count down to about two years ago. But 2012 came a year early. We're 1.5 games out. We have a different hero every night. Names like Hafner, Santana, Kipnis, and Masterson, are becoming synoymous with older names like Alomar, Thome, Belle, and Nagy. Attendance is up (but not as much as it could be); yet people are waiting for this team to fall apart. Waiting for the Curse of Colavito, or Modell, or LeBron, to kick in.

But this team has too much spark. Too much fight in them to quit so soon. Too much chemistry to listen to the "experts" explain why they aren't contenders. They play hard every night. Whether they're up 1-0, or down 10-2, they try to find a way to win until the game's over.

Which is why you don't break this team up. The motto for the 2011 season has been, "What if?". So here's my question for you: What if this rag-tag team of rookies and not-so-super-stars made it to the playoffs without any help? What if we gave up names like Pomeranz and White for a year-and-a-half rental of a name like Upton, only to have those two names lead a team to consecutive playoff appearances and World Series rings? What if we shocked the world, and in the last series of the regular season, beat those Tigers, and rode that momentum into a playoff run that may not bring us a championship, but respect, and a bit of fear?

This isn't a championship contender team. One power bat and one solid starter is not going to improve this team to that level, either. So, why bother? Why trade away some of the best prospects in the minors for one or two players who would probably only be here until next offseason, or worse, this offseason?

Kosuke Fukudome

You've already traded for Cubs outfielder Kosuke Fukudome. Not the sexiest deal in the world for a team pining for their first pennant since 2007 to make, but it's a decent step. You gave up hardly anything to get him, and, it would be nice to maybe see him in a deal for a Hunter Pence or B.J. Upton.

But the most important reminder here is: making a big splash in the free agent pool with one, or two, players is not going to catapult this team to the top of the AL pennant race. The best thing for this team to do is to keep fighting through this tough stretch. If a deal presents itself that does not involve big name prospects, or even a few solid pieces on the current major league roster, don't pull the trigger just to say you did.

Hold on to Chisenhall. Hold on to White and Pomeranz. Hold on to Kipnis; even Tomlin, McAllister, Weglarz, and Washington. These are names that can be synonymous with those other names we have plastered around the Jake, but only if they're given the right amount of time to grow and flourish. 2011 may not be our year for a championship, but 2012 and on? I like our chances. You should, too.

Goodbye, Harry: The Harry Potter saga ends its decade long film domination in style

There is no denying the impact the Harry Potter brand has had on entertainment culture. Since the release of the first film adaptation back in 2001, the eight Harry Potter films have grossed a combined total of just over $7 billion globally to this point; the sixth film, Half-Blood Prince, made it the highest grossing franchise in history, surpassing Star Wars. With Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2, the saga concludes on a wonderful high, leaving viewers satisfied, saddened, and humbled.
There's no point in describing the plot; at this point in the series, you either know exactly what's going on, or don't care enough to bother with it. I will say that, despite a few inevitable changes from the source material, this, along with Part 1, is arguably the most faithful, and best, adaptation of the series.

I say adaptations because these films are based off of a source material, but they don't seem that way to me; they never have. No, these eight films are more of an interpretation of the source. Harry Potter, since his printed debut way back in fall of 1998 (summer of 1997 for you England folk), has grown into more than just a book series; he's become his own universe. Harry is no longer truly the core of Rowling's creation. He's the starting point, yes, but the series has blossomed into something much bigger, like Star Wars or Star Trek before it. In that sense, the nitpicking that has come with the films on story lines left out, scenes added or changed, are all null, and in a way, nitpicky, in my opinion at least. Are there elements of the book changed or left out with this final installment? Of course there are. But it does not take away from the experience of the films. If you've seen the previous movies, then you will be able to know where the series is going and what the characters are doing, even if you haven't read the books.

One of the series highest points has been its acting, and with the final installment, several people stand out. Alan Rickman and Ralph Fiennes, who have played Professor Snape and Lord Voldemort respectively, have been the best standouts of the series, and both give wonderful performances here. Rickman is able to fully embody Snape, and gives a great interpretation of the character, through the gut-wrenching final moments. Fiennes has reveled in playing Voldemort, making him even more sinister on screen than the character ever was in the novels.

