Ender's Game - Orson Scott Card

As a child I never really read 'young adult' fiction. I went straight from reading kids books to reading Lonesome Dove, Jurassic Park and Stephen King novels. In middle school I even had an English teacher that would question my reading list for the journal entries we were to write for class. Mr. Hillenburg wrote 'this book might be inappropriate, do your parents know you're reading this' in my first Lonesome Dove journal entry. I didn't always know what was going on in these books because of technical or adult issues (especially my first few times through Jurassic Park) but I sure enjoyed reading them.

I bring this up not to say that Ender's Game is young adult fiction, but the book was originally described to me as the 'perfect book for a 13 year old boy' and after reading it I can agree that this is indeed the case. It may be a little violent at times but it's action packed, quick paced and virtually all of the main characters are between the ages of 6 and 14.

The Ender in Ender's Game refers to the main character, a boy who gets picked at the age of 6 to join the illustrious Battle School. Battle School is necessary, as we learn throughout the book, because there is an ongoing intergalactic war between humans and an alien race only called the 'buggers'. We eventually learn that in the past hundred years there have been two major conflicts with the buggers and humanity lives constantly under the threat of another possible bugger invasion attempt. Because of this climate, children are taken at a very young age and trained to become the soilders of the future.

Although the bugger war could have been a rich source for wide reaching plot lines, the novel mostly focuses around Ender's personal development in battle school and how the bugger war relates to him and those he knows. Battle school is mostly a training ground for soldiers, teaching them battle tactics instead of traditional academic studies. They do have classes on things other than battles, but as the story goes on it becomes clear that the only thing that matters are what the kids learn about war.

The kids are all separated into teams (which is slightly reminiscent of the houses in Harry Potter) and then are pitted against each other in play battles every week or so. They battle in a zero gravity room (the school itself is a space station that has gravity elsewhere in the building) with fake guns and flashsuits that simulate real battles by freezing the kids if they get shot. The students start out as scrubs, and as they grow and mature become they become platoon leaders or commanders of entire teams.

Although we never really learn why, Ender is a an especially gifted child and is considered by the army leaders to be the future commander of the army and the savior in the war on the buggers. The teachers and military staff constantly put him in situations that will shape him into the future military leader of Earth. They isolate him by pointing out how great he is and getting the other students to turn on him, and by constantly testing him with unfair battle conditions as he quickly makes his way up the ranks.

Much of Ender's Game is concerned with how an almost superman like person deals with adversity and the knowledge that the future of humanity rests with him. You don't often hear of stories that focus around someone who has an ingrained superiority to all those around him, and how he uses that to fulfill his destiny. Ender does often whine that he is being treated unfairly, and yearns to be just 'one of the gang' , but these are more often passing feelings that are quickly replaced with thoughts of how he can overcome his current situation and how he can beat those around him. In fact Ender never loses a battle in the whole book! He overcomes adversity to be sure, but he is never truly tested.

Because of this, one could mistakenly believe that Card is trying to promote the idea of the superman, akin to Hitler's master race. This would be a mistake because despite all of his superior gifts and ability to implement them, Ender never truly desires to be a despot. Even when he crushes his enemies he never intends to hurt them, and is often concerned with their safety above all else. He may be a superior man, but he never acts arrogant and doesn't want to control those around him.

You may have noticed that despite saying that the book started when Ender was 6 I have been talking about him like he is a full grown man. The characters are mostly children, but they are written and act like adults. Part of this I think rests on the inability of Card to correctly write a child, but I think he is also making the point that these children are so special they have the advanced mind of an adult. Also as Ender grows up in the battle school he ages much more quickly than his contemporaries.

Because I knew this book was a series I was kind of fooled by the twist at the end. As stated before, the majority of the book concerns the battle games kids play in the special school. In the last quarter of the book Ender graduates and starts his training to become the future army commander. They give him a new game that involves him commanding fleets and ships in what looks like a video game simulation. I figured that the book would end with Ender assuming command of the fleet and the subsequent books would be about his epic war against the buggers.

In the climax of the book, we see Ender enter a room to complete his final simulation in frontt of the military officials. Everyone acts as if this were like an oral qualifier for grad school. Ender faces seemingly impossible odds in the simulation and through his cleverness and ruthlessness he cruses the simulated bugger army and destroys their entire fleet. Everyone in the room celebrates and Ender is confused by how jubilant they seem over his passing of the exam.He then learns that it was not a simulation at all and that for quite some time Ender had actually been controlling the Earth's fleet! They used a talented child who thought he was just playing games to destroy and entire race not only because of his abilities, but also because he would have no qualms about sacrificing his own virtual ships or cruelly obliterating the enemy.

I felt a little foolish for not seeing this coming but as I stated before I was slightly tricked by knowing this was a many book series, but let's not to take anything away from Card's ability to write a riveting story. I'm not sure if I'll read anything else in the series, this book actually wraps up pretty well and easily stands on its won, but I quite enjoyed Ender's Game and would definitely recommend it to my 13 year old self.

Best Films of the 2000s

For the past couple of days I've been thinking about my favorite films of the decade. On his podcast and in his articles Bill Simmons has been discussing what he thinks are the best movies made since 2000 and this made me want to make my own list. His qualifications are 'excellence, originality and (this is crucial) rewatchability.' Although I appreciate the importance he places on rewatchability, I don't necessarily consider that as important as the ability of a film to stimulate me intellectually or emotionally. I also place a higher importance on originality, I like to watch a movie and think 'wow I have never seen anything like this before.'

