James Piper - Entries from May 2009

Saturday, May 30, 2009

The Treatment. Feature film. (2006, 86 mins) IMDB

...a realistic look at romance...

or some reason I liked this movie. I liked the actors and I wanted them to get together even though there doesn't appear to be all that many original elements to it.

She's a widow, a wealthy widow, living in Manhattan with two young children. One is a young boy going to a private school where our hero works as an English teacher. He's screwed up because his mother died when he was young, his father is distant and his true love left him for someone else and is getting married.

The story focuses on how the screwed up English teacher gets together with the widow even though everyone around them says no. It wouldn't be a good move.

Ian Holm plays a belligerent shrink for our hero. There are the requisite shrink sessions where our hero is sprawled out on a couch, but here's the twist. Like a ghost, the shrink also appears from closets and the corner of a room watching and commenting on our hero's life and activity--especially his sex with the widow.

Posted 2009/05/30 at 19h59ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Friday, May 29, 2009

...a full weights workout...

ince it was Friday, a part of me wanted to leave early, but I realized there was no point. I might as well put in a long workout and did.

I also decided to increase the number of reps I do for stomach crunches. It was becoming too easy. Same for the bench press.

Bench Press: 14kg x 25 reps x 3 sets

Inclined Bench Press: 11kg x 25 reps x 3 sets

Stomach Crunches on Swiss Ball: 40 reps x 9 sets with 3KG medicine ball.

Bicep Curls on Swiss Ball: 7kg x 25 reps x 9 sets

No Tricep Presses.

Leg Lunges: 10 reps x 9 sets - Left/Right

Squats: 10 reps x 9 sets.

Posted 2009/05/29 at 19h59ET in Exercise. [View single entry]

Friday, May 29, 2009

Jumper. Feature film. (2008, 88 mins) IMDB

...oh for the chance at a new screenplay...

teenaged boy discovers he can jump through space, dematerialize from say New York City and in a flash rematerialize in Egypt next to the Giza pyramids. It's a neat trick and a neat premise, but it doesn't make for much of a story.

It's not a story because where's the trouble in being able to jump around the world? There is none. Life is good for our hero. To create a story, Paladins are created. There's regular humans, Jumpers and Paladins. The later two have been fighting a private war for centuries. Paladins are out to track down and kill the Jumpers.

Not much is ever explained and therefore the resulting action has little meaning. That's the point of the movie--create action sequence after action sequence. It's effective and good looking, lots of CGI that isn't obvious, but since there's little underlying story, the action becomes repetitive and boring.

There is also a love interest that is completely unbelievable. In the opening sequence, our hero gives a snow dome to the love interest. A bully intercedes, takes the dome away, taunts them and throws it away. The scene is so lame, so dreary. Couldn't they come up with something original and interesting? In an attempt to retrieve the dome, our hero walks on the thin ice of a river. With no surprise he goes under and presumably dies--that's what everyone thinks, except he lives because he can jump from one point in space to another.

Flash forward five years. Our hero returns to the small town, finds the love interest and they reconnect as if nothing happened. It's completely unbelievable and unrealistic.

The film is a great disappointment because given this premise, there are so many possible storylines that would have been much more interesting and important.

Posted 2009/05/29 at 19h59ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Good Luck Chuck. Feature film. (2007, 96 mins) IMDB

...what a sad, pathetic movie...

he film is billed as a romantic comedy. There is nothing romantic or comic about it. It is crude, rude, boorish, lame, stupid, idiotic, pathetic, hideous, gross and a handful of other negative words I can throw into the list.

How anyone can think this film was a good idea, that it should be made and people would like it, is beyond me. It's a terrible film.

The premise has some interest but it the execution of it is sucked dry with boorish attempts at humour. It's shallow. We don't like the characters and in fact I'd rather see them tortured then gain any sort of romantic resolution. This is particularly true for the hero's sidekick--a fellow medical practitioner who will say anything provided it's crude. I'm sure people like him exist. If you meet them you want to run the other way and putting them in a film, aiming to be a romantic comedy, is just stupid.

And that premise? Our hero is a good luck charm for women. If a woman has sex with him, they immediately find their true love and get married, but it's never Chuck. The way the filmmakers work the premise is sad. Do we really need a ten minute montage of porn? How is that romantic?

Posted 2009/05/28 at 19h06ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Bolt. Feature film. (2008, 96 mins) IMDB

...a fun animation film...

olt, a puppy, sits in a cage in a pet store when Penny, a young girl, picks him out of the batch. She adores her new puppy. Her father, a scientist, applies his knowledge to the dog to create a superdog whose job is to protect Penny from the evil Green-Eyed man and his henchmen.

It's a story within a story where Penny and Bolt and the rest are actors for an action TV series except for one thing. Bolt doesn't know he's a character on a TV show. To stay in character, the production is designed so he doesn't know what is truly happening. He thinks he has a superbark. He thinks he has laser visions and can cut metal with it. He thinks he can ram a speeding car and stop it dead. He believes it because the production team makes him believe it.

That's the setup and it was a fun setup because it's filled with animated action as if Ridley Scott was helming Black Hawk Down.

The story takes flight when he accidentally is shipped off to NYC and no longer has Penny or anyone around him. He's a lost soul.

Once he realizes he's not where he's supposed to be, his mission is to return to LA because he feels it's his duty to protect penny.

Along the way he meets a cynical alley cat who knows he's not a superdog, but anything she says goes right in and comes right out.

The third person of this trio is Rhino the hamster. He's a big fan of the TV show, dimwitted and doesn't understand Bolt can't do the things in real life that he does on the show. He believes Bolt is a superdog.

This dichotomy between what he can and can't do and what the three believe about it creates some of the humour in the film. The story on folds in such a way that the cat was right all along, the hamster is right all along, but the dog realizes he just another dog.

They journey west to LA and the film becomes a road trip where they search for food, get captured by the pound and other such things. They are a team because Bolt forces the cat to come along and the hamster is such a fan he would do anything for Bolt.

Eventually the cat leaves when the two have a fight. The fight is about accepting who you are. She thinks it isn't bad for a dog to be an ordinary dog. Nor does she understand the need for him to get back to Penny. Act II is over.

Bolt and Rhino make it to LA and to the studio where he used to live, but to his dismay he finds Penny loves this new dog that looks just like him. The replacement Bolt. He's dejected. Maybe that's the end of Act II. Could be.

But all is not lost. She was acting when she said those word to the new Bolt. Plus when it's time for thge new Bolt to be the hero in a production, he whimpers away and can't do it. It gets worse for the production. An accident results in a fire. Here comes the big climax. The fire rages out of control. Penny is caught inside a burning building, but Bolt comes to save the day. He's a hero protecting Penny after all and he didn't have any superpowers to do so.

Like so many animation movies, this one is fun and enjoyable. I didn't cringe once.

Posted 2009/05/28 at 19h06ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Mamma Mia!. Feature film. (2008, 108 mins) IMDB

...I love the colours of the Greek Islands...

have to admit when I heard the first song of this musical playing, I cringed and pressed fast forward. I hadn't heard it before and I didn't want to. That wasn't the case with the songs that followed. They were oh so familiar and having lived in Sweden, I know it dangerous to attack ABBA--the songwriters for the music.

Since it's a musical, it must be about love story and I suppose that's the case. A young woman is getting married to a young man on a Greek island. She lives there with her mother who runs a beat-up vacation hotel. Not much of a story so far until you realize, the mother had flings with three different men some twenty-one years ago and either one these men could be the father. No one knows the entire secret.

The daughter secretly invites the three men to her wedding in the hopes of finding out who her father really is. The problem is there is no easy answer to this question.

The surprise in Act III is the daughter and groom call off the wedding in the church just seconds before the I DO part. This gives bachelor number one the courage to propose to the mother and there's a wedding after all.

The singing by non-singers is hit and miss.

The story is barely interesting.

The music is catchy and drives any interest in watching, but the backdrop of Greek islands doesn't hurt. I'm always fascinated and entranced by the blues in Greek islands. It's in the water. It's in the paint on the walls and in the tiles. I don't know what it is exactly about it, but I love it.

Why was Julie Waters in this film? That's odd casting.

Posted 2009/05/27 at 20h54ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Frost/Nixon. Feature film. (2008, 122 mins) IMDB

...thankfully a 70s-period movie with no avocado appliances...

isgraced president Nixon lives in seclusion in his West Coast mansion. It's the period after his resignation. Ford pardoned him but he continues to deny any wrongdoing. He wants to be in the action, making the calls and asked his opinion.

David Frost, a cad, interviews pop stars and magicians. He's a performer, not a serious journalist. When he sees the worldwide broadcast of Nixon's resignation speech, he sees big numbers and gets an idea. Interview Nixon.

He's a schemer and dreamer. His TV producer won't back him, his TV broadcaster won't back him but he won't give up.

He negotiates a deal to interview Nixon for the incredible sum of $600,000. It's money he doesn't have, but that's only part of the total cost. The sum total of the investment is over $2 million. Hugh dollars for a series of interviews in 1977.

I was surprised by the number of people involved in these interviews. Each side had researchers and aides to assist in developing questions and answers. There were all sorts of technical people from lighting, camera, sound and so on.