I have also been a huge fan of each films look and design. David Yates, who has directed each film since Order of the Phoenix, knows the material and the world well, and is able to craft magnificent shots that have gotten more intriguing as he has grown with the series. The set pieces are also of special notice. The films have done a terrific job at creating the entire universe of Harry Potter, and it's easy to see a lot of time has gone into the design and execution not just of the main set pieces like Hogwarts, but also minor ones like the Gringotts Vault and Sirius Black's home.

Bravo, you three.

But the greatest accomplishment the movies have is the growth and maturing of its three leads: Daniel Radcliffe (Harry), Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley) and Emma Watson (Hermione Granger) have all grown up right before our eyes, not just as actors, but as people. They've matured so well as both actors and individuals, and it's rare, or downright impossible, that a film series can have so many of the same actors signed on for the same roles for eight movies that have spanned a decade. The work these three have done, along with the other child actors that have accompanied them along the way, are the highlight of the series, and something that will carry these films long into the generations that have yet to be introduced to the Potter saga.

There's no question in my mind that in about 25-30 years, another director will come along and want to remake the Potter films, to introduce them to several new generations. These eight films however, have done a terrific job of not only adapting the pages Rowling has written, but also interpreting them for a wider audience, making them accessible not just to fans of the books, but fans of good cinema as well. I, for one enjoyed the ride, and can't wait to take it again someday soon.

Deathly Hallows 2: B+

Overall Series: B+

Transformers, Bosses, and Professors, Oh My!

Note: I've kind of thrown this post together in a haste. It's not entirely well written, but I wanted to get a few thoughts on each of these films on here in some capacity, before the weekend, when I'll be posting thoughts a few new movies (and franchises, for that matter).

We're in the middle of the summer movie season. We've seen a few good movies and a few that have missed the mark. These past two weekends have seen the release of three different movies that are so completely different in their plots and characters, that I wanted to try my hardest to link them all together in one big review. They are: Horrible Bosses, Larry Crowne, and, Transformers: Dark of the Moon. Two of the three I felt were enjoyable; it's probably not that hard to figure out which one didn't do it for me.

But, let's start out with the positives in each movie, which in the case of these three, are similar: They are all pretty funny. Now, this is of course the big selling point for Horrible Bosses, as it's (surprise!) a comedy. If it ain't funny, it ain't good. Makes sense, right? I wasn't sure about the film going into it. I am a big supporter of Jason Bateman. His career is very reminiscent to me of Paul Rudd. Despite Bateman starring on the hit comedy show Arrested Development, his film career hasn't included any major roles; only supporting characters, albeit in good films like Up in the Air and Juno. Horrible Bosses is really the first time he's allowed to shine in a major role, and he plays the part of overworked, under-appreciated employee Nick Hendricks to near perfection. His scenes opposite a very funny, and very lewd, Kevin Spacey are the films highlights.

Larry Crowne gets its comedy in the form of its supporting characters. While George Takei's small role as one of Larry's professors loses its muster after awhile, he still is able to hit a lot of right notes as a brash, cocky teacher. Plus, the films chemistry between stars Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts is unquestionable. They are really the driving force behind the film, and embrace their characters really well.

Transformers 3 gets comedic props because it actually has some intentionally funny passages of dialogue. But, most of the films dramatic scenes are so ridiculous that I found myself chuckling at their parts as well.

However, each film has its faults. Despite its funny story arch, Horrible Bosses loses some of its muster towards its conclusion, as it gets a little too unrealistic for its own good. Larry Crowne, although a delightful way to spend a few hours, is too formulaic and ends on too perfect of a good note. These are the types of films that we know the ending before we see them, but the fact that Crowne ends with everyone getting exactly what they want AND needed...it's just a little too far fetched for me to be perfectly honest, and brought the film down a notch or two.

