Quote of the Day

A Rose is a Damn Rose, So Refer to It As Such

2012-02-18T00:04:00.002-05:00

A Rose is a DamnRose, So Refer to It As Such

I found myself in an awkward situation ata bar with a girl recently. Since this never happens now that I’m married, Iwelcomed the opportunity to engage. A first-year MFA student from one of myclasses approached me at a bar and very aggressively asked me if I knew hername. “[Her Name]” Blam! Right off the tip of my tongue like she asked if Iknew how fast a Delorean needed to go to get back to 1955. Point, Dustin. Follow-upquestion. What’s her name, pointingto someone else in the program. Easy. Fluxcapacitor. It’s what makes time travel possible. I win. We then proceed totalk about class and the weather and other things that two people who know eachother’s names talk about.

On the way home, I reflected on thesituation. The implication of her question was obviously that she didn’t thinkI knew her name – and that I should. Does she think I don’t know anybody’sname? Or that I’ve been ignoring her? Am I that much of an asshole now that Igive off an air of “Sorry, but I can’t be bothered with the names of all 25people in my class.” I’ve never really been able to talk to girls, but now it’sbecause I’m not sure if I’m allowed to. Maybe I didn’t win. Perhaps it wouldhave been better if I didn’t know her name. I did prove that I indeed knew whoshe was, but something in my character apparently smells arrogant orindifferent to some people. Or maybe she just thinks I’m stupid and couldn’tpossibly have the mental acuity to remember everybody’s name. Or maybe she askseverybody if they know her name. Which is a weird opening line. But hey, I’m noexpert with opening lines. I once said to a Young Democrat “So…” and then staredat her for the longest 25 seconds in both of our lives. I still think about herevery Election Day.

As I was leaving, I went to say goodbye tothis room full of girls when I noticed a guy in there with them and blurted out“Cock in the henhouse!” No one at the table had ever heard of that sayingand/or it’s more offensive than I think it is. Recommendation. Don’t use thatsaying in mixed company without doing considerable more research on it than Idid and/or you don’t care if the people there think you’re an asshole.

Valentine’s Day for the Married

2012-02-15T05:17:00.000-05:00

Valentine’s Day for the Married

I’ve spoken almost exhaustively about thecynical haze that surrounds Singles Awareness Day in 1998,1998and 1996(before I could write good), the Valentine’s Day Curse back in 2005,2005,2001,2001,and 2001(not the best of years), saw a glimmer of hope in 2007only to have it dashed in 2008,got snowed in in 2003,did the most amazingly fun and playful thing back in 1996only to reap the fallout of it thenext day, recountedmy inner monologue during the sellout performance of Logic, Luck and Love onV Day last year, and I even wrotea poem and published an Applicationto be Dustin’s Valentine somewhere along the line. But this V Day marks thebeginning of a new chapter of V Days. Valentine’s Day for the Married. Here’show it goes.

Friday2/10, Four days before V Day:I remind my wife that I don’t have class on Valentine’s Day. She tells me thisis the first time she’s heard of it. I insist I told her earlier in the week.This argument lasts at least 5 minutes. I forget to ask her if she wants to doanything because I’ve been too distracted defending myself and trying to figureout if I actually ever did tell her my class was cancelled earlier in the week,like I had just vehemently insisted minutes earlier.

Sunday2/12, Two days before V Day: Iremember to ask her if she wants to do anything. She thinks about it. Somethingelse happens. We forget to come to a conclusion.

Monday2/13, One day before V Day:I convince Jenn that we decided we don’t want to go to a restaurant even thoughwe never came to that conclusion. A student employee suggests I cook for her. Ihadn’t even thought of that. I ask if that’s what she wants to do and she’s morethan happy. She never wanted to go out anyway.

Note: I remembered a conversation we had over Christmaswith my sister about love languages. We all have different ways we want to havelove shared with us. I think there are five languages. Positive reinforcement,doing things with your partner, doing things for your partner but in separate roomswithout seeing each other and two other things. I enjoy doing things with mypartner while Jenn enjoys being right all the time. So if she wants to give meunsolicited incorrect feedback about the words to a Sara Bareilles song thathappened to have been correct when they left my mouth, I’m going to let her.Because I love her.

Tuesday2/14 @ 8:40am, V Day: Idrive her to work in the city. During a chorus of Shoulda Been a Cowboy, shesings “Shoulda learned to roll around”instead of “shoulda learned to rope andride.” Again, I support her. Then she asks if instead of me cooking for hertonight, if she could cook for me and I could just do her laundry. Sure thing,honey. So how different is Valentine’s Day for the Married? The answer is washingdirty socks.

Five Univocalists Write about the Superbowl

2012-02-13T00:29:00.002-05:00

Five UnivocalistsWrite about the Superbowl
(based on an assignment from my Writing class)

Bad snap. Act fast and balk a sack. A ball falls as a man’sarms arc. All Pats fans gasp as a mass. Hands grab and grasp a ball. What apass! What a catch! What a play! A dad stands and claps. Crap. A sad man praysat Allah and Martha Kraft, always a class act. “A hand, smart gal?”

Alas. A halfback trap and a crackback attack and abracadabra!Add a mark. Ass backwards and all.

The G-Men best the preferred peer’s seventeen. They let theG-Men get there, extended the secs left, help them get there themselves. We’llsee.

Seven secs left. The perfect-chested, revered expert sendsthe egg-sphere deep. Defenders merge. Wes Welker stretches, wrestles thedefense. The defenders persevere. The end.

The teen peeps tweet “G-Men get revenge!” G-Men center,Snee, texts ESPN press “We deserve the respect. E’s the best ever.” Schlereth types“Well, best except Drew Brees.”

Winning is simplistic with Mississippi’s first pick, insistshis kin in pigskin, Nicks. “His instincts is bitchin.” Criticizing nitwitsdismiss his childish spirit, indicting him in writing. In hindsight, I think itstinks.

XLVI highlights find in it pick in third with him hittingdirt, mini-flip in first bringing six with it, diving miss in its finishing ticks.“If it is, it is. If it isn’t, it isn’t” sighs Bill, missing his win in hisfifth bid.

Poor Tom. Boston’s top sports pro lost. No comfort for Tom’sdroop. Boston’s townsfolk boo “Oh no! Son of God!” Mobs scold worth of no goodRob Gronk, old school jock who drops odd oblong orb. No crown for Boston. Notnow.

Gongs toll for good crosstown. Joy on York, world’s top dogof now. Photos show Soho’s crowds of morons know how to show off. No gloom ordoom on snob town.

Cruz’s run stuns rum drunk fun bunch, thus stung unfungurus. Gurus dumbstruck, blurt “Shut up, butt-turds! Tuck’s guys such bums.” Turfburn hurts. Lung burn sucks. Dumb luck unfurls. Such fun.

The Humble Hero from Harvard

2012-02-11T07:09:00.001-05:00

The Humble Hero from Harvard

Most sportscasters and NBA analysts willtell the story of Jeremy Lin in the context of how the breakout star is saving theNew York Knicks’ season, especially through this tough stretch without themulti-million dollar stars, Carmelo Anthony and Amari Stoudemire. But the analystswith the ability and foresight to look at the big picture implications caneasily see how this guy might be the guy to save the entire league.

I’ve spoken at length about how theNBA needs a hero. The downward spiral they’ve been on for years is fueledby this flux capacitor of selfishness with the increasingly egomaniacalplayers, the press who get paid to give the fans a story they want, and thefans that are being manipulated into believing in stats and the importance ofwinning by the machine. This is what we’re feeding our kids. The only way outof this mess is to find a selfless hero to give the press something to writeabout that the fans can appreciate. Which means he needs to be a winner, firstand foremost, to sustain a public image. Kobe was that guy for years until the sexualassault charges ruined his Food, Folks and Fun image. LeBron was for a whiletoo until he finally got tired of pretending he wasn’t an arrogant blowhard.And not that Jeremy Lin is going to ever reach the talent level of those two,but if he continues with this streak that he’s on and makes waves in theplayoffs, he could be the story that saves professional basketball.

Some don’t believe the NBA needs saving. Iunderstand. They still have fans. But I did something I hadn’t done in seasons.I watched a game. Well, the last 8 minutes of a game, but still. The NBA hasbecome about highlights and contracts and superstars who score 35 points on 45shots (that’s not very good). I was really hoping the entire season would belocked out to hopefully teach it a lesson. Then up from the ashes comes ahumble Harvard Asian-American point guard who has been sleeping on his brother’scouch through the 10-day contracts he’s gotten from the Knicks. And he’s done it to not just the Wizards and the Jazz, but now the beloved Lakers. He has garnered the attention of the casual viewer, like me, who has tired of watching thechest-pounding, showboating ways of today’s NBA.

This doesn’t seem like the kind of guy to fallvictim to an egomaniacal tirade or a run-in with the law – probably not even a parkingviolation. And the timing is perfect. He’s come to the forefront of our focus justafter football season, when a lot of us are searching for something to meritour attention, and just at the tragic fall of one of the best role models in allof sports history with the Penn State saga. He is the first person ofAsian-American descent to start a game in the NBA and the second Harvard grad.He has already become an international star and has increased traffic on theKnicks websites by 3000%.

I’m looking for a role model. Someone toinspire kids to play for something besides showing up other kids and end zonecelebrations. This is my hope for the NBA and sports in general. I’m puttingall my chips in on the Lin-sanity craze. And maybe it’s too early. Maybe he won’tbe the superstar I’m hoping he’ll be, and thus may fall out of the spotlight.Maybe once Carmello comes back, the team chemistry will fall apart and he’ll fadeinto the background. Or worse, maybe the NBA will lose their focus on him andstart to spotlight Carmello and the stats again. But hopefully the media andthe fans can keep their attention on him for a while, for whatever reason.Because in a league that’s more common to high school dropouts than Ivy Leaguegrads*, it would be nice for a humble Harvard kid to share some of thespotlight. For the kids.

* (Note: This is based on no real research. Please don't quote me on any of it.)

Review of Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close

2012-02-07T00:27:00.000-05:00

Review of ExtremelyLoud & Incredibly Close

“They saythere are more people alive today than have died in the course of humanhistory.” This is the quote the movie opens with. This was another way ofsaying “Dustin, I know you paid to get in here to see the movie, but why don’tyou consume yourself with something else for the next 45 minutes instead.”Really? How the hell is that possible? When did human history start? What doesthat suggest about our future? Will that always be the case? Al Gore was right.We’re fucked. And who the hell is he quoting? He just said “They say…” They could very well be The Fraggles.And what the hell do they know about anything? They live in caves, for Godsake,caves!

I wasquickly sidetracked. The movie had little to do with the origin of humanhistory or Fraggles. Or Al Gore. And I’m still not sure what was supposed to beloud and/or close and to what degree. The movie was about a son who loses hisfather and spends the movie searching for a matching lock to his father’s key.And it’s much different than Hugo, who was searching for a matching key for hislock. See, different movies.

Thisborderline autistic child loses his father in 9/11. The movie definitely uses9/11 to tickle your tear ducts, but it isn’t untastefully done. In fact, thereweren’t many more shots of “the worst day” in the movie than was in thetrailer. The movie focused on young Oskar’s mission to find a message that hisfather may or may not have left him before he died hidden somewhere in thecity. This is a lot of emotional heavy lifting for a child actor not namedHaley Joel Osment.

I learned inmemoir class that you can always write about the bad stuff you did when youwere a kid because the audience sympathizes with you. You are not yetresponsible for your actions. But at the turn of the film, Oskar told his momthat he wished she was the one who was in the World Trade Center instead.That’s tough to recover from at any age. He whispered “I love you” under thedoor for just about no reason other than to win the audience back. It did notwork for this viewer.

The last 20minutes were as sappy as promised, but it gave the movie the heart that Iassume the Academy voters thought was worth the Best Picture nod. I was lessmoved than I anticipated, as I tend to tear up at the end of most episodes ofMonk. Maybe it’s because I saw what they were doing and it put me back in amovie theater chair. The slow-motion of the vase falling, the close-up of theanswering machine, the mute grandfather with a secret and the “Swing Away”writer’s contrivance appearing phone number that Mr. Attention-to-Detail didn’tthink to check before he started this trip. I did not dislike this movie becauseof any exploitation of the 9/11 tragedy, but because it’s hard to appreciatethe taste of cheese when it’s on the end of a mop being shoved down my throat.4 bugs (out of 10)

Quick Inside Slant: Pre-Superbowl Edition

2012-02-05T06:31:00.001-05:00

Quick Inside Slant:

by Dustin Fisher
Impressions of the 2011 NFL season as perceived by a Creative Writing gradstudent, part-time amateur stand-up comedian and collegiate intramural flagfootball legend (all same person).

The Book of Eli: I will hate EliManning until the day that I die for the mess he made on draft day back in2004, proving that if you have a father and older brother with political clout andwhine loud enough that you can buck the system and get your way. Actually, we stillremembered that lesson from Election Day 2002, but we already knew politicscould be bought. But not the mighty shield! What’s left to believe in? Susan G.Komen?

That said,he has sadly proven that he is a good quarterback this year. And it pains me toadmit it on many, many levels. No one has rooted for his failure more than Ihave over the last 7 years. He has not only a Superbowl MVP, but a play. Youknow it. And there’s unfortunately nothing anybody can do to change that. Thescreaming fist pump has replaced the frumpy-shouldered pouty-face that definedhis first 4 years.

A Man Named Brady: I really havenothing against Tom Brady. He’s a good-looking guy, but he can’t help that. Hemarried a supermodel, but last I heard, they also age. And Bill Belichick haschanneled his inner-Howie Mandel this past week for some reason. They are sucha good coach-quarterback combo that despite being outmatched in every facet ofthe game, they are still favored by 3. That’s how scared the book-makers andthe greater public are to bet against the Brady/Belichick package. And yes, Imanaged to make you think about Tom Brady’s package.

Root of the Problem: So who am Irooting for? Well, the schadenfreude part of me would really like to seefrumpy-pants one more time. Tom Brady loses like a man and that’s no fun to seeon SportsCenter for 7 months. And mostly, I want to shut up the “us against theworld” Giants idiots who apparently haven’t seen this.

What world?6 of 8 experts picked you guys, dipshits. Stop whining and play the damn game.I’m really hoping you’ll lose so at the press conference you’ll have to say “well,I guess the world was right.” Go Pats.

Predictions: I’m glad I’m not stupidenough to put money on this, because I would be flipping a coin. I have made anunofficial vow to never bet against New England as long as the Brady/Belichick/Kraftcombo is there. And yes, I’m throwing in the owner. He’s earned it. But theGiants seem to be their kryptonite. They’re the only team with a winning recordagainst the Pats since Mo Lewis changed the world in 2001 (on the first gameafter 9/11, for you conspiracy theorists). A lot of teams try to set up theirteams to beat other teams in their conference (Texans taking Mario Williams to takeon Peyton Manning; Eagles keeping three all-star cornerbacks to stack upagainst the Saints & Packers spread offenses), but the Giants havedeveloped a team just to beat the Patriots. Or so it seems, as evidenced by their9-7 record and two losses to the Crapskins this year.

All that nonsensesaid, I’m dancing with the men that brought me here. I’m convinced that nomatter how badly overmatched the Patriots are, Belichick will find a way topull a rabbit out of his sweatshorts. Wow, that was a disgusting visual. Sorry.I could easily see the Giants falling behind by three touchdowns early in thesecond quarter. That would never happen to the Pats. So I’ll take all my fakemoney and go with the Pats. Again.

Other predictions: In addition to thePats avenging their only Superbowl loss in the Brady era (they lost to the 1985Bears by 137), here are some other Superbowl predictions:

· At least 6 people at the party will say theyonly watch the game for the commercials (7 guys, 7 girls in attendance).

· Cris Collinsworth will say something that makesperfect sense and improves your understanding of football, but because of thetone of his voice you will want to punch him in the throat. (Chris Whitesaid it too well to change)

· Iwill wind up buying at least 60 squares again to make the board even.

· Allthe talk of those 4 defensive ends flying upfield to get Brady will be dampenedby the no huddle that New England will be running.

· Duringthe 9 ½ hours of Superbowl coverage, NBC will show the David Tyree catch 213times.

· MySkyline Chili dip will be the new favorite dip of 3 people.

· Iwill get upset with at least two people who clearly don’t know football and tryto pretend they do for one day a year.

Note: One of them might be my wife.
Other note: I won’t be invited back next year.

Double Feature Duel: Monster vs. Crazy, Stupid, Love

2012-02-04T19:12:00.002-05:00

Double Feature Duel:
Monster vs. Crazy, Stupid, Love

Bout #32: Last but not least, two of thebest movies in this bracket by far.

Monster: All I knew about this isthat Charlize Theron won an Oscar and gained a lot of weight for this role.Turns out it was a really good movie, and a true story to boot. It hadprostitution, lesbianism, drinking, murder and a cute, awkward Christina Ricci.And at the heart, it was a love story. It’s good to see a movie made with three-dimensionalcharacters who get conflicted about decisions. And the movie did an impressivejob of getting the audience to buy into this woman and her serial killing ways.You understand and sympathize a lot more than you pass judgment and detest. Itwas an excellent portrait of a troubled person in a shitty situation andTheron’s head-jerk hair-flip move alone could have earned her the Oscar. Not tomention her stonewashed jeans. 9 bugs.

Crazy, Stupid, Love.: Cheesy, silly, fun. Therewere character inconsistencies, awkwardly positioned scenes and forced plotpoints mixed in with a fun buddy story, superb comedic acting and a few momentsof great dialogue. And the end made the whole movie worth the wait. Not thevery end with the overpowering cherry flavoring, but you’ll know what I’mtalking about. It was Kayser Soze for comedy. It’s like seeing the track aheadof you on the roller coaster and thinking you have it all prepared, when rightat the crest of the hill, the floor drops out. And then the guy next to yougives you a box of chicken fingers you didn’t order, but you so desperatelywant anyway. We knew what the very end was going to bring when we saw who wasin the movie, but it’s one of the few movies I wanted to watch againimmediately after finishing it. It’s worth it alone to check out the sceneswith Ryan Gosling coaching Steve Carrel in the art of the pick-up. 8.5 bugs.

Title: I’m a fan of the one-wordtitles. I’m also a fan of using a little bit of punctuation. But the period isso fucking annoying when you’re writing about it. (Point, Monster 1-0)

Funnier: By a country mile. (Point, Crazy 1-1)

Better Turn: Any scene that can makeyou understand the psyche of a serial killer is a pretty awesome scene. (Point, Monster 2-1)

Better Ending: Well, it wasn’ttechnically the very ending, but the big reveal scene was a piece of comicmagic. (Point, Crazy 2-2)

Better Message: Maybe not a message perse, but definitely worth mentioning (again) that this is a movie that makes youappreciate and sympathize with a serial killer. And one that actually existed. (Point, Monster 3-2)

Better Acting: I do love the comicstylings of Ryan Gosling and Steve Carrel, but the Oscar was definitelydeserved. (Point, Monster 4-2)

More Creative: It’s super tough forbased on real life stories to compete in this category, and Crazy was creative enough in itshandling of the Ryan Gosling taking Steve Carrel under his wing situation tostave off the true story. (Point, Crazy 4-3)

Poster: I was on the fence until the“portrait of life, love and everything in between” quote from somebody from FoxTV. So a bad quote by an unknown source. Flush. (Point, Monster 5-3)

Watch again: As I mentioned, I reallyliked Crazy and almost watched itagain immediately. The only thing that stopped me was that I have a job, a wifeand a baby on the way. (Point, Crazy 5-4)

Overall: So close. Winner: Monster (5-4)

Double Feature Duel: Horrible Bosses vs. Pineapple Express

2012-02-01T15:55:00.000-05:00

Double Feature Duel:
Horrible Bosses vs. Pineapple Express

Bout #30: I will take Charlie Day overSeth Rogan in any category ever. Acting, stand up, team scrabble. Whatever.

