Zero Dark Thirty (2012)

Folks, we got him.

On May 2^nd, 2011, we got him. The ringleader of one of the most horrific and unfortunately unforgettable events in U.S. history was killed. Mr. Osama bin Laden is dead. While this hasn’t starkly terminated terrorism and while I predict further issues ahead, we are certainly one step closer to ending al-Qaeda. It was one of the most liberating moments in the U.S.A. The arrival of death for a human being isn’t usually greeted with such a jovial attitude, but there it is.

Doing a film on this may not be the boldest decision ever, but it certainly is a risky one. Given the reaction of bin Laden’s death to Americans, it would be easy to delve into some shameless, pandering propaganda. I resume to quote Matt Stone and Trey Parker, “America, F*** Yeah!”

I believe the only tactful way to handle this subject would be to do a procedural that tracks the progress of the hunt for bin Laden. This film does just that. I, also, believe this project calls for a respected, competent director. Kathryn Bigelow? Hell yeah!

Starting from 2003, the film observes the advancement for the extermination of bin Laden. Given this information, the film’s central character is not Osama bin Laden. Instead, the focal point, character wise, is a CIA officer named Maya. The film is, not merely, a procedural, but also a character study on Maya and how her desire for finding bin Laden turns into a healthy yet dominant obsession and how she fully fledges into a true woman.

In order to properly portray a plucky, no-nonsense woman, one would need a praise-worthy, beautifully versatile woman. Well, Hollywood and Lifetime Television certainly has provided us with a lot of them. Jessica Chastain was chosen and she is fantastic in her role, creating one of the most memorable protagonists in movie history. She shows persuasion and an impressive acting range, switching from ferocious determination to humble, teary-eyed liberation.

Of course, the supporting cast is excellent, as well. Of the supporting cast, Jason Clarke is the standout. He infuses his character, Dan, with an ideal blend of intimidation and humility. His dynamic with Maya provides a great dichotomy of logic versus instinct, seeing how Dan uses terror tactics during the bin Laden search. Other performers such as Kyle Chandler, and, (hey!) James Gandolfini are quite good, as well.

I recall seeing the trailers for this film and was incredibly hyped for it. My first viewing left me thoroughly impressed, albeit a little restless. I appreciated its methodical, plodded pace and understood that it was a procedural, but I still had a minor request for the film to pick up the pace a little bit. While it left me tense throughout, I think I was viewing the film in the mindset of making sure the film lives up to my intense hype and I guess it somewhat fell short.

Then, I saw Bigelow’s film, The Hurt Locker, which is one of my all-time favorite films. That film really made me understand Bigelow as a filmmaker. Once I understood that, I viewed Zero Dark Thirty a second time in class and I had a deeper respect for the film. All the great qualities of The Hurt Locker (the masterful screenwriting, done once again by Mark Boal, the way Bigelow designs an anxious atmosphere for the audience, the slow tempo, the restrained yet epic use of music, the unsullied, flexible cinematography, the well-choreographed action) all transferred to this film.

The opening of the film gets it. It begins on September 11th, 2001, certainly a memorable, albeit unfortunate, period of time. However, we find ourselves looking at no captions. No visuals. Just a dark, blank screen with the sounds from 9/11 spliced in. This is the absolutely perfect and ideal way to alert the audience of what lies ahead, to evoke frightening ideas, and to sends chills down the viewer's spine faster than a crack addict sending a text message.

This film also goes further and provokes deep thought. This film has ignited heavy debate on torture tactics and the morality (or lack thereof) of them. I am personally in favor of torture tactics when they are needed. The genius of this film is that it makes an argument for both sides of the terror tactic debate without it being the central topic at hand. The aforementioned dynamic of Maya and Dan provides this non-biased argument. The film, also, provides a final 25 minute sequence that shows the climactic raid of bin Laden’s compound (spoiler, much?). Believe me when I say it’s one of the most flawlessly executed and agonizingly tense action scenes I’ve ever seen. This film establishes Kathryn Bigelow as a cinematic powerhouse. I will greet the trailers to her next film with giddy ecstasy.

