This blog (headed by a bitter, cynical, observant countercultural fiend) shall make lists, make observations, create criticisms, and also recommend ideas concerning areas in music, movies, video games, television, the Walt Disney Company, and pretty much anything in particular that catches my interest.
It is never too early to talk about the Academy Awards. Okay, I lie it is too early when there hasn’t been any Oscar-worthy flicks that have come out in recent times. For crying out loud even Harry Potter 7.2 has a shot at Best Picture, and while it was a good movie its not even the best of the Harry Potters. Our year of movies in terms of Oscar-caliber has been extremely weak. But enough about that, I think its time to add a little spice to the Academy Awards. I think its time for some brand new categories that could make the public more interested, and can give recognition to some of the more underrated talent in Hollywood.
Now, I know you will complain that the Oscars are already run long enough with the categories that already exist, but I have the solution to that. Two things: first the Oscars should start much earlier than 9:00. They should run at around 7:00 eastern time, giving more leverage room in case anything runs too long. Second, I will quote myself from an article from a while back:
“…there should be some awards that shouldn’t even mention the nominations, but mention the winners and then give them about 2 minutes of fame by discussing the procedure and why it wins. The awards that should be handed out without mentioning the nominees include: Documentary, Short Film, Short Animated Film, Makeup, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, Costume Design). Give these winners 1-2 minutes and you’ll save at least 10-15 minutes of unnecessary Oscar time. Not diminishing these awards, but I actually think the audience would pay more attention if all the focus is on the winner.”
Will the Oscar committee and the public buy into this? Not sure, but it would definitely make things faster. And now, my picks for what new Oscars should come out in the coming years….and which people should get honorary Oscars for their work in that realm. And these are not in any order:
1) Best Stunts Honorary Oscar: Buster Keaton (Arguably the first true stuntman) Jackie Chan (I do not need to explain myself) Zoe Bell (Adding flower power to the world of stunts) For years the stuntmen of Hollywood have been fighting for their own Oscar. After all, stunts are truly essential to all the big (and small) action/suspense/drama/spy flicks that you see coming out every single year. And with CGI replacing nearly everything in terms of stuntwork, we need to save the industry by introducing an Oscar before everything becomes CGI’d and none of it containing the realistic touch. Adding the Stunts Oscar would also give big blockbuster flicks (that aim for entertainment above Oscar recognition) a chance to earn some gold.
2) Best Choreography Honorary Oscar: Jackie Chan (Yes, he deserves this one too) Bob Fosse Yuen Woo-ping Choreography is extremely essential to dance/action movies, and its an utter shame that this is not an Oscar yet. What would the Matrix be without the incredible choreography work of Woo-Ping? What would Jackie Chan films look like without the extremely unnerving and relentless efforts of Jackie Chan? And how would Chicago and Cabaret run without Bob Fosse’s touch? It is time that the people coming up with the dance moves and fight scenes deserve their chance to shine.
3) Best Soundtrack Honorary Oscar: Quentin Tarantino Martin Scorsese This one is a fun one, because this Oscar doesn’t require that the music in the movie be original. Sometimes, a good soundtrack full of older music (some of it used before) can actually propel a movie to a new level. The greatest example is in 1994, when Pulp Fiction’s surf rock and edgy 60s tunes and Forrest Gump’s amazing collection of classic 60s-70s hits helped push these two movies to be the best to come out that year. A third example would be Goodfellas, which featured barely any instrumental work or any music made FOR the movie, yet had dozens of songs that when you listen to now—will bring you back to a scene in that film. Goodfellas immortalized “Layla” by using the piano sequence to introduce the massacre that eventually arrived two-thirds into the movie.
4) Best Opening Titles Honorary Oscar: Saul Bass Sometimes the opening titles alone gets you excited (or scared) for the movie that’s about to be shown. This aspect of the movies has become very dated, as there is very little effort in the opening sequences, unlike what happened back in the 50s and 60s when legendary Hollywood designer Saul Bass ruled the world. He was responsible for the creepy opening of Psycho, the majestic opening of Vertigo, and the thrilling opening to North by Northwest—all now-classic Hitchcock movies. But they wouldn’t be the same without Saul Bass’ extra touch in the intro. Best opening title in recent years? Fight Club of course. David Fincher knows its essential to get a movie off in the right foot--with Fight Club and Se7en being the best examples.
