I got sucked into this one via a request from my wife and FAULTY statistical data from rottentomatoes.com (a 68% on the tomatometer, implying that it might actually be good, or at least have some moments). This move is horrid from the get-go.
Critics of comedic actors have a tough job. What's funny to most may not be funny to the critic, so they toe a fine line. Case in point: Steve Carell. I think the critics see Steve Carell as relatively new and accepted by most audiences. I also think people are anxious to pass the torch to Carell to be the lead in the next generation of comedic movies. As a result, critics go easy on their critiques of him due to their desire to give him positive reviews and not upset audiences. But just because he's relatively new and not hated does not mean he's the man to lead the comedy genre into the Promised Land, and Dan In Real Life is my Exhibit A.
First of all, I know the distinction between Romantic Comedy and Comedy, and most would be quick to point out this distinction, but let's examine Romantic Comedy for a moment. A Comedy is meant to make the audience laugh. A Romantic Comedy is meant to be Romantic and Comedic, but in my experience, Romantic Comedy seems like an oxymoron. Comedy is not meant to be romantic, nor is romance meant to be comedic. When Hollywood tries to combine the two, they rarely succeed in producing a quality flick. It's usually a comedy with some romantic themes, or a romance with comedic elements, but never both. Despite the futility of Romantic Comedies, the genre Romantic Comedy endures with the understanding that a Romantic Comedy is a classic "Date Movie" or a movie that both a guy and a girl will enjoy. Bare this in mind.
Dan in Real Life (a play upon the internet lingo, for those who are internet savvy) is meant to be a Date Movie. Give the guys Carell & comedy and the girls some romance and everyone leaves happy. The problem with this movie arises when the writer/director Peter Hedges fails to use Carell for comedy (opting for other actors to unsuccessfully deliver the punchlines) and instead uses Carell for the Romantic role (a widower with kids seeking to find someone to fill the void). The movie fails to uphold to its "Comedy" criteria and becomes a lackluster romance film, hence again why I feel that the Romantic Comedy genre is self-defeating. I never laughed at anything Carell did throughout the movie, and instead I was left feeling sorry for the dude. Am I supposed to feel sorry for the guy that's supposed to make me laugh? The other actors all seemed lost in the shuffle, believing that since Carell was supposed to be the funny guy, they should just support him in trying to be funny. Dane Cook is a great example of this dilemma wherein he plays the role, but never gets a laugh.
In the end, I was sorely disappointed in this movie, and in the critics for letting this movie off the hook in terms of how bad it truly was. Maybe I'm just not cut-out to watch Date Movies, but I've seen my share of quality flicks that are sappy while being funny, and this is DEFINITELY not one of them.
Apologies to Steve Carell as well. He may be the next guy to lead the next generation of comedies, but being handcuffed the way he was in this movie did not help this campaign.
Friday, November 2, 2007
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Blame Me for the Padres' Collapse
It's October, which means it's Baseball Play-off time, and one team that should playing right now is sitting at home wondering what went wrong. The San Diego Padres, the NL West Champions for the past two years (until this year), stalled out at the end of the season and as a result, two other NL West teams are playing for the coveted title of World Champion: the Arizona Diamondbacks and the Colorado Rockies.
"What went wrong for the Padres?" you ask. Was it Mike Cameron's thumb injury? Was it Milton Bradley's ACL tear? Was it Trevor Hoffman's inability to close out two crucial games? Sure these are all symptoms, but the root of the Padres' collapse lies deeper.
Thursday, September 20th, 2007. The Padres are hot, having swept the Giants and the Pirates at home in PETCO Park. They are making an unbelievable run toward winning a third NL West title. Unbeknownst to me, my wife took my Padres hat, a hat I wear every day, and washed it that night (I estimate the event took place around 10:30pm), citing that it "really smells" and that it needed to be washed. This fatal event proved to be disaster for the Friars.
After my hat got washed, the Padres lost four straight games, including being swept by the Colorado Rockies (allowing the Rockies to have home-field advantage for the Wild-card play-in game). Not only that, but on the final Sunday against Colorado, both Mike Cameron and Milton Bradley sustained freak accidents which sidelined them for the rest of the season: Mike Cameron got his hand stepped on by Milton Bradley while fielding a ball (huh?), and then Milton Bradley tore his ACL when Manager Bud Black was trying to restrain him from assaulting an umpire!
