Mission Impossible 3

My buddy J.B. and I decided to take in this movie after hearing from several sources that this movie was better than both X-men 3, and The Da Vinci Code.
I know...not exactly a high standard.

But hey…. we’re suckers for the Summer Blockbuster film.

Our tastes usually tend to lean towards award season movies, but we like a theatre full of popcorn chomping, audience members applauding in childish delight at explosions, like everybody else.

Mission Impossible 3 is the prototype Summer Blockbuster.

Tons of action, explosions, glamorous locales, physically attractive characters, sweat, blood and a loud soundtrack.
This movie delivers on all those criteria.

It even has a little.... heart…..just a little. Very little.
It’s a little unfortunate that the box office take is being seen as a disappointment. I’m guessing that Tom Cruise’s negative press is having a big affect on his box office popularity.The truth people are missing out, this is the best movie of the trilogy.Not like that’s anything impressive however.The first two movies were uneven to say the least.

This film is the first of the three to really draw on the format of the source material.
Unlike the previous Mission Impossible films, this movie features an actual team of IMF members.
A skilled, affable, enjoyable, team at that.

The first film had an IMF team.....for about 10 minutes, till they are all killed, and it becomes a Tom Cruise star vehicle.

The second movie, on the other hand, was an unabashed one man Rambo-like adventure.
I think director J.J. Abrams wanted to bring the excitement of the original show to the movie franchise.
He obviously realized that, what was great about the show was seeing this elite team working together to accomplish the seemingly impossible, against all odds.
The team consists of the reliable and loyal computer expert Luther (Ving Rhames), Vehicle specialist Declan (Match Point’s Jonathan Rhys Meyers), and skilled team member Zhen Lei (Maggie Q). What they are up against is the formidable weapons dealer Owen Davian, (played by the always impressive Phillip Seymour Hoffman.)

The movie also features strong supporting performances by Billy Crudup, and a surprising Keri Russell (T.V.’s Felicity).

The action revolves around obtaining “the Rabbit’s foot”. A mysterious chemical weapon capable of creating an apocalypse like plague.

J.J. Abrams does a good job of keeping everything exciting, and fast moving. The movie also has a nice sense of being a spy mystery, unlike the other films. There’s lots of intrigue, plot twists, and plenty of gadgets to keep even the most cynical entertained.

Unfortunately the movie isn’t perfect. There are things that will require a suspension of disbelief. Lots of the action sequences are just too fantastical, even for a summer blockbuster movie.

There’s also a major plot line concerning Tom Cruise’s love interest, who is played by the capable Michelle Monaghan, that just doesn’t ring true.

Lots of the movies action takes place with the use of her character as a bargaining chip.

Instead of being a fully fleshed out character, she is simply a plot device. The angel in distress.

It’s also unbelievable, at least to me, that a character like Ethan Hunt would ever commit to someone so deeply.

Given his occupation, and it’s obvious hazards, why would he selfishly involve a normal civilian in his lifestyle.

What is this True Lies?

Even the writers have trouble getting their minds around that fact, as other characters often reference how unrealistic it is to be committed….much less married, considering their lifestyle.
I also had an issue with how the movie was filmed.

For some reason, and I’m not sure who to blame here, the Director, or the Cinematographer. But everything just seemed……too close.

The action is all shot close up, the characters talk to each other close up. Explosions happen close up.
The scope of the film just feels too close.
Lots of times the movie is framed in a way that the characters looked crowded by the art design.
Throughout the film, I just wanted to yell........ back the f*ck up!!!
I was sitting in the back row.....seriously.
Why the hell was the camera so damn close to the action and characters?

There was no sense of perspective in the film.

What the hell J.J? Never seen a David Lean film?

I guess one can argue that he was trying to create a claustrophobic feel to the film, but there’s nothing, absolutly nothing, to support that argument.

I’m thinking…..maybe he’s directed too much television? Maybe he's used to framing things on a small screen.

I guess it’s not anything that can’t be learned, or picked up with experience. I’m going to go ahead and cut him some slack, it’s his first big action film.

It’s just unfortunate because a lot of the action is executed really well….I just wish I could have seen more of it.

But in the end, one can do a lot worse, than watching this movie.
As far as summer blockbusters..... this is exactly what the doctor ordered.
Good and bad.

The Pink Panther (2006)

It's turning into Joe Bob Briggs Drive-In-Theatre around here.

I guess I haven't been in the mood to watch anything demanding, or inspiring lately.

It's not by design that I've been watching crappy movies lately. I have Capote, Squid and the Whale, and Good Night and Good Luck, sitting on my shelves, waiting to be watched for the first time by me, and for some strange reason I'm throwing on stuff like this.

It's just that lately, I've been wanting to just sit in front of my big screen and just......exist.

I just haven't been in the mood to think.

I'm guessing it's because I've been tired from acting in a theatrical production the last month. I've just felt so lazy. But our show closed last week. So I'm guessing I'll start to watch more demanding material, as my energy and strength returns.

In the meantime.....I must pay for my laziness.

First off....wow.

How does one review a movie like this?

It's not that I can honestly critique the story, acting or directing in the movie.

I honestly think nobody really cared.

It's just not that type of movie.

I mean it's rated PG.....I can't remember when the last time I watched a PG movie....on purpose.
It's been a long time, I almost forgot what the initials PG stands for. If I remember correctly this movie is aimed at amusing small children, babies..... and small puppy dogs. Dogs that like loud crashes, and colorful pictures.