RATING: Three and three-quarters stars out of four

My most anticipated films of 2013

2013? Wow. The world didn't explode. What a shock!

Well, either way, we are currently residing in the year 2013. So far, it sounds like it has been a very middling year for film so far. The highest-grossing film is Oz: The Great and Powerful, a film that has garnered mixed reviews from critics. Texas Chainsaw 3D is said to be the bottom of the barrel for the franchise (I haven't seen that film, but for some reason, I believe those people). And need we mention Movie 43? It's currently unseen by me and given the vitriol and disgust for the film, I feel any comment about it will force the world into a vomiting epidemic, so I'll cease commenting. I might end up seeing it, seeing how I hate myself.

Anyway, I was thinking that Identity Thief was one of my anticipated films of 2013. However, that film has received a heavy heaping of scorn. Even Spill.com awarded the film with a rare F**k You rating! Damn. Maybe I'm missing something.

However, I started thinking of this one film that looked astonishing to me and then one thing lead to another and then, the idea occured to me to post my anticipated films of 2013 because all five of my readers might care! Now, I'm not going to post a list. In fact, I only have two anticipated films because, like a woman pregnant with twins on her 9th month, I am equally ecstatic for their arrival.

So, drumroll please! My two most anticipated films are...Oblivion and The Hunger Games: Catching Fire! Why? Well, to quote Shrek 2, "Let's explore that, shall we?"

I was instantly excited for Oblivion the moment I saw the trailer for the first time. The effects...look...PHENOMENAL!! I actually had no idea what it was about until I looked it up on WIkipedia and the PLOT sounds awesome! The fact that Tom Cruise has been in Minority Report AND Vanilla Sky? Yes! Morgan Freeman? OH, FRACK YEAH!!

Now as far as Catching Fire, anyone who has read my Hunger Games review knows how much I adore the source material the first one was based on. I am actually currently reading the second book as part of my goal to finish the book before the film comes out. So far, it's spectacular! Better than the first book! Plus, I trust the material in newly-appointed director Francis Lawrence's hands. One of Lawrence's credits is I Am Legend. If Lawrence follows that and makes something of a junior version of that, it could end up being one of my favorite films of all time. Plus, I just wanna see Jennifer Lawrence again                                                                                                                   

• a) because of her constant sexiness
• and b) because of her breathtaking performance in my favorite film of 2012, Silver Linings Playbook, that preceded this film

However, those two films actually do have a common bond that makes me anxious and giddy for their arrival. Both films have a writing credit, in some manner, of Michael Arndt.

OH. HELL. YEAH!

Michael Arndt is a screenwriter who has built up quite a reputation. His screenwriting debut was Little Miss Sunshine, a very good film. That film won him an Oscar for the screenplay. His second screenwriting foray was Toy Story 3. It got him nominated for an Oscar and the film was loved by everyone, including me, and it is currently the highest-grossing animated film of all time! That's why I am anticipating these two films. Plus, I am putting out a guarantee that if Oblivion rocks, Catching Fire is gonna rock!

However, while I can't see Catching Fire faltering, maybe Oblivion will. Michael Arndt is merely a co-writer for the film, so maybe the other writers don't put Arndt to any legit, exceptional use. Maybe Tom Cruise didn't bring his A-game. Maybe it just drags for long periods of time. Maybe the storytelling is incoherent. Maybe it's just a big bag of style over substance. Couuld this be true? Possibly. I sure as hell hope not. However, seeing how the rest of 2013's selections either come off as weak, unoriginal, or both, I'm putting ALL of my faith and trust in these two films.

Will I see these two films in theaters? Maybe. Seeing how I don't work a job and I don't get paid for writing these reviews (because no one has smartened up and realized that I am a good writer who should receive fame and payment), I may not be financially able to. Will I try to go see them? Damn straight!