When Frost tries to sell the interviews to the networks, they won't bite. They don't do pay for news journalism and if they did, Frost would be the last person they'd want interviewing Nixon.

He doesn't have much luck selling advertisers on the concept. He wants to syndicate the interviews himself. Get the advertising dollars and thereby buy time on network television. He never questions whether he can do it, he just assumes he will.

As the story unfolds, Frost gets deeper and deeper into it. No money. No prospects of selling it. No respect and finally no hope of pulling it off. (Sounds like the end of Act III).

The actual interviews between the two take up large chunks of the last half of the movie. Nixon is a pro at this game and Frost is out of his league. It appears Nixon is going to walk away from these interviews untouched, but as we know that doesn't happen.

If the film were merely about the interviews, it wouldn't have been much of a movie because we know the outcome of them. It's the story behind the interviews that makes this film interesting even if we don't like a cad like Frost. Yes, he's charming and charismatic, but he's also superficial and narcissistic. Because we don't care a great deal about him, it lessens the impact of his triumph in getting Nixon to admit he was involved in the cover-up, carried out illegal activities, and let people down.

The film includes aspects of Nixon that seem like revelations but are well known. Nixon was a cerebral man who wanted to be liked and didn't care much about people. As he says, it's an odd choice for him to become a politician and defies logic as to why he did and how he succeeded to achieve the highest political office in the US. Perseverance was certainly one quality he needed, because he lost as many times as he won.

I wish the seventies hadn't existed so I could avoid looking at the fashion and designs of that period. Absolutely horrendous and hideous.

In the film, the two sides say there can only be one winner from these interviews, but it seems they both benefited. Frost gained financially, in professional stature and became famous around the world. He created a new career he wouldn't otherwise have achieved. In fact without the Nixon interviews, someone like me wouldn't know who he is.

Nixon gained as well. By confessing, he eased his guilt, it appears he suffered from it, but more importantly, it allowed him to move past the same questions. Interviewers would have to come up with something new and in doing so it helped diffuse the tension.

Posted 2009/05/27 at 20h54ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

The Eye. Feature film. (2008, 98 mins) IMDB

...at there was an plausible explanation for what happens...

young woman lives a normal life as a blind person. She has an operation where she receives donor eyes. The operation is a success as far as the doctors are concerned, but to her it becomes a nightmare. Not only can she see the world near as a sighted person, but she begins to see ghosts and the grim reaper and fire and smoke. She's living in a hell. It appears real to her and maybe it is real.

THE EYE is not my kind of film. I'm not into horror films, not into films about the paranormal or supernatural. I was intrigued by the concept and decided to give it a try. It's far too bizarre for my liking. It just doesn't make any sense to me. I don't get it and never will. I suppose you have to believe in events that can never possibly happen and that's impossible for me to do.

Part of Act II is the battle with her medical advisor. She tells him what she's seeing and he tells her her eyes are fine and what she is seeing isn't real.

The question I want answered from this film is the explanation and resolution. We know this battle can't continue. She'll die. She'll have the eyes removed. Something will happen that will stop what is happening to her. It has to stop.

She realizes she needs to find out who her donor was. If she can find that out, she can find out what haunts the donor and achieve some sort of resolution. Of course, the name of the donor is confidential.

There is an explanation for what happens. Cell tissues retain certain memories and occasionally these memories live on in the recipient. Plausible to a degree like muscle memory, but this film pushes it too far.

That doesn't explain why she can see ghosts and the grim reaper and other images that seem to have nothing to do with the donor. That's the licence the filmmakers took in making this film. (I'm writing this as the film plays. There are too many scenes where nothing happens from my point of view.)

The explanation? The donor, a poor Mexican girl living in Mexico with her mother, has a special gift. She can see death before it happens. When she tries to sound the alarm bell, people don't believe her, in fact, it's worse, they believe she's an evil spirit who brought the death. Tormented, she hanged herself and the eyes with the vision were transplanted into our hero. (Note: Men are hanged, pictures are hung. I see and hear this mistake all the time even by professional writers!)

It's during the third act when our hero makes a trip to Mexico to find out this truth, but it doesn't end. Our hero and doctor friend travel by car back to the US. There is a long line up of cars waiting to cross the border. She has a vision of pending death. An oil tanker will explode and if she doesn't convince people to leave their vehicles there will be many deaths.

Frantically she says there is a bomb on a bus and people run away just as a speeding car comes and smashes into the oil tanker. There is the requisite, large, fiery explosion. She saves a little girl and her eyes are damaged from flying glass. (Note: since the glass is safety glass in a vehicle, it wouldn't happen, but oh well.) And as expected, she loses her vision and thus all the torment that came with the transplant. End of story.

The climax was farfetched and not believable on so many levels, but that's filmmaking Hollywood style. Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story.

A final note. During the second act, our hero looks at herself in the mirror. It looks like she's seeing her reflection but it isn't. It's the dead girl she is seeing. This isn't obvious because the two actors are nearly identical in looks. The lead actor, I don't know her, doesn't stand out with her looks, nothing distinctive--just another dark-haired woman...

Posted 2009/05/26 at 19h43ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Swing Vote. Feature film. (2008, 120 mins) IMDB

...a silly that is mildly enjoyable but you won't want to see it a second time...

WING VOTE takes an impossible plot situation and pokes fun at the US presidential election.

Costner plays a single dad who is completely irresponsible. Lives in a trailer. Drinks too much. Can't keep a low-paying job. If it wasn't for his daughter who plays the parent, he'd probably be in jail or dead. He simply wants to have a good time and doesn't care about tomorrow and he certainly doesn't care about anything going on beyond him including the presidential election. If you asked him the names of the candidates, he wouldn't know.

Now the unlikely plot. He's not registered to vote because he fears jury duty and besides he believes his vote doesn't count. His daughter registered him to vote. She's the responsible one; she's interested in politics and making a difference; she's the one pushing her father.

On election day, they agree he'll pick her up from school and he'll go to the polling booth to vote. During the day, he loses his job at an egg-processing plant. Later he goes to a bar to drink himself silly. He forgets to vote. The young daughter knowing he's a no show, manages to sneak a ballot into the booth but there's a power failure and his vote isn't cast properly. Enter the bizarre world that follows.

The votes are cast and counted. It's tie. Since his vote wasn't properly cast, he's allowed to recast his vote and this time it will matter. This time his one vote will determine who will be the president. It's not even remotely likely to happen, but you can't have a hundred people as your hero, you have to focus on one character and in this instance, it's the unlikeliest voter possible.

When news breaks, reporters from all over land on his front dirt wanting to know how he'll vote. The candidates arrive wanting to know how to influence his decision. Over night this trailer guy becomes big news, famous and he likes it. He likes the attention and he couldn't care less who he'll vote for. This upset his daughter who thinks he should take it seriously. That's the character arc. By the end of the movie, he's learnt the pain of others, understood the issues, becomes involved in a vote based on information and reason.

The candidates bend over backwards to appease Bud. When he says he may be in favour of gay marriage, the republicans put out an ad in favour of it. The democrats aren't spared. They put out an ad in favour of anti-abortion.

The film ends with our hero casting the crucial vote. I fully expected we'd get resolution on the vote, but it ends with him closing the curtain to vote. We don't know how he voted. I was surprised they did it that way, but thinking about it, it makes the most sense. It didn't matter who he voted for because we have no rooting in either candidate. They flip-flop all over that issues are muddy to the point they are the same. Besides the point of the film was each vote counts so get informed and vote. In the process of sending this message, create a lot of laughs and there are a few.

The father and daughter combination of actors was believable, rather endearing and interesting.

Posted 2009/05/26 at 19h43ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Monday, May 25, 2009

...full weights workout...

omehow I managed to miss getting to the gym four of the previous eight days. There's two Sundays in there where I decided to take a day off to rest. There was a Holiday Monday where I managed to miss getting to the gym and on the last Wednesday I had a board meeting to attend and prep for and didn't get in to the gym before hand and it was too late and too nice an evening to go in the evening afterwards. That's four days in total. I have done that since last summer when I was injured and could barely walk.

My long-term average is still over six days a week and my average for 2009 is well over that average. I still get in a lot more exercise than most people.

Since it was a Monday, that means a weights day so I can get three weights days in during the week. No holding back today and no problems breathing. The allergy symptoms have eased away--thankfully.

As I walked around before going to the gym I felt tightness and soreness in my thighs and hamstring. I'm sure it was from doing leg exercises on Saturday and the fact I had gotten away from doing them. The key to doing leg lunges and leg squats is to do them regularly--several times a week. The more days between these exercises and your leg muscles forget they know how to do them and since they are such an intense exercise, the result can be painful.

Bench Press: 11kg x 25 reps x 3 sets

Inclined Bench Press: 11kg x 25 reps x 3 sets

Stomach Crunches on Swiss Ball: 30 reps x 9 sets with 3KG medicine ball.

Bicep Curls on Swiss Ball: 7kg x 25 reps x 9 sets

Tricep Presses on bench: 14kg x 25 reps x 3 sets.

Leg Lunges: 10 reps x 6 sets - Left/Right

Squats: 10 reps x 6 sets.

