Monday, March 4, 2013

Full list of TV Guide's 100 Shows to See Before You Die

Yeah, you remember when I posted the updated list of VH1's 100 Greatest Songs of the 90s? I said in that post, "...opportunity knocked and I gladly opened the door." Well, guess what? Mr. Opportunity came back for a little visit.

OK, here's the story. For months, I struggled to find someone who posted a full list of TV Guide's 100 Shows to See Before You Die. While I found no luck with list, I did find the videos to it overtime. A few months back, I found the 50-1 choices on Dailymotion. Then, last night, I found the 100-51 choices on TV Guide's webpage, where the videos had apparently been posted for a while. So, I decided to make a list for myself. Then, last night, I realized that while I had the full list, no one else did.

It's not like VH1 where they always have a full list of ALL their countdowns, if not on their website, then on some blogging site posted by a secondhand source. But for the TV Guide show, no list could be find. So, I thought to myself, how selfish of me! I have this full list and I'm keeping it to myself? What a dickcheese, I am!

So, to that end, you, my fellow readers, are about to witness an unprecedented internet opportunity: to see the full list of TV Guide's 100 Shows to See Before You Die! P.S. Shows that made the list due to their appealing kitchiness will be marked, SBIG (So-bad-it's-good)

100. Buffy the Vampire Slayer
99. Little House on the Prairie
98. Fantasy Island
97. Beverly Hills 90210
96. Wheel of Fortune
95. The Muppet Show
94. Family Ties
93. The Real World
92. Bewitched
91. Diff’rent Strokes
90. The Flying Nun - SBIG
89. The Cosby Show
88. Land of the Lost - SBIG
87. MacGyver
86. Square Pegs
85. The X-Files
84. The Mary Tyler Moore Show
83. Law & Order
82. Temptation Island - SBIG
81. South Park
80. All In the Family
79. Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood
78. The Sopranos
77. Saved By the Bell - SBIG, to some degree
76. The Carol Burnett Show
75. Roseanne
74. Cop Rock - SBIG
73. Solid Gold - SBIG
72. Bonanza
71. Passions - SBIG
70. Doogie Howser, M.D.
69. Dynasty
68. Fear Factor
67. The Honeymooners
66. Three’s Company
65. Man from Atlantis - SBIG
64. Two and a Half Men
63. Scooby-Doo, Where Are You!
62. Jackass
61. The Andy Griffith Show
60. Married With Children
59. Modern Family
58. The Smurfs
57. The Odd Couple
56. Good Times
55. LOST
54. Alf
53. Laugh-In
52. Welcome Back. Kotter
51. CSI: Crime Scene Investigation
50. The Bachelor
49. Cheers
48. ER
47. Pee-Wee’s Playhouse
46. The Daily Show
45. The Wonder Years
44. The Oprah Winfrey Show
43. The Wire
42. The Facts of Life
41. Baywatch
40. Glee
39. The Hills - SBIG
38. Taxi
37. The Jerry Springer Show - SBIG
36. Gilligan’s Island
35. NYPD Blue
34. Mad Men
33. Charlie’s Angels
32. The Addams Family
31. The Swan
30. I Love Lucy
29. Match Game
28. The Brady Bunch
27. 24
26. The Office
25. American Idol
24. H.R. Pufnstuf - SBIG
23. Happy Days
22. The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson
21. The Twilight Zone
20. Mr. Ed
19. The Golden Girls
18. The Fugitive
17. The Dukes of Hazzard
16. Roots
15. Saturday Night Live
14. Star Trek
13. Survivor
12. My Mother the Car - SBIG
11. 60 Minutes
10. The West Wing
09. Frasier
08. COPS
07. M*A*S*H
06. Deadliest Catch
05. Friends
04. The Simpsons
03. Jersey Shore - SBIG
02. Seinfeld
01. Sex and the City

Well, there's the list! Any choices piss you off? Yeah? Well, me too! The fact that South Park, I Love Lucy, Friends, and The Simpsons are ranked below Jersey Shore and Sex and the City is flat-out blasphemy! I understand that they aren't talking about the best shows of all time, but I'd like to think that I Love Lucy is probably in the Top 3 Shows to See Before You Die. I mean, think about it. Whenever you hear people referring to the greatest shows of all time, you hear The Simpsons, Seinfeld, and I Love Lucy! So, shouldn't that transfer to a Must-Watch list? WTF?!?! Well, that's my opinion. What about yours? Are there any shows you'd add or take away from the list? Also, what is YOUR favorite show of all time? Mine are...going to be revealed in a post that will be released God knows when! So, tell me your opinion. Go on. Fire away! I'm an open book. Later!

Sunday, March 3, 2013

Invictus (2009)

Years ago, Clint Eastwood produced a cinematic feat and, for many years to come, sustained the significance of that feat. He developed a gruff, intimidating persona with a barely audible yet nerve-tingling dialect and, as always, that freaking cigarette. This is a persona that is as well known as the American Flag and has been the subject of many tributes and comedic monologues. If you don’t believe me, how many times have you impersonated Clint Eastwood or used the phrase, “Do ya feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?” And don’t you dare say that you haven’t because you have. You know you have!

Anyway, I’m getting sidetracked. I’m sure you all are wondering, “Well, what’s the feat in developing a persona? Many actors can do that.” Well, actually the feat lies in his directorial credits. The viewer is left with a concrete, preconceived impression of him after watching him as an actor and then after you look at his directorial credits, you thoughts are summed up in one word: Damn! Who would’ve known that Dirty Harry could’ve made such sweeping, sad, fascinating, and occasionally comedic films?

