NOTE: My setlist for Neil Young conflicts with that of SugarMountain.org -- the popular source for Neil Young setlists. I'm confident in my setlist. For instance, I am positive Young performed Old Man directly before Heart of Gold, whereas SugarMountain.org has Old Man following Heart of Gold. Disparities like that put faith in my setlist being the more accurate of the two. Here is the setlist, according to SugarMountain.org
A shot of Neil Young at the DCU Center in Worcester, MA (12/13/08)
On December 13th, James (fellow contributor to TWOTF) and I saw Neil Young live for our first time, and Wilco for my second time. Our tickets were for general admission on the floor, and we had an excellent line-of-sight. We caught the last two or so songs from Everest, the opener. Their stuff seemed nice, albeit slightly underwhelming. Then came Wilco... I saw Wilco for my first and only other time 4 or so years ago when they played in gymnasium at Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts.
Wilco frontman Jeff Tweedy at Saturday's show in Worcester, MA
I didn't know what to expect going into yesterday's show. Neil Young has gone by the same set list for many of his recent tour dates, with the exception of three or so songs each night. Don't get me wrong, it is a spectacular setlist. It's just that both Neil Young and Wilco have done a lot of touring, and Neil Young has been playing some of the same songs for over 30 years, let alone a single tour. It was hard not to wonder whether these acts would phone it in to some extent. What happened, in short, was this: Wilco seemingly phoned it in on a few songs (see below), while Neil Young played his set like it was a going away party for the elite portion of the songbook.
The following is Wilco's setlist from last night:
* - This is an great rendition. Why would I pay $90 to hear the studio version? There has to be something special about it. In this case, there was something very special and worthwhile about this song.
1. Via Chicago* 2. Impossible Germany 3. You Are My Face 4. Spiders (Kidsmoke)* 5. Hummingbird 6. Forget the Flowers 7. Jesus, Etc. 8. Hate It Here* 9. Walken* 10. I'm The Man Who Loves You*
Nels Cline put on a great show, as is custom to a Univeristy High School (Los Angeles, California) alumnus. Any song that I've indicated to have been a strong, live rendition was made as such in large part to, if not entirely by, Nels Cline.
It took close to 40 minutes (OK, maybe it was closer to 35 minutes) to break down Wilco's equipment and set up for Neil Young. The stage looked like a stop on Antique Roadshow. One amp appeared to be at least 20 years old. I'll never forget the artist at the back of the stage who, for most of the set, had a spotlight on him while he painted. I had read that a man painted on stage during NY sets, but I hadn't thought about the logistical aspects of that. I don't want to make it sound like Kanye West at Bonaroo -- the wait for NY wasn't neither unusual nor painful ...But watching two roadies carry the painters equipment on stage doesn't help the clock move any faster.
Luckily we were surrounded by a group of characters, and the wait was actually enjoyable for us. For those who didn't have the best 35-minute wait, NY made it worth the wait...
The following is Neil Young'ssetlist from last night:
1. Love And Only Love* 2. Hey Hey, My My* 3. Everybody Knows This Is Nowhere* 4. Powderfinger* 5. Spirit Road 6. Cortez The Killer* ...Fantastic guitar solo and back-up vocals 7. Cinnamon Girl 8. Oh, Lonesome Me ....Introduced the harmonica for the first time in set 9. Mother Earth ....Played on organ w. harmonica (solo) 10. The Needle And The Damage Done* ....Acoustic (solo) 11. Light A Candle 12. "Cough Up The Bucks" 13. Fuel Line* 14. "Hit The Road And Go To Town"(?) ....I don't recall which song this was. I know it was a new one. A lyric I remembered: "no fear of failure for a crazy fool." If anyone has the complete lyrics for this song, I'd greatly appreciate it. (Post in the comment section!) 15. Old Man* ....Popular sing-a-long 16. Heart Of Gold* ....Popular sing-a-long 17. Get Back To The Country* 18. When Worlds Collide 19. Just Singing A Song* ....A great guitar solo -- fantastic jam 21. Cowgirl In The Sand* ....Possibly the best guitar solo of the night 22. Rockin' In The Free World* ENCORE: A Day In The Life
Robby Roadsteamer is a former WBCN dj who has achieved legendary status in the Boston music scene over the past 8 or so years. Chris Coxen, who is also Boston based, has what I consider to be one of the best character-based comedy routines in the country.
On December 2nd, Robby Roadsteamer and Chris Coxen (both of whom are very nice, in addition to being very talented) performed at UMass-Lowell in Lowell, MA. They put on a really fun show!
All that being said, if you haven't seen Robby or Chris, there's no better time than December 17th when they'll be performing at what has the makings of a very special event. Here's a description of the "Greater Boston Alternative Comedy Festival" found on chriscoxen.com:
Folks - there's a great comedy/music show happening in December. Here's the press release:
Greater Boston (Cambridge, Allston, Somerville, Brighton) is producing some of the best Alternative comedy acts this country has. Unfortunately in a Boston comedy scene often times focused more on traditional standup comedians a lot of these acts tend to get overlooked. For one night at The Paradise on Wednesday, December 17th, we hope to change that and give an underground scene it's due on one of the biggest stages......
"The Greater Boston Alternative Comedy Festival" Sponsored By WFNX Radio Doors open at 7pm... 8pm start 18+ $15
December 17th The Paradise Boston Massachusetts 967 Commonwealth Ave.
This is a unique kind of show, with a unique kind of talent. If you like a). comedy and live in the Boston area, b). pretend to like comedy and live in the Boston area, or c). like comedy and pretend to live in the Boston area (creep), then you'll want to be there. I've seen The Walsh Brothers, Chris Coxen and Robby Roadsteamer and I'd quickly shell out $15 to see them again.