And we come to Transformers: Dark of the Moon, the sequel to one of the worst sequels ever. The second Transformers film (Revenge of the Fallen) such a disappointment and total failure that even Michael Bay admitted that he screwed up with the entire thing. I personally enjoyed the first Transformers, and, as I saw the trailer for this third film more and more, I liked it. Not that it gave me hopes for the film, mind you, but I thought the trailer was pretty cool. Unfortunately, the film suffers from a lot of the same problems as two. First off, there's too many damn robots. For most of the action scenes, it's hard to figure out which ones are fighting, and which one actually wins. Considering that Bay's ADD style of filming and editing hasn't changed, it becomes all the more frustrating. On top of that, the characters don't develop any sort of relate-ability to the audience. I kind of equate Bay's Transformer trilogy to a kid playing with his action figures. You smash them together, making cool destruction noises in the process, and, when you're done, set them on the floor and move to something else. That's what Bay does here. The film just stops. There's no coda or conclusion. Not even a line of closure. There's the final battle that takes forever; it ends, and credits roll. After three movies, you'd think there would be more to it than that, no?

Horrible Bosses: B

Larry Crowne: B-

Transformers 3: C

So yeah...it's been awhile...

I've been kinda busy this summer. Like, really busy. Like, I didn't expect a few things that have happened to happen this summer busy. But, that's life I suppose. I really wanted to try and keep up with posts on this blog. I had a lot of really cool ideas when I started it, but it's just fallen by the wayside as the weeks and months have gone on. I'm writing this as a sort of charge for myself, a way to try and get myself back on track. I haven't seen that many movies up to this point as I would have liked, and have written about them even less. Thanks to a good friend of mine, I was able to catch an advanced screening of Bad Teacher last week, and my hope was to have a review up before it was released wide on Friday. Obviously that never panned out. What I'm trying to say is, I'm hoping to get back on track here. To start, I'm going to give quick reviews of the movies I've seen recently, along with my grades for each. Enjoy.

Bridesmaids - Paul Feig

Being called "The Hangover for chicks" is a far misstatement, I feel. This is a film that is appealing to both genders, while being smart and funny all at once. Although a few of the laughs fall flat, and one scene in particular left me confused at its inclusion in the final cut, this is a great comedy, and one of the best so far this year. B+

Thor - Kenneth Branagh

Branagh may be, at first, a confusing choice to helm a summer blockbuster, but Thor's graphic novel back story relates all to well to Branagh's film career choices. Surprisingly fun (I at first thought the film was going to be a major dud), Thor kicks off a summer full of superhero flicks, and does a good job at standing out among some fairly decent flicks lately. B

Fast Five - Justin Lin

My first foray into the Fast & Furious series was a mostly enjoyable one. It's obvious these films never go for the realistic approach, but it's a decent action flick that, from what I've been told, exceeds the last few installments by far. B-

The Hangover Part II - Todd Phillips

Yep, it's pretty much the same as the first one, except the tiger/baby Carlos is now a monkey, the tooth is a tattoo, and the groom is the groom's brother-in-law to be. There are a few laughs to be had, sure, but there is nothing here that makes it stand out from the original, which was such a breath of fresh air to the R-rated comedy. C

Kill The Irishman - Jonathan Hensleigh

The movie automatically gets a few "cool" points for being set in my hometown of Cleveland, and even a few more for having the main characters have a few family ties (no comment on that), but it loses a few with its at times lackluster script and poor cinematography. However, this is a fascinating (and very true) story about the man who basically helped bring down the mob. B

Green Lantern - Martin Campbell

Campbell, known mostly for his work on two terrific Bond films, has another decent action flick here. Although Lantern can't compete with Batman or the X-Men on a popularity scale, he still makes for interesting film material. The film itself has some amazing CGI, and sets up nicely for subsequent (and inevitable) sequels, and does a good job of introducing us to this world, despite lacking in some character development. B-

Super 8 - J.J. Abrams

Abrams film was one of my most anticipated not just for the summer, but for 2011 on a whole. Sadly, it failed to live up to the expectations its terrific trailer set. The film, I think, loses a lot of its appeal when it introduces "The Monster" as a major factor. I was much more intrigued by the characters and their interactions with each other and their quaint little town. The final few minutes of the film brought it down even lower. C+