5) Best Quote Honorary Oscar: Samuel L. Jackson Will Ferrell Sometimes in life all you need is a very good quote. Comedies have the toughest time earning the Oscars, as comedies tend to not be taken as seriously (pun not intended) as dramas in the Oscar field. But with the Best Quote, comedies can now strive for some gold by delivering a line that can become a classic staple in American pop culture as well as garnish the only Oscar they can ever get. The big question is who should get the Oscar— the person that wrote the line? Or the actor/actress that delivered it?
Bottom Line: The Oscars over the years has done a good job in recognizing talent in the film industry, but with these awards we can expand the talent recognition as well as award certain types of films that otherwise would never have a shot at earning anything at all in February of each year. Someone like Jackie Chan is a household name and one of the greatest men to ever make movies, but until categories like Best Stunts develop, he will not get that well-deserved gold unless he gets an Honorary one. And trust me, I've fought over that one too.
Any awards you guys would like to see added to the Academy Awards?
Not sure if anybody noticed, but Winnie the Pooh came out in theaters. It was the first major Pooh film coming from the head Disney animation studio since 1977, when The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh hit theaters and was quickly overshadowed by the other Disney animated film The Rescuers, and of course Star Wars. Not sure if anyone noticed, but this is Disney’s 51st animated film in the official canon. Not sure if you noticed, but it has opened to very positive reviews. Not sure if you noticed, but Disney is pushing this film quickly out of the way for unknown reasons…despite being the second most popular Disney character (after Mickey Mouse of course).
The conspiracy theorist in me is beginning to ponder: is John Lasseter, lead of Disney animation nowadays, purposely sabotaging the movie? Is he setting up the movie to fail because it’s not Pixar? Is he not putting forth any sort of effort because of its lack of computer animation or lack of technological advancements? Is he trying to make this film flop for a secret, hidden reason? On paper, this sounds preposterous, but let us analyze the facts:
Winnie the Pooh had a release date of July 17th, which the entire planet knew was the release date of Harry Potter. Why on earth did you release this on the same day as the final Harry Potter movie? Any marketing major would have told you that it was box office suicide. Usually on major-major blockbusters the other studios tend to back away from the release date, or release it sooner, or throw a grade-B counter-marketing flick. None of this happened to Winnie the Pooh, as Harry Potter’s fanbase is of all ages and Winnie’s release date was never fixed to avoid the assault.
Why didn’t they release it just a week before? They would have had to take on….The Zookeeper. Much easier competition. They could have been the counter-measure to Horrible Bosses and really could have racked up some more millions before Harry Potter conquers the planet. And then the total lack of hype for this movie remains a baffling mystery. ABC Family, a Disney-owned network, was constantly airing marathons of the Harry Potter movies in anticipation for the next chapter. But it’s not Disney, why aren’t we airing previous Winnie the Pooh films instead? Why is Disney Channel not mentioning a single blurb about Winnie the Pooh when they went apeshift over Cars 2 for months?
Now, one of two things is happening: Disney’s marketing continues to fail miserably (if the film is not blockbuster-potential, expect the Disney movie to struggle making money nowadays) or since it’s not Pixar, Lasseter is letting the movie die out in the box office without a complaint. This is the same studio that complained about the lack of marketing towards Ratatouille and Wall-E several years ago. And yet a movie based off a character that has earned the company billions upon billions of dollars over the years is making barely past $15 million as of right now...and nothing is being said. By the end of the run it will be lucky if it can cross $40. Now I know this new Winnie the Pooh wasn't going to break records, but its the lack of effort that's bothering me more than the lack of success. Cars 2 on the other hand thanks to its marketing-blitz campaign made over $40 mill in three days…and that’s with its dismal reviews. Want more proof that they might be setting up this movie for fail? Check out the poster: it says Spring. So why move it from spring to fight Harry Potter? Hmmm..