Here's a funny video (found on roadsteamer.com) promoting the show:
No, this isn't a sports blog. I haven't always posted about sports and it's not my intention to keep strictly to sports. But with the recent performances by rookies Bill Walker (SF) and J.R. Giddens (SG)... I just had to spread the good word.
On Friday, Bill Walker (47th overall pick in the 2008 draft; traded from the Wizards to the Celtics for cash) and J.R. Giddens (Celtics 1st round draft pick in 2008; 30th pick overall) made their debut for the Utah Flash; a Celtics D-League affiliate.
It's hard to say who outperformed who... 6'5'' shooting guard J.R. Giddens hit the game-winning shot in overtime, and 6'6'' small forward Bill Walker, who played alongside Michael Beasley at Kansas State, had 5 steals and went 5-for-9 from beyond the arc.
Bill Walker (SF) played 41:03 minutes and, despite foul trouble (4 PF), had a tremendous stat line: 23 PTS (9-19 FGM-A; 5-9 3PM-A; 0-0 FTM-A), 8 REB (1 OFF, 7 DEF), 4 AST, 3 TO, 5 STL, and 0 BLK.
J. Giddens (SG) played 45:21 minutes and also put up solid numbers: 19 PTS (8-18 FGM-A; 1-4 3PM-A; 2-5 FTM-A), 12 REB (4 OFF, 8 DEF), 1 AST, 4 TO, 1 STL, 2 BLK, and 2 PF.
I know a lot of people consider the D-League a joke, and I wouldn't completely disagree. But after producing assist wiz Ramon Sessions, I think they've made a huge leap in proving to be a viable source of talent. If the D-League turns out to be the equivalent to the MLB's farm system, then NBA executives will look like geniuses. If not, what do they have to lose? I love the idea of bringing the NBA -- in some form -- to rural areas that would otherwise be uninterested in professional basketball.
The point I was trying to get at is this: don't discount Walker and Giddens, who could act as quality role players for an NBA team in the near future. And if you're one of the many who are quick to dismiss the legitimacy of the D-Leaguers... give it some more time.
Here's something to keep you entertainment while you wait:
An introduction to Bill Walker (interview footage mixed in with great in-game footage)
Now that you've been acquainted, here's Bill Walker's nasty slam dunk in an NBA pre-season game against the 76ers. I thought Theo Ratliff was a shot blocker... If anyone knows where I can buy the poster, please let me know using the comment section.
You may want to click on the videos so you watch them on YouTube in "high quality"
Opposing Team Stats are a solid indicator of how strong a team is performing defensively. The Boston Celtics were the best defense in the NBA last year. Anyone who considers themself to be a fan of the NBA knows this, because it was one of the best defensive seasons in NBA history.
How are the Celtics faring defensively this year? Have they lost a step? At least from a statistical standpoint, it'd be difficult to argue otherwise.
Opposing Team FG% 1. BOSTON CELTICS - 40.8% 2. Cleveland Cavaliers - 42.1% 3. Dallas Mavericks - 42.1% 4. Houston Rockets - 42.8% 5. Los Angeles Lakers 42.9% 6. Orlando Magic 42.9%
2007-2008 Season: Opposing Team FG% 1. BOSTON CELTICS - 41.9% 2. Houston Rockets - 43.3% 3. Detroit Pistons - 43.7% 4. Dallas Mavericks - 44.3% 5. San Antonio Spurs - 44.4%
2007-2008 Season: Opposing Team 3PT% 1. BOSTON CELTICS - 31.6% 2. Detroit Pistons - 33.2% 3. San Antonio - 34.2%
If the Celtics finished the 2007-2008 season with 35.6% opposing team 3PT%, they would have tied for 8th best in the NBA. Not too shabby.
Opposing Team Rebounds (Offensive/Defensive; Total) 1. Portland Trail Blazers - 9.3/27.1; 36.4 2. Cleveland Cavaliers - 11.2/26.1; 37.4 3. Utah Jazz - 11.2/26.4; 37.6 4. New Orleans Hornets - 9.3/28.7; 38.0 5. Milwaukee Bucks - 9.3/30.2; 39.5 6. Phoenix Suns - 11.9/27.7; 39.7 7. BOSTON CELTICS - 10.7/29.2; 39.9 2007-2008 Season: Opposing Team Rebounds 1. Utah Jazz - 10.3/27.5 - 37.8 2. BOSTON CELTICS - 11.0/27.9 - 38.9 3. Detroit Pistons - 10.6/28.6 - 39.1 Opposing Team Turnovers 1. Los Angeles Lakers - 16.6 2. Miami Heat - 16.5 3. BOSTON CELTICS - 15.6 4. Utah Jazz - 15.6 5. Denver Nuggets - 15.6
2007-2008 Season: Opposing Team Turnovers 1. Golden State Warriors - 16.2 2. Denver Nuggets - 15.6 3. Utah Jazz - 15.4 4. BOSTON CELTICS - 15.3 5. Indiana Pacers - 15.0
Opposing Team Points Per Game 1. BOSTON CELTICS - 90.1 2. Houston Rockets - 90.2 3. Charlotte Bobcats - 92.4 4. Cleveland Cavaliers - 92.7 5. San Antonio Spurs - 93.0 6. New Orleans Hornets - 93.0
2007-2008 Season: Opposing Team Points Per Game 1. Detroit Pistons - 90.1 2. BOSTON CELTICS - 90.3 3. San Antonio Spurs - 90.6 4. Houston Rockets - 92.0 5. New Orleans Hornets - 95.6 6. Dallas Mavericks - 95.9
ORIGINALLY POSTED JULY 17, 2008 NOTE: There are some mild SPOILERS in this post.