X-Men: First Class - Matthew Vaughn

Working as both a prequel and reboot, Vaughn's film proves there is still life in this franchise that started this whole comic book movie frenzy back in 2000. James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender as young Professor X and Magneto, respectively, are terrific casting and embrace their characters full force. The film suffers in its final sequences, but still is a terrific start to what is going to undoubtedly be another trilogy. B+

Midnight in Paris - Woody Allen

Allen is such a fascinating director. He is so set on continually working so as to ensure that he doesn't die as soon as he could (no, seriously. He thinks that by always working on another film he'll prolong his life), it guarantees that many of his films will be flops. However, Midnight stands out, and is one of his best films in quite some time. This is a film best seen without any knowledge of its plot or characters; it makes it that much more enjoyable. A-

Bad Teacher - Jake Kasdan

It's hard to call this a movie, because there's no real plot here at all, which may work sometimes in modern comedies (see: Anchorman), but here it simply doesn't. The film plays like a bunch of SNL skits mashed together with the same characters, and none of them are even remotely funny. C-  

Scre4m Review

The horror movie industry goes through a lot of ups and downs, more so than probably any other genre. Lately, it has been on quite the downside, with horror and suspense films becoming more about grossing us out rather than scaring us. Franchises like Saw and Hostel ushered in a new "torture porn" era of horror.  Other films, like Paranormal Activity, have tried to swing the genre back to its days of scaring the crap out of us, but it's been a slow and meandering process. When the original Scream hit theaters way back in 1996, it re-defined the horror genre, by bringing it back to its roots: teenagers getting murdered by a masked killer in many bloody ways, all while having a little fun and throwing in great twists along the way. Director Wes Craven, writer Kevin Williamson, and stars Neve Campbell, David Arquette, and Courtney Cox, have all returned for the newest installment in the series, Scre4m, hoping to once again capture the magic of the original. Unfortunately, while a decent effort, Scre4m misses achieving its goal.

Sidney Prescott (Campbell) returns to her hometown of Woodsboro after a ten year hiatus to finish a book tour. She's written a best-seller on everything she went through in the first three Scream films. Waiting for her are her old friends Dewey (Arquette) and Gale (Cox), along with her cousin Jill (Emma Roberts) and Jill's many teenage friends, including Kirby (Hayden Panettiere), Charlie (Rory Culkin), Olivia (Marielle Jaffe) and ex-boyfriend Trevor (Nico Tortorella). Ironically enough, the day Sidney returns to Woodsboro is the day that the murders occured in the small town a decade earlier. The day has become a holiday of sorts for the town, with teens putting Ghostface masks on light poles around the city, and having movie marathons of the films based on the killings (if you haven't seen any of the Scream movies before: basically there is a movie franchise within the movie franchise named Stab, and they're all based on the events of the first Scream film).  Sidney's return home prompts a new murderer to don the Ghostface mask, bringing terror to Woodsboro once again, with a whole new slew of teenagers to terrorize.




If you're going to stick something that long in front of my face, at
least buy me dinner first.

 While Scre4m does have some fun moments and isn't afraid of self-parody, the film suffers from too many negatives in order to capture the originality of the first Scream. The biggest problem facing the movie is that there are simply too many characters. The film tries to act as a reunion for the original cast, as well as introducing a new set of characters that could be the launch point for a Scream 5 and Scream 6 (because, who honestly believes they're not going to happen at some point?). Scre4m bounces between the old and the new far too much, and this makes for a sluggish middle, and makes the character development of the new players lacking, if there at all (see: the ex-boyfriend Trevor). While there is nothing immediately terrible about the script or even the acting, there's just too much going on here to really make Scre4m what it's trying to be: the horror genre definition for the next ten years.

The original Scream captured lightning in a bottle. While it's not a masterpiece by any means, it made movie makers rethink the horror movie. Its bloody and shocking opening of killing off arguably its biggest star in Drew Barrymore in the first reel hadn't been done as well since Psycho way back in 1960. Scre4m tries to recapture that same magic multiple times, but misses. While there are some good bloody killings, and a pretty funny opening that I won't spoil the details of, Scre4m suffers from having too much going on. I would love to see director Wes Craven and writer Kevin Williamson work together again, but create something new. One character states in the movie about reboots and sequels, "Don't f*ck with the original." Craven and Williamson should take this to heart, and create something entirely new.