Bottom Line: Disney is being ridiculous by not advertising this movie and Pixar and pals are being more ridiculous by not ruffling any feathers over the whole ordeal. Before, I used to say that Pixar was as close to Walt Disney’s old-school films as we will ever get. But with the extremely disappointing Cars 2, which went against everything Disney animation usually stands for, and with Winnie the Pooh being brushed off as a C-List animated movie despite being part of the main canon and being a sequel to one of Walt Disney’s final works of art is making me reconsider a little. Where is the love for Pooh, the one character that best represents the innocence, charm, and quality of old-school Disney? Look at all the positive reviews, we have a potentially beautiful film here that’s a total contrast from the 3-D, loud, computer-crazy, and sometimes obnoxious animated works of nowadays. Where is the love?
Shame on you Pixar.
Shame on you Disney.
You are backing away from a link to the past, a past that if it had not existed, you would not be the success story that you are today.
Enjoyable Swan Song of a Legendary Franchise 15 July 2011
Harry Potter has taken moviegoers on quite a ride ever since the original flew into theaters 10 years ago. There's been some decent moments (Sorcerer's Stone), excellent moments (Prisoner of Azkaban, Goblet of Fire), and some miserable moments (Half-Blood Prince). With the final installment, the cast and crew pulled out all the stops to try to deliver the most epic film in the entire saga. The drama, tension, and action were revved up to the maximum to compete with the final book—which was also a plethora of drama, suspense, and resolution. And while the tone still isn't as sinister as the book it's referencing, Deathly Hallows Pt. 2 remains a very entertaining and emotionally-charged finale that wraps up the saga nicely.
Just in case you haven't actually read the novel, Deathly Hallows Pt. 2 follows the events from part one as Harry and company attempt to find the essential parts to crippling the strength of He-That-Shall-Not-Be-Named to a point in which he isn't ridiculously invincible. Along the way, major sacrifices are made, Hogwarts is in major trouble, and nobody is safe. Considering how good the original source material is, Steve Kloves' biggest job was to be able to translate it all in a reasonable amount of screen time. Considering that they were willing to split the last book into two colossal films, it shouldn't be too big a problem, right? Kloves actually decided to minimize the dark tone of the final book and cut back on the amount of "grimness" that was featured in the final third of the story. Adding to that are a few small changes in terms of content and structure. Whether or not this is good depends on how much of a novel purist you are. To me the changes were not necessary, but didn't distract too much. The entire cast was back and all delivered their performances with no trouble. Let me just say: it is a pure miracle that the kids from the original grew up to become quite talented, and it's a miracle that they were able to maintain such an excellent group for all these years. No other movie franchise can ever boast such an achievement. We honestly take it for granted: Alan Rickman, Helena Bohnman Carter, Ralph Fiennes, Maggie Smith, Jim Broadbent, Emma Thompson, Gary Oldman……
It is honestly the cast that makes this movie work, since they perfectly bring the literary characters to life. J.K Rowling was totally on the lucky side in terms of casting. But enough about that, let's praise the pure amount of effort put into each of these movies. The special effects, sets, background design have been top-notch all these years and did not disappoint in the final act. Every detail from the book has translated well on-screen with barely any controversy. While there wasn't much to marvel at in the first third of the movie, once the final battles at Hogwarts took center-stage, the visuals will leave you breathless.
David Yates for some odd reason became the main director of the franchise after the fifth installment—which was not as well-directed as the previous two Harry Potter movies. After his awful sixth installment, I lost faith in him. With Deathly Hallows however, he proved to me that he has learned his lesson. While the movie still paces a bit slow, unlike the last installment the slower moments were still very necessary. The backstories sprinkled throughout the film added a layer of emotion to the movie that we just didn't experience in the previous three movies combined.
