Ponyo - Hayao Miyazaki

As I have hinted at before, I have tried to get into Japanesse Anime but mostly have come upon a wall of failure. Now I won't claim to have viewed every Anime movie and series worth seeing, but I have come across a few that I like and everything else I have absolutely hated. Besides Cowboy Bebop (I know, liking only this makes me some kind of Anime poser or something) the only Anime I have found worthwhile has been the work of Hayao Miyazaki, and calling his work 'worthwhile' is like saying Jimmy Page is 'pretty good' at guitar.

Miyazaki is pretty prolific, and his multitude of films have included My Neighbor Totoro, Princess Mononoke, and Spirited Away. He is often called the 'Walt Disney' of Japan, but to be frank his accomplishments (in the movie world anyway, we're not counting theme parks and overall influence) dwarf those of Walt Disney. Whereas Walt Disney was only the producer on the films accredited to his name, Miyazaki both writes and directs many of his films in addition to doing a fair amount of the animation. He's fully involved in each of his films, and they surely are his product. If the term 'auteur' is to be considered, Miyazaki certainly fits the bill.

The things that really makes Miyazaki stand out (especially compared to his American predecessor) are the unconventional content and themes found throughout his films. His work is filled with themes of feminism, environmentalism and pacifism and there is very much an air of anti-establishment, which is in pretty stark contrast to most films made for kids (excluding Pixar). The protagonist is often a young girl who is independent and adventure seeking. There is rarely the traditional 'bad-guy' that is often found in movies for kids (and most movies for adults), and when such an antagonist exists they are often morally ambiguous or under some sort of curse. His films have a magical realism quality to them in that there are often sorcerers, spirits, or other magical creatures that interact with the young characters. This last aspect might throw off some viewers not used to Japanese cinema or Anime, but I don't think it's much more ridiculous than what's found in American animated films.

As such, Ponyo is a worthy addition to Miyazaki's long catalog and very much a film worth seeing. Ponyo is another attempt to animate Hans Christian Andersen's The Little Mermaid. Really though, after the initial concept of a creature of the sea wanting become human, very little of Ponyo can said to be taken from the story or Disney's previous animated attempt. In Ponyo, it is a 'special fish' that wishes to set out on her own and become human after meeting a small boy on the edge of the water. I'm not really sure how to describe her rather than calling her a 'special fish'. Ponyo has a human like face, which really only disturbs one old lady, and has some magical powers but her classification is really left a mystery. In order to become a human she must escape her protective and moody father, and the boy she meets must show that it is 'true love'.

But really, you're not going to see Ponyo for the plot. The outcome is hardly ever in doubt and even the 'trials' they have to go through are a cakewalk. The reason you would see Ponyo is because of how beautiful it is, and because Miyazaki creates the most pure forms of joy to be found in all of cinema. Watching his beautifully drawn characters interact in their magical world and find joy in almost every aspect of life is intoxicating, and you'll find yourself smiling the entire time. In this way Ponyo is most similar to Totoro, at least compared to his other films. Like Ponyo, Totoro barely has a plot beyond the exploration of a magical realm, and watching the characters explore this world is a blast. Many of his other films are much more serious, but these two are purely enjoyable in every sense of the word.

As with most animation movies, including Miyazaki's other films, the American dubs are done with celebrity voices. In Ponyo you have Tina Fey, Liam Neeson, Matt Damon, another Jonas brother, and Miley Cyrus' younger sister. However unlike other animation movies, these names are not at the top of the billing, and the advertisers aren't trying to trick you into going to the movie because 'that lady that plays Sarah Palin is in it'. As in his other movies (and Pixar's films) these big names are not distracting, and often you even forget who's doing the voicing. Disney actually releases his movies in America, and I don't fault them for trying to get celebrities to bring in more viewers, but really it doesn't really add or subtract anything.

If you haven't seen any of Miyazaki's films I would heartily recommend that you do so, especially if you are a fan of the superlative films that Pixar releases every year. Like the Pixar movies his movies are intended for kids, but really they are meant for everyone to enjoy. There is no reason for parents to be watching endless streams of 'talking animal' animations when the works of Miyazaki and Pixar exist. Make no mistake, his films are dramatically different than the Pixar movies, but they are both worth seeing on their own account.

If you wanted a place to start with Miyazaki I might recommend Princess Mononoke for those who want a little more of a plot and conflict, and Totoro for those who like the 'twee' ascetic. However if you make it out to the theaters anytime soon I would have no problem recommending Ponyo as your first Miyazaki experience. Watching his completely hand-drawn images of the sea and it's life in the theater is certainly a treat for the senses.

The Guild - Felicia Day

This is both an interesting and difficult post for me to write because of my status within the nerd community. I'm not a n00b by any stretch of the imagination, but I have many friends and I'm sure many readers who are much more familiar with the nerd society than I am. My family got a computer at a pretty early time and I became much more experienced with computers and then the internet than most people my age. I was on the early lines of music downloading (though I never got into IRC) and spent a lot of time downloading albums and songs and making my friends mix CDs with that newfangled CD burner. All through my life I have been into some fantasy and sci-fi, am now pretty well versed in comics, and hell in college I was even a physics major.

Although I had the credentials and promise of being an uber-nerd, I never quite fulfilled that destiny. During college I reached a certain level of understanding with computers and kind of just stopped there. But I really think the reason I never fully submerged myself into the nerd culture was because of my lack of interest in online gaming. I played a ton of video games as a kid (sorry Mom!) and still keep up with some console titles to this day, but I never got into online gaming. All of the biggest nerds I know really got into Diablo or some RPG which implemented online play at a young age, and then World of Warcraft or some other MMORPG (Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game) when online play was even bigger. Although I know I missed out on a little bit of important culture related to my interests, I've seen lives destroyed by online game addiction so I don't regret it too much.

