When the Novelty Wears Off

2007 is at a close, and tonight people are ringing in the new year. I am glad this means there's only one more year where we'll see stupid novelty glasses like these:


The whole thing of using the zeroes as the lenses of the glasses was pretty novel when we were all welcoming the year 2000, but even by 2001, it was starting to get old. Now, the gag is just so... well, I'd say "last millennium," but that gag is old too.

The point is, this isn't going to work anymore when 2010 rolls around. Well... wait. Someone could put the one on the bridge of the nose and still use the zeroes for lenses. Damn. I guess that means it won't be until the calendar is turning to 2011 that we'll finally be rid of these damn things.

If Only He Really Wasn't There

A few days ago, I did something that I haven't done in... well, I can't remember the last time I did it. I walked out on a movie.

It was I'm Not There, the bio-pic about the life of Bob Dylan, in which six different actors portray Dylan at different points in his life.

I should start all this by saying I am not a fan of Bob Dylan's music. I find his voice obnoxious, and I've never been particularly impressed with his lyrics, which I find incomprehensible even if one can actually understand any of what he's singing.

What got me to even consider seeing this movie was all the critical praise being lavished on the acting in this film. Many people have been talking about how phenomenal Cate Blachett is in this movie, and high marks are being given to Christian Bale and Heath Ledger as well. I was going to the movie theater with a friend who'd heard similar things, and we decided we'd give it a shot.

Well, the first thing I learned is that it's possible that seeing the movie Walk Hard has absolutely ruined "life story" movies for me forever. The same hackneyed writing conventions that were skewered so aptly in that movie were well on display here. ("Son, this is 1957! Ain't no one gonna..." Everyone know where we're at in the timeline now, audience??!!!) I almost could have laughed.

...except that I was so phenomenally bored that laughter was simply too far a journey.

My friend and I sat through about 30-40 minutes of the film, waiting for something coherent to happen. But the movie seemed to have made the stylistic choice to be opaquely poetic and non-sensical, just like Dylan's lyrics. There was no real narrative to be followed, no character journey being undertaken, no mental foothold of any kind. Just disassociated vignettes. It was so jarring and disorienting a film, it felt like the reels from 10 or 12 movies had been dropped on the floor somewhere and mistakenly cut together in a random order.

But Cate Blanchett, the rumored star of the whole show, hadn't really appeared in any significant way on screen yet, so for a time, I was determined to try and stick it out. But finally, I checked my watch a few too many times, realized just how slowly time was passing, and I began to wonder how I would possibly make it through another hour-and-a-half of this stupifying crap.

I leaned to my friend and whispered, "are you liking this?" She replied, "I don't know what's going on." There was still time to jump ship and go see Juno instead, so that's precisely what we did.

It's possible that whatever gene allows someone to enjoy Bob Dylan would allow a person to also enjoy this movie. I don't possess it. And I also confess, I didn't really get to the part of the film that every critic was crowing about -- I couldn't make myself endure any more. So maybe -- maybe -- some of you out there would find something to enjoy in this movie.

But why take that chance?

Fun For a Girl and a Boy

Shakespeare!

Tonight I had a very enjoyable and highly unusual night at a small local theater company, the Buntport Theater. I went to see their performance of "Titus Andronicus! The Musical!"

This is, in their words, "Shakespeare's bloodiest and, by many accounts, worst play." They move along at a brisk clip (very vaguely in the vein of the Reduced Shakepeare Company's Complete Works, if you're familiar with that), using only about 50% of the actual text, and adding in songs.

Already, you may have the sense that this is a highly creative production, but that hardly begins to describe it. The entire play is performed by five people; roles are tripled up in cases (or more, with one cast member playing various "Someone Probably About to Be Killed" parts). Two of the characters are presented as hand puppets made out of an old car stereo and a gasoline can. A board is placed in view to help track who's playing who in all this, with labeled pull-chain light bulbs arranged in five neat columns, switched on and off by various cast members to indicate the characters currently on stage.

A slate attached to that board is used to keep a running tally of the Death Toll.

The one piece of scenery is a huge old van. It's painted on all sides, each representing a different setting from "Rome" to a forest to a house. The cast all bands together to push the van (while one steers) into one position or another to reveal the appropriate side for a given scene. This is all supplemented with holes cut in the roof, horizontal blinds installed on one window, various contraptions fixed to the body, and anything else needed for this one van to serve as the backdrop for the entire play.

And then there's the blood. They gleefully spew strawberry syrup all about the stage to cover stabbings with swords, trombones, the oil dip stick from the van's engine block, and more. It gushes forth from Lavinia's mouth -- her tongue having just been cut out -- before she begins to sing her big (and utterly incomprehensible) musical number.

There are ridiculous accents aplenty, creative and humorous props, and lots of inserted wry jokes about how truly ridiculous the source material is. (I'm only familiar with about half of Shakespeare's plays, but I can most certainly agree that this seems to be by far the worst of those.) And yet it's actually all pulled off with some real acting skill, such that the preposterous plot is indeed comprehensible as the too-quick two hours whips by.

It's doubly rough that I should so enjoy this and then attempt to talk about that here, since A) many of my readers don't live in the Denver area, and 2) this engagement of "Titus Andronicus! The Musical!" closes tomorrow night (to an already sold-out house, no less). But this theater company does perform regularly, and they certainly won a fan in me tonight. Point then being, if you do have the chance to check out another show of theirs, I recommend it. Or, to those of you who live elsewhere, you might take a plunge some time and try out a small local theater company. You never know what gem you might discover.

Good But Not Great

The main factor in getting me out to see Charlie Wilson's War was the writer, Aaron Sorkin (the man behind Sports Night, The West Wing, and Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, as well as the movies A Few Good Men and Malice). There were other things in its favor, though. Mike Nichols is a great director, Tom Hanks a reliably good actor (overlooking a few missteps that would be inevitable in such a long career), and Philip Seymour Hoffman brilliantly gifted at creating memorable characters. (Well, and Julia Roberts. I have nothing against her, but she's not exactly a major draw for me either.)