Posted 2009/05/25 at 20h07ET in Exercise. [View single entry]

Monday, May 25, 2009

Prime. Feature film. (2005, 105 mins) IMDB

...enough with Jewish characters in movies...

he's a Jewish mother and a therapist.

Her patient is a successful career woman in NYC, 37, and definitely not Jewish.

Then there's the 23 year old son who is finding his way.

The son and love interest meet. They hit it off. The problem is the three haven't put it together. The mother hears her patient tell about her son not knowing it's him. The patient doesn't know her therapist is her lover's mother. This coincidence continues until the therapist realizes it has to be her son she's been talking about and eventually they all know what is going on.

The film has the usual boy meets girl, they split back together and split again and the last time for good. That's not the happy ending of a romantic comedy we want to see.

The film is really an excuse to have all this Jewish non-sense and for the patient to say things to the mother that seem funny when we know one thing and they don't. That part is milked too long.

Of course it isn't realistic for a 37 year old woman to stay attached to a 23 year old guy. The later is still a child.

Posted 2009/05/25 at 20h07ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Blindness. Feature film. (2008, 121 mins) IMDB

...adapting a novel is never easy...

simple premise: what if an entire population of a city all went blind? It formed the basis for a novel by a Portuguese writer, who won the Nobel Prize for Literature, and eventually this film.

I haven't read the novel but the film has inspired me to do so in part because the film, despite lots of talented people involved in the production, is a failure. Adapting a novel is never easy and sometimes impossible. I want to understand why the novel is a success and the film a failure. Why the break? There's no answer unless I read the novel.

The film takes place in non-descript large city in a non-descript country. It was purposely meant to be non-descript.

A young man sits in the driver seat of his car waiting for the red light to turn green when in a flash he goes blind. Stuck, a stranger offers to drive him home and does and promptly steals his car.

The blindness isn't typical blackness, but a bright white light. The young man visits an eye doctor and learns there's no logical explanation for the sudden blindness.

From this man, the blindness spreads. The thief goes blind, the doctor goes blind. One by one, like a virus spreading from human to human, people suddenly lose their vision except for the doctor's wife.

The cause of the blindness is never explained, the reason it spreads is never explained. These things just happen. We're into a fantasy world.

Panic ensues. Governments and people panic.

The government decides to take the first victims to a hospital for quarantine, it doesn't work as the entire population goes blind.

Act II revolves around this group of people in the hospital. It's not a typical hospital. They are prisoners with no caregivers. Soldiers guard the perimeter of the building to keep them in. Some are shot. Food is frozen dinners and packaged meals.

The people are separated into three group on different wards. Each group has a leader. The way it's set up is like three nations and when food becomes scarce, the fighting and power struggle begins.

What is shown in the last half of the second act is barbarism at its worse. Filth. Attacks. Abuse. Rape. Violence. The place is run amok.

In one final battle, the "good" group fights back and kills the "bad" group. Normally such a sequence would be satisfying to watch, but not in this instance. I wonder if it's because there were too many characters. There is no central protagonist we root for.

When the battle is over, the good group realizes the guards have left and they can leave the hospital and do. They are lead by the wife who can see. Rather convenient don't you think? The streets are littered with abandoned car, garbage, corpses. It reminded me of images of New Orleans during Katrina. A pack of dogs tore at one corpse but we were saved gruesome details.

In Act III, the group makes their way to the doctor's home and scavenge for food. They make it. They arrive together. They find food and start to live a new existence in this house until, by magic, the first person who went blind regains his vision. With time, the rest would regain their vision.

The story tries to paint a picture about human nature, fundamental human nature. In one group people come together despite their language, background, race etc. In another group, terror and violence are used to control others. I don't think we're surprised by any of it.

I think one of the fundamental problems with the film is the lack of a central character. We see numerous characters and often not enough to get to know them.

Posted 2009/05/21 at 20h24ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

...oh what's with these allergies...

or the last two weeks I've been battling allergies. The symptoms are familiar. When they wouldn't go away and seemed to get worse, I decided to buy some medication to treat the problem. It worked except for my breathing. The tablets aren't designed for that. Yesterday I was on the elliptical machine with great difficulty breathing. It was arduous. My pace was slow and I thought about stopping over and over again. Today was a slight improvement, but even doing my weights routine was a struggle. Breathing is obviously crucial to an effective workout. I got in two rotations instead of three and didn't bother with leg squats or lunges.

Bench Press: 11kg x 25 reps x 2 sets

Inclined Bench Press: 11kg x 25 reps x 2 sets

Stomach Crunches on Swiss Ball: 30 reps x 4 sets with 3KG medicine ball.

Bicep Curls: 7kg x 25 reps x 4 sets

Tricep Presses on bench: 14kg x 25 reps x 3 sets.

Posted 2009/05/20 at 19h18ET in Exercise. [View single entry]

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

My Blueberry Nights. Feature film. (2007, 93 mins) IMDB

...sometimes singers break through as actors, sometimes...

t's a road movie. It's a love story for several characters. It's about life.

Jude Law runs a café in NYC. There's coffee and cakes and pork chops. There's also Norah Jones harassing him in her search for some man who may or may not have been at the café. He's rather obliging with his time with her perhaps because he's got a hard on for her.

The opening third of the movie deals with these two characters in his café. She's searching for someone and he's obliging until she gives up on the search and the relationship goes to another level. It's where we learn it's NIGHTS because she has trouble sleeping and BLUEBERRY because at the end of the day, blueberry pie is about all that is left in the café. In fact it's a metaphor on life. People buy the cheese cake and chocolate cake but not the blueberry pie. He serves her a piece of blueberry pie with ice cream.

From there, for reasons I'm not certain about, she leaves NYC and ends up in Memphis where she works a dinner during the day and a bar during the evening. She doesn't get much sleep because she can't although it's never explained why. I can guess, but the love answer doesn't mean sleepless nights. At least not in my experience.

During her stay in Memphis, she befriends a cop who during the day is sober and respectable but during the evening he is drunk and belligerent. He's screwed up because he wife left him for another man--a man he beats the shit out of. There's never anything sexual between our drunk cop and insomniac waitress, it's strictly a friendly understanding where she does more of the understanding. When the cop realizes he's never getting his wife back, he smashes up his car and dies in the process. Onto the next location.

She's moving west and works in a casino where she meets Natalie Portman who plays a poker player with one of those southern accents and southern attitudes. She's cocky and loud and manages to lose in this one game. She befriends our hero to stake her to another game. She loses again. Maybe. Somehow this leads to a long road trip to Las Vegas where Portman will see her dying father. I thought they were in Las Vegas!

Portman's performance is subtle and entirely believable. It made me wonder why she played the stiff character in Star Wars.

The relationship between the two women revolves around getting money and paying it back, but ever the con, she never lost the money in the last hand and well conned Jones into coming along so she wouldn't have to face her dying father.

With this episode of the story over, Jones returns to NYC and the café and Jude Law where they seem to be a couple.

There are far too many US iconic images in this film for my liking. Jones is obsessed with buying a car. Why do they have this obsession with buying a car?

How can such a small film cost $10 million to produce? I don't get that. Was nine point five million above the line?

Why have a non-actor in the key role of the film? Did the actors involved wonder the same thing until they saw the pay stub and thought about other things?

Jones isn't an actor and it showed in this film. She had no range. None. The four professional actors she played against were just that--professional. Imagine these four as NHL players and Jones who isn't. They could skate up and down the ice with grace and ease and handle the puck while Jones fell forward and backwards and was never sure what a puck looked like.

Posted 2009/05/20 at 19h14ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Saturday, May 16, 2009

Mission: Impossible III. Feature film. (2006, 120 mins) IMDB

...action-packed action film--no surprise there...

he best part of the Mission: Impossible franchise is the theme song but you don't need to see the film to enjoy the music.

M:I 3 is an action film structured just for that--to give people lots and lots of action. I suppose you could say it delivers on it except after a while, the film becomes a blur of action and you probably want something more, something different.

I'd describe the plot but there'd be no point to it. It's simply a device to create big action set-pieces and the film does that. The film includes a MacGuffin called the rabbit's foot. Both sides want it and as a result it creates conflict between the two sides. It's a MacGuffin because it drives the plot but we never learn what it is or what importance it has because it doesn't matter. It's a plot device.

In a number of movies we've seen characters put on elaborate make-up etc to look exactly like someone else. This film uses this gimmick. There's a point where character A is A then through magic A is B but then the another switch is made and B is B when it's supposed to A as B. Do you follow? Of course. This technique is used twice in the film and in both instances it's completely unbelievable. Would a husband not recognize his wife? I thought so.

What's interesting is that Cruise performs a number of the stunts in this film and that works well for the film because the usual cutting between actor, stuntman and back to actor is avoided.

There is a great deal of blue screen and CGI in the film however, it's kept to a minimal and in the background as a result the film doesn't seem like a video game and that's a good thing because far too many action movies of late feel like nothing more than a video game.

Give me James Bond any day of the week.

Posted 2009/05/16 at 20h10ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Friday, May 15, 2009

...a solid weights workout...

felt good today. First day with medication to help with the allergy symptoms. It seems to be working.

Because I had a bit of extra time, I did one extra set of the stomach crunches and bicep curls.