Recently Moviefone.com posted their list of the Top 25 Best Movie Villains of All Time. They regularly put out lists that are meant to be timely (this list being a response to the upcoming release of The Dark Knight) and I enjoy them because they are regularly a little off-beat; exchanging more popular choices with one's that are reasonable, although unexpected.
I was clicking through and I indeed found some typical choices with some (semi-) surprises mixed in. Some I enjoyed; such as Dr. Christian Szell from Marathon Man. Some I found to be a little off but not quite objectionable; like Tom Powers from Public Enemy. (Side note: I don't know if any film star has ever so exclusive to their era like James Cagney was. Seriously, what's the appeal today?) Numbers 4 (Hannibal Lecter), 3 (Wicked Witch of the West) and 2 (Darth Vader) were very basic. But the #1 Movie Villain of All Time according to Moviefone.com... Lord Voldemort.
Great Movie Villain? Really? I know Moviefone has it's quirky tastes, but Lord Voldemort is a very, very dumb pick.
Let me be clear, Moviefone.com isn't exactly my go-to destination for thoughtful lists and rankings, but I had come to welcome neat their lists when I checked showtimes for movies. I gotta say, my fairly low expectations were far from met. For shame, Moviefone.com (whose contributors I'm sure are reading)... For shame..
I got to thinking, and decided I'd construct a list of my own:
The Top 10 Best Movie Villains of 2000 to early July 2008 (forget about The Joker for now)
10. Anton Ego (voice by Peter O'Toole), Ratatouille
OK, so he's not a full-blown villain. Yes, Peter O'Toole delivers a tear-jearking speech in one of the sweetest scenes I've ever scene, revealing Ego to be not as heartless as we thought. But it's hard to forget he 1) ruined Gusteau and 2) makes Linguini and Remy cower in fear! That's bad news bears.
9. Teddy Gammell (Joe Pantoliano), Momento
8. Victor Quartermaine (voice by Ralph Fiennes), Wallace & Gromit in The Curse of the Were-Rabbit
This is Ralph Fiennes at his most villainous! (at least in this decade)
7. Alexander Conklin (Chris Cooper) and Deputy Director Ward Abbott (Brian Cox), The Bourne Identity
The face of Treadstone, the organization reasonable for the plight of Jason Bourne, in The Bourne Identity was Alexander Conklin, played by Chris Cooper (below; centered). His superior was C.I.A. Deputy Director Ward Abbott, played by Brian Cox. Together they offered solid performances, and had me waiting impatiently for Jason Bourne to land his revenge.
What about Joan Allen? As actors, I like Chris Cooper and I hate Joan Allen. Aside from Cooper having a far more distinct and negative character, I couldn't possibly consider Joan Allen to be one of the "great villains" of the series' because her performance was so poor.
After Identity, my hatred for any specific character withered a little anyway. Bourne still had questions to be answered after the first film, and Conklin was only the beginning of bad (and progressively worse) guys he needed to kill or compromise if he ever wanted some peace of mind. The series was thereby made much more about an ambiguous league of villains (Treadstone, the C.I.A., "the system", etc.) than any particular one. The chase (as well as the premise) is much more fresh in The Bourne Identity than the sequels, and I think that has something to do with Supremacy and Ultimatum lacking a strong, stand alone villain like Cooper.
6. Jesse James (Brad Pitt), The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
Jesse James and Robert Ford present a Topdog/Underdog-type conflict, where the victor isn't quite clear. I think you could make an argument for either as the villain. I felt more for Robert Ford but, more importantly, I didn't feel at all for Jesse James.
The movie did not lead me to an understanding of Jesse James for a reason. I don't think he was painted as a person capable of being understood. This much I know: he's complex and destructive. He is vicious. The movie is largely the tale of Robert Ford in his attempt to understand Jesse James. Even after James is dead, the quest to understand James continues. It proves so fruitless for Ford that the only way he reaches any resolve is by way of a bullet in his head.
5. Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem), No Country for Old Men
4. Agent Smith (Hugo Weaving), The Matrix trilogy
The Matrix came out in 1999, and it was the inferior sequels that were released in the 2000s to qualify it for the list. (I say "inferior" but I believe they still work collectively to make a very good movie.) Agent Smith became prominent in The Matrix Reloaded, but I'm going to consider his role in the entire series.
I also wanna toss this out there: Is the fight scene in the courtyard (above) in The Matrix Reloaded the best choreographed action scene so far this decade? There's definitely a couple of contenders, but I think it might be.
3. Terry Benedict (Andy Garcia), Ocean's Eleven
Of course I'm partially rooting for Danny Ocean and co. because they are so lovable, but it'd be impossible to do otherwise with Terry Benedict as cold and despicable as he is.
2. Harlem Maguire (Jude Law), The Road to Perdition
I don't think this performance receives enough mention. Jude Law (above) is terrifying as Harlem Maguire, in a movie that also seems all too forgotten.
1. The Jews (Various), The Passion of the Christ I'm kidding! But what a first post that would be, right?
1. Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis), There Will Be Blood
A popular and deserving pick for the best movie villain of 2000 to early 2008.
I don’t want to put too much weight on how teams have played the first 12 or so games of the season, so know I’m not taking the statistics I cite too seriously. Power Rankings generally lack consistency. As I’ll say again, Power Rankings aren’t about the W-L column. Teams lose games by 5 or less points, and that L isn’t the same as one suffered in a 20-point blowout.