This concoction of prime ingredients did turn out to produce a quality "meal." The movie is indeed very well written, moving at a brisk pace, peppered with the trademark Sorkin wit, and managing to make the world of politics interesting to watch. The directing is indeed excellent, carefully balancing character with story, and artistic staging without getting into needless "showiness." The performances are great across the board, particularly Hoffman's scene-stealing turn as a feisty and caustic intelligence agent.

But good though the movie is on an intellectual level, it never quite manages to engage on an emotional level. I found myself admiring the technique from a distance and appreciating the way it was all put together, but without ever getting "lost in the story." So much of Aaron Sorkin's work (particularly on television) manages to "educate" in this way while still moving the viewer to sit on the edge of his seat, or stand up and cheer, or sit back in or near tears. Not Charlie Wilson's War.

I'm sure I've said this several times before, but ultimately what I look for in a movie is to be engaged emotionally in some way. I did like this movie, and I do recommend seeing it (particularly to anyone who was a fan of The West Wing), but I ultimately can't rate it higher than a B+.

Granted, that's not exactly a low mark.

Barberism

I recently went to see the movie Sweeney Todd (or, by its full title, Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street). Of all the late-in-the-year film releases, this was the one I was most looking forward to, and I was hoping I hadn't built up my expectations too much.

Pleasantly, I had not. The movie proved to be a wonderful fusion of a number of great talents.

First, there was the music and lyrics by Stephen Sondheim. I've never seen a production of the original musical, though I am familiar with several of his works. I thought the style of this music somewhat similar to his Sunday in the Park with George, though I don't consider that a bad thing. It was clever and sophisticated, with dense lyrics and unusual melodies. (Hallmarks of most any Sondheim show.) I enjoyed it thoroughly, and it made me want to seek out an original cast recording, to hear the numbers that were cut from the film version.

Second, there was the direction of Tim Burton. I haven't always been a fan of his; sometimes, it seems like he's "trying to hard" to evoke a style in his work. (Some people praise his work on the Batman movies, but I consider them to be the prime example of what I'm talking about.) Here, however, he's a perfect fit for the subject matter. The story and setting hold Burton's brand of strange like a glove. The desaturated colors and cold atmosphere he chooses definitely heighten the experience.

Third are the actors. Johnny Depp once again does his magic, creating a very vivid and specific character that's incredibly compelling to watch. Alan Rickman is great, as usual. Sacha Baron Cohen is fantastic in his all-too-brief role. And though some reviewers have been critical of Helena Bonham Carter's singing ability, I think she does quite fine. If indeed there are any shortcomings there, I found them immaterial, because her appearance and demeanor add so much to the character and the film that it's hard to imagine another choice as appropriate.

Other elements factored just as strongly in the film. The costuming, sets, effects -- all worked wonderfully. The arrangement of the music was incredibly powerful. It was tooled for an orchestra several times larger than the typical musical, and dialed up in volume to rattle the brain and threaten the speakers at effective choice moments.

Not only did I find this a good movie to see, but I must recommend it as a movie worth seeing in a theater while the chance is there -- with an audience. I found a whole added layer of entertainment in the reactions from people who didn't quite know what they were in for when they came to the movie. Some clearly had not taken notice of the R rating, or at the least did not know it would be as gory as it was. The shocked gasps from select audience members when things became violent were another thrill in the experience.

I give the movie an A. It's possible it will break into my top 100 list. (You know, the list I keep mentioning I have to reexamine and revise to restore its validity?) I think I might wait and see if a second viewing also packs a strong punch before I make that official, but either way, it's one of my favorite movies of the year.

Enough with the "Let It Snow"

Colorado broke with tradition this year and delivered an actual "White Christmas" -- not just snow already on the ground from days earlier. In fact, we're now at one foot of snow and still falling, so I've actually had all the White Christmas I can stand at this point. Before things got too bad, though, I did get out for a great morning with family at my parents' house.

I hope all of you had a pleasant holiday as well (or simply "day," if Christmas isn't your thing).

The Night the Lights Went Out

Last year, I skipped a holiday tradition of going to visit the three crazily decorated houses that make up the local "Holy Trinity." But tonight, I went with my family to go check in.

...only to find out that the "trinity" is now down one house. The house shown in that picture on my blog two years ago, actually. The other two were still going strong, though. One, in fact, had upped the ante in a bizarre way, by posting a giant Colorado Rockies banner (right below their faux "Star of Bethelehem," but above their "Happy Birthday Jesus" marquee) congratulating the baseball team on an amazing season. A mixed message in the extreme, if you ask me.

What happened to the third house, though, I wonder? It seems unlikely that after years of decorating, they simply would have stopped. Perhaps they simply moved away, and some other city somewhere is now enjoying their particular brand of insanity. If so, I wonder if the new home owners knew when they bought the house about the thousands of strangers that went tromping through their new home every December for more than a decade to see the hundreds of porcelain Christmas figurines on display. Did neighbors explain to them the legacy they'd bought into? Or were they happy to have "one down," and are now looking for a way to get rid of the other two houses so that "Peace on Earth" might actually come to their suburban street for Christmas one year?

In any case, traditions change over time, for whatever the reason.

Although I did just get finished watching Scrooged.

Selling Like Hotcakes?

Exactly where are these unbelievably large numbers of hot cakes being sold? The only place I know of that actually calls them "hot cakes" is McDonalds, and they're not exactly flying out of there like... well...

Dewey? Indeed!

Last night, I went to see "Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story" with a couple of friends. I must say it wasn't the highest on my list of "things to see" that came out this weekend in theaters, but it was the right movie for our frame of mind. We were all varying degrees of exhausted, and decided that we weren't looking for a movie that would make any great demands on us.

How much that mindset or that level of fatigue factored in, I can't say for sure, but we all got a lot of laughs out of the movie. It's an absolutely spot on shreding of the ubiquitous biography "event movies" engineered almost disingenuously for the purpose of garnering Oscar nominations. It had all the clichés, pushed an extra notch over the top -- actors playing characters of proposterously different ages, manufactured moments of "when a songwriter first invented the lyrics that would become famous," the biography subject coming from a hard and humble beginning, and so much more.