Below are my top 5 films of 2000-2009. Although I may title this post as the 'best' films of the 2000s I realize that everyone is looking for different things from a movie. It's more of a list of my favorite movies, but that is all semantics. I figure that towards the end of this year many lists like this might come out so I want to put this out there before I have the chance to be affected by the other lists. Hopefully I didn't overlook anything, and I had quite a few films that barely got cut. The films that just missed the cut include Primer, Donnie Darko, Gladiator, Oldboy, The Departed and Let the Right One In.



Honorable Mention: Comedies - Zoolander (2001)













I'm not the biggest fan of comedies. I tend to enjoy them, but never really get obsessed and don't often feel the need to watch them more than once. My problem is not that I don't like to laugh, it's that as movies they tend to lack that extra something that dramas have. It's incredibly hard to balance the comedic aspect of films with the plot arc necessary for the medium. Thus for my list it was necessary to create an independent comedy category so as not to ignore an entire genre. And for me, Zoolander wins this category in a landslide.

Although there might be 'better' comedies (like Juno) nothing that came out in the past 10 years made me laugh like Zoolander. It might have helped that I had friends in high school who were also obsessed with it and walked around randomly yelling 'OBEY MY DOG' at inappropriate moments, but as I've gotten older I found that people in college, and now in my life after college were equally into this movie. Not only is this my favorite performance by Ben Stiller, I think that this might be Will Ferrel's best role. Almost everything that Mugatu says or does in Zoolander makes me laugh and all of his lines are extremely quotable. It may be completely ridiculous and nonsensical, but I haven't found a comedy as funny or rewatchable as Zoolander.



Honorable Mention - Lord of the Rings (2001-2003)


















I love these movies. Love, love, love them. Some of the best nights I've ever had involve just sitting around watching one of the extended films with my best friends. But I wasn't able to put them in my list because for me, it's impossible to separate these films from the books that spawned them. Peter Jackson did what was once thought impossible, and turned the most famous fantasy book of all time into a series of epic movies. Although a few plot points were changed for better or worse, he completely nailed the tone, feeling and overall story of Tolkien's masterpiece. They are a wonderful companion to the books and although technology might improve in the next century, I think future directors will be hard pressed to create an adaptation of the books that surpasses than Peter Jackson's crowning achievement.



#5 - Children of Men (2006)












Children of Men not only works as a depiction of a possible dystopian future, but also as a straight up action movie, political and social commentary, and as an intense personal drama. As you might note from this list or my other posts, I am partial to genre films and Children of Men fulfills that part of my interest while being a great film in many other ways. It's hard not to get caught up in Theo's struggle for self preservation in a dead world even before his conscious forces him to care for, and protect humanities last hope found in the first pregnant woman in decades. The story is taut, the action is exciting, and the camera work is superlative. The film uses many single-shot sequences which are incredibly hard to pull off, but extremely rewarding when done correctly. In my opinion, the final action sequence, which is over 7 minutes long, is one of the best action scenes ever filmed.



#4 - WALL-E (2008)



















I think that any list of the best films of the decade that doesn't include a Pixar film would be amiss. No film studio of the 2000s comes close to the string of success that Pixar has achieved. Since 200o Pixar has put out Monsters, Inc., Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, Cars, Ratatouille, WALL-E and Up. Not only are Pixar movies financially successful, they are uniformly loved by critics, kids, adults and young adults. Everyone enjoys Pixar's films and rightfully so.

Although I love Monsters, Inc., WALL-E is probably my favorite Pixar film. The first 20 minutes or so which are completely without dialog might be the best single sequence of any of the movies on this list. The film becomes a little more formulaic after the initial sequence, but the quality of the film hardly drops at all. The ability to make the audience feel the entire range of human emotions with just the body language and facial expressions of a pair of robots should not be overlooked. I even have a friend who refuses to watch WALL-E and claims she doesn't like it because it always makes her cry. WALL-E also contains some very poignant social commentary in its view of our possible future that is a little more believable than the picture painted by most films which use science fiction as social commentary (ie Children of Men or Idocracy).



#3 - The Dark Knight (2008)













The Dark Knight might end up being the defining film of the 2000s. It fully captures the fear that permeates our post 9/11 society in a way no other piece of art has. I also can't remember another film that opened with such high expectations and then fully surpassed them. Think of The Dark Knight like LeBron James if he had already won 3 championships. Although the Academy that runs The Oscars will never nominate an action or science fiction film for any major awards, many people and critics felt like this movie should have won more than just the award Heath Ledger was posthumously awarded.

In addition to all this it is easily the best superhero/comic book movie of the decade in a time where at least a half dozen or so of these open a year. Time will tell how future movies are affected by The Dark Knight, but it already seems like the film is to the superhero film genre that Watchmen was to comic books in the 80s. Although films had been getting darker before The Dark Knight opened, it ratcheted up the intensity and respectability the same way that Watchmen did for super hero comic books. And like Watchmen I doubt that The Dark Knight will be surpassed any time soon.



#2 - The Royal Tenenbaums (2001)















This would have to be my sentimental favorite. The Royal Tenenbaums was my first 'favorite movie' and holds a special place in my heart. I'm not sure what to say that hasn't been said about this film. Wes Anderson still has a long way to go in his career, but it feels at this point that you can separate his career into pre-Tenenbaum and post-Tenenbaum sections. After The Royal Tenenbaums his films seemed to be more concerned with quirk and aesthetics than with real human emotion. However The Royal Tenenbaums combines the meticulous and beautiful aesthetics of The Life Aquatic with the emotional anguish found within Rushmore.

Barring the effect that The Dark Knight might have on future films, The Royal Tenenbaums more than any other film on this list has shaped the films that came after its release. Every indie film of the day feels like a Wes Anderson knock off and even commercials such as the ones currently run by Comcast use a distinctly Anderson look. However, none of these imitators can touch the emotion or feeling found in The Royal Tenenbaums.



