2008/PG-13/Drama
21 is the exciting story of six MIT students who live the life many of us wish we could experience: They lead common and, to most, mundane lives during the week, and on the weekends they fly off to Vegas where they fleece the casinos for hundreds of thousands of dollars by playing Blackjack. How do they do it? Their brilliant MIT professor has a practically fool-proof way of counting cards. While this is not illegal, it is very discouraged in Vegas. So much so that if you are caught, you might be counting your teeth at the end of the night to see how many you still have.
While it sounds like something only a seasoned screenwriter could concoct, this film is based on real life. I saw the documentary a few years ago and the movie is surprisingly true to the actual events. Of course, they took some dramatic liberties in an effort to make the conclusion more exciting and, unfortunately, more "American."
You see, we seem to have trouble ingesting a story where the hero doesn't end up on top in the end. And because of that, 21 becomes yet another time when Hollywood falls short of actually saying something meaningful.
We can trace theater's roots back to ancient Greece where the art form was even more part of the culture than movies are today. Theater for the Greeks was an avenue to self-betterment, it was the ancient "self help" section. Their heroes had some tragic flaw that nearly always lead to their demise (hence "Greek Tragedy"). The audience was expected to recognize the flaw and purge it from themselves. Theater was a type of catharsis.
Several times in the past few years, Hollywood has had golden opportunities to follow in the footsteps of their Greek forefathers. And every time they have succumbed to the whims of the "movies-are-only-for-entertainment" Americans and ignored the lesson that ought to be learned from the very story they have told.
The main character's greed drives him to the point where he loses everything. Truth be told, up until the final 2 minutes of the film, I thought that the makers of 21 were finally going to allow their viewers to fully experience a Greek Tragedy. What looked like certain success was going to end in complete failure because of his greed. But no, they wave a little magic wand and rescue him causing him to end the movie rich and me to leave the theater disappointed, yet again.
The technical side of the movie was very good. All of the performances were enjoyable with one notable exception (Aaron Yoo was unnecessary and never made his character very compelling). You can never go wrong with Kevin Spacey who plays the very intense "I'm-your-friend-until-you-screw-up" MIT professor. Jim Sturgess morphs well between the weekday book worm and the weekend high roller. And you can't cast any better villain than Laurence Fishburne. Especially if it's a villain you want people to eventually like. Even the dramatic liberties were well thought out, with the exception of the very end of the film.
Just like The Perfect Storm, 21 forgoes making society better in favor of watering down the ending of their picture.
The ending was so disappointing that even though the rest of the movie was enjoyable, it still only warrants:
2 out of 5 stars
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
A New Curse Reversed?
When I first heard that a construction worker had buried a Red Sox jersey in the concrete beneath the visitors locker room in the new Yankee Stadium, I thought it was a hoax. However, yesterday I saw footage of two workers jackhammering into the floor so that they might remove the jersey. The story was true. It appeared that an attempted "curse" was avoided. (Why the construction worker who planted the jersey blabbed, I'll never know. It would have been so much more interesting as an "Urban Legend" 5 years from now when the Yankees were wallowing in a perpetual 2nd place.)
In an unrelated story, David Ortiz has been mired in a terrible batting slump. Until yesterday he had gone 1 for his last 29 at bats and his average for the season was .070 (3 for 43)! Well below the Mendoza line.
But wait, are these two stories unrelated? When the jersey that had be exhumed from the floor of Yankee Stadium was displayed for the myriad of news cameras it turned out to be #34 David Ortiz. What happened the day after his jersey was freed from it's concrete prison? David Ortiz goes 2 for 5 and increases his batting average by 50%!
I think the construction worker ended up cursing the wrong party! I guess Hank was right when he said "it's never good to be in concrete in New York!" I'm thrilled that the Yankees did the dirty work in removing David's jersey so that he can be back on track for another MVP caliber season! Go Sox!
In an unrelated story, David Ortiz has been mired in a terrible batting slump. Until yesterday he had gone 1 for his last 29 at bats and his average for the season was .070 (3 for 43)! Well below the Mendoza line.
But wait, are these two stories unrelated? When the jersey that had be exhumed from the floor of Yankee Stadium was displayed for the myriad of news cameras it turned out to be #34 David Ortiz. What happened the day after his jersey was freed from it's concrete prison? David Ortiz goes 2 for 5 and increases his batting average by 50%!