The acting is great throughout. John C. Reilly is... well... a rock star in this movie. He's been quietly playing supporting "character actor" type roles for years, and finally gets the center stage he deserves. Jenna Fischer is as hilarious here in this fantastical world as she is in her very realistic and more subtle role on The Office. Kristen Wiig, the only reason I didn't stop watching Saturday Night Live about a year sooner than I did, is a riot.

And the scene featuring The Beatles is the funniest thing that has been put on film this year. Paul Rudd as John Lennon leads four hysterically miscast actors doing the most deliberately bad impressions of the Fab Four you could ever hope to see. They're exaggerated, stereotyped caricatures that had me laughing to the point I couldn't catch a breath. This single scene is worth seeing the movie for.

But unfortunately, that's also pretty much where the movie peaks. Razor-sharp and witty up until that point, things start to get a bit repetitive and boring after that. It's very strange to say that a movie that lasts barely an hour and a half felt "too long," but that's the truth of it. In the last 30 minutes, the same set of running gags finally start to lose steam, the fake songs aren't so clever, and I felt myself starting to check my watch. I wouldn't say it fell apart so badly that I wouldn't recommend seeing it, but it did derail a movie well on its way to an A in my book, to end up at a B+.

Benefaction

Over on his blog, Brad still has his link to The Hunger Site. (And I have known him to come after you if he detects that you've visited without clicking that link.)

Well, I figure he (and others among you) might get a kick out of FreeRice.com, which takes the same idea and puts a game with it. You get a series of vocabulary words, and each correct definition you choose racks up the rice to be donated.

The very example of "fun and easy."

No Comprende

Does anyone else out there occasionally get these random phone calls on their cell phones (always from a different phone number), only to answer it and hear a strange recorded message chattering on in Spanish?

Well, let me re-phrase. I know this is happening to other people, because when I attempted to Google up an answer for "what the hell are these calls?" (using various combinations of "phone call," "cell phone," "Spanish," "recording," and so forth), I found lots of hits describing the same thing. But what I failed to find was an explanation for just what these calls are all about. Even trusty old Snopes, that usually has an answer for every urban legend-like phenomenon, came up empty on this "Spanish recorded crank cell phone caller."

If anyone reading this has an answer, I would love to hear it. Failing a real answer, made up theories could be entertaining too.

Bond, Part 4

It's time I concluded my series of reviews of the James Bond movies, with a look at the four films starring Pierce Brosnan. (I already reviewed the lone Daniel Craig entry thus far, Casino Royale, when I saw it in the movie theater.)

Pierce Brosnan is a great James Bond. He's really able to pull together some of the best traits displayed by the other actors who played the role. He has Connery's strength and charm, Moore's wit and humor, and the hard edge that was supposed to have been Dalton's stamp on the part. Not that Daniel Craig made a bad Bond, but I'd have been thrilled to see Brosnan continue on to do a few more films before having his "licence to kill" revoked.

But how do the four films Brosnan did make stack up?

GoldenEye - Put simply, this is the best James Bond film of them all. Everything comes together well. It has a great cast of actors. Judi Dench is a brilliant choice to take over the role of M. Sean Bean makes a great match for Bond. And Famke Janssen takes an outrageous part and somehow makes it believable by tearing into it with such complete relish.

The movie has a coherent plot that actually makes sense, while having an appropriate scope and just the right amount of fantasy for a Bond adventure. The action sequences are all put together well, from the aerial tricks of the pre-credits adventure to the final battle atop a radio telescope. Even the credits themselves deserve a mention. The visuals depicting the two-faced nature of the film's main villain, and the fall of communism, are among the most striking seen in a Bond credits sequence. The song, composed by Bono and The Edge, is in my opinion the absolutely perfect tone for a James Bond theme, and Tina Turner the perfect performer for it. (Never mind that the lyrics actually make no sense whatsoever, when you stop to think that the "GoldenEye" of the film's title is actually an orbital laser.)

There are really only two small flaws in the movie, in my mind. First, the hacker character played by Alan Cumming seems too campy for the general tone of the rest of the movie (though I don't hold the actor responsible). Second, the musical score feels like a misfire. There are some neat ideas in the music, here and there -- such as treatments of the Bond theme on timpani drums rather than a traditional melodic instrument, and the including of a Russian-sounding choir. But this music, composed by Eric Serra (who worked extensively with director Luc Besson) is presented almost entirely on synthesizers -- and sounds like it. It feels like the progenitor of his score for The Fifth Element. In that science fiction movie, it worked. Here, it doesn't do it.

Still, the film is an A- in my mind, and as I mentioned, the very best of the James Bond films.

Tomorrow Never Dies - What follows is almost the very worst of the James Bond films, the boring On Her Majesty's Secret Service notwithstanding. Tomorrow Never Dies is such a preposterous movie, with a plot so ludicrous, it makes the "laser guns in space" battle at the end of Moonraker look like a documentary. There's simply not a single frame of this movie that can be taken seriously.

Teri Hatcher appears in a small role that's the most bland performance of her career. Jonathan Pryce chews the scenery more than any Bond villain ever has (and that's saying something, considering his company!). Michelle Yeoh is grossly mismatched with this film; her fight scenes are basically the only enjoyable thing in it, but they feel ripped from the cutting room floor of some other movie and edited in here.

In the course of the film, James Bond's escapades include: stealing a fighter plane from dozens of terrorists while being strangled by the man in the gunner's seat behind him; jumping over a helicopter on a motorcycle he's driving while handcuffed to another person; and taking part in a car chase while driving by remote control from the back seat. Said car is also the most ridiculous gadget Bond has ever had. More so than ever before, it's outfitted with otherwise utterly useless devices that are somehow precisely what is needed to get him out of his jams. (A pop up hood ornament that can cut through a metal cable strung at exactly three feet above the ground in front of the car? Give me a break.)

Even the opening credits sequence of this movie is awful. The visuals are flat and uninspired, and the song by Sheryl Crow sounds banshee-like and off key. The only virtue of this film is that at 1 hour and 57 minutes, it's the shortest James Bond film made since the 1960s. It's an unqualified F.