The Padres managed to put together a minor run for the title, winning two in a row against the Giants (one via Brian Giles 9th inning 3-run homerun) and two against the Brewers, but then they lost their final three games. The tragedy is that greatest closer in history, Trevor Hoffman, blew two saves in two games, both of which would have iced a post-season for the Padres. Ironically, one of those blown saves came at the bat of Mr. Padres' son Tony Qwynn, Jr. It's tough to fault Trevor for blowing two in a row, but I think the Padres bull-pen is so great with Bell and Thatcher that when Hoffman comes up to close, opposing batters are able to dial into his pitches a lot easier since Hoffman doesn't throw 96 mph heat like Bell.
Anyway, if you're wondering why the Padres blew it down the stretch, now you know. One washed hat = four game losing streak, two key players on the DL, and two blown saves when the Padres needed it most. Next year my hat will smell like sulfur before my wife gets a chance to wash it again.
"What went wrong for the Padres?" you ask. Was it Mike Cameron's thumb injury? Was it Milton Bradley's ACL tear? Was it Trevor Hoffman's inability to close out two crucial games? Sure these are all symptoms, but the root of the Padres' collapse lies deeper.
Thursday, September 20th, 2007. The Padres are hot, having swept the Giants and the Pirates at home in PETCO Park. They are making an unbelievable run toward winning a third NL West title. Unbeknownst to me, my wife took my Padres hat, a hat I wear every day, and washed it that night (I estimate the event took place around 10:30pm), citing that it "really smells" and that it needed to be washed. This fatal event proved to be disaster for the Friars.
After my hat got washed, the Padres lost four straight games, including being swept by the Colorado Rockies (allowing the Rockies to have home-field advantage for the Wild-card play-in game). Not only that, but on the final Sunday against Colorado, both Mike Cameron and Milton Bradley sustained freak accidents which sidelined them for the rest of the season: Mike Cameron got his hand stepped on by Milton Bradley while fielding a ball (huh?), and then Milton Bradley tore his ACL when Manager Bud Black was trying to restrain him from assaulting an umpire!
The Padres managed to put together a minor run for the title, winning two in a row against the Giants (one via Brian Giles 9th inning 3-run homerun) and two against the Brewers, but then they lost their final three games. The tragedy is that greatest closer in history, Trevor Hoffman, blew two saves in two games, both of which would have iced a post-season for the Padres. Ironically, one of those blown saves came at the bat of Mr. Padres' son Tony Qwynn, Jr. It's tough to fault Trevor for blowing two in a row, but I think the Padres bull-pen is so great with Bell and Thatcher that when Hoffman comes up to close, opposing batters are able to dial into his pitches a lot easier since Hoffman doesn't throw 96 mph heat like Bell.
Anyway, if you're wondering why the Padres blew it down the stretch, now you know. One washed hat = four game losing streak, two key players on the DL, and two blown saves when the Padres needed it most. Next year my hat will smell like sulfur before my wife gets a chance to wash it again.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Book Review: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
When I was young I wanted to be an author/writer, but after reading this series, my hopes of ever becoming a successful writer have been dashed since I could never write something even remotely as entertaining and creative as the Harry Potter series. Oh well, this seven book series is well worth the price of dashing my youthful dreams; Kudos to J. K. Rowling (rhymes with "bowling") for a fitting end to the Harry Potter saga.
Overall, I thought the book was very well-done! After the first couple of chapters, the beginning kinda lacked until you get into the Deathly Hallows (what they are, what they do, etc) and then the book picks up speed towards a roaring finish. I still have some unanswered questions that were raised in this book, but for the sake of not spoiling Deathly Hallows for future readers, I won't list them here. The book answers all the big questions, including the mysterious "who's side is Snape really on?" in great prose. I wish I could say more, but everything that made the book great might spoil it for those that did not read it. Maybe the best thing I can say is that I'm not a book person, so if an author can get me to read for eight straight hours, I'm impressed. Check it out when you can!