#1 - Mulholland Drive (2001)

















It was tough for me to order my favorite films after narrowing down the top five. I had all of the top three in this slot at some point before settling on David Lynch's masterpiece. The reason that Mulholland Drive claimed the top spot is the 'intellectual' factor that I discussed in the opening. While watching Mulholland Drive you end up asking yourself 'wait, what's going on' for most of the film, and Lynch makes no concessions to make this easy for the viewer. Not only do you have to think while watching the movie, after its conclusion if you didn't have to discuss what you just saw with whomever you watched it with and/or go online to read about the film, I'm not sure we were watching the same thing.

Lynch gets a lot of crap for being 'weird' or 'Lynchian' (the nice way of calling his particular methods weird) and I think that's just unfair. Lynch has no interest in typical story telling, and I find this refreshing. His movies are all unique and interesting, and there is a reason that there are armies of cinephiles that swear by everything he does.

Interestingly, Mulholland Drive was initially intended to be a television pilot for ABC in 1999. Predictably, the network declined to pick up the show and Lynch was left with some fantastic, but unusable footage. When he was making Twin Peaks Lynch was faced with the same possibility, and shot an 'extended pilot' that wrapped the story up and could be told as a stand alone story. As anyone who has seen this 'extended pilot' knows, it's completely awful and unwatchable. It seems like Lynch learned from his mistake and whether he had a contingency plan to turn Mulholland Drive into a film or not, the result is stunning.

Because much of it was initially shot to be a television pilot, there are multiple loose ends and red herrings that could be found to some as bothersome. I don't mind these seemingly unconnected loose ends because with Lynch's dreamlike style it's impossible to tell metaphors from plot relevant events.

Mulholland Drive does have that 'weird' factor found in Eraserhead and his later films Lost Highway and Inland Empire, but it also the great storytelling and mood found in what many people consider to be his best film, Blue Velvet. For the first 90 minutes the movie feels like it may just be another straightforward narrative that, like Blue Velvet, examines the horrors that lie underneath American society. However, as the last hour of the film unravels it becomes much more than that.

I remember the first time I watched Mulholland Drive and how I felt afterward. It was just like the first time I listened to Radiohead's OK Computer, I knew immediately that it was the best album I had ever heard. It's not often that upon a first experience I have such a strong feeling about something, and it's for this reason that I rank Mulholland Drive first.

Reel Big Fish - Live at the Masquerade

I didn't initially plan on writing much about music on this blog because frankly I've lost interest in almost all of the new music coming out. In my heyday (2003-2007) I listened to, judged, and sifted through almost everything of note that came out, and even made large strides in listening to older artists that were considered 'seminal'. This was true of classic rock of the 70s and 80s, indie rock, rap, and even most pop music. Somewhere along the line I gave up on trying to keep up with the new music coming out. This is likely the result one of the following 3 reasons:

1. New music isn't very good.
2. I didn't have time to sort the good from the bad because I wasn't spending hours in front of my computer in my dorm room listening to music and wasting time.
3. I'm just old and crotchety and nothing could be as good as it was 'back in my day'.

I think it's probably a combination of the three (although I'm still holding out that #1 is true and new music will be awesome again) but whatever the reason I lost interest in the music scene as a whole, stopped going to concerts, and just listened to my old favorite albums or albums that I always liked but never really listened to that much (like with my current Morrissey kick).

Reel Big Fish doesn't fall into any of the previously discussed categories. Being born in 1983, I was already pretty fluent in 90s rock, ska and punk and my love of this music is a little more deeply ingrained. I was a late bloomer when it comes to music, and didn't get into it until 9th grade. I went through the normal albums for a kid my age (Nirvana, Cake, Everclear, The Smashing Pumpkins) but the first album that really hooked me was Turn the Radio Off by Reel Big Fish.

The themes of rocking out, going against the grain, and just having a clean good time really took hold of me. Or it might have been a result of the fact that I grew up mostly listening to and participating in classical music, and this might have caused the horn section of Reel Big Fish to really get to me, but whatever the reason, I was hooked. My first memorable concerts were all Reel Big Fish shows, and although I branched out to other punk and ska bands they were always my favorite. The music was fun, the shows were great and they were actually good at their instruments. I may have moved on in terms of the genres of music I mostly listen to since going to college, but Reel Big Fish always had a special place in my music pantheon. As silly as it may seem to some people, they were the first band I absolutely loved and called my own.

My good friend Brandie was in town this weekend and besides showing her around lots of fun places in Atlanta, we had the chance to go backstage for a Reel Big Fish show. She has become friends with the band since moving to Los Angels, and so she had the hook-ups to get us backstage. I was a little hesitant because I've never really been interested in going backstage for concerts. I always figured the sound was worse, you couldn't see what was going on, you would be pushed around and in the way, and besides I never had any desire to rub elbows with rock stars. I was wrong on most of these counts.

Before the show we actually spent some time on their tour bus before heading in. They were all getting ready in the back so us non band members just hung out in the front having a casual drink and watching the Colbert Report. This was the first time that I got the impression of how workmanlike the whole band was. They have been around since 'making it' in 1996, and half of the original six still remain. It was interesting to see how they approached getting ready just like a businessman puts on his suit and straightens his tie. The members didn't have elaborate outfits or anything, it was just interesting to see how matter of fact everything was, and how little they talked.

Once we headed into the green room and everyone was assembling while the opener finished the energy ramped up a little bit. There was still a little bit of anticipation for the 20 minutes or so while they waited to go on. People were tuning trumpets and strumming guitars getting ready to go. Once they got on stage it was just like seeing all the Reel Big Fish shows from my youth except that I wasn't extremely hot, didn't have people running into me, and could see everything that was going on. They were still as entertaining on stage, and Aaron Barrett (the lead singer) is still good at playing a rockstar. The show moved by quickly (the free booze didn't hurt), the crowd was pretty into it, and it was pretty fun.