I think the construction worker ended up cursing the wrong party! I guess Hank was right when he said "it's never good to be in concrete in New York!" I'm thrilled that the Yankees did the dirty work in removing David's jersey so that he can be back on track for another MVP caliber season! Go Sox!
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Touchy Subjects?
Inevitably, when some time has passed between posts, the one that finally breaks the silence has a few different topics on which I'd like to comment. In order to encourage my readers to finish, I think I'll arrange the subjects from least controversial to most.
The Olympics I'm having difficulty finding words that express how annoyed and saddened I am at the conduct of the protesters in regards to the Olympic Torch. I understand their anger at China. I get their desire to see change in Tibet. I can't even begin to comprehend what they are hoping to accomplish as they attack the torch bearer. Here is an athlete, usually from their home country, whose life accomplishments are being honored with the privilege of being selected to carry the Olympic Torch (A symbol of peace, sportsmanship, and international camaraderie) for a few miles and these hooligans are threatening the runner and trying to extinguish the torch. I'd say that the actions of the protesters warrant the dousing of the Olympic Torch. These people are in no way displaying a desire for peace, sportsmanship or international camaraderie. Basically, they are attacking their neighbor in the hopes of attracting the attention of the king. Foolish, pointless, ignorant.
Virginia Tech The state of Virginia has settled for $11 million with most of the families of those hurt or killed during the VT shooting. The settlement was designed to prevent a court battle aimed at determining "if anyone other than the shooter was to blame" for the tragedy of that day. Yes, the families are hurting but is the blame game going to ease that pain? The settlement (thankfully) isn't even $11 million per family, that's a total amount. Is the money going to soothe the wounds? What good does it do for the courts to decide that the school was partially responsible? Or the state? What about your loved one who took no action in the room while the shooter reloaded? If we are going to extend blame to the farthest reaches, let's be thorough. Let's have blame fall on the students who poked fun at him, to his parents who raised him wrong, the government that doesn't allow prayer in schools, the gun maker who manufactured the weapon, the desk maker whose product didn't stop the bullets, where does it end? The agreement is for a lump sum to the families of those who were killed and a promise to pay for all medical expenses for those who were injured. Some of the families have not agreed to the settlement and may still sue. Apparently a cut of $11 million isn't enough. Makes me sick.
What Liberal Media People who claim that there isn't a liberal bias in the news media like to point to Rupert Murdoch as their coup d'état. Apparently, Mr. Murdoch is known to be a staunch conservative and controls many of the parent companies who control what we hear, see, and read when it comes to the news. I thought I'd take a brief moment to list some of the projects that Mr. Murdoch (or his companies) have been involved in the the past few years:
Borat
Boy's Don't Cry
The Day After Tomorrow
Dirt
Family Guy
Fast Food Nation
Fern Gully
In Living Color
Kinsley
Kissing Jessica Stein
Married with Children
Nip/Tuck
Once Upon A Forest
The Shield
The Simpsons
and Thirteen
Looks to me like the only "right" Mr. Murdoch cares about is the "right" to make money. If his principles are so strong as to slant the news to the right, why would he allow these left leaning programs to be produced by his puppets? Just wondering.
The Olympics I'm having difficulty finding words that express how annoyed and saddened I am at the conduct of the protesters in regards to the Olympic Torch. I understand their anger at China. I get their desire to see change in Tibet. I can't even begin to comprehend what they are hoping to accomplish as they attack the torch bearer. Here is an athlete, usually from their home country, whose life accomplishments are being honored with the privilege of being selected to carry the Olympic Torch (A symbol of peace, sportsmanship, and international camaraderie) for a few miles and these hooligans are threatening the runner and trying to extinguish the torch. I'd say that the actions of the protesters warrant the dousing of the Olympic Torch. These people are in no way displaying a desire for peace, sportsmanship or international camaraderie. Basically, they are attacking their neighbor in the hopes of attracting the attention of the king. Foolish, pointless, ignorant.