I think he gained more variety and reverence as a director during the 2000s. This was the decade when he directed Mystic River, Flags of Our Fathers, Letters from Iwo Jima, and the Academy Award winner of 2004, Million Dollar Baby. So, since Clint Eastwood is making all these acclaimed films of cosmic vision and gut-wrenching drama, he deserves a film where his ideas can be executed in a way that’s visually gargantuan and yet narratively humble. Enter Invictus.

The film revolves around the post-apartheid era in South Africa. The hierarchy was so extreme that whites and blacks played their own, fitting sport, which were rugby and soccer, respectively. But now, former prisoner Nelson Mandela is the South African president and South Africa is doing everything they can to get the message across that the actions that were partaken in during apartheid were wrong. One of these objectives is to eliminate the South African rugby team, the Springboks. The Springboks, whose captain is Francois Pienaar, were previously not allowed to bring in black players and their colors were green and yellow, which were the colors associated with the apartheid era. It also doesn’t help that they are currently on a losing streak. However, Mandela sees hope in them, calls for the overturn of the Springbok boycott, and inspires the team to work hard and earn the World Cup as a way of uniting South Africa.

Surprisingly enough, while Clint Eastwood directed the film, Anthony Peckham penned it. He previously wrote Don’t Say a Word and went on to write the 2009 Sherlock Holmes film. While I can’t offer my critique on those films, I will say that he has crafted a witty, winning screenplay for this film. There are many scenes that permeate into the brain and stay stuck in there. There is a scene where the Springboks teach the black South African kids, who were born on soccer, how to play rugby that is charming and reveals the actors’ brilliant abilities to work with kids.

But one scene that particularly stood out to me was when the Springboks tour Mendela’s jail cell. While it is an inevitable moment, given the scenes of the Mandela/Pienaar dynamic, it is also plaintive and revealing. All Mandela wanted was a change and he was convicted because of it. It shows that the Springboks have to win the World Cup to convey that blacks are equal to whites.

The performances are certainly persuasive. Morgan Freeman always brings a commanding yet cuddly presence to every role and his role in this film, as Nelson Mandela, is no different. He is most certainly convincing as Mandela with a thick South African accent. Matt Damon, when he gets screen time (this will soon be discussed), is cogent as Pienaar. With his South African accent, Matt Damon officially makes the list of Pretty Boy Actors Who Can Really Act (the list includes him, Leonardo DiCaprio, Ryan Gosling, Bradley Cooper, and a few others I am most surely forgetting). Yes, this film certainly has all of the qualities of a great film: the delightful screenplay, the earnest performances, the fact that they show the actual rugby team in the credits, and, need we forget, the cinematography that is expansive, clear, and cloaks itself in toned-down hues.

This sounds like it should be a great epic film. Unfortunately, it falters it two areas: structure and storytelling. For a film about the aftermath of an unpleasant moment in time, it feels safe and plasticized. The inspirational speeches are forced, clichéd, and minorly embarrassing. The teammates are shallowly written caricatures. They’re douchebags and then they’re supportive. The originality and depth is just overwhelming.

Also, as much as I adore Freeman’s performance, it annoys me how Mandela is used as a pawn in a trivial Cinderella story. There’s one moment at the end where he’s used in a pseudo-inspirational fashion. I won’t reveal anything, but I will say that, even though it really happened, the way the film handles it is disgustingly saccharine. Another flaw is that some scenes (the “looking out at the empty stadium while introspective or inspiration talk ensues” scene, the “many places watching the same event on television with many people hanging on every moment” scene) are obviously clichéd, but the film is so self-consciously epic that it feels that the filmmakers forgot that these scenes have been used in thousands of other films.

Did I mention that the structure of the film fails? By this, I mean that the film doesn’t know what it wants to be? What is the focus? Is it about Mandela? Is it about the Springboks? I don’t know. I’m guessing it’s about both, but when they are amalgamated, it feels like two different films. It doesn’t click. It clashes. Even worse, the first half offers no legit balance between Freeman and Damon. Damon is painfully underused, to the point that the Oscars nominated him under the category of SUPPORTING ACTOR! He’s the second name on the poster, for Christ’s sake!

For a film of this plotline, the “big game” is inescapable. Oddly enough, it is preceded by a chant/dance of the opponents that feels like the writer of Stomp the Yard hijacked the script. When it does happen, it is palpable albeit predictable. However, one thing nearly ruins that scene: SLOW MOTION! Usually, in a “big game” moment, slow motion is used when the protagonists make the winning point. Here, it is used when the Springboks start to take the lead and continues for 10 freaking minutes, at least! It starts to get old after about two minutes. Think about that! 10 minutes of slow-mo, including that distinct audio that starts to sound like the Hulk dubbed this film.

Overall, it’s not a bad film. It just could’ve been so much better! The performances are amazing, the camerawork is competent, and the screenplay can be pretty charming. However, the habitual and labored moments, the lack of focus and cohesive structure, and the safety of it all nearly suffocate it. It feels sanitized. However, sanitized products can be pleasant, as is the case with this film. The good qualities are so incredibly good that I can let it slide. In conclusion, on a scale of zero to four stars, I’d give this film an enthusiastic 3 stars!

Sunday, February 24, 2013

Ghosts of Rwanda (2004)

Documentaries are an odd medium, aren’t they? At least in terms of critical purposes. I’m not saying they’re difficult to review. Au contraire, but they are a separate entity. They are almost critic-proof. You can’t review them on the basis of a linear narrative, because when you really think about it, there is none. You can’t review them on the basis of the performances, because there are none. You can’t review them on the basis on the screenplay, because, with the exception of a plan on what to discuss and who to question, there is none. Sure, you can judge it on the basis of the technical composition (tone, cinematography, lighting, music, etc.), but that’s not what matters.

