Fool's Gold

This movie reminds me of what Ron Bozman told me about his career. Sometimes, you make bad movies just to make a living. Producers recognize bad movies, but know they will make money and that is why they get made. Well our definitions of "make a living" are vastly different. Perhaps this is the key to not having to settle? As far as this movie goes, clearly the producers were banking on star power and charisma from both Matthew McConaughey and Kate Hudson, back together on screen to sell tickets because I didn't hear much else from the ad campaign but this. That immediately makes me think the movie will be complete crap, but honestly, it was pretty watchable. Their chemistry and charisma together was great and I didn't even mind MM's seeping arrogance. I actually really enjoyed the father-daughter relationship, with the Paris Hilton-esque diva girl trying to bond with her billionaire father. The scene where she describes her 24yr-old mother and stands up to her old dad was touching. Kate Hudson was absolutely charming in her quirky, beautiful way. And I am a sucker for the history mystery movies. I did feel like I was learning something whether it was based in fact or not.

McConaughey's character had an Indiana Jones like appeal. A screw-up who is completely passionate and one-minded in his focus. This quality is what always got him (and Indy) through and made him relatable to the audience. Some of the lines were really great. Hudson says "We just had sex in a church and we're not married and now we are digging up a grave. What is that like a triple sin?" McConaughey digs up a barrel in the grave and says maybe its the grave of a "midget with cheap relatives." I laughed. The killing and shooting got a bit crazy at the end. So many bullets flying and no one got hit? That really undermines the danger of guns and is just plain ridiculous, not funny. I'm not sure if it was edited because we were an a plane, but the plane crashing in the water was completely cut. They were headed for the water and then it cut to them floating amongst debris. It felt like they ran out of budget. I can only assume it was "edited for content" because that was just plain bad filmmaking. So what happened with this film. It was good plane fare, but how did it fair at the box office? Well rotten tomatoes gave it about the most scathing reviews imaginable. Maybe all those people went in with expectations, but I clearly had none and was able to enjoy many moments of this film.

Jumper

The premise for this movie intrigues me, especially after just having finished The Man Who Folded Himself. Jumping is teleporting anywhere, and that is basically it. They don't really explain the rules other than you need a "jump point" something visual to focus on to go to. They don't bother with the history of it or how it is possible. It is just enough to know that both Paladins and Jumpers have existed and fought for centuries. That is just what they do. The beginning of the film was more of an exploration into the psychology of a human who suddenly finds out that he is not subject to the limits of space. What will this person become when normal rules no longer apply? (These seems to be the theme of a lot of superhero movies lately. People are ordinary, like us, but then become extraordinary, a way to give us all escapism and hope from our boring lives.)

Hayden Christiansen's character was very much like Daniel in The Man Who Folded Himself, exploring the universe where he is at the center. Jumper, however, was much less insightful. It is about a man without limits hat takes what he pleases and sees the whole world, including women, as his toys. What was interesting about this in the beginning is most "guys who suddenly get power" use it to become heroes. He used it to live in a New York loft and get girls. After begin challenged by Samuel L. Jackson and escaping, he doesn't try to fight, he tries to go back to his old life and win over a girl. There were even subtle allusions, like Hurricane Katrina victims on TV that he could have easily saved, but were imperviously ignored. So even though it is the classic, boy escapes awful life by finding out he has superpowers, he doesn't become a hero or a join a "fraternity of assassins." He has to deal with his alcoholic dad, being picked on as a kid and taking everything that he wants from the world (the wonderful intro, I did all this blah di blah by lunch), but he still feels empty inside. So we learn that his path to wholeness revolves around his girlhood crush and reconciliation with his mom who left. He goes home to find the girl he left behind and she is still there, waiting for him and now we have excellent fodder for him to save, because the movie literally does a 180° and turns, instantaneously, into a superhero movie where Jumpers fight Paladins in a Good (sort of) vs. Evil (religious fanatic undertones not missed). It literally turns into a crazy krosh, krosh action movie with face smashing, cars jumping all over Tokyo and double decker buses plowing through Egypt. Hayden does the impossible and jumps a house to save the day and his girlfriend. Leaves the bad guy on the edge of a cliff and then confronts his Paladin mother in a quasi, accept me even though I'm different (could be gay) moment. She (Diane Lane) gives him a head start. I smell sequel.