Horrible Bosses: The latest in a long line ofinept wannabe criminal films where the movie makes you sympathize with thewould-be murderers, either through their likability or ineptitude. JasonBateman, Charlie Day and the new guy from Saturday Night Live are the threemain characters who land in a bar trying to hire Jamie Foxx to help them. Ofcourse, he only agrees to be their murder consultant, as he doesn’t want tohead back to the clink for the hard time he did for pirating DVDs. Through allthis, the stars of the film are the namesakes in an ultra-narcissistic KevinSpacey, a coked-out Colin Farrell and a sex-crazed, batshit crazy JenniferAniston. Props to Farrell for stepping outside his normal heartthrob role, butseeing Aniston talk about her pussy was as jaw-dropping as hearing Kathleen Turnerdrop “cocksucker” and “motherfucker” in Serial Mom. The concept was the sameone from Throw Momma from the Train because it was good enough for DeVito andCrystal. The ending is weak, which often happens when you try to get all yourmain characters out of a dark comedy scot-free. The Hangover got lucky. Butenough humor made it through all the plot contrivances to make it worth thewatch. 6 bugs (out of 10)

Pineapple Express: I have rarely been moredisappointed when looking at the Tomatometer rating than I was when I found outthat critics gave Pineapple Express a 68%. I figured the audience would likeit. People are stupid. But critics who critique films? This film sucked. By acountry mile. The dialogue was atrocious, the plot was stupid and it couldn’tfigure out whether or not it wanted to glamorize pot or berate it. The moviewas riddled with pointless and distracting slow motion, freeze frames and wipes.The big turn of the film was an argument scene between the two potheads toallegedly mount tension, only with dialogue written by and for potheads. Maybeif I smoked pot, I’d think this was funny. Maybe 68% of critics were high. I’mguessing they thought the rope rubbing scene was comic gold. I only finishedwatching this atrocity out of respect for Jenn, who probably didn’t want tofinish it either. In the climactic fight scene at the end, Seth Rogan actuallysaid the words “There might be more bad guys through there.” I’m mostly upsetat whoever it was that decided Seth Rogan was funny. This was obviously writtenwhile high, shot while high and needs to be viewed while high. James Franco isthe only thing salvaging this movie from a 0 bug rating. 0.5 bug (out of 10)

Title: Boy, they just couldn’t think ofanything else, could they? (Point, Pineapple 0-1)

Funnier: I just wasn’t high enough, Iguess. (Point, Bosses 1-1)

Better Turn: The scene where Seth Rogantries to teach his pot dealer a life lesson is one of the worst written scenesin the history of cinema. (Point, Bosses 2-1)

Better Ending: Except maybe for thisone. (Point, Bosses 3-1)

Better Message: Pineapple Expresscouldn’t figure out what the hell it wanted to do. Is it pro-pot? Anti-pot?Does it have any idea what the hell it’s doing at the end? (Point, Bosses 4-1)

Better Acting: I feel bad that JamesFranco was even in that movie. (Point, Bosses 5-1)

More Creative: Well, there wasn’t muchoriginality in stealing the basic idea of Throw Mamma from the Train, but atleast it acknowledged it. And the way they used Jennifer Aniston and CollinFerrell was awesome. (Point, Bosses 6-1)

Poster: Franco’s hilarious expressionis cancelled out by Rogan’s grandstanding nonsense. And Farrell’s hair isalmost awesome enough to make up for the lack of anything really interesting. Iguess I’ll go with the cloud of smoke in the background. It feels less like anintro to Print Shop project. (Pineapple 6-2)

Watch again: If I live right, Ishouldn’t ever have to watch that awful movie again, even in parts. (Point, Bosses 7-2)

Overall: After Tree of Life, I was alittle nervous. Thank you, Horrible Bosses. Winner: HorribleBosses (7-2)

Double Feature Duel: Midnight in Paris vs. You Again

2012-01-31T22:22:00.002-05:00

Double Feature Duel:
Midnight in Paris vs. You Again

Bout #29: An Oscar-nominated Woody Allenfilm vs. a get the actors together and then we’ll figure out a plot... thing.

Midnight in Paris: Owen Wilson and RachelMcAdams are back together again in the long-awaited sequel to Wedding Crashers.This was a really fun movie. They talked too much – especially in thebeginning, which is typical of Woody Allen movies, but once Owen Wilson foundhimself transported back in time, the real story began and the conversationsseemed a lot less contrived. Which is weird, because he was talked to deadpeople from another time period. The film definitely sported a few annoyingwriter’s contrivances and inconsistencies, including Gertrude Stein’spronunciation of the word “lititure.” And they happened to run into anothercouple visiting Paris at the same time? I don’t even run into people I know atthe Wheaton Mall and I have over 1500 facebook friends. I realize thatcomplaining about this traveling coincidence when people are transported backin time to parties with T.S. Eliot and Hemingway seems picky, but withoutgetting too into too much detail, I’m right. (Ed note: that was actually nodetail at all) In addition to the fun at the heart of it, the movie had aworking purpose. While Owen Wilson loved his past, the people of that timewished to go back further, and so this would continue until the universe was asingularity (this was cut from the movie for time). But the message goesdeeper, and not where you’d expect, when Woody turns the tables onromanticizing the past. 8.5 bugs (out of 10)

You Again: This was your standard “getthe right actors on board and then figure it out” movie. The script could havebeen written on the back of a napkin that said “Kristen Bell, Jamie Lee Curtis,Sigourney Weaver, Betty White.” It was fun in parts, however unoriginal andpredictable. It tried to be the hilarious all-girl comedy that Bridesmaids waswith big names instead of big talent. And they checked all the boxes. They hadthe “we’re wearing the same dress” scene and of course the “we’re both somehowthrowing each other into the pool together” scene, which was the only use ofslow motion in the entire movie by the way. And the director couldn’t evenbother to ask the officials from the high school basketball game to tuck theirshirts in. Really? That’s the level of attention to detail you have for yourproduct? At least pretend to have some pride in this film. Or was it just apaycheck? 3.5 bugs (out of 10)

Title: Midnight in Paris is descriptiveand romantic all at the same time, but You Again can be said with so manydifferent intonations, it’s worth the point for versatility. (Point, You Again 0-1)

Funnier: Both were actually funny, butWoody’s was more introspectively funny. Still, Midnight lost a crapton ofpoints when they had the “same dress” gag and the hot chicks throwing slime oneach other. (Point, Midnight 1-1)

Better Turn: I almost immediatelyassumed getting transported back in time in a 1920s car was going to win this,but then I remembered the scene where we found out that Kristen Bell’s nemesisactually remembered her was quite awesome. Yeah, sure. Why not? (Point, You Again 1-2)

Better Ending: Saving ink. (Point, Midnight 2-2)

Better Message: Midnight teaches you toappreciate the time period you are in. We all romanticize the past. You Againteaches you that if you’re a bitch, don’t get caught. And if you catch someonebeing a bitch, don’t tell people about it. The movie tried a little too hard tomake both of them wrong. (Point, Midnight 3-2)

Better Acting: They didn’t necessarilyask Jamie Lee Curtis, Sigourney Weaver, Kristen Bell and Betty White to act, intheir defense. They were just asked to show up. (Point, Midnight 4-2)

More Creative: Ink. (Point, Midnight 5-2)

Poster: The night sky in Paris turnsinto A Starry Night by Van Gogh. Very nicely done. (Point, Midnight inParis 6-2)

Watch again: You Again wasn’t horrible,but I’d like a second run at Midnight someday. (Point, Midnight 7-2)

Overall: Down early, a 6-point run toend it was just for show toward the end. Winner: Midnight in Paris (7-2)

Double Feature Duel: Limitless vs. The Tree of Life

2012-01-31T01:39:00.004-05:00

Double Feature Duel:
Limitless vs. The Tree of Life

Bout #28: A movie I really wanted to seethat turned out to be just OK vs. a movie I thought would be interesting thatturned out to be the most boring however many hours of my life in thismillennium.

Limitless: I don’t know why I expectedmore from the sexiest man alive. Not all of them have the balls that Brad Pittdoes. Toward the end of the movie, when we find out that this smart pill hasfatal side effects, the movie decides to skirt the problem by having BradleyCooper somehow conquer the illness, maintain the intellectual effect of thedrug without taking it anymore… and… well, it just pretends that whole whoremurder in the hotel room didn’t happen. Because the one limitation the moviehad was making the sexiest man alive out to be an imperfect guy at the end ofthe movie. It’s unfortunately enough to make you forget about the good parts,which were really just high-budget more serious versions of Psych episodes –and instead focus on the plot holes, like why would this guy give Cooper thepill in the first place and why Cooper wasn’t smart enough to pay this Russiangangster back in time. And why the heck did he settle on helping with this bigfinancial merger? Curing cancer or HIV too boring for you, smartypants? So inthe end, the movie didn’t have any balls. But like the teacups, you get a fewgood spins for all that uncoordinated rocking back and forth. 5 bugs (out of10)

The Tree of Life: In film school, I was madeto feel stupid when I didn’t understand things – experimental structures,installation art, Jackson Pollack. Since then, I have come to realize that Imay have been duped, lied to by the creators of this art and the circle jerkcommunity they all live in, to believe my own mind to be immature andbrainwashed, simply incapable of “getting it.” Maybe I overcorrected myself andI really don’t get things that should be gotten by the greater populace and Iam indeed in the lower 16% on the intellect-meter. Occam’s Razor would suggestthis to be the case. But after years of research, I’ve determined that I amindeed not the problem. I get it justfine. And this film was boring, flaky and tried all too desperately to be the transcendentalfilm that was in Terrence Mallick’s head. Props to those who bought into it,but just because something is different doesn’t make it good. And just becauseyou don’t understand it, doesn’t make it art. Sometimes when you don’t knowwhat’s going on in a movie, it’s because it wasn’t explained well enough – notbecause of you. Who died in the beginning? What’s with all the differentnarrators whispering? Why are there dinosaurs in this movie with more screentime than Sean Penn? What the hell is the point of the dragon head nebula otherthan to make us go “Wow! It’s that thing from the Morgan Freeman show?” Malickis a magician, showing you an empty hand while he splatters paint on afour-dimensional canvas with the other. And somehow, he got 84% of theTomatometer critics to applaud the empty hand. Not me. I’d sooner watch a reelof projects from my Film I class back before we learned why jump cuts were bad.I would have thrown the DVD in the trash, but then I doubt Netflix would havesent me another. 0 bugs (out of 10 – though I guess it doesn’t matter how manyit’s out of)

Title: The Tree of Life seems to reachfor a cliché already, while Limitless feels like a cop out. I’ll at least giveTree the benefit of doubt. But that won’t last. (Point, Tree 0-1)

Funnier: Limitless didn’t really try tomake you laugh. Tree of Life wanted to make sure you didn’t. (Point, Limitless 1-1)

Better Turn: Finding out that the drugis illegal and the dealer is dead vs. 25 minutes of the earth’s creation cappedby poor CGI dinosaurs feeling remorse. Ugh. (Point, Limitless 2-1)

Better Ending: I still don’t know whathappened in The Tree of Life. But it was still better than the way Limitlessruined itself, Adjustment Bureau-style. All of a sudden, and with notransition, Bradley Cooper can manage the drug to the point where he doesn’teven need to take it, whereas everyone else died from withdrawal. No balls. (Point, Tree 2-2)

Better Message: There is something tothat “the way of grace vs. the way of nature” stuff in The Tree of Life,however horribly it’s framed. (Point, Tree 2-3)

Better Acting: Bradley Cooper is good,but nothing really special. Brad Pitt is a good, stern father. But JessicaChastain was great and should have been in the film much more than she was. (Point, Tree 2-4)

More Creative: Holy crap! A 0-bug movieis getting dangerously close to a victory. And though it might seem that amovie with this much randomness and jump cuts is creative, but in the same wayJackson Pollack is – and I’ve already mentioned how little I care for that typeof work. (Point, Limitless 3-4)

Poster: Sadly, I like The Tree of Lifeposter better. And I’m a little ashamed that a 0-bug movie, openly called thebiggest waste of my time in 11 years, has now made it to the second round. Wowsers.(Point, Tree 3-5)

Watch again: No way I will ever watchThe Tree of Life again. Not even if it comes out on Blu-Ray. (Point, Limitless 4-5)

Overall: Well, Limitless shot itself inthe foot really, with the spray cheese ending and the boring poster. Man. Winner: The Tree of Life (5-4)

Double Feature Duel: Super 8 vs. Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stanger Tides

2012-01-30T16:01:00.000-05:00

Double Feature Duel:
Super 8 vs. Pirates of the Caribbean: OnStanger Tides

Bout #26: J.J Abrams’ follow-up to Lostvs. Johnny Depp’s latest paycheck.

Super 8: Substitute the plane for atrain and this movie is basically the pilot of Lost. J.J. Abrams is very goodat drawing you in with really exciting and well-edited action sequences,alluding to a supernatural threat to the human race, painting himself into acorner and over-revealing said creature to disappointment the audience in theend. But he also paints some great characters. I know my dating history shouldpreclude me from saying this, but I really like Elle Fanning. Purely in a youngactress kind of way, of course. And the witty banter between the young filmwannabes was brilliant, and I don’t often say that about dialogue. All the i’swere dotted and the t’s were crossed. It’s just a shame he can’t figure out howto tackle the pesky plot issue. 7 bugs (out of 10)

Pirates of the Caribbean: OnStranger Tides:Well, it’s better than the third one. I think. They always manage tosneak in some weird, interesting magic-type stuff, but this is starting to looklike Johnny Depp’s day job. I really like Geoffrey Rush as Barbosa, butPenelope Cruz and whoever that new goodie goodie was were no match for KeiraKnightley and Orlando Bloom. The franchise has been content with the samerecipe that has made for its Blockbuster success, critics be damned. And aslong as they keep putting them out, I get to keep wearing my Capt. Jack Sparrowhat, so I’m content. 3.5 bugs (out of 10)

Title: Brilliantly simple, intriguing,foreshadowing and you don’t have to go to a second hand in charades. (Point, Super 1-0)

Funnier: There was some very wellwritten and acted dialogue in Super 8 by the four main adolescent charactersthat is worthy of note. (Point, Super 2-0)

Better Turn: This movie made its moneyon the turn. Maybe the train crash rivaled the ridiculousness of FinalDestination 2, but it didn’t feel like it at the time. (Point, Super 3-0)

Better Ending: Truth time. I was unableto pay much attention to Pirates. ButI know the ending of Super 8 sucked, so congratulations. I guess. (Point, Pirates 3-1)

Better Message: Super 8 is another oneof those stereotypical flicks teaching people not to stereotype using aliens. Iforget how Pirates ended, but I know it had something to do with people lookingfor the Fountain of Youth. But it did have a Christian/mermaid love story init. (Point, Pirates 3-2)

Better Acting: Geoffrey Rush is alwaysoutstanding. You can’t picture Johnny Depp without picturing Capt. JackSparrow. But those four kids are terrific in the conversation scenes. PenelopeCruz didn’t ruin the movie for me. But I added like 3 movies to my Netflixqueue with Elle Fanning because of Super 8. (Point, Super 4-2)

More Creative: It’s tough not to pickPirates in this category with the three-team race to get to the Fountain ofYouth. But having the camera pick up the footage was a fun move I haven’t seensince Blowout. However, they really bunked it up in the end with the alien reveal.Epic fail, as they say. (Point, Pirates 4-3)

Poster: For those that don’t know, theSuper 8 camera fell sideways, which is why the poster is sideways. Brilliant,right? (Point, Super 5-3)

Watch again: I enjoyed Super 8 so much,I watched it on two consecutive nights. I liked Pirates so much, I don’t evenremember watching it once. (Point, Super 6-3)

Overall: A film with half as many bugsscored half as many points. Funny how that works out. Winner: Super 8 (6-3)

Double Feature Duel: Cars 2 vs. Swimming To Cambodia

2012-01-30T03:31:00.000-05:00

Double Feature Duel:
Cars 2 vs. Swimming To Cambodia

Bout #25: Pixar’s latest vs. adocumentary of a one-man show. Hmm. Don’t think we’ve done that yet.

Cars2: Even if cars could talk, I don’t think they’d come up with a plotthis ludicrous. The gimmicks aren’t as funny and the shtick is old now. Sadly,we have gotten to a point where we see flying animated cars talking to eachother and it doesn’t wow us anymore. If this was Pixar’s first movie ever, I’msure my jaw would be on the floor and my eyes bugging out of my head, possiblywith one of those “a-ooooga” sounds from old Warner Brothers cartoons. Butunfortunately, it’s not. And Owen Wilson played a bit part in this movie forsome reason, yielding way to Larry the Cable Guy. And a little Larry the CableGuy goes a long way. Sorry, Pixar. It took ten feature length movies, but it turnsout you are human. 4 bugs (out of 10)

Swimmingto Cambodia: This is a not a documentary. It’s a documentary squared.It’s a movie documenting a one-man show by Spalding Gray in which he takes youon a cerebral roller coaster, touching on Asian politics, how to buy and treata Taiwanese whore and how to talk to people on trains. It’s funny, intriguingand he speaks in the style of a boxer who refuses to let you up off the mat,pounding you with sentences so well constructed, I’m reasonably certain he has everyword of the entire 87 minute monologue in its proper place and nails itperfectly each time. Or at least this time. So how interesting can a movie shotsolely of a man sitting in a chair behind a very plain desk be? Well, about asinteresting as the performance. Which was about as good as I’ve ever seen. Butnot enough to make you realize it’s just a guy sitting at a desk. 7 bugs.

Title: The intrigue starts with thetitle. Who is swimming to Cambodia? When are we going to find out about this?Where the hell is Cambodia? (Point,Swimming 0-1)

Funnier: I don’t blame you if youcompletely disagree. It’s not everybody’s sense of humor. But if you like drywit, you’ll approve. (Point, Swimming0-2)

Better Turn: Maybe if I watched itanother 4 or 7 times, I’d find some assemblance of a plot, which will in turnhelp me find the turn. But Cars 2 had a turn. Literally and figuratively. (Point, Cars 1-2)

Better Ending: See “Better Turn.” (Point, Cars 2-2)

Better Message: The thing aboutdocumentaries that are shot of just one man telling a dialogue about randomthings is that they tend to have a lot of thought-provoking messages. Unlikemovies about animated Cars made strictly for profit. (Point, Swimming 2-3)

Better Acting: This was as good asingle performance as there has ever been. Probably. (Point, Swimming 2-4)

More Creative: More daring? Absolutely.More creative? Hard to justify that. (Point,Cars 3-4)

Poster: Swimming To Cambodia is assimple as the movie, which is a good formalistic technique. But if you lookclosely at the map of the world, the continents are in the shape of cars. Kindaneat. (Point, Cars 4-4)

Watch again: I’m actually looking verymuch forward to ingesting more of Swimming to Cambodia. If Cars 2 came oncable, I’d probably find a rerun of SVU instead. (Point, Swimming 4-5)

Overall: Close one! No matter how highrated a single person 87-minute performance is, it’s still going to just lose alot of categories. But not as much as a meandering, overthought sequel to amediocre movie. Winner: Swimming ToCambodia (5-4)

Double Feature Duel: The First 48

2012-01-29T02:32:00.000-05:00

Double Feature Duel:
The First 48

And so after7 Planet of the Apes movies, one finally rose to the challenge and made it tothe final four. Congrats to the Rise of the Planet of the Apes for joining BigFish and The Nines in the Final Four, making it three 10-bug (or above) movies.And this was certainly the easiest quadrant to do it in, with a Quadrant BugAverage of 4.91, down over a point from the Philadelphia Quadrant. The fourmovies it needed to beat to get here only had a bug average of 5.63, comparedto the 6.88 and 6.63 that The Nines and Big Fish collectively had to hack theirway through. The competition gets a little tougher now. Well, maybe. We’ll seein another 16 movies.

A few thingsof note from the Cincinnati Quadrant:

Low QBA: Maybe it was the mood I was inover the month of the Cinci Quadrant, but there were 5 movies with a 3-bugrating or less in this, including two that didn’t crest the 1-bug mark (The Weightof Water and The Good Shepherd).

Upset: The 4-bug Man Who Wasn’t Therefigured out this game, beating two movies at least rated at a 6.5. Largelybehind the strength of its title, the very boring black and white Coen Brothersfilm bested the much more lively Tower Heist and Shrek Forever After on its wayto a 1-point loss in the Sweet 16 to Bucket List.

Romantic Comedy Time: I was applauding Definitely,Maybe as the first romantic comedy to make it to the Sweet Sixteen against theodds. Then I went back and realized it’s the first romantic comedy actually inthe tournament. The Invention of Lying and Stranger Than Fiction were comedieswith a romance aspect, but it’s not the same.