In the big scheme of things, documentaries rely on their themes. The main thing to inspect is how those themes are conveyed. Documentaries have tones that range from whimsical and majestic (MicroCosmos), to deathly serious (The Cats of Mirikitani), to philosophical (The Secret), to musical observance (Michael Jackson’s This is It). Conveying its themes properly requires not merely technical composition, but also alluring power, fascination, be it good or bad, and, at times, charisma, like in a Morgan Spurlock or Michael Moore documentary. One documentary that certainly does its job very well is Ghosts of Rwanda, produced by PBS, a.k.a. Pretty Boring Shit (hahaha…I’m just playing).

The theme of this documentary is the 1994 Rwandan genocide of the Tutsis by the Hutus and this documentary was released in response to the ten-year anniversary of that genocide. I already discussed a good chunk of the genocide’s historical content in my Hotel Rwanda review. However, surprisingly, the film actually balances the juxtaposition of the atrocities of the genocide with the limited action of the United States. The film takes a perspective of the United States that is, concurrently, contemptuous and painfully, agonizingly humane. We felt sorry for what was going on in Rwanda, but we didn’t want to cause any additional trouble. Nevertheless, it is definitely frustrating, angering, and disdainful to see how the United States barely made any effort to rescue the Rwandans and the movie adopts a tone that is embarrassingly and horrifically retrospective.

However, thinking of the film’s tone brought to mind a quote from a Ryan Michaels review of Moonrise Kingdom, where he said that film was, “unified in tone, but varied in emotion.” That statement can most definitely be applied to this documentary. While the film soaks in that embarrassed and horrified retrospective tone, the emotions range from sad to furious to dumbfounded. The stories and images presented in this documentary are fascinatingly upsetting. They draw you in and tear your soul and heart apart. The black screens with dates and locations on them ratchet up the tension, as the viewer is anxious on what horrific moment of the genocide is behind that black screen. The camera persists on showing thousands of slaughtered civilians, some of them slowly rotting away into a skeletal configuration. They emphasize the fact that the Rwandan genocide was, in the words of Michael Jackson, “…a nightmare. A horrifying nightmare.”

That’s pretty much the overall gist of the film. Like I said earlier, documentaries should be judged on how they convey the themes they espouse. So, does the film properly communicate the horrors of the Rwanda genocide? Does it leave an impact and provoke thought on the involvement of foreign affairs? To me, yes! Sorry that this wasn’t a very dissecting, deep review, but this really isn’t that kind of film.

RATING: Three-and-a-half stars out of four

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Hotel Rwanda (2004)

Watching this film evoked a section from the poem, “A Dream Deferred,” by Langston Hughes. “What happens to a dream deferred? Does it dry up like a raisin in the sun? Or fester like a sore and then run?” This concept comes into play several times during the film. In Rwanda, the Tutsis want to be able to live in peace and be saved from the bloodshed and chaos. They always come close to have this dream come true. However, some obstacle always blocks that dream. If one is a historian or Rwanda connoisseur, then they know the outcome of what happens, but this offers sympathy in one of the most inspirational and powerful films I’ve ever seen.

The film takes place in Rwanda (obviously) in 1994. Around this time, Rwanda is experiencing an ugly genocide of the Tutsis by the Hutus. The situation worsens when the Rwandan president, who planned to unite the Hutus and Tutsis and stop the mass killings via a peace treaty, is killed when his plane is shot down and the Tutsis are blamed for it, resulting in a more massive slaughtering of Tutsis. Hope arrives in the form of an improbable hero: Paul Rusesabagina. Paul is a Hutu hotel manager, whose wife is Tutsi. As the problem is becoming greater, he provides salvation by allowing the Tutsis to take shelter in his hotel and bribe and persuade the Rwandan army officers. From then on, the film is a constant mission to help these people and get them to safer grounds.

This film draws striking parallels to Schindler’s List. Anyone reading the synopsis can confirm that. And to be honest, Schindler’s List is a better film. This film doesn’t push itself to the extreme, overbearingly ugly levels that Schindler did. Plus, Oskar Schindler was a more complex being. He seemed extremely detached from the situation and really seemed all about profit with limited empathy towards the victims until he morally unfolded into that kind of person. Paul seems more like a standard good guy and you believe that he would do the things he did. However, what sets Paul apart from a standard cinematic hero is that this hero has the face and spirit of Don Cheadle. You’d think that wouldn’t be a major difference, but it is, as Cheadle gives a veracious and vehement performance, which may possibly be the best of his career. Jamie Foxx deserved his Best Actor Academy Award for Ray, but if anyone else, by chance, were picked over him, it would’ve have to had been Don Cheadle with his rich, thick, and realistic accent and his quick-witted, intelligent persona that he employs. It is phenomenal to see the tactics that Paul uses to aid these victims (1,268, to be exact).