Why do I bring up all this nerd-cred talk? Well this post is about The Guild and Felicia Day, who is the 'it girl' of the nerd community. Most of you who are aware of Felica Day know her from playing Penny on Joss Whedon's Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog (which if you haven't seen, you should do so now!) but she's pretty much a superstar to those who consider going to comic-con a holy pilgrimage. She obviously has some sex appeal, more in the girl-next-door way than in the Megan Fox way, but I think the majority of her appeal comes from the way she interacts with her fans. It's a little bit of a case of the right person at the right time, but the way she interacts with her fans via flickr, twitter, her blog and in public appearances gives her fans the feeling like they are in her life. She interacts with her fans on the internet like one of their friends might, not like some kind of aloof celebrity. It also doesn't hurt that she has some major nerd-cred.

Her online series The Guild is based on her love and previous addiction with World of Warcraft. I think everyone of my age has met someone in their life who had a major addiction to this game. People will spend upwards of 20 hours a day playing WoW at the expense of everything else in their lives. I knew someone in college who was not only brilliant but was majoring in biochemistry. I had some of the most intellectually stimulating conversations of my college career with him, but it was impossible to engage him beyond a certain level because of his investment in WoW. Day took this common phenomenon, and something she knew quite well, and turned it into an idea for a TV sitcom. After being shot down by TV execs because the show was for such a niche audience, she decided to turn it into an online series.

The Guild is a series of 5-8 minute 'episodes' that was originally posted on YouTube and produced on the creator's own dollar. Although they had free hosting due to the (possibly fleeting) glory of YouTube, having the correct equipment and people to run that equipment is fairly expensive to get that profession look. The creators actually paid for the first few episodes until running out of money, using PayPal donations to pay for the rest of the first season. They have a few sponsors now which are combined with DVD sales to produce the show.

I will not pretend to be very knowledgeable about other web series, because frankly most of them that I have watched have been absolutely dreadful. The reason I think that The Guild succeeded and these others have not is that both Day and the others that helped make the show had previous experience in film and television. They knew what was needed to make a professional and interesting show, and combined that with their internet savvy and nerd knowledge to create possibly the most successful web based series to date.



I finally got around to watching The Guild after knowing of it for a year or so because of the above video. The video (which is extremely catchy) is a promotion for the third season which comes out to the general public this week. The video has the 6 characters dressed up as their online personas from the show. It also gives further evidence to Felicia Day's unmistakable charisma. I then went to YouTube to watch the first season and their website for the second.

As stated above, the show is a comedy based on Day's life and her experience with online addiction. If the show has any stated 'purpose', it's to make outsiders aware that more people than just teenage boys in their parents basements play and are addicted to online games. The actors are pretty much unknowns (except for Day) but they do a decent job with what they are given. The show makes plenty of gamer jokes, but they stay away from specific WoW terminology so that those who are uninitiated can follow along. I got most of the jokes and phrases just from being vaguely familiar with WoW, so the show is definitely not strictly for insiders.

The show is pretty funny, as long as you like nerd jokes and jokes about nerds, and I often had a pretty big grin while watching (I'm not a laugh out loud kind of person). The shows all start with a 30 second or so online diary entry by Day talking about the events in the previous or upcoming episode which are often the best part of the show. The first season starts with all 6 characters talking to each other purely through voice-chat while they play a WoW-like game until they have reason to finally meet in person. Of course many of them are opposed to meeting in RL (real life) and their social interactions are pretty awkward and amusing. To give a run-down the 6 characters include a sexually aggressive Mama's boy Indian, a technology obsessed Asian girl, a teenager who lives in his parent's basement, a neglectful mother, the cheap middle aged guildmaster, and Day's cute but awkward ex-violin prodigy. The episodes in a given season all run together right after each other, and tell one story that ends with them defeating a videogame like 'boss'.

The internet has definitely changed how we think about and view TV and movies, and although it's still in its infancy I think web-based material has a huge role to play. Dr. Horrible was the first web-based film to which many people were exposed (Buffy's Joss Whedon created it during the infamous writer's strike) and it's not surprising that Day was the inspiration for its creation. She has combined her knowledge about film and television with her love of gaming, nerd culture, and her irresistible charm to become one of the first successful web series creators. The Guild may be harder to watch as one 5 minute clip every month but I look forward to the upcoming season.

District 9 - Neill Blomkamp

Because of its viral advertising campaign, I hardly knew anything about District 9 going into the theater. The movie is shot in a way similar to The Blair Witch Project and Cloverfield, and the creators and marketing directors decided to promote the film in a way similar to those other films. There were posters similar to the one above that give no indication about the story or plot, and many of the original trailers give away very little of the movie, even using footage that was not included in the final cut. I think almost every movie would benefit from less knowledge going in, but I really think it helped District 9. That being said if you think you might want to see this movie (and I really think you should) you should stop reading here and go into the theater a blank slate.

So for the rest of you, either people who've seen the movie or those who like spoilers, I won't really go too much into a plot summary. I actually missed the first 10 minutes of this movie (blame Julie & Julia) but I really didn't feel like I missed that much. From my research, the only thing the first 10 minutes establishes is the basic concept, which I already knew. An alien spaceship makes its way to Earth but then stalls over South Africa. No contact with the aliens is made until humans cut open the ship and find roughly a million aliens living in squalor and starvation. Eventually the aliens are set up in resettlement camps and the rest of the movie takes place 20 years in the future.