The Cincinnati Quadrant (33-48)

Lastly,thanks for reading this. Whoever the hell you are. I’m assuming it’s either mefrom the future or maybe, just maybe, I’ve finally made it so big that somebodyfound this blog and is obsessed with me. In which case, sorry, but I’m married.Well, I hope I’m still married.

Double Feature Duel (Rd4): Rise of the Planet of the Apes vs. The Bucket List

2012-01-29T01:41:00.002-05:00

Double Feature Duel(Rd4):
Rise of the Planet of the Apes vs. TheBucket List

Bucket List may have had the easiest road tothe Elite 8 in the tournament. It gets a lot harder now.

Title: I really wanted to see BucketList before I died [joke recycled from last MvM]. (Point, Bucket 0-1)

Funnier: Jack Nicholson goes pottyhumor. Nice. (Point, Bucket 0-2)

Better Turn: Best turn of thetournament. And I don’t say that lightly. (Point,Rise 1-2)

Better Ending: There was a lot going onat the end of Rise. And all of it wasgood to awesome. (Point, Rise 2-2)

Better Message: Both of these haddecent messages to convey, but I think Bucket’s was more poignant, where Rise’swas more gratuitous. (Point, Bucket 2-3)

Better Acting: It takes a lot to knockdown Morgan and Jack. But Golem dressed up like a monkey is just the guy to doit. (Point, Rise 3-3)

More Creative: Saving ink. Even in theElite 8. (Point, Rise 4-3)

Poster: Haunting. (Point, Rise 5-3)

Watch again: Once again, it’s one oftwo DVDs I have from Netflix right now. And I just told Tony tonight that hehas to watch it. (Point, Rise 6-3)

Overall: Well, it was a fun run, guys.But just like in the movie, Apes triumph over humans. Winner: Rise of the Planet of the Apes (6-3)

Double Feature Duel (Rd3): The Man Who Wasn’t There vs. Bucket List

2012-01-28T00:26:00.000-05:00

Double Feature Duel(Rd3):
The Man Who Wasn’t There vs. Bucket List

Afterbeating a 7-bug and a 6.5-bug movie, the 4-bug Coen Brothers film is up againstanother 6.5-bugger. Will the dream die here or live on to the Elite 8?

Title: The Man Who Wasn’t There. Wherewas he? Who was there? Why wasn’t he there and should he have been? So manyquestions is just the title. (Point, Man 1-0)

Funnier: (Point, Bucket 1-1)

Better Turn: This is where Man usually makes its move. (Point, Man 2-1)

Better Ending: Truth be told, I had tostruggle to stay awake to the end of Man. Bucket List had a fun message at theend and a fun twist at the very end. (Point, Bucket 2-2)

Better Message: In addition to theobvious messages about living life to its fullest, there is a message in thereabout friendship and classism. Much more than the jumbled mess Man presented us with. (Point, Bucket 2-3)

Better Acting: I will love Tony Shaloubunitl I die, but he’s up against 4 Oscars, and Brian Haley isn’t going to helpenough. (Point, Bucket 2-4)

More Creative: Not much to Bucket’s plot, though it had its momentsof creative spark. But it wasn’t the period piece mood-setting triumph that Man was. (Point, Man 3-4)

Poster: I guess I should like it morefor its simplicity, but I just don’t. (Point, Man 4-4)

Watch again: And finally, it met itsmatch. I guess it’s just got a good set of characteristics for this game,though not enough to get to the Elite 8. (Point, Bucket 4-5)

Overall: Okey dokey. Glad that’sfinally over. Hell, even Tim Tebow won a playoff game. Winner: Bucket List(5-4)

Double Feature Duel (Rd3): Rise of the Planet of the Apes vs. Definitely, Maybe

2012-01-27T11:36:00.002-05:00

Double Feature Duel(Rd3):
Rise of the Planet of the Apes vs. Definitely,Maybe

The newestof the Ape movies is the last of the sequels I spent most of this tournamentwatching. Can it represent the franchise in the Final Four or will theoverachieving romantic comedy pull off the upset?

Title: If I have to go onto a secondhand in charades, you’re disqualified. (Point, Definitely 0-1)

Funnier: Two words. First one isromantic. Second one… (Point, Definitely 0-2)

Better Turn: I can’t describe to you allenough about how awesome the scene in the little ape jail was. It was badass,emotional and just awesome. (Point, Rise 1-2)

Better Ending: I did enjoy the divorcedcouple and their daughter show us what it’s really like. But the beginning ofthe end of the human race was noticeable, yet not overplayed. (Point, Rise 2-2)

Better Message: Don’t tell your middleschool daughter about all your sexual escapades from your early 20s. (Point, Rise 3-2)

Better Acting: Tough one. I love RyanReynolds. And Abigail Breslin. And Rachel Weisz. But I think Andy Serkis shouldbe talked about in the Oscar race as an ape. But I opened for Adam Ferrara andI’ll let that be the tie-breaker. (Point, Definitely 3-3)

More Creative: Definitely framed aromantic comedy in a new and creative way, but the story and the references tothe original series were the most creative movie of 2011, if I get a vote. (Point, Rise 4-3)

Poster: The poster represents thebadassery to a tee. (Point, Rise 5-3)

Watch again: As I mentioned in the lastentry, I currently have the Netflix DVD in my possession. Kinda hard to beatthat in this category. (Point, Rise 6-3)

Overall: Well, good for you, romanticcomedy. You made it to the second weekend. Now go home and let the big boysplay. Winner: Rise of the Planet of the Apes (6-3)

Double Feature Duel (Rd2): Bucket List vs. Platoon

2012-01-26T23:17:00.003-05:00

Double Feature Duel(Rd2):
Bucket List vs. Platoon

Can OliverStone’s signature film take out two Jack Nicholson movies in a row?

Title: Whether the word “platoon” was abig part of our culture or not before the movie came out is somewhat irrelevantbecause the movie now pretty much owns the word. (Point, Platoon 0-1)

Funnier: Saving time and ink. Not thatanyone is going to print this out. (Point, Bucket List 1-1)

Better Turn: Getting terminal canceland deciding to go skydiving was a great turn, but it’s up against the brutaland unpredictable murder of a fellow platoon member. (Point, Platoon 1-2)

Better Ending: Surprisingly charmingand thoughtful for a movie I thought would have just been a collection of funnyscenes with old guys. (Point, Bucket List 2-2)

Better Message: Since you’re alive, youmay as well live. (Point, Bucket List 3-2)

Better Acting: Four Oscars go upagainst a talented cast with only one Oscar. No, not Tom Beringer, WillemDafoe, Johnny Depp or even Charlie Sheen. Forest Whitaker. Yeah, talented cast.But not as talented. (Point, Bucket List 4-2)

More Creative: Oliver Stone forced hiscast to sleep out in the jungle working 18-hour days to try to replicate themood of war. I’ll give him his due credit. (Point, Platoon 4-3)

Poster: Platoon had not one, but twoiconic posters to choose from. Which certainly beats a picture of a halfsmiling Nicholson and Freeman. (Point, Platoon 4-4)

Watch again: I really want to seeBucket List one more time before I die. (Point, Bucket List 5-4)

Overall: Well, Nicholson gets hisrevenge against the movie that knocked out About Schmidt. Can they stop the biggestCinderella of the tournament next round? Winner: Bucket List (5-4)

Double Feature Duel (Rd2): The Man Who Wasn’t There vs. Shrek Forever After

2012-01-24T19:50:00.001-05:00

Double Feature Duel(Rd2):
The Man Who Wasn’t There vs. ShrekForever After

A movie that shouldn't have gotten this far against a movie that I didn’t even realize I hadn't seen. Next ticket to the Sweet 16 goes to…

Title: I love how Shrek turned “Shrek4” into “Shrek Forever After,” but it’s unfortunately matched up against thebest title in the tournament so far. (Point, Man 1-0)

Funnier: Saving ink. (Point, Shrek 1-1)

Better Turn: The Coen Brothers know howto turn. (Point, Man 2-1)

Better Ending: The Coen Brothers dohave a way of closing out a movie that not only twists around and turns back inon itself like a Mobius strip, but also isn’t a musical montage to a Carpenterssong. (Point, Man 3-1)

Better Message: Shrek actually had amessage. It’s not the Coen Brothers’ strong suit. (Point, Shrek 3-2)

Better Acting: Live action that doesn’tcompletely suck > animation. (Point, Man 4-2)

More Creative: The Man Who Wasn’t Therewas a triumph of mood that put me back in that time period and I can’t believeit’s going to pull off another upset. Cinderella is dancing. (Point, Man 5-2)

Poster: It ain’t ogre til it’s ogre.I’ll take that over the overly slanted text. (Point, Shrek 5-3)

Watch again: I think I may need towatch The Man Who Wasn’t There again just to remind myself how much I didn’tlike it so it doesn’t win the whole damn thing. (Point, Shrek 5-4)

Overall: I can’t believe this 4-bugmovie beat 7 and 6.5-bug movies to get to the Sweet 16. Winner: The Man WhoWasn’t There (5-4)

End Around

2012-01-24T01:12:00.000-05:00

End Around

Sure, I’ll dancearound this mine field for a while.

Joe Paternopassed away yesterday at 85, two months after being fired amidst allegations ofhis involvement in a child sexual assault scandal. I must first say that I inno way condone his mishandling of the sexual assault situation, be it forreasons of ignorance or apathy. What I will miss about Joe is an idea.

Before weall knew about the Sandusky case, Joe Pa represented everything decent aboutcollege sports. In a time where college athletes care more about endorsementdeals, fantasy stats and signing bonuses, Penn State football was a vision ofintegrity and teamwork, continually posting the best graduation rates of all bigmarket teams. They still don’t put names on the back of their jerseys for thesake of team unity, which is a tough sell to the increasingly more individualisticworld sports is becoming.

The world ofsports has been sliding down a slippery slope of self-interest since we startedto market the individuals more than the teams. The average player would ratherget paid than be a champion now – or at least that statement is truer and truerevery year. The media, the fans and the athletes all feed into each other likean evil flux capacitor and keep this ball rolling down the aforementioned slope.As the media are giving the fans what they want and the fans are being told whatthey want based on what sells tickets and jerseys, it’s really up to theathletes to help change the culture. And it’s an unlikely scenario. Kobe was agood candidate until his own sexual assault scandal. As was LeBron until hishour-long nationally televised ego trip. And on the college level, USC and OhioState are getting sanctioned for abuses of the system, and that seems like justthe tip of the iceberg. At least we had Penn State to look to as a role model.

So the Sanduskyscandal is just another reminder that we can never be sure. There was no betterrole model in college sports or sports in general than was Penn State football.So when I speak of Joe Pa and when I wear my Penn State jacket around thisweek, it’s in honor of the integrity and teamwork that Penn State preached tothe nation for some 60 years – the idea that maybe somewhere, there is a savoirfor my future child’s concept of team sports.

In poetic,storybook fashion, Joe Paterno died yesterday of lung cancer two months afterbeing fired from the job he’d had for 60 years. But he really died back inNovember. His legacy will forever have that unforgiveable asterisk next to it. Iam not so much mourning Joe Pa as a person, for it’s clear now that we didn’tknow him like we thought. But I’m mourning the concept that a hero will riseamong us to stop the landslide of egotism that is being fostered inprofessional sports, down to college, and all the way down to youth sports. I’mnot saying it can’t happen. But if there’s dirt on Joe Paterno, that role modelis going to be hard to find.

Double Feature Duel (Rd2): Brothers Bloom vs. Definitely, Maybe

2012-01-21T22:41:00.000-05:00

Double Feature Duel(Rd2):
Brothers Bloom vs. Definitely, Maybe

Wowsers.This one is too close to predict. Normally I can predict the outcomebeforehand. Two evenly matched 7-bug movies take the ring. Place your bets.

Title: I do love the punctuation, butthe more I read it, the more I read it, the more I think it’s maybe a littlecheesy. Definitely. (Point, Brothers 1-0)

Funnier: Hey. Two comedies. I feel likethis doesn’t happen too often. But Brothers Bloom was too strong, even for RyanReynolds. (Point, Brothers 2-0)

Better Turn: Brothers did make a bunchof turns, but Definitely didn’t have a turny enough turn. Advantage goes to theturnier turns. (Point, Brothers 3-0)

Better Ending: Brothers Bloom remindedme of the Maverick in the way that it kept ending over and over, which isn’tnecessarily automatic disqualification. But it was r

efreshing to see arealistic relationship between a divorced father, divorced mother and child. (Point, Definitely 3-1)

Better Message: Again, I’ll cite therealistic nature of the divorced relationship for this category’s sake. (Point Definitely, 3-2)

Better Acting: Rachel Weisz cancelsherself out. But in a movie where you were supposed to guess which of threewomen would end up with the main character, the casting directors did a greatjob of finding three women who weren’t villainesses. (Point, Definitely3-3)

More Creative: Definitely was a modernday Princess Bride with Abigail Breslin playing the role of Fred Savage. Butit’s also about a guy telling his daughter about all the women he’s been with,which is weird. And Brothers Bloom pulls off a period piece with style. (Point, Brothers 4-3)

Poster: Not really a strength in eithercase, but I like how in Definitely’s poster, all three women are looking atRyan Reynolds, who is looking up at his shoulders to the star of the movie,Abigail Breslin, who is the only person looking at the camera. (Point, Definitely 4-4)

Watch again: I’d watch either of thesemovies again, but I’ll go with the movie that finally told a romantic comedyfrom the guy’s point of view. You don’t see that often enough. Plus, I ownBrothers Bloom on DVD, so I’m a lot less likely to watch it. (Point, Definitely 4-5)

Overall: First Brothers Grimm, thenBrothers Bloom. This movie is not kind to brothers. Good thing Will Ferrell andJohn C. Reilly aren’t in this bracket. Winner: Definitely, Maybe (5-4)

Double Feature Duel (Rd2): Rise of the Planet of the Apes vs. Battle for the Planet of the Apes

2012-01-21T07:33:00.001-05:00

Double Feature Duel(Rd2):
Rise of the Planet of the Apes vs. Battlefor the Planet of the Apes

Two moviesabout the battle between apes and humans for a planet, set 600 years apart,filmed 38 years apart and separated by 7 bugs on a scale from 0ish-10ish. Well,they have a lot of other stuff in common.

Title: If I was the type to hand outdraws, this would be the most likely candidate yet. I am, however, the type toflip a coin. Heads it is. Sorry Battle, this was probably your best shot. (Point, Rise 1-0)

Funnier: Don’t expect either to reallymake you laugh, as pointed out in the roundof 64. But Rise was certainly less painful, which has become thiscategory’s default. (Point, Rise 2-0)

Better Turn: Caesar closing the cage inFranco’s face is just so gangster. (Point,Rise 3-0)

Better Ending: In Battle, So there were these good apes and these evil war apes andthe evil mutant humans and they were fighting one war against each other. Idon’t think they knew what they were doing toward the end. (Point, Rise 4-0)

Better Message: If you’re going toperform testing on aninals, make sure it doesn’t make them smarter than us. (Rise 5-0)

Better Acting: I really think AndySerkis deserves an Oscar nomination as his role, albeit aided by lots of CGI,as the main ape in Rise. (Point, Rise 6-0)

More Creative: Battle tried really hardto put together the pieces of two very different puzzles into something. (Point, Rise 7-0)

Poster: 1973 vs. 2011. (Point, Rise 8-0)

Watch again: I actually currently have Rise at home on DVD waiting for me. (Point, 9-0)

Overall: I should have called thatfight back after the Title. Battlecouldn’t even win a coin flip. Winner: Rise of POTA (9-0)

Quick Inside Slant: Divisional Playoff Weekend

2012-01-19T01:29:00.002-05:00

Quick Inside Slant:

Divisional PlayoffWeekend:

This weekend is a rematch of the most poorly officiated gamein NFL history. Luckily for the league and the entire officiating profession, JeffGarcia’s 24-point comeback to lead the 49ers to a 39-38 victory over the Giantsovershadows that hurricane of ineptitude. But the Giants should have won thatgame. And no, I’m not a crazy Giants fan claiming the refs were biased. I’m anofficiating fan.

The last play of the game was a 41-yard field goal attemptwith the Giants down by one point. It was 3^rd down with 6 seconds onthe clock and the Giants had one time out. Trey Junkin, who became the BillBuckner of this game, botched the snap after having signed with the team fourdays before the game. In most jobs, he’d be lucky to have an e-mail addressafter four days. Why not make him the scapegoat for the entire season? Heck, he’sstill under his probationary period. Probably wouldn’t even have to meet withHR.

But there were 6 seconds left. And it was 3^rddown. And they still had a time out. Now I know it’s not your best-casescenario to rely on your punter to do some quick thinking, but here is a listof actions Matt Allen could have taken when the ball wasn’t snapped to himperfectly.

He could have run out of the pocket and threw it away. Out of pocket=no grounding. Caveat: He would have had to throw the ball away in less than 6 seconds. Not very difficult.
Don’t leave the pocket but still throw it away. You get called for intentional grounding and have to now attempt a 48-yard field goal. Better than what he actually did.
Throw any incomplete pass. Just don’t take 6 seconds to do it.
Give yourself up and call a time out. You lose the yardage, but get to try again.
Nothing! Let them tackle you. One of the other 10 guys or the coach is bound to try to call a time out, even if they don’t know if they have one or what down it is.

As long as a field goal is not actually attempted, you getto try it on the next down. That’s why people line up to kick them on 2^ndand 3^rd down. Again, relying on the punter to think of anythingother than run for my life and throw the ball as far as I can is not yourbest-case scenario, but he should have been prepared for the bad snap from theinsurance salesman. Oh, and the defense maybe could have stopped them fromscoring 25 points in the last 17 minutes.

Back to the refs. After that fire drill of a play, a coupleflags were thrown. It looked to all the world like it was going to be passinterference on the 49res and they were going to lose the game on a 25-yardfield goal during an untimed down. But one of the flags was for an illegal mandownfield on the Giants. They waived off the pass interference penalty because theman who was interfered with was downfield illegally and had he not beendownfield illegally, he wouldn’t have been interfered with.

Que?

This is not a rule. This is stuff I make up when I don’tknow the rules. The unfortunate thing is that he’s right. The logic followsthat the reason he was interfered with is because he was downfield, where he shouldn’thave been in the first place. This is how you enforce the rules of Magic theGathering, not American Football. If someone punches me in the face, it followsthat I should be able to then kick them in the junk with impunity, because itwouldn’t have happened if the face-puncher hadn’t done his wrong thing in thefirst place. The penalties should have been offsetting and the down should havebeen replayed as an untimed down from the previous spot (the original line ofscrimmage). This obviously doesn’t guarantee that the Giants would have won byany means, but I’d take those odds.

Oh, and here’s a cherry for your bullshit swirl sundae. The guythey claimed was downfield illegally – wasn’t. Rich Seubert, offensive guard,had checked in as an eligible receiver for the field goal attempt. The official’ssaving grace is that there was a different illegal man downfield during theplay, so that flag was merited. HOWEVER, that guy wasn’t interfered with. SooOOOoo,there goes their justification logic. The man that was interfered with wasdownfield legally and a different guy was downfield illegally. Replay the down,any way you slice it.

When intramural teams wonder why I don’t have a protestsystem at the University of Baltimore, this is the game I point to. If the highestpaid officials in the world can bunk up something this bad and the NFL doesn’tdo anything about it, your 5v5 coed indoor soccer game score is final.

Standing Back Up

2012-01-11T23:38:00.003-05:00

Standing Back Up

Hey blog friends. This Friday, I am standing back up on stage for the first time since early October. Well, for the first time since yesterday really, but that was kind of an accident. ANYWAY, I'm performing a ten-minute version of a memoir I wrote/am writing about my father. Below is a promo for the show so you can all check out the other performers and such. For more details, check out the info on the right under "upcoming gigs." Thanks everybody. I love you all. :)

Better Said Than Done Promo for Jammin Java 1/13/12 Show

Review of Hugo

2012-01-10T04:55:00.000-05:00

Review of Hugo

What startedout as a whimsical kid’s movie turned into another PSA for Scorsese’s “Save theFilm” foundation. I half expected him to come on screen at the end and try tosolicit donations from us working class Americans who were just seriouslyquestioning the financial implications of buying the large diet sprite. Screwyou, Hollywood. You spend more on one dinner than I make in a month. Restoreyour own damn films.