TOP TIER
Boston Celtics
Los Angeles Lakers
Cleveland Cavaliers
I feel almost as uncomfortable putting the Cavs in my Top 3 as I do leaving San Antonio out of my Top 10. The NBA is, from top-to-bottom, the strongest it has been in years, making the #3 spot a really tough call; especially following two no-brainers like the Celtics and Lakers. But after an impressive 8-game win streak, I'm feeling a little bit more confident about my decision. Let's get one thing straight: I don’t think they could beat the Celtics in a 7-game series. I do, however, think there’s a chance of Cleveland landing the #2 seed in the East, and that they are good enough to secure the 50+ wins necessary to do so.
Phoenix Suns
Eight Suns' players are averaging 20+ minutes per game; all of whom are providing excellent contributions. They'll need their aging stars to be kept around 30 minutes per game if the team wants to be in good shape for a long playoff run. Steve Nash and Shaq are providing tremendously given their respective ages and Grant Hill is doing OK to start, but I think Matt Barnes, Leandro Barbosa, Raja Bell and Boris Diaw are going to win them a lot of games. Plus they have this kid, Amare, who is probably the most impressive offensive player west of Ohio.
Detroit Pistons
Utah Jazz
It pains me to put Utah at #6 and I’m sure they’ll make me regret it. They are the best passing team thus far into the season (24.1 assists per game; 6.8 assist differential) despite being without Deron Williams for 10 of their 12 games. Aside from Carlos Boozer (who, by the way, is opening up the season in MVP-form) the Jazz haven’t been a very good scoring team. I’m excited to see how their scoring improves when D-Williams returns.
SECOND TIER
Houston Rockets
Don’t fool yourself: the only Big Three in the NBA is in Boston. But if there is another (and it’s far too early to tell) then it lives in Houston. Ron Artest has shown flashes of brilliance, Yao has been Yao, and Tracy has shown flashes of... well, Tracy. It's tough to overlook the injuries - albeit minor, in some cases - already sustained by Houston's Big Three, and they can't be an elite team until they have a stretch of healthy performances from all 3 players.
Portland Trail Blazers
When they play at their highest level… I cry a little bit. LaMarcus Aldridge showed last year that he’s very capable of scoring big in the paint. Brandon Roy is playing on a level with Danny Granger and Joe Johnson that can only be looked down on by Dwyane Wade and Kobe Bryant. Greg Oden is the tenacious defender. So what if he can’t shoot? He’ll average 15 points, 10 rebounds, and 2.5 blocks on 55% FG and 65% FT.Mayo,
New Orleans Hornets
THIRD TIER
Denver Nuggets
The Billups-Iverson trade is still rocking my world. Who won in that deal? It’s too early to tell. It’s clear that Denver has looked like one of top 5 most dangerous teams since. It’s making me wonder if Allen Iverson is a good fit for any team looking to contend.
Orlando Magic
Toronto Raptors
Dallas Mavericks
Atlanta Hawks
San Antonio Spurs
If the season ended today, the Spurs would be the #8 seed in the Western Conference. They were 1-4 with Tony Parker, and have been 5-2 without. Was Tony Parkers’ 27.4 points-per-game weighing them down? Of course not! My point is that the Spurs are getting it done without Parker and Ginoboli. Manu has said that he expects to play tonight against Memphis. As of November 7th, Tony Parker’s recuperation time is estimated to last 4 weeks. Say Parker returns for December 9th at Dallas… the Spurs will have played 18 games. If they have a winning record when Parker returns, you could be looking at a Spurs team capable of winning the Southwest division and landing a #3 seed in the playoffs.
My guess is you’re thinking, “So what? The Spurs are 12 games in and at 6-6 are only back 2 games in the division.” I generally can’t find any report on the Spurs that shows my same optimistic outlook, so I feel somewhat compelled to give some reason. The fact is this: when Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili and Tim Duncan are all playing, and are as healthy as possible… the Spurs are the only other team in the same stratosphere as the Celtics and Lakers. They may even be better than that.
Philadelphia 76ers
Miami Heat
FOURTH TIER
Sacramento Kings
Chicago Bulls
Indiana Pacers
New York Knicks
GoldenState Warriors
FIFTH TIER
Los Angeles Clippers
Unlike most Power Rankings, I’m not giving up on Chris Kaman, Al Thornton, Baron Davis, and Marcus Camby just yet.
Minnesota Timberwolves
Remember: these are Power Rankings, not Win Projections. A team that’s 0-10 can be better than a team that’s 4-6. It’s too early in the season for a team’s poor start to be so strongly indicative of a team’s final record.
Some people just don't understand Power Rankings...
Fox Sports (#28) said: “Yes, they're playing everyone close, but an eight-game losing streak is an eight-game losing streak. That matches Minny's longest skid last year.” Dumb
ESPN.com (#30) said: “Don't want to alarm a fan base still coping with KG winning a title in his first season away from 'Sota . . . but the previous team to lose eight straight after starting 1-0 was the 2003-04 Magic, who went from 1-0 to (gulp) 1-19.” I bet the Suns should be worried too. One time in NBA history, a team opened up 8-3, lost two straight games, and finished the season under .500! No one likes 'Sota, ESPN -- use one of the many good reasons not to.
The only one who seems to get it is NBA.com (#28): “The Wolves had three tough losses this week. They were right there in the fourth quarter of each, but lost at GoldenState in overtime, to the Blazers by five and at Denver by six. Seven of their eight losses have come by six points or less. That's how you move up from No. 30 without winning.”
SIXTH TIER
Charlotte Bobcats
Milwaukee Bucks
Washington Wizards
Two All-Star players (Butler and Jamison), one win... What a shame.