The World Is Not Enough - There are some good ideas at work in this film. The main henchman played by Robert Carlyle has the interesting characteristic of being unable to feel pain. The woman originally thought to be the "Bond girl" of the tale is revealed to be the big bad. The character of M is given a greater role in the story, when she is deceived and abducted by the villain. The theme, by Garbage, really fits the musical style of the best Bond themes.

But unfortunately, this movie doesn't quite know when enough is enough. Every major action sequence starts out interesting, but runs on too long. In the course of this movie, we see what feels like the longest boat chase ever put on film, the longest ski chase ever put on film, the longest stuck-on-a-runaway-hand-car-in-an-oil-pipeline chase ever put on film... well, you get the idea. More exacting editing could probably have put more tension into this film, but as is, it's the very example of "sound and fury, signifying nothing."

And then there's Denise Richards as Dr. Christmas Jones -- the most horribly miscast Bond girl. Ever. Asking the audience to accept her and her half-airhead, half-robotic delivery as a nuclear physicist? What on earth could the producers have been thinking? Well, other than, "let's get her in a tight tank top and put her in a leaky submarine."

In the end, the bad far outweighs the little good at work in this movie. I rate it a D.

Die Another Day - There's basically one good idea in this film, and it's a real shame it doesn't get realized fully. The opening sequence of the movie has James Bond getting captured by North Koreans. The titles themselves are actually used to advance the plot, showing him undergoing repeated torture throughout a 14 month incarceration. When the main action resumes, he is released, battered and defeated...

Which seems to have absolutely no lasting effects on him whatsoever. In a matter of minutes, Bond is back on his feet, kicking ass, enjoying life, and generally acting like nothing happened to him. Here was a chance to really show the character in a different place, and present a different kind of movie. Instead, he pairs up with Halle Berry in a lame attempt to start a spin-off movie franchise.

The movie feels like a desperate list of "things we haven't seen in a Bond movie yet," stitched together like Frankenstein's script. Bond surfs, he fences, he drives an invisible car... he visits a freaking palace carved out of ice.

The jokes are weak, and the action mixed. The editing is truly bizarre, with randomly inserted speed ramps and slow motion patches. CG is suddenly used to realize many of the stunts in the film, where such things were always actually done for real in earlier films. And it's very obvious and badly-rendered CG; not as well done as what you can see on television now, just a few years later. The Robocop-esque outfit worn by the villain in the final act of the film actually made me laugh out loud. And that opening theme by Madonna? A completely inappropriate techno cut that feels like it just wasn't good enough to make her Ray of Light album.

How to rate this film depends on whether you're inclined to give points for the "tortured Bond" idea, or take them away for completely wasting that idea. I'll settle on a little of both, and call this a D- movie.

So in all, though I may have thought Pierce Brosnan perhaps the best actor in the role of James Bond, his films are overall the worst of the worst. They average out to a D+, and that's even with the exceptional GoldenEye factored in, stretching out the average. I get the impression that the producers knew they'd made some bad movies too, which is why they took their cues from the Bourne movies in "re-booting" things with Casino Royale. Still, I think they unfairly made Brosnan a scapegoat for their bad production decisions, letting him go from the role as though he was the reason Bond films had become so deplorable.

In all, an unfortunate ending to what had otherwise been a mostly enjoyable marathon of 20 movies. (If indeed it could be called a "marathon," spread out as it was for me over the entire year.) I hope my journey might be of use to some of you thinking of watching an old James Bond movie sometime; perhaps you'll steer clear of the sinkholes I fell into along the way.

Story Time

Sunday night, I attended a somewhat unusual theater event here in town. It was part of a monthly series called "Stories on Stage," and it has evidently been going on here in Denver for quite some time, though I was unaware of it until now.

Local actors are brought in to basically give "story time" to adults. They take turns, standing alone on stage, reading bits of short fiction from various authors. At the conclusion of the evening, the theater even serves up cookies and milk to the audience.

Back in high school, a friend and I shadowed an actor in the largest local theater company. In the intervening years, though my life has headed off in another direction, she has continued to pursue the theater as a career path, and has kept in touch with this actor we met. He was one of the four to read a story this month, and so it was we found out about the performance.

This was a Christmas-themed show, with short stories by Ellis Parker Butler, John Cheever, and Truman Capote. The finale was "A Child's Christmas in Wales," by Dylan Thomas. It turned out to be a very entertaining evening. In these skilled hands, the stories were fully engaging and enjoyable, even despite the minimalist presentation. I was a bit disappointed to learn that in earlier months this year when "Stories on Stage" have been presented, I missed "Masterpieces of Science Fiction" (including works by Isaac Asimov, Neil Gaiman, and Ray Bradbury). But I've now got a month's notice to catch "Tales of Mystery and Suspense," featuring Edgar Allan Poe, among others.

I suppose that this is ultimately something I can only recommend to those of you who live in the Denver area. But then, it's possible something like this might be going on wherever you live. If so, it could be well worth your time. I found it a very refreshing reminder that the simple spoken word can paint so powerful a picture.

Not-So-Dark Materials

This past weekend, I got out to a movie theater again for the first time in several weeks, and saw The Golden Compass. I'd read the book years beforehand -- before a movie studio had even picked up the rights to adapt it, in fact. That series, His Dark Materials, is really great.

How the books came to be considered "children's books" in so many literary critiques is a real mystery to me. I don't say this as any sort of snobbish "it's too good to be a kids' book" way, because I don't think quality has anything to do with audience. But just because the main character is a child hardly means that's the primary intended reader.

In any case, I was very nervous to see how a book I'd enjoyed so much would be adapted into a film. The results were a bit mixed, I'd have to say.

As you've probably read if you follow entertainment news, much of the "message" of the story had been scrubbed away. That message, by the way, is not really anti-God, despite what you might have heard -- it's more anti-organized religion. In any case, I'd expected that material to be stripped away, and so it was. This was disappointing to me, but I must admit that this first installment of the trilogy didn't suffer too much from the loss.