Isn't that what PG means? Puppy Guidance?

In any case, this movie is exactly what one suspects from seeing the preview.

Just silly kiddy puppy humor.

Lots of prat falls and one liners that 5 year olds can understand.

To be honest it's not like the original material is sophisticated stuff either. I recently watched some of the movies, and it's not as good as I remember....at all.

I think Shot in the Dark is the best of the bunch, and even that isn't half as good as Peter Sellers and Blake Edwards other movie The Party.

So I wonder why they even bother to make this movie.

The only thing I can think of is that they were hoping to start another series of movies with this franchise.

To try and make some serious cash.

They obviously failed.

First off, the major problem with the film is the casting of Steve Martin. Although Martin can be amusing...... sometimes....I guess. This material is simply not his style of humor anymore. It's been a long time since The Jerk, and the truth is nobody wants to see him do this type of humor anymore.

They want Cheaper by the Dozen Steve Martin.

Chasing kids and changing diapers.

Another problem is....everything else.

This movie has a uninspired script, actors who are obviously around just to pick up a paycheck, and a director in Shawn Levy who's strength is directing movies for kids....or puppy dogs.

I feel guilty for criticizing the movie.

The truth is, I should have never watched this movie.

Actually, this is all my fault. Not the filmmakers fault. This movie isn't made for me.

Who am I kidding, thinking that this movie would have any chance at amusing me in the slightest.

I must pay for my laziness, so I don't deserve the right to criticize this movie.

I will say that Beyonce Knowles and Emily Mortimer are nice eye candy in the movie. They are affable and charming, and obviously more deserving of better material.

Jean Reno....man.... what is he doing in this movie?

The star of Ronin and The Professional?

Seriously?

I guess everytime a movie needs a French actor they call him up. Which is why he's in The Da Vinci code too.

He's a great actor too. I like him in a lot of tough guy movies. I think he's funny too, in movies like The Visitors, and For Roseanna.

I'm hoping that Hollywood finds a way to utilize his talents more effectively, or else I'm sure he'll just give up, and stick to doing just French language films. I know he's not artistically challenged by any of the Hollywood movies they are casting him in.

I think the best thing about the movie is Kevin Kline.

But that's not saying much, he has a small part.

Kevin Kline is another actor who can't seem to find the right role in Hollywood lately. He's extremely talented, and they have him as a comic foil? Why? I don't know.

I'm not really going to go into the story, it would be insulting to do so. I'll just say that it's sort of a comic mystery. That's not too hard to figure out, unless one is a puppy dog....a retartded one at that.

In any case, as the rating says, this movie should only be watched by small children....and puppy dogs.

Like it was designed for.

The 55.00 Haircut

I swear I'm not high maintenance.

Anyone who knows me will vouch that I'm a jeans and tennis shoes kind of guy.

But that's how much it costs for me to get a hair cut.

I'm probably the only guy in the world who pays that much, me and Ryan Seacrest.....maybe Ben Affleck.

I know that sounds like a lot of money. But, trust me it's worth it. I only bring it up because I'm amazed by how many compliments I get. It feels like I got a trim. But people compliment me like I had a head transplant or something.

It wasn't always that way.

I used to get my haircut done at the 8 dollar barbers, or Supercuts all the time, but I just got sick of getting bad hair cuts. It was always a crap shoot.

Every other time I would get bad hair cuts, the other times it would just be decent. The kind of cut where one tells themselves they needed a week to grow into it. Before they knew it, it's a month later and they're making an appointment for their next cut.

It's not like I have a lot going for me in the looks department to begin with. I don't need the extra disadvantage of a bad hair cut.

In elementary school, I had bad hair cuts all the time.

Seriously, my head was like a bird nest. My sideburns would be uneven, I'd have a bald spot near my ear. Some parts would be spiked, other parts too long.

I'd scare small children, and puppy dogs with my hair style, cute puppys.

Seriously, I had wild hair.

Straight, but wild.

You know the hair cut that Jim Carrey sported in Dumb and Dumber? The bowl cut? That was my hair. Except I also sported the mustache that Pedro had in Napoleon Dynamite.

I'm serious. If one comes over my mom's house they can see pictures of me hanging all over her wall. Sporting that look.

On second thought...don't do that....please don't EVER do that.

It didn't stop in High school either. I don't know how I was ever able to attract people of the opposite sex.

My theory is that they took pity on me.

Either that..... or they liked my hats.

I knew fairly early on that my hair had a strange growth pattern. The Barber would always do the same thing. They would stare at my head for a couple minutes. Grab the scissors, make a few cuts, groan and then reach for the hair clippers.

That's how I knew I was in trouble, when they reached for the hair clippers.

They'd say in a calm, reassuring tone, "I think this cut would look better if it was shorter....a lot shorter. "

One time I got two hair cuts in the same day.

I went to the barber, they chopped it up.

I went home, looked in the mirror..... and realized I looked like a stray dog.

I then went to Supercuts in an attempt to salvage my hair.

The lady looked at it, groaned and promised to make it better.

She made it worse.

I wore a hat for three months.

So now that I have a little money, I pay 55.00 dollars for a hair cut.

Not counting tip....or tips.

One for the stylist, another for the shampoo girl.

So basically I have to apply for financial aid.

I tip out more than people pay for their whole hair cut.