Grade: C+

What's Coming...

I haven't been able to keep up with the site for a few weeks because of, well, life getting in the way. Now that my work and school work seem to be dying down at least a little bit, I'm hoping that I can get back to posting on a regular basis. I've got a few good ideas on things I'd like to start featuring, the main one being commentary on the films in my ever growing DVD collection. As of now I'm simply titling it. "The Collection". There's a few different motivation factors to this. The main one is that there are a quite a few films here that I think a lot of people may have not seen yet, and I want to highlight them to those of you that haven't. Second, many of these films I've purchased, I have yet to watch. What's the point of having a DVD if I haven't even watched it yet? Third, there's quite a few movies I haven't seen in some time; The Godfather Trilogy being one example. I've wanted an excuse to go back and watch a few of these, and this is the perfect reason to do it. My thoughts will be sort of like a review, but more in depth. I'll more than likely talk pretty openly about the movies plot, so if you haven't seen it, be sure to watch it first, then read my comments.

Because of this idea though, this means watching a few movies that, well, suck. Batman & Robin, and even (*gulp*) Pearl Harbor being two examples. In my defense, Batman & Robin came with the Batman movie anthology. I enjoy the first three Batman films, so buying them separately seemed a waste of extra money. Plus, I've heard Shumacker pretty much apologizes for making it, so hopefully that redeems it at least a little bit.  I really don't have an excuse for having Pearl Harbor though, or a few others I have to watch. 

I'm also hoping to give weekly updates on the baseball season, and of course review new movies that are released in theaters. I'm kind of hoping I expand my reviews to CD's and games, so stay tuned to find out.

2011 MLB Predictions

It's been quite awhile since I've had a post. Work and school have both unfortunately kept me very busy these past few weeks. Hopefully I can pick things up a bit. But today, I wanted to do something that I've done every year for awhile now, which is make my predictions for the upcoming MLB season. Considering official opening day is tomorrow, I figured this was the perfect time to do it.

Living in Cleveland, and being a life-long Cleveland fan, I'll start with the Indians. Last year was rough. There's really not much good that came from last year, aside from Shin-Soo Choo's great offensive year. However, the Indians, finishing 4 out of 5 in the Central with a record of 69-93, were plagued by injuries. Grady Sizemore and Carlos Santana being the two major injuries, which plagued the offense the entire year. However, the pitching staff performed really well in the second half, which is hopefully something that they can carry over to this year.

I think that, as long as the Indians stay healthy, they can have a fairly successful season. I'm not saying playoff push, but I think this team is capable of winning 75 to even 80 games. Being in the same division as the Twins, White Sox and Tigers however, means that will be at best a 3rd place finish. But I think the Indians have alot of potential to be a contender in the years to come, if the young players develop like they should, and we don't lose big names like Choo, Sizemore, and Carmona to free agency or trades.

The rest of the Major League is honestly the story of the Phillies. Seriously, this team is stacked. First their starting rotation is just unfair. Roy Halladay, Cliff Lee, Cole Hamels, Roy Oswalt, and Joe Blanton. This is a rotation with three of the top ptichers in the game (Halladay, Lee, Hamels) and Oswalt, who would be an ace on most other teams. Add to that their stellar offense lead by Ryan Howard and Chase Utley, you've got one of the most dominant teams on paper in recent memory. I honestly would not be surpised if they set the season record for wins, surpassing the Mariners total of 116 back in 2001. This team is that good. Barring injuries, they'll be unstoppable.

Here now are my breakdowns by Division, with the starred team representing my Wild Card Team.