Virginia Tech The state of Virginia has settled for $11 million with most of the families of those hurt or killed during the VT shooting. The settlement was designed to prevent a court battle aimed at determining "if anyone other than the shooter was to blame" for the tragedy of that day. Yes, the families are hurting but is the blame game going to ease that pain? The settlement (thankfully) isn't even $11 million per family, that's a total amount. Is the money going to soothe the wounds? What good does it do for the courts to decide that the school was partially responsible? Or the state? What about your loved one who took no action in the room while the shooter reloaded? If we are going to extend blame to the farthest reaches, let's be thorough. Let's have blame fall on the students who poked fun at him, to his parents who raised him wrong, the government that doesn't allow prayer in schools, the gun maker who manufactured the weapon, the desk maker whose product didn't stop the bullets, where does it end? The agreement is for a lump sum to the families of those who were killed and a promise to pay for all medical expenses for those who were injured. Some of the families have not agreed to the settlement and may still sue. Apparently a cut of $11 million isn't enough. Makes me sick.
What Liberal Media People who claim that there isn't a liberal bias in the news media like to point to Rupert Murdoch as their coup d'état. Apparently, Mr. Murdoch is known to be a staunch conservative and controls many of the parent companies who control what we hear, see, and read when it comes to the news. I thought I'd take a brief moment to list some of the projects that Mr. Murdoch (or his companies) have been involved in the the past few years:
Borat
Boy's Don't Cry
The Day After Tomorrow
Dirt
Family Guy
Fast Food Nation
Fern Gully
In Living Color
Kinsley
Kissing Jessica Stein
Married with Children
Nip/Tuck
Once Upon A Forest
The Shield
The Simpsons
and Thirteen
Looks to me like the only "right" Mr. Murdoch cares about is the "right" to make money. If his principles are so strong as to slant the news to the right, why would he allow these left leaning programs to be produced by his puppets? Just wondering.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Review: Stardust
2007/PG-13/Fantasy
A momentous occation! Here is the first of (hopefully) many reviews that have been requested by you, my faithful (and not so faithful) readers!
Let me start off by saying that I thoroughly enjoyed this film. The story was engaging and the twists on the "who-will-be-king" story were inventive, particularly the outcome for those that failed in their quest for the crown. It did have the advantage of being based on a book/graphic novel, but the story held up well even in the whittled-down, two-hour version.
Even though his Pre-Potter parallel worlds story borrowed from several movies that preceded it, it did so in a fashion that was more praise than plagerism. The most notable homage was to the classic Princess Bride. The captive who falls in love with her captor, the antaganist desires the girl's death, and the reluctant pirate. Another movie that was painfully parroted in regards to the main message of the film was The 5th Element. Yvaine (Claire Danes), a fallen star, mentions how watching Earth with all of it's hate, wars, and mistreatment, would be unbearable if not for love. This is the same arguement that the 5th Element gives for saving the planet.
The "all-star" supporting cast (Danes, DeNiro, Pheiffer, McKellen, Everett, and O'Toole) allowed them to make an amazing casting choice with the male lead, Tristan. They went with relative unknown Charlie Cox who put forth a great performance. With apparent ease he convinced us he was an ambitious yet socially awkward "Shopboy" in England, (Note: Claire Danes starred in Shopgirl), an out of place lovestruck explorer in the land of Stormhold, and a seasoned couragous man by the end of the film. It was an amazing, yet fully believable transformation that audiences never saw coming.
Unlike most fantasy movies, this picture's story was multi-layered and compelling. A starry-eyed young lover on a quest to retrieve a fallen star to prove his love, two brothers warring to obtain a kingdom-promising gemstone, an ancient witch hoping to be young again, and a long lost mother searching for her son. Throw in some pirates, mix with a touch of magic, splash in some intellegent humor and you have Stardust. The moment that set this movie apart for me was near the end as Yvaine is walking towards the wall and there were four different parties racing to beat her there, all with a different intention.
I do have a few critisisms of the film. The ending was inexplicable for me and seemed to be a bit of a "easy-way-out." I don't understand how Lamia was defeated by the Yvaine's actions (That's me trying really hard not to give too much away). Also, the ending of the movie provided no hope that the kings children wouldn't revert to the actions of his uncles. (there was a deleted scene that spoke to this concern, but did so in a way that needed to be removed from the movie. It should have been rethought rather than just removed). And the Titanic (note: so bad that it doesn't deserve a link) reference on the pirate ship shall be overlooked, forgotten, and ignored.
All in all, this movie should become a modern classic enlisting a following only slightly smaller than that of Princess Bride or Lord of the Rings.