Truth is, I know guys who pay 55 dollars on haircuts..... for the whole year.

I pay for that every 6 weeks.

But it's worth it, the lady that cuts my hair is really good too. Actually she's great.

Her name is Nicole she's the manager of Carlton's hair in the Beverly Center. She's been cutting my hair for 6 years now. I followed her to two different locations. The company recruited her out of Germany, they paid her way and brought her to America so that she could cut hair for the company.

She teaches classes all over the U.S.

She does hair shows every two months.

Sometimes when I make an appointment, I have to wait a week because she's doing a hair show in New York.

She's 25 years old.

Seriously.

That's how I roll.

She's that good.

She takes an hour to cut my hair.

No joke.

Not counting the shampoo and rinse before and after, followed by the styling.

Guys know that's an unusual amount of time to spend on a trim. If this is a lady reading this, ask one's father, brother, boyfriend.....ETC. How long it takes for them to get a hair cut. I bet they say 20 minutes....tops, including the blow dry.

But it's worth.

I know because when I tell people how much I spend and they either look at me shocked or laugh at me because they think I'm kidding.

Then when I tell them it's the truth, they look at my hair closely, in disbelief, trying to find fault, and then admit it's worth it.

Now when I wear a hat it's not because I'm hiding something.

It's because I don't want the sun to cook my head.

Just the way I like it.

X-Men: The Last Stand

X-Men: The Last Stand arrived in theatres this past weekend with lots of fan-fare.

I can't remember so much anticipation..... and ill will directed toward a movie before it was even released in a long time....if ever.

The production was plagued with problems. Apparently the script was rushed. The schedule tight, and the movie went through several director changes. First Bryan Singer was set to direct, then he dropped out to do Superman Returns, then Layer Cake director Matthew Vaughn was set to direct, he even chose the cast, then unexpectedly dropped out due to creative differences, leaving the job to Rush Hour's Brett Ratner.

That bit of news sent the fan boys on rumor movie websites into a Hulk like rage.

I wasn't necessarily disappointed by the choice of Brett Ratner. I feel he's a capable director. But I knew by bringing him in, the studio wanted someone who wouldn't give them trouble or challenge their creative choices. He was someone who'd bring in the movie under budget, with little problems, and in the required time....no matter what.

In effect make a studio film designed to make huge money, instead of a film aimed at pleasing die hard fans, while challenging audiences.

Which is exactly what the movie turns out to be.... a movie designed to make money.

Not to say that the movie is entirely bad.There are some interesting ideas in the film which are lightly touched on that are surprisingly effective. I like the dilemma of if, and when it is appropriate to use a Mutant "cure". The issue of, is it more productive to conform to the norm or embrace the individual uniqueness was a theme that they touch on. There are also issues concerning the morality of using mutant powers in questionable circumstances.

What's frustrating is that with more time these issues could really be explored correctly, and not just touched upon.

I guess in the end, as a climax to a three movie storyline it works capably....yet not very satisfying. In a way it frustratingly hints at the potential of a movie franchise rather than realizing it's true capabilities. In that sense it's reminiscent to the first Tim Burton Batman. With nothing to compare it to, the first Batman, in it's day, was sort of interesting and cheesy fun. But in retrospect, following the release of the infinitely superior Batman Begins. The movie is laughable, and almost doesn't even feel like a real Batman movie, actually more like a Tim Burton movie.

My sense is that if ever The X-Men movie franchise undergoes a similar reworking, these films will seem trivial if not laughable.

The fact is that these movies are not the X-Men movies that hard core fans have waited years to see. But as a sort of tease at the the potential of a future franchise, it reasonably works. Ultimately it's a summer popcorn film that will please kids and people not familiar with the source material, but disappoint fans hoping that it lives up to the source material.

The truth is I'm not entirely sold on the idea that the X-Men story can be told effectively , at least in a movie format.

I almost think that a 1 hour episodic weekly T.V. show would be the best venue to tell the story that real X-Men fans want to see. Maybe if it had the budget that Star Trek: the Next Generation had in it's prime.

To me the amount of characters, and the large issues that the X-Men stories attempt to tackle can't be encapsulated effectively in a two hour film. Not without cheating out characters and themes.

As far as specifics, I was very disappointed in a lot of the look of the film, and the special effects. Especially when one compares it to other big action films like the next Pirates of the Caribbean movie, which unfortunately, for this movie, had the trailer play before the film.

The fact is the movie, and special effects looked, and felt rushed in a lot of spots, also....for some reason the production design looked really cheap, seriously low budget.

I'm talking lifetime T.V. movie of the week cheap.

Especially the group scenes which utilized large amounts...er....actually I take that back.....more like groups of extras. The crowd scenes were just poorly played, and executed all around. There wasn't any conviction, power, or realism in the background performances. I guess that sounds weird. Usually one doesn't notice such things, but in this movie, it was really very apparent. Awkwardly so too.

All the stuff with the Brotherhood looked ridiculous. From the writing, to the costumes, to the performances..... just crappy. It almost looked like costumes we'd see in the 80's Hulk t.v. show or in a parody of the movie Daredevil.

It's disappointing because one of Bryan Singer's strengths in the first two films was the production design. Everything looked reasonably realistic, effective and reverent to the source material.

This whole movie looked like a low budget syndicated t.v. show....seriously like Xena or Hercules.

The Beast and Juggernaut outfits looked like freaking Halloween costumes.