After the show most of the band members just put away their instruments, changed, and headed back to the bus. This is when I got the biggest feeling that to most of them this was just a job. Sure they had fun out on stage, but either they were never into acting wild, or the novelty of being a rockstar and partying hard had warn off over the years. Some of them might be good friends, but mostly they acted like a bunch of co-workers going about their own business. Hanging out in the green room after the show wasn't very exciting (again I don't really have an interest in hanging out with 'famous' people), but it was interesting to see how a talented, moderately successful rock band treats a typical workday.

The Big Rewind - Nathan Rabin

I am not usually a big fan of biographies or memoirs. I will occasionally read life-based nonfiction (I am a pretty big fan of David Sedaris) but I feel like most biographies end up the same. The author talks about what adversity they had to overcome when they were young, and how through sheer wit and skill they overcame insurmountable odds to become a success. OK I may be exaggerating a little bit and allowing the recently read Outliers to taint my ideas, but the subjects of biographies are almost universally not as interesting as the author thinks they are. Thus I probably would have never considered reading The Big Rewind if it weren’t for the name on the cover.

As many of you are probably aware, The AV Club is probably my favorite website, and has been ever since graduating college. I find it to be an endless source of entertainment, both intelligent and humorous, and use it as my go-to source for film and TV reviews and articles. Although their music and book sections tend to be a little lacking, everything else is golden. I especially like that the writers are given clearance to write not only reviews about the new releases, but longer articles about older films that really give the authors a chance to spread their wings.

One of my favorite authors at The AV Club is Nathan Rabin. His film reviews are fine, but the article I really enjoy reading are his features. His best feature, ‘My Year of the Flops’, cleverly discusses films that that were interesting cases of commercial and critical failure, and whether or not these films deserved this reception at the time. He also participates in an AV Club feature that Lindsay is particularly fond of, ‘I Watched This on Purpose’, where the staff members watch shitty movies that have a certain cultural infamy. It’s because of his online film writing that I bought and read Rabin’s book. If anything I didn’t mind financially supporting a writer who has given me hours of free writing and entertainment.

The Big Rewind is mainly about Rabin’s life story, and how certain events or themes of his life relate to popular culture. Each chapter is tied somehow into a piece of pop culture that either is important to Rabin, or relates to something in his life. This ranges from Girl, Interrupted and time spent in a mental institute, to the Nirvana album In Utero where he discusses his time as an angry youth in an orphanage, to possibly his most clever connection where he discusses how a rival critic made him feel Frank Grimes to her Homer Simpson, which is taken from a famous episode of The Simpsons.

The Big Rewind was pretty interesting because Rabin’s life wasn’t very normal. After being middle class at a very young age, he grew up poor and eventually had to spend time in a mental institution due mostly to an error. He then spent much of his child and teenage years at an all boys orphanage and then at a seedy, sinful co-op. The book spends a large amount of space discussing the weird people he met along the way and how they rubbed off on him. The later half of the book mostly chronicles his time on a low-rated, shortly lived movie critic show on AMC and his other professional pursuits. I would have liked a little more information about the formation and development of The AV Club, because he hardly mentions it, but I guess he finds that failures are usually more interesting that successes.

In the introduction Rabin states that the purpose of the book is to relate how his personal pantheon of pop culture relates to his life and how it helped him get through the tough times in his life. It seems that he often chooses pieces of pop culture that obviously relate to his life subject-wise, but I would have liked it if a little more time was spent discussing how the pop culture touched him on a personal level. His observations and discussions about pop culture are very interesting, and his reflections on his life story itself were entertaining and thoughtful, it would have just been nice if everything connected a little better.

I am especially looking forward to his upcoming book based on ‘My Year of the Flops’ because I think Rabin’s forte really lies in discussing ridiculous and culturally infamous movies. Although his life story is different than what you would normally find in biographies, I don’t know if I can really recommend this book unless you are really into biographies or his writing on The AV Club. However if you do enjoy Rabin’s other writing, and want to learn a little more about the neurotic self-deprecating fellow, I would easily recommend The Big Rewind.

Brick - Rian Johnson

Film noir is an interesting genre because although everybody is very aware of the cliches and style associated with the genre most people are not very familiar with the classic film noir films. I myself have never seen a 'classic' film noir movie and am mostly left with interpretations of the genre in modern films such as Blue Velvet and Blade Runner, or in the television show Veronica Mars.

Brick is often described as a seamless blend between two genres, film noir and high school drama. This is a little misleading because it gives the impression that the movie is in the style of Veronica Mars. This would bring to mind something that combines the quick dialog, inscrutable characters and questionable morals associated with film noir with the parties, melodrama and fun seeking teenagers associated with high school movies. I imagined a fun almost Mean Girls type movie cast in the style of film noir. Brick is not simply an 'interpretation' like the previous examples. At its core Brick is a straight-up noir that just happens to involve high schoolers.

The film starts with Joseph Gordon-Levitt (of 3rd Rock From the Sun fame) finding an ex-lover dead near a sewer entrance. After a flashback where we see his view of the events that led up to her terrible end, he vows to find out how this could have happened by any means possible. Gordon-Levitt proceeds to enter a world filled with violence and drugs to get close to the 'Pin', a man who seems to be the head honcho of drugs in this town, and someone who might have answers about his Emily.