Hayden was less obnoxious in this movie than Star Wars, but still, I think people are mistaken to assume he has leading man quality. He did look dark and brooding, with those hollowed out eyes, which is probably why Lucas thought he would make a good villain of the universe as Vader, but even though he looked tortured the whole movie, it really only worked in the beginning, when it wasn't an action movie. I think where this movie derailed is that for people who wanted action, the really didn't get much until the end and for people who are tired of endless car chases and explosions, we started to dive deeper into his psyche and then we were ripped away.

Now all I can really say about this movie is "what a boy flick." White male, god-like power, lots of money. Another white male, god-like power, lots of aggression and anger. The world revolves around him, he can do anything and beautiful girls fall at his feet. We briefly begin to explore his psychology in dealing with his new god like power and his sense of emptiness. Then we see him try to find something meaningful in the girl he left behind, but then the girl becomes his sole reason to be a hero. She is only there so he can have someone to save. She was so one note, just there to give him meaning. I want to know, why couldn't the other jumper have been a girl? Well obviously because then she would've had to have been the love interest. Well what if she was tough and intelligent and kicked ass, but wasn't the love interest? What if she was a lesbian? Would this be too threatening to the 14yr olds going to see the movie who all want to escape their crappy lives by having god-like power and women fall at their feet? Why can't we just stick with exploring his psyche? Everyone in the theater wished they could have his power, which is why we as a society are so obsessed with super hero movies lately, but none of them realized that he was actually miserable and alone with his power. So again this makes me think again of The Man Who Folded Himself. Daniel was the center of his universe yet so very alone that he could only ever be with himself.

If my superhero webseries can begin to transcend this need to be either action or drama, then I need to keep movies like Jumper in my mind. The industry doesn't even consider making movies like Jumper where women are more than just objects for the hero. (I made a note that perhaps Angelina Jolie in Wanted would be different, but sadly that was disappointing as well.) It is about time that movies like Jumper are turned are their head. I really think Hollywood is sorely missing a woman's perspective in the action genre. I think this is why the Batman franchise as always been successful, it mixes action with 2 psychologically warped people and one falls into villainy, an example of what Batman could become, and Batman is always struggling with how to be so cracked, flawed and broken, yet a hero. The trailer intrigues me because it is all about his struggle. "I see the man I have to become to stop men like him" and it scares him. I am really looking forward to that movie. Plus Maggie Gyllenhaal takes over Katie Holmes role as Rachel Dawes in probably the best casting decision of the decade. Dig to Katie, but yay for the rest of the world. Thank god they decided to admit their mistake with Holmes and fix it rather than just plow through as most honchos with power do.

Evan Almighty

All in all it was much better than the trash I expected it to be. It was entertaining, in a feel good, family movie sort of way. Most of the funny parts were, predictably, in the trailer, but Steve Carell, even as the same character in every movie, is just hard to look away from. He can carry things. Even clunky predictable sinkers like Noah's Ark.

It was fun to look for Ty as an extra, although I didn't see him. I think he was in the big Ark scene, pre-flood at the end.

Maile Flanagan made an appearance as the Mail woman and was in the last sequence on the ark. I made a note to find out how she got famous enough to get that part. Wikipedia says she is most famous as the voice of Naruto, but she has also been in several films and TV shows in bit parts including The Office where she played Phyllis's sister in her wedding episode.

National Treasure 2

First of all, they made the mistake of assuming I remembered or cared who the characters were. I haven't seen the first movie in like 5 years and it was forgettable enough that I only remembered the room of gold and Nic Cage. This movie had an elaborate set-up to explain where the people from the first movie were now, but I didn't even remember the actors faces from the first movie so I couldn't recognize them. As a result, the intro of this movie was lost on me. I didn't remember that the girl and Nic Cage got together so this whole elaborate set-up to explain their separation was confusing. I remember the premise of the franchise as being a good one, using history and our nostalgia for what the collective knowledge of U.S. history is (Paul Revere Tea Party etc.) to weave an action mystery ala Indiana Jones, where there is more to the past than meets the eye. I remember the first film starting well and being very compelling but then it went all Bruckheimer action crazy and ended in a giant room of gold. National Treasure 2 was the same, but less clever and more over the top. I cared less about the characters (although the quirky sidekick guy was occasionally genuinely funny) and their predicament or the treasure. The villain was just ridiculous even though it is played by Ed Harris, the premise behind the character was just plain dumb. I was very surprised to see Helen Mirren as Nic Cage's mom and Native American expert. She was regal and I was drawn to her in very scene, but I could not believe the dialog. Apparently she hadn't seen her husband in 32 years and they start arguing over a toothbrush? Give me a break.