If anything, the story simply didn't have enough room to breathe from a pacing standpoint. Details about the world, its magics, its politics, and its primary conflicts -- which are revealed gradually in the book -- are rolled into a huge monologue at the start of the film, crumbling under the weight of exposition. It feels artless to me as a reader of the book, and yet at the same time it left me wondering how well anyone who hadn't read the book would find their feet afterward.

From there, it bounced from event to event at a furious pace. It was as though the screenwriter was committed to cutting as few subplots as possible from the book, choosing instead to whittle every single plot point down to its bare bones just to be sure of getting it in there somewhere. Most of it was realized pretty well on the screen, but when combined with the stripping away of some of the book's subtext, it felt too much like the movie was trying to satisfy viscerally and not intellectually.

But there were good elements, to be sure. The casting was uniformly excellent. The young girl playing the lead character of Lyra was a solid actor. Nicole Kidman was a deliciously sweet villain that, in any other year that hadn't had Imelda Staunton as Delores Umbridge in a Harry Potter film, would have been a really outstanding performance. Daniel Craig made the most of a role that doesn't really grow large until later books in the series. (Well... or the very dark ending of the actual book, which was "postponed" from the finished film, given the uncertainty of there being any sequels.) Ian McKellen voices a great Iorek, and his opposite number from The Lord of the Rings, Christopher Lee, does a great cameo as (what else?) a power-hungry villain.

The CG used to realize the characters' "daemons" is generally pretty strong. Even though some of these animals are more commonplace things like dogs or insects, the filmmakers seemed to go for rendering even these on a computer -- and I thought this a wise choice, since it gave an overall consistency, where sometimes using real animals would probably have made the not-as-good CG moments more jarring.

In all, I'd have to say it was a good movie. It's just a much better book still. I give it a B.

Outrageous Fortunes 2

It's been a long while since I got a really strange fortune in a fortune cookie, but it happened again yesteday:


An "almost perfect day?" Almost? What kind of hellish curse is that? Anyone taking that fortune seriously could be having a fantastic day, except they'd be going along dreading that at any moment, the shoe would drop and whatever the "almost" was would happen. Or maybe the mere act of walking around constantly on your guard for this dreaded "almost" would transform an awesome day into this "almost perfect day" -- you know, a self-fulfilling prophecy.

In any case, I had a great day, thankyouverymuch Mr. Fortune Cookie. So kiss off.

Something Special for the Holidays

The problem with naming your Christmas-themed movie "A Perfect Holiday" is that you have no idea how theaters with limited marquee space will choose to abbreviate that title:

Meow-ter Space

If you, like me, are not a cat person, then you're going to find this video as funny as I did:

Starting the Band Tour

I made my "public debut" at Rock Band last night, as I went to a local bar with several co-workers to attend a charity fundraiser where Rock Band was being played on stage for anyone to come up and jam.

The room was absolutely packed -- surely to fire capacity. The lines to play were long, but we'd arrived fairly early in the night, and were able to get up there a few times before the wait grew too outrageous.

The first time around, only three of us were together and willing to jam for an audience, so we had a complete stranger throw in with us to sing the vocals on Garbage's I Think I'm Paranoid. All of us -- including the stranger -- seemed to be on our best instruments. We had a great time, and rocked it big time.

Later on in the "set," two guys were looking for people to fill in for them on drums and bass, so I and one of my co-workers were quick to throw in. Unfortunately, this time, we had rotten luck with the strangers. The singer butchered Don't Fear the Reaper (Even the cowbell parts! Travesty!), and the guitar player wasn't much better, biting off more than he could chew with too high a difficulty setting. Though we tried our best to carry the song, the singer failed three times, and that was the end of it.

While I wish the night had ended on the first successful song rather than the second, it was a great time nevertheless. If there's ever a next time, though, I plan to go with three of my friends so we can "bring it."

Bond, Part 3

It's time for the third installment in my series of reviews of the James Bond movies. This time, I'm looking at the brief stint Timothy Dalton had in the role.

I remember thinking that at the time, Timothy Dalton was an absolutely horrible James Bond, and that the movies he was in were even worse. Years later, I think I was having a bit of an unfair reaction to the change of Bonds from Roger Moore. Just as many fans of the generation before mine rebelled against Moore and celebrated Connery as the "one true James Bond," so I and my generation rebelled against Timothy Dalton.

But now that I've seen the movies again recently, I have to say I don't think the reaction was entirely off the mark. Through his own acting and the choices of the producers in casting him, the decision was made for "Bond after Moore" to become a much more dour character. He was a real ass to everyone. He was very dark and broody. He smoked. All designed to be truer to the character in the original books, as I understand it (never having read any of them myself).

All well intentioned, I suppose. But there are still certain qualities Bond has to have, and Dalton didn't exhibit them, in my opinion. Bond is supposed to be charming, but in the moments Dalton tries to turn on the charm in his movies, I think he comes off smarmy. When he has to deliver one of James Bond's pithy one liners, he seems entirely too pleased with himself, almost like he's breaking the fourth wall.

But how were the movies themselves?

The Living Daylights - The pre-credits sequence of this film, about a test exercise turned real, is merely average, as are the credits and the theme song themselves. After that, though, the film gets interesting for a while. Helping a Russian defector get out of the country makes for a adventurous and sometimes suspenseful tale, and then the revelation that it was all a hoax is also engaging.

Unfortunately, then the "Bond girl" of this film hits center stage. Where I found the love interest of A View to a Kill annoying for her acting, this time I can't fault the woman playing the role. No, here it's the writing that's making her such a nuisance. The whole subplot of looking after her cello is annoying (and culminates in a fairly ridiculous sledding-in-a-cello-case chase). She's another one of the Bond girls that's supposed to be strong and independent, but she's more often shown as truly dense and helpless. Part of the "new Bond" of this film is that he's monogamous within the confines of this one movie, so he's shackled to her for the entire journey.

The climax lacks any one real, major villain that has enough screen time for you to get invested in. The action sequences are exciting, but not very well connected to one another. In the end, it all amounts to a C.

Licence to Kill - This is actually not a bad film. But it's a pretty terrible James Bond film. The real problem here is that this feels like some straight-up revenge movie, and it lacks any of the trappings that makes Bond what he is.