It must bean off year for this film to be a serious front-runner for the Best Pictureaward. Scorsese can’t seem to get out of his own way. He sets the scene forthis to be a fun-loving kid’s movie and then bunks it up with this kinda truebased on real life story of this artist upset because he had to give up hisdream and get a real job. I doubt any child is going to give a crap about GeorgeMelies and how true to real life his film studio was. If it’s a kid’s movie, thereare other ways to involve the adults than a history lesson on early 20^thcentury film. If it’s a biopic on George Melies, there are other ways to frameit. But Scorsese’s need to indulge his passion for film restoration left the whimsicalworld of Hugo behind for this new storyline to develop. Don’t cross thestreams, Martin. NEVER cross the streams.

The movie isbilled as magical. It is not. The Neverending Story and The Adjustment Bureauare magical. This had potential. The automaton could have gone somewhere andthe scene where the papers flew around the room gave me hope. That box couldnot have possibly held all that paper and the manner they flew around the unventilatedroom pointed to something magical. And then the wife says “there are somethings you are too young to understand.” Ben Kingsly couldn’t even look atHugo, his nemesis, in the eye. I got excited. This story is finally goingsomewhere after an hour-long first act which grew weary with Hugo’stwitchy-faced close-ups and the Keystone Cops chases through the train station.Here’s where it went. An artist had to give up his artist’s lifestyle to make aliving. Yippie. This happens to 99.7% of all people in the world that aren’t inthe Scorsese family. I don’t think the kids were too young to understand that.Neither is the audience.

In the interestof full disclosure, I did not see it in 3D. Maybe I would have been fooled bythe magic of it all to realize how slow and meandering the story was. The emotionallycharged, everybody wins ending did a good job of making you forget how long ittook to get there, but it wasn’t worth the payoff. Too much screen time waswasted trying to unnecessarily turn Borat into a two-dimensional character andthe Melies story made me feel more like I was back in Fine Arts 306 trying tokeep my eyelids open through a lecture for Intro to Film. But it looks like Scorsese’sventure into 3D will earn him enough to restore all the films he wants so I don’thave to sit through another ad with him and Clint Eastwood on any more of my NetflixDVDs. 3 bugs (out of 10).

Double Feature Duel: The Cincinnati Quadrant

2012-01-07T22:51:00.001-05:00

Double Feature Duel:
The Cincinnati Quadrant

The third 16 have been watched and weighted and whittleddown to 8. The previous two quadrants are both going to be represented in theFinal Four by 10 bug films in Big Fish and The Nines. The Oxford Quadrant alsohas that opportunity with Rise of the Planet of the Apes, but that doesn’tnecessarily make it a guarantee. After all, we’ve already seen the tournament’sbiggest upset in The Man Who Wasn’t There (4) knock off Tower Heist (7) in thefirst round. Who the heck knows what mood I’ll be in on any given minute?

Whether it’s indicative of my grading getting harsher as wego on or maybe I’m just watching worse and worse movies, the QBA (Quadrant BugAverage) has been continually going down from 6.31 in the Philadelphia Quadrantto a 5.91 in the Baltimore Quadrant to a less-than-average 4.91 in the OxfordQuadrant. Thankfully, I’m all through with the Planet of the Apes franchise andcan get onto the potential Oscar nominees in the DC Quadrant. And thenhopefully, I can stop doing this for good. Because this ridiculous endeavor iseating up way too much of my damn website and writing efforts.

But for now, let the games continue.

Double Feature Duel: About Schmidt vs. Platoon

2012-01-05T23:54:00.003-05:00

Double Feature Duel:
About Schmidt vs. Platoon

Bout #24: A character profile by one ofthe best character actors ever against the first war movie with guts and a waradvisor to show em how it’s done. Ding!

About Schmidt: Not every movie needs aplot. This is a good character profile of a man at the precipice of hisretirement. And by good, I mean completely average. If you’re looking to figureout if a movie is above or below average, figure out if it’s better or worse thanthis movie and you’ll have your answer. 5 bugs.

Platoon: This movie marked the firstchapter of Dale Dye’s new career as war movie advisor. It had something mostmovies before it didn’t have. Like four Oscars. But it also cheapened it withsuperficial narration and overacting. 6 bugs.

Title: It’s always tough to measure thetitle of these iconic movies that are so much a part of our culture. I don’tknow what the word “Platoon” meant before the movie came out. I guess thatshould mean something. (Point, Platoon 0-1)

Funnier: Not a lot funny about Platoon.Nicholson’s one-way conversation with his African foster child though theletter he sent were worth eliminating the phrase “by default” for this point. (Point, Schmidt 1-1)

Better Turn: As bad as war gets and asmuch as personalities clash, I like to assume that it isn’t going to be so badthat we turn on ourselves. So when Tom Berenger actually killed Willem Dafoe,it brought the movie to a new level of war. And it surprised the hell out ofme. (Point, Platoon 1-2)

Better Ending: The entire movie of thisman crumbling apart was framed by the letter he was sending to Ndugu. At hislowest point after a desperate attempt to get his daughter not to marry hisfiancée, he finds himself completely alone in his apartment – no wife, no joband now no family. He gets a letter back from Ndugu saying that he didn’tunderstand English, but he thanked him and very much hoped for his happiness.It had a crayon picture of a man and a boy holding hands. It really made a slowmovie worth watching. (Point, Schmidt 2-2)

Better Message: “War is hell” vs. “Retirementis hell.” (Point, Platoon 2-3)

Better Acting: As much as I loved himin Scrubs and some other things, John C McGinley has a way of acting where youcan clearly realize he’s acting. (Point, Schmidt 3-3)

More Creative: I do love the frame jobin About Schmidt, as I’ve mentioned. But I really like how Oliver Stoneactually tried to create the same uncomfortable conditions for his actors asthe soldiers endured to create the mood of the film. (Point, Platoon 3-4)

Poster: Once again, these titles andposters are iconic for a reason. That said, I do enjoy the cloud overNicholson’s head. (Point, Platoon 3-5)

Watch again: I don’t know that I’llever really watch any of these again if it’s up to me, but I have been on a warmovie kick recently and I think I could see me trying to force someone else towatch Platoon and I doubt that would ever happen with About Schmidt. (Point, Platoon 3-6)

Overall: Well done, Platoon. You areapparently an above average movie. Winner: Platoon (6-3)

Top 12 Characters from Parenthood Season 3

2012-01-04T00:42:00.004-05:00

Lists For No Reason Whatsoever:
Top 12 Characters from Parenthood Season 3

After watching what I think may have been my favorite episode of Parenthood yet, I decided to make a list of my favorite characters from the TV show in this season. And sorry Alex, but since it doesn't look like you'll be coming back, you didn't make it.

12. Mark – The fun-loving teacher turned lover fuels the awkwardness that Sarah lives in.

11. Rachel – It’s nice to have a temptress for Adam and Crosby and me to fawn over.

10. Adam – The show’s protagonist by far, he has to hold the rest of the cast together with string and duct tape most days.

9. Camille – Holly Gennaro from Die Hard is a grandmom. Yeah. It blew my mind too.

8. Sarah – The mom who constantly asks her daughter if she’s doing it right really sells it.

7. Zeek – The grandpa we all have. You understand where he’s coming from but wishes he understood you.

6. Haddie – Texting her friends, but knowing how to call her parents on their bologna, she sells the teen girl routine with perfection.

5. Crosby – We love him even though he continues to be the most self-destructive of the cast.

4. Joel – The stay-at-home dad who can stand up to the rest of the family and his wife and his daughter and always seems to know the proper mix of salt and saccharine to use.

3. Amber – The other half of the Sarah/Amber fast-talking sarcasm comedy duo, she has a brain and wit and timing and cares about real things too.

2. Christina – The unsung hero who has the most to juggle with an autistic son, a teenage daughter, a newborn, a new job and a husband just starting a new business venture with a hot female assistant who kissed him, she holds down the emotional end of the show.

1. Zoe – The interaction between Julia and her future baby biological momma comes to life thanks to Zoe’s sarcastic teenness.

Review of Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

2012-01-03T15:03:00.000-05:00

Review of SherlockHolmes: A Game of Shadows

Finally,somebody remembered how to make an action movie. And even more impressive,somebody reached deep down into the vault to manage a sequel. Discounting HarryPotter and Lord of the Rings as they fly too close to the sun to qualify for asan action movie as I define the genre, you have to go back a ways to find afranchise willing to put this much effort into a sequel. Most take the road ofLethal Weapon and Die Hard and sloppily chop together scenes of the maincharacters in front of a green screen of massive explosions and catch phrases. Thiswas a throwback to the days of Back to the Future and Indiana Jones. And saywhat you want about the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, but the movie didn’t lackfor effort. It’s just hard to build a sandcastle without water. Or sand.

In A Game ofShadows, Robert Downey Jr. plays the same character he always plays, but welike it and he does it well. And the refreshing interplay with Jude Law is whatsuccessfully adds the element of buddy comedy, pushing it past most other attemptsat action movies. But it took the action sequences seriously, whereas the Lethal Weapon 2, 3and 4 storyboards were written on napkins with the words “Joe Pesci,” “ReneeRusso” and “Chris Rock” scribbled on them. A Game of Shadowstrusted the action sequences and the strength of the main characters to drivethe ship. They barely even needed to rely on Rachel McAdams to sell tickets.

The foundationof this film, however, lies in the action sequences and the creative ways inwhich they are approached. Holmes’ observation of the world around him yieldsway to either flashbacks of things that happened or flashforwards to thingsthat will, like a really high-budget episode of Psych. It is shot with slow motion andclose-ups that enhance the action without being annoying or gratuitous – well,maybe a little gratuitous. The story was tough to keep up with, but it didn’t detractfrom my enjoyment of the film. I didn’t get The Big Lebowski the first timethrough either.

The action maybe the foundation, but Downey Jr. is the meat and/or potatoes of the film. I’m willingto bet his MMA, drag queen version of Holmes isn’t Doyle’s original concept ofthe character, but it made for good cinema. This is more than I can say for JEdgar, which was hampered by the need to stay true to a character. And yes, Irealize he is an actual person. Despite the lack of obedience to the originalcharacter, I thoroughly enjoyed A Game of Shadows. And isn’t that the point? 9bugs.

Quick Inside Slant: Week 16

2012-01-01T10:42:00.004-05:00

Quick Inside Slant:

Week Sixteen:

Nine of the 12 playoff berths have already been claimed.Seven teams still have a shot at the other three spots. I have decided who makesit to playoffs based on what would be funniest.

Bengals: The Bengalshave been the league’s punching bag for the last thousand years. This yearbegan with Chad Ouchostinko leaving for the Yankees, T.O. falling intoobscurity, Cedric Benson getting sent to jail and Carson Palmer pulling an EricLindross and refusing to play. Paul Brown responded by saying “Fine. Then youcan rot on the bench.” The team responded by going 9-3 in games not against theRavens or Steelers and have two of the hottest rookies northwest of Charlotte.If they can pull off a victory against the Ravens this week, they will be thethird playoff team from the AFC North and will play the life-support Texans inthe first round. And it’s commonly accepted that any year the Bengals win aplayoff game is a league-wide mulligan, which is good news for the Eaglesseason. Result: In

Giants: They’vealready beat the Cowboys once and it would be funniest if the Giants made it inover the Cowboys, but ONLY if theyplay to a 0-0 tie on national television. Both teams have been known for theirlate season collapses, so a finger will be pointed either way. But I’d ratherDallas have to live with that 12-point collapse to the Giants in Week 14 withunder 4 minutes on the clock for the rest of the off-season. And that willhappen only if they tie. But it would have been funniest if they had lost tothe Jets last week and let the Eagles slip into the playoffs. Oh well. Result: In (but with a caveat)

Jets: The sheermathematics of them getting in alone would make them an amusing pick. But Ithink it would be much funnier to see what Rex Ryan says when his yearlypre-season Superbowl guarantee dies a humiliating 8-8 death with a three-gamelosing streak to close the season. Of course, it would be funniest ifCincinnati, Tennessee and Oakland all lost, but then the Jets lost to Miami.That’s the post-game presser I’m really hoping for. Result: Out

Dallas: Of thetwo late-season-collapse punching bags, the one with the big blue star on itmakes a funnier sound when you hit it (seeGiants). Result: Out

Oakland: The Raidersare about to set a record for penalties and penalty yards in a season. Theirfranchise quarterback in Jason Campbell got injured early in the season and itlooked like Kyle Boller was going to be given the keys to drive them straight intothe iceberg. Then they pried Carson Palmer away from Paul Brown by overpayingby a ton and their loud-mouthed, no-holds-barred owner died shortly after. Thiscomes after a season where they went 6-0 in their division and still couldn’tmake the playoffs. I can’t think of a team in the league that would be funnierto see in the playoffs. Result: In

Denver: I’m tornon this whole thing. I understand how important the quarterback is to a team, Ireally do. But to not even mention any of the other 52 players for threemonths? He plays so awful for the first 56 minutes of the game and then somehowfinds a touchdown drive inside a top hat in the last 4 minutes every week. Somepeople with guts (Mark Schlereth, Merrill Hoge) actually call him out on it,but most people praise his “will to win” and credit the Denver Tebows mid-seasonwin streak on that. But there is nothing funny I find about having to listen toall that for another week. I’m sure he’ll be in the news enough anyway (and it’sgood not to have to hear about Brett Favre anymore) and if they did get in andGod forbid (pardon the expression) they accidentally beat the Ravens or Steelers whatthe media would say. Not funny. Result:Out

Tennessee: I wastedthe 7^th overall pick in my fantasy draft on Chris Johnson. Sincethen, I wasn’t even aware the Titans were still in the league. How the hell arethey contending for a playoff spot? What the hell is going on? Result: Out

My Yearly Panic Attack: The Twelfth Day of Giftmas 2011

2011-12-29T11:28:00.000-05:00

My Yearly PanicAttack: The Twelfth Day of Giftmas 2011

The gifts have been given, the parties have been partied andthe cookies are starting to get hard. It’s time to take down the tree andchange your facebook picture to something less merry. It’s time to dig up thatlist of resolutions you said you’d complete by this Saturday and start bargaining with your past self. And it’s time tostop turning the pages in that calendar and throw the empty rind in the trash.For me, that also means it’s time to add a digit to my age. It’s notnecessarily more depressing saying “37” than “36,” but it’s still anothernumber that’s higher than the last.

And as much as I like to really hope it isn’t the case, I can’thelp feeling bad for myself when I see other people doing the things I want todo. And no, I’m not talking about Snookie. Well, yes I am – but this is adifferent thing. I saw an innocent enough post from an old friend about himoutlining an idea for a story and how he can’t believe that is considered“work.” My best man posted something similar in response. A good friend wouldhave felt happy for his two writing friends. Not me. Not today. I was pissed.How has the world passed up this talent of mine? Suddenly, The Tree of Lifemade sense. These guys were two of my biggest fans at one time and now they’reout there in the world doing what I want to do. And I know them. They’re realpeople. What do I have to show for all my years of honing my humor skillz? Justa blog no one reads and a bunch of youtube videos of me doing stand-up at openmics.

Oh yeah. I forgot. I very often forget. I did do something about it. I gave it atry, though a little late and maybe half-assed. But I integrated myself intothe stand-up circuit in Cincinnati. And to prove it wasn’t a fluke, I did itagain here in DC. And honestly, this dream of writing only recently developedas an off-shoot of that dream. And shit, I’m 16 credits into my graduate degreein Creative Writing. Oh yeah, and I got married last year. And performed infront of 1,000 people at the Lyric and had an award-winning, inspirational showthat sold out the Fringe Festival and beyond.

Panic attack deactivated.

Now I just need to use this yearly panic attack for theforces of good. Not to just use all these words to make me feel better aboutbeing unproductive. To get off my ass and start doing something. This blog hasproven it’s going nowhere, at least not in its current format. Anybody elseknow that this is the 100^th post of this year for the first timeever? Didn’t think so. And happy as I am with everything I just mentioned, Inow want more. I want recognition. I want 2,045 twitter followers. I want apaycheck. I want to say “I’m a writer” and mean it. And maybe next year I’ll beable to feel good for John and Mike, who deserve their success for pursuing it.Hopefully I won’t just be blogging about it to no one but my future self.Thanks for reading, whoever you are. May you have a happy and productive 2012.

Double Feature Duel: Miracle on 34th St vs It's a Wonderful Life: The 11th Day of Giftmas

2011-12-27T23:30:00.000-05:00

Double Feature Duel:
Miracle on 34^th Street vs. It’sa Wonderful Life

Bout #27: It's recently come to myattention that I haven’t seen two of the most classic Christmas movies. As afilm school grad raised on the profit of a mom and pop video store, I figured tis the season…

Miracle on 34^th Street: I wasn’t around in 1947 toknow what a good film was. Maybe the pacing was natural for the time but Ifound some scenes awkward, particularly the long pauses on pieces of writing sothe audience can read them. Directors find a different way to do that nowadays.All that said, it was a fun movie. A man named Kris Kringle is so disappointedabout the Macy’s drunken Santa that he decides to take the job himself. His sanitycomes into question both with the characters and with the audience. Is itreally Santa? But when it came time for the second act, Santa hit somebody inthe head with his umbrella. Maybe it was customary to hit people in heads withumbrellas in the 40s. I don’t know; I wasn’t around. But the movie justexpected the audience to glance over this. Then it turned into a courtroomdrama where Santa and his lawyer roommate had to prove that he really wasSanta. And in a courtroom scene that would have made my 9^th grade screenplaylook good, they found a loophole to get Santa out free. Yay. Through the movie,the most intriguing facet was the relationship between Santa and a 9-year oldNatalie Wood. She didn’t believe in Santa. But Santa came through in the end,of course. I’m guessing that was the miracle. 5.5 bugs.

It’s a Wonderful Life: Cheesy, predictable,awkwardly paced and rich with jump cuts – but it got me. The sappy endingpulled me back in. An above average man (James Stewart), through forces largelyoutside his control, ends up living an average life. I know. You can see theparallel. On the brink of suicide after hearing that he’d be worth more deadthan alive, he tempts suicide. Down comes an angel – who we’ve already met in thebeginning of the film in a Deus Ex Machina as literally as it has ever been applied– to save the day. He shows James what his life would be like had he never beenborn and SURPRISE! – it turns out he’s affected a few lives here and there.When returned to reality, he runs screaming through the streets about howwonderful his life is, having just minutes earlier, been ready to commitsuicide. That’s the part that’s cool. That said, arguably the most iconicChristmas film of all time had jump cuts in emotionally important moments,which is so amateur hour, you don’t even see them in first year film schoolprojects. And the very ending whereeverybody gives James the money he needs out of the goodness of their heart isover the top wine cheese. Without crackers. But again, I wasn’t around in 1946to understand the culture. 7 bugs.

Title: Tough to judge film titles thathave become so engrained in our culture. Both have been celebrated, redone andparodied. Both also give away the ending, though It’s a Wonderful Life was alot more tongue in cheek. Because it wasn’t a wonderful life for a long time.And technically, the miracle didn’t necessarily occur on 34^th St. (Point, Wonderful 0-1)

Funnier: Both were funny in their ownways, though James Stewart’s character from It’s a Wonderful Life had morecarryover to the new millennium. (Point, Wonderful 0-2)

Better Turn: James Stewart was finallygetting married and on his honeymoon when the stock market crashed and hisbusiness was about to crumble. He had to stay behind to save it, neglecting thelovely woman in the white dress, though she made the best out of the situation,rather than getting upset. And that sure beats Santa hitting a psychiatrist inthe head with an umbrella. (Point, Wonderful 0-3)

Better Ending: I spoke about how much Iliked the end of It’s a Wonderful Life. But I hated the very ending. In total, I don’t think it stacked up to Santa’s giftof a house and home for his little 9-year old friend. (Point, Miracle 1-3)

Better Message: Maybe it’s older thanthe 40s or maybe it was born with this movie, but there is yet a better messageconveyed in a movie than the “be thankful for what you have” and/or “don’tforget the bright side” message from It’s a Wonderful Life. As good as “believein miracles” is, it’s tough to compete. (Point, Wonderful 1-4)

Better Acting: I did enjoy Kris Kringleand the single mother (which probably wasn’t too popular in those days), butJames Stewart and Donna Reed were a fun couple to watch. (Point, Wonderful 1-5)

More Creative: It’s a Wonderful Lifegets a lot of press for the ending, but truth be told, it’s not that tough aconcept to come up with. And Santa needing to prove he’s Santa in a court oflaw with a corrupt judge is pretty original for my money. (Point, Miracle 2-5)

Poster: Well, it’s tough to find aconsensus on what the original poster is for some of these older films, butgiven what I have to work with, I’m going to have to go with It’s a WonderfulLife for at least using real people on the poster. And it helps that it isn’ton a puke yellow background too. (Point, Wonderful 2-6)

Watch again: I will likely watch aremake of either of these in 364 days or so, but if I were to watch one of theoriginals again, it would probably be It’s a Wonderful Life. But probably onlyif I was folding laundry or baking cookies too. (Point, Wonderful 2-7)

Overall: In the battle of classic Christmas movies that came out just a week apart from one another, It’s a Wonderful Life takes the blue ribbon. Though truth be told, it’s a lot less Christmassy than Miracle on 34^th Street. Shame that’s not a category. Winner: It’s a Wonderful Life (7-2)

What to Get Your 15-Year old Cousin: The 10th Day of Giftmas

2011-12-24T08:57:00.001-05:00

(Ed note: This is based on no research and Quote of the Day Enterprises absolves itself of the ramifications of these gift purchases)

A Giftmas Miracle – Part 2: The Ninth Day of Giftmas 2011

2011-12-23T18:03:00.002-05:00

A Giftmas Miracle –Part 2: The Ninth Day of Giftmas 2011

So you're sayin there a chance!

