Review: The Queen

2006/PG-13/Drama

This movie supposedly chronicles the reactions and emotions that were present in the British government (specifically inside the Prime Minister's office and behind the Royal Family's closed doors) immediately following Princess Diana's death in 1997.

Had I known the plot synopsis prior to ordering this movie, I probably wouldn't have requested it. I, for one, never really understood the Diana worship that permeated both the US and the UK. And, while her death was tragic, it was the "love" of the public that encouraged the paparazzi to hound her which lead directly to her death.

My biggest difficulty with a film such as this as the viewer can be tempted to believe that what they are seeing is exactly what happened. This is the same complaint I have with movies like The Perfect Storm. We simply don't know what happened in the inner chambers of the palace. What we know is what they did and said publicly, the rest is speculation.

Having said that, I didn't particularly believe much of what was portrayed. Prince Charles was a wishy-washy momma's boy who was afraid to express his opinion and supposedly loved Diana very much. He basically spent the whole movie talking about what a great mother she was to her children. Way to be one-dimensional. As I mentioned in my Oscar's post, there is a new equation regarding what gets a little gold statue. While the Queen was a very layered character and mimicked to near perfection, her veiled dislike of the Princess (that translated into a dislike of her subjects who were mourning her passing) that was disguised in the utmost concern for her grandsons was difficult to believe.

The story began very slow. Once the conflict between the Prime Minister, the Queen, and the tabloids was fully established it proved to be too simple to carry the whole movie. The performances of Helen Mirren (Queen Elizabeth) and Michael Sheen (Tony Blair) definitely carried this character driven drama, but were not strong enough to overcome the lack of story.

The Princes were noticeably absent and the Prince Philip was noticeably obnoxious. Overall, the movie had some interesting things to say regarding the disconnect between a Monarch and her subjects, the Monarchy and it's government, and the mindsets of the Royal Family and the modern day governed. This film raises the question "Can a Monarchy survive in the twenty-first century?" and leaves it up to the audience to answer.

2 out of 5 stars

Sports Briefs

No, not athlete's underwear, short comments regarding the wide world of sports from your favorite blogger! (Actually, I'm writing them... but close enough)

Baseball: Bye Bye Barry! The San Francisco Giants are removing any and all references to their "beloved" "home run king" for the start of this season. His image is being removed from the left field wall (they can now bring the wall back to its original size, they had to make it larger to fit Barry's noggin on it), there are no references to "#756" (the home run that "broke" Hank Aaron's intact record), and the #25 (Bond's jersey) is not being displayed anywhere in the park. The team plans to put a plaque where home run 756 landed in the stands. I guess the team has figured they've milked the Bondimonium as much as they dare, what, with his perjury charges pending, and all.

Football: Speaking of Giants Each year, the winner of the Super Bowl opens the following season with a game to test their strength to see if they are the same team they were just six months earlier. Indianapolis faced off against New Orleans, the team that lost in the NFC Championship game to the Bears. When New England won, their first game was against arch rival Indianapolis. New England also had to face Pittsburgh to start a season following a Super Bowl victory. Tampa Bay played Philadelphia, the team that represented the NFC in the big game that year. Who have the football executives decided the New York Giants should face? Which of the NFL's Powerhouse teams must they square off against? Division rival and best-record-in-the-NFC Cowboys? Nope. AFC runner up Chargers? Wrong. Ok, how about NFC runner up: the Favre-less Packers? No. Ready? The dreaded 9-7 Washington Redskins! Third place in their division! At least they managed to steal a playoff spot from the Vikings who couldn't buy a win at the end of the season. The best part about it... the Giants will still lose.

NCAA Basketball: The Final Four (C) Yet another cultural colloquialism that is becoming more of an epitaph. It looks like the terms "March Madness" and "Final Four" have been copyrighted! Just like Super Bowl, Fenway Park, and "You're Fired" (though The Don failed at his bid to copyright the last one) if these terms are to be used in advertising or marketing of any kind, money must change hands. The Bracket that I filled out this year said "Hoops Hysteria" and another website said "Tourney Time." In fact, I have a jar next to my computer for every time I type Super Bowl, Final Four, or March Madness. Whoops, there goes another $75! Right now I'm in first place with the bracket competition at my former place of employment. However, as I foolishly chose Georgetown to win it all and Pitt to be in the Final Four, I think the best I can do is 3rd. (I did get all four of last nights games right, though.) My best shot at winning is for Wisconsin to beat UNC to go to the finals, play a UCLA team that beat Michigan State to get there, and for Wisconsin to win it all. Go Badgers!

Religion in Culture?