It's very clever to cast high schoolers in the film noir genre because as we all know high schoolers are nothing if not melodramatic. Every event is the biggest thing in the world, every girlfriend is the 'love of one's life', and it sure does feel like the world will come crashing down if things don't go their way. The characters in film noir tend to be very self serious, as do teenagers, and the people in their lives tend fall into a binary; they are with them or against them. Brick doesn't just cast the characters in this light to make a commentary on teenage dramas or film noir: the story is serious. People die from gunshot wounds or overdosing on spiked drugs. The main character is kicked, hit and maimed and his survival is very much in doubt.

The teenage drama aspect of this movie is mostly used in a role of subversion. Gordon-Levitt's character seems like a pretty tough bad ass, but we have to question this a little when he talks about 'brown bagging it' or when he gets called into the vice principal's office to answer some questions. In fact he constantly brings up that the VP is on his case, and treats this as if he were being hounded by the police commissioner. When Gordon-Levitt tries to set up meetings through his friend Brain, he tells Brain 'they know where I have lunch'. And when he finally gets to meet the Pin (a 26 year old) he does so in the Pin's kitchen where the Pin's mother serves him country style apple juice served 'in a country glass'. These characters may be bad ass drug dealers with gun toting muscle, but they are still just kids (or in the Pin's case a 26 year old living in their mother's basement) who get served oatmeal cookies on napkins and apple juice in special glasses.

Besides the plot of drugs, guns and the occasional femme fatale, the thing that makes Brick most like a conventional film noir is the dialog. Film noir stories are known for having very quick, witty and obtuse dialog that make it almost difficult to follow. Brick not only has this rapid fire style dialog, it also uses many terms either borrowed from the classic film noirs, or invented for this movie. Because of this, Brick is fairly hard to follow at times, and rewards patience, attention and multiple viewings. It's not so confusing that the audience has no idea what is going on, but you'll often feel as if you are a couple of moves behind the characters.

Perhaps the most impressive thing about Brick is how much money it took to make. Brick was shot in 20 days on a half of a million dollar budget. This is remarkable considering the fact that Johnson used regular film, which is really expensive compared to digital film, and cast a well known (if not very commercial) actors. This budget is a far cry from the seven thousand dollars that was used to make Primer (one of my favorite films of the decade and likely an upcoming post) but this is still a minute sum compared to Hollywood movies of the day. Brick is a well designed, smart film that is another example that the best, most interesting films of our generation are not coming from Hollywood but from smaller independent filmmakers who are willing to take risks.

The Hammer - Adam Carolla

Adam Carolla is funny. There, I said it.

Like almost everyone my age, I spent a portion of my teenage years listening to Loveline on the radio. What normal teenager wouldn't want to spend late nights listening to a national radio show that featured sex advice from a doctor and a blue-collar smartass? Besides Loveline the other thing that Adam Carolla is known for is The Man Show, which if taken at face value (which is probably a mistake) was a misogynistic show focused on beer, boobs, and dudes being dudes. If these are the merits on which you base Carolla you probably think that he's dim, crude, and definitely not worth the time of anyone with a sophisticated sense of humor.

I only recently reconsidered Adam Carolla as having any kind of relevance in todays culture. I first started thinking that he might not be that bad because of the common references to him on Bill Simmons' podcast. Although Simmons can sometimes be a little too much of a dude, he's pretty intelligent and an incredibly entertaining read. He and Carolla share the same social circle, and if Simmons likes him that much Carolla can't be that bad. Then as I got into a grove of doing extended experiments at my lab that involve lots of hand/eye work but not much thinking (once everything is set up) I got into podcasts. I heard form a friend that Carolla's podcast was supposedly pretty funny, and after listening to a few I was hooked.

He's still pretty crass (because he now has a podcast instead of a radio show he can curse and talk about raunchy material to his heart's desire), and occasionally makes some unintelligent comments, but boy is he funny. The interviews and guests aren't always my cup of tea, but when he gets ranting on a subject, it's pretty unbeatable. He may bring up political or social ideas you don't necessarily agree with (especially if you're a sensitive liberal type) but he brings a much needed sense of humor and common sense to the discussion. He's not politically correct, and doesn't pander to anyone's needs. You might think he's being rude, but more often than not you will end up thinking 'hey he's right' (or at least see where he's coming from), but only after you laugh out loud a few times.

But this post is not about his podcast, it's about his 2007 movie, The Hammer. In The Hammer Carolla pretty much plays a less successful version of himself. The character is an out of work carpenter (Carolla has a fair amount of skill in this arena) who is an ex-amateur boxer (as is Carolla) whose only joy in life is the few hours of boxing classes per week he teaches to beginners. It has no other notable actors, and was almost released straight to video if Carolla hadn't ponied up a few thousands dollars to get it released in a few cities, just so it wouldn't have to say 'straight to video' on the cover.

Does this sound like something you would want to see? Probably not. However it has a 71% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and Nathan Rabin of the AV Club gave it a B+. These favorable reviews may be a result of the fact that no one expected anything of this movie, but the film still got a better reception than most any comedy coming out of Hollywood.

The movie doesn't have a high concept, and it's often very easy to predict where the plot is going. However the plot is decent and the jokes are evenly distributed throughout the movie to give it a light and low key feel. There is some drama, but nothing ever gets too serious or feels stressful. The movie is just shy of 90 minutes, which gives Carolla enough time to make the jokes he wants without having to draw out the plot. It's a comfortable, humorous effort that brings the essence Carolla's observational humor to the big screen.

Many modern comedies have problems with the pacing of the plot. They tend to just be a series of skits and jokes in the first 2/3 of the movie that end up getting dragged down by the 'necessary' plot at the end. We have to see characters we don't really care about do things we don't really care about, and it really kills a lot of movies.