A few years ago I had an accident where my left leg had to be surgically reconstructed. The result was an inability to use it for many weeks and during that time the muscle weakened. To this day, there is a difference in the size of my muscles on my left leg and right. I'm thinking I should go more leg exercises just on the left and see how long it takes to get to the same size. (Assuming that's possible).

Stomach Crunches on Swiss Ball: 30 reps x 7 sets with 2KG medicine ball.

Bicep Curls on Swiss Ball: 7kg x 25 reps x 7 sets

Leg Lunges: 10 reps x 6 sets - Left/Right

Squats: 10 reps x 6 sets.

Lateral Back 27 kg x 25 reps x 3 sets

Vertical Back 27 kg x 25 reps x 3 sets

Posted 2009/05/15 at 16h48ET in Exercise. [View single entry]

Friday, May 15, 2009

Factotum. Feature film. (2005, 94 mins) IMDB

...a slice of life movie free of plot complications...

decided to read a brief bio on the author whose novel serves as the basis for this film. In it, the bio claimed the author disliked plot but provided no reasons for his predilection. In watching this film I can see the filmmakers took it to heart in crafting this film because there isn't much of a plot. We meet a writer living his life and he lives it some more and by the end of the film he's still living his life the same way he had at the beginning. Not much of a plot but instead a slice of life.

Matt Dillon plays a writer living in a seedy part of a small mid-west city. He hasn't earned a dime from his writing but he keeps at it just as he keeps at drinking, smoking, losing jobs as quickly as he gets them and screwing women.

Everything he owns seems to fit easily into a black carry-on bag. When he's kicked out of his apartment for lack of funds, he hooks up with a woman who admires him, adores him. He stays there as long as he can tolerate it and moves on to another woman and repeats the process.

This writer lives a bleak existence with few signs of improving his lot. He likes to drink and to excess. When he wakes up one morning with a hangover, his first action is to open a bottle of beer and drink it.

I was intrigued by the plot summary I read before I watched it and what the story may tell, but once it become clear not much changes in this story I found I lost interest. The film becomes repetitive. In that respect, it's true to life, but true to life doesn't always make for an interesting story. We pretty much live our lives on a loop. Little changes even if we're convinced that's not the case. The best stories usually show a character overcoming odds to change his behaviour. The result may not be realistic, but it's hopeful and usually more interesting because we like to see change as long as we don't have to go through it.

Posted 2009/05/15 at 16h48ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Thursday, May 14, 2009

Home Alone 2. Feature film. (1992, 120 mins) IMDB

...sequels never live up to the first--here's an example...

umb for the holiday. Dumb for the masses.

A predictable sequel with a great number of slow, boring sequences. The best sequence happens when the little bugger lures the two criminals into a brownstone under renovation. He's set all sorts of traps and the result is pratfalls and sight gags that are amusing. That was the movie for me--one reel. The rest is entirely forgettable and lame.

Consider this scene. The little bugger is in Central Park where he becomes friendly with the pigeon lady. She appears to be an ogre and doesn't talk to anyone. He manages to get her to talk, to open up and explain her heart was broken and she doesn't want to go through that again. We then get to hear him give her life advice which she buys into it without hesitation. Please. How pathetic. How simplistic. How terrible.

If you've seen the first one you don't need to see the second. Not even for children.

Posted 2009/05/14 at 19h56ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Thursday, May 14, 2009

Bedtime Stories. Feature film. (2008, 99 mins) IMDB

...a tame comedy that results in few laughs...

here's the young Adam Sandler as a boy living with his sister in a small hotel in LA. His father owns and operates it. Sandler helps out. The dream of father and son is for the son to take over some day except there's a problem. The father isn't a very good manager and the place isn't making enough money. Enter the villain to buy it off him. The villain being a Mr. Hilton type who is able to turn lead into gold.

Fast forward twenty years or so. The hotel is a large, thriving business, but for Sandler, instead of owning it or even managing it, he's the custodian who repairs broken dishwashers and replaces burnt-out light bulbs. The promise by the villain to put him in charge was either forgotten or ignored.

Enter his estranged sister. She's a health freak with two young children. The father left a long time ago. Part of the humour for the film comes from the extreme discipline the mother places on her children. The brother tries to mess with it by allowing them to eat foods with fat or sugar and to watch TV. He's involved with the children because the mother is away for a week and he gets to baby-sit in the evening while a love interest manages the kids during the day.

To add juice to the story, Sandler makes up bedtime stories for the kids. He discovers the kids are better story tellers. It reminded me of THE PRINCESS BRIDE because what is told happens on screen. Further, he discovers that whatever the kids make up in the story comes true later in his real life and he tries to direct them into saying things he wants like getting the girl and taking over as manager and that's what happens.

Since there's a love story embedded into this fantasy, there's a second woman to complete the triangle. She's a Paris Hilton type and it fits because we're dealing with the hotel business.

The film is mildly entertaining and mildly humourous but nothing special. Despite the title, I doubt kids would get it, let alone enjoy it, but I could be wrong.

Given the premise they had to work with, the film could have been so much better.

The character I enjoyed the best was a guinea pig with bugling eyes all thanks to CGI.

Why have actors with British accents as the villains in this film? It's become so common as to be a cliché. It didn't make sense in this film but it's typical.

Finally, in one story we're told it takes place in Ancient Greece but the visuals show us Romans etc. How could that mistake be mad?

Posted 2009/05/14 at 19h54ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

...relief at last...

y workouts on Monday and Tuesday were two of the worst, toughest ones I've ever had. I've been fighting allergies with all the usual symptoms plus difficulty breathing. It made it extremely difficult to workout and perhaps I shouldn't have. Today things turned around and was back to normal. No troubles breathing and hence it didn't limit my ability to exercise.

A full weights workout.

Bench Press: 11kg x 25 reps x 3 sets

Inclined Bench Press: 11kg x 25 reps x 3 sets

Stomach Crunches on Swiss Ball: 30 reps x 6 sets with 2KG medicine ball.

Bicep Curls: 9kg x 15 reps x 6 sets

Tricep Presses on bench: 14kg x 25 reps x 3 sets.

Leg Lunges: 10 reps x 6 sets - Left/Right

Squats: 10 reps x 6 sets.

Posted 2009/05/13 at 19h54ET in Exercise. [View single entry]

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Constantine. Feature film. (2005, 121 mins) IMDB

...the fantasy world of hell...

rom what I've read, I may have been one of the few people who enjoyed this movie. It happens. What's even more surprising is the fact the film deals with the supernatural, with fantasy, and I was able to suspend my disbelief and follow what was being told.

The film is after all a fantasy. There is no heaven and there is no hell. We see hell in this film plus the devil and his son. We see angels (or are they fallen angels), but not heaven. Then there is something called half-breads. They seem to be humans who are possessed with an evil spirit of sorts. I can't explain it beyond that.

Then there is John Constantine (Reeves). As a boy something happened to him and he realized he possessed a special power--the power to see hell and hell on earth or these forces that come from hell. He also tried to commit suicide but he survived and lives with the knowledge that when he dies, he'll go directly to hell. What happened to repenting and forgiveness? He's trying to avoid a permanent trip to hell by doing good deeds on earth. He figures if he gets rid of enough evil spirits, he'll be in the good books and get to go to heaven and as the story starts he learns his time on earth won't last much longer. He's dying of lung cancer.

While watching this film, it got me thinking about hell and I remember an incident grilling lamb chops. They were French cut and I placed them on a very hot grill. I managed to leave them on the grill far too long. The result was the exposed bone burnt to dust. I have never before or since had that happen or seen it happen or hear of it happening. I was surprised. I had cremated the bone. I mention this because I've been told hell is a hot place and if you go there you'll suffer eternal pain from this heat. I don't get it. How can you suffer pain if your body is on earth? If you body goes to hell then at some point it will burn up so how can it be eternal? I don't have the answers to these questions. I'm curious to hear people's answer. Remember, there is no hell so it's all fantasy and academic, but it's interesting.

Back to the film.

Constantine is on a crusade to stop the evil-from-hell forces on earth, but there's more. There's twin sisters. One is a cop. The other a nut-case who committed suicide or so the evidence suggests. Since suicide is a mortal since, she goes straight to hell and can't have a religious burial. The surviving twin knows her sister wouldn't kill herself and enlists Constantine to find evidence in the afterlife to prove her case. He's not too interested but he gets involved and even more involved when he realizes the son the devil is plotting to reincarnate himself on earth etc. and so on.

As you can imagine, the devil and his son loses. Our hero triumphs and gets the girl.

Maybe because I don't watch many fantasy films or read the genre, and therefore not familiar with the norms, I can't be negative about what takes place. I will say I was caught up in this story and found it interesting with a few philosophical sidebars along the way to distract me.

Posted 2009/05/13 at 19h42ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

...one of the toughest workouts...

've been battling allergies. The symptoms include difficulty breathing and it greatly affected my exercise today just as it had yesterday.

It was a cardio day and I planned to do 30 minutes on the elliptical machine and that's what I did, but it was tough. My breathing was laboured. I had to slow my pace and on several times I thought about stopping but kept going.

I'm not sure if I did the right thing, but I'd probably have to pass out to stop. There moments when I thought that might happen.