I swear I saw a Target price tag on Juggernaut's helmet.

I also felt the climatic battle was not effective. The Beast special effects left a lot to be desired. I also felt the stakes weren't high enough. The issues why they were even fighting in the first place weren't clear either. It was also anti-climatic.

As far as the good stuff. I thought some of the writing was clever. Especially how it handled the whole Phoenix situation. Also as I mentioned earlier, I like the morality and issues raised in the movie. There's also some themes featuring the escalation of war that is timely.... especially now.

As far as performances I'd say everyone does reasonably well...yet not memorable.

In the end, as I said earlier this movie is just a summer popcorn flick that will inevitably make a huge amount of money.

I think it's in the same class as The Fantastic Four.

Barely capable, yet ultimately forgettable.

It's distressing to me that we, the audience, support movies like this. It's almost unethical that studios take advantage of the brand name, and force feed us this product.

I know people who went to see this movie, knowing it's going to be bad.

I think the reason why we end up supporting films like this is because, in the back of our minds we hope that it will pave the way for the franchise in the future to be fully realized.

But in the end, all the studios care about is stringing us along, enough to the point that we don't feel greatly insulted or grossly cheated, just so they can make money.

The sad fact is, if they ever make another movie, it'll probably be more of the same stuff. Why shouldn't it be? Why change the formula if we keep buying it.

And we'll still go see it.....like the sheep we are.

Frustrating.

What's funny to me.......

I made a interesting observation yesterday.

I have a sick sense of humor.

That's not what was interesting to me though. What was interesting was that for some reason I tend to surround myself with people who share the same type of sick, twisted humor.

I'm doing this play right now called Dot Gone , and among the many interesting aspects about the production is that it combines two groups of people from different periods in my life.

I have the company of friends that I've known from my earliest days of acting, where we all met at El Camino College, and I have my friend J.B. who I met later on when I decided to get my degree, and I attended Chapman University with.

What's fascinating is that they all share the same perverted type of humor.

When I say perverted I mean the most foul, offensive, disgusting, sexually deviant type of humor imaginable.

Stuff we'd probably get locked up for if we talked about it in public or a restaurant or bar or gym for that matter. Stuff that would make a Soldier blush.

I guess one can argue that it's because we are all actors, and that maybe all actors/comedian/artists types have twisted sense of humors.

I mean just check out The Aristocrats.

But in all honesty that's not really the case. Trust me, I've done several summers doing Shakespeare productions with really talented actors who...... are really not that humorous or witty......or interesting for that matter.

The truth is that there's a lot of boring freaking artists out there.

But this group of friends I'm working with click amazingly well.

What's funny to me, is to see the short hand we've all picked up on.... without explaining to each other. I mean sometimes we'll be in a middle of a conversation and someone will join in and pick up the vibe we're riffing on and just pitch in a new and hilarious perverted way.

It's like we shock each other into laughing fits.

I can't remember laughing so much off stage in a long time.

I have to admit it's not very sophisticated stuff. Just shocking, disgusting observations and witty banter.

One pattern, that's develop through the course of the process, that's quite humorous, is the use of repetition by the group of friends.

One friend will say something...usually disgusting or foul, which will usually illicit a groan or shocking look of disapproval. Then the person repeats it later on in the day.....then later on....until people start to giggle....which leads to a laugh and then contributions by someone else that is even more foul and offensive. What makes it extremely hilarious is that without given a cue there is always someone who pretends to be the moral high ground, who'll play the sensible sophisticate only to be goaded on by the rest of the group...until they say something remarkably foul and offensive.

Pretty soon everyone is laughing and shocked and disturbed.

I don't know....maybe a lot of friends work that way. But I just notice that it's different with my friends. Maybe it's because I feel my friends are all very witty and sharp.

I don't think it's unique to just this particular group of friends. My wife is the same way. The friends from Chapman that I still keep in contact with are the same way. People I've been drawn to throughout the years have all been the same way.

If we put all my friends together in a room, I bet they would all share the same kind of sick, twisted humor.

It's just interesting.

But probably not as perverted though as this group of people in this play.....we're all pretty freaking sick.

I mean the people I work with are the same way.....but it's different.

There are things I can't say with them because they would probably think I was insane....or just perverted....in an unfunny way.

Sometimes I find myself biting my tongue or censoring myself before I speak.

I know because I'll sometimes slip and say something, and they look at me shocked and disturbed.

Which they should....because...... they are normal.

Unlike me.

Anyways.....just an observation.

Don't make him angry, you wouldn't like him when he's angry!!!

Apparently we can chalk up super human strength to the growing list of adjectives to describe Christian Televangelist Pat Robertson.

According to this article, on the Christian Broadcasting Network website, Pat Robertson says he Leg-Pressed 2,000 pounds.

Wow....that's pretty impressive.

Especially when one considers that the world record for a leg press is 663 pounds.

Even more incredible is the fact that apparently there doesn't seem to be a machine capable to hold 2000 pounds in order to even attempt a 2,000 pound leg lift.

Thankfully, Robertson doesn't credit the power of Jesus as a source for his super human strength.

What he does credit is his age-defying protein shake.

Seriously.....um... soy protein isolate, whey protein isolate, flaxseed oil, and apple cider vinegar.

Too bad Barry Bonds didn't hear about Robertson's age-defying shake sooner, he wouldn't have to deal with all this steroid nonsense.