It has an awesome cast of character actors. These are "working actors" whose faces you've probably seen in countless other movies, and they're all collected here and doing good work. It has a great theme song (one of the few "Bond-like" elements in the movie) performed by Gladys Knight -- one of the "unsung heroes" of Bond themes, in my mind. It has an opening pre-credits sequence that, for once, is actually connected to the main plot of the movie, and not just an unrelated 10-minute adventure to get things rolling.

But Bond films bring certain expectations. Even the newest, Casino Royale, with its approach to reinvent the James Bond franchise, still honored these elements. Normally, Bond movies have enormous scope, jetting to several exotic locales and showing us amazing things we'll never see in life. Here, the entire movie is set in South Florida and Mexico. Normally, Bond is up against a villain with a slightly- to totally-larger-than-life scheme. Here, the villain is a simple drug lord that happens to harm one of Bond's friends. Normally, comedic moments are sprinkled throughout a Bond movie as part of the fabric of the story. Here, Wayne Newton is brought in for a cameo (mostly in the final act) to awkwardly punch up a story that's been too dark for too long.

Totalling it up, I give the movie a C+. I could mark it higher, if only I could divorce it mentally from the heritage of the series. (In much the same way that I must say that a lot about the movies Alien 3 and Alien Resurrection isn't bad, if you could somehow get away from the fact that they're supposed to be sequels to the completely-out-of-their-league-and-awesome Alien and Aliens.)

It's weird to "average" just two grades, but I guess technically you can do it. Dalton's movies come out a C+... or a C, depending on where you decide to round. Either way, unlike Connery and Moore, this is not a case of there being some good films and some bad ones. Dalton's are both middle-of-the-road. Worth seeing if you're being a completist (as I'm currently in the process of becoming), but otherwise probably best ignored.

Khan You Hear What I Hear?

For years, Hallmark has been making Star Trek ornaments for the Christmas trees of all the uber-Star Trek geeks out there. I thought they'd peaked a few years back with the Seven of Nine ornament, but then "giromide" e-mailed me about this year's ornament:


That's right. It's not the Reliant. It's not Admiral Kirk or Captain Spock or anything so mundane. This is a whole scene from Star Trek II captured in ornament form. It's not a Christmas decoration, it's a diorama!

And before you ask -- no, I'm not getting one. I'm a big geek, to be sure, but I draw the line before this. (Or should I say, "the line must be drawn here!!!!"?)

Wiither

One of the free software add-ons you can get for your Nintendo Wii turns one of the "channels" on the menu into a weather station. I got it because, as I mentioned: free. But it's really, really pointless.

Without getting into a lot of extra clicks, the only thing it can really tell you is the current weather. Current-ish. Sometimes, the "current temperature" it's giving you is a few hours old. It certainly doesn't beat looking out the damn window for learning what the current weather is.

Friends of mine suggested that perhaps one good use for this weather feature would be to give it some distant friend or relative's zip code as "your" zip code, and then you can use one button to get the general weather that day wherever that person lives.

You know... if you're way into weather, I guess.

Tales from the Internets 5

It's time for another short look at the bizarre Google searches that somehow led someone to my blog. This is a special "Heimlich-themed" installment in the series, as my choice in blog name has led to a bunch of rather odd searches. (That, and the weirdest comment exchange ever to occur here.)

heimlich and the maneuvers -- Not bad, but I ended up naming one of my Rock Band bands "Heimlich and the Upchux" instead.

heimlich maneuver made sexy -- Cause choking is hot.

heimlich for burps -- I'm not really a doctor, nor do I play one on T.V. Yet I'm fairly sure someone burping doesn't need the Heimlich Maneuver.

celebrities who had heimlich performed on them -- Cause choking is hot.

Heimlich Maneuver in the spanish language -- That would be, what... "el gasp! la (cough cough) ... aaaaiiiiii..... (thup) ... muchas gracias." ??

Cream Covered

I think a capella music might be one of those things Shocho would call "cool/stupid." That is, you either think it's really cool, or totally stupid.

If you're in the former category, then I think you'll find The Bobs' rendition of White Room really, really cool. Particularly the "guitar solo" at the two minute mark:

It's Showtime!

Are you a film buff? Have you got $600 just burning a hole in your pocket? Well let me suggest that this Tuesday (when it releases), you pick up the UA 90th Anniversary Prestige Collection. It's 90 movies in one package.

Holy crap!

It's not that I'm saying 90 movies is a lot to own on DVD. Looking at the size of my DVD collection, I've no room to talk there. But I can't say I've ever bought 90 movies all at once.

I suppose it works out to less than $7 a movie, which is less than you'd probably pay to see them just about any way other than NetFlix or slavish searching of AMC over a period of several years. But damn, who would have the time to watch 90 movies?! Not me. I know this for a fact -- I kept track of the movies I saw in 2006 just for the hell of it, and while this year's tally is well ahead of that, I'm not to 90 yet.

It sure puts a top 100 list (the AFI's, or mine, or anyone else's) into perspective when you're actually confronted with how much time you have to devote to watch that many movies.

End of Another Era

So, as someone noted in the comments of one of my recent posts, The Company I used to work for in Virginia has announced this week the end of Star Trek CCG. I'd be remiss not to acknowledge the end of the line for the game, since it's what got me into my career as a game designer. I also had a lot of fun as a player of the game for years before I became a designer of it.

I made a lot of friends over Star Trek CCG, many of whom I'm still in regular touch with. I still have framed uncut sheets from the game hanging on the walls of my apartment. (The rare sheet from Premiere, both First and Second Edition.)

All that given, though, I'm not really feeling like I've lost anything this week. For me, the end really came in January of 2005, not this week. I don't have any hard feelings left over it; I've just moved on already. For some time now, I've had the good memories and not the bad.

But for those feeling the end of this era now, for the first time -- I kind of know where you're at. I would most certainly be in an entirely different place in my life today were it not for Star Trek CCG.

The Power of 17

Tonight, I'm celebrating my 1,017th post. Why? Well...

I missed my 1,000th post a couple weeks ago.

I've got absolutely nothing else to talk about tonight.