That being said, the action could have been better. Deathly Hallows has clearly the most battling of any Harry Potter story/film and could have really delivered a battle to the scale of a Lord of the Rings showdown. Unfortunately despite the great special effects and gargantuan scale; the fights themselves felt a little underwhelming. David Yates wanted to give every major and minor character in the movie some screen time and their final chance to say/perform something memorable. And while this does happen, it leaves less room for the wand battles between the dark forces and our heroes. Come on now, after years of torment and years of the destruction of countless innocent lives, Harry deserves at least a 15-minute showdown with his nemesis.
Bottom Line: Deathly Hallows Pt. 2 improves over the first, definitely improves over Half-Blood Prince, and is a nice and touching finale to the franchise that the world has grown up with and loved. Prepare those tissues, because the deeper invested you are in the series and all the characters involved, then the more its going to hurt viewing the final half. Everyone did a phenomenal job translating a quite difficult novel into a watchable epic and misses the "epic" quality by a few notches. The main question now is: what are we going to do in a world without an upcoming Harry Potter piece of work?
Part of my feature on how rock music isn’t what it used to be, I am going to deliver you a list of the best guitarists I’ve ever listened to. This is by no means a list just about technical skill, but moreso a list of guitarists that are irreplaceable, deliver the energy, mayhem, and skill necessary to catapult their band to the next level. These twenty guitarists carry their own unique style and sound, and without them ever getting involved in the music world, we’d have a totally different outlook on music today.
#20: Adam Jones Band: Tool Favorite Work: Schism This man is by no means conventional, by no means traditional, and by no means willing to play by the standard rules of playing a guitar. That being said, he is very skilled at what he does, and few guitarists out there can match up and catch up with the extremely off-key and awkwardly-toned sounds of Tool.
#19: Santana Band: Santana Favorite Work: Black Magic Woman Santana is an extremely skilled guitarist that sometimes has these long periods of fail with several consecutive less-inspiring albums. But when he is on top of his game, he can deliver some nasty good tunes and some killer guitar solos. Unlike any guitarist on this list, his best work has decades of range—as his first three albums were amazing, and then made an epic comeback over 20 years later with his Supernatural album.
#18: Bob Bogle Band: The Ventures Favorite Work: Diamond Head The Ventures are hands-down one of the most underrated important bands in the history of music. They experimented like crazy, they were among the first bands to experiment with several different tunings, guitars, and accessory equipment like the whammy bar (which is used extensively nowadays). Bogle’s best work was definitely in the 60s however with his influx of hip, clever, and addicting surf rock tunes that still are a major influence to the world of rock music today. When you usher is a new era of guitarists, you deserve a place on this list.
#17: Kurt Cobain Band: Nirvana Favorite Work: In Bloom Cobain is by no means an extremely skilled guitarist to the likes of Santana, B.B. King, or Van Halen. Instead however, he introduced a new sound, a dirty, distorted, simpler guitar sound that resonated with an entire generation of people in the early 90s. And unlike the three I mentioned in the previous statement, Cobain was not at all afraid of taking risks and challenging his audience and fanbase with a diverse roundabout of sounds, guitar solos, and distorted fun. Cobain’s Nirvana started a musical revolution that lasted several years, and it was one that destroyed glam rock once and for all. Killing genres deserves respect, and Cobain pulled it off within one album.
#16: Bradley Nowell Band: Sublime Best Work: Santeria Ska was successful on rock/mainstream radio only once, and that was when Sublime rocked the airwaves. This very underrated band had this fun mix of island/beach rock with some nasty punk and a heavy dosage of ska embedded. Nowell was the ringleader of the band with his decent vocals but far superior guitar work, which ranges from relaxing, melodic, to sometimes absolutely chaotic. Nowell can play surf rock, can play punk rock, and could have been able to play metal if he hadn’t died so soon.
#15: Alex Lifeson Band: Rush Best Work: Working Man Canada’s best musical gift to the world lies in the lightly intense band Rush. While the band will forever be known for its nearly-flawless drum work and complex-yet-engrossing bass work, we can’t forget the guitarist and all his glory. Just like Adam Jones, Lifeson’s rather complicated sound to his guitar solos and riffs despite off-key are mildly addicting and infuse an extra layer of uniqueness to an already outside-the-box rock band.