Grandma's Boy

Sometimes it's fun to watch a bad movie.

Sort of like seeing an accident on the side of the road.

Everybody likes to slow down and take a look.

It's especially convenient when one has the opportunity to watch movies for free. Working at one of the premiere DVD stores in Los Angeles, we have an extraordinary amount of excellent, rare, and hard to find movies cross our paths every week. But inevitably, for some strange reason, it's always the worst of the bunch that often perks the curiosity of myself, and my fellow employees.

There is even a humorous tradition we've started at work, where every week we choose the worst looking film of the new release bunch to watch on Friday nights. Then throughout the following week we ridicule, quote and sarcastically praise the merits of the film.

We refer to this film as The Friday Night Film.

But sometimes....not often.... there's a film that seems too bad....too ignorant....too much of a chore to endure. In that unfortunate case, usually one poor soul in our bunch, will take it upon themselves to pick up the cross, and force themselves to carry the heavy burden of watching this unfortunate film.

If only to say that someone at the store has watched the movie.

Guess who took up the cross this time?

Grandma's Boy is the story of Alex (Allen Covert), a X-Box game tester that has to move in with his Grandma because of unfortunate circumstances.

And....I guess that's pretty much the synopsis of the whole film.

Hey, I usually like toilet humor.

I'm not really hard to please in that respect. If there's a couple of fart jokes, nudity, and some crude humor then I'm usually mildly entertained..... which is half the battle with me. So I was quietly optimistic.

The movie is made by the crew at Happy Madison.

Adam Sandler's production company. So..... A little hope.

I mean the Tagline for the film is Sex. Drugs. Nakedness. Rude language... And proud of it!

That kind of sounds interesting.....right?

It's true that this bunch isn't renown for their high standard of cinematic excellence. But usually one can count on a couple of shits, and giggles in one of their 90 minute flicks.

No such luck here.

It's not that the movie is ONLY bad....the fact is that it's actually kind of depressing to watch too.
Depressing because I'm sure at some point....I assume fairly early on.... the people making the movie just knew that unfortunately the film isn't funny.....at all.

I mean more than other bad movies, there's a sense that everyone, as a group, just decided to show up, do the work and just get the film under their belt.

There's simply no joy in any of the performances.

Honestly the movie feels like a tax write off.

Usually an observant viewer can point to something to explain why a movie is bad. They can say the movie has no budget, or the script was rushed or horrible, or the actors were poorly cast. Or the filmmakers aren't talented or creative.

But this movie has tax write off written all over it.

I can't imagine that anyone really cared about making the movie. If they did, they would notice that it's just not funny. The sex jokes aren't shocking enough, the nudity isn't visible enough, and the crude humor isn't over the top as it needed to be.

It all just seemed like middle of the road mediocrity.

It's not even good at being horrible. When the filmmakers shouldn't take themselves seriously...they do. When they are supposed to be funny, they aren't wild or witty enough. Instead of just giving us wild hi-jinks, for some reason they try to give us an actual story with a reasonable structure.

What happened to just crazy sick fun?

Remember Bachelor Party?

That was a movie that didn't give a shit about offending people. They just wanted to get some cheap laughs. If one is making a cheap, crude, low budget comedy shouldn't the filmmakers take some risks? At least be a little shocking.

In the one provocative, or supposed wildly comic moment. The mother of one of Alex's co-workers walks into the bathroom while Alex is masturbating to a Lara Croft action figure. (Trust me it sounds funnier than it plays.) But the moment comes off so.....bland, unenthusiastic and uninteresting, one wonders why they even bothered. It's like they were all embarrassed to do it. The actors seemed embarrassed, the director shot it in the least offensive way, and the pay off is way underplayed. It's like they were all forced to do it under gun point.

I mean even in a high profile comedy like There's something about Mary there was semen hanging from Ben Stiller's ear.

Semen.

There's nothing that clever, inventive or crude here.

I almost feel guilty for criticizing the movie. Like I was kicking aside baby chicks on the side of the road.

The better question is how movies like this ever get made.

I mean was this honestly someone's life work or ambition?

Does someone actually want to use this film as their calling card?

Why did someone actually pay people to make this film?

Did they even try to make a worthwhile film?

I think the only sign that someone actually cared about the movie is that the movie has cameos by Rob Schneider and David Spade.

That's right, SNL comic superstars Rob Schneider and David Spade.

Actually....ummm.....on second thought.

Grandma's Boy is now on DVD.

Underworld: Evolution

I had very low expectations going into this film.

To be honest, I wasn't a big fan of the first film. I thought it had a couple of cool ideas, I was intrigued by the way they reworked the Romeo and Juliet story with Werewolves and Vampires, there was also a few cool Matrix-like sequences and production design.

I admit I have a weird soft spot for vampire movies, so that went a long way for me even finishing the first film. To tell the truth I don't really remember too much about it. I do remember that I hated....I mean despised the performance by Shane Brolly who played the weasel of a antagonist Kraven. For some strange reason he made the unfortunate choice to spit out, over articulate, and scream EVERY SINGLE one of his lines. Maybe he felt awkward with those fangs in his mouth. But I thought it was one of the worst performances I've ever witnessed on film.....seriously.....ever.

I'm sure it wasn't entirely his fault though. Some blame has to go to the director. The director has to look out for an actor when he's working on a film, especially when they are one of the leads. Who knows, maybe he's a decent actor who obviously just made a poor character choice.