It so happens that 17 is a very cool number, and I'm not the only person who thinks so.

I remember every detail of the moment the number 17 first got onto my radar. Waking up in a hotel room in Las Vegas, shared among a group of friends, we turned on the television to something -- anything -- while we were all taking turns showering and getting in motion. It happened that the thing that was on was Sesame Street.

Almost any American kid from my generation will have certain songs about numbers written indelibly in their brains from Sesame Street, Schoolhouse Rock, and the like. ("One-two-three FOUR FIVE six-seven-eight NINE TEN... eleven twelve. Dooooo doo-doo-do-doo doooo.....") Well, that morning, on came a similar piece designed to brand the number 17 in your brain.

First of all, it was weird even by Sesame Street standards. They just kept flashing the number on the screen again and again, as this voice kept saying again and again: "seventeen." Except sometimes it was shouted, sometimes whispered. Sometimes a long pause, sometimes twice close together. "SEVENTEEN! .... seventeen-SEVENTEEN! .... SevenTEEN!!!"

Juxtaposed over this weirdness was the realization: wait a second... when did Sesame Street start counting up past 12?! When I was a kid, nothing past 12 even existed on Sesame Street. Now this crazy drug trip simulation for toddlers was going on about 17?

Possibly, this all seemed more bizarre that it actually was, given that I was waking up in a strange bed after an uneven night's sleep, following a long night of gaming in the casinos.

In any case, I will always remember it.

SEVENTEEN!

Bond, Part 2

It's time for me to continue my account of watching all the James Bond movies. For those who missed the first part, in which I looked at the Sean Connery films, you can take a look back here. But this installment is all about Roger Moore.

As I mentioned last time, Moore was really the Bond of my generation. I'd seen several of his Bond movies long before I ever saw my first Connery film. Moore's Bond started out fairly similar to Connery's, actually. There seemed to be a few lines in the scripts designed solely to set him apart in the role (ordering a bourbon in Live and Let Die, for example, rather than a martini), but really they just seemed like window dressing.

Soon, though, Roger Moore's take on the character would develop, for better or (and?) worse, into a more relaxed and at times comedic take on the character. Moore Bond films were more fanciful and more elaborate than Connery's, and not just for the far larger budgets. They simply didn't take themselves as seriously. And in my opinion, this worked very well in some films, and failed miserably in others. Here's how I chart Moore's career as 007, film by film.

Live and Let Die - The first Roger Moore Bond film was a strong debut. The action really moved in a way that the last couple Bond movies did not. The villain's "heist" to establish dominance over drug distribution in the U.S. wasn't that great a caper in the grand scheme of the series, but he was nevertheless a compelling screen presence, thanks to actor Yaphet Kotto. He also had some great henchmen in Tee Hee and Baron Samedi. And of course there was Jane Seymour as Solitaire. Other women may have created more iconic moments in their roles as Bond women, but to this day, I don't think there's been as skilled an actress cast as one -- and she manages to do quite a lot with it, too. There are several comedic moments in the film. Some work (Bond's escape from a den of crocodiles), and some don't (everything with the bumbling Louisiana sheriff J.W. Pepper). Bonus points for a theme song that I personally think kicks ass. I give it a B- overall.

The Man With the Golden Gun - Christopher Lee as the villain, Hervé Villechaize as his henchman? This movie starts well ahead of the game. The plot is primarily about an alleged death threat against Bond by Lee's character, Scaramanga. But it gets a little muddy with a stop off at a karate dojo, and muddier still when solar-powered lasers and other nonsense appears that probably seemed way cool in 1974. Oh, and the reappearance of that God-awful J.W. Pepper character from the last film? Dumb, dumb, dumb. But once again, it all comes out to a B-.

The Spy Who Loved Me - Most film buffs will tell you this was the best of the Roger Moore Bond films. I have to agree. The pre-credit sequence is one of the best in the entire series, ending in a stunt that's arguably the most iconic image in any Bond film. Carly Simon's title song is unforgettable. Jaws is a great thug, though they do let him get just a touch too comical at times, robbing him of some of his menace. The main villain, Stromberg, touches a lot of the buttons that made Blofeld such a good nemesis in the earlier Bond films. But the middle chunk of the movie does drag a bit. The Russian spy Amasova doesn't seem quite strong and credible enough by today's standards, which means the whole "Bond's equal" idea seems a bit dated today. And speaking of things that don't hold up, there's the entire musical score -- James Bond's themes rendered as disco music. Ugh. Still, much more of this movie holds up with the passage of time than does not. I give it a B.

Moonraker - Roger Moore was having a great track record as Bond, until this movie came along. And it all seems to start so well. The pre-credits sequence of Bond falling out of an airplane without a parachute is just great. Bond then begins his investigation of the villain Drax, who seems intriguing and dangerous. But sadly, this movie was all about the producers wanting a piece of that "Star Wars" movie that had appeared two years earlier. Completely ridiculous notions of space flight soon intrude, and in the climax of the film, Bond actually goes to outer space, where he and a bunch of space marines get involved in a laser gun fight with Drax's army. I've seen it, and I don't believe it. They also bring back Jaws from the previous film, which ought to be great, but they turn him into a completely comical character, putting him in a romance with a pig-tailed blonde (whose shiny gold spacesuit has matching hair ribbons). The first 20 minutes of this movie are great, but the rest comes across like a parody of a James Bond movie, rather than the genuine article. I give it a D+.

For Your Eyes Only - This movie is crammed full to bursting with random ideas, like nobody really knew quite what they wanted here. And sadly, most of the ideas are boring. There's scuba diving (even more boring than the material from Thunderball), lots of skiing (not as compelling as the material from The Spy Who Love Me), and an opening sequence that sees the return of Blofeld (yes!) only for the purpose of getting rid of him in less than six minutes of screen time (why bother?). There's a bait-and-switch surrounding the bad guy that feels rather pointless. The ending of the film seems to render the entire proceedings moot. And inexplicably, disco is back, even though this movie was released in 1981. The musical score is simply terrible. There is a fairly good sequence that involves Bond being dragged by a boat, a car chase of a little interest because Bond is deprived of his super car, and a rock climbing sequence near the end that is pretty exciting (mainly because one can tell it was actually done for real, and not through visual effects). But ultimately, this is a boring movie. I rate it a D+.