#14: Tony Iommi Band: Black Sabbath Best Work: Paranoid Respect the legends, you must. One of the earliest examples of metal guitar, Tony Iommi is one of the biggest reasons why the British invaded the rock scene back in the 70s with his incredible display of talent in the first couple Black Sabbath albums. What he lacks in guitar solos he makes up with excellent metal riffs as Paranoid and Iron Man are staples to the world of metal. Nearly every metal band in the 80s and 90s were influenced by Black Sabbath’s early-early work, whether they want to admit it or not. And let’s not forget him keeping Black Sabbath afloat after Ozzy left and formed his own band.
#13: Daron Malakian Band: System of a Down Best Work: Chop Suey A recurring theme amongst the guitarists on my list is that they are willing to experiment, bend the rules, and just ultimately distance themselves from the norm in every possible way. System of a Down does that as they combine heavy metal with punk mannerisms with nu-metal and with a hintage of Middle Eastern influence. Malakian might be a horrible singer (who ruined the latter System albums) but his guitar skills cannot be denied as his work is just as intense as the subject matter. No two solos sound the same as he can build masterpiece riffs and solos using multiple pitches and tones, and when its time to crank up the noise, he isn’t afraid to deliver. Toxicity is one of the best albums in the last 15 years, and the guitar work from Malakian is definitely one of the reasons why.
#12: John Frusciante Band: Red Hot Chilli Peppers Favorite Work: Other Side His importance on Red Hot Chilli Peppers is best shown when you display the band’s best work. In 1991 with Blood, Sugar, Sex, Magik----Frusciante was there. 1999’s Californication album---Frusciante was there. The band’s worst years? 1995-1999---when Frusciante left the band. This guitarist focuses less on skillpower and much more on emotion and pacing, two important elements when creating the funky Californian sound of the band. This man is quite underrated, as he nearly destroyed the band he helped build in a couple years by simply leaving. His irreplaceable status is best represented in those grim times in the 90s.
#11: Eddie Van Halen Band: Van Halen Favorite Work: Hot For Teacher I will forever argue this: if Van Halen had gotten along in the 80s then they would have gotten Rockin’ Roller Coaster in Disney World instead of Aerosmith. Why? Nobody represents the skill, talent, popularity, and intensity of 80s glam rock quite like Van Halen. And good ol’ Eddie is the main reason for the band’s signature and timeless sound, as he can play furiously fast, or just blaze the song with an addicting riff. Or…do both like he did in Hot For Teacher. While he calmed significantly in the 80s after some fast-paced tunes in the 70s, there is no denying that he can jam out with the best underground guitarists, while appeal to the mainstream in the exact same time. His range is relentless, and it’s a shame that overrated bums like Slash get all the attention when discussing the 80s.
#10: Tom Morello Band: Rage Against the Machine Favorite Work: Bulls on Parade When you hear the modern-day abusing of the whammy bar, or the ridiculous approach to frets, harmonics, and anything else used to change the pitches of a guitar, you have Morello to thank. While a few bands here and there altered their guitars in a variety of ways, nobody used it as extensively, as creatively, and as successfully as Tom Morello. Morello was a revolutionary in guitar sound, as he went to great lengths to find unique ways of producing sounds, riffs, and solos from the same instrument used to create his also-well-known heavy metal riffs. Rage Against the Machine was not the most talented band, as the drummer wasn’t that great and the singer was never really singing—but Morello put the band on the map and kept them there.
#9: Angus Young Band: AC/DC Favorite Work: Back in Black Angus Young is definitely not known for range, creativity, or an attempt to try something different. Throughout his entire career, which spans four decades, he uses the same pitch, the same tone, the same style, and the same chords. Despite all this: this man can play the guitar, and quite well I might add. While they are not exactly heavy metal, they definitely are an influence thanks to Young’s antics and ability to play the guitar at high speeds and more intensity than your typical guitarist in the same decade. Picture an improved version of Eddie Van Halen: powerful enough for the metalheads, but fun enough to appeal to the masses.