Well, now that you all know my most antipicated films of 2013, what are yours? Comment down below. Plus, if by chance you have a free screener copy or free pirated copy or a free link to either of these two films, let me know. ;-) Just kidding! Anyway, tell me what your most anticipated film, or films, of 2013 is. Go ahead! Fire away! Later!

The Hurt Locker (2009)

I feel like it is absolutely essential to start this review off with a little blast from the past. The year was 2009. Sure, it may not be the most far-off year, but what a year it was. It was certainly a gargantuan year for movies. It began as kind of a weak year. But around April, the year took off. I’m not saying all of the films that came out were all masterpieces, but they certainly were memorable with blockbusters filling more cineplexes than we could count. Hell, seven films that were released in 2009 would place on the top 50 list of the highest-grossing films of all time.

However, there were two films that were distinct for that year, both of which were juggernauts in some manner. The first film was Kathryn Bigelow’s The Hurt Locker, the war film that specifically won the hearts of film critics. Most, if not all, of the major film critics in America placed this on their year-end best-of lists. It was a critical juggernaut.

The second film was James Cameron’s Avatar. In terms of this film, “juggernaut” would be an understatement. It completely swept through the consciousness of modern audiences and became the highest-grossing film of all-time, grossing over 2 billion dollars worldwide!

Naturally, when it was time to reveal the nominations for the 82^nd Academy Awards, honoring the achievements and acmes for film in 2009, two of the Best Picture nominations were The Hurt Locker and Avatar. Ironically, Bigelow and Cameron were married to each other at one point, so it was the quintessential “battle of the sexes.” Who would reign supreme? Would it be the critical darling or the massive box-office success? Or neither? Seeing how I was 13 at the time, I, aptly, predicted the box-office success would win. After all, the Oscars wouldn’t snub the newly crowned highest grossing film of all time, right? Wrong!

I woke up on March 8^th, 2010 to check the results and, to my surprise, under the Best Picture winner, I saw three words: The Hurt Locker. Eventually, it was time for me to decide which was the better film. In August of 2012, I finally checked out Avatar from beginning to end and was immediately caught spellbound by its imagery and creativity. This year, I checked out The Hurt Locker, not exactly knowing what to expect. All I’ll say is: Kathryn Bigelow, you win! All hail the queen!

The film alerts all spectators of its theme and plants its feet into the ground by opening with a Chris Hedges quote, “The rush of battle is a potent and often lethal addiction, for war is a drug.” This immediately seems like a change of pace from the typical war film, which usually either depicts the horror, honor, or both aspects of war. Here, war isn’t merely that. To some men, war is a high, an obsession, and a way to get adrenaline flowing. One of these men is Sergeant William James, who has been recently recruited as the new leader of the Explosive Ordnance Disposal after another Sergeant dies after a bombing incident. Despite the uneasy response from his fellow men, he has an intense expertise for defusing bombs. The place of operation is Iraq where any minute of these men’s lives could be their last.

Whenever I review a film, it is my obligation and duty, in my opinion, to take notes beforehand to provide framework for a review and to use as an agenda for the points I aspire to introduce and evaluate. This time, I refused. No word or observation that I could write down could ever fixate and validate my true feeling for the film. I feel that that’s partially what being a critic is all about: feeling. Passion is a necessary facet for a critic to possess and I am most certainly passionate about this film.

I was utterly mesmerized by this film. Every frame of this is hypnotic. Every laugh is explosive. Every beat is excruciatingly tense. Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal have flawlessly created an atmosphere of unrelenting and foreboding tension. Every single, solitary moment forced my spine to tingle and my nerves to chill. The fact that any misstep or trick can prove fatal makes this film scarier that most horror films I’ve seen.