There have been a few stories that have cropped up in the news recently where religion has permeated the culture and those who follow the religion have made requests for companies and institutions to alter their policies to suit their belief system.

There have been two instances of note, both regarding female Muslims. The more widely reported situation is regarding the workout facility on Harvard's campus that is providing women-only gym times. They've honored a request from a Muslim student group so that the Muslim women can wear clothing that is more appropriate for working out and not feel uncomfortable due to the apparent immodesty of wearing workout clothes around men.

The second, and lesser known, complaint comes out of Britain. Female Muslim doctors are objecting to a more rigorous hand-washing standard. The new requirement is that they wash their hands and arms up to their elbows to prevent the spread of dangerous bacteria. Their view is that this is forcing them to be immodest because they should not be displaying their arms above their wrists. Some women at Birmingham University have said they would change careers rather than comply.

I have two different types of responses to these situations: Specific and broad.

Specific
In regards to the women-only gym time at Harvard, my initial response is to disagree. Even though it's only one gym that has instituted these hours, and even though the times are when the gym is least used, I still don't agree with the decision. It's sexist and there are other solutions. If the women as so concerned with modesty then buy a New Jersey jogging suit and work out with your head covering. Don't like working out with men? Join Curves. If a Christian group was uncomfortable working out with homosexuals, would the gym bend to their wishes? What if a "fat-guy" group wanted a non-women/non-athletic male workout time, would it be granted? What if a Muslim group requested a non-Jewish workout time, where does it end? Truthfully, this isn't really about religious freedom. If your religion requires certain actions that would forbid certain activities, don't try to get the activities changed so you can participate in them. If I'm a devote Catholic and I don't believe in eating meat on Friday, I'm not going to ask them to move the hot dog eating contest to Saturday and I'm not going to ask them to change it to a carrot eating contest. It's not other's responsibility to cater to my religious beliefs.

The issue in Britain is even worse. Ok, so the guys can workout in another gym or at another time, but these doctors are potentially putting their patients at risk because they don't want to expose their arms. Maybe they should have some women-only arm washing times. However, I fully respect those who have said that they would change professions rather than comply with the regulation. That is the correct course of action. If my work forced me to work Sunday morning, I'd find different work.

Broad
Now, having said all of that, here's the flip side: As a Christian, don't I make similar requests on my culture? Do I really believe that "It's not other's responsibility to cater to my religious beliefs." I vote Pro-Life, I support films that encourage family values and redemption, I patron establishments that are family friendly. Perhaps the difference is that my actions are all within the bounds of our current culture. I'm not asking culture to change. Rather, I'm changing myself to be counter-cultural (Something we're often encouraging our youth to do. It's no coincidence that our youth group is called "NonCon4mers"). Is it not more radical to for go some of life's "luxuries" because they conflict with your religion than to attempt to force the "luxuries" to cater to your religious convictions? Didn't Chariots of Fire teach us anything?

Well, there's my opinion, what's yours?

Beijing Boycott

Boycotting the Olympic Games has been a favorite way for countries to express their displeasure with the host nation. The US boycotted the Munich and Moscow games and Communist countries boycotted the LA Olympics in 1984 in retaliation.

Now a cry arises for all countries who believe in human rights to boycott the 2008 Beijing Games. This is due to the escalating violence in Tibet as those who are protesting for their freedom are being mistreated.

Why is an Olympic boycott seen as the solution? Truthfully, I can think of few actions that would be more unfair and less effective than an Olympic boycott. Here are amateur athletes who dedicate four years of their lives training, preparing, and dreaming for a chance to compete against the rest of the world on the biggest stage and their government decides that they can't go because they have a political beef with the host country.

Why not let the athletes decide? If they feel strongly about the situation, they can boycott individually. A better idea might be to find a way to display your feelings during the games. Remember Tommy Smith and John Carlos? The 1968 Olympians who silently lifted their black-gloved fists as a display of solidarity for the civil rights movement? What good would it have done them to have boycotted? How much louder would the athletes who find themselves on the medal podium be holding a "Free Tibet" sign, or displaying the "Free Tibet" emblem, than not competeing at all? I can't think of a better way to show the Chinese government and the world how you feel about the situation in Tibet. "Out of sight out of mind" if we boycott; "Front and center" if we don't.

Thankfully, the United States and the EU have agreed to attend. France showed some of their true colors by saying that it was an economic decision on their part. While that may be true for the other countries, at least they are trying to make it sound like the decision is on behalf of the athletes.

It's the right call. Don't punish the athletes to make a political point. China is punishing Tibet's citizens to make a point, isn't that exactly what we would be trying to stop if we did boycott? There you have it: Just my opinion.