#8: Eddie Vedder Band: Pearl Jam Favorite Work: Yellow Ledbetter Pearl Jam may have been in Nirvana’s shadows for quite some time, but they were definitely the more talented band, even if they weren’t as influential. The main reason is Eddie Vedder’s very impressive skills with the guitar, which are usually not utilized because of his band’s simpler sound. But unlike Nirvana, every so often they like to crank out the heavy rock tunes and with this, we witness Vedder’s amazing ability to create these wholesome sounds that contain just as much emotion as his singing and subject matter. And long after the grunge era Vedder continued to impress with his solo work: ranging from a ukulele album (very few talents in music can crank a full album with a simple Hawaiian instrument) and especially with his music for Into the Wild.
#7: Rodrigo y Gabriella Band: Rodrigo y Gabriella Favorite Work: Diablo Rojo This entry is mildly unfair because its two people in one entry, two people in one group. But these two have proven time and time again through tours and live performances that they can strive perfectly fine by themselves---yet when they are together incredible magic is created. Without saying a word they deliver the emotion, complexity, and talent of all the best current rock bands combined. They are currently my favorite act in the music scene today, as they mix heavy metal riffs with the beautiful sounds of classical guitar. While it took them a while to gain the recognition they deserve, there is no denying that they absolutely blow away any other instrumental guitarist out of the water today or any other day. Classical guitar is a tough instrument, and to be able to deliver exceptional work for years is truly proof that you have talent.
#6: Kirk Hammett Band: Metallica Best Work: Master of Puppets Funny story. If this article had been done in 1992, he would have been in the top 3, perhaps even gunning for the #1 slot. And then came Load and St. Anger, ruining a lot of his credibility. But during the 80s he was the master, he was the king of metal by being responsible for some of the best rock albums in the history of music. His heavy riffs, impressive guitar solos, and just pure ability to maintain the pace while Metallica shreds the amps for 5-6-10 minutes remains a wonder to be heard. Whie unfortunately we remember them for selling out, hating MP3s and selling out, we must try to remember that during the Master of Puppets days---Metallica was the undisputed heavyweight king of metal—and it was partially because of Hammett.
#5: Jack White Band: The White Stripes Best Work: Black Math Now, most of the guitarists here had the blessing of being backed by incredible talent to help them produce their music. This especially applies to Hammett, Young, and Vedder—all in the top 10. Now, can those three turn a two-person band into a garage rock talented powerhouse even though the drummer had never taken a single drum lesson? Perhaps not, but this man could. Jack White has the skills of a Rodrigo, the creative structure of Tom Morello, the hyperness of Angus Young, and just an overall knowledge of music you don’t see with many guitarists. This man cannot quit, as he has been with three bands, and is the best piece in each of them. You want a Jack White in your band.
#4: Brian May Band: Queen Best Work: Stone Cold Crazy Most people are going to disagree with this man being so high up the list. After all, Queen has never been really truly known for skills or for the production value— instead more for the lead singer, who is still the best I’ve ever listened to. But Brian May was responsible for creating several sub-genres of music, with arena rock and speed metal being the best examples. Queen had a different sound for nearly every single album, nearly every single song, and few musicians can ever thrive in that type of atmosphere. This is the man that provided the guitar work to We Will Rock You, Bohemian Rhapsody, Another one Bites the Dust, Killer Queen, We Are the Champions, and much more. Each of those classics sound vastly different, but are each helmed by a man who can convert a good guitar solo as well as create music that will be copied for decades to come. The entire subculture of 80s thrash metal owe a major thanks to Brian May and Queen. Seriously.
#3: Dimebag Darrell Band: Pantera Favorite Song: Walk The top 3 are not just the best, but they are absolute legends. Dimebag was hands-down the most important and best ingredient in the underrated powerhouse of a band known as Panetra. This man can shred (Domination), this man can wipe out the whammy bar (Cemetery Gates), he can craft some of the most incredible and rage-driven solos (Cowboys From Hell), and best of all hammers out the best riffs in the history of music (Walk, I’m Broken). And unlike most of the great thrash/metal bands of the 80s, he is not afraid of totally changing up the tuning and experimenting heavily (Floods). Whenever the singer ws at his weakest, Dimebag is there. Whenever the song needs new life, Dimebag will be there. Dimebag IS Pantera, and there has been nobody even close to him in terms of talent since his unfortunate death.