Thank you somuch Santa, for giving us the gift of another week of hope. Of all the gamesthat we needed, the most improbable of them was a Redskins victory over theGiants. On any given week, Mark Sanchez can play anywhere from horrible toserviceably well and Tony Romo’s inconsistencies – especially in December – are verywell-documented. But relying on Rex Grossman to win a game against a Giantsteam that came 4 points away from beating the undefeatable Packers was a tallorder. But somehow, you managed to keep hope alive. Now onto the next phase:

It’s prettysimple now, especially after the Detroit comeback. Not easy, but simple. Wecannot get the wild card now that two teams in the North (GB and DET) and twoteams in the South (NO and ATL) both have at least 9 wins. The only way we canget to the playoffs is through the East. And the only way that can happen iswith a three way tie at 8-8. This means PHI needs to win out and have DAL loseout and NYG lose one game. Thankfully, we play each other a couple times so wecan take out two birds with one stone. Because if PHI played ATL this week andDAL played SF, we’d need both games to go a certain way. But since we play eachother, a PHI win=a DAL loss. One stone. Two birds. Same in week 17 when NYGplays DAL. And all four games are very even or favorable matchups. Four gamesleft. One in 16 chance (again, if flipping coins). And here’s how it shakesout:

Week 16: NYGvs. NYJ, 1:00pm: PHI needs NYJ to win. NYJ favored by 2.5. Home game for NYJ.Also home game for NYG. Giants known for choking away leads in December. Jetsknown for inconsistent quarterback play. Both these facts are good for thecause. Projected result: NYJ win. 1 in 8 chance.

Week 16: PHIvs. DAL, 4:15pm: PHI needs to win. DAL favored by 1. DAL lost to PHI by 27earlier this year. DAL not eliminated with loss. PHI will know before gamestarts if they have a chance. Felix Jones and DeMarco Murray still hurt. Romofamous for sucking in December. Would be very funny if PHI wins. Result: PHI win.1 in 4 chance and a reason to watch football next week.

Week 17: PHIvs. WAS, 1:00pm: PHI needs to win. Projected line: PHI favored by 11 (projectedby me based on very little – not taking bets). WAS has nothing to play for,never does in December. PHI beat WAS easily earlier in year. Rex Grossman stillsucks. Result: PHI win. 1 in 2 chance.

Week 17: DALvs. NYG, 8:20pm (projected flex game): NYG need to win. Projected line: pickem’. By kickoff, NYG will know they’re eliminated, will motivate them more. NYGbeat DAL a few weeks ago in closing minutes on blocked field goal. Some BS likethat will happen again. Result: NYG win. 1 in 1 chance.

If nothingelse, PHI should make the playoffs just because it would be funny. Same withthe Chiefs. But that’s a story for another day. And once we get in theplayoffs, look out world. We’re playing with house money. Let’s go out and showthe world that you can win the Superbowl even with two 4-game losing streaks inthe middle of your season. Man, would that piss off a lot of people.Especially, CHI, SEA and ARI who will all have better records than us and besitting at home watching the playoffs like me. Vince, the Dream Team is backon!

What Your Favorite Holiday Song Says About You: The Eighth Day of Giftmas 2011

2011-12-20T12:24:00.000-05:00

What Your FavoriteHoliday Song Says About You:
The Eighth Day of Giftmas 2011

12 Days of Christmas: You enjoy forcingsing-alongs at office parties AND/OR you are very insecure and like to proveyour worth to everyone around by showing that you memorized the quantity andactivity of all the different random birds, lords and pipers in this song.

Do They Know it’s Christmas (Band Aid):You pay 55 cents a month to an African foster child AND/OR you were in PeaceCorps.

Christmas in Hollis (Run DMC): You wereinto hip hop back before they were all thugs AND/OR you enjoy seeing AlanRickman thrown from very tall buildings.

The Hannakuh Song (Adam Sandler): You longfor the days of Saturday Night Live with the most dick jokes per minute AND/ORyou are Jewish.

Santa Claus is Coming to Town (BruceSpringsteen): You are in your fifties AND/OR you want people to thinkyou’re cool and this is the song you think will make people think that.

All I Want For Christmas Is You (MariahCarey): You know that Mariah is in the Guinness Book of World Records forsinging in 8 different octaves AND/OR you waited in line for opening day of NewYear’s Eve just in case.

Feliz Navidad (Jose Feleciano): You eatat least five meals a week at Taco Bell AND/OR you play 20v20 soccer in thedirt without shoes or goalies and call it football.

Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer (Elmoand Patsy): You are five AND/OR six.

Hard Candy Christmas (Dolly Parton):You were in a community theater production of The Biggest Little Whorehouse inTexas AND/OR you own stock in Jolly Ranchers.

Christmas Wrapping (The Waitresses):You really love or really hate that cranberry sauce became a part of thistradition somehow, but you’re passionate about it either way AND/OR you thinkit’s still 1982.

Giftmas Shopping Timeline: The Seventh Day of Giftmas 2011

2011-12-18T23:54:00.000-05:00

Giftmas ShoppingTimeline: The Seventh Day of Giftmas 2011

Dec 25 – Jan 4: Damnit! A [name of awesome gift] would have been perfect for [person]! Muchbetter than that stupid gift card. Thankfully, [person] only got me [thoughtlessgift] this year anyway. I have to remember to get [name of awesome gift] for[person] next year.

Jan 5 – Feb 14: Holy crap I/we spent a lot of money on Giftmas this year! I/We need toplan ahead next year to find some good deals/make shit out of stuff around thehouse. Maybe I’ll bake those snowball cookies next year. They’re cute and cheapand Giftmassy .

Feb 15 – Oct 31: We should have Giftmas more than once a year. Why do we as a societyhave to be pigeon-holed into only one day a year to give gifts to people? Wewould be better off as a human race if we could just have that kind of givingspirit year round. And we could have another office party. Maybe I would getAlison for my Secret Santa this time. And maybe she’d stay for more than onedrink this time since there wouldn’t be any other Giftmas parties to get to. Iwonder if she’s serious with that motorcycle guy. I’ll bet she’s not. I need tofind one of those mistletoe hats.

Nov 1 – Thanksgiving: Alright, Giftmastime is almost here! I shouldprobably order that [name of awesome gift] for [person] now to beat the rush soI don’t have to worry about it. And I’m going to make my list of people I need toget stuff for tomorrow at work. Sweet. I can’t wait.

Black Friday: No way in hell am I going to the mall today! I’ll start my shoppingtomorrow.

Black Saturday – Dec 5: You know what? Screw it. I’m doingeverything online this year. Make it easy on myself. I don’t need to get stuckwith all those unprepared plebeians out in the world. I can do this from myoffice while my boss thinks I’m doing work anyway. Except for that [office/randomsocial group] party next Saturday. It wouldn’t get here in time. Shoot. Ohwell. I just need to get on making that list.

Dec 6 – Dec 17: What the hell happened! Stupid, stupid work! Damnit. Now I have to goout with the plebeians. I hate malls, HATE THEM! I guess I don’t really need toget stuff for [random old friends/family that won’t be in town/both parties ofa couple I only sort of like]. And who the hell mails out their Giftmas cardsthis early? How have I already gotten like 7 of them? As long as I get mine outby the end of the week. Shit! I never got the damn mistletoe hat!

Dec 18 – Dec 23: How hard is it to remember to buy stamps? Holy Fucking Ass! No waythese cards are going to get to anybody on time. As long as they’re postmarkedby Giftmas, I guess. Like taxes. And the hell with that [name of awesome gift]for [person]. Let’s just get this over with. I should have made a list ofpeople I needed to shop for a month ago. Looks like Target gift cards foreverybody again.

Dec 24: Aunt [name of aunt you see once a year]! How do I forget her everyyear?! Ugh. I hope she likes the $10 Starbucks gift card I got from Alison andthat scary tattoo guy from the office party.

Dec 25: Merry Fucking Giftmas. I hate the damn holidays. Why don’t we all justget ourselves something and skip the middle man? I’m starting my shopping tomorrowfor next Giftmas.

Giftmas, The Word: The Sixth Day of Giftmas 2011

2011-12-17T23:54:00.000-05:00

Giftmas, The Word:The Sixth Day of Giftmas 2011

A point ofnote about the word “Giftmas” before I continue much further because I foundmyself saying it a lot tonight at the two Holiday Parties or Winter Soirees orwhatever you want to call them.

I’m not tryingto offend anyone by using it. I feel the need to say that because it’s notalways the case. Like the people that think Tim Tebow is winning games because Godloves him more. These are people who need to be poked a little bit. Thankfully,if I’m correct, they can take it.

Oops. I gotsidetracked. Anyway, I remember people in Church when I was young telling menever to spell out Xmas, because ittakes the Christ out of Christmas.And it makes sense. And I’ve written extensively on this a few years back in “TheTrue Meaning of Giftmas.” So I understand why people (hardcore Christianswithout a sense of humor) take offense to the replacement of Christ not just with an “x” which is basically just a placeholderfor the much longer Christ, but withthe very materialistic and similar sounding gift.And let’s face it, people (hardcore Christians without a sense of humor) – youdon’t pronounce the “Christ” in Christmas the correct way anyway. If looked ateven just a little bit closer, it sounds more like the celebration of a chainof overpriced but yummy steak restaurants than the son of man, whatever that means. So who’smore blasphemous?

Sorry. Sidetrackedagain. So, the reason I came up with and have been regularly using the term Giftmas is to include everyone, not toexclude anyone. And the term really gets to the heart of what the holiday isabout. I understand that there are religious ties to the holiday, but it seemsto be more of a celebration of family and friends than of religion. And that’sOK, people (see above). It’s a time of loving and sharing and exchanging ofmaterial things – some thoughtful and poignant, some useless and plastic. Notall family members share the same religious beliefs and I know that’s not coolin some families, but it is in most. Or at least it’s ignored and if thesubject accidentally comes up, the conversation is steered towards fantasyfootball.

So when Itell you to have a Merry Giftmas, it’s like I’m saying the incredibly annoying HappyHolidays, only I’m calling a spade a spade and selling out the holiday for whatit really is. Pun intended. Because what else would you call a holiday thatwould bring together a few different religions? Exactly. You’re welcome.

Top 10 Christmas Movies: The Fifth Day of Giftmas 2011

2011-12-16T03:20:00.000-05:00

Top 10 Christmas Movies: The Fifth Day of Giftmas 2011

I haven’t seen every Christmas movie ever. I still haven’tseen Miracle on 34^th Streetor all seventeen versions of A ChristmasCarol. Also, I can’t remember how I got home from work today, so there aresome movies I maybe don’t remember anything about at all. Furthermore, mycriteria for the following list is based almost solely on what I want to seeagain right now. And I’m thirsty. Who knows what the list would be like if Ihad a slurpee right now? Hard to say, but I bet Home Alone would be on there.[Spoiler alert: It’s not]

Also of note is that these are all Christmas movies in thesense of both words. They are not Hanukkah movies – of which there are none –or TV specials, of which there are 4,387. Also, they are all feature films.Apologies to The Grinch That StoleChristmas and all its stop-motion friends. Not to mention Night of the Meek, a Twilight Zoneepisode which happens to be my favorite Christmas-related show of all time andpossibly my only actual Christmas tradition. Given these variables with thiscriteria, here’s what I came up with.

10. The Ref: Firstof all, it has nothing to do with officiating. So don’t keep watching,expecting a basketball game to break out. Instead, Denis Leary breaks into ahouse and forces a bickering couple (including Kevin Spacey) to pretend he’stheir therapist during a Christmas party. I know it sounds like the plot of It’s a Wonderful Life, but there are afew variations worth watching this version. Tomatometer: 76%

9. Gremlins: Sohow exactly are we supposed to bathe these creatures? I’ll bet they’d makegreat pets for the Wicked Witch of the West. And when exactly does “aftermidnight” end? 5am? 3:45am? 12:01am? And who the hell likes bright light shinedin their face besides interrogation victims? So the movie is not without itsplot holes. But it’s a cultural icon now. And who didn’t name their hamsterGizmo when I was 13? Tomatometer: 79%

8. Lethal Weapon: Yeah. It’s a Christmasmovie. Which means you can probably figure out what #1 on this list will be –but let’s take a look. It opens with Jingle Bell Rock and has a marquee scenein a Christmas tree lot. And it ends with the suicidal Mel Gibson (pre-crazy,or at least pre-dangerously-bigot-type-of-crazy) giving Danny Glover the giftof the bullet that he was going to use to commit suicide. That probably wasn’t onhis amazon.com registry. Tomatometer: 90%

7. Fantasia: Howis this not on top lists of Christmas movies? Who can possibly listen to theNutcracker Suite without thinking of dancing tea cups? I used to think thatmovement in the Nutcracker Suite was actually called “Dance of the Tea Cups.”So I’m putting it on my list of favorite Christmas movies, despite that it hasno plot to speak of and only one of the seven vignettes has anything to do withChristmas. My list, my rules. Tomatometer: 98%

6. Bad Santa: “Fuckme, Santa. Fuck me, Santa.” So no, it’s not your six-year-old daughter’s Christmasmovie. It doesn’t try to be and it wears that on its CD cover. Not that anyBilly Bob Thornton movie is for kids, but especially not one that taints the imageof their favorite person in the world. But his relationship with the retardedkid (his word) is touching, much in the same way that moving a dying bird from thestreet to a yard is touching. And I owe this movie for the introduction ofLauren Graham to my life. Tomatometer: 77%

5. Trading Places: Whatthe world needs now is another morality play disguised as pop cinema like thiswas. Eddie Murphy and Dan Aykroyd in their prime. A dollar bet that ruined thelife of a man for the amusement of old rich folks who get sucker punched in thewallet in the end. All set mostly – or at least enough to qualify for the list –over Christmas. Tomatometer: 89%

4. A Christmas Story:I cannot remember the last Christmas when I didn’t watch at least 25 minutes ofthis movie. I can probably recite it verbatim without even realizing it.Tomatometer: 89%

3. Love Actually: Thiswas the original. Before Valentine’s Day and the dreadfully rated New Year’s Eve,there was this intertwining vignette-style romantic comedy that was more genuinethan cheesy. The cool thing about this is that everyone talks about their favoritepart or this part sucked but I liked that and that part was over the top, etc.But all anybody says about Valentine’s Day is it wasn’t as good as LoveActually. It’s worthy of the attention it gets. Not to mention that Colin Firthdonates his time to a rather decent role in this. Tomatometer: 63%

2. Elf: Will Ferrellat his absolute best. I have publicly decried almost every SNL performer turnedactor (Chris Kattan, Jimmy Fallon, Chris Kattan), but Will Ferrell has provenwhatever he’s needed to prove to me, wrapped up in this role. He makes youbelieve that he’s really a human who thinks he’s an elf. And he has stop-motionanimated snowmen as friends. And he enjoys whatever diabetes-inducing breakfastit was that he ate. There’s a reason USA shows it three nights in a row onback-to-back weekends every year. Tomatometer: 84%

1. Die Hard: RunDMC provides the Christmas music in this coming out party for Bruce Willis. Andstrangely, Alan Rickman has managed to be in two very marquee Christmas movies.I wonder if that was by design. It’s a shame they didn’t have a Harry Potterand the Baby Jesus. Anyway, it’s a Christmas movie for the next generation. Andby “the next generation,” I mean like four generations ago. Tomatometer: 94%

You got one I may have left off this list? Maybe you are ahuge Tim Allen fan. Or maybe you hate Alan Rickman. Or maybe you think that it’sbullshit that I put Trading Places on here in place of the much more ChristmassyErnest Saves Christmas. Well, leave anote and we’ll see if your letters to the editor will get you on the back halfof The 12 Days of Giftmas.

Rating Aspects of Giftmas Parties: The Fourth Day of Giftmas 2011

2011-12-15T23:09:00.000-05:00

Rating Aspects ofGiftmas Parties:
The Fourth Day of Giftmas 2011

One of the greatest byproducts of Giftmas is the amount ofpartying that is socially acceptable. Office parties, family get-togethers, drunkensoirees with friends (soiree is theFrench word for religion-neutral winterparty). Most of these parties are just a jolly old time. But sometraditions are old and tired and need to be put to bed before Santa gets here.Here’s a quick rating of the different aspects of these holiday parties,whatever you want to call them:

Potluck:Brilliant. You don’t have to get it catered and people can show off theirheretofore dormant baking and reheating skills. And there’s no ill will forbringing store-bought stuff. The snooties may turn up their noses, but it’scommonly acceptable to waltz in with Enteman’s or Nabisco or Pepsico stuff. Andthe guy who remembers to bring paper plates and plastic sporks is not laughedat. No! He is praised. People cannot wait for him to get there. Big fan. Downsides:disproportionate amount of cookies, food poisoning. A

Secret Santa: Greatfor cutting down on expenses. All for it. AND you still get a gift. BONUS! Butnobody wants to get Uncle Dave. He doesn’t like anything/already haseverything/doesn’t deserve anything. That’s the crappy part. I hear you.Especially when it’s that nose-ring girl from the satellite office nobodyknows. And what happens if someone doesn’t show? Nothing, that’s what. Butanything that lightens the burden on the wallet is a friend of mine. Just don’tmake a big ceremony of watching everybodyopen their gift. Too much pressure. Everybody opens at the same time, thankstheir person, their person thanks them. Oh, they had each other? Insert fakelaughter. Then get the hell back to the eggnog. B

White Elephant: Thisis where you buy something and don’t label it and there’s a big game withdifferent versions of rules that are never fully understood. If there are 30people at your party, this game will take a full hour. BUT, it alleviates thenecessity to plan anything ahead of time. So if Uncle Dave doesn’t show, itdoesn’t matter. No circle is broken, no chain is unlinked. However, Iparticipate in this version that has gotten a little too out of hand with thestupid presents. The gift isn’t worth it but it wasn’t supposed to be.Unfortunately, it’s also not worth the time. I’d rather be watching A ChristmasStory again. B

Saturday NightParties from 12/10-12/20: For crying out loud, I have two parties to go toevery year and they have fallen on the same date over half the time. It needsto be the weekend because we’re young and like to party. Or we’re old and havejobs and kids. Understood. But the best Giftmas party I ever went to was onJanuary 4^th. No conflicts, no other deadlines to meet and I couldregift the crap I didn’t like from before. And it alleviated the depressionthat came with the realization that the holiday season was over and the work seasonwas back. More people need to do this. D+

Dressed-up Santa:Good only for parties with kids. Unless it’s a stripper Santa. Either way,there’s a lap involved. B+

A Giftmas Miracle: The Third Day of Giftmas 2011

2011-12-14T23:55:00.001-05:00

A Giftmas Miracle: The Third Day of Giftmas 2011

Each year around this time, I wish for a Giftmas Miracle. This year is no exception. The wish is the same. The only difference is the enormity of the denominator. And yes, I’m talking about the Eagles making the playoffs.

Believe it or not, they’re not dead yet. Beaten and bloody, but with a heartbeat. They have a 1 in 28 chance of winning the NFC East. Well, this is true if every game was determined by a coin flip. Which, obviously, they are not. Which means we need either the Bucs or the Skins to win this weekend. Which makes me wish games were decided by coin flips.