In any case, I was in no rush to check out this sequel.

So imagine my surprise when I actually started to enjoy the film.

The thing is, I can't really pinpoint WHY I liked it.

I SHOULDN'T like this movie.

I mean if someone asked me to explain the story, honestly I couldn't do it. Because, to tell the truth, I didn't know what the hell was going on half the time.

All I knew was that Kate Beckinsale played a Vampire...A special Vampire assassin or death dealer, and Scott Speedman played a hybrid Vampire and Werewolf and they were in deadly danger. From something.....someone, some supernatural group.

That's pretty much the plot. People are trying to kill them and they are trying to survive. Sure there's a confusing subplot about the original Vampire trying to reunite with his brother, the original Werewolf. But all that stuff was just something to help structure the film, and try to create more excuses for some action.

That's what the whole movie is, just a bunch of visually stimulating well structured, and choreographed action sequences.

Literally if there's a door in the movie. It doesn't last long because some kind of creature ends up busting through it to create havoc.

Who knows maybe I was just in a mood for a mindless action flick.

Or maybe it was the chemistry between Scott Speedman and Kate Beckinsale. I thought they did a good job of carrying over the emotions from the first flick. They also share a pretty steamy sex scene that had a good build up. Which is kind of awkward considering she's married to the director of the film Len Wiseman.

I think also maybe.... in a way..... it reminded me of The Bourne Identity. Which I LOVED.

I guess.

Hmm....maybe that's why I liked it. The idea of romance developing in the face of extreme danger.

Maybe I was in a good mood?

Even Shane Brolly didn't bother me this time, although he mercifully isn't in a lot of the movie...and this time he doesn't scream every line. Maybe he picked up some tips on acting.

Who knows.... it's confusing...obviously.....I don't know why I liked it. Which is strange.

I almost sound like a critic who's been paid off.

But looking back, I guess there's a lot of stuff to enjoy. There's some cool special effects in the film. I thought the werewolf transformations were pretty tight. I also liked the gothic look of the film. The action always seemed interesting, and the film moves at a nice enjoyable pace. I liked Derek Jacobi's performance, his death scene where he explains that he can't kill the main villain because no matter what he does, he is still his son, was surprisingly touching. There's also about a billion explosions in the film, which usually bugs the shit out of me, but for some strange reason this time it didn't.

The more I write about the film. The more confused I get, because honestly I don't really ever like movies like this. I usually NEED a strong story, which this movie doesn't really have.

Hmmm...confusing.

In any case. I recommend catching the flick when it comes out on DVD. Maybe one can figure out for themselves why the flick works for them.

It arrives on DVD June 6th.

The Producers- The Musical

I haven't had a lot of free time lately to enjoy a film. So it's a nice treat when I actually find a few hours to lay down on my sofa, and catch a flick on the big screen.

That is....unless.... the movie I choose to watch happens to be The Producers.

Then it becomes a horrible nightmare.

Simply put The Producers is one of the worst movies of the decade.

This is the movie version of the huge smash hit Broadway musical stage adaptation of the classic Mel Brooks film. Judging from this film one wonders why people have lined up for hours and paid outrageous amounts of money to catch these performances.

The performances, at least in the film, are so over the top that it becomes hard to believe that anybody besides a five year old would be entertained by such work. Not only is it over the top, but painfully awkward to watch because they obviously BELIEVE they are funny. I swear at some points in the film I could see Matthew Broderick smiling at Nathan Lane's performance.

The movie is that bad.

The movie also suffers by not having a real film director running things. For some bizarre reason the studio let the director of the stage version, Susan Stroman, direct the movie. Checking out her credits on IMDB I find that she directed a t.v. special of another stage production and....that's about it. Apparently her other film credits consists of being choreographer of dance numbers on other t.v. specials.

Seriously.

The results are pretty much what one would suspect, a disaster. Besides not having any kind of vision for the film she's unable to tone down any of the performances. It's almost as if she had a really great video camera and just recorded the stage version....without an audience. Literally nailed the tripod to the floor and let everyone mug at the camera like two year olds. Not even Uma Thurman and Will Ferrell are immune from the over the top antics.

It's not like I'm not familiar with the material either. I think the original film with Gene Wilder and Zero Mostel is hilarious. I'm even familiar with the Broadway soundtrack. I gave my wife a CD of the soundtrack several years ago, and for months she had it playing in her car. Even though I got sick of the music pretty quick, I thought, initially, the music was kind of funny.

That is until I watched the film. I never thought it possible, but the music actually becomes worse when one sees the performances.

The musical numbers are just ridiculous.

At one point Leo Bloom and Max Bialystock sing a ballad to each other.....a love ballad.

I know it's a cliche to call musical theatre..... Gay.....but that's pretty much what I thought about that ballad. The problem is the characters aren't homosexual. Which makes one wonder..... what the hell is going on.

Speaking of Gay there's actually a song called "Keep it Gay" that I thought was amusing when I first heard it on the CD.

Upon watching the musical number, I no longer think it's amusing.....actually I find it offensive and disturbing.....like the rest of the movie.

Needless to say the movie is a mess. It actually makes me sad, and depressed to think that this is the biggest show on Broadway. It makes me mourn for the theatre.

Please don't watch this movie.

Dot Gone

A Play Written and Directed by Max Cabot

“Dot Gone” is an original play written by Max Cabot, developed through workshops with the Ghost Light District Ensemble. “Dot Gone” satirizes the meteoric rise and comically fast demise of the Dot Com industry.