AL East
1. Boston Red Sox
2. New York Yankees*
3. Baltimore Orioles
4. Tampa Bay Devil Rays
5. Toronto Blue Jays

AL Central
1. Minnesota Twins
2. Detroit Tigers
3. Chicago White Sox
4. Cleveland Indians 78-84
5. Kansas City Royals

AL West
1. Texas Rangers
2. Oakland Athletics
3. Los Angeles Angels
4. Seattle Mariners

NL East
1. Philadelphia Phillies
2. Atlanta Braves*
3. New York Mets
4. Florida Marlins
5. Washington Nationals

NL Central
1. Cincinnati Reds
2. Milwakee Brewers
3. Chicago Cubs
4. St. Louis Cardinals
5. Houston Astros
6. Pittsburg Pirates

NL West
1. San Fransisco Giants
2. Los Angeles Dodgers
3. Colorado Rockies
4. Arizona Diamondbacks
5. San Diego Padres

ALDS
Red Sox over Rangers 3-1
Twins over Yankees 3-0

NLDS
Phillies over Reds 3-0
Braves over Giants 3-2

ALCS
Twins over Red Sox 4-3
Phillies over Braves 4-2

World Series
Phillies over Twins 4-1

I really like the Twins lineup this year. If Mauer and Morneau can stay healthy, they can be a pretty dominant team in the American League. If they would have had Morneau last year, they could have made some serious noise in the playoffs. I also still believe that baseball needs to extend the playoffs to more teams. While it's very close to becoming a reality that there will be 5 teams per league soon, there needs to be at least 6, maybe even 8. Baseball is the longest season out of the three major sports. It's played every single day, and for several teams to go into a season knowing that they have little to no chance to make one of two playoff spots (1 per Divison, 1 Wild Card at this point), then it's difficult to give everything you have day in day out. The AL East is a perfect example. The Orioles have added a few good pieces this offseason, and could be a nice team to watch, but they'll never be able to surpass the Yankees and the Red Sox in terms of salary and standing. The 5 non-division playoff spots would give smaller teams like the Orioles and Indians a chance to make the playoffs. If you get there, anything can happen. It's so simple as dropping the regular season down to, say 160 games, and the first round of games being a best of 3. It's that simple baseball.

There you have it, my final predictions for the year. I usually not do that great, so knowing me, The world series will be between the Cubs and the White Sox or something. But be sure to watch. Baseball is the best sport out there in my opinion. There'll never be anything better.

Review: The Adjustment Bureau

We've seen the works of Philip K. Dick on the big screen many times before. Sometimes the source material turns into great films (Blade Runner, Minority Report), other times, they're big misses (Next, Paycheck). The Adjustment Bureau, from first time director George Nolfi, falls somewhere in between, but thankfully, closer to the higher tier. After suffering some post-production problems and a delay release from late last year to early this year, the film was worried to be a dud, but it was able to tackle the issues it faced to turn out to be an enjoyable feature.

The film follows New York Senate candidate David Norris (Matt Damon), a man whos political life has not been definied so much by his politics, but by his impulsivness. He's not afraid to live the life he wants, evidienced by the terrific opening montage, where we see that he has been in a bar fight early in his political life, and more recently, the victim of a college reunion prank, which hurts his Senate chances. When he by chance meets a mysterious woman named Elise (Emily Blunt) however, his demenor begins to change. He feels something for this woman, as if they are meant to be. However, the "agents" of fate, the Adjustment Bureau, introduced to Norris by a man named Richardson (Mad Men's John Slattery), have an agenda to keep Norris away from Elise, by any means necessary.

The film's first act is a standout. It does a terrific job of setting up the plot, giving us Norris' backstory in subtle ways without having to make it obvious or blunt, and give us a taste of what the Adjustment Bureau is and what they're capable of. There was a slight concern that the film would have dimished the intelligent source material for more action. However, there is a good amount of information and character development to get us engaged in what's happening on screen. This is the kind of film that understands audiences are looking for not only good action, but a plot they can percieve, and characters they can care for. It also does a good job of explaining the physics of this world without making us feel stupid. Simply put, the film makes you think, but won't give you a headache.
 

Say what you will about these guys,
but when it comes to cars, they drive American.



The chemistry between Damon and Blunt was notably exceptional. Their first several scenes together feel so real, and they do a great job of showing the contrast between their character's personalities, which become a major factor later in the film. The film also tackles alot of heavy themes. The idea of having a destiny to fulfull, questions about humanities free will, the triumph of love above all else, and the idea of a creator or God and what that Being is. The film works with these themes and others on so many different levels and is able to successfully balance them for an enjoyable feature.