While Don Cheadle certainly is worth talking about, the supporting performances are outstanding, too. Nick Nolte shines in one of his best performances as UN officer Colonel Oliver, who finds a superb mixture of gruffness, lovability, and disorientation. He is stuck in a very uncomfortable position as he wonders how to get these civilians to a state of tranquility and security. This allows for a wonderful dynamic between him and Paul. The way they communicate their thoughts, conflicting as they can be, is beguiling. Sophie Okonedo gives a shattering and visceral performance as Paul’s wife, Tatiana. At first, I though that this actress didn’t receive many other cinematic opportunities afterwards. I thought it was one of those performances that is so brilliant that the performer will never be able to top it and eventually, the performer fizzles out. However, after looking at her filmography on Wikipedia (don’t judge), I discovered that she’s still hanging in there. So, instead of a great acting performance that leads to one’s downfall, it’s a great acting performance that actually (gasp) gives her more work. Either way, it’s a very strong performance that even allows for a little bit of humor. All I’ll say is: wait for the showerhead scene. Who knew a scene that begins tense and frightening unfolds into something so whimsical and frothy.

This film is deeply intriguing from beginning to end. The viewer is immediately drawn in by the monologue spoken over a pitch-black screen. And the intrigue keeps flowing. I said that Schindler’s List and this film have a similar story arc, but are different in execution. While both are searing and unabashed emotionally, they differ in nature. Schindler’s List relies on the macabre and repulsive facets of history. Hotel Rwanda relies on lamenting poetry. Scenes, such as the staggering morass on the Rwandan streets and the street of dead Tutsis, are simultaneously simply heartbreaking and profoundly horrifying.

However, those scenes didn’t click in my mind as much as one specific scene. It’s a scene where the United Nations proclaims that they must not intervene with the situation, given the disastrous situation in Somalia the year before (**coughs** Black Hawk Down **coughs**). All white citizens, such as white hotel customers and foreign officials, are evacuated from Rwanda, but the Rwandans themselves are left behind. As the bus with all of the white people leaves Rwanda, the camera focuses on the millions of Rwandans in the rain, watching their chance for survival vanish. It’s one of the saddest and frustrating cinematic scenes I’ve ever witnessed. What a lesson it preaches in such a short scene. If you can simply turn the other cheek to your brothers in a time of need, you are killing them whether you pull the trigger near their temples or do nothing, forcing them to fend for themselves. This is director and co-writer Terry George’s major film. He hasn’t really directed anything particularly eminent before or after this film. However, he sure as hell can do it, given the spic-and-span quality of this film. I absolutely love this film!

RATING: Four stars out of four

Black Hawk Down (2001)

You know, there was every chance for this film to go horribly wrong. Military duty is not to be taken lightly. While it is a dignified affair, the results can also turn out horrible for the soldier, physically and psychologically. Making a film of this subject matter, which we’ll dive deeper in later, needed to be crafted with the most thorough, delicate, and buttoned-up hands. I suspect that some people in 2001 may have been worried when they heard two of the names attached to this project. One of those names was Ridley Scott. When one hears the name Ridley Scott, two films usually come to mind: Blade Runner and Alien, two films that are now highly regarded as laudable, fecund, science fiction visionary masterpieces. However, keep in mind that while Alien did well with critics back then, Blade Runner was a different story.

While it did receive newfound popularity over time (a 1992 director’s cut could partially be the reason), the film, at that time, deeply divided people. There were some people that thought it was plodded; heavy on spectacle, light on substance. In addition, some say that Ridley Scott’s track record hasn’t been necessarily immaculate. While his 2000 flick, Gladiator, earned him an Academy Award for Best Picture, that film, like Blade Runner, was very divisive. Some think of it to be a colossal, ambitious, yet overrated snooze fest. And need we remind you that he directed the film that many people consider to be the low point of the Hannibal Lecter franchise?

The other named people raised eyebrows and scratched heads at was Jerry Bruckheimer. This producer is particularly known for slam-bang, furious, no-holds-barred action films (Gone In 60 Seconds, Armageddon), sugarcoated kids’ films (G-Force, Confessions of a Shopaholic), and forgettable, fantasy flicks (The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time). So, I’d like to think that some expected this film to be a disgusting, overly-patriotic, pious propaganda piece; a film that could be summed up in three words: America, F*** Yeah! However, these two questionable and somewhat disparate cinematic moguls have come together to create a nifty, gritty, competent experience.

What’s the film about? The film takes place during 1993 in Somalia. Warlord Mohamed Farrah Adid has seized food from his fellow citizens, resulting in famine and anguish. The U.S. responds to this atrocious situation by sending their Army to Somalia, capture Adid, and seize Adid’s food supplies to give to the poor. What is seemingly thought of as a straightforward, breezy assignment turns into an absolute nightmare. Planes take heavy, unrelenting fire and men drop dead one by one.

The first five minutes of Black Hawk Down is great cinema. It opens with dim, unfiltered cinematography, which plays a huge part with the success of this film. The film has a crafty and flexible color palette, which ranges from bright, enticing yellows to blurry, desolate green and blues. Every shot connects with its tonal counterpart and really puts the viewer in the atmosphere and mood of the scene, which is exactly what happens in the opening. We, also, in the beginning hear that familiar, poetic African singer that always punctuates an epic yet horrifying moment. Some may find that a cliché, but I think it’s a great chance of pace from having the usual overwrought, bombastic orchestra music. The opening also immediately confronts us with the terror of the situation pre-military intervention. It also offers a great cultural portrayal of Somalia, outside of the horror. The way it’s shot, the way it juxtaposes African and American music; all of it makes me feel like I’ve been to Somalia. These first five minutes are an excellent summation of the things I absolutely adore about the film.