Upon reflection of the series, I'm hoping that like Star Wars, future authors will be able to dabble in the world in which she created and add their own stories to the Harry Potter universe. I think the great thing about Harry Potter is that it has universal appeal, thus why it was able to be so successful. I'm sorry to say good-bye to Harry Potter, but I'm hopeful that the story will continue. After all, George Lucas got bored counting his millions and made three more Star Wars movies (sure he ruined the series, but it's the thought that counts, right?), maybe Rowling will get bored after a decade of counting her millions and get into the James Potter/Severus Snape prequel series. I just hope she doesn't pull a Lucas.
Overall, I thought the book was very well-done! After the first couple of chapters, the beginning kinda lacked until you get into the Deathly Hallows (what they are, what they do, etc) and then the book picks up speed towards a roaring finish. I still have some unanswered questions that were raised in this book, but for the sake of not spoiling Deathly Hallows for future readers, I won't list them here. The book answers all the big questions, including the mysterious "who's side is Snape really on?" in great prose. I wish I could say more, but everything that made the book great might spoil it for those that did not read it. Maybe the best thing I can say is that I'm not a book person, so if an author can get me to read for eight straight hours, I'm impressed. Check it out when you can!
Upon reflection of the series, I'm hoping that like Star Wars, future authors will be able to dabble in the world in which she created and add their own stories to the Harry Potter universe. I think the great thing about Harry Potter is that it has universal appeal, thus why it was able to be so successful. I'm sorry to say good-bye to Harry Potter, but I'm hopeful that the story will continue. After all, George Lucas got bored counting his millions and made three more Star Wars movies (sure he ruined the series, but it's the thought that counts, right?), maybe Rowling will get bored after a decade of counting her millions and get into the James Potter/Severus Snape prequel series. I just hope she doesn't pull a Lucas.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Second Movie Reviews: License to Wed and Live Free or Die Hard
License to Wed:
First off, I'm married, so going to see a Mandy Moore film wasn't my idea. I came into the movie with pretty low expectations, but was pleasantly surprised. The movie had its comedic moments, had a decent (albeit predictable) storyline, and wasn't too long. Some parts were too "chick flick" for me, but other than that, it was fairly entertaining. Perhaps the best thing I can say is that I did not regret seeing this movie after I walked out of the theatre.
Live Free or Die Hard:
Very good! It lives up to the Die Hard standard of action. Bruce Willis carried the movie (because that's what happens with Die Hard movies), but I was also surprised how well the the Apple guy from the TV commercials did. The story was good if you like the espionage-type thrillers, the action was not over-the-top, and it also had some very funny moments with a Kevin Smith cameo, although I was the only one in the theatre laughing because most of the jokes were Star Wars/Trek related and went over the heads most people. If you got time, check out this one!
Post-Script:
I think I've seen the new Catherine Zeta-Jones-Douglass movie trailer "No Reservations" in all four of these movies (the one where she's a chef trying to raise a young girl) and I can tell you now that her movie will probably be the biggest flop of the year. I think the movie title is actually a warning that only people with "No Reservations" for torturing themselves by watching terribly bad movies should see it.
First off, I'm married, so going to see a Mandy Moore film wasn't my idea. I came into the movie with pretty low expectations, but was pleasantly surprised. The movie had its comedic moments, had a decent (albeit predictable) storyline, and wasn't too long. Some parts were too "chick flick" for me, but other than that, it was fairly entertaining. Perhaps the best thing I can say is that I did not regret seeing this movie after I walked out of the theatre.
Live Free or Die Hard:
Very good! It lives up to the Die Hard standard of action. Bruce Willis carried the movie (because that's what happens with Die Hard movies), but I was also surprised how well the the Apple guy from the TV commercials did. The story was good if you like the espionage-type thrillers, the action was not over-the-top, and it also had some very funny moments with a Kevin Smith cameo, although I was the only one in the theatre laughing because most of the jokes were Star Wars/Trek related and went over the heads most people. If you got time, check out this one!