Memphis Grizzles
Rudy Gay and O.J. Mayo are strong scorers. No team with Marc Gasol as their big man can be taken seriously, though.
ROCK BOTTOM
New Jersey Nets
Oklahoma City Thunder
Talk about an exciting season… Sure, Oklahoma will likely finish with the worst record in the NBA. I’d still pay $35 (plus service charge) to see Kevin Durant play from the balcony. There's a reason to see almost every team.
Consider this part one of a two part post on Oden. (I'm keeping this short because Portland is playing right now and I don't want to miss him swat another shot)
Greg Oden’s first three full games have been excellent...
I thought the following story from Carmen Electra was pretty funny... really crazy, of course, but funny. I read it in an interview with moviefone.com.
Are you [and Disaster Movie co-star Kim Kardashian] able to walk around in public without being hassled? Do you ever have experiences with people coming too close to your space? Electra: I had a weird experience when I was working at MTV. We were shooting an opening of a new restaurant or something. And we were in a different city. I flew in, and I was all by myself because it was one of my first jobs. And I didn't have anyone with me at all. I flew in, and the driver picked me up and took me to the hotel. And there was a guy in the lobby with a clipboard. He said he was from MTV and sort of had the rundown of my schedule and took me up to my room and was in my room with me. I was hanging out with this guy for the entire day. And finally the phone rings and I said, "Answer it," because I was getting ready. And the people from MTV freaked out because they didn't know who he was. It turns out he was a stalker, so they arrested him.
1. How did you come up with the idea of doing 'Clone Wars'? When I was doing 'Revenge of the Sith,' I thought, "Gee, it's too bad that I'm starting 'Episode III' by going right into the end of the Clone Wars." So we came up with the idea of doing a little animated series for Cartoon Network.
Can you really say, "Gee, it's too bad [I didn't have this featured in the movie]" when 1) You've written, directed and produced the movie and 2) The movie you're making has a budget of 115-million.
I mean, why didn't he write a script that featured more of the Clone Wars? He clearly makes time for everything else he'd like to see (see Jar Jar Binks) so why not the Clone Wars? I liked Revenge of the Sith and disliked Attack of the Clones. Couldn't he have worked more of it into Attack of the Clones?
2. You did two of those in 2003. Why did you decide to do yet another series ? I started in animation in college, and then I moved to live action, but I have produced a lot of animated films and I really always wanted to get back to it. I was so enamored with the idea of doing the animated 'Clone Wars' and doing something that really wasn't focused on Anakin's problems of going to the Dark Side. So I decided that when I finished the features, I would go back and make the best animated TV series that has ever been done.
The best animated TV series that has ever been done? I get that he's promoting his movie and stuff, but that's just ridiculous. He doesn't have to be that extreme.
3. Wow, the best? Isn't that a tall order? Well, that's the fun part! We helped evolve CG animation and we've been involved with it for a long time. I love anime, I love graphic art, I love Japanese influences. This is my chance to really have some fun and, you know, do it the best. It's not quite Pixar quality, but definitely of a quality that nobody's ever seen before.
Not quite Pixar? Is he completely full of shit? It's nowhere near Pixar. It's not quite Space Chimps. It looks like junk. It actually looks like a Clone Wars video game from the early 2000s.
I work at a movie theater, so I watched a couple minutes of The Clone Wars during my break. I'm a big Star Wars fan, but I know well enough not expect anything from this movie. I wouldn't pay to see it and even though I can see movies for free (as a theater employee) it'd be a waste of time to watch it in it's entirety. As for the parts I saw, the audio didn't really sync up with characters' lips! I think that's Animation 101.
The interview goes on and Lucas says a few more pompous things. Check it out.
What inspired this post was The Blair Witch Project, which I watched today in it's entirety for the first time ever. This post was going to be about old movies I've watched for the first time just recently... but I ended up writing a lot about the state of horror movies in general.
A quick word on The Blair Witch... The movie is a a phenomenon and is unlike any other movie I've seen or heard of. It was a product of gross advertising; basically the first movie to utilize the Internet as a way to create buzz. I wasn't sure if the movie would hold up as being scary because a lot of the mystery behind the movie has since been uncovered (ie. how real it actually is). It remained pretty scary for me. The story of the film's production is really fascinating, but I'll get to that another time.
Anyway, while watching The Blair Watch I started thinking, "what is a horror movie and what is the current state of the genre?" I don't want to squabble over semantics, but I'm always partial to horror movies that rely heavily on suspense. I know that is really the foundation of what are more commonly categorized as thrillers, and not horror, but let's keep it all under the same umbrella.
It seems that movies like Saw and Hostel are what constitute as horror movies nowadays, and they rely almost entirely on torture and hyper-violent images to scare you. I guess there is some merit to that, but at best that's to be a crutch and not the foundation of a horror movie. I don't like it when audiences has grown so desensitized that there's no longer an actual market for the suspense films I love. I truly believe others would love these movies too, if they gave them a chance.
Are there movies out there that rely on suspense? Sort of. Are they of high quality? No longer. But I'll get to what's available for a guy with my tastes soon.
Saw is designed to appease to an impatient audience, and with each film the ante is being raised in the Hollywood-wide gross-out contest; hence the desensitization. It's sort of ingenious. I used to think that if a viewer wants to be scared; truly wishes to enjoy all that the genre has to offer... then they must be patient.
What movies like Saw ask is, "why be patient when our brand of horror movies pay off early? Patience is for suckers." Why wait an hour to hear a gun fired when Saw shows you torture 10 minutes in? Nothing can be worse than being systematically killed in a dank room, right?