Although some youngsters might not pick up on this, the movie is a thinly veiled commentary on the apartheid situation in South Africa. The director and writer Neill Blomkamp (who is not Peter Jackson who was just a producer and helped get it made) is from South Africa and used the film to share his feelings about the subject and help others understand the awful apartheid situation. The film could easily generalize to any situation where there are displaced peoples, such as the Palestinians, or could even be used as a commentary on modern attitudes towards legal and illegal immigration. At a more basic level it's a look at the classic 'us vs. them' attitude that causes most of the problems in the world. In this way I think District 9 is a very important film. Because it's an action/sci-fi flick it might get people in the theater who normally don't think about these issues and hopefully at least a few people change their minds how they feel about others who could be in situations analogous to the 'prawns' in District 9.

Blomkamp really shows a lot of skill in this directorial debut, especially with his treatment of the aliens. The 'prawns' (as they are derisively called in the film) are initially very weird and disgusting. He follows a long line of sci-fi that imagines aliens as being insectoids who really look nothing like intelligent life on this Earth. Although some might think this is unoriginal, I think it's wholly reasonable to expect intelligent life on other planets to evolve from insects similar to the ones on Earth. They are just way too successful evolutionarily speaking to not expect similar forms to arise on other Earth-like planets (this is critical because if the planet was not Earth-like all bets are off). Anyway, the aliens are pretty gross and they excrete all sorts of fluids, are both slimy and gangly, love cat food and very hard to initially like. I think this is a master stroke because as humans the audience's initial reaction has to be repulsion, so that the humans actions in the movie seem reasonable. However, after you look more at the aliens on a personal level their human-like eyes give away a soul that once you see it, your empathy for them begins to grow. In fact very quickly the aliens become the ones you root for, and you begin to cheer for the aliens at the expense of their oppressors.

Another interesting stroke is the physical characterization of the aliens. They are portrayed as being very fast, strong, agile, and are easily 7 foot on average. However they are also constantly pushed around by the humans being abused, beaten, and often killed for no reason at all. They hardly fight back and mostly do whatever the humans say. We are not used to seeing large insectoid aliens being pushed around by humans so easily, and the images are fairly startling. You just want to scream 'come on! rip his arms off!' because they surely have the ability, but it's pretty depressing to watch the resigned aliens kneel down and accept their fate.

There have been some complaints about the last 1/3 of the film, mostly because it turns into a straight-up action movie but I was never annoyed or bored. Oftentimes I find myself really bored with action scenes that are too long and that drag on. People like explosions, but if we don't have a rooting interest in the action how are the directors to expect the audience to care about what's going on. Furthermore, in modern movies action scenes tend to involve lots of quick cuts that create convoluted scenes. District 9 has none of these problems and I found the action exciting and refreshing. In fact for me, the movie went by in a breeze and after the end I was left asking 'wait, that's it?'.

After a disappointing summer for films, District 9 is probably my favorite 'big' movie of the summer. It never really reaches the heights of last year's Dark Knight, but District 9 succeeds as both a high concept film and as a standard sci-fi action movie. The film never bogs itself down in unnecessary explanation, and expects the audience to put pieces together or to come up with explanations ourselves. District 9 is another great film in the long line of sci-fi (Children of Men, Starship Troopers, various incarnations of Star Trek, etc...) that uses the genre to comment on difficult social situations in our current times in interesting and novel ways.

Julie & Julia - Nora Ephron

Ah the delights of dating. Normally I would never go see a movie like this in theaters unless I was with someone who really wanted to go, but after doing some carpet cleaning Lindsay and I set out to do a double feature while the carpet dried. The first of movies was Julie & Julia mostly on Lindsay's account. I didn't really protest seeing that I like to combine an action movie with something a little more fluffy when doing a double feature and because Meryl Streep is almost always superlative. And in this way especially, Julie & Julia did not let me down.

For those that are unaware, Julie & Julia is a film that combines the stories of Julie Powell and Julia Child. As many know, Julia Child is famous for bringing french cooking to American kitchens with her book Mastering the Art of French Cooking and her TV program The French Chef as well for having ridiculous mannerisms and speech patterns. Here she is discussing omelettes for those who uninitiated with her work. On the other side, Julie Powell is a modern author that got her start by attempting to cook every one of the 500+ recipes in Mastering the Art of French Cooking in one year, and blogging about it. She is pretty famous for being one of the first people to turn blogging into a successful writing career, having turned the project into a published book. I have some problems with her but we'll discuss these as we go along.

One thing you should be aware of before you see this film (if you plan on doing so) is that it was directed by Nora Ephron. What should this mean to you? Well if you're like most people this name won't mean much to you, but the names When Harry Met Sally..., Sleepless in Seattle, and You've Got Mail might. In the vein of her other movies Julie & Julia has its roots in the chick flick genre. Now many of the sections in this film don't feel like a chick flick at all (most all of the Julia Child scenes) but there are many sections of the film that feel like they are ripped from one of Ephron's other movies. Julie Powell has a loving husband, but as she becomes self-obsessed with her blog their relationship starts deteriorating and they begin to have fights seemingly rooted in nothing. This gives her the chance to look puffy eyed at the camera and wonder if her life will ever be right again. Of course they get back together because he is the most wonderful man in the world and she doesn't deserve him. There is a strange amount of husband adulation in this film that I don't really want to get into beyond mentioning it.

Another classic motif of chick flicks is the gratuitous amount of sex scenes (both for Julie and Julia) in this movie. Now this movie is only rated PG-13 so there obviously aren't any sex scenes but you know what I'm talking about. The husband comes home and whisks the young lady off her feet and carries her into the bedroom. You barely see any kissing and then the scene cuts to them lying around after the fact. I think this idea of 'romantic sex' that is never accompanied by the actual act is a pretty big problem. It gives the impression to many young girls that sex is always romantic and perfect and doesn't prepare them for what's really going on. I think movies and scenes like this contribute the problems and differences that men and women have when they think about sex seeing that they go in expecting drastically different things. This is mostly from girls having learned about sex from romcoms and boys having learned about it from porn scenes.