If that wasn't enough, I did stomach crunches and bicep curls afterwards.

Stomach Crunches on Swiss Ball: 30 reps x 6 sets with 2KG medicine ball.

Bicep Curls on Swiss Ball: 9kg x 15 reps x 6 sets

I decided to increase the weight for the bicep curls because 7kg seemed too easy but as I always do I lower the reps until I get used to the increased weight. It's my way of avoiding injury.

Posted 2009/05/12 at 19h42ET in Exercise. [View single entry]

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Slumdog Millionaire. Feature film. (2008, 120 mins) IMDB

...tough to critique after all the hype...

arlier this year, before the Oscar announcements, someone I know at the gym asked me if I had seen SLUMDOG. "No," was my reply.

"What are you waiting for?"

"When it comes out on DVD."

"Oh, man. You've got to see it now."

This dance of questions and answers continued day after day and I started to call him slumdog. If he wasn't from Mumbai he wouldn't have bothered to ask me and boast about it. It got worse when the Oscars happened and the film picked up a bunch of awards. I didn't watch the show so I'm not sure what it won, but I think it was the top-dog, not slumdog.

In other years, the producers and distributors would have used the Oscar buzz to put butt into seats at theatres. That's what they want, but this year they took a different course. While it was still in theatres and not long after the Oscars, they released the film on DVD. Go figure.

The time between a film's theatrical release date and DVD release has gotten shorter and shorter. I think I know why. Marketing. So much money goes into marketing a film, getting you and me to know something about a film, they get a double up effect in that people remember it by the time the DVD comes out. Or, in this film's case, they know about the buzz from all the free publicity. Remember, the Oscars is all about selling and promoting and marketing films. It's not about who is the best performer, the best writer or the best film. It's about getting your attention so you'll go to the theatre and buy a DVD.

Back to the guy from the gym who bugged me about the film. Because of all the hype, I read some summaries to find out what the film was about. I learnt it's about this boy who grew up in the slums of Mumbai, got on a game show where he won big-time so much so everybody thinks he had to have cheated. I asked him, how does an uneducated boy know enough to answer the questions and win the contest? He wouldn't tell me.

"You'll have to see the movie to find out."

Since I've seen the movie, I have the answer to my question. He didn't cheat. He was simply fortunate enough to get questions for which he knew the answer or if he didn't know, he guessed correctly.

The film is structured with flashbacks. The young man is in a dingy prison where a beefy guard tortures him about how he knew the answers. He won't talk. Enter the captain of the guards and more torture. Again no answers, but eventually he begins to answer. Enter the first flashback to the show where the host introduces our hero as a guest. Then the first question which leads to another flashback into the life of the man as young boy. It's during these flashbacks we learn about him, see his struggles and understand why he knew the answer.

This structure continues as the boy loses his mother, grows up, moves around etc. until he's grown-up, living in Mumbai and working at a call centre where he serves tea. He's mocked by the game-show host for being such a lowly person.

While we follow this struggle to live, to survive, we follow his interest in a girl he met as a boy. There's a love story to go along with the quest to win the money.

The climax happens in two spots. There's the contest. Tension is built around the final answer. Did he get it right and win the big prize? The build up to this moment works, but the bigger build up is the reuniting of our hero and the love interest. For all the right reasons, they come together in a moment that says: love and people are what matter, not the wealth from winning a contest. This message is echoed in a sub-plot involving his brother who ends up with gangs in search of hedonistic gain and eventually his death.

It's a typical message from Hollywood (although this isn't a Hollywood film).

My question is why does Hollywood send the message of love over money when all the people involved in making these films spend their time doing the opposite, and seemingly, live luxurious but miserable lives?

Posted 2009/05/12 at 19h42ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Monday, May 11, 2009

...almost a full weights workout...

oday was one of the toughest workouts I've had and I realized a few things. I realized I was having trouble breathing because of allergies. The kind of trouble where it's difficult to breathe which means I'm not getting enough oxygen. A lack of oxygen means I feel lethargic and my body doesn't heal as quickly after workouts. That explains why I've been the way I've felt the past few days. Then today, it was a struggle to do the workouts. I probably shouldn't even has tried. My breathing was laboured. I took longer rests between sets just to suck air. Normally I'd do three rotations, but cut it to two. I'm amazed I got through two.

Bench Press: 11kg x 25 reps x 2 sets

Inclined Bench Press: 11kg x 25 reps x 2 sets

Stomach Crunches on Swiss Ball: 30 reps x 4 sets with 2KG medicine ball.

Bicep Curls: 7kg x 25 reps x 4 sets

Tricep Presses on bench: 14kg x 25 reps x 2 sets.

Leg Lunges: 10 reps x 4 sets - Left/Right

Squats: 10 reps x 4 sets.

Posted 2009/05/11 at 20h31ET in Exercise. [View single entry]

Monday, May 11, 2009

Bottle Shock. Feature film. (2008, 110 mins) IMDB

...a year of change...

here was a time when Californian wines were considered worthless. Swill to be drunk by the masses not enjoyed by connoisseurs. That changed in 1976 and the world hasn't been the same since.

The film follows the life of a bunch of characters on the Chateau Montelena vineyard in Napa and their pursuit to make the best wine possible. It also follows a Englishman who runs a wine shop in Paris. He visits Napa to collect wine for a blind tasting in France. To everyone's surprise, the Californian wines placed first. The rest is history.

When the film was over, I discovered this was a biographical film.

I found the film mildly interesting. The most interesting performance is Alan Rickman's. He speaks in a way that always demands attention except when he speaks French. It was painful to hear him speak in French.

Otherwise the film is mostly melodramatics and predictable.

Posted 2009/05/11 at 20h31ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Monday, May 11, 2009

Rambo. Feature film. (2008, 92 mins) IMDB

...action films won't die, or John Rambo...

was surprised to see Stallone directed this film and surprised even further how effective it was. RAMBO is another action film, but there's a level of visuals and direction that hasn't been seen before (at least by me).

The film works on this principle: create some nasty baddies, so bad we want to see them harmed and stopped. With that in place, enter our hero to make it happen and smile as it happens. Pump a fist into the air in triumph. If you feel those moments, you'll probably like the film. I felt those moments in this film.

I can remember watching the film in the theatre that started it all way back when. FIRST BLOOD, based on a novel by David Morrell (we went to the same high school but at different times), changed the lexicon of the public. The word Rambo had meaning. That film was a big hit and I can remember details from watching it even though it's been 25 years. Some films are like that.

The story line for this edition of the franchise is straightforward. John Rambo lives a meek existence in Thailand. He owns a boat for travelling up and down the rivers. He catches cobras and other wild snakes for money.

Enter the inciting incident. A bunch of missionaries and health professionals want to hire him to take them and their supplies up the river to a spot in Burma. He doesn't want to do it and advises against it. Burma is a war zone. Don't go there. The sole woman in the group convinces him to do it and he ferries them north. There's an encounter with pirates along the way which he handles with deadly force. He takes them to a village and returns downstream.

The village is attacked by a gang of military thugs. Here are the ultimate baddies. They kill indiscriminately, they pillage, they rape. They aren't solders, they are merciless thugs. In the process of the attack, several of the visitors are killed, the rest are taken hostage and imprisoned.

There were scenes in this film that reminded me of APOCALYPSE NOW. A boat on a river. Danger lurking everywhere. Bamboo cages.

Rambo isn't anywhere near the attack and has no reason to get involved further. Enter a man who wants to hire him to ferry mercenaries up the river to rescue the people. Another step in the story.

The mercenaries don't know Rambo and don't respect him. They think he's a wimp. It helps to have a Brit play an arrogant asshole.

What follows is a great deal of violence as the team infiltrate the thug's compound, rescue the prisoners and make their escape. It's predictable but since we want to see certain people get theirs, we want to watch.

The level of violence in this film goes to new heights it seems to me. When a local steps on a land mine in a rice field, the explosion isn't simply a cloud of grey smoke. There's water and it's saturated red from the blood and flesh of the victim. A giant flash of red.

When someone is shot, blood spurts out. When Rambo fires a .50 cal on the soldiers, arms and legs are severed.

The level of realism is gruesome. I'm sure it will upset some people.

How were these effects created? Most likely with CGI. If that's the case, it's not obvious and cheap looking CGI and not over done.

Posted 2009/05/11 at 20h31ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Monday, May 11, 2009

Sleeping Dogs Lie. Feature film. (2006, 97 mins) IMDB

...it's hard to believe this film was made...

rude. Gross.

A young woman wonders if she should tell her fiancée the whole truth about her past. When in university, she, I can't believe this is part of a film, blew her dog. I thought I heard wrong. Nope. This past event plays the central role of the film and the central theme. Should you be totally honest with your lover? Yes or no. The film shows the not surprising negative aspects of her telling him. It tears the relationship apart. To complicate matters, he's not the only one to find out.

I like the theme: how honest should you be with your lover, but this test of the case goes too far and doesn't make the film a romantic comedy. Far from romantic and with crude humour.

The camera shots and look felt like a cheap porn film. Was it shot with video instead of film? It looks cheap.

Having said that, there were moments that were charming. It could have been such a better film.