This is the fatal flaw in the movie that The Hammer most resembles, Norm MacDonald's magnum opus, Dirty Work. Carolla has a very Norm-like delivery and tone, and they're both ugly dudes with curly black hair (although Carolla wears better fitting shirts). Dirty Work feels like a bunch of semi-related SNL skits at its front half, all which are really pretty funny, and a bad sitcom at its end. Once we have to care about the semi-serious plot everything falls apart. Although The Hammer doesn't reach the high points of hilarity that Dirty Work does, it paces itself much better and feels like more of a complete film as a result. I'd probably recommend Dirty Work over The Hammer due to the fact that it's funnier, but I appreciate Carolla's effort.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Snape kills Dumbledore.

Boneshaker: A Bicycling Almanac

While visiting Fort Collins Colorado this past week Lindsay and I arrived at the city early and had some time to kill before the rest of our party got into town. We found a cafe/used bookstore on the main drag and I happened upon the first two editions of Boneshaker. Boneshaker intends somewhat to be a 'compendium' of information for the bike commuter, but its contents really touch all branches of cycling. It contains fiction, prose, journals, educational information, historical pieces, poems, and pretty much any form of writing you can think of, all which relate to the bike or act of riding a bike.

My trip was my first real visit to Colorado, and my first time through Fort Collins. After the trip I can see how Boneshaker could be centered and published out of a small Colorado city. In just the brief afternoon we spend in Fort Collins, I saw every type of bike and every type of cyclist imaginable. Every street was covered in bike lanes and there was a bike shop on almost every block. There is even a bike library that lends bikes for people to explore and ride around downtown (although it was closed when we were there). Fort Collins obviously embraces the bike in all its forms, and Boneshaker shows it.

There are plenty of periodicals and publications based on road bikes and bike racing, and there is a fairly large internet community based on the trendier and fashionable fixed gear bicycle. However there doesn't seem to be much to read for the 'normal' cyclist. This could be a result of the fact that the other two camps tend to be fanatical about their bikes and subcultures, but that doesn't mean that commuters and other cyclists don't love their bikes and the ride just as much.

While reading the first two editions of Boneshaker I was really surprised to see the number of articles written by authors from Atlanta. The first volume had three articles, and the second one had two. This was by far more than any other city or even state. There was a series of journal entries written about commuting from Decatur to the Atlanta suburbs on a fixed gear bike (a completely ludicrous idea), articles written by a local bag maker, a movie review written by an Atlantan, and a couple of articles written by the head of Sopo Bikes, Rachael Spiewak.

I know that at this point Boneshaker is a small publication and that most of the articles were probably commissioned so that the authors were known to the publishers, its still great to see such a representation by my city. When people think of a 'cycling culture' people think of Portland, Austin or New York, no one thinks of hot and sprawling Atlanta. This isn't to say there isn't a huge and diverse bike culture here that takes advantage of the many small communities within the city limits. People just tend to think of the massive highways and sprawling suburbs that lie outside the city limits. In fact there are no articles written by authors from Austin or NYC, and the only article written from Portland is a pretentious interview with the PDX Bike Milita (which answers questions with either more questions or obtuse answers that tend not to make any sense). I couldn't help but feel a sense of pride when I picked up a national bike publication, from a very bike oriented town, and discovered that Atlanta was more that well represented.

Boneshaker is a valiant attempt to start a bike publication that everyone can enjoy, but not all of the pieces are wonderful. Pretentious fixed gear pieces make their way into the book which tend to overstate their own importance. Although I understand the utility and simplicity of fixed gear bicycles in the urban environment, acting like it's a more 'pure' form of riding is ridiculous and really gets on my nerves. Biking in the Atlanta suburbs on a fixed gear, or touring from San Francisco to Missoula on a fixed gear make absolutely no sense. I suppose one could make an argument similar to the one that often comes with the Harry Potter or Twilight books ('at least children are reading something'), but I really think all cyclists should be united. Acting like you're superior to another cyclist because you choose not to have gears (or often stupidly, brakes) is counter productive to the cycling cause as a whole.

Despite the occasional pretentious fixed gear article (and some of the fixed gear pieces aren't that bad), Boneshaker mostly contains interesting, fun or educational articles. There is definitely a place in the market for a periodical for the 'normal' bike rider and I look forward to reading future installments.

Outliers - Malcolm Gladwell

(Wayne Gretzky, born January 26th 1961)

We are so caught in the myths of the best and the brightest and the self-made that we think outliers spring naturally from the earth… To build a better world we need to replace the patchwork of lucky breaks and the arbitrary advantages that today determine success… with a society that provides opportunities for all.

The above statement pretty much sums up Malcolm Gladwell’s thesis statement in Outliers. He aims to elucidate the many factors that precipitate success in individuals that lie outside their individual ability and drive. However this book is not nearly as dull as the above statements suggests it could be. He skillfully combines a decent amount of data and statistics relating to incredibly interesting cases with clever analysis and detailed description.

Probably the most famous case that Gladwell uses is that of the success of Canadian hockey players born in certain months. If you look at the months in which elite hockey players are born roughly 40 percent of them will have been born in the three-month period between January and March. Furthermore this number decreases 10 percent for every three months so that thirty percent of them will be born between April and June and so on for the rest of the months. Is it the case that people born in those months are just better at hockey than those born in December? Of course not.

The reasoning behind the elite hockey player birth month discrepancy is this: the system is set up for those with early birthdays to succeed. Canadian hockey is highly organized (like baseball in America and soccer in Europe) in that every year or so kids are judged by their skills, and then sorted into leagues in the following season depending on their skill level. This seems like a reasonable approach, the cream will rise to the top. This would be true of adults where 6 months doesn’t mean a lot in terms of aging, but for 10 year olds this is a huge amount. Thus the kids born early in the year (the cut off date for leagues is January 1) have a distinct advantage over the late year kids just because they are slightly older and thus more physically mature. As they get pushed into the higher level leagues they get more attention and better coaching, until the gap is widened so much that the late year kids have no chance of making it.