Anyway I digress, the whole movie is not a chick flick and in fact this is half of a fantastic movie. Now I don't claim to be original here in that most everyone who has seen this movie feels the same way. Not only does Meryl Streep nail the role of Julia Child, but there is more than enough material here to make an entire movie. Julia Child is an interesting enough person that a film about her self-discovery through cooking and her quest to bring french cooking to the American home could easily fill a feature film. Streep's scenes in Paris and in the kitchen are lively, funny and entertaining. I would easily watch a 90 minute biopic about Julia Child if she were portrayed by Meryl Streep and this is a big problem for the film. Every time the movie cuts to an elongated scene about Julie Powell I was left wondering when the film would return to the better half. I ended up wondering when the movie would switch back, and then when it would end. The movie clocks in at over 2 hours, and even for two stories this a little long for me for this type of film.

An interesting aspect of this story is that apparently the real life Julia Child did not approve of Julie Powell's quest. Now this was mentioned in the film but then dropped immediately and never discussed. I was unsatisfied with the way the film dropped this and I had to know why, so I looked around on the internet and found this article in which the second half discusses the subject. Apparently Julia Child didn't think Julie Powell was a serious chef and thought she was doing this for a 'stunt'. In addition, the real Julie Powell is supposedly much more abrasive than the one in the film. For example she threw around f-bombs regularly on the blog and even later groaned about the 9/11 victims she had contact with for her job in her book. Now Julia Child was 90 years old and possibly on her death bed. She probably had no idea what a 'blog' was in 2003 and was not really with it anymore. But I think it's a little silly for the film to bring this up, and thus question our belief in the main character, and then not really discuss the reasons why Julie Powell's hero so disapproved of her.

So should you see this movie? Well if you like chick flicks I'm sure you'd love it. And if you are either a Meryl Streep fan, Julia Child fan, or a self proclaimed 'foodie' who wants to 'oooo' at some delicious looking food on the big screen, you will probably like the movie. However if you are none of these things I would suggest you stay away from Julie & Julia seeing that I only think it has something to offer the above mentioned groups.

Bon Apetit!

Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs - Chuck Klosterman

Chuck Klosterman seems to be a pretty polarizing figure in the pop culture world. After very much enjoying Killing Yourself to Live, I thought I would pick up his seminal work Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs, and see what all the hubbub is about. People seem to either love him or hate him, and those in between are mostly just trying to figure out which camp they belong to. I think I love him but with some caveats I'll introduce later. If you want to see the perfect (and amusing) example of Klosterman hate check out this article, in which the author starts it off by pretty much calling Klosterman a 'buttface'. If anything, Klosterman is interesting solely as such a polarizing character and deserves to be part of any discussion of pop culture as a whole.

Cocoa Puffs isn't so much a 'manifesto' as it's subtitle suggests, but more of a collection of his thoughts about specific subjects within popular culture. Now Klosterman may have chosen these particular subjects in order to paint a mostly complete picture of current pop culture and its influence on our society, but it feels more like a collection of things that he has interesting thoughts on. The subject matter varies wildly from chapter to chapter and covers such subjects as Saved by the Bell, porn, country music, Larry Bird v. Magic Johnson, evangelical Christians, newspapers and media, serial killers, reality TV, love, Bill Joel, and the titular breakfast cereal. His strong points tend to be the chapters that discuss music or sports, seeing that these are his main interests, but because of the nature of the book almost every chapter is interesting and well thought out.

He usually comes up with an interesting idea about a subject in pop culture, and it's hardly ever what you would expect. If Klosterman has a 'schtick' at all, it's being overly earnest and sincere about almost any subject. If irony ever becomes passe, and the 'new sincerity' is ushered in, expect Chuck to be on the front lines leading the march. In this book he expounds his love for Billy Joel, the superiority of 'regular' country music over the trendy 'alt-country' (think some Bright Eyes, Neko Case, Lucinda Williams, etc), and why he envies evangelical Christians (not the typical 'I envy their naivety' discussion). If these opinions came from anyone else, I would be skeptical that the author was just trying to be ironic. What could be more ironic than a rock critic espousing the importance of Toby Keith and the Dixie Chicks? But luckily Klosterman is from rural North Dakota, and tries to constantly clarify that he's not being ironic or insincere. A small part of me dreads finding out that all of his writing has been an elaborate hipster joke, but I'm pretty confident that he is who he says he is.

It's that last statement that I find to be the most interesting. Who is Chuck Klosterman really? Is he just some snarky, occasionally smarmy, Midwesterner who is overplaying the sincerity card? It sometimes feels like he might just be defending the opinions he does just because he knows they might be controversial and rub the current 'cool kids' the wrong way. Does he really spend his whole road trip in Killing Yourself just going to chain restaurants like The Olive Garden and Shoneys, or does he just focus on those things to try to seem more proletarian and contrary? There's little doubt that he believes the things he writes about, but how much of this is the whole truth, and how much is a 'persona' that he is trying to paint of himself?

Personally, I think that Klosterman does often agree with what's cool or in, but chooses not to discuss these opinions because he doesn't find discussing widely held beliefs to be very interesting. As previously stated, he does have pretty questionable taste in music, but also occasionally brings up his love of Radiohead. Sometimes I'd rather read a little more from the Radiohead loving Klosterman than the one who dismisses alt-country as insincere.