1 in 28? Are you just making shit up, Dustin? I do make things up a lot. Guilty. But this is an actual number. I know this because it’s also the actual number of points we give up in the fourth quarter.

OK, so here’s how we win the NFC East. Ready? Because you may want to get a sandwich now and clear your schedule for the next 10 minutes. Also, all teams will be referred to by their abbreviation because I plan on typing a lot. Here we go…

1. First off, PHI needs to win the rest of their games to get to 8-8 (NYJ, DAL, WAS). 7 wins won’t cut it since both NYG and DAL have 7 right now and they play each other, putting at least one of them at 8 wins.

2. NYG and DAL can only end up with 8 wins max. Thankfully, we own the tie-breaker against both of these teams individually and collectively. Or at least we will if we win out. We’ll be 2-0 against DAL and 1-1 against NYG with a 5-1 division record, whereas NYG and DAL are currently 2-2.

3. We already know one of them will get one in Week 17 when they play each other. Crap. So here comes the first of many if/then statements.

a. If NYG wins (the Week 17 game), we need them to lose games against WAS and NYJ. DAL will have already lost against PHI in this scenario, so that’s one less game we need to worry about. In this scenario, we can actually get away with DAL beating TB in Week 15.

i. This scenario requires that the following games go one certain way (Week 15 – PHI/NYJ, NYG/WAS: Week 16 – PHI/DAL: Week 17 – PHI/WAS). We’ve already assumed that NYG has won the Week 17 matchup against DAL, so it needn’t be in this equation. Instead, this number will be averaged with the number from the other variable of the if/then statement. There are 5 games in total, which means our odds of having them all go our way (coin flip style) is 1 in (2*2*2*2*2)=1/32. Ta da.

b. If DAL wins (the Week 17 game), it gets a little more complicated. They will now need to lose that game against TB (in addition to the PHI game already accounted for). Also, NYG will need to lose one of their remaining two games against WAS and NYJ.

i. Should NYG win the game against WAS, they then MUST beat NYJ. This means the following games must go a certain way (Week 15 – PHI/NYJ, DAL/TB: Week 16 – PHI/DAL, NYG/NYJ: Week 17 – PHI/WAS). Now, the NYG/WAS game has assumed a winner. So that, along with the NYG/DAL game, are not in this equation. There are again 5 games in total, making odds of 1/32 again.

ii. Should NYG lose the game against WAS, they can do whatever they want to against the NYJ, knocking the total of games that need go a certain way down to four (Week 15 – PHI/NYJ, DAL/TB: Week 16 – PHI/DAL, NYG/NYJ: Week 17 – PHI/WAS). Once again, the NYG/WAS and NYG/DAL games have been accounted for through the if/then statement. So this number is now 1 in (2*2*2*2)=1/16.

iii. Averaged together under the umbrella of DAL winning the NYG/DAL matchup, the odds of this happening is 1 in (32*16)/2=24, or 1/24.

c. So considering the 1/32 chance PHI has of making the playoffs if NYG wins that Week 17 match with DAL and the 1/24 chance if DAL wins, the odds of PHI getting to 8-8, while making sure that NYG and DAL keep to a max of 8 wins averages out to 1 in (32*24)/2, or 1/28. See. Told ya.

4. Incidentally, this translates into a 3.91% chance of winning the division. Better than you thought, eh? In order to keep alive through Week 15, PHI will need to win their game and have either NYG or DAL lose, which translates into a 1/3 chance. How about that?

5. Also, I didn’t bother to take into consideration ties, as coins rarely land on their sides.

Are you ready for the completely impossible stuff? Should we lose the NFC East race, we have a 1 in 589.5 chance of making the wild card. OK, that one’s gotta be made up. Wrong again, Slick. Now you may want to get a bottle of wine and an adult diaper on for this. But I figured it all out, so I’m gonna ruin your day with math.

So you’re sayin there’s a chance…

1. First of all, PHI needs to get to 8 wins since ATL and DET are already there.

a. This means that they must either be involved in the tie-breaker or have the #5 seed.

2. The following teams can all end the season at 8-8: PHI, ATL, DET, CHI, SEA, ARI, NYG, DAL

a. Only one team from any one division will be involved in the tie-break. If teams from the same division are tied, the in-division tie-breakers will be applied to determine which team will represent that division in the cross-division tie-break.

b. This means PHI will never be in a tiebreak with DAL or NYG. More on this later.

c. Of the other 5 teams, the only team not to beat us is DET. More on this later.

3. The first tie-breaker is head-to-head.

a. In multiple team tie-breakers, one team must have swept or been swept by the other teams in order to apply it.

4. Because DET is the only team that could be involved in a tie-break with PHI who hasn’t beat them, they must be involved in the wild card tie-break, or else PHI would be forced out by the head-to-head tie-break (3a).

a. This means that DET cannot have more than 8 wins, so they must lose the remainder of their games to go 8-8.

b. This will also make them 2-3 in common opponents with PHI (ATL, DAL, SF, CHI), who is also 2-3. This will be important later.

5. CHI is 7-6 right now and split their two meetings with DET. If they were to finish at 8-8, they would enter into a tie-break with DET to determine which team would represent the NFC North in the wild card tie-break (2a).

a. CHI is 2-2 in the division and DET is 3-2. If CHI wins their non-division game (SEA) and loses the other two, they will 1) have the same record, 2) be tied in head-to-head games, and 3) have a worse division record than DET. Therefore, PHI can afford CHI to win the SEA game.

b. A CHI win against GB or MIN would give them an equal division record (3-3), but CHI will have a 6-8 record in common games (all but wins against PHI and SEA), while DET will have a 7-7 record (win over DAL, loss to SF). Therefore, DET would still represent the NFC North if they win a division game.

c. Together, this means regardless of which game CHI wins, they will lose the tie-breaker to DET, so PHI can afford them to win any one of their games to still allow DET into the wild card tie-break.

6. SEA is currently 6-7, but they are 5-4 within the conference with 3 conference games to go. At 8-8, they would be 7-5 in the conference. However, they have all the same common opponents as DET and PHI and their current record in games against them is 0-3 with two to go. So as long as they don’t win their two games against SF and CHI, they could make it to 8-8.

a. Because SEA cannot win both of their games against SF and CHI, but they can still win two games, their game against ARI doesn’t matter. At least not to them.

7. ARI is 6-5 and a win against SEA would give them the tie-breaker against SEA, as they’d be 4-2 in the division and SEA would be 4-2 at beast (pun intended), though ARI would be 7-5 in conference and SEA (since they’re not allowed to win against SF and CHI) would be 6-6 at beast. This would make for a huge problem with PHI, as a 7-5 conference record would beat out all other 8-8 teams. So if ARI is going to win two games, it cannot win the SEA game.

8. I have a headache. This was actually, believe it or not, a lot easier before I realized that CHI could still lose to DET in a tie-break based on common opponents (5b). In my original prognosis, I skipped ahead to conference record and determined that CHI could not be 8-8 and still give PHI a chance at the wild card. Once I discovered that to be incorrect, PHI chances were better, but the problem got A LOT more complicated.

a. Also, this is all based around giving ATL the #5 seed. If PHI is tied with ATL and DET, ATL wins the tie-break based on beating DET and PHI head-to-head. However, if PHI, ATL, DET and SEA are all tied at 8-8, it will come down to points.

i. Which means that ARI or CHI could go 9-7 and get the #5 and PHI would still have a chance I strength of victory against those other three teams.

b. This scenario is actually true of the following multi-team matchups (PHI, ATL, DET, SEA – PHI, ATL, DET, ARI – PHI, DET, SEA – PHI, DET, ARI).

i. Again, strength of victory only comes in after considering head-to-head, division games, common opponents and conference games. Which I did in all cases. Of course, we still have to win strength of victory and we're 57 behind DET right now. There is no coin to determine those percentages.

So again, in full disclosure, all this assumes that ATL either wins the #5 seed with an 8, 9, 10 or 11-win record OR they stay in the 8-8 muck without CHI, ARI or SEA besting them at 9-7 or 10-6. I will have to figure all that out tomorrow for you lovely people. Or maybe I’ll go to bed at a reasonable hour instead.

Giftmas Lists: The Second Day of Giftmas 2011

2011-12-13T23:55:00.004-05:00

Giftmas Lists: The Second Day of Giftmas 2011

We did it to ourselves, society. We all stood arm in arm and when one person took a step forward, we all took that step forward. And another. And another. And another. Until finally, we found ourselves in a cold, dark forest waist deep in a leach-infested swamp without a compass, granola bar or a clean pair of underwear. And no, I’m not talking about original TLC programming – I’m talking about Giftmas Lists.

Maybe it’s always been like this and I’m just remembering wrong now that I’m older, wiser and don’t like to be told what to do – but I feel like people have forgotten the meaning of the word “gift.” There is certainly a place for Giftmas Lists for kids. I get that. But how is something even considered a gift anymore if you’re being told to buy it for someone? Gifts are supposed to be something extra, unexpected. Right? For a minute, forget what month it is and try to use the word in the sentence like “I just got you a gift.”

Ooooooh.

Remember what it means now? It used to be that Giftmas Lists were for kids and kids only. But now people have these lists on the world wide interweb where if you buy something, it comes off the list so that no one else will accidentally get another one for you. Practical, I grant you. But you can also see who got what for you when and what the hell is the point of even wrapping it? I will grant exceptions for weddings because this is a one-way exchange of gifts and knowing now how much I spent for everyone to come to my wedding, you damn well better get me something useful that we (Jenn) has already pre-approved! But the breakdown occurs when a bunch of adults are all asking for crap from each other. Especially because we’re now conditioned to get upset and talk shit about someone who gets you a gift you don’t want. What the hell? Didn’t they see my list? It’s on facebook. What’s the point in going out and getting somebody else something they told you to get them and having them get you something you told them to get you? Why not just get it your damn selves, exchange a polite nod and go take naps in separate rooms. Save everybody the time and stress of having possibly gotten the wrong “gift.”

I’ve lived poor. I know what it’s like to know if somebody doesn’t buy me a blender, I’m not going to have a blender. But I’m not going to put it on a Giftmas Registry. Because then, it wouldn’t be a “gift” as I define the word. Similarly, if you are an adult and have your own Giftmas Registry, you can count on me ignoring it. I will get you what I think you should have, like it or not. And that’s what a gift is. And if I don’t know you well enough to know what to get you, the fuck am I buying you shit anyway?

A Giftmas Tradition: The First Day of Giftmas 2011

2011-12-12T23:00:00.000-05:00

A Giftmas Tradition: The First Day of Giftmas 2011

That’s right kids! It’s Giftmastime already. And you know what that means? That means it’s time for Dustin to set some unreachable goals and fall way short of achieving them. So back by absolutely no demand, I will once again be writing The Twelve Days of Giftmas for all my loyal readers (Hi, Tom), starting today and ending on Giftmas.

So says Current Dustin. What will actually happen is probably something closer to a “post crap when I get around to it” model. But it’s fun to pretend. That’s why people wear hats.

And it just so happens that I have exactly 12 things to say about Giftmas! Unfortunately, I’ve already written about them back in 2009/2010. But I’ll figure out 12 other things to say. If not, I can always post videos of my cat.

You may be asking yourself “So, Dustin… Having already told us that you’re likely not going to be able to follow through with this promise, why even make it at all?” First of all, it’s weird that you call yourself Dustin. Cut it out. Second, it’s because I’m stuck. I started this thing back in May called the “Double Feature Duel,” where I would take any two movies I most recently watched, regardless of the time between viewings, and have them battle in a duel, with humor being the main objective. It was going to combine my passions for movies, humor, writing and competition. Brilliant! And it was. Still is. Some good humor and fun writing has come out of it. Then I decided to make it into a 64-team elimination bracket. Still fun, but as it turns out, a whole shit-load of work. Like paying job-type of work, only without the paying job-type of payment. I can’t write about anything else now. Unless I trick myself by setting another goal to displace that one.

That’s where this comes in. Another layer of commitment on top of the other one is enough to confuse me into writing things I want to and not things I feel obligated to. Since I’m the CEO of this gig, I just need to tell myself that something I want to do is now an obligation and Past Dustin has to put his Double Feature Duel on hold until completion of the new task. Which will likely be just as much of an obligation toward The Fourth Day of Giftmas anyway. Looks like I outkicked my coverage again. Oh well. Enjoy whatever the hell happens over the next couple of weeks. Or months.

Double Feature Duel: The Good Shepherd vs. Bucket List

2011-12-12T07:00:00.000-05:00

Double Feature Duel:
The Good Shepherd vs. Bucket List

Bout #23: I really wanted to see Bucket List before I died.

The Good Shepherd: You have to earn a 2 and a half hour long running time. Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, movies that you could convincingly put the word “epic” in front of. This was a waste of at least 2:30 of that 2:40 running time. 1 bug

Bucket List: There weren’t many surprises. I knew what I was getting into when I plugged it in. And I have heard of the two main actors before and assumed they’d do a serviceable job. Well, they did. And yes it was cheesy, and yes it was formulaic, and yes it was awkwardly paced, but it was touching and real when it needed to be. And it sprinkled some real pieces of philosophy into the gratuitous skydiving and car racing scenes. 6.5 bugs.

Title: What the hell is this guy shepherding? There were no sheep anywhere. And it wasn’t a religious metaphor either. At least I doubted. I stopped paying attention two and a half fucking hours into the movie. (Point, Bucket List 0-1)

Funnier: I’m so used to thinking about Jack Nicholson in terms of A Few Good Men and The Shining that I forget how funny he can be when he wants to be. And John Turturro actually said that Matt Damon had no sense of humor. The same could have been said about the movie. (Point, Bucket List 0-2)

Better Turn: I just forced myself to try to recall what might have been the turn in The Good Shepherd, which I just saw last night, for the last 30 seconds. I farted twice and my eye won’t stop twitching. I’m taking that as a sign. (Point, Bucket List 0-3)

Better Ending: I can remember the ending of the Good Shepherd. It still sucked, but it was memorable. But not worth a point. (Point, Bucket List 0-4)

Better Message: I’m guessing there was a message in there somewhere about loyalty to one’s country or one’s family and what is more important. Kinda like the first season of 24. Only, this movie felt like it took longer to watch. (Point, Bucket List 0-5)

Better Acting: I can’t believe so many big time people were involved with this stupid movie. Damon and Angelina – even Alec Baldwin, Timothy Hutton and DeNiro himself totaled about 13 minutes of screen time. And Joe Pesci popped into a scene 2:04 into the movie. I guess everybody wanted to be a part of Bobby DeNiro’s directing debut. Shame he didn’t get an editor with some balls. (Point, Bucket List 0-6)

More Creative: Creativity is not Bucket List’s strong suit. But it doesn’t take much to beat The Good Shepherd in any category. (Point, Bucket List 0-7)

Poster: “The best spy movie ever” – Larry King. It may as well have said “Larry King wants to beat off Robert DeNiro.” And DeNiro is on the cover, despite his less than 10 minutes of screen time. The fact that there’s not a slogan trying to convince me that The Good Shepherd is a good movie is enough to give Bucket List a point. (Point, Bucket List 0-8)

Watch again: Honestly, I almost want to watch The Good Shepherd again, just to make sure I didn’t miss anything, because I really didn’t get anything. But it’s over two and a half hours. Maybe if they edit it down to a 43 minute version, I’ll watch it again someday. (Point, Bucket List 0-9)

Overall: Well, you’d think Bucket List is my favorite movie after seeing this score. Truth is that some of my Intro to Video student final projects could have put up a perfect score against that other travesty of a movie. Winner: Bucket List (9-0)

Quick Inside Slant: Week Thirteen

2011-12-11T03:01:00.004-05:00

Quick Inside Slant:

by Dustin Fisher
Impressions of the 2011 NFL season as perceived by a Creative Writing grad student, part-time amateur stand-up comedian and collegiate intramural flag football legend (all same person).

Week Thirteen:

James Harrison is a dirty piece of crap and I’ll never root for the Steelers as long as he’s still playing for them. Sorry, Stryker. If you need proof of this, watch him after the play. There is a human being lying unconscious on the ground solely because of a hit Harrison made, regardless of intent or legality. Ten feet away, there is a yellow flag. Rather than show any remorse about the career or life he may have just taken away from said human, he whines to the refs about the little yellow flag. Fucking prick. (Ed note: he did go over to McCoy after whining about the flag, likely because a PR person told him to)

I had a law student in our basketball league who was convinced that the refs, supervisors and commissioner were unfairly calling flagrant and technical fouls on him more than any other player in the league. He thought “we were out to get him.” His words. A third year law student never bothered to consider that the only common link in all of his indiscretions was him. Occam’s Razor suggests that maybe he and James Harrison are the real perpetrators. Though I’m willing to bet that Harrison thinks Occam’s Razor is what terrorists use to shave with.

Then Harrison defended his actions after the game. Again. And once the fine comes, as we all know it will, Mike Tomlin and the rest of his team will defend him. Again. And that’s what makes this shit especially rank. When Ndamukong Suh stomped his way into a suspension on Thanksgiving, the team took him aside and said “Hey Ndamukong, grow the fuck up.” Though they probably used a nickname like Nads or Num-Num because they know him better than I do and it’s a weird and long name. Not the Steelers. They fully support having a hired hit man on their team. Which is all the more reason he needs a suspension. You want him to stop getting fined so he can afford to pay tuition for his children, tell him to stop headhunting people who might also have children to pay tuition for if Harrison lets them live long enough.

I understand. You need to play the game and can’t let quarterbacks run loose in the secondary. I get it. But you knew full well where you were hitting him. Don’t pretend we’re all stupid here. You’ve been doing it for years. You lost your plausible deniability. Just because he fooled you into coming off your man in a crucial 2^nd down late in a very losable game doesn’t give you the right to take two steps, and rise into his head, no matter what you’ve convinced yourself the rules say. You’re a thug through and through and need to get a lesson in sportsmanship. I was careful not to use the word “learn” because I don’t feel you’re capable. Suspend him, Goodell. Or get David Stern to do it for you.

Hopeless Scenario of the Week: So all the Eagles need to do is win out against the Dolphins, Jets, Cowboys, Redskins (it could happen), have the Giants split their two games with the Cowboys, have the Cowboys lose their other scheduled game against the Bucs (why not?) and have the Giants lose one of their other two games to the Jets and Redskins and we’re in! OR the Giants can sweep the Cowboys and then they need to lose all their games BUT the Cowboys would be permitted to beat the Bucs. Probably a more likely scenario. However, in both of these scenarios, we need to win all our games and winning has been our Achilles Heel all year. We can always count on the Giants and Cowboys losing in December (Arizona? Seriously?), but we still need to actually win. Oh well. It’s fun to figure out scenarios. I’d look into our wild card chances if I didn’t have to sleep tonight.

Sportsmanship Play of the Week: Not a lot of players actually acknowledge that people on the other team can dictate how the game goes. Most of them think that if they won, it’s because of something they did well and if not, it’s because it’s something they did wrong. After a one-handed TD catch by Hakeem Nicks in a very tight game against the Packers, Charles Woodson actually gave him a fist bump of approval. Then James Harrison shot them both in the face with a bazooka.

Bonehead Move of the Week: Oh, Dallas. By now, you know about the icing your own kicker time out. But here’s why it happened. With 26 seconds left and TWO time outs, Dez Bryant got the Cowboys a first down at the Cardinal’s 31-yd line. Rather than call a time out, they ran it down to 7 seconds and spiked the ball. Then they tried to rush the field goal team out on the field without calling a time out to justify having not called a time out. But they didn’t do it in time, so they called one. It obviously looks worse because they made the first and missed the second. But either way, it’s still a bonehead move. Everyone on that field and at home in their TV sets other than Jason Garrett and Tony Romo would have called a time out to try to get more yardage for their rookie kicker. Like Aaron Rodgers for example.

Surprise Stat of the Week: Cam Newton scored 3 rushing TDs in Sunday’s game against the Bucs to set the new record for rushing TDs in a season by a quarterback, beating Steve Grogan’s 12. Yes, Steve Grogan. No, that’s not a typo. Oh, and he only needs 443 more passing yards in the next three games to beat Peyton’s rookie record. That’s not a typo either.