It is just so hard for me to feel suspense in these ridiculous, over-the-top action movies. They are so elaborate in their stunts and special effects, but the outcome is just plain predictable and the actors aren't nearly scared enough for how imminent their death should be. They should be pissing themselves with fear and having nervous breakdowns. Not everyone is a "hero" and even "heroes" fear death. I want to see some real emotion in a superhero movie.

What I need to explore is how action movies can actually build suspense. They need to seem plausible and real so that the audience truly fears for the character along with them. I know they are meant to be fantastical and escapist, but their has to be a way to integrate real emotion and fear without it being the comic relief from the nerdy guy. More actual human psychology please, I am tired of blockbuster superhero over the top psychology. It has become so commonplace that people just make movies that way without even thinking about it. I'm not buying it and maybe even little kids aren't either. Kids are smarter than they get credit for. This is what I need to explore with my comic book webseries. Superheroes and victims with real human emotions, reactions and behaviors. People will eventually grow tired (if they haven't already) of the eye-candy, special effects driven blockbuster and they will want some real to identify with. Even movies like Transformers that try to lure the audience in with a "regular kid" Shia LaBeouf eventually have him perform superhuman task with ease and without fear.

And a picture of the leading lady because I like beautiful women who kick ass, even if the do just wind up with the guy at the end.

Museum of Fine Arts - Boston, MA

I had an amazing time just bumming around Boston while waiting for Dad's plane to come in. I stuck true to my word to not let his "inconveniences" hinder me and I really rocked out. First I went to the Sam Adams Brewery Tour. I made it in time for the 12pm tour, getting there around 11:30am. It got crazy busy right after I got there and they ended up being "sold out" until 2pm. It wasn't so much of a tour as a taste a bunch of great beer fresh from the source. I tried the original lager, the summer ale and a German name (Grosh?) with birds of paradise grain. All were delicious. I hadn't eaten so I got a bit of a buzz, hoped on the T and headed back towards the Museum of Fine Arts.

There was something surreal about looking at Monet, Degas, Manet, Van Gogh etc. while having a bit of a Sam Adams beer buzz. I must say, it was wonderful. I was surprised how much I was able to remember just from the two art history courses I took in college. If I really read a book on it, I would make so many more connections and appreciate these works and their effect on history so much more after having seen so much of the world's amazing master pieces in person. It really takes it to a whole new level. By connections, I mean understanding more insightfully the progression of the works and how each movement builds on the other. A refresher in history regarding the politics of the time would also begin to make all this art and its creators gel for me.

Everything in Egypt always fascinates me. It gives me a sense of just how old our Earth is and puts into perspective how comparatively stable the Egyptian civilization was to rule for over 30 dynasties and 4000 years. I feel like the Egyptian culture had a stable middle class, just as we do today that was very focused on earning things, just as we are today. They may have wanted pots and jewelry and trinkets to take with them to the after life, but that isn't much different than working for ipods or cars or clothes today. The basic human need and desire is the same now as it was then. The same emotions, motivations and stories still exists within us. I hardly think our technology driven society will have the stability to last 4000 years. Who know where we will be in the course of my lifetime, let only 30 generations from now.

I can babble all I want, but the pics speak for themselves and say much more, and more elegantly, than I ever could.Mary Stevenson Cassatt, In the Loge, 1878

Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Dance at Bougival, 1883

Paul Gauguin, Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where Are We Going?, 1897-1898

Vincent van Gogh, Postman Joseph Roulin, 1888

Claude Monet, Antibes Seen from the Plateau Notre-Dame, 1888

Claude Monet, La Japonaise (Camille Monet in Japanese Costume), 1876

Edouard Manet, Street Singer, 1862

Jean-Francois Millet, Potato Planters, 1861

Joseph Mallord William Turner, Slave Ship (Slavers Throwing Overboard the Dead and Dying, Typhoon Coming On), 1840

Henri Matisse, Carmelina, 1903

Vincent van Gogh, Lullaby: Madame Augustine Roulin Rocking a Cradle (La Berceuse), 1889

Antonio Stradivari, Violino Piccolo, 1734 - A miniature Stradivari violin made for Napoleon Bonaparte's son. Damn!

King Mycerinus and Queen Kha-merer-nebbty II, Giza, 2548-2530 B.C. The woman has been nurturing to her rigid man for thousands of years!

Egyptian writing. Beautiful.