I would really recommend reading Cocoa Puffs not only for those who are interested in pop culture, but also for those who want an entertaining read. The two books of his that I have read have been very entertaining, and quick reads. And as far as Klosterman's place in popular culture, I think he really has the chance to be something special. He's not there yet mostly because of the sporadic nature of his books, his tendency to bring up his personal life, and the annoying tick start paragraphs after being sidetracked with the lazy phrase 'But ANYWAY', but if he puts his mind to good use he can go places. He's an incredibly intelligent man, and I would love to see something a little more cohesive from him. If Klosterman ever puts everything together I really think he could be a defining voice for our generation.

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra - Stephen Sommers

As much as I might tend to complain about 'mindless Hollywood movies' I actually quite enjoy the occasional large budget action flick. There was one summer as a 13 year old boy where I spent every week trying to sneak into 'Con Air'. This isn't to say I enjoy every action movie but that I do understand their appeal having once been the target demographic.

If you spend any time reading film reviews it should be pretty apparent that most critics hate Michael Bay. And I don't just mean that they hate them in some sort of casual 'god I have to watch another Michael Bay movie' kind of way. They HATE HATE HATE him. Michael Bay is treated as the anti-Christ, to many he is the downfall of both American cinema and our country as a whole. Now I don't really think he's THAT bad (The Rock did come only 1 year before Con Air, little Louis loved that shit) but I do find his movies pretty intolerable in general.

So the thing is, critics hate Michael Bay movies but audiences can't get enough of them. They all make boatloads of money and he gets to make a new one every year. When I heard that G. I. Joe ( helmed by The Mummy's Stephen Sommers) was not going to be screened for critics before it was released to the public I just assumed that it was because the studio knew it was bad, but that it was going to be just as financially successful as Bay's Transformers sequel. Transformers was universally panned by critics with perhaps my favorite quote belonging to Michael Phillips from the Chicago Tribune. Phillips says that the film is 'like listening to rocks in a clothes dryer for 2½ hours.' Even his citymate Roger Ebert who likes at least something about every movie he sees loathed it, giving it only 1 star. Now I didn't see Transformers 2, I saw the first one and didn't really feel like going to a movie that was just supposedly a louder, longer version of the original, but I initially expected G. I. Joe to be more of the same. After sensing the more congenial reception to this movie, and being in a situation where this was the only film available to see while at the movies I ended up seeing G. I. Joe against my initial reservations.

I really don't think it takes much for a studio to make a successful summer blockbuster. For me it boils down to a couple of things:

1. Does it end soon enough not to overstay it's welcome? (2 hours is often the cut-off here)
2. Are there awesome action sequences that don't rely too much on obvious CGI?
3. Does the plot avoid insulting my intelligence?
4. Does the movie avoid being too sexist, racist or offensive?
5. Are there explosions?

If a summer blockbuster fulfills all 5 of those things it's a pretty good chance I'll like it and have a good time at the movies. I'll let you know right now that G. I. Joe has all those things and that in general Michael Bay movies do not (well they both tend to have more than enough explosions) and that this is the big difference between most 'good' action movies and the stuff that Bay puts out.

To elaborate, Bay movies tend to be mindless, sexist, confusingly shot movies that are laborious to watch. Obviously 13 year old boys (or those who think like them) don't tend to be sensitive to these things so it's not a problem for a large section of our populous. Not only are the women treated like pure objects in Bay's movies (Megan Fox) but the men all act like the biggest jerks in the world. Most of the men walk around with their tough guy posturing saying 'fuck' approximately 3.2 times a minute and generally acting like Quentin Tarantino wishes he could. In addition the action is badly shot and confusing to watch. It's hard to know what's going on during any action scene (the first Transformers was a particularly good example of this) and I haven't even mentioned the product placement (see The Island) or racism (Transformers and the 'black' robot Jazz).

G. I. Joe isn't the best film ever made, and it's not really up there for me in terms of action movies, but it's pure good fun. Now this is the argument that people always use for Michael Bay's success, but I think we should still be selective when it comes to 'fun' movies. There can be 'good' fun movies that are a blast to watch and make us laugh and smile. But there can also be 'bad' fun movies that are poorly planned or executed and use offensive stereotypes for cheap laughs.

If you notice above I didn't mention quality acting as a part of my requirements for a summer action movie. In fact G. I. Joe has some of the laughably worst acting I've seen in a while (aside from indie darling Joesph Gordon-Levitt). Bad acting sometimes makes action movies better because it would be hard to take someone like Russell Crowe seriously during the obligatory fast vehicle 'WOOOOOO' scene. Speaking of Gordon-Levitt, he's great in this movie! He spends the entire film as a proto Cobra Commander that leers and gestures while wearing a mask covering everything except one eye. Gordon-Levitt really hams it up and enjoys this role, so it's easy for the audience to do the same. He pretty much acts circles around everyone else in the film, stealing every scene he's in. I almost want to see it again just to rewatch his scenes.

There's not much to say about G. I. Joe except that it's a lot of fun and a pretty good 'summer blockbuster.' The action keeps it going and the plot involves a pretty original (for summer Hollywood movies) nanotechnology based scheme that is a breath of fresh air compared to the movies that keep relying on nuclear warheads or other traditional threats. There's the sassy redhead, the serious evil brunette, the stoic large chinned alpha male and the energetic black best friend that cover all your action movie stereotype bases. Although, the women are given more to do than just wear hot pants and Marlon Wayans is pretty successful in helping to save the day. The movie does seem to just end in kind of a random place, but I'm OK with that knowing that there will be the inevitable sequels. G. I. Joe is the kind of movie I wouldn't mind letting my hypothetical 13 year old son watch.