Second Chance of a Lifetime: Dan Orlovsky is known mostly for running out of the back of the end zone on his way to leading the Lions to the only 0-16 season in NFL history. He is now starting the last four games for the 0-12 Colts in place of Curtis Painter. A single victory in those four games would probably be complete vindication for his last 0-16 season. It is his Superbowl. And his best chance will be a Week 17 game against the Jaguars. Flex, ESPN?

Weed of the Decade: Dear Brett Favre, Shut up and go away. We’ve moved on. Sincerely, Everyone.

Double Feature Duel: J Edgar vs. Shrek Forever After

2011-12-10T22:47:00.003-05:00

Double Feature Duel:
J Edgar vs. Shrek Forever After

Bout #22: A movie about an ogre who loses his identity and wishes away his family vs. Shrek 4.

J Edgar: Sooooo, I already said this, but this isn’t that epic that everybody thought it was going to be. Epic fail, possibly. As quoted from my review of the movie, “In the end, it looks like Eastwood just needed to do something to do this year and not everybody golfs.” 4 bugs

Shrek Forever After: First of all, you have to like Shrek to like this movie. Nobody in the world is going to say “well, I wasn’t too crazy about the first 3 movies, but this one was awesome.” I like Shrek. Then, you have to accept it’s not going to be the first Shrek. Check. Then, you have to just sit back and accept a ridiculous sounding plot – even for an animated movie starring a talking donkey. Once this is complete, you will enjoy the movie. 6.5 bugs.

Title: J Edgar really wraps up what the movie is about, for better or worse, but it also mimics one of the most overdramatic scenes of the film where he has to choose between two names he’s been using for banking purposes and decides on – well, you know. It’s shot in a similar fashion to the discovery of the word “Rosebud” on Charles Kane’s sled, but with music more reminiscent of the scene from Alien where the thing busts out of the dude’s chest. (Point, Shrek 0-1)

Funnier: Hmm, didn’t even bother putting on running shoes for this race, did you? (Point, Shrek 0-2)

Better Turn: The turn is usually the plot point in which the main character is given a problem to overcome. I don’t know if J Edgar was ever given such a problem. (Point, Shrek 0-3)

Better Ending: What an overhyped and boring scene the cross-dressing scene was. It undermined from the big finale, which was the Winkelvoss twin finally getting the subtle nod of appreciation for his dedication to J Edgar, both above and between the sheets, or so he’d hoped. In the other corner, we have – surprise! – another music montage to a Carpenter’s song and a lot of happily ever after. Heads it is. (Point, J Edgar 1-3)

Better Message: Shrek is classic you don’t know what you got til it’s gone, but J Edgar is an avoid fun at all costs if you want to have a legacy in public administration. (Point, Shrek 1-4)

Better Acting: I think Leonardo DiCaprio liked the role so much he forgot to notice that the writing was crap. And it takes some bad acting to lose to a cartoon. (Point, J Edgar 2-4)

More Creative: Shrek 4 is pretty far, far out there (pun intended) and fills in some huge holes with some very obvious spackle, but the J Edgar screenplay feels more like a book report than a movie script. (Point, Shrek 2-5)

Poster: Close up photo of Leo talking. Just one poster. Good for branding. Shrek 4 has many. Most have some clever puns like “It ain’t ogre til it’s ogre” or “Where my witches at?” My vote goes to the use of fat Puss in Boots. (Point, Shrek 2-6)

Watch again: I don’t think I’ll ever find a good cause to watch J Edgar again, but I won’t rule it completely out. However, I can definitely see myself scrolling through the cable channels on a lazy Sunday (after football season, obviously) and stay on whatever channel Shrek would be on for a while. (Point, Shrek 2-7)

Overall: Yeah, I didn’t really care much for J Edgar, though I really liked the acting – even beyond Leo. Shame it’s only worth one point. Winner: Shrek Forever After (7-2)

Double Feature Duel: The Man Who Wasn’t There vs. Tower Heist

2011-12-09T19:13:00.003-05:00

Double Feature Duel:

The Man Who Wasn’t There vs. Tower Heist

Bout #21: Hit or miss directors the Coen Brothers square off against Ben Stiller’s only character and an Eddie Murphy Beverly Hill Cop reprise.

The Man Who Wasn’t There: Jenn and I sat down to an evening of instant Netflix. It came down to two black and white movies from directors I like. We should have watched Following. The Coen Brothers like to wow us with bizarre story twists involving deaths that you think you might have read about in the doctored Darwin Award finalists back when e-mail was new. Sometimes, it’s best to read about these in a FWD: Funny! e-mail rather than wasting a whole Saturday evening. 4 bugs.

Tower Heist : My appreciation for this film has been extensively tracked in my review. “Somebody needs Mets tickets? He’s got 2 behind the dugout. Somebody needs a good mud bath? He’s got dirt in one pocket and water in the other. Somebody needs a kidney? He’s O negative and was born with three.” 7 bugs.

Title: Tower Heist is very descriptive, though I think calling the movie “Ben Stiller and Eddie Murphy are in this movie” would have sufficed. The Man Who Wasn’t There is the most intriguing title in the contest so far, no matter what the movie is about. (Point, Man Who Wasn’t There 1-0)

Funnier: Despite Tony Shalhoub and old school A&E Evening at the Improv stand-up comic Brian Haley, it’s tough to compete with Eddie Murphy and Ben Stiller alone, not to mention the supporting cast. (Point, Tower Heist 1-1)

Better Turn: I was still into The Man Who Wasn’t There at the turn, hoping it would get quicker and Thorton’s narration would stop putting me to sleep. James Gandolfini is murdered and Frances McDormand is blamed and doesn’t know her husband knows about the affair and it turns out she’s been cooking the books and anyway, it was better than Tower Heist. (Point, Man Who Wasn’t There 2-1)

Better Ending: Well, story wasn’t exactly Tower Heist’s strong suit. I can appreciate that Ben Stiller went to jail, but it can’t make up for the nonsense that happened before that. Especially the part with the damn car. (Point, Man Who Wasn’t There 3-1)

Better Message: Steal from the rich and give to the victims of poor investment strategies. It’s better than kill your wife’s lover, pin the murder on her and bankrupt yourself on the most expensive lawyer in the world. I guess. (Point, Tower Heist 3-2)

Better Acting: All star talent in both, for sure. Thornton couldn’t have looked more dejected if he were actually watching the movie. But I enjoyed seeing an Eddie Murphy I hadn’t seen since well before Dr. Doolittle and The Nutty Professor. (Point, Tower Heist 3-3)

More Creative: The most creative thing about Tower Heist was the gold being made into a car and hoisted out a window and put into an elevator shaft. And that was ridiculous. (Point, Man Who Wasn’t There 4-3)

Poster: Holy crap. The Man Who Wasn’t There is gonna win this thing. Sorry, Tower Heist. You should have had a better poster and/or title and/or plot. (Point, Man Who Wasn’t There 5-3)

Watch again: I would sooner stick dried cat shit in my eye than watch The Man Who Wasn’t There again. (Point, Tower Heist 5-4)

Overall: Well, it’s about time for a real upset. And 3 bugs is pretty substantial. Congrats, Coen Brothers. Apparently, this contest is catered towards your dark, noiry flicks. Winner: The Man Who Wasn’t There (5-4)

Double Feature Duel: Definitely, Maybe vs. Brothers Grimm

2011-12-08T23:25:00.000-05:00

Double Feature Duel:
Definitely, Maybe vs. Brothers Grimm

Bout #20: A romantic comedy with my new favorite actor and actress vs. a movie I accidentally got because I thought I was putting Brothers Bloom on my Netflix queue.

Definitely, Maybe: Ryan Reynolds is half of a divorced couple who is guilted into telling Abigail Breslin, his middle school daughter, about how he met his mother – sans the Bob Saget voiceover. In an above averagely clever twist, he disguises the names of the three main women in the story so his daughter doesn’t know which one is her mother. One of the women is Rachel Weisz, hot off Brothers Bloom – at least in my world of viewing movies. Romantic comedy, romantic comedy, romantic comedy… the end. 7 bugs.

Brothers Grimm: It’s a dark fairy tale that thought it was a lot funnier than it actually turned out to be. It had surprisingly bad special effects and expected the audience to care about this undeveloped love story. I was unfooled and unmoved and struggled to stay awake to the end, which was not the payoff I was hoping for either. 2 bugs.

Title: Not a lot of movies have commas in the title. Oh Brother, Where Art Thou and Sex, Lies and Videotape are the first that come to mind. It’s a very underutilized punctuation symbol. It gave proper pause to those that had the patience to read it that way you’re supposed to read a comma. (Point, Definitely 1-0)

Funnier: You know how sometimes a comedian tells a punchline so unfunny, he has to indicate it was a punchline that to the audience with a vocal inflection, a raise of the eyebrows and a little lean forward because even though the joke wasn’t funny, he can trick some of the audience members into laughing because they’ve been conditioned to do so? Well, Brothers Grimm desperately tried to do this with cutaways and music. It fell just short of including a rim shot. And I was not tricked. (Point, Definitely, Maybe 2-0)

Better Turn: However weak and confusing the story actually was, the plot point in which the con men run into actual paranormal activity they have to deal with is enough to win this point, as it is difficult to figure out exactly which rejection/reintroduction of which woman constitutes the turn in the romantic comedy. (Point, Brothers 2-1)

Better Ending: If you could stay awake to find out what the ending of Brothers Grimm was, congratulations. (Point, Definitely 3-1)

Better Message: It’s a romantic comedy that actually has a divorced couple that gets along as a divorced couple. That in and of itself is a refreshing part of the movie that makes it more real than most. (Point, Definitely 4-1)

Better Acting: I don’t think Matt or Heath are winning any Oscars for this. And when you’re going up against the guy from Two Guys, a Girl and a Pizza Place, what do you expect? (Point, Definitely 5-1)

More Creative: Brothers Grimm was creative in a way that Jackson Pollack was – which is to say that it wasn’t. Sorry, art students who have to pretend you understand stuff you don’t, but it’s just paint splattered haphazardly on a canvas. And now I’m not talking about Pollack. (Point, Definitely 6-1)

Poster: Both sell the type of movie they are very well. Definitely, Maybe is bright with happy people, the three women are looking at Ryan Reynolds with Abigail on his shoulders, while Heath and Matt are staring intriguingly at the camera surrounded by dark shades of brown with a crystal ball sphere of some sort hanging around. I’ll give Brothers a point for the intriguing “Once Upon a Time” tagline. It doesn’t say too much and it’s not silly as all hell. (Point, Brothers Grimm 6-2)

Watch again: I accidentally got Brothers Grimm this time. Turns out I had already seen it but I barely remembered it because I likely fell asleep the first time too. I may rent it again if I ever get really bad insomnia. (Point, Definitely 7-2)

Overall: Not that I didn’t see Brothers Grimm losing to any other movie, but I’m looking forward to seeing if a straight up romantic comedy can make some waves in the Oxford Quadrant. Winner: Definitely, Maybe (7-2)

Double Feature Duel: The Brothers Bloom vs. Planet of the Apes (2001)

2011-12-08T11:41:00.000-05:00

Double Feature Duel:
The Brothers Bloom vs. Planet of the Apes(2001)

Bout #19: A movie that Annie made mewatch vs. Tim Burton’s bastardization of a franchise I’m kind of tired ofwatching. Any predictions?

The Brothers Bloom: Quirky, different, funny –everything I want from a Dirty Scoundrels remake. No, the entirety of the storydidn’t add up completely, but I really like the characters, especiallyeverybody except Adrian Brody, strangely. 7 bugs.

Planet of the Apes (2001): Boy did Tim Burton drivethis into the ground. My guess is he just wanted to have a reason to make abunch of slightly more ape-looking apes than the 1968 version jumping around.And he wanted it to be darker. But he didn’t necessarily want the dialogue or plotto make any sense. But it was still less painful than most of the originalsequels. 3 bugs

Title: Yeah, I know. It’s a freakinsequel. But y could have done something. (Point, Brothers Bloom 1-0)

Funnier: I believe the first line inPOTA 2001 was a mockery of the “Take your stinky paws off me, you damn dirty ape.”And it went over like grape juice in David’s Bridal. (Point, Brothers Bloom2-0)

Better Turn: Well, the Brothers Bloomwas full of turns, much in the style of Maverick. POTA started turning with theopening credits. Mark Wahlberg established a relationship with a chimp, went onan unsanctioned mission, got shot through a wormhole in space, crash-landed on“some strange planet” and got captured by the apes all before I even put theDVD in. But in the con game style of movie, we enjoy the constant turns, muchlike the teacup. Because we know they’re coming, but we don’t know when orwhich way. (Point, Brothers Bloom 3-0)

Better Ending: The ape version ofLincoln is Burton’s way of coming up with an ending as shocking as theoriginal. He could have also had a huge race of apple-headed people for thesame effect. (Point, Brothers Bloom 4-0)

Better Message: I really don’t feellike thinking too hard about this category and I know the stupid POTA movie isgoing to lose so I invoke the I’m Tiredand Moving Things Along clause. (Point, POTA 4-1)

Better Acting: I take back what I saidearlier. Paul Giamatti made for a rather comical ape and a bright spot in thisfilm, possibly the only reason to ever watch it again. However, I fell in lovewith Rachel Weisz in this movie. And I fell in like very much with MarkRuffalo. Rachel really played her quirky millionaire who “collects hobbies” toperfection. I have already started putting more of her movies on my Netflixqueue and that’s usually a good sign. And poor Paul Giamatti has lost thiscategory all three times he’s appeared since this started (The Illusionist,Storytelling). In fact, he’s lost all three duels. Hmm. I’m gonna have to watchSideways again. (Point, Brothers Bloom 5-1)

More Creative: I guess there’ssomething to be said for random being creative. Kinda in the same way JacksonPollack was creative. But Pollack happens to be the butt of my jokes for goodreason, so any comparison to his creativity is not a compliment. (Point, Brothers Bloom 6-1)

Poster: Well, I like how they stayedtrue to the font of the old movie. And I kinda like the ominousity of the POTAposter. And I know it already lost so I’m not spending much time thinking aboutexactly which one I absolutely completely and without a doubt like better. (Point, POTA 6-2)

Watch again: No question. I’m invokingthe I’m Tired and Moving Things Alongclause again. (Point, Brothers Bloom 7-2)

Overall: I don’t think I gave the POTAa chance at all based on the stupid, stupid ending that is stuck in my head. Ialmost forgot completely about Paul Giamatti. But that should show you how badit was. The right movie won. Winner: Brothers Bloom (7-2)

Double Feature Duel: Battle for the Planet of the Apes vs. The Weight of Water

2011-12-07T23:25:00.002-05:00

Double Feature Duel:
Battle for the Planet of the Apes vs. The Weight of Water

Bout #18: The last in a series of movies I am almost obligated to finish vs. the best looking of the 6 DVDs at my father-in-law’s house in Texas. The other 5 have got to have been better.

Battle for the Planet of the Apes: Maybe they made this for the money, maybe they did it to wrap things up, like Lost’s final episode. I don’t know. It was 38 years ago. But the result is a movie that tries desperately to tie together 2 distinctly different versions of how the apes came to power. The first and second movies of the series seem to suggest it was a nuclear war. The third and fourth tell us it was an ape from the future that led a rebellion? Oops! This last film has the daunting task of trying to put together pieces of a puzzle that don’t fit. And they did not do as good a job as Lost did. And that’s a TV show. 3 bugs

The Weight of Water: What the hell did I just watch? Why was this movie made? It’s a fake reporter reporting on an old fake crime that nobody in the first fake part of the movie cares about either. Which is obviously how I feel about that original fake and the fake fake part. 0.5 bugs.

Title: By far, the title was the strongest part of this fake movie. It went downhill and spiraling off a cliff from there. (Point, Weight of Water 0-1)

Funnier: Ugh. I can’t remember a single laugh line from either right now. I’ll base this point on the least painful. (Point, Battle 1-1)

Better Turn: I’m still trying to figure out what the hell happened in Weight of Water. When was I supposed to start caring about anybody or anything that happened? (Point, Battle 2-1)

Better Ending: The goal of Battle was to bring things full circle back to the original of the series. The goal of Weight of Water was just to be done. (Point, Battle 3-1)

Better Message: Good grief. The takeaway from Weight of Water is that if you’re going to have a shitty movie, put a naked breast in it and come up with a decent title and maybe you can make half the money you spent on Sean Penn back. Battle tried to have the good apes and the evil mutant humans and the evil war apes who oppressed the good humans and killed one of the good apes – which is definitely wrong, but then the good apes used the evil war apes to defend themselves from the evil mutant humans, so it turns out it was good to have the evil war apes after all. I don’t even think they knew what they were doing toward the end. (Point, Weight of Water 3-2)

Better Acting: Possibly a bright spot in this otherwise lousy movie. But I guess it’s easy to act depressed when you know you’re making a shitty movie. And I always err on the side of not being in a plastic ape costume. (Point, Weight of Water 3-3)

More Creative: I guess I’ll give it to Battle, for having its back up against a wall with its mission anyway. I don’t know if it successfully put together all the pieces from the different puzzles, but it at least took its mission seriously. I guess. (Point, Battle 4-3)

Poster: Weight of Water has 5 pictures on the front cover. The big one is of Sean Penn. Two are of boats on water, one is a chick in a bikini and another is of two chicks lying naked in bed together. At least the film knows its selling points. (Point, Weight of Water 4-4)

Watch again: I can’t believe this ridiculous movie made it this far. But I guess it’s not exactly up against The Nines. Here’s hoping I never have to see Weight of Water or really either movie again. (Point, Battle 5-4)

Overall: Everyone’s a winner in the Special Olympics. Not here. Winner: Battle of the Planet of the Apes (5-4)

Double Feature Duel: Rise of the Planet of the Apes vs. 12:01

2011-12-06T23:25:00.001-05:00

Double Feature Duel:
Rise of the Planet of the Apes vs. 12:01

Bout #17: Jenn was out of town (Afghanistan – so WAY out of town), so I took advantage and went to the movies with Matt to see the new Planet of the Apes. It was awesome. Then I rented an old, cheesy 80s flick recommended based on my appreciation for Source Code. It didn’t suck.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes: I already spoke at length about the awesomeness of this equal (see my review). 10 bugs

12:01: Groundhog Day meets Can’t Buy Me Love. Some cheesy 80s actor wakes up on the same day over and over – only its scientifically explained – and tries to save some cheesy 80s actress. And it works and they kiss in a very inappropriate place at the end. But it didn’t hurt anybody. 6 bugs.

Title: Boxed in by the formula. Sorry ROTPOTA. Besides, 12:01 is pretty clever anyway. It gets your movie in alphabetical order in a lot of crap (Point, 12:01 0-1)

Funnier: I was visiting Jenn’s family down in Texas and her nephew daddy asked if I had seen the new Planet of the Apes movie. I was excited. Finally, I was going to have a legitimate conversation with him about something I liked! I blabbed on about the impressive storyline and the homage to the original series. He retorted with “I didn’t like it. It wasn’t that funny.” And then we talked about football. (Point, 12:01 0-2)

Better Turn: After living in the Ape Imporium for a while, James Franco finally bribed the right guy to get Caesar back out. Then Caesar shut the door on him. Bad ass. (Point, Rise of POTA 1-2)

Better Ending: Picture the most cheesy ending of a Moonlighting episode ever. Well, 12:01 started with that and added some more soft lighting. (Point, Rise of POTA 2-2)

Better Message: Though mostly for entertainment purposes, Rise of POTA brought up some legitimate points in relation to testing drugs on animals. If you’re going to do it, make sure it doesn’t make them smarter than us. (Point, Rise of POTA 3-2)

Better Acting: What percentage of a character needs to be human for it to be nominated for an Oscar? 50? 65? Because I’d like to see Andy Serkis get nominated for his role as an ape. (Point, Rise of POTA 4-2)

More Creative: Rise of POTA would probably win this in a landslide on another day. But 12:01 gave it a run for its money. Actually, nevermind that. (Point, Rise of POTA 5-2)

Poster: It basically stole the Quantum Leap light motion lines and the clock from Groundhog Day. Not to mention the plot. (Point, Rise of POTA 6-2)

Watch again: I will try super hard to get Jenn to watch Rise of POTA as soon as I can. Either way, I do not have the same drive for 12:01. (Point, Rise of POTA 7-2)

Overall: Bad ass meets clever meets awesome effects meets touching. I am pleasantly surprised by this remake. Thankfully, Tim Burton looks to be done with the series. Winner: Rise of POTA (7-2)

Double Feature Duel: The First 32

2011-12-05T02:02:00.002-05:00

Double Feature Duel:

The First 32

And so it is written. The first 32 movies have been watched, rated and battled and 30 have gone the way of the Harry Potter franchise, and that’s to say that it’s over. Congrats to Big Fish and The Nines who shocked no one – or at least no one who wasn’t shocked by the ending of Transformers – and made it through to the Final Four. Once the second half of the bracket has been whittled down to the other two Final Four teams, I’m going to watch all four movies again and determine an overall winner of this silly little game. And then I’ll hopefully turn my sites to more productive endeavors. Like logging all of my cassette tapes into an excel file.