Another person that creates anxiety is cinematographer Barry Ackroyd. He provides some of the most masterful camerawork I’ve seen in a while. I’m not flat-out against the use of shaky cam in films, but when one overuses it, my God it can be annoying! Here, Ackroyd knows precisely how to use it. It is a perfect compliment to the gritty nature and uneasy subject matter of the film. It gives the film a more realistic and powerful vibe. When the camera shakes frenetically, it seems to be the external justification of the inward anxiety felt by the audience and the characters. The music is spare yet haunting and just adds to the fear that the film exudes.

The acting is flat-out superb. While players such as Ralph Fiennes, Brian Geraghty, and 8 Mile’s Anthony Mackie do a bang-up job in their roles, the essence of the film belongs to Jeremy Renner as Sergeant James. For a film with such a unique theme, it is essential for the writing and the acting to click as a single unit to form a cohesive and fluid character portrayal. This film does exactly that. What’s remarkable about Mark Boal’s writing is that he doesn’t label Sergeant James. He merely depicts him. Is he a hero? Not exactly. An anti-hero? Probably not. An enemy? No. He is merely a person. A person who feeds off of the bizarre energy of war, but is stuck when he has to play a much larger role: the husband and father. Jeremy Renner plays Sergeant James with every bit of the intense machismo, persistent courage, and sympathetic disorientation that the role requires.

This film is a miraculous achievement. On any level you want to judge the film on (be it sensory, technical, thematic, emotional, performance), the film excels. Currently, I have not seen a war film that plunged me into war and made me feel for the men like this film did. This is a classic that will endure for many years to come. I predict that years from now, film students who are studying war films will have to view this after they spend two months dissecting and analyzing Apocalypse Now. If God loves film as much as I do, hopefully that will happen.

RATING: Four stars out of four!

Gangs of New York (2002)

Being the avid film fanatic and intense film connoisseur that I am, I am ashamed to say that this film marks the first time I have ever seen a film associated with this sentence: “Directed by Martin Scorsese.” Don’t get me wrong. I have most definitely heard of his work, but until this film, it all remained unseen by me. Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, Casino, Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore, The Departed, Shutter Island; ALL unseen by me! Hell, Hugo remains unseen by me. That’s how detached I am from his films. However, given the numerous slots on “best films of all time” lists, the day that me and a Martin Scorsese film would cross paths was certainly bound to happen, given my intrigue of his cinematic library. While this may not be the best introduction to his films, it certainly is an acceptable and unquestionably good one.

The film begins in 1846 in, where else, California. No, no, no, it begins in New York, specifically in the Five Points area. The New York citizens and the new wave of Irish immigrants battle it out on the streets of New York. One man, played by Liam Neeson (back when he wasn’t doing vitriol-inducing sequels or befuddling adaptations of board games), gets murdered by the leader of the New York citizens, Bill the Butcher, played by Daniel Day-Lewis. His son, in a very strong scene, is devastated and infuriated by his death. He is placed in an orphanage and 16 years later, he returns to New York with a seething vengeance and the face of Leonardo DiCaprio. He also runs into an attractive and wily pickpocketer, played by Cameron Diaz, who falls for DiCaprio.

The theme of hatred lingers throughout the film whether it’s hatred of immigrants, hatred of corruption and deceit, and even hatred on oneself. Consider a scene where DiCaprio realizes that the pickpocketer has a history with Bill the Butcher. DiCaprio is repulsed by this discovery and yet he still ends up sleeping with her. The way love simultaneously frustrates, liberates, and confuses DiCaprio is masterfully depicted. It’s moments like that where the hate is simmering yet internalized. Sometimes, hatred is expressed via unrestrained, lurid, brutal, and well-choreographed fight scenes, including the climactic battle where all the frustration and rage felt by all culminates ferociously.