Michael Vick

As some of you may know, I am a huge fan of professional football.  I'm not really into college football (which is due to a combination of not going to a school with a big football program and the overall quality of play) but the NFL has always been a love of mine.  This being said, I want to to weigh in on the biggest subplot of the NFL offseason.

I should start by saying that I am a big fan of Michael Vick the football player.  I always think excitement and innovation are good things especially in the copycat NFL, and watching Vick was thrilling.  The first year I moved to Atlanta I eagerly awaited watching Vick every Sunday.  My roommate and I were pretty big fans of other teams from our hometown cities, but we were often more excited about seeing what Vick and the Falcons would do on Sunday.  He may have not had the best individual statistics (at least when it comes to the traditional statistics that evaluate quarterbacks) but no one can argue that he won (he was 38-28-1 as a starter, including a memorable postseason win against Green Bay and Brett Favre) and was exciting to watch.

Vick's fall is so well known by everyone in our society including those who have no idea how 'downs' work so I won't chronicle it here.  He did something pretty horrible, and now has paid for his crimes.  He spent multiple years in prison and has become completely crippled financially.  Whether or not the prosecution set out to make a name for themselves by making an example of Vick is unclear, but he definitely got hammered.  This is not to make any kind of moral judgement but to say that Vick was punished to the full extent of the law.  Even PETA can't argue with this.  They may want larger sentences for these crimes, but that's not the case and Mr. Vick was not awarded any special treatment.

He deserved a second chance.  As is often said, our country was built on second chances awarded to those who couldn't make it on their first attempt at life.  As Americans, we love redemption stories.  There are few heroes in literature that are more romantic than the ones who fall from grace, only to pick themselves up and to make it on their second chance.  I know there are many dog or animal lovers who think Vick is the scum of the Earth, but really the way he is treated is completely ridiculous. 

There are possible murderers (Ray Lewis, Marvin Harrison), drug dealers (Jamal Lewis), and people who commit manslaughter with DUIs (Leonard Little and now Donte Stallworth) in the NFL. All of these players (except Stallworth) are currently playing in the league.  True, the old regime at the NFL front office wasn't as strict as the current one, but I don't hear these same people who champion animal rights standing up for the humans that Little and Stallworth killed.  Leonard Little killed a human being while driving drunk, and even got caught with a DUI a couple years after serving a minor sentence!  Even the most adamant animal rights activist have to agree that the life of a human being is worth very much more than the life of an animal.  I'm sorry it's true, and anyone who claims to think otherwise is just lying to themselves.  Stallworth is currently being held from playing the NFL after serving less than a month in prison.  I'm pleased commissioner Goodell is being this tough on him, 30 days is a paltry amount to pay for the extinction of a human life.

Again all these criminals (some convicted, some not) are playing in the league and I don't hear a peep about people protesting their presence.  Vick has been profusely apologetic and is even doing some work with anti dog fighting groups away from the spotlight.  What do people want him to do?  Playing football is the only thing in which he is trained, and Vick should be able to try to make a living for himself.  A common counter argument is the the 'role model' one.  Anyone who thinks that all professional athletes are role models are deluding themselves, just ask Charles Barkley.  There may be some athletes who we can look up as role models (Lance Armstrong, Kurt Warner (if you're religious), and Dikembe Mutombo come to mind) but sports are just an occupation, and like other occupations they come with lots of seedy characters.  Michael Vick doesn't have to be a role model, but he can be a valuable lesson to see what can happen if you make bad decisions.

I am ecstatic that Vick has been picked up by the Philadelphia Eagles (putting my rooting interests aside).  It'll be interesting to see how he is used on the football field, but he joins a team with a bunch of strong characters that will help him get re-acclimated to civilian life in the NFL.  It's hard for almost any of us to understand what Vick has been through.  No one I know grew up in the poverty or culture in which Vick grew up, and thus we can't understand why he did what he did.  Things that are acceptable to one culture might be completely ghastly to another and it would be foolish to cast stones at someone without realizing this.  It's true that Vick allowed himself to be surrounded by people of questionable character, but he also felt that he had to support many of these people because of his success. Saying all this, I really hope that he learned his lessons and will lead a different life.  I will be rooting for Vick to rebuild his life and to have a successful career in the NFL. 

Mad Men: Season 1 - Matthew Weiner

After The Wire went off the air it felt like there was a vast hole in the television landscape. Previously, HBO produced a string of very successful, but also very acclaimed shows. In the new landscape in which television rivaled and even in some cases surpassed movies in terms of quality, originality and acclaim, HBO lead the way with The Sopranos. In the later stages of The Sopranos, the mantle of 'best show on television' passed to The Wire, which not surprisingly is what I think is the best show ever made. As The Wire was winding down its successor seemed unclear. HBO wasn't really coming out with great shows (and still isn't) and Showtime was still a little trashy (see The Tudors, Californication, Secret Diary of a Call Girl etc...) to start producing 'the best' TV. Surprisingly it was a basic cable channel, and a network known for showing movies that only 70 year olds or film buffs would want to see that would produce 'the next great show.

At first glace, Mad Men doesn't seem like it would be very interesting. The show takes place in the early 60s in a high powered ad agency on Madison Avenue. There are no cops, no gangsters, no doctors, and no smoke monsters. Really I'd be hard pressed to say what the show is 'about' beyond saying that it's about the people in this ad agency, and the lives they lead. I think Mad Men is the perfect example that what makes a show good is not what it's 'about', but is how it's written, produced and acted. A creator could have the best idea in the world, but if it's not executed well, who cares? I think that more than in movies, in TV it really doesn't matter what the subject matter is about. What matters is if there are interesting characters that we care about, and want to follow week after week.