Unfortunately, the rest of the film never lives up to the greatness of the first five minutes, but nevertheless, it is still a strong piece of filmmaking. This is one of those war films where the soldiers begin the film as somewhat juvenile, frivolous punks, ready to transform into Rambo-type heroes and kill some scum, but then have a character arc, where they realize that there’s more to the military that meets the eye. Yeah, we’ve seen that storyline before. However, the characters themselves are, nonetheless, interesting individuals. Of course, they are done justice by the actors who play them, which include Sam Shepard, Josh Hartnett, Eric Bana, Tom Hardy, Orlando Bloom, and many more. One of the criticisms for this film is that the film lacks in character development. In my opinion, I’m glad that time was not spared for character development. This film is about situation, not character. The situation is, in itself, complex, misleading, and progresses into additional anxiety and puzzlement. The characters aren’t developed, but our sympathy for them is, which is just fine with me.

Of course, the characters are no more than prelude to the real astonishment of the film: the battle scenes. For a guy who previously produced Armageddon, a film that many described as “frenzied,” “aggressive,” “assaulting,” “ugly,” and “a film that cuts so quickly,” some may find it shocking to know that these battle scenes are skillful, but there it is. This film departs from the Armageddon style of filmmaking and adopts a style that is more cohesive, structured, comprehensible, and realistic. Of course, the action has the Bruckheimer stamp, meaning that it is kinetic. The difference here is that the action here is about honor and duty, as opposed to seeing things blow up really good, though the explosions in this films are competently done. I, also, love the desire to inject these scenes with small yet delectable details, such as blood splattering onto the camera and the POV camera angles. They don’t feel as if we’re playing a video game, quite the contrary. It, instead, submerges the viewer deeper into this chaotic dilemma. In addition, these scenes have, you’re never going to believe it, no shaky cam! See, it is possible to do battle scenes without the camera shaking to the point of nausea. And when shaky cam is used in the film (yeah, I guess I kind of contradicted my last statement), it’s moderate and grounded.

The film has additional tiny details that hugely left an impact on me: the sporadic yet present moments where it naturally alternates between drama and humor, which results in one of my all-time favorite movie quotes (“I’ll make it so you can tell the difference between shit and French fries), the moments of unsettling, nerve-wracking silence, the use of contemporary music, as opposed to orchestral music, and, in particular, one brief scene that really affected me. Adid captures one of the soldiers and Adid says to him, “There’ll always be killing. That’s the way things are.” That one moment gave me goose bumps. We delve into Adid’s warped yet insidiously sensible mind. He isn’t just portrayed as a sparsely developed, point-blank Hitler copy. He has motives, as depraved as they may be. He, like many other great film villains, believes that the world can’t revolve without anarchy and agony. He’s just adding to it. The military can kill Adid, his henchman, or any other deplorable Somalian figure, but it won’t make Somalia a spotless, wholesome unit. It’s one of the most frighteningly logical and intensely articulate movie moments I’ve ever seen!

Oh, I should probably emphasize that VIEWER DISCRETION IS ADVISED!! This film is rated R and for good reason. I’d say that the film practically bathes itself in blood, but that’d be an understatement. There are some extremely grisly moments, particularly a graphic first-aid scene that nearly killed one of my fellow classmates (I won’t say whom). While the gore is authentic and sensory-provoking, I feel that it is my obligation to spread the word. You’re welcome!
Now, as much as I bring up the respectable qualities of the film, it’s not perfect. Some of its flaws revolve around iteration. As much as I love the poetic singer, a little of that goes a long way. As much as I love the battle scenes, there were a couple times where there were minorly exhausting, but seeing how they always find a way to pull me back in, that complaint isn’t as strong. Another flaw actually could be connected to the lack of character development. Although I am accepting of the lack of character development, it does, however, drag the drama right down with it. While there are times where there is some effective drama, it, overall, doesn’t deliver on the visceral level, seeing how we aren’t given time for the characters to unfold, emotionally. And for the love of God, please stop using the cliché of the military man who was a wife, kids, or both, and wants to be with them, but looking at that convenient family photo gives him the courage to keep going. Moments like those are so mawkish and pointless that they could end up in a Nicholas Sparks film.

Overall, though, Bruckheimer and Scott have assembled a tight, atmospheric package. Tense, jarring, furious, and chocked full of compelling performances, ever-changing camerawork, and raw battle scenes, this film was exactly the boost Scott and Bruckheimer needed for their careers. That is until Bruckheimer went back to producing his typical, expected kinds of films and Scott went on to direct what many people consider to be one of the worst Robin Hood adaptations ever. Well, it was fun while it lasted.

RATING: Three-and-three quarters stars out of four

P.S. I recently saw Gone in 60 Seconds and I can confirm that it is a no-holds barred action film...when it's not being vapid, imbecillic, and having most of its actors walk around like zombies. Nice job, Bruckheimer.

Taking Chance (2009)

For a film of such clarity, Taking Chance opens in a deceiving, oblique way. It opens with two soldiers approaching the house of a fallen soldier, Chance Phelps, presumably to confront the family about his unfortunate and untimely death. They knock on the door and by now, the atmosphere is unsettling and anxious and the viewer can feel it. However, the film takes a left turn. In a typical film, the parents open the door, the soldiers inform them of this tragedy, and the parents proceed to sob over a swooning, overtly melancholic score. However, in this film, the soldiers knock on the door, to which it immediately cuts to the opening credits. This moment activates the viewer’s mind and provokes the thought of every possibility of the encounter between these characters. The viewer is still left uneasy, but strangely satisfied, as they have experienced one of the most cryptic, thought-provoking moments in film history. And it all goes uphill from there.