           

While I have previously mentioned that I have never seen any of Martin Scorsese’s other films, I do know one thing: he is a filmmaker. Not only for his masterful storytelling (I mean, he follows up the most intense battle of the film with one of the most poetic, clever, and revealing endings I’ve seen), but also for his apt for creating taut, powerful moments and framing necessary and unique shots. Some POV shots and other little cinematography tricks (i.e. blood on the camera) really immerse the viewer into the setting and character that Scorsese emphasizes. Also, he clearly knows how to get the most out of his actors. Not only do his actors pull off brilliant performances, but also he uses a distinct trait of each actor (Day-Lewis’ intimidating presence, Diaz’s playful, child-like smile, and DiCaprio’s mature, devilish charm), emphasizes it and uses it for the better of, not only their characters, but themselves.

Daniel Day-Lewis has a goofy mustache, an artificial eye with a bird-shaped pupil, and looks like the ringleader for a Sweeney Todd circus. Yet he not only remains intimidating and ominous, but also creates one of the greatest villains in movie history. He’s just so deliciously evil. Diaz’s playfulness adds on to the craftiness and vulnerability of her character. DiCaprio’s charm makes his plight for vengeance authentic with his voice that just sounds awesome whatever he says. I bet waiters can’t properly place his order without bowing and chanting, “I am not worthy!”

So, the good news to Martin Scorsese fans is that he doesn’t disappoint. He has crafted a film with exceptional performances, effective cinematography, and competent storytelling. Throw in some amusing moments and a plethora of gorgeous, bodacious nude bodies (thank you, Scorsese) and it makes for not a great film, but a film definitely worth seeing. At least so you can say that you have seen a Martin Scorsese film.

RATING: An enthusiastic three stars out of four

Cry Freedom (1987)

Thinking of past movie memories brings me back to this going-away party held for my good friend, Tia. For the first 30 or 40 minutes, the guests watched the English dub of Princess Mononoke. I hadn’t previously seen it and I found myself finding the dubbing laughable and not really getting sucked into it. After the aforementioned time, the film was turned off. Months later, I watched it on my own. It was the original Japanese version that I viewed at home and I found myself absolutely in love with it. Now why the hell am I talking about this? Because I’m trying to make a point that some films get better after one or more repeated viewings. Cry Freedom falls under this category of films. Mildly.

The film opens in an effectively cold manner. Via extremely minimal lighting and black-and-white photos, it depicts the then-current turmoil of black South Africans. It shows them in slums that end up getting demolished by white South African cops, who claim that they are illegal. After that scene, we meet our main character, Donald Woods, a liberal, successful journalist, played by Kevin Kline. How do I know he’s successful? Because he has the classic 1980s working man look: stupid glasses.

Yet his character arc begins as a misguided man as he publishes an article about black activist Steven Biko, where he views Biko as an enemy. An angry black woman confronts Woods about the article. She tells Woods, “You are not a fool. You are uninformed.” Because of this statement, Woods decides to meet Biko, played by Denzel Washington, and through Biko, Woods realizes the hardships of black South Africans, along with the frustratingly persistent corruption of the police and the government. After the police beats Biko to death in jail and the truth about his death is not revealed to the general public, Woods decides to take matters into his own hands and spread the news, thus spreading awareness of Biko. This leads to an odyssey of bravery and complexity, as he tries to escape South Africa.

I mentioned the Princess Mononoke memory previously. Well, watching 1987’s Cry Freedom for the second time (I missed part of it due to a prior obligation and I needed to watch it again) reminded me of watching another movie: Hachi: A Dog’s Tale from 2010. During that movie, Hachi is a dog whose owner dies and yet continues to wait at the train station where he would meet up with his owner when he came home from work. At first, I wanted to remove the dog from the train station and leave it in the care of another family member. Then, I found out that this wasn’t just scripted movie nonsense. That actually happened. That historical context made the film better. That is the same case with Cry Freedom, minus the dog.