Although in saying all this I might be selling Mad Men's content a little short. Besides having intriguing characters, the show also tries to paint a picture of early 60's America. This is an especially interesting exercise because media often paints the 60s as just existing in a drug induced haze. Depictions of this era often go straight from the idyllic and iconic images of the 50s to Woodstock. There are only glimpses of it here (the first season starts in 1960 and ends with Kennedy's election) but it seems that Mad Men will attempt to chronicle this changing society.

With all that exposition out of the way, Mad Men is pretty darn good. It's not as 'exciting' as other shows (like The Wire or Lost) but it's endlessly clever. The majority of the show consists of witty dialog and subtle body language that the actors pull off effortlessly. Like other great shows, Mad Men doesn't try to spell everything out for you, and the viewer has to gather much from context. It's not really a 'casual viewing ' show and it rewards attention.

Also, the show is even prettier than LOST. The period outfits really help, but there sure are a lot of nice looking actors in this show. John Hamm, Christina Hendricks and January Jones really lead the list here, but everyone in the show is at least interesting or good to look at. In addition, the houses and work spaces are also works of art in themselves. There aren't a lot of sets, but the creators work with what they have and create a realistic, and beautiful, recreation of early 60s America.

Often, the writers will add lines or scenes that seem to be winking at the audience. The characters are constantly drinking (even while pregnant), smoking and doing all sorts of things that we would now consider unhealthy. The show also adds lines about technology or the characters current understanding of the world, trying to goad us into chuckling at the silly people stuck in the past. This is a little gratuitous in the first couple of episodes, but gets a little more subtle as the show goes on. It's one thing to make social commentary on a way of life, but it's entirely another thing to try to make us laugh at the old people using type writers.

Furthermore, the abuse of women in this show sometimes borders on gratuitous. I know that women were treated badly during that time, especially by the rich, but there are many painful shots in this show of men laughing about a women thinking or treating them as pure objects. You have the neurotic cheated on housewives, the abused (verbally and sexually) secretaries at work, and even the 'strongest' woman character in the show is constantly undermined by her father. The triumphs for the women in this show are few and far between, and I hope they get a little more room to shine in future seasons.

Above all, I really think that Mad Men is just like a well written, period soap opera. You could make the case that a show with any kind of continuity is just a dressed up soap opera, but I think this really rings true for Mad Men. As much as the show might be an investigation into the culture of the upper crust in the 60s, the show is really just about individual people's lives. The show isn't continuity obsessed, there aren't any real cliffhangers or 'to be continued....' scenes, but the season really flows as one story. We are introduced to secret love affairs, long lost brothers, hidden pasts, scheming villains and hidden sexuality. These things are all long standing staples of the soap opera genre, and Mad Men uses them to its advantage.

Calling Mad Men a soap opera isn't to dismiss it. Nor is it to suggest that it's just a glossy soap opera like The OC. It's an extremely well written and produced show that is rightful well respected within the television world. It also just happens to share much in terms of plot and content with many day time soap operas.

Killing Yourself to Live - Chuck Klosterman

I didn't plan on reading a book written by a rock journalist immediately after reviewing the most prominent movie made about a rock journalist, but sometimes these things just happen. I have heard of Chuck Klosterman for quite some time, but have never really looked into him or his books. It makes sense that I would review a book written by one of the more well known commentators of pop culture for this blog, so I'm glad I happened to see this book in a friends bathroom and be able to snag it before he left town.

In Killing Yourself to Live Chuck sets out to visit places where famous musicians died and to make some kind of point about death being a good 'career move' for rock stars In practicality this book is only partially about this. The book ends up being 1/3 about dead rock stars, 1/3 Klosterman's observations about music and pop culture as a whole, and 1/3 discussions on ladies that he is currently entangled with or ladies he wants to be entangled with. The first two sections of this book are pure gold, and the last not so much.

It's not that his problem with having multiple love interests isn't relateable (hey, we've all been there). It's just that his other writing is so great that listening to him talk about relationship issues isn't nearly as interesting as his thoughts on rock music. I think memoirs have this problem in general: relationships that are so very important for the author are of little interest to the reader. The same thing happens in Nathan Rabin's book in that the parts of his life that may be the most important to him (his girlfriends) really aren't that interesting to anyone else.

But this is all really beside the point. The rest of the book is fantastic, and it's not like the girlfriend talk takes anything away from it (there are no Penny Lanes), it really just pads the text so that it's actually book length.

He rents a car and travels across the country in 20 or so days to visit these famous sites. And when I say across the country he really goes across the country. He starts out in the northeast (he currently lives in in New York City) and heads down south, then up through the Midwest, and then west across Montana to Seattle. It's an epic amount of driving, and he does the whole thing with only 600 cds to keep him company.

Something that is very refreshing about Klosterman is his Midwest sensibility. He's from North Dakota and even though he lives in NYC for work purposes, he's still very much a Midwestern boy. He's constantly going out to eat at the Olive Garden and Bennigans while he's on the road, and reminisces about his high school football days. But the thing that really stands out is his critique of hipsters and irony. While visiting the club where the tragic Great White concert occurred, he makes these remarks about the show:

"To me, that's what makes the Great White tragedy even sadder than it logically was: One can safely assume that none of the 100 people who died at the Station that night were trying to be cool by watching Great White play 20-year-old songs. This was not a bunch of hipsters trying to be seen by other hipsters..."

Klosterman constantly criticizes hipsters and the music they embrace, if they can truly be thought of as genuinely embracing anything, because he finds it disengenuious. To be sure, Klosterman has suspect taste himself, but whether it's his defense of Rod Stewart or his love of KISS (including their solo albums) he's genuine about everything. "Why would I want other people to think I like something I do not actually like? What possible purpose would that serve?" says Klosterman. He has a pretty good point and even though most people don't agree with his tastes (KISS? Really?) at least he's honest and genuine.