Post-Script:
I think I've seen the new Catherine Zeta-Jones-Douglass movie trailer "No Reservations" in all four of these movies (the one where she's a chef trying to raise a young girl) and I can tell you now that her movie will probably be the biggest flop of the year. I think the movie title is actually a warning that only people with "No Reservations" for torturing themselves by watching terribly bad movies should see it.
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
Movie Reviews: Ratatouille & Transformers
Ratatouille: Loved it. I was never a big fan of CG films; I didn't like Toy Story, Shrek, or any of the other old CG movies until I saw The Incredibles, so I went to Ratatouille with low expectations and was blown away. The story is fun, the jokes and comedy are solid, and the animation is awesome! It's not a cookie-cutter movie, so it was actually entertaining. Recommended "MUST SEE" movie. What more needs to be said?
Transformers: I read a review on MSN saying that Transformers was "Fun, but overdone." That is an understatement. The movie starts off great when they introduce the first Decepticons and it gets better when they show the first fight between Bumblebee and Barricade because you get your first taste of the Transformers transforming from car to robot and back in the midst of battle. Then it started to go down hill with the arrival of Optimus Prime and the other Autobots: the comedic elements that made the movie fun in the beginning were getting WAY overplayed, there were some scenes that should never have been in the movie, and the storyline also makes absolutely no sense because the writers are visibly steering the plot-line to an unnecessary Battle Royale. Without giving away too much, one scene in this battle depicts the main character Sam (if you know anything about Transformers, the main character should have been Spike) racing a Decepticon capable of flight to the top of a twenty-story building a-la Nick Cage racing to try and signal off the F-18s from destroying Alcatraz in The Rock--Michael Bay directed both movies--and for some reason, the mach-speed capable Decepticon is always a few steps behind. While trying to understand how a human can outrun a three-story robot up twenty flights of stairs, I'm also trying to understand why he needed to run to the top of the building, or why a flesh-and-blood human would be tasked with this mission in the first place!
In short, the end of the movie reeks of the '80s "against all odds" approach to movie storylines, only to the point of making the movie that's supposed to be somewhat realistic into a completely unbelievable debacle. I liken this movie to microwaving popcorn: it started off great and you could smell the buttery goodness as it got going, but instead of taking the popcorn out and serving it up after a few minutes, the producers left the popcorn in the microwave for the full five minutes and completely ruined the entire bag while setting off the smoke alarms. My prediction: Fanbois will love it, but purists like myself will always wonder what could have been.
Transformers: I read a review on MSN saying that Transformers was "Fun, but overdone." That is an understatement. The movie starts off great when they introduce the first Decepticons and it gets better when they show the first fight between Bumblebee and Barricade because you get your first taste of the Transformers transforming from car to robot and back in the midst of battle. Then it started to go down hill with the arrival of Optimus Prime and the other Autobots: the comedic elements that made the movie fun in the beginning were getting WAY overplayed, there were some scenes that should never have been in the movie, and the storyline also makes absolutely no sense because the writers are visibly steering the plot-line to an unnecessary Battle Royale. Without giving away too much, one scene in this battle depicts the main character Sam (if you know anything about Transformers, the main character should have been Spike) racing a Decepticon capable of flight to the top of a twenty-story building a-la Nick Cage racing to try and signal off the F-18s from destroying Alcatraz in The Rock--Michael Bay directed both movies--and for some reason, the mach-speed capable Decepticon is always a few steps behind. While trying to understand how a human can outrun a three-story robot up twenty flights of stairs, I'm also trying to understand why he needed to run to the top of the building, or why a flesh-and-blood human would be tasked with this mission in the first place!
In short, the end of the movie reeks of the '80s "against all odds" approach to movie storylines, only to the point of making the movie that's supposed to be somewhat realistic into a completely unbelievable debacle. I liken this movie to microwaving popcorn: it started off great and you could smell the buttery goodness as it got going, but instead of taking the popcorn out and serving it up after a few minutes, the producers left the popcorn in the microwave for the full five minutes and completely ruined the entire bag while setting off the smoke alarms. My prediction: Fanbois will love it, but purists like myself will always wonder what could have been.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Stop The Prejudice Against Bad Handwriting!