This example is interesting in its own right, but really shines a light on how we think about success and those who achieve it. The analysis above can be used for many situations, and one of the most startling is that the same thing happens when you look at birth dates and success in school. As many of you recall the same sort of sorting happens in primary schools. Gladwell describes the results of one such study below.

At four-year colleges in the United States… students belonging to the relatively youngest group in their class are underrepresented by about 11.6 percent. That initial difference in maturity doesn’t go away with time. It persists. And for thousands of students, that initial disadvantage is the difference between going to college… and not.

This should be an eye-opening statistic, 11.6 percent is a huge number! So if you were/are fairly successful in school and you were an early month birthday or were held back for a year to avoid being the young kid, you should really consider yourself lucky and thank your parents (thanks Mom!).

Gladwell spends the rest of the book describing other examples where one might look at success and say ‘that person just tried harder and was smarter’, where if we look closer the culture and environment that that person grew up in had just as much, if not more, influence in their success. He does this for Bill Gates (and other silicon valley kings), New York Jewish Lawyers, Robert Oppenheimer, Asians being good at math, and many other examples. He successfully describes the situation they were in, and what eventually led to their success. Gladwell does tend to downplay the innate ability of these successful people. Obviously they are very gifted and if you replaced Bill Gates with someone in the exact same situation they most likely would not have had nearly the success of Gates. Gladwell recognizes their ability, but tries to focus on the other factors determining their success seeing that society and our culture already does a good enough job of promoting the ‘self-made man’.

It’s hard to walk the line between general cultural analysis and creating a prejudice. Using the example that Asians are better at math (it has to do not only with their culture and attitude towards work but also how their languages are constructed, if you are interested) is a dicey move, seeing that it could easily degenerate into ridiculous stereotypes. Gladwell does a good job of explaining what he means and giving supporting evidence so he doesn’t come off as someone who is trying to reinforce cultural stereotypes.

I actually found his discussions of the importance of culture quite refreshing. Our country and world is way too politically correct these days. Some (but not nearly all) stereotypes exist for a reason. Asians as a whole are better at math! There is data and statistics showing this. There is a high percentage of lawyers in New York which are Jewish, and they are great lawyers! These are not opinions but fact. Gladwell’s attempt to uncover why these things are true is a worthwhile and interesting effort. Only if we understand where certain developed skills come from, and why some kinds of people have more success than others at the same task, can we start to ‘even the playing field’ and give everyone the chance to rise to the top. Imagine if Canada restructured its junior hockey leagues to give everyone an equal shot of being a high level pro. There might be a Sidney Crosby every couple of years instead of once a generation.


















(Interesting note, Crosby was actually born in August. Maybe he's the real 'outlier'.)

Moon - Duncan Jones

Just by looking at the promotional picture above, one can see how Moon takes after 2001: A Space Odyssey. In this day and age it's almost impossible to make a 'thinking' sci-fi movie that doesn't pay some sort of homage to 2001. 'Moon' acknowledges this early on and by doing so it's able to move past it and become it's own movie. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Moon is a small indie movie (it still had a five million dollar budget, but small compared to major studio films) directed and co-written by Duncan Jones. You might know Duncan Jones by his other name, Zowie Bowie in that he is David Bowie's (real name, Robert David Jones) son. The film stars Sam Rockwell as a miner on the far side of the room that is charged with keeping an almost completely automated operation going. The only real interaction he has is with a helper robot voiced by Kevin spacey. Rockwell's character is on a 3 year tour of duty and is 2 weeks away from being able to go back to Earth when he starts hallucinating and acting twitchy.

As mentioned above, Moon acknowledges it's sci-fi roots. Much of the white paneled rooms and Rockwell's space suit look like they come directly from 2001. When the movie starts, and you are introduced to the talking robot that constantly calls Rockwell's character by his first name (Sam), you get the feeling that this might just be another evil/unfeeling robot movie with a creepy monotone voice. However we quickly learn that Spacey's robot (named GERTY) is just there to help Rockwell and most comparisons with 2001 fall by the wayside. In addition, this movie has a gritty and dirty feel to it and has a sort of 'lived in' quality. His space suit may have the style of '2001' but it's covered in soot. His living quarters are also dirty and cluttered, and not all of the equipment works properly. All of this is done to give us a feel that Sam is just a blue collar worker, and that space is not as romantic as we always tend to make it.

It's impossible to discuss this movie any further without giving away some major spoilers. So if you plan on seeing this movie I suggest you stop reading right now and come back after you've seen it. The trailers give away the big plot twist but I figure most people haven't seen them and have no idea what's coming.

After the initial setting of tone and place, the plot gets going and there is an accident with one of the mining machines and Sam goes out on the Moon's surface to investigate. Again he hallucinates seeing a young girl and when distracted crashes his lunar truck into the harvester. After the crash, he has the wherewithal to put on his space helmet before he passes out from a head injury. In the next scene we awake with him in the infirmary seemingly with no injuries besides memory loss and general fatigue. After recovering, he realizes that one of the harvesters is stuck and convinces GERTY to let him go outside even though the robot has strict orders to not let him outside, and to wait for a recovery team to fix the problem. As Sam approaches the truck he peers inside and realizes there is a body inside.