May 12 - June 3, 2006

Friday and Saturday at 8pm
Sundays at 2pm

Featuring: Dylan Bailey, Joni Efflandt, Keith Ferguson, Jon-Barrett Ingels,Ray Manukay, Chris Mock, Melody Mooney, Jeremy Schaeg

The production will be performed at the 24th street Theatre which is located at the corner of Hoover and 24th Street in Los Angeles. It is two blocks south of the Hoover Street Exit off the Santa Monica (I-10) Freeway and just north of USC. Parking is available across the street.

24th Street Theatre
1117 West 24th Street
Los Angeles, CA 90007

323.960.1057

Reserve Your Tickets Online Today: http://www.ghostlightdistrict.org/

Rebirth of Kobe Bryant

Man, who is this guy?

Could it be that Kobe Bryant has finally arrived?

I've watched the last three playoff games against Phoenix, and I honestly have been shocked, and amazed by what I've seen. What I'm seeing is the birth of a player who embraces team concept, over individual achievement. He's become more Magic Johnson, instead of Dominque Wilkins.

I admit I've been harsh regarding my feelings on Kobe.

I'm a Lakers fan first, and foremost. I love to watch the team game. I grew up in the 80's with Magic Johnson's pass first mentality. In the 90's pre-Shaq, Jerry West assembled a team full of good players, instead of having just one superstar.

To me Lakers basketball always represented one thing: Team work.

For me it was too hard to watch a team I love become a one man show. I don't think there was ever a time in Lakers history, while I've been alive at least, that a Lakers team depended so heavily on just one player.

For me it just wasn't fun to watch.

I was awe struck like everyone else when Kobe scored 81 points. But I didn't feel it was great basketball. To me it was a circus act. Something cool to talk about for a couple of days, but in the end how does it help build the team concept.

But these last three playoff games have been a revelation.

Well first off, Phil Jackson is a genius. To get these players on the same page, and playing the way they have been has been nothing short of remarkable. I don't know what else can be done to illustrate what an amazing coach Phil Jackson is.

Maybe the best ever.

I don't remember watching a team so prepared and focused more than this Lakers squad. I mean it's a team that has serious flaws. Although it's fun to watch, ultimately I don't think they have a realistic shot to win the championship this year. But if they keep playing the way they have been, the team will not lose because of lack of effort, or basketball I.Q.

In the end, I think it will be the lack of talent.

Which doesn't bother me. The reality is that other teams out there just have more talent who have more experience assembled. No amount of work, practice and effort can overcome that.

But man, next year WATCH OUT!!!!

This team doesn't even resemble the train wreck that was last year's team. Lamar Odom is showing his true form. Kwame Brown is finally fulfilling his potential, and Luke Walton is stepping out of his father's shadow, and becoming a well rounded, fundamentally sound all around good player.

But ultimate credit has to go to Kobe Bryant.

As much as I hate to admit it. I underestimated Kobe. I felt that he would not be able to put his ego aside, and do what's best for the team. But to be honest there was nothing in the past to demonstrate that he had this potential in him.

Before these last three playoff games, the term leadership didn't apply to Kobe. He was a talented, and prolific basketball player, but not a great leader.

Not anymore. I love watching a fiery Kobe as he defends his teammates from opposing players, and giving up himself and sacrificing his individual game to set up his teammates to succeed. It's the kind of potential that made so many people anoint Kobe as one day being the greatest player to ever play the game.

I mean the guy still isn't the most affable person in the world. I think there are some character issues, and just an overall arrogance that I can't get over to fully embrace him. And I can't ever fully forgive him for forcing Shaq out.

But I'll gladly watch this version of Kobe who scores 16 to 21 points a game and gets 8 assists and 6 rebounds, while emotionally leading his team, and getting his teammates involved, any time.

I'm sure there is going to be some growing pains for him and the Lakers. I'm curious to see how he reacts when there is some adversity, or when things go very bad, which I'm sure will happen....eventually.

I'm just hoping that this isn't just one of his teases, where we see his potential, and he resorts back to his selfish ways. This needs to be a change for the good. Kobe needs to be the team player that he obviously can be.

I'm hoping this is the new and improved Kobe.

Individual glory, should never outshine team achievement.

It looks like Kobe is finally understanding that......hopefully.

Salome

Salome is Oscar Wilde's play adaptation of the Biblical legend of King Herod and his desire for his wife's daughter, Salome. After trying unsuccessfully to sexually seduce John the Baptist, Salome takes advantage of King Herod's lust. Using the promise of a seductive dance, and flirtation she tries to manipulate him into helping her take revenge on the prophet who she loves.... but cannot have.

The play as originally written by Oscar Wilde, wasn't really meant to be performed, but actually was supposed to be read for the beauty of the language.

This particular production was first developed and performed at the Actor's Studio in Brooklyn with David Strahairm as John the Baptist, Diane Wiest as Herod's wife, and Al Pacino as King Herod. When the play later moved to off-Broadway, Marisa Tomei came aboard as the title character.

In this production, the setting is a blank stage with chairs, and music stands. The staging is reminiscent of a staged reading, with the performers actually carrying the script, and having it on hand throughout the whole play. The dress is modern black suits with the character Salome alone wearing the only color of red and pink.

Looking over the director's notes the reason why director Estelle Parsons used this type of staging is because she wanted the action to feature, and focus on the language of the piece.