I mentioned that after Biko dies, Woods takes matters in his own hands and intends to spread the word about Biko and the circumstances that killed him, which leads to a journey of him trying to escape South Africa. At first, I felt that this part of the film and even a few scenes beforehand were deathly sluggish and Caucasian-centric. I felt that too much emphasis was put on how apartheid affects Woods and little emphasis on the effect of apartheid on black South Africans. I also noticed that the editing in this section was extremely awkward. Flashbacks seemed incompetently shoehorned in. Also, I felt that the originally evocative lighting began to grow dismal.

However, after remembering the fact that all of this really happened, the film, which at that point was starting to lose me, eventually won me over. After it had won me over, it didn’t seem sluggish anymore. I now felt that the Caucasian-centric aura of this section was actually apt because it shows that while not all people are in the same situation, the ones who aren’t can certainly feel for the ones that are. I already thought that Kevin Kline’s performance was good. While his simplistic character arc kinda held him back, he still pulled off a ferocious intensity. However, in this section of the film, there was a determination and hardiness about his character/performance that clicked with me. Also, the flashbacks didn’t seem all that misplaced anymore. I also realized that the lighting still remained dismal, but the other positive aspects make up for that.

My opinion of the ending changed, too (spoiler alert). At the very end, Woods, along with his family, gets on a plane (resulting in some great POV camera shots), escape South Africa, and go off to England to spread the news about the horrors in South Africa. However, we never seem them arrive at England. The plane disappears into the distance and we are given a list of black South African prisoners who died in prison and the false excuses the police gave for their death. My original thought was, “That was it? You spent the whole last third trying to get to England to spread the word and you aren’t even going to show him spreading the word?!?! I guess this was all about the white man, huh?” Eventually, though, I realized that when this film was released, apartheid in South Africa hadn’t ended yet. The movie was trying to say that no matter how powerful his words were, they could not solely ignite the shift towards freedom for black South Africans. South Africa still had a lot of work to do. That additional historical context added a haunting yet hopeful quality about the film that utterly impressed me.

However, there are some other flaws I can bring up that can’t be justified. First of all, Woods’ family, especially his wife, are absolutely dull characters. They add extremely little emotion into the film and they aren’t charming, funny, or captivating in the slightest. Second of all, this film feels like too different kinds of films: a PBS telefilm and a carbon copy of director Richard Attenborough’s previous film, Gandhi. It’s a PBS telefilm in terms of its sanitation, execution, and in its directness. Consider a scene where the police take Biko into custody for giving an illegal speech at a soccer (or football, what have you) game. At the end of the scene, one of the officers says, “I’m gonna catch you red-handed one day!” This is an utterly laughable line. It feels more at home in a Smokey and the Bandit film than in this film.

I also mentioned that this film feels like a carbon copy of Gandhi. First and foremost, Gandhi is one of the most ambitious and grandest biopics I’ve ever seen. Every scene is filled with widely framed cinematography, which is chocked full of great crowd scenes, exhilarating storytelling, brilliant speeches, and the devout, transformed soul of Ben Kingsley. It’s one of my favorite films. Cry Freedom has a lot of great crowd scenes that are expertly framed and a few speeches, but they feel too similar to Gandhi. I don’t call it a nod to Gandhi; I call it mechanical, forced, and derivative.

However, there are two exceptional elements of this film. I quoted a line from the film earlier and as you could see, the dialogue is, for the most part, well written. However, there are moments of dialogue that are searingly, penetratingly wry and honest. I don’t have any specific examples, but they are present and one who watches the film can definitely see it. The other exceptional element of the film is Denzel Washington as Biko (yeah, sorry about side-stepping him). When we first see Biko, we actually don’t see his face. It’s a shot that’s delightfully mysterious yet overdone, as if Biko is trying to be depicted as a pseudo-mystical deity. However, we do end up seeing the face of Denzel. We also discover his charismatic, sharp, and sly performance where he adopts a smile that’s simultaneously tender and roguish. These two elements plus the fact that most of the flaws become strengths definitely make up for some of the film’s perpetual flaws.

RATING: Three stars out of four

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!

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!