Posted 2009/05/11 at 20h31ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Sunday, May 10, 2009

The Breakfast Club. Feature film. (1985, 97 mins) IMDB

...I'm not sure why, but this film has a cult following, but not by me...

suppose if I had been born a few years later I would have been in high school when this film came out and might have known about it, but even then that's not entirely likely. It came out when I was in university. I can't say I remember many films from that time. My mind was focused on other things. Why do I mention this? Because this film is probably best viewed by kids, not adults.

I said I wouldn't watch another film based on high school students. Somehow I thought this film would be different or more likely I forgot my rule.

The film is straightforward. Five students arrive at school on a Saturday for a day-long detention session (I never heard of such a thing.) There's the five students, a teacher, a janitor and, briefly, parents for the kids.

The film could be a play with such a limited cast and limited set. The technical aspects of this film weren't that difficult.

And the story? Take five different types of people and force them to be together for many hours. There's the jock and the prom queen. There's the bohemian and the geek and finally the thug and misfit.

They don't know each other but as the story unfolds, they do and instead of being strangers and instant enemies, they become friends.

I can't say I enjoyed this film. I didn't like it messages. It's Pollyanna. Maybe if I saw it when I was in high school, I'd probably feel differently, but not likely.

Posted 2009/05/10 at 21h12ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Saturday, May 9, 2009

Wife vs. Secretary. Feature film. (1936, 88 mins) IMDB

...not as good as I expected...

lark Gable plays a successful businessman in NYC. He's a bon-vivant. What's not to like.

Mryna Loy is his fun loving wife.

The two have the perfect marriage.

Then there's Jean Harlow. The sexpod and his secretary.

The film is a play on these relationships.

Because Harlow is hot, people assume he's having an affair with her. Her wife doesn't suspect anything until others point it out. The thing is, he isn't having a relationship with her. He's a loving husband and a hardworking businessman. It just happens his desire to buy a business from another businessman puts him into overtime. It means his secretary is working overtime. Hence the misunderstanding.

While Harlow is a sexpod, in the film, she's a diligent, hardworking secretary. She doesn't think about sex with our hero and he doesn't think about it.

She has a boyfriend played by James Stewart. He's waiting around for her to give up her job so they can get married. She wants to keep working.

It's all a case of misunderstanding.

I never really got into this film because there isn't much happening. It all seems like some polite and friendly talking and discussions. There's not much in the way of crises or problems. It's far too tame and slow.

Just because it's a B&W MGM film from the 1930s with stars doesn't mean it's a good film.

Posted 2009/05/09 at 21h12ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Saturday, May 9, 2009

Miami Vice. Feature film. (2007, 140 mins) IMDB

...a terrible movie despite the budget and talent...

uring the 5th minute I thought of shutting the DVD player off and say: "Forget this movie". That doesn't happen often and I probably should have.

The opening credits are so small with such poor contrast as to be unreadable. Is that what they wanted? Why bother putting up credits if no one can read them? How stupid.

The opening sequence is a bunch of big, fast boats racing across the water. It's meaningless and boring because it's done without any context. Who's in the boats? Why? We don't know so we don't care.

It gets worse. Shift to a packed nightclub with that pounding music and flashing lights. Who enjoys that type of scene? I hate those types of scenes, yet they persist.

This is followed by a meet and great. Drug sellers and drug buyers. The buyers are accused of being informants. Out come the big guns, .50 cal guns, whereupon the informants are literally shot to pieces. Who needs to see this? Why?

I'm into the 16th minute and I'm thinking of stopping it.

I know Miami Vice was a TV series but I couldn't tell you a thing about it except the obvious. It takes place in Mimi and it deals with cops, vice squad, chasing drug dealers.

That's what's happening in this film. There's nasty drug dealers, informants whose cover has been blown and our two heroes are called in to figure it out.

The film is about women with fake tits, guns and violence. Fast cars, fast boats. All without any purpose.

It's a lame film.

The very first image on the screen is white text on black saying this film has been edited from its original release. I thought it was one of the notices to say it'd been shrunk to full screen. This was a first. Realizing what was going on and seeing the running time over 140 minutes, my immediate thought was self-indulgent and now I say lazy. It takes work to fit a story into 120 mins. It's lazy to let it run long.

There seems to be every nationality involved in these drug deals except Canadians.

And what's with Colombians speaking English with each other. Ugh. It just doesn't happen.

Thankfully there was a fast-forward button and it worked. Sometimes certain DVDs don't allow the FF to work.

Posted 2009/05/09 at 21h12ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Friday, May 8, 2009

...full weights workout...

ven though I got to the gym late on this Friday, I put in a full workout--a long one. It's what I needed.

Bench Press: 11kg x 25 reps x 3 sets

Inclined Bench Press: 11kg x 25 reps x 3 sets

Stomach Crunches on Swiss Ball: 30 reps x 6 sets with 2KG medicine ball.

Bicep Curls: 7kg x 25 reps x 6 sets

Tricep Presses on bench: 14kg x 25 reps x 3 sets. I forgot I was doing them on the Swiss ball going forward.

Leg Lunges: 10 reps x 6 sets - Left/Right

Squats: 10 reps x 6 sets.

Have to get regular leg lunges and squats in to my routine, even if it's just one set. They are a must.

Posted 2009/05/08 at 20h41ET in Exercise. [View single entry]

Friday, May 8, 2009

The Duchess. Feature film. (2008, 110 mins) IMDB

...another English period piece based on real events...

came into to this film knowing nothing--my usual starting point. I clicked on its IMDB listing and saw it had won one Oscar and knew immediately what it was--costume design. I wasn't wrong. Another period piece from England complete with horses, candles, wigs, country estates and elaborate costumes. Lest we not forget people actually wore them, but then again people thought it was okay to enslave people.

It's 1774 in England. We get a glimpse into the lives of some of the top people of the country--the duke and duchess of Devonshire. We see nothing about the king or queen. Learn nothing about the servants or the everyday people except that they bow in the presence of the duke or duchess. The film is about this couple and a few people in their lives. If I recall correctly, none of the servants in their home says anything more then, "Your grace." This is not Upstairs, Downstairs.

The duke (Fiennes) meets with the mother of our hero of the story where they negotiate a marriage. He has everything he wants except an heir. With the marriage to the teenaged daughter, he'll get what he wants and within a few short strokes of the movie, we're off.

The daughter (Knightly) greets the news of her marriage with delight. It was a different time where marriage wasn't about love. (I suspected she'd protest, but didn't.) Marriage was about money and power. The duke had it. Her family had it. If the two married, it would stay in the family. The fact Georgina greets it with joy portends bad things to follow and I suppose that's one way of describing it.

The duke is a cold fish. He doesn't have a lot to say. He screws his wife in the hopes of getting an heir. He also screws some servants which does produce a child--Charlotte. The child is accepted into the home as an orphan and G takes care of her as if she were her mother. G gets a lesson in life.

Then G is pregnant. It's a girl. Disaster. While the duke isn't likeable, he isn't Henry VIII. The pressure is certainly on her.

Then we'll throw in a love interest for G. A Mr. Grey. They manage to get it on and she becomes pregnant. The duke tells her, her mother as well, to make a choice. Go off with Grey and live in poverty and never see your children, or, you can give up the child and stay here. She decides on the later. She goes away, has the child and gives it up to Grey's parents who raise it as if she were his sister. Such was the way.

There's clearly an attempt in this film to show the double standard of life for men and women. There's a scene where the duke is undressing the duchess and he asks her why women dress this way. Her reply: It's the only way women can show their creativity. They have no other options. They can't own property, they can't vote, what else can they do? Not much except produce babies and stay quiet.

She's not one to stay quite. Much is made of her notoriety except it doesn't comes across in the film. Not an easy thing to do but I suspect in a modern context she was probably as well known as Lady Diana.

There's the kicker. This film is based on real people. I thought it was fabricated like a Jane Austin novel, but nope. There was this duke and duchess and their love interests.

Posted 2009/05/08 at 20h41ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Thursday, May 7, 2009

Dead Fish. Feature film. (2004, 98 mins) IMDB

...hard to believe they can get it so wrong...

beautiful Spanish woman stands in a railway station in London. She argues with her deadbeat boyfriend. She's pregnant and wants him to grow up. She takes his cell phone to call her mother. A few seconds into the call, another deadbeat snatches her phone and runs away. She gives chase. He runs faster until he's knocked flat to the ground by our hit man. The phone is returned to the lovely lady and the hit man is smitten with her.

He's in London to do another hit. He's waiting for the call from his boss with instructions. The call but it goes to the deadbeat boyfriend because there was a mix-up in the phones. I totally expected it to happen and it was completely stupid and unbelievable.

The deadbeat goes to the train station. Finds the locker with the instructions on the hit, cash and a pistol and goes to the Mr. Fish's place. By accident he shots Fish at least that's what we're supposed to believe.

The hit man discovers the screw-up and chases after our deadbeat hero. That's the bulk of act two. He's also in love with the Spanish woman and tries to reach out to her. When they finally meet again, he gives her a red rose and she won't accept it. She's in love with the deadbeat.

As the movie progressed I wanted so much for the hit man to kill the deadbeat. He was a loser. Obnoxious. Please, please, shot the asshole, but it didn't come.