4.5 out of 5 stars
A momentous occation! Here is the first of (hopefully) many reviews that have been requested by you, my faithful (and not so faithful) readers!
Let me start off by saying that I thoroughly enjoyed this film. The story was engaging and the twists on the "who-will-be-king" story were inventive, particularly the outcome for those that failed in their quest for the crown. It did have the advantage of being based on a book/graphic novel, but the story held up well even in the whittled-down, two-hour version.
Even though his Pre-Potter parallel worlds story borrowed from several movies that preceded it, it did so in a fashion that was more praise than plagerism. The most notable homage was to the classic Princess Bride. The captive who falls in love with her captor, the antaganist desires the girl's death, and the reluctant pirate. Another movie that was painfully parroted in regards to the main message of the film was The 5th Element. Yvaine (Claire Danes), a fallen star, mentions how watching Earth with all of it's hate, wars, and mistreatment, would be unbearable if not for love. This is the same arguement that the 5th Element gives for saving the planet.
The "all-star" supporting cast (Danes, DeNiro, Pheiffer, McKellen, Everett, and O'Toole) allowed them to make an amazing casting choice with the male lead, Tristan. They went with relative unknown Charlie Cox who put forth a great performance. With apparent ease he convinced us he was an ambitious yet socially awkward "Shopboy" in England, (Note: Claire Danes starred in Shopgirl), an out of place lovestruck explorer in the land of Stormhold, and a seasoned couragous man by the end of the film. It was an amazing, yet fully believable transformation that audiences never saw coming.
Unlike most fantasy movies, this picture's story was multi-layered and compelling. A starry-eyed young lover on a quest to retrieve a fallen star to prove his love, two brothers warring to obtain a kingdom-promising gemstone, an ancient witch hoping to be young again, and a long lost mother searching for her son. Throw in some pirates, mix with a touch of magic, splash in some intellegent humor and you have Stardust. The moment that set this movie apart for me was near the end as Yvaine is walking towards the wall and there were four different parties racing to beat her there, all with a different intention.
I do have a few critisisms of the film. The ending was inexplicable for me and seemed to be a bit of a "easy-way-out." I don't understand how Lamia was defeated by the Yvaine's actions (That's me trying really hard not to give too much away). Also, the ending of the movie provided no hope that the kings children wouldn't revert to the actions of his uncles. (there was a deleted scene that spoke to this concern, but did so in a way that needed to be removed from the movie. It should have been rethought rather than just removed). And the Titanic (note: so bad that it doesn't deserve a link) reference on the pirate ship shall be overlooked, forgotten, and ignored.
All in all, this movie should become a modern classic enlisting a following only slightly smaller than that of Princess Bride or Lord of the Rings.
4.5 out of 5 stars
Thursday, April 03, 2008
What Did You Say?
There have been a few things said in the past few days that I thought deserved comment.
Hillary Clinton: "Rocky and I have a lot in common" Rocky, huh? Well, I have to assume that Senator Clinton was referring to Rocky's perseverance and never-quit attitude. Do we remember Rocky? Let me refresh some memories: The main character is a washed up has been who is trying to win against all odds. He risks everything at a shot at the big time. There are those that would say he didn't know when to quit. He uses unconventional tactics proposed by his trainer and despite his tenaciousness, he still loses to the black guy. Hmm, are you sure you're like Rocky? (I could also have mentioned the "Sniper Fire" comment, but this one is much more fun!)
Barack Obama: "Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby" Gosh, I have one punishment already and one on the way. Come to think of it, Barack already has two! (Some liberals have attempted to spin this by saying that he wasn't referring to the baby, rather to the unwanted pregnancy. So is the baby different in a wanted vs an unwanted pregnancy? Is there something in the DNA of an unwanted child that makes it soulless? Less human? Disposable? Whether he meant the baby or the pregnancy, it's the same thing.) Can you believe the calloused disregard this man has for human life? An unwanted child is not only a choice, oh no, now it's a punishment! The child isn't even a natural consequence. It's an 18 year "timeout", a lifetime grounding, a cosmic spanking. Is a baby now on par with an STD? How can someone who has an absence of respect for life to this extent run a country? Doesn't his party purport to support the weakest, poorest, and least fortunate among us? Who fits that profile more than an unwanted unborn child? I'm sorry, unwanted punishment...