Nolfi also does a good job of balancing action with art house. There are several shots here that really impressed me, and his choice to use alot of wide angle lenses to introduce characters really gives the audience a sense of place without being overwhelmed. His action sense are crisp and easy to follow, without much hand-held camera moments; a rare feat in action scenes today.

The film, though, is not perfect. There are several moments that are unintentionally funny, and lines of dialouge that could have been re-written or cut. Also, there is the question of a certain characters disappearance towards the end of the film. There is no explaination, and it is as if the character was simply forgotten when the third act was written. I also question the replay value of the film. While The Adjustment Bureau does a good job with its story and describing its world and plot, there doesn't seem to be much here that one could gain from multiple viewings. It's an enjoyable first watch, but when it's over it is as if there is nothing that needs to be re explored on a second viewing. These minor issues however, do not take away from its good pacing and engaging characters. It's an enjoyable film that does not require full attention, but awards those that do give it that.

Grade: B+

Congrats for Surviving "Oscar Apocalypse 2011"

Sunday night came and went, and the sun shined this morning (well, in some parts of the country, but not here). The King's Speech dominated the Oscars, and we're all still here. We survived what I liked to think many felt was the "Oscar Apocalypse". If you've been following this blog in the short time it's been live, you realize that I have a strong distaste for the sheer lack of appreciation towards The King's Speech and the pure hatred at its collection of accolades. It's a very nice film, and I was not surprised when Steven Spielberg called its name as Best Picture last night. I will say, however, the show itself was...odd, for lack of a better word. It had some terrific highlights, some head-scratching moments, and other times where things were just plain dull. I'm hoping to cover all of that in this post. On an interesting personal and side note, last night marked the third year in a row that my number one film did not win Best Picture. Since the year 2000 that has only happened once (2006's The Departed).

First, my predicitons: I chose correctly on 19 of 24 categories. With alternates I was correct on 21 of 24 categories; a pretty solid effort I'd say. My only wrong prediction in the major categories was David Fincher receiving Best Director over Tom Hooper, which I found to be very much an incorrect honor on the Academy's part. Where I have my issues with the backlash over The King's Speech as Best Picture, I strongly stand by the thought that Fincher deserved to be recognized for his work on The Social Network. Fincher is a terrific filmmaker, creating such previous works as Fight Club, Se7en, and Zodiac. His work has been a staple in Hollywood since the latter half of the 1990's, and The Social Network is arguably his best work behind the camera. Out of the five nominees, he should have been recognized. This is despite my thinking that Christopher Nolan gave the best directing performance of the year for Inception.

Other than that there weren't any sort of major upsets the entire night. When Alice in Wonderland won for Art Direction early on, it was clear to me that it would also win for Costume Design. However, it's hard for me to come to the realization that Alice in Wonderland is one of the five films with multiple Oscar wins from last night, and other, better films like 127 Hours, True Grit, and The Kids Are All Right walked away empty handed.

Something I thought was interesting was that the night mirrored the Oscar season almost to perfection. As the night rolled along The Social Network picked up three awards without breaking a sweat, Original Score, Editing, and Adapted Screenplay. In both Score and Editing, it beat out its major opponent, The King's Speech. At this point as well, King's Speech only had one Oscar, for Original Screenplay. It almost looked as if The Social Network would win Director and Picture, and would walk away the big winner of the night. But then Kathryn Bigelow sucked any life The Social Network had left when she called out Hooper's name for Best Director. At that point, everyone knew the race was over. It was very much like The Social Network's early dominance over the critics and the Golden Globes, and The King's Speech's late charge with DGA, PGA and SAG awards.

Inception was another big winner last night, getting four technical Oscars, two for Sound, one for Cinematography, and one for Visual Effects. It tied The King's Speech for the most Oscars, and in many ways to me, was the Academy's way of apologizing for the snub of Christopher Nolan's Best Director nomination. It could also be though, that Inception deserved those four Oscars, and was more of a stake as to how much Nolan's vision needed to be recognized.