The ending was as stupid and absurd as the rest of the story. Fish kills the hit man?!? Give me a break.

There were so many things in this movie that made no sense and happened just because the plot required. Or simply was there because someone thought it was amusing when it wasn't.

A pot head doing drugs and laughing. How original.

What was with this Billy Zane character and his time with Dragon? You've got me.

In the last week, I've watched three movies of this nature--killers and comedy. This film, YOU KILL ME and IN BRUGES. The later was oddly a great film. YOU KILL ME was pleasant and professional and average but it looks like an award winner compared to this one.

Posted 2009/05/07 at 20h11ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Wednesday, May 6, 2009

Vital Signs. Feature film. (1990, 103 mins) IMDB

...what a terrible, boring film...

errible, terrible, terrible.

The film starts out with medical students at their residency at a teaching hospital. They are learning whatever it is they are supposed to be learning.

From there it's all about these student doctors as they study and practice and whatever it is they're doing.

There's a large cast. There is no focus on one character instead it switches between the various performers.

I wanted to stop it but instead I'm writing this and updating my movie db.

I know why I don't like this film. I don't care about the characters. I don't care if they become doctors or what they have to go through to get there. It just isn't interesting to me. So what. A bunch of students learn to be doctors.

This is one boring film.

Had they tried to make a comedy out of it, it might have been good, but instead it's terrible. Absolutely terrible. I just don't care about anything in this film.

Posted 2009/05/06 at 19h28ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Tuesday, May 5, 2009

In Bruges. Feature film. (2008, 107 mins) IMDB

...one of the best films I've seen a while...

came into this film knowing nothing about it and after watching I realize I should have. It's a film worth watching.

Colin Farrell plays a hit-man in hiding. He just completed a job in London and his boss asks him to hide in Bruges, to lay low until the heat cools off. He's never heard of the place. I've never heard of it. But the film takes place in this small city in Belgium. An ancient city with old buildings and a history.

His first response on arrival: it's a shithole. After some consideration, he repeats: it's a shithole. And he repeats it again. He hates the place and doesn't want to be there. I can't say I agree with him because having lived in Africa, Bruges is far from a shithole. Having lived in Lund, Sweden, a city similar to Bruges, I can say it's what you make of it and the people who are there. I loved my time in Lund.

Not a great deal happens in the opening scenes and yet so much happens. It's quite bizarre how effective it is. I imagined this film was originally produced as a play because it could have been, but it appears not to be the case. (The writer/director of the film is noted playwright and that's the reason this film feels like a play).

Ray doesn't arrive alone. He's holed up in a tiny hotel with a fellow hitman, Ken. To the pass the time, Ken suggests sightseeing. Ray can't imagine anything more boring. He wants to leave the city and get back to England, but he can't. They have to wait for word from the boss.

They wait and they wait, but unlike Godot, the boss calls and later arrives in town. The boss wants Ken to kill Ray. The reason? Ray goofed up on this last assignment. He was there to kill a priest. He killed the priest but managed to kill a little boy who was in church repenting for his perceived sins. Ouch. It haunts Ray to the extent he wants to kill himself.

It would be easy to describe the plot and from that comes nothing because this film is much more than a simple plot. The question is what is it? What makes it tick? Why is it effective?

At the moment I feel as if I'm at a loss for words.

This film has satire and comedy but it also has gruesome violence. Normally the two don't mix, not with any sense of a just ending and this film has a just ending but there's also an open end.

It's open ended because while we grow to like Ray, our hero, he's an anti-hero. He did kill a six-year old boy even if it wasn't on purpose. We're routing for him even though we know he's fucked up.

By the way, this film is littered with expletives and it pokes fun at itself on that point, but it didn't feel like a swearfest unlike say PULP FICTION. There was a certain rhythm to it all and it elevated it to poetry. I'm not kidding.

This film defies easy description. It truly does.

I was amused and surprised at how Ray and Ken are blunt in their hatred for American tourists. Crass and boring. There is the usual mistaken identity when they meet two Canadians. It plays a pivotal role in the plot attached with a certain irony. Our hero is as flawed as we suspect. Not just smug.

A midget (little person, dwarf, I have no idea what the right terminology is) also plays a role in the story but to understand it you have to watch the entire film to believe it. The ending is set-up, resolves open questions and comes as a surprise. You'll have to watch the film to believe it and understand.

Then there is Ralph Fiennes. We don't see the boss for the first sixty minutes of the film but we hear his voice and see a transcript of his message. I was surprised when this rough, uneducated voice belonged to Fiennes. Hey, that's acting and he pulled it off. I told you I went into this film blind. There is humour by the postscript of the hotel owner on his message. There is irony in the language as Colin Firth says just because we speak with this accent doesn't make us intelligent.

I haven't even mentioned supporting actors who deserve mention.

The film deserves a second viewing and a second commentary because I haven't done it justice. It's one of the best films I've seen in a while and the question is why and I'm not entirely sure.

As part of the opening sequence, the two hit-men visit a museum and view paintings. In one there is a man laid out on a table. He's alive, but the others around him are cutting away his skin. The skin on his lower left leg has been completely pulled away and he's alive. Only a painting in oil, but vivid and gruesome.

As I say, this film defies easy classification and description. That's bad news if you're a marketing executive promoting this film. It's good news if you're a viewer like me and you.

Posted 2009/05/05 at 19h26ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Monday, May 4, 2009

The Gift. Feature film. (2000, 112 mins) IMDB

...surprisingly effective but with a predictable, weak ending...

large, large cast with many familiar faces. It's unusual to have such a large cast of A list actors in a drama. A spoof? A comedy? Sure, but not a straight up drama as surely this film must be classified.

Because there is such a large cast, the setup is long and to my surprise I found that much more interesting than the main plot that followed. There's probably a lesson there. The question is how to articulate it at this moment that makes any sense from a dramatic point of view. It isn't enough to say we meet a bunch of characters living their lives because even then there are characters we don't meet until later in the film plus just living isn't necessarily dramatic or interesting. It could be questions were raised and we're searching for answers.

There is a structure to this film but it isn't a traditional Hollywood structure. In most films an inciting incident pokes our hero and forces him to take some sort of action. He (in this film she) is forced to respond to some event and the story is set in motion. There is no clear inciting incident in this film and, if it does happen, it certainly doesn't happen in the first five or ten minutes of the film. I could be wrong because it could have been some "psychic" vision she had, but because to me being psychic is the same as being a con, I didn't pick up on it.

Our hero is a psychic and hence the title although she might not see it as a gift. Normally, I would trash movies based on paranormal and supernatural for the simple reason it's faked and false and non-sense and I'm biased against such films. Anyone who says they have psychic ability is a liar and con artist--someone out to steal your money by giving you with bullshit. Anyone who believes in psychics needs to grow up, but that's too much to ask for. Hell, people still believe in gods or a god.

For some reason I bought the notion that Kate Blanchette had a psychic ability, that she could see events in her mind even though she'd never been there at the time. And for some reason I didn't hold it against her. I think I know why. First, she's a widowed mother of three boys living in near poverty. Second, she's persecuted for her activities. While I can say psychics are liars and cons, scratch that. Psychics are cons and shouldn't be allowed to operate. Period. They are frauds and as other frauds are illegal so should they. That's the right word. Frauds.

She's not persecuted for being a psychic, she's harassed by a jealous, thuggish husband. One of her clients (Swank) is the wife a wife-beater. Our hero tries to talk some sense into her about leaving her husband and rightly so. No woman or kid should be physically abused by a husband or father. The husband (surprisingly played by Keanu) goes after our hero. Threatening her and her sons. We don't like him at all as a result and for good reason. I have no idea why he took this role because he certainly didn't need the money.

At this point you'd think these actions formed the central focus of the story line, but it's only part of it.

Our heroes' son is acting up at school. Off to the principal's office she goes where she meets the one person in the film who isn't a redneck--Kinnear. (They call themselves rednecks). During this meeting, we meet another central character. His fiancée, Jessica. Gorgeous and wild. Just as we soon discover she's not faithful. She likes to screw and that means with different men.

Not long after that, Jessica goes missing. The father and police come to her to see if she sees anything and she does. Based on her psychic ability, she sees the dead Jessica. A search follows and the body is found.

There was some over the top, melodramatic, telegraphed directing during this scene. Police in boats are raking the bottom of the pond. One yells out he got something. What follows is a drawn out. Close ups on key players, the focus on the slow recovery of the rake until it's revealed to be a bicycle and we knew it to be begin with. Ugh.

But, not long after, the real thing happens. Her body is pulled from the pond. I was surprised they showed her partially nude body, but if you like Katie Holmes, you can see more later.

With her death, comes a trial. The wife-beater is tried because it was his pond and he has a tendency to violence and he was seen with her on the night of the murder. Open and shut case.

The threat to our hero is gone because he's found guilty and sent away. Except she's a psychic and sees visions and in those visions she's convinced he's not guilty even though she's not crying because he's in jail.

Act III. Find out what really happened. Since her visions come in spurts and aren't entirely clear, she struggles to see the truth, plus the fact the prosecutor et al don't want anything more to do with the case. It's over.