Octopussy - Somehow, this title character of this movie is involved both in jewel smuggling and running a traveling circus. That ought to give you a sense of how at odds with itself the plot is. Really, it all just seems like a way to connect specific action sequences the writers had in mind. Fortunately, most of those sequences are good: a small aircraft fight before the opening credits, a fight through the streets of a city in India (engaging, though at times almost offensively cliché), and a foot chase on top of a train. Louis Jourdan is a pretty good villain, oily and slick. And the way he pronounces the name of the title character ("OCK-toe-pooo-see") is great every time. Still, the wait between the "good parts" of this movie feel pretty long. I give it a C-.

A View to a Kill - Moore's final turn as Bond was also the first Bond movie I ever saw. I worried it wouldn't hold up when I saw it again, but for the most part it did. Christopher Walken and Grace Jones?! How could that not be awesome? There's also Patrick Macnee (of The Avengers) in a small role, and that famous Duran Duran title song. Still, things get a bit camp at times -- setting the "snowboard" chase to the song "California Girls," and well, like I said, Christopher Walken and Grace Jones. (They're awesome, but campy at times.) There's an unneeded side trip in the plot, involving the fixing of horse races. Then there's Bond girl Stacey Sutton. She's supposed to be a strong, independent career woman (see how progressive Bond is being?), but she's really quite unintelligent most of the time to facilitate her becoming the damsel in distress. And she'd have a scream to shatter glass, except that it sounds like she's smoked three packs a day for her entire life. For my money, there was never a Bond girl so annoying until she came around. But hey, back to Christopher Walken and Grace Jones rocking! And an awesome heist: destroy all of Silicon Valley to seize control of the world microchip market. In all, there's a lot of good here, and I give it a B-.

And there you have it. In my opinion, there were more "good" Moore Bond films than Connery films. But man, the ones that were bad really did stink up the joint. In fact, if you average it all together, these seven movies only get a C+ from me, which is only one notch higher than the Connery films got. Again, it's a matter of picking and choosing the right movies.

That's it on Bond for now. Next time it comes around, it's Timothy Dalton's turn at bat.

End of an Era

I know some people with a fairly strict "don't ask me to help you move, and I'll never ask you to help me move" policy. Maybe that's a sound policy, too. But for me, that ship has sailed. I've enlisted help in moving before, and from time to time comes the payback.

And payback's a bitch, as was affirmed this weekend, when I helped some friends move into a new house. There were a lot of examples of how this move was going above and beyond the call of duty for all who helped.

There was the fact they've been living in the old house for 15 years, acquiring stuff and throwing little away. Despite the fact they'd already filled a good-sized storage space, it took us two full trips, each time completely loading U-Haul's largest moving van, a passenger mini-van with the seats removed, two large pick-up trucks, a jeep, and a station wagon.

There was the moving of the heaviest entertainment center you've ever seen. (Getting it into the new place required six or seven of us working in tandem.)

There was the unloading of the Tardis-like attic crawl space at the old place, in which we found (among too many other things to list) three sealed cases of Sterno. You know, in case of Y2K or zombies or something.

But despite all that, there were also a lot of good memories of the old place, and a lot of laughs -- though perhaps those were mostly augmented by extreme fatigue. In all, it honestly wasn't such a bad weekend.

Or should that be weakened? Cause I'm still completely exhausted and I think I'm getting sick.

Enjoy the Ride

I recently received the newest expansion for Ticket to Ride, Switzerland. This is designed for two or three players, which is really just the ticket (pun intended -- though I also considered "just what the Doctor ordered").

I've often played the various incarnations of Ticket to Ride with three players, and we've been on a search to find ways to tweak it just a bit. We've found the board feels a little too restrictive with the "players can only use one side of a double track" rule that comes in for three players, though clearly something needs to change from the game that's usually meant to take four or five players.

The creator's solution? A new board with a new map. And we found it to be a big improvement on the usual three player experience. Things felt just "congested" enough for the competition between players to be at the right level. There was a real pressure to start placing trains and not wait around, but you weren't conpletely screwed if someone got a crucial length of track before you -- there were alternate ways around, if you put a little effort into it.

The tickets also showed improvement. I've long felt the best strategy in the original game is simply to do your starting tickets, then do nothing but claim as many random six length train routes as you can until the game ends; taking tickets never seemed to be worth it. As the 1910 expansion successfully fixed this flaw from the original game (by changing the number of tickets players draw; and creating lots of tickets with common cities, thus increasing the chance you'll have part of a new route you draw already built), these Switzerland tickets were created in such a way that they felt worth the effort.

A new type of ticket was also introduced in this set -- tickets with a single origin point, but a player's choice of four destination points. This allows some flexibility in strategy, and further increases the likelihood of getting usable tickets.

The game also seemed to play much more quickly. In part, this was the rule telling us to play with 5 fewer trains than the standard game, but it also had to do with the greater pressure to compete on the board for prime tracks, and the average shorter lengths of routes on the map -- less time was needed to gather the cards to claim them. It's not like I felt Ticket to Ride was a long board game before, but I found it more enjoyable at this quicker pace.

In all, I thought it a very successful expansion, and I look forward to trying it out some more. I can imagine all the other versions of Ticket to Ride hanging out on the game shelf in favor of this version -- at least, whenever there's only two or three players on hand.

Time is Relative

I only subscribe to one magazine, Entertainment Weekly. I don't know if other magazines are like this, but it seems like EW is constantly trying to get me to renew my subscription -- regardless of how long it's going to be before it actually expires.

Literally six months away from the end of my current subscription, I got my first notice to "Renew Now!"

Four months away came, "Hurry, before time runs out!"

Last week, three months away from the expiration of my subscription, I actually received an issue wrapped in an extra paper cover telling me it's time to renew.

I'm curious to see what they might escalate to next, but I'm also thinking I really ought to just renew (because I do intend to) to shut these people up and make them stop wasting trees to send me all these damn notices.