HBO has always possessed my deepest respect. A lot of their work is currently unseen by me, and by that, I mean all of their adult television shows. However, their body of work has always provoked intrigue from yours truly, due to their layered, meaty premises and boat-loads of critical and audience praise. Plus, their kids’ shows of HBO Family have thoroughly elated me due to their intelligence, simplicity, composition, and idiosyncrasy. In terms of Emmys, HBO has been more voracious than McDonald’s customers. 

Another HBO area of intrigue for me can be found through their television films, which, like their television shows, are varied in concept, but unified in praise. Their telefilm concepts have ranged from life in Lackawanna, NY during the ‘50s and ‘60s to a biography of Temple Grandin, which I have proudly labeled as my all-time favorite film.

With this film, HBO has created probably their most dense, thorough, and spellbinding concept to date: the process of bringing a fallen soldier home. The film revolves around Lieutenant Colonel Michael Strobl (Kevin Bacon). After the aforementioned Chance is killed during service, Strobl volunteers to transport his body to DuBois, Wyoming, his final resting place. What follows is an accumulative odyssey full of nuance. Oh, and there are some scenes involving Michael with his family. Those scenes are extraneous for this film. They aren’t clearly defined, developed, or interesting. The kids are just…the kids. The wife is just the woman who cooks and supports Michael emotionally. Because, ostensibly, that’s the only thing wives are good for.

On a visceral level, however, this film is a powerhouse. There is hefty dramatic tension and weight that lingers over the whole film. A brilliant aspect of the film is the lack of prior character development of Chance. The film knows that he doesn’t need any. We may not know the lost life, but it is still a lost life. We know that this was, at one point, a living, breathing human being, who had friends, family, ambitions, and dreams. We may not know them, but the fact that they were present, but no longer are is profound enough.

The additional sheer brilliance of the emotional texture is how controlled it is. It could’ve been easy to elicit emotion via crying fits and turning gruff men into little crybabies, but instead, it is executed modestly and nakedly. The secret is that it relies on the tense premise and holds back. This makes the slightest tear, glance, or sigh intensely sober and oh-so sad. And I mean spine tingling, bone-chillingly, achingly sad. The screenplay also allows itself to unfold into applicable revelations. Consider a scene where Michael gets off the plane and meets with someone else affiliated with the military. They have a conversation and the man reveals something that’s one of the most tense and eloquent moments in the film. As predicted, the climactic funeral scene is as every bit emotional. All of this build-up proves to not be pointless or squandered. And the ending! The end credits make a revelation that not only pertains to Chance’s life, but also to the film itself. I won’t dare ruin it for you, but let me say that combined with the funeral scene nearly turned me into a puddle of misery. I escaped crying, however. Just barely.

There is one specific value that provides strong thematic subtext: respect. The constant salutes, the patriotic symbolism, and even this one scene involving pictures of previous wars add a deeper layer of elegy and poetry. However, there’s an even deeper layer of respect that may remain undissected by everyone else: the shrewd respect of the filmmakers to enhance the experience on a sensory level. The sight of blood, the feel of his stiff, unresponsive hand, the way the film shows us his dead body, but we never see his face; all of these details give the film a more raw, gritty vibe and just add on as an technique for emotion. Also, for a movie that takes place during the Iraq War, it never delves into tawdry, pandering, self-important political messages. It’s not about that. It’s about the chronicle of one man put in a nerve-wracking yet vital position.

I could fawn over the technical craft of this for hours. The cinematography is excellent. It’s shot in an absolute, pristine condition that’s utterly majestic. This, along with the expansive color palette, covers a tonal spectrum that ranges from positive and regular to brooding and introspective. In addition, a great score has been constructed. Like the camerawork and visuals, the score covers a wide variety of moods on the tonal spectrum, too. It ranges from grand frothiness to unsettling heartbreak, but never overblowing it. These elements give the film a restrained yet noticeable scope that, additionally, augments the viewing experience.

Now, I am just dancing around the obvious subject for praise: Kevin Bacon. Whenever I think of that name, I always imagine that charming, innocuous pretty-boy persona that got him a slew of light-hearted comedies, likeable schlock like Tremors, and need we mention Footloose? However, I, and I’m sure many other people, forget that he has done some pretty deep, effective performances. Either way, it is astonishing to see the progression of this actor. Going from his debut film, National Lampoon’s Animal House, to what maybe his most mature and committed performance I’ve seen from him. Any thought and memory of his old, harmless persona is tossed away as he adopts an authoritative attitude and a macho yet haunting stare. Bravo to the Bacon!

I predict big things ahead for first-time director, Ross Katz, who spent the majority of his life co-producing films about homosexuality and a couple of films that wounded up with a Best Picture nomination. He is as humble yet as confident as a director that I’ve seen. And with a detailed, apolitical script, competent technical artistry, a committed, transcendent performance by Kevin Bacon, and sizzling, masterful emotion, Taking Chance is as humble and yet confident a film I’ve ever seen.

RATING: Three-and-three quarters stars out of four

Sunday, November 25, 2012

Bumfights (2002)

Why, oh why, have we embedded into our brain cells to laugh or be entertained by the tragedy, pain, and misery of others? There must be some reason because Hollywood provides us with many opportunities to do just that. That’s why we get America’s Funniest Home Videos, the Jackass saga, The Jerry Springer Show (to some degree), and the endless supply of barbaric, lurid, torture porn horror movies.

OK, maybe that last one is a little looser, but you know how I mentioned Jackass? You know, the vulgar but hilarious juggernaut that swept a nation, particularly in the teenage or frat boy category, and influenced many others to cash in on their success? After all, people thought, it shouldn’t be hard. Just get a bunch of idiots, grab $20, and film those idiots doing stupid stuff, right? While I won’t go into how wrongheaded that mentality is, one group of people that possess that mentality is the creators of a short-lived documentary film series, Bumfights. Comparisons of this film to Jackass are inevitable, but unwelcome.