We obviously all have our own fears, but the most commonly shared is the fear of death; the ace that horror movies keep up their sleeves. With Saw you get death. That's for sure. What I'm questioning, from a cinematic standpoint, is whether Saw approaches the prospect of death the most effective way; if they use their ace prematurely. It's a question of pacing, really.
To me, the scariest thing is to be killed despite barely being touched. That's what a movie like The Blair Witch Project -- or most recently The Strangers -- does. It sure seems systematic, but the primary major difference is the unraveling of humanity. In Saw, I get to see someone's ribcage explode. I literally see blood, sweat, and tears running from some person in two minutes tops. But just because I see a someone's flesh pierced doesn't make them human to me. The most convincing way of proving the present of humanity on screen -- something I consider essential in a movie if I am to be made truly terrified -- is to approach the story in a slower and more eloquent fashion. If the characters aren't human, they don't prove themselves to be vulnerable.
Saw has it's merits, and I think a lot of it's overwhelming gore; the quick payoffs and all, is intended to be somewhat comedic. I can't rationalize it any other way. Still, it's box office success has (and will) influence horror movies for some years. That's a big part of the problem.
The Ring could be seen as a compromise between the gross-out brand of new Hollywood horror movies (once exclusive to exploitation films, I might add) and the endangered brand of horror movies that are heavily reliant on suspense. However, movies like The Ring (The Hills Have Eyes, The Mirror, etc.) are seriously flawed in that they try to do too much -- likely a result of being heavily manufactured -- and in trying to obtain balance, bite off more than they can chew. These movies attempt to share both a gross-out component and a suspense component, and in doing so fail to find any identity.
So, yes, like I said there are suspense films being made, but so many seem compromised or, in the case of M. Night Shymalan, based on a poor and/or thin premise. (They suck for a number of reasons.)
It sucks that so many of the horror movies made today are either remakes of foreign films for a U.S. audience and remakes of old horror movies, 30-years removed. Where's the originality? One of the few things that's available for a guy who craves suspense in horror films is a pick at any one of the handful of remakes being made. Unfortunately few of these try to reinvent the film they are based upon, and instead do a poor job of making a shot-for-shot remake. Original works seem far and few between.
The closest I've seen anyone come to maintaining that balance between excessive gore and suspense (a balance which may be unachievable) is in the work of Rob Zombie. I appreciate Rob Zombie so much. You can see his influences throughout his films, and he has developed a style that is far reaching, ambitious and unique. Original work in horror is rare, and it'd be rarer without Zombie.
For now, I'll settle for movies like The Strangers and Cloverfield when I need my monthly dose of terror, because they show craftsmanship.
There's always a bunch of movies I'm looking forward to seeing... So I thought I'd make a list featuring those movies. All of them are in various stages of development, and I've ranked them based on my current level of anticipation and will adjust it when that changes.
As of August 14, 2008:
1. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button(to be released: December 19, 2008) Easily one of the top 10 best trailers I've ever seen. This movie seems as promising as they come.
2. Lincoln(to be released: sometime in 2010; filming to begin: early 2009) Liam Neeson is one of my favorite actors. And to me, Abraham Lincoln seems to fight Howard Hughes for the title of 'most interestingly complex man of prominence in American history.' Steven Spielberg is a tremendous director. I thought that the most recent Indiana Jones was a C+ movie.But SS is still having a solid decade. He had that streak where Artificial Intelligence: AI (a solid B movie) came out in 2001, and had both Catch Me If You Can (A-/A) and Minority Report (A/A+; one of my top Spielberg movies and likely in my top 10 for the 2000s thus far) in 2002. I don't even have too many bad things to say about The Terminal or Munich. I think he's putting out movies that are just as ambitious those he had in the 90's. The bottom line is that the only thing about Lincoln that upsets me is that the film's production continues to be pushed back for Spielberg's less interesting projects. (namely Tintin) 3. Quantum of Solace(to be released: November 7, 2008) It's nearing release is partly what gets QoSthis high as it is. However, it'd still be in my top 5 if it were March. I really, really enjoyed Casino Royale and I expect more of the same.
4. The Road(to be released November 26, 2008) 5. Up(to be released May 29, 2008) It's Pixar... What more must I say? Check out the teaser trailer.
6. Sin City 2(to be released: sometime in 2009) & Sin City 3(to be released: sometime in 2010) 7. Inglorious Bastards(to be released: sometime in 2009) 8. Shutter Island(to be released: October 2, 2009) 9. The World's End(to be released: sometime in 2010) I don't really know what the movie is going to be about, although the title is probably self-explanatory. All I know is Simon Pegg and Nick Frost are starring, Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg are writing the screenplay, and Edgar Wright is going to be directing it. And that's more than good enough for me. 10. Australia(to be released: November 14, 2008) What a trailer! The movie will be Baz Luhrmann's fourth. He takes awhile between films (four years between Strictly Ballroom and Romeo + Juliet; five years between Romeo + Juliet and Moulin Rouge!; and seven years between Moulin Rouge! and Australia) so I hope this one is worth the wait.
Sidenote: Hugh Jackman's character is named "The Drover." Sounds pretty badass to me.
11. Blood Meridian(to be released: sometime in 2009) Another Cormac McCarthy novel is coming to the big screen. Any complaints?... No? I thought so. I like the resumes of the guys behind this adaptation a little more than I do the resumes of those behind The Road. For this round of Cormac, Ridley Scott is directing and William Monahan (who penned The Departed) has written the screenplay. 12. Funny People(to be released: July 13, 2009) Judd Apatow goes back to the director's chair for only his third film from that spot. His best movies (Knocked Up; The 40-Year-Old Virgin) have come as a writer/director, so you can expect Funny People to move up this chart as production gets underway. 13. Tripoli(to be released: sometime in 2009) William Monahan has written a screenplay for the film, which may be in development hell. 14.Observe and Report(to be released: April 10, 2009) OK, look... I know I've placed this way too high up but formatting sucks. I'd tweak here and there on the second half of the list, but the order is not so off that it's worth the incredible amount of time it could take an idiot like me.