I learned something a few years ago: those of us with poor handwriting are at a disadvantage to others with good handwriting. I learned this during college, where we were forced to write for 3+ hours for finals. Routinely after 1 hour, I stopped caring about the neatness of my writing and are just struggling to finish the exam in the allotted time. The result is that while I may have written the best answer in the class, I was automatically downgraded due to my poor penmanship.
How did I learn this lesson, you ask? After taking one such final exam, I received the exam back the next quarter and saw I received a "B" for the overall exam grade. My friend, who took the same class and who has much better handwriting, received an "A". However, after looking at both of our answers, I realized that my answers were more on target and his answers were lacking! After realizing how I had been shafted out of my rightful "A" grade, I took my exam to the TA and asked him to regrade it while I watched just so I could scrutinize him in the same manner in which he scrutinized me. Needless to say, under my watchful eye, I received an "A" after he regraded the exam in light of my friend's exam. Although I no longer remember any of the facts I listed on the exam, I still remember the devious lesson I learned from this dreadful experience: there is an invisible prejudice that thrives on America's soil which targets those of us with poor handwriting.
My handwriting was the product of trying to conform my naturally small writing style to a larger script, and the result was disastrous. In first and second grade, the Man wanted huge block letters and I couldn't bring myself to write "D"s or "S"s that were over an inch tall, so I shortened up my letters, didn't follow the pattern on the page, after only a few years, I developed some of the worst penmanship in my class. This penmanship stayed with me and continues to haunt me every time I scribble words onto paper. In the end, the Man would win when I received B's, C's and even D's in my classes. But now I'm fighting back.
If you're like me, you've probably been shafted by the Man, too. I was blissfully unaware that I was being discriminated against when I went through junior high, high school, and part of college. I know I'm not the smartest guy, but now that I have some perspective, I'm pretty sure I didn't deserve some of the grades I received during my academic career. If you've had similar issues, I urge you to post your stories so we can commiserate and hopefully draw more attention our plight. While we may not end chirographism today, we can strive for a better tomorrow so that our children do not have to endure the discrimination that we faced due to our own ignorance. America is about equality, and when we discriminate against people with poor penmanship, we trample upon the very foundations of freedom, including the right to poor handwriting. Unite!
How did I learn this lesson, you ask? After taking one such final exam, I received the exam back the next quarter and saw I received a "B" for the overall exam grade. My friend, who took the same class and who has much better handwriting, received an "A". However, after looking at both of our answers, I realized that my answers were more on target and his answers were lacking! After realizing how I had been shafted out of my rightful "A" grade, I took my exam to the TA and asked him to regrade it while I watched just so I could scrutinize him in the same manner in which he scrutinized me. Needless to say, under my watchful eye, I received an "A" after he regraded the exam in light of my friend's exam. Although I no longer remember any of the facts I listed on the exam, I still remember the devious lesson I learned from this dreadful experience: there is an invisible prejudice that thrives on America's soil which targets those of us with poor handwriting.
My handwriting was the product of trying to conform my naturally small writing style to a larger script, and the result was disastrous. In first and second grade, the Man wanted huge block letters and I couldn't bring myself to write "D"s or "S"s that were over an inch tall, so I shortened up my letters, didn't follow the pattern on the page, after only a few years, I developed some of the worst penmanship in my class. This penmanship stayed with me and continues to haunt me every time I scribble words onto paper. In the end, the Man would win when I received B's, C's and even D's in my classes. But now I'm fighting back.
If you're like me, you've probably been shafted by the Man, too. I was blissfully unaware that I was being discriminated against when I went through junior high, high school, and part of college. I know I'm not the smartest guy, but now that I have some perspective, I'm pretty sure I didn't deserve some of the grades I received during my academic career. If you've had similar issues, I urge you to post your stories so we can commiserate and hopefully draw more attention our plight. While we may not end chirographism today, we can strive for a better tomorrow so that our children do not have to endure the discrimination that we faced due to our own ignorance. America is about equality, and when we discriminate against people with poor penmanship, we trample upon the very foundations of freedom, including the right to poor handwriting. Unite!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