To be honest, I’ve only seen about 35, maybe 40, minutes of the film, seeing how when I watched it on YouTube, it was in four parts, but only the first three parts were uploaded. I presume the fourth part got removed for copyright violations or some bullcrap. But seeing how this film doesn’t have a cohesive, fluid narrative structure, I feel like it is apt to review this mongrel.

Plot synopsis? A group of unknown guys (the producers of this film) go around filming homeless men fighting or performing amateur stunts in exchange for rewards, particularly alcohol. There. That synopsis wasn’t very deep, but this isn’t that kind of film. While I probably shouldn’t do this, I won’t mention any of these people’s names.

The filmmakers of this gained notoriety when in 2006, producer Ty Beeson made an appearance on Dr. Phil and became the only person in the history of that show to be kicked off the stage. I saw the clips and it seemed harmless enough. Bums doing stupid stunts? It sounded like Jackass and I love that show. Dr. Phil just needed to get a sense of humor, I thought. After seeing this crap, I have a whole new respect for Dr. Phil and, in the holy heavens, thank him for kicking that dude off the set and for keeping his cool, as opposed to squeezing the life out of him, much like I wanna do.

The portrayal of bums is disgusting, to the utmost degree. These people view bums as drunk, vulnerable, toyetic morons. They, also, take it one step further by painting African-Americans in a negative light. One African-American is an annoying, fast-talking crack dealer. Another is a crack whore. All the others are moronic, violent, uninteresting, or all three. Is this seriously how they want to portray African-Americans? I sure hope not.

It is absolutely horrible what these bums have to go through. Now, some may say that these homeless people volunteered to be in this documentary and that they are performing these acts out of freewill and desire. Well, let’s take a second and look at Jackass. I know I said that comparisons to Jackass are unwelcome, but in order to convey how inhumane this reprehensible load of manure is, I have to. The Jackass crew is doing this stuff out of freewill and desire. They don’t care about a paycheck or fame. It is a major benefit, but they do it to amuse themselves.

The homeless people featured in this film and the other films in the franchise are doing this not out of want, but out of questionable need. If they do this, they’ll get money, alcohol, drugs, what have you. They’d prefer not to do this, but if they want this or this, they’ll do it. The Bumfights creators know it themselves. It is the cinematic equivalent of holding catnip way up high while your cat is reaching and struggling to obtain it. They aren’t volunteering. They are being taunted. This is sheer exploitation that demeans homeless people. I felt dirty while watching it.

Not only is the content crass, but it is listless and derivative. Fighting is a sure way to get the testosterone pumping in males, be it in real life or on television. Boxing and wrestling are two fine examples. They are cool because the participants are interesting beings and have a passion to just beat the crap out of the opponent. Not to mention their awesome fighting skills.

Real-life combat, outside of reality television, is a different story. While a real fight has an aforementioned passion vibrating in the souls of the fighters, it’s a different kind. Boxers and wrestlers have more of a determined “I’m-gonna-win” passion that gains momentum and intensity as the event goes on, which makes it so unrelentingly watchable. Real-life fighting that’s non-competitive has an angry, hateful passion with inner constraints that don’t allow any other feeling to pass and no creativity in the fighting moves. Seeing how it usually comes out of nowhere, it’s exciting, only for the time being. Therefore, making a whole documentary film that hinges on that heated, prize-deprived, goalless style of fighting is an ill-conceived plan.

Making a whole documentary film that hinges on that style of fighting with homeless people inserted into it is an ill-conceived plan on a whole other level. Aside from the obvious saddening feeling that is generated, there is no other emotional response or subtext and after, say, three fights, it becomes numbing to the senses. Plus, at times it is ambiguous whether some of the people are homeless or not. I know not all homeless people are the dirty, unkempt archetype, but I heard some of the fighters are teenagers. Are those just punks or teenagers kicked out of their homes? Either way, they still remain less than compelling.

This film balances out that fighting footage with the aforesaid stunts in a similar fashion of the Big Brother videos. For those who don’t know, Big Brother was the magazine that eventually evolved into Jackass. The magazine used videos to promote itself, I guess. They combined skateboarding clips and stunts, some of which would be used in Jackass. The stunts in those videos were intriguing. The stunts on Bumfights are dull and pathetic.

Most of the stunts are so tame that I could do them. Those stunts I am referring to usually involve bums running into stuff. The idea, I guess, is for them to hurt their heads, but it seems relatively safe and restrained. Other stunts draw unavoidable parallels to Jackass. There are, maybe, three stunts that I found to be creative. 

Also, shockingly enough, the filmmakers squander potential. For example, this film marked the beginning of the appearance of Rufus, who I suppose is idealized to be the Bumfights mascot. Rufus is awesome, but yet they treat him like he's the bastard step-child of the film by making him do amateurish, unimpressive, underwhelming stunts. To make it worse, in the middle of this stunt compiling, they add a visual non-sequitir where a goat urinates. I am aware that Jackass did non-sequitirs, but it added to the charm and gleeful surrealness of the show. Here, it adds to the film’s incompetence. These filmmakers haven’t earned the right to do a non-sequitir where most of the stunts that make sense in the film’s context fall flat to start out with.