(On a final, mostly off the subject, note: what if Saddam's final act was one of selflessness? Think about it: He kicks out the UN inspectors knowing that the US would invade. If they invade they'd have to rebuild the country. Reports are coming out that the Iraqi economy is much worse than we originally thought. Did Saddam sacrifice himself to trick the US into rebuilding his country? I doubt it, but it's fun to consider.)

2008's 1st baseball post

Baseball is almost in full swing (get it? "full swing?") and already many things are shaping the coming season. Beckett's back, Dice-K's debuting, Crisp could become a Cub...

But the biggest story is one that many of us may have missed. We don't often pay attention to which agents are representing which players. However, when the agent's name is Scott Boras, we sit up and take notice. Yes, one of Boston's fan favorites has switched agents. Manny Ramirez is now under the secretive umbrella of the Boras Bastion (Battalion?).

Why does this matter? Boras is viewed by players as the best agent in the game and viewed by owners as the most annoying to deal with. Which means that Boras equals Bad news for fans. If you think that baseball players make way too much money and that free agents are bought for much more than market value, you have Scott Boras to thank for much of that.

Most agents will inform the teams interested in a certain player what the going rate is. Not Scott, he makes sure that the GMs who want his players are completely in the dark about what other teams are offering. It's against the rules MLB for GMs to communicate regarding such things. Let us suppose both the Angels and the Astros both want Boras' free agent star pitcher. The Angels really want him, so they offer a higher than market value 4 year $20 million deal. Now, if the Astros knew this they could offer 5 years at $22.5 million. It's a longer contract, but less per year. Now the player has a difficult decision. However, because Scott doesn't let the Astros know what's already on the table, if they really want the pitcher they might offer 5 years $30 million because they feel they can't risk someone under bidding them. Sometimes, Scott has been known to swing a high price for a player that only has one team interested, because they just don't know who else might be making a play.

Good business? Yeah, for the player and his agent. For the fan? No. Scott thrives because there is no salary cap in baseball. (And don't try to tell me the luxury tax is prohibitive. If teams want to spend for a player, they'll pay the tax.) This is why teams with superstars that are on their second or third contracts have to charge $60 for bleacher seats, $35 to park, $9 for a beer, and $6.50 for a hotdog. We, as fans, pay the prices that Scott manages to negotiate for his players. We pay his 10%. We are the victims of his "good business."

Not only that, but he acts as a trainer for his players. Even has even been known to go so far as to request that a pitchers regular pitch count be lowered. No doubt, so that when he hits the free agent market, he isn't out there as damaged goods.

How can one man have so much power? Here are just a few of Scott's clients (and what they made as of opening day 2007 in millions of dollars):

A-Rod...................28
Manny Ramirez........17
Barry Bonds.............15
Carlos Beltran..........14
J D Drew................14
Andruw Jones..........14
Adrian Beltre...........13
Johnny Damon.........13
Magglio Ordonez.......13
Carlos Lee..............12
Pudge Rodriguez.......11
Jason Varitek...........11
Derek Lowe.............10
Greg Maddux...........10
Kevin Millwood.........10
Barry Zito...............10
Mark Teixeira..........9
Kenny Rogers...........8
Jarod Wasburn.........8
Jeff Weaver.............8
Daisuke Matsuzaka.....7
Eric Gagne...............6
Matt Holiday.............4
Xavier Nady..............2

Scott has 2 of the 4 highest paid players in the game. He controls 5 of the top 20 and 11 of the top 50.

Scott Boras is probably the most powerful man in baseball. If you want a superstar, chances are very good you'll need to go through him. And with Manny joining the ranks, they just got a little better.

And baseball just got a little worse.

Here is a very good, fairly unbiased article on Mr. Boras

Review: Shattered Glass

2003/PG-13/Drama

The true story of the boy who cried wolf, to the extreme. Shattered Glass tells the story of Steven Glass, a young New Republic "journalist" who fabricated at least part of (if not all of) 27 out of 41 articles that he wrote.

This film is remarkably compelling for a picture where 90% of the action takes place in the office for the magazine. Truth be told, it boarders on thriller as we watch the main character slowly drown in his own lies.

A modern Greek tragedy, we see the flaw in the character, we see how it destroyed his life (to a point) and hopefully remove it from our own. Not only that, but it allows us to have a brief glimpse into the mind of a pathological liar. We feel the betrayal of being lied to; We feel the disgust over the repetition of it; And yet, we sense the panic, we feel the walls closing in, and we get it. We understand Steven for a brief, disturbing moment.