Which brings me to my first issue with this production. I personally feel plays, especially ones that people pay lots of money to watch, should be performed rather than read.

Indeed the most powerful moments in the piece came when the actors took center stage without script in hand, and actually performed. I guess some audience members might find the whole exercise unique, and interesting. But being an actor, and having seen and performed many plays, not to mention taken part in stage readings, I just found the whole experience very pretentious.

The whole idea of a stage reading is to give interested producers, directors, actors, designers, audience members...etc an idea of the potential of the piece. It's also a way to showcase the writer's work without the interpretations and ideas of the other artists involved.

Which this production clearly has.

The play is trying to give the ILLUSION of a stage reading. But the actors are giving well rounded interpretations, and the piece is very obviously directed, and staged.....although with a minimalist approach.

Besides that, to give the illusion of a stage reading is not only visually boring, it's also not productive to the play.

I guess there's justification for this staging..... as I said earlier, the piece as written is not very dramatic. It consists of many long speeches, with beautiful elaborate language, with little or no dramatic interaction between the characters. Estelle Parsons probably felt she was doing the play a service by having the audience use their own imaginations. That maybe the human mind can create a more fascinating environment than any artist could. But after considering the production, I feel the director took the easy route by not trying to make the piece more visually, and dramatically interesting. I think it doesn't serve the piece by making the concept of the show......... no concept.

It's actually more distracting to the audience to have actors pretend to turn the page in their script when they are so obviously off book, and to have actors stuck performing in their chairs and interacting with characters as if they are out in the audience instead of being right next to them on stage. To me it doesn't serve the dramatic purpose of the play.

It just feels like artistic mumbo jumbo.

At times it makes the piece feel like a bad coffee shop artist interpretation of Oscar Wilde's work. It's almost ironic that the play is being performed in Los Angeles. It feels like new age Los Angeles art trying to be innovative off-Broadway work.

Also being a stage reading, the production is a victim of poor sight lines. I feel bad for people who paid $95 bucks, and are visually obscured by some stupid music stand, chair or a insignificant chorus member, and are unable to see Pacino's expressive, often times poignant reactions to his fellow actors. Unfortunately, as I was walking out, I heard many people complaining about how most of the time, they weren't even able to see him.

That sucks.

In all honesty this play wouldn't even be done at all without the participation of Mr. Al Pacino. I can guarantee nobody...I mean nobody.... would come and see this type of production unless an actor of his stature was involved with the piece. Not to mention pay $95 dollars a seat. God bless the soap opera star who tries to mount this style of production, hoping for good reviews, and an audience. They would not only be booed off the stage, the box office would be demolished by angry patrons wanting their money back.

But since Al Pacino is doing this production, people are not only paying the $69-95 dollars a seat, but they are also buying t-shirts at 25 dollars, hats at 20.00 and signed posters for 200.00 a piece. I was lucky to get tickets for free. But I was suckered into buying a t-shirt. Which not only makes me feel foolish, but had me questioning my masculinity at my time of purchase.

But in the end it's Al Pacino, and although he does do lots of theatre. I don't usually have the opportunity, not to mention bank book to afford, to watch him perform in a play....especially in Los Angeles.

If people are going to see this production to get a glimpse of Pacino's ability as an actor they won't be disappointed.

It takes several minutes before he actually arrives, but when he does, he easily steals the show. It's not surprising to see why he is considered one of the greatest actors of all time.

He is thrilling to watch.

He delivers a performance that is captivating and fascinating. I mean he's Al friggin' Pacino, what else is one going to expect?

But what's most clear is how well Al Pacino's acting style suits the theatre so much better than in film. Things I would normally feel as being over the top, or not realistic on film, come off as subtle, honest and powerful on stage. In my book I think Al Pacino should retire from film, and become a theatre rat.

He should become the next Laurence Olivier.

If people have the chance they should watch him do anything on stage. I mean anything....I'd even recommend watching him play Daddy Warbucks on stage in a production of Annie.....with Justin Timberlake in drag for the title role.

Well...maybe not.

But seriously he's that good.

I can't imagine what it was like to see him perform on stage in Glengarry Glen Ross. I thought he was great in the movie, man he must've of been amazing to watch in person. Or to watch him do Shakespeare. Something that he's incredibly passionate about. Man, that must be pretty damn cool.

As for this performance, Mr. Pacino's booming, expressive voice, and his fiery passion is in full display here. It's a fascinating, and affable performance. His Herod is slightly foppish, drunken, funny, scary, tortured and enthralling to witness. It's a memorable, if not great performance. I don't think I'm overstating it by saying that it's a chance to see a master of his craft, at the top of his game, at work.

As for the others, Jessica Chastain is interesting, and seductive in the title role. Kevin Anderson is engaging as John the Baptist, while Roxanne Hart compliments Pacino well as Harod's wife.

But make no mistake, this is Al Pacino's show.

The play is almost non-existent until he arrives. It's just unnecessary exposition, and silly, uninspired poetry. It's really the ONLY reason to see the show, to watch Pacino at work. Apparently there's whispers that he's working on a film adaptation/documentary of the piece. Sort of in the vein of Looking for Richard.

Now THAT would be interesting.

Salome is playing at the Wadsworth Theatre in Los Angeles through May 14th. The play is a one-act, and it runs about an 1 hour and 20 minutes..... by my watch.