Moving forward:: Jody Hill, writer/director of The Foot Fist Way and the TV series East Bound and Down, writes and directs Observe and Report. So he's a very funny fellow and it's got a pretty funny, and talented, cast. I think East Bound and Down will go down in my book as 2008's best new TV series. Even if it doesn't run for long, I can say for certain that it has one of the best pilots I've ever seen. Check it out on HBO. 15. Nine(to be released: December 11, 2oo9) Daniel Day-Lewis stars in Rob Marshall's film version of the 1982 hit Broadway musical, based on Frederico Fellini's 8 1/2. Yes, I'm interested. My understanding is that it's exactly like 8 1/2 but with singing. Sounds strange, but yes, I'm still interested.
16. The Hobbit(to be released: sometime in 2011) & The Hobbit 2(to be released: sometime in 2012)
This movie is bound to jump some spots once... well, if they ever finish scripting.. 17. Untitled Bruno Project(to be released: May 15, 2009) Sacha Baron Cohen is bringing the character Bruno from his popular TV series, Da Ali G Show, to the big screen. The Channel 4-turned-HBO series had only three characters (Ali G, Borat, and Bruno), so I have pretty high expectations for Bruno; the last of the trio to make the jump from TV to film. 18. The Green Hornet(to be released: June 20, 2010) 19. Whatever Works(to be released: sometime in 2009) Larry David with Woody Allen? It could be the Woody Allen comedy I've been waiting for. I hope Larry David has a bigger role in Whatever Works than he did in New York Stories and Radio Days. Oh, and Ed Begley Jr. has a role too, and he's a pretty funny fellow.
The big question is this: Will Larry say "These pretzels are making me thirsty"...? I can't wait to find out.
20. The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt(to be released: sometime in 2o10) I'll know exactly where to put this as soon as I see a trailer for Shutter Island. It's Scorsesse, so assume this will hit single digits on this chart. 21. Burn After Reading(to be released: September 12, 2008) I love the Coen Brothers but the movie is being released so soon to this list being posted. I still wanted to show it some attention.
22. Eagle Eye(to be released: September 26, 2008) Like Burning After Reading, Eagle Eye has a release that is too near to make it worth ranking higher. I think it'll be a very fun movie, and the #21 spot isn't necessarily a slight against it.
Notable: Untitled Alfonso Cuaron Project(to be released: sometime in 2009) Details are scarce, but who even cares what it's about? I'll watch it with the sound off if I have to.
1906(to be released: sometime in 2009) IMDb breaks down the plot: "A young man discovers a series of secrets and lies that left San Francisco highly vulnerable to the fires that engulfed it in the aftermath of the historical 1906 earthquake." The story is pretty intriguing (it's an adaptation of a book) and oh, yeah... Brad Bird is directing!! Sure it's not animated, but I trust him as a filmmaker. Ratatouille was a masterpiece... I've gotta see his follow-up. This will climb the list soon.
Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa(to be released: November 7, 2008) I enjoyed the first one quite a bit. Not top of the line for animated movies, but it was good. This should make the list.
Bolt(to be released: November 26, 2008) It looks pretty goofy to me. It could be OK.
Tetro(to be released: sometime in 2009) Francis Ford Coppola directs, Vincent Gallo stars. There... You've peaked my interest. Francis Ford Coppola is only 3 films removed from Jack (I'm not providing a link to that one), and it's clear he's never going to be back on his game. But at least now he's working on something interesting. The thing that could have sent the movie onto the brink of very interesting was Javier Bardem's involvement. Bardem quit the project, and later dropped from movie-musical Nine, citing exhaustion. As weird as Vincent Gallo is, I'd favor an eccentric guy such as VG to someone flat. I'm really only moderately interested anyway. PLOT: "Follows the rivalries of an artistic Italian immigrant family." Very vague, I know. That's one of the reasons why it's on the fringe.
Star Trek(to be released: May 8, 2009) I liked Cloverfield (I understand he didn't direct, but whatever; it was him and his team behind it) and Mission: Impossible III. I enjoy LOST. I'm interested to see what J.J. Abrams does with Star Trek.
Wartime Lies(to be released: sometime in 2009) The story of Wartime Lies move to the big screen is an interesting one, but the short of it is this: Stanley Kubrick "was going to adapt Wartime Lies in the early 1990s, but dropped it when Schindler's List was released." [1] And now William Monahan has written a screenplay for it... I really want to see it brought to life, if only to see what the hubbub is all about. It'd be on my list, but with so few details made public it's hard to get excited.
Jurassic Park IV(to be released: sometime in 2009) More Monahan (he's writing this, too) but it makes little to no difference. It's taken forever to get the ball rolling on this one, and with the 2nd and 3rd installments turning out to be sub par, it's no real wonder why. Spielberg has reportedly been turning down screenplays for a couple years now, and I only wonder why he didn't wait longer on the 2nd and 3rd. My expectations are low. Still... I've gotta see it! For anyone interested, you should check out the plot summary.
Before I go any further, he participated in the 2007 Boston Marathon, so I admit I'm reaching the well-covered story pretty late. It still remains a nice story.
His name is Jacob. He lost an incredible amount of weight in the training process and used his website -- where he documented his training and life, in general -- as a way of raising money for major charities. (No, it was not a scam. It all went to charity.)