The performances in this piece are fantastic (with one notable exception) which, with a movie that is nearly entirely interior, is completely necessary. Peter Sarsgaard won many well-deserved film festival awards for his work. Hank Azaria shows his range with a great non-comedic effort. Chloe Sevigny is both believable and empathetic as a heavily duped co-worker. Even Steve Zahn managed to create a non-zanny, realistic headhunter out for blood, but in a strangely likable way. Hayden Christensen, once again, manages to destroy a great role. Half hearted emotion and tired revisions of the same facial expressions harken back to the destruction of Anakin Skywalker. What Hayden needs to do is lose his quirky annoying manner of speaking. Oh yes, and take some acting lessons.

Another requirement of a character driven film is the music. Too big and the movie is trying to be something it's not; too small and it becomes too documentary-esque. This film got it just right.

The cinematography was astonishing considering the confines and repetition of the sets and all this proves a great debut for director Billy Ray. Amazingly, it avoids the feel of the two-headed monster, biggest first-director flaw "written and directed by." I've probably allowed him to slip by this distinction due to the brilliance, poignancy, and vision of the last few shots of the movie. To say more would remove the need for any readers to view the movie. However, while Billy Ray was able to prevent this movie from feeling like a "W&DB," it still could have been better if he'd handed his baby off to another director.

As this story was experienced by reporters, it is very well documented and much of the screenplay is verbatim from recorded conversations, notes from reporters, and articles from the time of the narrative.

Something is holding this movie back from being a great film. It could be the simplicity of the story-line, the phenomenally poor performance by the title character, or perhaps some intangible "W&DB" flaws that lie just below the surface. Whatever the reason, this film (while compelling, interesting, and true) only warrants:

3.5 out of 5 stars.

Review: Shopgirl

2005/R/Romance

The Q of H once suggested for one of our long car rides that it might be fun to listen to a book on tape [or rather CD... look, I'm dating myself (which is a rather funny phrase by itself... I digress)]. Shopgirl was one of the books that we listened to and I was interested to see how the somewhat compelling story would translate onto film. The verdict? Not well.

Steve Martin wrote both the book and the screenplay, which means that the movie was very loyal to the story in the novella. However, because the book needed to be whittled down to fit in the confines of film, the motion picture was lacking when compared to the book.

Not fair to compare the movie to the book? Ok, I'll take the movie at face value. The question that kept ringing in my ears as I watching this movie was: Why tell this story? A lonely, twentysomething, girl from VT in LA searching for love, finally finding something that resembles it in the person of a 50 year old man, only to learn that it never was love. She has, on one hand, boy of her own age who is inept and broke; and on the other, a wealthy, divorced, older man who showers her with attention and gifts. She falls in love with the older man and eventually realizes that he doesn't, and never did, love her. During the course of their romance, the young man has become just that: a young man. He returns and they fall in love. Again... why was this story told?

The last line of the movie is regarding the older suitor and how he thought it strange that he felt a loss when she left him; especially seeing as he had done his best to keep her at arms distance. Reflecting on how he treated her the omniscient narrator states: "Only then does he realize that wanting part of her and not all of her had hurt them both and how he cannot justify his actions except that... well... it was life." It was life? Pphhhpht. That's almost as much of a cop-out as the incoherent whisper at the end of Lost in Translation. As though it was ok because it was life.

To go back to being unfair, the book has them remaining friends and assuming more of a father/daughter or uncle/niece relationship, something both of them lacked. The movie was unable to include this. Also, there was a secondary character who was devious and disliked in the book that Mr Martin tried to squeeze into the movie. The problem was that, while in the novella she definitely affected the plot, in the movie she was pointless and looked like an excuse to have a girl in lingerie.

Overall the movie was well shot and acted. There were some lines that even Steve Martin couldn't make work even though he wrote them. I wouldn't suggest cancelling anything to see this picture, but it isn't terrible either.

2 out of 5 stars.

Review: This Film Is Not Yet Rated

2006/Not rated (though would be NC-17 if it were)/Documentary

This film was marketed as a documentary that took a look at the Motion Picture Association of America's (MPAA) secretive rating system. It was supposed to be an expose, unveiling favoritism and inconsistency in the ratings given by the MPAA.

It was actually a whiny attack by a man who basically wants to see more sex in movies (allow more people under 18 to view it) and attempted to undermine the MPAA by slapping an undue "censor" moniker upon it.

I had just watched the G-rated "Chicken Little." This movie was, at that the very least, PG and had no business being viewed by "all audiences." This is what I was thinking when I read that Kirby Dick (Director) felt that there was favoritism in the rating system. Does Disney get a G rating because they asked for it while "The Simpson's Movie" gets stuck with a PG-13? Does one director get special treatment over another? These were the types of secrets I was hoping to discover.