A few things of note from the first 32 movies of the tournament:

Upset: Body of Lies (7) making it to the Sweet 16 with two upset victories over The Pixar Story (7.5) and Bridesmaids (8.5)

Franchise: I got into the Planet of the Apes movies in preparation for the new movie and 4 are represented in the Baltimore Quadrant, all from the original 60s and 70s series. They went 3-3 and had an average of 4.5 bug rating. The original with Charlton Heston made it to the Sweet 16.

Documentaries: Documentaries and movies based on real life events are going to have a tough time with these categories. They went 2-4 with An Inconvenient Truth and The Cove getting to second round.

The Baltimore Quadrant (17-32)

The Philadelphia Quadrant (1-16)

Also, you’ll note the names of the brackets go in order of where I lived. In case you were dumb or don’t know who I am. In which case, why the hell are you reading this? And thanks. Tell all your friends.

Quick Inside Slant: Week Twelve:

2011-12-04T02:54:00.002-05:00

Quick Inside Slant:

by Dustin Fisher
Impressions of the 2011 NFL season as perceived by a Creative Writing grad student, part-time amateur stand-up comedian and collegiate intramural flag football legend (all same person).

Week Twelve:

Well, the Eagles season is all but officially over. I really enjoyed the scenarios they spit at us on Thursday night about how if we win out and the Giants beat the Cowboys twice and lose two of their other three games that we could get into the playoffs. Right before we proceeded to get our ass beat by the third NFC West team this year. It’s fitting that the guy who coined the term “Dream Team” was forced to eat those words on national television himself with his four picks. But I don’t blame him nearly as much for the loss as DeSean Jackson. He mistimed his catch on two balls in the end zone against the Patriots. He tried to wait until he had a contract to secure the ball.

Seriously, what a quitter. I can’t wait to not have to root for him anymore. During the Seahawks game, he ran his routes downfield and rarely even looked back to Vince for the ball. I can understand if you’re not gonna block for your running back. That has more to do with being a coward than a quitter. But now he’s not even looking for the ball. I hope he goes the way of Eric Lindross and T.O. and we just sit him there to rot for the rest of the season. Then he can be someone else’s cancer. But his little pouty face and bullshit attitude will likely cost him millions of dollars in the long run. And that is what I tell myself to sleep at night.

In other news, there is finally a white cornerback in the league for the first time since Jason Sehorn. And he’s actually a college quarterback turned wide receiver. His name is Julian Edelman and of course he plays for Bill Belichick. Because he has the ability to take unknown players and put them into the right position to help his football team be the dominant team it has been for the last decade. Which is the opposite of what the Eagles do.

Bullshit Call of the Week: I don’t watch a lot of European soccer because I have respect for myself. But what Jerome Simpson from the Bengals did last week against the Browns was Vlade Divac ridiculous. Professional wrestlers were taking notes. John Kerry called him afterwards to congratulate him. Then he rescinded his compliment. The ref did exactly what you’re taught not to do and, having only seen a small part of what happened, filled in the rest of the information in his head, thus rewarding Simpson for his Jack Nicholson class acting job. And the NFL didn’t fine him at all. That’s even more bullshitier than the ref’s original call.

Bullshit GM Move of the Week: Let’s say I invite you to make me dinner. You have a favorite spatula that you’re comfortable with so you bring it. I don’t let you in the door until 10 minutes before the guests arrive. Then I take your spatula and throw it out the window. Instead, I hand you a spork with two missing prongs and a car tire. Then I tell all my guests that our shitty dinner is your fault. Who are we? Yes, you’re Jack Del Rio and I’m Wayne Weaver. And Luke McCown is the car tire.

Teammates of the Week: I saw a highlight that showed Devin Hester back to return a punt and figured I would hear the familiar chalkboard-like shrieks of “Why does anybody punt to him” by the formulaic talking heads on SportsCenter. Instead, I saw a punt travel 80 yards IN THE AIR! Holy crap. And no, nobody was able to down it, so it only netted 60 yards. This came on the same day that Janikowski kicked 6 field goals to beat the Bears. Make fun of kickers if you want, but there’s a reason they have them in the game. And there’s a reason they’re the only two players left over from their 2003 AFC champion team.

Karmic Play of the Week: Steve Johnson caught a touchdown pass and mocked Plaxico Burress by pretending to shoot himself in his literal leg. Then he shot himself in the metaphoric foot later, costing his team the game. Karma is a pretend gun, Stevie.

Double Feature Duel (Rd4): The Nines vs. Source Code

2011-12-02T11:29:00.002-05:00

Double Feature Duel (Rd4):
The Nines vs. Source Code

10 vs. 10. A first in the very short history of the Double Feature Duel. And since the winner of this will get to square off against Big Fish, it won’t be the last. So will it be the existential romp through multiple worlds that raises questions about consciousness and creation? Or the other existential romp through multiple worlds that raises questions about consciousness and creation? If I were a betting man, I’d say it was going to be the existential romp through (do ya get it, yet?)…

Title: This is my fourth critique for each of these movies and I’m just now beginning to figure out that the title of Source Code has very little to actually do with the movie. Besides, I love the abstruseness of “The Nines.” And I’m tired of writing the word “ambiguity.” (Point, The Nines 1-0)

Funnier: You could pretty much just flip a coin here. But I don’t know why you would do that. The Nines is easily the funnier flick. (Point, The Nines 2-0)

Better Turn: The Nines has a very complicated turn. Like a string theory-type of turn that changed directions into another dimension. Or like starting over in MegaMan 2. Either way, I’m taking the more proper, yet still dramatic turn from the other guy. (Point, Source Code 2-1)

Better Ending: Hoo-ah! The first real challenge. Both were super strong and very geeky. Both wind up posing some very interesting questions about reality, though the complexity that Source Code conveys with such clarity is, shall I say, quite neat. (Point, Source Code 2-2)

Better Message: I can’t say enough about the questions that The Nines posed, which I understand are not necessarily a “message” per se. But Source Code was out at the bar when the message competition took place. (Point, The Nines 3-2)

Better Acting: Yes, I know Jake was nominated for an Oscar, but he didn’t get to play 3 different characters in his movie. (Point, The Nines 4-2)

Poster: Once again, I hate the gun and the tagline from Source Code. But The Nines went a little too far toward “Shhh! Don’t let anyone know what this movie is about. Or that it exists.” Which is why I didn’t know it existed until the morning I saw it. (Point, Source Code 4-3)

More Creative: In previous rounds, I have said it would take a miracle to lose this category about both movies. I guess this is a miracle then. And I’m going to have to go with Source Code here just because I fear that I’ve been giving a little too much credit to The Nines for the parts I don’t fully understand. (Point, Source Code 4-4)

Watch again: This is kinda tough because I really want to see them both again. But it’s also not really tough at all, because I don’t think there’s a movie out there that I want to see again more than The Nines right now. At least not one where the women keep their clothes on the whole time. (Point, The Nines 5-4)

Overall: And so The Nines wins the battle of the tens. I guess it was slightly tennier than Source Code. Congrats. Now onto the Cincinnati Quadrant. Winner: The Nines (5-4)

Double Feature Duel (Rd3): Adjustment Bureau vs. Source Code

2011-12-01T03:41:00.004-05:00

Double Feature Duel (Rd3):
Adjustment Bureau vs. Source Code

The best application of quantum physics in a movie not explicitly about quantum physics against a 6-bug movie who played in a bracket with a 5.5-bug movie, a 3-bug movie and a 1-bug movie. I have a favorite.

Title: OK. First challenge. I like it. Both are a geeky indication of things to come. But Adjustment Bureau threw off the scent, as it could have easily been another courtroom thriller. As evidenced by the fact that I thought it was. (Point, Adjustment 1-0)

Funnier: The Russell Peters cameo isn’t going to reach that far. (Point, Adjustment Bureau 2-0)

Better Turn: I loved the turn in Source Code. It gave the movie the awesome purpose that we’d see over the next hour. But it didn’t make my eyes bulge and my jaw drop. Score one for me not seeing it coming. (Point, Adjustment 3-0)

Better Ending: Whoa! Look who jumped out to an early lead! Kinda like the actual movie before it shot itself in the foot. (Point, Source Code 3-1)

Better Message: Neither really sets out to change the world, but I’m taking away points from Adjustment Bureau for the saccharin-laced pixie stick it forced down my throat at the end. (Point, Source Code 3-2)

Better Acting: I’m trying to figure out a marquee moment in either film and the only one I’m coming up with is the bathroom scene in Adjustment Bureau. So I guess that wins it. Wow. (Point, Adjustment 4-2)

More Creative: I’ll certainly give a nod to Adjustment Bureau for competing. Most movies would get lapped by Source Code in this category. (Point, Source Code4-3)

Poster: After competing against two movies from 40 years ago, Adjustment Bureau isn’t getting the same escape clause here. And it’s a shame that they opted not to compete in this category, because it could have earned this underdog an accidental trip to the Elite Eight. (Point, Source Code 4-4)

Watch again: And it’s over. I may actually watch Source Code and The Nines again before I write the next MvM because I like them both that much. Not the case with Adjustment Bureau, the last 20 minutes of which I wish I could unsee from the first go around. (Point, Source Code 4-5)

Overall: Well, Source Code was never ahead and that was kinda scary. But it survived. And now for the first ever matchup of two 10-bug movies. I know I’m excited. Winner: Source Code (5-4)

Double Feature Duel (Rd3): Planet of the Apes vs. The Nines

2011-11-30T16:15:00.002-05:00

Double Feature Duel (Rd3):
Planet of the Apes vs. The Nines

Wow. A movie from the 60s actually got to the Elite Eight. Congratulations! I hope you didn’t pay for your hotel room tonight already.

Title: The Nines is ambiguous. I like ambiguous. Planet of the Apes is actually clever enough to throw you off of the scent. It is the first strike in a film designed to show you the left hand the entire time, while the right hand is poking you in the brain. In a good way. (Point, POTA 1-0)

Funnier: The dialogue in the middle vignette was positively delightful and Ryan Reynolds can now make me laugh by simply wearing worn-rimmed glasses. (Point, The Nines 1-1)

Better Turn: Huh. The Nines was split into three vignettes, which doesn’t usually lend itself well to turns. However, this wasn’t an average vignette-type of movie. Can you tell I like the word “vignette” yet? (Point, The Nines 1-2)

Better Ending: Not much is going to top the classic. I only wish I was around in 1968 to see it for myself. And only for that reason. Maybe to catch Hendrix in concert once, but then to hop immediately back in the Delorean. (Point, POTA 2-2)

Better Message: I’m struggling for the first time with the word “message.” Because The Nines’ strongest feature is the question it poses about creation. But is that really a message in the same way that “Don’t f@$# with nuclear weapons” is? I guess it kinda isn’t. (Point, POTA 3-2)

Better Acting: Uh-oh. Upset alert! Oh. But then there’s a category where I have to judge the acting ability of humans in fake, plastic ape masks. (Point, The Nines 3-3)

More Creative: Whatever credit I couldn’t give to The Nines for the message that wasn’t necessarily a message in the truest sense of the word, I will give here. Because it deserves the creativity points anyway, just in case my grading rubric is getting audited. (Point, The Nines 3-4)

Poster: I think this is a point that is going to a movie just because it isn’t from the 60s. Oh well. Audit that, stupid nameless auditors! (Point, The Nines 3-5)

Watch again: I may watch The Nines again even before I write up the last MvM. I should have watched it again the day I watched it the first time. Point is, it will get watched again.(Point, The Nines 3-6)

Overall: A surprising showing by POTA to be honest. I’m glad the 60s could be represented in the Elite Eight. But let’s get real, playa. Winner, The Nines (6-3)

Double Feature Duel (Rd2): Source Code vs. Traitor

2011-11-29T01:44:00.002-05:00

Double Feature Duel (Rd2):
Source Code vs. Traitor

A perfect 10 that came out of nowhere vs. a movie that was a 4 for 2/3rds and a 7 for the other third, thus making it half as good in total. Let’s see how the numbers fall.

Title: “Source Code” peaks your interest you without giving away a crucial plot twist. “Traitor” doesn’t. (Point, Source Code, 1-0)

Funnier: Russell Peters was in Source Code and told a joke. That’s enough. (Point, Source Code 2-0)

Better Turn: Remember that one party hat you went to where they said “keep going straight up the hill – it’s gonna turn into a dirt road and maybe gravel and you’re gonna think to yourself ‘I must have missed it already’ – keep going. Then you’re gonna want to turn, not at the next tree stump, but the one after that.” Well, that was Traitor’s turn. (Point, Source Code 3-0)

Better Ending: I do like endings which don’t reach happy little conclusions for our tormented protagonists. And I like scenes with Guy Pierce. But I also really like quantum physics applied into mainstream movies. (Point, Source Code 4-0)

Better Message: I’m not a huge fan of loyalty beyond reason. As Thomas Jefferson approximately maybe said “Patriotism is the belief that your country is the best because you were born in it.” But this guy seemed loyal to a cause that he believed in. Plus, Source Code wasn’t really all about messages. (Point, Traitor 4-1)

Better Acting: This is a tough one. Mostly because I haven’t seen the movies in about two months now. But there wasn’t much special from what I recall about Source Code. There was slightly less nothing special about Traitor, specifically Guy Pearce. (Point, Traitor 4-2)

More Creative: Um. Even Big Fish would lose this race to Source Code. (Point, Source Code 5-2)

Poster: These posters are actually quite similar. I still don’t like that Jake Gylenhall is carrying a gun. And I still think I came up with a better tagline than “Make every second count” in 20 seconds. But “The truth is complicated” is just as bad. No, worse. No, just as bad, but not worse. Both could be taglines for every movie ever made. Seriously, pick one. Titanic? Citizen Cane? Do the Right Thing? So in this case, I’ll give props to the whole world disintegrating into tiles thing that Source Code is doing. It adds to the geekiness. (Point, Source Code 6-2)

Watch again: Definitely Source Code. No need for extra words. (Point, Source Code 7-2)

Overall: A much more dominant Source Code victory. I still wish – for the sake of this contest only – that I had waited two movies to watch Moon. I wonder how it would have done in the Cincinnati Quadrant. Winner: Source Code (7-2)

Double Feature Duel (Rd2): Adjustment Bureau vs. Escape From the POTA

2011-11-28T10:00:00.002-05:00

Double Feature Duel (Rd2):
Adjustment Bureau vs. Escape From the Planet of the Apes

A creative movie with great dialogue and a horrible ending against one of the better movies in a series of bad films.

Title: It’s easy enough to spit out the company line about the length of the POTA title, which I already did in the first round. But Adjustment Bureau is too clever to go unnoticed. So… consider yourself noticed. (Point, Adjustment Bureau 1-0)

Funnier: I’ll give Escape its props, but the humorous dialogue from Adjustment Bureau drove the movie down its complex and windy path. (Point, Adjustment Bureau 2-0)

Better Turn: The turn in Adjustment Bureau made me turn my computer off and pay attention. And that’s hard to do, as I’m currently typing while watching another movie. (Point, Adjustment Bureau 3-0)

Better Ending: The Adjustment Bureau could have gone in a number of directions. Straight down off a Thelma & Louise size cliff is a direction. (Point, Escape 3-1)

Better Message: Escape kind of clocked us over the head with their message – almost more so than An Inconvenient Truth did, but it was still poignant. And Adjustment Bureau decided to concentrate on the swimsuit competition. (Point, Escape 3-2)

Better Acting: It’s tough to compare an Oscar-nominated actor with a plastic ape getting a truth serum. But I’ll try. (Point, Adjustment Bureau 4-2)

Poster: Neither of these is winning any awards. But Escape came out before graphic design was a profession. Adjustment Bureau has no excuse. (Point, Escape 4-3)

More Creative: Both are pretty out there in terms of creativity. Based on the parameters of “which would I least likely come up with on my own,” I’ll have to give the nod to apes that see their world destroyed in a nuclear war and go back 1000 into the past in a time machine. (Point, Escape 4-4)

Watch again: And in a deadlock at 4, I’m going to have to go with Adjustment Bureau hands down here. Sorry 1971, but even your good shit is kinda boring now. (Point, Adjustment Bureau 5-4)

Overall: A closer battle, but another POTA movie bites the dust at the hands of the Adjustment Bureau. Winner: Adjustment Bureau (5-4)

Quick Inside Slant: Week Eleven

2011-11-25T00:36:00.005-05:00

Quick Inside Slant:

by Dustin Fisher
Impressions of the 2011 NFL season as perceived by a Creative Writing grad student, part-time amateur stand-up comedian and collegiate intramural flag football legend (all same person).

Week Eleven:

Happy Thanksgiving! I hope you all had your fill of turkey and cranberry sauce, which I’m still unsure of how it fought its way into this tradition. And I hope you all saw the refs and/or the NFL show how biased they are toward the Packers. Honestly, I want them to go undefeated and shove the Superbowl game ball up the ass of Maurice Morris. But it was embarrassingly clear that either the NFL issued that same sentiment to the refs or this officiating crew took it in their own hands.

There was a nice hit on Matt Stafford by Clay Matthews just as the ball was being thrown. Cool. Good timing. Approximately the exact next possession, Kyle Vanden Bosch made the same exact hit on Aaron Rodgers and was flagged for roughing the passer. There was also a flag for “pass interference” on the same play for playing defense against an Aaron Rodgers-thrown pass on the same play. And I can’t be sure, but I think I saw someone in black and white stripes actually throw a block on a punt return.

And to eject Suh from the game for simply trying to rip someone’s head off and stomp on them like a dirty turdhole? That seems excessive. What the NFL should do is actually wait until he kills someone. Because I think that’s where this guy is headed. He truly doesn’t think he did anything wrong. Much like Hitler. And yes, now I’ve compared a defensive lineman to Hitler. He’s that much of a turdhole. I wonder if he knows that killing is wrong.

Bonehead Play of the Week: It’s late in the fourth quarter. Odds of Sand Diego coming back are not good. Philip Rivers is chased out of the pocket and decides to throw the ball away. Rather than waste all that energy throwing it out of bounds, he throws it to the open field. And he gets picked off. This is not his year. He can’t even figure out how to throw an incompletion.

Bullshit Call of the Week: I’m not a fan of taunting. Or DeSean Jackson. Or cranberry sauce. But I am a fan of proper officiating. After a crucial 55-yard pass play from the 5-yard line during which there was a defensive penalty, Jackson flipped the ball at some players on the Giants sideline and did that “Look at Me” nonsense that makes me wish we’d bench him for the rest of the season. He drew a taunting flag and the penalties offset and the Eagles had to replay the down from the 5. But because the taunting came after the play, it should have been dealt with separately, after the outcome of the play had been determined. I’m not bitching here about judgment calls, because refs have a hard job and they miss calls in the speed of a game. I understand. I’m bitching about the rule interpretation, which a team of 7 officials on the field, given time to set their footing over the calls made, absolutely need to get right. That said, DeSean Jackson is a little bitch and I’ve given up on the Eagles already, so I don’t mind it that much.

Fantasy Dud of the Week: Week 10 was an amazing time for John Skelton. It looked like he was the next Tom Brady, if Kevin Kolb was Drew Bledsoe. He came out with 32 fantasy points and a fourth quarter comeback against the Eagles (surprise, surprise). Week 11. The 49ers have been pretty good, but there was no stopping this guy, right? Wrong. 99 yards passing and 3 picks, no TDs. -2 points. And he played all game. Yikes.

Hard Luck Team of the Week: Well, the Colts have a bye, so I’ll leave them alone. Besides, they lost Peyton Manning. Everybody knows why they’re losing. But I have no idea why Miami only has 3 wins. Especially after their 35-8 drubbing of the once high-flying Bills. It’s like they’re not even trying to win the Andrew Luck sweepstakes anymore.