One stunt that left me baffled and scratching my head was a certain stunt where a bum dressed in a dog costume. He brings its tail to the front, presumably to make it look like he’s holding his weiner. He swings it around and then goes over towards a child, still swinging it. While I am all for shattering the boundaries of political correctness and conquering social taboos, isn’t there a line between the audacious and the tasteless? What were they thinking?

What surprised me was that homeless people didn’t perform a majority of the stunts. Many stunts are performed towards homeless people. Scenes like those evoked a quote from beloved film critic Roger Ebert. When he was doing his television show, he stated that he believed that “humor works if you make fun of somebody’s character, but not if you make fun of their status." 

Then, as I thought of that quote, I was reminded of how Jackass did pranks on unsuspecting individuals so seamlessly. The secret was their hidden logic. The pranks that were performed didn’t affect the victim or victims on a physical level. It affected them on an emotional level, unless the prank was among the Jackass cast. When the Jackass crew went out in public for a prank, they were prescient in that they knew they’d receive a visceral response from people, be it tolerant, irritated, scared, frustrated, or befuddled. That logic can be applied to pranks, in general.

Then, I thought of the fact that they involved homeless people for their pranks. I can think of two occasions: 1) Street Fishing and 2) Skid Row Santa. However, Street Fishing wasn’t directly towards homeless people, even though it would be simple and obvious for it to go that route. It affected everyone. When we see a dollar on the street, our first instinct is to pick it up. Maybe we could use that to buy someone or be one step closer to paying your monthly bill. As far as Skid Row Santa, that was a prank in concept, not execution. The idea that Santa would go to Skid Row to give food to homeless people is pretty damn absurd. However, when seen on television, it adds an uncovered layer of poignancy, compassion, and humanity that many fans thought to have been non-existent.

Treating a homeless person like an animal or spray-painting their sleeping bag in the middle of the night, while it may be creative in the filmmakers’ sick little minds, is not funny. These filmmakers have no humanity or compassion towards their subject. They are cruel, immoral, money-grabbing sadomasochists.

What I particularly loathe about this film is their need to make it hip. They want to slather themselves with all of this mindless violence and bar-lowering humor and yet want to think it fits in with pop culture and the social norm. There are scenes where, out of nowhere, a hot chick pops up on screen on a bed, posing sexually. Do we know who this girl is? No. Are we ever told? No. Does she play any important role in this film? No. So why is this chick in the film? Is the film trying to say that chicks are aroused by brutal violence and homeless people making a fool out of themselves? 

And, I hate to bring my male tendencies and instincts into this review, but they don’t even give us a nude scene with her. They tantalize us with one, but the girl has her lady bits covered. I don’t mean to sound misogynist, but let me get this straight. You can show all of this mindless, sickening crap, but showing a shot of a naked woman is going too far? Great logic, guys!

Another thing that frightens me about the film connects to an interview with Ty Beeson that preceded the segment of him getting the boot on Dr. Phil. The interview ended with the words, “It’s a sick world.” Hearing that made me ponder as to whether his warped, twisted mind has led him to believe that his films are actually a social commentary on the way society treats homeless people, a wake-up call of some sorts. 

Social commentary and wake-up call, my ass. This film has no insights in the problems of a homeless person. It glamorizes violence, humiliates and disgraces homeless people, and extracts the most vile, execrable, nihilistic values in order to pander to its audience, which probably fall in the lowest common denominator of society, and to self-indulge itself.

Yes, nihilistic. Consider a caption that precedes a Bumfighter sketch that reads, “Very few bums were harmed in the making of this sketch. All were released back to its natural habitat.” NATURAL HABITAT? Are you shitting me up the ass? You think the habitat they live in is natural? The unstable climate? The garbage they have to eat? The many fingers pointing at them with disgust and contempt? You think they want to live a homeless lifestyle? I know this supposed to be a joke, but it’s not freaking funny! You calling them animals? They put up with all of your crap and you insult them and give them a few measly dollars for some crack? Do you think that’s generous? Nothing in this film is generous! It’s evil, psychotic, and deplorable!

However, what may be the worst thing about this film, beside the fact that it’s ugly, cruel, despicable, vulgar, malicious, heartless, and is devoid of laughs, humanity, charm, or competence, is that it’s deadening. Not only is it emotional shallow, but it is hollow, empty, and barren. There’s nothing to feel about this film. Nothing. At least Jackass evoked a sense of committed camaraderie. It isn’t merely a jaw-droppingly misguided, morally disturbed, and profoundly disgusting film; it is also just a waste of time and space. And, surprisingly enough, that may be the biggest insult of all.

RATING: Three-quarters of a star out of four (I thought about giving this film one star, but that’d be complimenting it)

P.S. Today, I had a double dosage of crap. Not only did I watch one of the worst films I’ve ever seen, but I also saw one of Nickelodeon’s worst television shows, Marvin Marvin. I don’t review television shows and I’m not going to. I’m just giving you a gist of it and saying that Lucas Cruikshank has sold its soul. What became one of the quirkiest, provocative, and funniest stars on the Internet has deteriorated into starring in one of the worst shows I’ve ever seen. Ditto to Nickelodeon. What started as an innovative television network for children that produced joyfully surreal live-action shows and groundbreaking animated shows has delved into rote, unfunny, clichéd, by-the-numbers, labored, trite teen-com fare. Recently, iCarly, one of Nickelodeon’s best shows, ended its five-year run. What better way to celebrate the end of that really funny show than by beginning the airing of one of Nickelodeon’s worst? I normally wouldn’t give attention to a bad TV show. I’m just doing it as a way to warn you and to hope that we can get this stupid show off the air. I’d give it a high 1 star, just because it delivers intermittent laughs, rarely though.