Pair Statue of Ptahkhenuwy and His Wife, Giza, Old Kingdom Dynasty 5, 2465-2323 B.C.

Roman Mosiac Floor, Early Third Century A.D.

Wreath of Olive Leaves, Greek, 4th Century B.C.

Egyptian "stuff" (almost an ipod), later dynasties, 20-30ish)

Sarcophagus with Husband and Wife, Etruscan (with Greek influence), 330-300 B.C.

This is ~Dynasty 27-30 Egyptian Sarcophagus, didn't snap the name plate on this one.

Definitely, Maybe

Decent movie overall, although I never would've seen it if it wasn't plane fare. What I enjoyed most is the fact that it started with divorce. I'm so tired of romantic comedies that are only about the "getting together" and then we are supposed to assume everything is hunky dory after that. That just isn't life. It is the living afterward that is the real love. That part is hard and trying and that is real life. This was about the getting together after we already knew it didn't work out and had ended, interesting concept.

Ryan Reynolds is the same quirky, charming guy he always plays, but it worked in this movie. I found the interwoven story to be mostly unpredictable, there were a lot of twists and turns to keep you guessing and your sentiment towards each of the girls definitely shifts around with the main character. The ending is set-up from early on. I knew from about halfway through that April and the book her father gave her would wind up being the impetus for Reynold's character to finally realize his love for her, but Abagail Breslin wound up being the daughter of his first girlfriend and Summer (Rachel Weisz's character) popped up pregnant at about the right time. It really was a "love mystery" as the little girl put it and kept me intrigued as not many romantic comedies do.

On a more personal note, while listening to the credit music at the end, I was struck with an odd calming feeling I haven't felt in days (since Meg's updated relationship status). Yes, despite it all, I still do believe that lifetime love is possible. This movie hit my sentiments on the head in that regard. Love is about timing and you can love passionately and intensely and it will be very true for that moment. It doesn't make it less love when it changes, because life is transitory and we are always moving. It might be awhile before things slow enough in my life to be the right time for a lifetime love to happen. It definitely needs stability and a great awareness of yourself, which is hard when things are changing and moving so quickly. Basically I was too naive in love and myself last time around and although I will always have things to learn, hopefully I will be less naive someday.

This is what the movie meant to me. Love is timing, it is not what you expect, it takes years to understand, it changes, you change, you make mistakes, but you grow and eventually you can understand it enough to make it last.

On a side note, while finding pictures for the post I found out that Isla Fisher, who played April (the one) in the movie is Sacha Baron Cohen's wife. She was very charming and feisty in her rocker chick-esque roll in the film. Kind of reminded me of the girl from The Devil Wears Prada. I'm not quite sure why yet.

Top Chef, Gimme Sugar and the Battlestar Mid Season Finale

Well I'll start with Gimme Sugar, the new lesbian "reality tv show" on Logo. It is all about the scene and lesbian drama in LA. I won't recap it because AfterEllen already mentioned the good, the bad and the ugly and they were pretty spot on. It feels very staged, like they are bad actors ad libbing a set-up. Ok, so we need to establish that you want to do a club in this scene, ready go. Maybe it is reality TV and they are just nervous in front of the camera, but it really doesn't come across that way. It comes across like they they are bad actors and this is a lesbian version of The Hills. I'm sure I'll watch for "the scene" the drama and the ladies, like every other media starved lesbian out there.

What it reminds me of is how manipulative reality TV can be. I am thinking specifically of the season finale of Top Chef, where 62% wanted Stephanie to win and 3% wanted Lisa to win. It was no surprise that the judges gave the audience what they wanted, but I couldn't help thinking that the editors told the story in such a way that would dictate what the audience would want for them, so they could be satisfied and happy at the end. They definitely knew who won before it was all cut together and it makes sense to edit the show in a way that flatters the winner and vilifies the others (like Lisa) so there is drama. They definitely choose deliberately to make Lisa look bad by showing all her bad moments and Stephanie look fantastic by always highlighting her strengths. It is manipulation at play so people will watch, love and be satisfied with the show. If Lisa had been the winner I gauruntee they would have made her look much better in the final cut. In the end, cheers to Stephanie, I was rooting for her, manipulated or not.

Battlestar Galactica is the best show on television. What acting, what filmmaking. That last dolly shot on nuked-out Earth was fantastic. Next time I won't miss the party! I'm going to be a geeked out fan and leave the critical analysis aside for this one. BSG rocks! And don't miss this fantastic recap!