Like I said, that was all pretty well covered. What I noticed on his website, and can't seem to get over, is all the ill-will that was sent his way. There's always going to be weird people out there who will knock down a just cause (Jacob essentially represented three noble organizations) but his site attracted some really strong hatred. Check it out here, where he has compiled a number of such messages. The bright side is that there are a lot of really nice ones in a section he calls "Hall of Fame."
After reading Luke's entry regarding Step Brothers, I wanted to mention an interview that provides some explanation as to the process by which Adam McKay and Will Ferrell wrote Step Brothers.
On July 23rd, Will Ferrell, John C. Reilly, and director/co-writer, Adam McKay, were on NPR's Fresh Air with host Terry Gross. I found the 30-minute interview to be pretty cool, and was surprised when Will Ferrell and Adam McKay said that Step Brothers was fairly script-reliant, and not as dependent on improvisation as I had imagined.
I think that it's both a fun and interesting interview. You can download the podcast version off Itunes for free by going to Podcasts>NPR>Fresh Air. The "Name" of this particular podcast is "NPR: 07-23-2008 Fresh Air"
I enjoyed Step Brothers. I enjoyed it more than any other movie Will Ferrell has had a leading role in since Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy in 2004.
That includes: Semi-Pro (8.0/10), Blades of Glory (4.5/10), Stranger Than Fiction (??), Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby (5.0/10), Curious George (7.5/10), Wedding Crashers (8.0/10), Bewitched (??), Kicking & Screaming (7.0/10)
I liked him in The Producers and Melinda and Melinda, but 1) it's about the overall quality of the movie and not just his performance, and 2) he obviously wasn't a lead in either. #2 is relevant to Wedding Crahsers.
I haven't seen Bewitched or Stranger than Fiction and I really don't care to. I think they are better left disregarded, and I'm pretty sure I'll never need to see them. I know Curious George is WF as a voice-actor, but I thought I'd toss it in there anyway.
I give Step Brothers an 8.5 out of 10. It's the funniest movie of the year thus far and is one of the best WF movies... but I still favor Knocked Up and Hot Fuzz (2008's Top Comedies) to Step Brothers.
It was less than two weeks ago -- 10 days ago to be exact -- when I predicted that The Dark Knight would be the top grossing film of 2008. And two weeks ago, I was met by naysayers. Two weeks later, on the eve of the film's release... There's few left questioning the probability of it finishing as the top grossing film of the year, as ridiculous estimates for it's opening weekend continue to pop up online.
The most recent prediction I saw was on BoxOfficeMojo.com is for 136.7 million. That would be the second highest opening weekend ever; just barely ahead of Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (135.6) and behind only Spiderman 3 (151.1 million) .
Note: This figure is the average estimate of 724 site members in a game called Box Office Derby, and not any sort of official estimate by the site. I have found other average predictions over the past 5 or so months to be fairly accurate. It is what it is: a prediction.
Of course, 10 days ago, there was no question that The Dark Knight would finish in the top 5 for the year, but at #1? It'd have to make approximately 320 million to do that. Well I was predicting just that: 320 million in the end. (Although what I'm reading now makes 320 sound like more of a conservative estimate, I'd stick to that until this weekend's box office results are released.)
Maybe the naysayers were wondering whether the film's dark nature would leave behind a lot of the moviegoers who turned out to watch the nonthreatening, quick-witted charm of fellow superhero Iron Man. But I don't think that was it. The biggest concern was [probably] this: Batman Begins made 205.3 million domestic and 371 million worldwide. And I completely agree. I was somewhat reluctant to predict it to be the highest grossing. But there's three big things working for The Dark Knight that I think will send it over 3oo-million-dollar edge.
1) A tremendous amount of hype surrounding the film, 2) Likely the most heavily advertised movie since Spiderman 3 or the third Pirates of the Caribbean, and 3) The positive response Batman Begins received from critics and moviegoers alike.
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is, of course, The Dark Knight's competition for the top spot. Indiana Jones has, to date, grossed 311.3 million, and showed it's legs by remaining in 1,664 despite entering it's 8th week. To help put things into perspective, Sex and the City -- which finished 12th at the box office last weekend -- was in 1,025 theaters in it's 7th week. I know SATC is rated R, and Indiana PG-13, but it still provides a look a the big picture.
Iron Man vs. Indiana Jones I think Indiana will surpass Iron Man for #1 on the year. I've been ignoring it up until now, but yes, Iron Man is still the year's top grossing film with 313.8 million grossed to date. However, Indiana Jones was in twice as many theaters last week -- Iron Man's 11th week -- and will likely gross twice as much as Iron Man this weekend, and do so again the following weekend, which I presume will be Iron Man's last. Indiana Jones is currently 2.5 million behind, so yes, I'm preemptively passing along the title.
Hancock at the Box Office:
I don't like Hancock (174.5 million domestic thus far) as a movie with legs. I predicted that Hancock would finish at 190 to 200 million domestic 10 days ago, and that still doesn't seem too unfair. Current predictions for Hancock this weekend are for around 15.6 million, which would bring the film's total gross to approx. 190.1 million in 19 days of release.
But after this weekend...
Step Brothers and The X-Files are released on July 25th, The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor on April 1st, and Pineapple Express on April 8th. All of which should cut into Hancock's gross. I think that Hancock could be looking at 15-7-5-4 million over the next four weekends. If I'm correct with those estimates, then Hancock will have grossed 206.1 million over it's first 6 weeks and could possibly use what would presumably be it's last two weeks to reach for 210 million. Maybe I'm being really hard on Hancock, but I guess we'll see what it can do.
A shot of Neil Young at the DCU Center in Worcester, MA (12/13/08)