Alas, what I got was an embittered man with an axe to grind upset that some movies receive the NC-17 rating while others get an R. His complaint was that it's primarily Indy films that get the NC-17, while studio pics get the R. Is this really a worthy discussion? Truth be told, I agreed with him in a round-about sort of way. One of his arguments was that sexually explicit movies get the NC-17 but really violent movies don't. His solution was to stop rating the quasi-porns as NC-17. Mine is to properly rate the violent movies.

He did have some good points regarding the rating system. Why is it so secretive? Why aren't there some common guidelines? Why is it, in the appeals process, you can't reference another picture that got a different rating but had similar or worse footage? Like him, I have no answer for these questions and think that they deserve a second look.

There was one part where he contradicted himself and lost nearly all of his credibility with me: He was partially campaigning for a set of standards and rules that filmmakers could follow so they could have a better idea of the rating they would receive. But at the same time, he was complaining about when the MPAA first started their regulations (this was before there was a rating system, they simply had hard and fast rules to which the studios had to adhere). So, on the one hand he wanted guidelines, and on the other when they existed, according to him, they were bad. I think he's forgotten that the time when the regulations were in place is referred to as the Golden Age of Hollywood because they put out so many great movies!

All in all, his contention that the MPAA rating system is censorship was completely baseless. Not only is it a voluntary rating but it's now en vogue to have the "unrated" version (which only means the MPAA raters didn't see the footage, it doesn't mean it's NC-17 material.) He managed to learn the identities of all of the "super secret" raters and the people who do the appeals process and they still weren't able to censor his movie.

My final thoughts: Don't bother wasting your time on this movie. I'm a little sorry that I did, but at least I can save some from making the same mistake.

1 out of 5 stars.

Oscar Reactions

Why do I still care? Supposedly, my life aspirations no longer include holding up the golden idol named after a former winner's uncle. I no longer want to answer the question "who are you wearing" (truth be told, when I admitted to wanting to be at least an Oscar nominee, I didn't want to answer that question then either...) So, why do I still care? I don't know, but I do...

What annoys me slightly more is that I have lost my Oscar ballot. I know that I got 15 correct, missing on some majors and hitting on some lucky guesses. I hit on the first 5 before I started missing on some of the latter categories.

I'm most upset because I timed the amount of time wasted by having the presenters walk to the podium after being introduced. I had documented the amount of time that we spent watching people walk. And it didn't even include the time taken for the winners to get from their seats to the stage! I was amazed at how much time could have been cut.

But alas, I have lost my ballot. I've lost my notes, my thoughts, my victories and my losses. I suppose this post was basically unnecessary, but I told everyone that it was coming.

One thing I've noticed as the Oscars mature, is that my old equation (white actor plays crazy/retarded actor = wins Oscar) has been replaced! There is a new equation in town and I think it's batting 1.000 since it's appearance a few years ago. It is (any actor portrays living or recently passed real person (still in the collective cultural conscience) = wins Oscar. Best actress this year (Vie en Rose), last year (The Queen), supporting actress (Reese Witherspoon as Johnny Cash's wife), Jamie Foxx (Ray), Phoenix was nominated for Walk the Line, Blanchet was nominated for Elizabeth. Peter's Entertainment was visionary when they tried to get Will Smith an Oscar for his portrayal of Ali, but they were a few years too early.

I'll conclude with the following thoughts: This Oscar had what will go down as a most memorable all time moment: After the commercial they had the girl who won the award for best original song for Once come back out so she could say her piece, and it wasn't a litany of thank yous. She actually had something intelligent to say. Juno was the over-hyped movie of the year. And how could I have picked against Daniel Day Lewis?

Oh well, maybe I won't care as much next year. hopefully.

Let's Talk Film

This is quite the momentous announcement! Our good friends in Japan have given us a fantastic Annibirthmas gift: A year of Netflix!

Now that we have unlimited access to all the movies we could ever want to see there will be far more movie reviews appearing on this blog.

Here's where you come in: I've often had people say to me, "Hey, what did you think of this movie?" Or "Oh, there was a movie I was hoping you'd seen so we could discuss it, but now I forgot what it was!" And even the occasional, "Could you explain this movie to me..."

This post will be a permanent link for you to recommend movies to us. Movies that you think that we will enjoy. Movies you want to hear my thoughts on. Movies that made you go "huh?!"

Start recommending and I'll start reviewing!

(Seriously, I am so excited!)