In my favorite section of the book, Klosterman spends 3 pages trying to describe why Led Zeppelin is a timeless band that is loved differently than other other band in history. He agrees that the Beatles and The Rolling Stones may be better, but Zeppelin has something that makes them special. A couple of quotes from this section:

"Led Zeppelin is the most legitimately timeless musical entity of the past half century; they are the only group in the history of rock 'n' roll that every male rock fan seems to experience in exactly the same way."

"There is a point in the male maturation process when the music of Led Zeppelin sounds like the perfect actualization of the perfectly cool you"

And about the time that every male goes through the 'Led Zeppelin phase" what they say to themselves:

"This shit is perfect. In fact, this record is vastly superior to all other forms of music on the entire planet, so this is all I will ever listen to, all the time."

Now he may be overstating this a little bit (I'm pretty sure I have male friends who don't really like Zepp) but I'm a little more likely to believe him because I went through a phase exactly like this. I went through a phase where I thought Zeppelin was the best band of all time, and that no one could come close to rocking as much as they do. In fact I revisit this stage every now and again and when I pick up old records (including Zeppelin) at my house next week I may enter this stage again.

Led Zeppelin rules.

Predictably, Klosterman ends his journey in Seattle to consider the death of Kurt Cobain. This makes sense, Cobain is the most famous rock star death for almost everyone in our generation (except a certain pop star who I'll get to in a second). Says Klosterman about Cobain's death and it's impact on society:

"Kurt Cobain had not merely made culturally important music--suddenly, he had made culture. His death became a catchall event for anyone who wanted their adolescence to have depth: It was not possible to achieve credibility simply by mourning retrospectively. Cobain's iconography hadn't changed that much, really; what changed was the number of people who suddenly thought Cobain's iconography said something about themselves."

I think his comments on this are extremely interesting, especially given current circumstances. Not only does Klosterman argue that people rewrite history about a dead star after their death, but they somehow try to connect with this death to find meaning in their own lives. People no longer though of Nirvana as being headed by an asshole drug addict, who didn't even make the most popular music of the time (that would be Pearl Jam). Everyone found Cobain tragic, and treated him like some kind of martyr.

This is exactly what everyone has been doing to Michael Jackson. No longer do we think of him as a possible pedophile that was just a big creepshow for the past 20 years. No longer do we consider that the person who made all of those awesome and genre breaking songs has been gone for quite some time. Everyone chose to rewrite history and remember him in their own way. And even more, people got so worked up and upset it seemed to affect their entire lives for days. I would like to read Klosterman's thoughts on the death of Jack-O because where for Cobain's death affected mainly young white men, Jackson pretty much made the news world stop for 2 weeks because everyone wanted to find meaning in their own lives and connect through his death.

Almost Famous - Cameron Crowe

The impetus for me making my list of the best movies of the decade was Bill Simmons' similar discussion on his podcast and in a recent article. For him it came down to Almost Famous and The Dark Knight, with Almost Famous winning out mostly because it's been around longer and he had more time to consider it as one of his favorite movies. In making my list I ignored Almost Famous because frankly, when I first saw it I hated it. This movie came out in 2000 so it had been at least 8 years since I saw it and I was much younger at the time. I thought that the movie deserved reconsideration because so many people I know and respect love this movie.

Right from the beginning I could see why people so highly respect this movie. The dialog is incredibly well written, the movie is extremely well acted, and the soundtrack is amazing. Cameron Crowe put to good use his experience in writing for Rolling Stone to be able to make the rock stars come to life as real and interesting people. Billy Cruddup and Jason Lee are perfect as the feuding bandmates, and as usual Philip Symour Hoffman steals every scene he is in as the local film critic in young William's hometown. And if that's not enough, Frances McDormand knocks her role out of the park as her portrayal of William's overprotective mother. In fact my favorite scene of the movie might be when William's mother dressed down Cruddup's Russell Hammond for leading her son astray and for not living a very respectable life.

So far it seems like I loved Almost Famous almost as much as Bill Simmons does, but I have one sticking point with the movie, and it's a major one. I cannot stand the character of Penny Lane played by Kate Hudson. It's not that Hudson does a bad job, she sells the role perfectly well, I just find everything about to character to be REALLY lame. This starts with her posturing at the beginning of the film with a phony name and superiority about being not a groupie but a 'band-aid'. It only gets worse when she does things like tell William that they are going to move to Morocco and leads him on while pinning for the lead guitarist, Russell. I know we're supposed to see through her facade at least a little bit, but I find her utterly deplorable.

This might be the result of the fact that I have never appreciated or respected idolatry, especially of rock stars. I really love good music, but I have never really found most of the people behind it interesting at all (except in rare cases like David Bowie) and don't understand people who try to become groupies. Penny Lane's goal in this movie is to hang out with rockstars, pretend to be more than a mere groupie and thus looks down on the other girls, and to lead a glamorous lifestyle to which she adds nothing. She claims to love the music and this is what separates her from the other girls, and yet we never hear of her discussing music. Her conversation completely revolves around gossiping about rockstars and talking about 'the life'.

I hated her and her friends so much that anytime there was a scene involving them I would audibly groan and roll my eyes. They were just so annoying for the entire movie and I couldn't get past it. For me, they ruined any scene they were in. Maybe I will soften on this stance as I get older seeing that I believe this is the reason I hated this movie in it's entirety when I was a teenager and now I only hate 1/5 off it. I can see why people would love this movie so much, and I can even respect someone who thinks of this as their favorite movie of the decade but for now I consider Almost Famous part spectacular film and part incredible annoyance