The NFL (What's a JMO Post with out a little sports?) "For the 08-09 Season, the NFL is doing away with the "Force Out" rule." What's the "Force Out" rule? Here is what the NFL rule book currently states: "A forward pass is complete when a receiver clearly possesses the pass and touches the ground with both feet inbounds while in possession of the ball. If a receiver would have landed inbounds with both feet but is carried or pushed out of bounds while maintaining possession of the ball, pass is complete at the out-of-bounds spot. " Next year, this will not be the case. If the receiver is pushed out or carried out, too bad: Incomplete pass. Typically, the NFL changes rules to increase scoring. This change will do just the opposite. There is at least an average of one touchdown per week awarded due to the force out rule. That's 16 fewer touchdowns and countless drives ended due to this rule. Especially late in the game were the sideline becomes your best friend. Now, he's a turncoat. I expect to see this rule return to it's rightful status for the NFL's 09-10 season. There will be too many complaints by QBs and WRs who lose yards, completions, stats, TDs and even games because the NFL doesn't trust their officials.
(On a side note: While I was searching for links to the direct quotes of the candidates, I had to look no further than the first 3 suggestions on Google to find Hillary's quote. However, even when I input the full quote, I had to search to page 5 on Google before I found a respectible news source that listed this gaffe. Granted, Hillary did her Rocky thing on April 1st, and Obama's statement was March 29th. There's no Obama love or liberal bias in the media though...)
Well, that's what I have to say!
Hillary Clinton: "Rocky and I have a lot in common" Rocky, huh? Well, I have to assume that Senator Clinton was referring to Rocky's perseverance and never-quit attitude. Do we remember Rocky? Let me refresh some memories: The main character is a washed up has been who is trying to win against all odds. He risks everything at a shot at the big time. There are those that would say he didn't know when to quit. He uses unconventional tactics proposed by his trainer and despite his tenaciousness, he still loses to the black guy. Hmm, are you sure you're like Rocky? (I could also have mentioned the "Sniper Fire" comment, but this one is much more fun!)
Barack Obama: "Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby" Gosh, I have one punishment already and one on the way. Come to think of it, Barack already has two! (Some liberals have attempted to spin this by saying that he wasn't referring to the baby, rather to the unwanted pregnancy. So is the baby different in a wanted vs an unwanted pregnancy? Is there something in the DNA of an unwanted child that makes it soulless? Less human? Disposable? Whether he meant the baby or the pregnancy, it's the same thing.) Can you believe the calloused disregard this man has for human life? An unwanted child is not only a choice, oh no, now it's a punishment! The child isn't even a natural consequence. It's an 18 year "timeout", a lifetime grounding, a cosmic spanking. Is a baby now on par with an STD? How can someone who has an absence of respect for life to this extent run a country? Doesn't his party purport to support the weakest, poorest, and least fortunate among us? Who fits that profile more than an unwanted unborn child? I'm sorry, unwanted punishment...
The NFL (What's a JMO Post with out a little sports?) "For the 08-09 Season, the NFL is doing away with the "Force Out" rule." What's the "Force Out" rule? Here is what the NFL rule book currently states: "A forward pass is complete when a receiver clearly possesses the pass and touches the ground with both feet inbounds while in possession of the ball. If a receiver would have landed inbounds with both feet but is carried or pushed out of bounds while maintaining possession of the ball, pass is complete at the out-of-bounds spot. " Next year, this will not be the case. If the receiver is pushed out or carried out, too bad: Incomplete pass. Typically, the NFL changes rules to increase scoring. This change will do just the opposite. There is at least an average of one touchdown per week awarded due to the force out rule. That's 16 fewer touchdowns and countless drives ended due to this rule. Especially late in the game were the sideline becomes your best friend. Now, he's a turncoat. I expect to see this rule return to it's rightful status for the NFL's 09-10 season. There will be too many complaints by QBs and WRs who lose yards, completions, stats, TDs and even games because the NFL doesn't trust their officials.
(On a side note: While I was searching for links to the direct quotes of the candidates, I had to look no further than the first 3 suggestions on Google to find Hillary's quote. However, even when I input the full quote, I had to search to page 5 on Google before I found a respectible news source that listed this gaffe. Granted, Hillary did her Rocky thing on April 1st, and Obama's statement was March 29th. There's no Obama love or liberal bias in the media though...)
Well, that's what I have to say!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)