From this point it's pretty obvious where the plot is going to go. The body inside the truck is another Sam, and it becomes pretty clear that clones of the original Sam are stored and awakened within the station. It's a clear problem that the two Sam's meet each other, and they have about 15 hours before the extraction team comes to 'fix' the problem with the harvesting machine. They slowly learn about their situation and eventual fate by asking GERTY questions and by investigating the station.

The plot after the initial set up isn't the most original, but the movie never becomes dull. Although many of the general details are pretty obvious, we learn the specifics slowly as the two Sams come to grips with each other and try to figure out what the hell is going on. Their interactions with GERTY are pretty spectacular and the audience really connects with the robot without anthropomorphizing him. However this movie, and your reaction to it, almost completely relies on Rockwell's performance. I thought he did a pretty great job, and thought he kept it going with the interactions between the older, sicker, stately Sam and the 'newer', brash one. However I could see how this movie might not work if one's not a fan of one man shows or of Sam Rockwell.

Moon is definitely worth seeing. It may not be the most intelligent movie, but it's interesting and occasionally thought provoking, and I thought the last 10 minutes were pretty thrilling. I appreciate that Duncan Jones was willing to do a sci-fi movie that was different that the common fare, and although it may not be one of my favorite sci-fi movies it's the sort of movie that should be getting made and seen, rather than just more shitty Transformers type movies. I appreciate any effort that is made to bring sci-fi back to its high concept roots and away from the more vapid interpretation of the genre.

The Room - Tommy Wiseau

If you recall, my last movie experience was a little disappointing. I saw a movie that I think is genuinely awesome, and got a little peeved at the overreacting and self conscious crowd. Just one week later I went back to the same theater, but this time I was looking forward to a ruckus crowd. If you haven't heard of The Room, it's one of those 'so bad it's good' films that most people end up loving. It also happens to be the successor (at least for now) to Rocky Horror for midnight showings and crowd interaction. You yell things at the screen, throw spoons and footballs around the theater, and some people even dress up and act out the scenes at the front of the theater. If you like laugh out loud bad movies, or an interactive movie experience, this is the film for you.

The origins of the film and it's cult following were pretty well documented in an Entertainment Weekly piece, but I will give a short summary here. It was released back in 2003 in L.A. and pretty quickly flopped. Tommy Wiseau (the writer, director, and lead actor) raised the six million dollars to make the movie by himself (or by some other unknown source). Although the movie was obviously terrible, some people in L.A. took a shine to it and started a monthly midnight showing. Wiseau usually attends these and talks to the audience before and after the film. From there it gained a large cult following and over time has spread to other cities. It's not that widespread yet, and if you don't live in a huge city you likely won't be able to see it in the theaters. This is a shame because I can't imagine viewing this movie in any way besides in a group of enthusiastic The Room supporters.

But what kind of movie is this? From the poster above it's almost impossible to figure out. At first I figured it was some kind of horror or supernatural movie that had cheesy effects and ridiculous sets. Boy was I wrong. The movie is pretty much a straight up soap opera, with terrible dialog, bad acting, ridiculous non sequiturs, and pretty much everything you don't want in a movie. I imagine an instructor could use this movie for weeks in a film class explaining 'see this? This is exactly what you don't want to do!' The unintentional comedy scale is off the charts for this movie and Wiseau now claims that this was intentional, but it's pretty clear after viewing the movie that he was very earnest in making it.

The plot is pretty simple. Actually it's overly simple seeing that the characters seem to have the same conversations over and over. Wiseau plays a nice guy, in fact he has no bad bone in his body and is the most caring guy in the world. He even pays the rent and college tuition for a boy named Denny (who may or may not be retarded) who lives in his apartment complex just because the boy doesn't have any parents. However, his fiance Lisa not only finds him boring, but despicable! She plots to hook up with his best friend (who we are reminded is his best friend approximately 100 times) behind Wiseau's back. More characters flow in and out of the movie (some without any introduction at all) but most of the scenes involve these three. Wiseau's character eventually finds out and is obviously devastated by Lisa's treachery.

But really, the plot is not what is interesting here (if you can call it that). There are so many bad lines that I won't even bother to list them here. Plot points are brought up and then never discussed again. Lisa's mom offhandedly mentions she has cancer but is much more worried about her brother trying to get money from her. Lisa claims she is pregnant towards the end of the movie 'just to make things interesting' even though it's a complete fabrication and no one really bothers to ask about it. Denny gets involved in a drug deal gone bad but we never figure out what was going on. A character has to be carried off screen after falling down while tossing a football and the next time we see him he is fine. These are just a few of the ridiculous scenes that make no sense whatsoever when taken into the context of the rest of the movie. And I haven't even mentioned the 4 minute long sex scenes (where footage is repeated!) or Lisa's pulsating neck that looks like an Alien might burst out of it at any moment.

Part of what makes this movie funny is Wiseau himself. He obviously had his his heart broken in real life, and this movie was his way of dealing with it. He takes his role really seriously, but it's hard for the audience to do the same because of his mysterious eastern European accent, his long gross black hair, and the ridiculous lines. He's obviously a crazy guy, as seen in his lengthy but rare interview with the AV Club. The above interview was initially done via email, so as to not misquote Wiseau. It was continued on the phone, but the audio clips were obviously posted via his request to again assure that he wasn't misquoted. Most of his responses don't make any sense, and towards the end he goes off the rails against women and their powers of manipulation. I highly recommend reading it if you have the time.

I'm not sure if this movie will have staying power in the mind of popular culture or not. Because of the internet and our short attention spans, things come in and out of favor quite quickly. Furthermore, DVDs, Netflix, and home theaters make going to the movies a rare occasion, and it isn't as much of an event as it used to be. It might be fun to initially watch this movie at home with some friends, but the only way it will stay in the collective conscious is if people continue to attend late night screenings at obscure or independent movie theaters.