But magically, the ex-fiancée comes back into the picture. He wants to know what she sees because he killed Jessica. The nerd as the killer. How original. And how pathetic to have him spill his guts to answer all the questions etc. Can't they be more original or smart? I guess not. We've seen this type of ending so many times...

Posted 2009/05/04 at 20h46ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Sunday, May 3, 2009

The Prince and The Pauper. Feature film. (1937, 118 mins) IMDB

...a fun story children would enjoy...

ondon, England, 1537. The queen gives birth to a boy and the kingdom rejoices especially Henry VIII. In another part of town, another boy is born. His father moans because there's another mouth to feed. Quite a contrast of circumstances.

Flash forward 10 years. The young prince is getting used to the idea of becoming king. His father is ill. The young beggar boy gets a slap from his cruel father and runs away. He ends up at Windsor castle (I doubt it existed then, but perhaps. Just checked. It did.).

The prince and beggar boy meet each other and play games including a scene where they switch clothes. Once this happens, the rest of the story is in place. The prince is kicked out of the castle for being a beggar boy and the beggar boy lives in the castle as prince and then king.

When the fake prince tells everyone who he is, they laugh and assume he's mad. When the prince tells everyone who he is, they all laugh and assume he's mad. The boys are stuck in lives they don't want.

It get worse for the boys because the greedy Hertford (Raines) discovers the boy is telling the truth and likes it. He likes it because he can control the fake prince for his own ends, something he couldn't do with the real prince as king. Hertford tells the Captain of the King's guards to find the real prince and kill him.

Less than 100 years ago, a beggar boy wouldn't know how to read or write while a prince would. How to solve such a dilemma? Our beggar boy in the setup is befriended by a priest who teaches him to read and write. If it weren't such, he wouldn't know how to hold a quill, let alone use it--something a prince and king would know.

The life for Tom in the castle isn't so bad. Clean clothes, food etc. Not so for the prince. The father locates him and beats him and drags him home. When the father accidentally kills the priest, the father must run away and takes the boy with him. His father is a thief, thug, murderer. That he should die is no surprise.

Flynn is charming and handsome and dashing. Just as you'd expect. He wears a cape and carries a sword (épée?).

When he spends an evening at the Inn, a barmaid shows him favouritism as if to say, let's get it on and he obliges except since this is a family movie and it was made in 1937, it's a subtle scene.

Flynn uses his sword to fight the King's guard sent to kill the prince. He fights the evil father. He fights and fights. The sword zipping and slashing. It's what you'd expect.

While Flynn is saving the prince from death, the castle readies for the coronation of their new king. The young beggar boy is going to be king. Act III is on.

Flynn and the prince have to make it back, have to get past the guards, have to convince the court he is the rightful king. The beggar boy does his part. He's not standing in the way. It all enfolds as it should.

The prince is back where he should be. He gives protection to the now orphaned beggar boy. He rewards our hero Flynn and he banishes Rains from England.

In one final note that I'm sure would piss off conservatives, he passes to laws to outlaw slavery and other injustices seen in the film. The prince learnt a thing or two about his country while away from the castle.

The film falls into the category of a well-made film. There's nothing missing and it stands up to this day.

The costumes were elaborate. A large cast. A three-act structured story that works. It seems a bit tame by today's standards, but the movie is 72 years old.

Posted 2009/05/03 at 20h46ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Saturday, May 2, 2009

Religiulous. Feature film. (2008, 101 mins) IMDB

...a title that takes some getting use to but a great one...

looked forward to watching this film and I'm glad I did. It's about time people like Bill Maher questioned the non-sense of religion and that's what he does in this film.

As he says in the film atheists represent a large majority of people in the US but there is no lobby for them. There are no politicians willing to stand up against religious nut-jobs. That won't easily change, but I can't wait for a politician to say, I'm an atheist or I'm agnostic. I may have to wait a long time for that.

He points out the myth the US was founded as a Christian country. People believe it, but it isn't true. From Jefferson to Franklin to Adams, these men spoke out against organized religion.

Religious leaders want you to be afraid to speak out against their religion. Remember the inquisition?

There are also the nut-jobs who take the bible literally and believe we all come from Adam and Eve and the world is only 5000 years old or so. They believe humans co-existed with dinosaurs. And back to the politicians who believe this and denounce the theory of evolution. I guess you can't be rational with some people.

I was mildly surprised to see the Catholics interviewed to be the most rational which includes accepting Darwin's theory. Some people have come to the realization that you can't fight the facts, but others walk around with blinders on.

Posted 2009/05/02 at 20h28ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Saturday, May 2, 2009

No Reservations. Feature film. (2007, 104 mins) IMDB

...I so much wanted to like this film but couldn't...

his film had two things I like a great deal: romance and cooking, but they didn't come together for me in this film. I think I know why. The female lead doesn't strike me as a romantic leading lady. That's just me. I also found the story line stale and uninteresting.

Our hero lives in NYC working at a fine dining restaurant where she is the chef and dictator. Everything about her life is about cooking. Nothing else seems to matter. No children. No relationships.

Then her life is kicked apart. Her sister and niece travel to visit her but before they arrive, there's an accident. The mother dies and little Zoe has to live with her aunt. Our hero struggles to include a new person into her life but what follows is so predictable as to be boring.

To add even more complications to our hero's life, her sous-chef is pregnant and leaves work. Enter a new sous-chef played by Eckhart. While our hero is serious and dour, he's the exact opposite. She meets him working in her kitchen while Italian opera plays. Of course he sings along. Haven't we've seen this before? He's carefree and relaxed and a good cook. Let the romance begin.

Bit by bit he cracks away the salt layers until she realizes she's in love with him. But that can't last. At least at the end of Act II where their rivalry in the kitchen gets in the way and they split. It's temporary.

The niece runs away and our hero goes looking for her. She has to call him in to help in the search and through this process they are brought back together.

I wanted to like this film greatly, but it didn't happen. The conflict is weak. The characters and events pedestrian. It's a TV movie made to appear like a feature film and it isn't.

Posted 2009/05/02 at 20h28ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Friday, May 1, 2009

You Kill Me. Feature film. (2007, 93x mins) IMDB

...a comedy with some romance and few comic moments...

rank lives in Buffalo. He's lived there his entire life. He's Polish and part of a gang of Poles who control certain aspects of life in Buffalo. He's also a drunk which gets in the way of his job which is to kill people who get in the way of his Polish gang.

In the opening scenes he drinks to excess. It's winter and he goes out front of his house to clear the snow. One scoop of snow, two swigs of vodka. This continues until the bottle is empty and he tosses it into the snow.

As he's shovelling the snow, a cohort drops by to give him an assignment. Kill O'Leary before he gets on a train to NYC. Our hero stakes out the train station. He has a pistol and a large bottle of vodka. He spends his time drinking and drinking until he passes out. O'Leary gets on the train and leaves town unharmed.

The next morning his cohorts find him passed out in his car and haul him into their snow plough depot (a part of the Polish gang operations). He pissed off his uncle Roman who tells him he has to shape up. Here comes the inciting incident only a few minutes into the film. Frank is going to San Fran to clean up and sober up. He's no use to them as a drunk and off our hero goes.

He ends up in San Fran where he has an apartment, a new "buddy" and a new job working at a funeral home.

His new buddy (Pullman) is a friend of the family. If our hero doesn't do what's expected, Pullman is going to make a call back home. This threat forces our hero into line--at least, it points him in that direction.

He also meets the love interest. It's an odd pairing. She shouldn't be the least bit interested in him, but it turns out she is or maybe that's just what the story requires and it does.

Our hero chases after her and they become an item even if he's twenty years older.

The film is about this man's struggle with life. Who is he? What makes him happy? How to get out of the funk he's in.

He drinks a lot then stops and slips up a few times. These slip-ups screw up his relationship with the love interest. No surprise there and I wish they hadn't included that scene.

Because, as we're shown, AA is about spilling your guts and making amends, that's what he does. He lets everyone know what he does: he kills people. He's a hitman. It's the kind of statement you'd expect if he were on the stand in court and had immunity. I suppose the second A in AA feels like immunity, because nothing negative happens because of his revelation. People accept it. In real life, I think people would assume he's full of shit or be intrigued to learn more.

As the story progress, life for the Polish gang in Buffalo gets worse. They are losing business to the Irish and soon people will lose their life to the Irish. It means our hero has to come back and to the rescue. Yes, it's Act III. Since, there's a romantic element to this film, it also means he loses the girl, but that always happens at this point in the story. It's only temporary.

Our hero comes back to Buffalo to kill O'Leary, the cocky SOB, and we're happy. His girlfriend chases after him and they reunite and we're happy.

Our hero has changed his life around and got the girl. There's a bright future ahead for him. Only in the movies.

This film is a mixture of genres. It's part romantic comedy although there's nothing keeping them apart and they aren't a natural couple. It's part comedy and satire. I never once burst out laughing, but there were some clever moments.

Even though there are gangs and violence, you won't mistake it for a Martin Scorsese film.

There was one moment where I thought, yes, it's Ghandi. That's completely unfair, but natural.

Posted 2009/05/01 at 19h58ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Entries from May 2009

Categories

Favourite Links

Archives

Movies Watched