We then arrive at The King's Speech. It won four Oscars, all in major categories: Best Picture, Director, Leading Actor, and Original Screenplay. Its wins for Picture and Director has sent many into a frenzy, calling it one of the worst choices ever, slandering the Academy, and Tom Hooper personally. To be blunt, this is uncalled for and ridiculous. The King's Speech is a good film; a crowd pleaser. In a year where the Academy members had to sit through countless difficult-to-watch and depressing films (Toy Story 3, Winter's Bone, Black Swan, Biutiful, 127 Hours, and Inside Job, just to name a few), it was probably very refreshing to finally see a movie that makes us feel good about life, and we don't have to look away while viewing it. Yes, the film is very formulaic, but it also is entertaining to watch. I'm not one to say that it is, or will ever be considered, the best film to be released in 2010, but I can understand why the Academy thought so highly of the film.

As for The Social Network, well, let's be straight. It's not the most amazing piece of film ever created. All this talk of it being a generation definer is just silly in my estimation. We can't know what will be the film that defines our generation the moment it is released. To be perfectly honest, if a film about a man who screws his best friend out of a company, and winds up alone for the rest of his life (or so is portrayed) defines our generation, then we're a pretty shitty group. Also, "generation definer" doesn't exactly translate to Oscar gold. The Breakfast Club and Ferris Bueller's Day Off defined the eighties; how many Oscars did they win? None. In fact, neither had a single nomination. If it were up to me, I'd say Catfish does a better job of showing what it means to live in this era. Using social networks to connect with people, texting conversations, and using GPS machines to get to destinations, Catfish shows more of what it means to live in the 21st Century, and the consequences because of it.

Finally, we come to the ceremony itself, which I found a bit bland. Anne Hathaway had a tremendous spark as co-host, and is someone I would not mind seeing host again. However, as great of an actor I think he is, James Franco didn't do so well. Whether it be nerves, a lack of sleep (he's divided his time between getting two PhD's, preparing for the ceremonies, and promoting 127 Hours...seriously, when does this guy sleep?), or just that he was feeling "groovy", he didn't work. Also, the show seemed too timid to let Hathaway and Franco do anything drastic or out of the ordinary, aside from Franco's appearance in drag, which ended too quickly to really mean much of anything. I think that next year, if the Oscars want their younger demographic, they should stick with Hathaway, but let her do more. She's a talented singer, performer and actress, let her show off her skills. Also, subtract Franco and add......Justin Timberlake. He's got the charm, everyone in Hollywood loves him, he's always funny on Saturday Night Live, and the dude's a pretty good singer. I think Hathaway and Timberlake would draw in a huge young demographic, while being classy enough to keep older audiences tuned in.

I felt as if the entire show was very choppy. It did run on time, lasting just a shade over three hours, but too many of the bits seemed cut short to seem relevant. Billy Crystal's appearance to honor Bob Hope was a terrific idea, but it seemed so short to me that I questioned the point of it. I was happy that the show went back to clips for each actor nominated along with a few words from the presenter, however. It was a nice touch and I hope the show continues with that. I must say though, when the show presented all ten Best Picture nominees at the end of the night, and had them dubbed by the speech from the end of The King's Speech, I found it quite tacky. It was as if the show was saying "bow to the king". If the montage would have had audio clips from each film I would have been okay with it, but this just seemed distasteful, and a slap in the face with the other nine nominees.

The show could have used polish, but some parts of it stood out really well. The opening montage with Franco and Hathaway stands out, and there were several great speeches (Hooper's tribute to his mother was especially moving), and not so great ones (try not dropping F-bombs in the future Melissa Leo). But now, it's time to close the book on the 2010 Oscar season, and look forward to next years awards. This has been a memorable year in film, and here's to hoping next year is just as good.

I also want to take the chance to thank everyone who's been supporting the blog so far. In this short time it has been up I've recieved some great feedback from several of you, and it's nice to know you're out there reading. I hope that 2011 will give me more opportunites to provide insight into the awards season, and some great pieces to begin.