#2: Jimi Hendrix Band: Jimi Hendrix Experience Favorite Song: The Wind Cries Mary Let’s go out on a limb and pretty much declare the rock world non-existent if it weren’t for the innovative and forever-life-changing works of Jimi Hendrix. Before Hendrix, the guitar was just a guitar. Before Hendrix, you record, clean up the vocals, and that’s that. Before Jimi, music was quite boring….and yes, the Beatles had been around for a few years too. Jimi Hendrix changed the entire scene of music by turning guitar playing into an art, by crafting a new form of post-production in terms of music crafting, invented the modern guitar solo, and was arguably the first guitarist to mess around with wah-pedals, amplifiers, and anything else related to the guitar. He is the first guitarist in modern music history that we modern scholars can call: talented, purely, utterly, truly, madly, deeply talented. Don't let the old farts at the magazines fool you: B.B. King, Chuck Berry, Elvis, and the Beatles are leagues under Jimi Hendrix.
His style of playing the guitar ranges from early-early metal to progressive rock to psychedelic rock to indie rock to even some slick blues rock. Jimi Hendrix didn’t just know how to play, he showed an extremely diverse range that to this day few can imitate. He can riff, he can solo, he can perform live, and best of all, sticks away from the clichéd guitar-playing script. Jimi is Jimi, and there is no substitution.
#1: Jimmy Page Band: Led Zeppelin Favorite Work: Heartbreaker
Most people put Hendrix at first and this man in the top 3, maybe top 10. Now, the reason why I place this man #1: he made a subpar band phenomenal and extremely successful without having to use his voice….ever. They had one of the most overrated vocalists in the history of music and still managed to deliver billions in sales thanks to the diverse, phenomenally crazy, and highly innovative guitar work of Page. Page MADE Led Zeppelin, and everyone in the band quietly (and not always happily) knew this. When Robert Plant was at his singing worst (which was often) Page would be there to save the day with a killer solo and a killer musical transition. At times we heard Plant just yelling and Page has to work twice as hard to save the song (See: Immigrant Song, Whole Lotta Love).
He made Stairway to Heaven with those opening notes, he made Kazmir with that riff, he exploded Heartbreaker out of the gate with his (made up on the spot) guitar solo, and in the latter years would help create arena rock, while at the same time experiment with psychedelic, Latin, hard, soft, and blues rock. Jimmy Page deserves the #1 slot because unlike most on this list, he had very little to work with. Great drummer that never quite hit his full potential, a bassist that never developed anything special, and a singer that…….just paled so badly in comparison to the likes of other British acts of the 60s/70s like Ozzy Osbourne, John Lennon, Sting, and especially Freddie Mercury.
Jimmy Page is a guitarist on top of his game at all times, because he wants to and because he HAS to. And with that necessity to step up his game, he is the greatest guitarist I have ever listened to. Led Zeppelin dominated an entire decade, and its because of the guitarist. No guitarist on this list ever dominated an entire generation of music---with the exception of my #1 pick. Bow down, because Page is indeed as good as it gets.
I'll take my comedy raw, blackened, with a side of crazy please. 9 July 2011
Murder. Car chases. Scandal. Rape. Conspiracy. Blackmail. Revenge. These are usually the key words to a suspenseful drama, but in this case are applied to a dark comedy that is relentless, chaotic, and just as funny as advertised. Horrible Bosses is the type of movie that would make Danny DeVito proud, as it blends a fun plot full of fun twists with standout comedic performances, plenty of surprises, and the inability to ever become predictable. Unlike most recent R-rated comedies, this film is raunchy without truly crossing the line, profane without becoming redundant and outrageous without becoming tedious. Don't look now but this movie is legitimately funny, and among the better comedies released in quite some time.
Horrible Bosses is about three average joes (Jason Bateman, Charlie Day, Jason Sudeikis) that are stuck on their job with awful bosses (Kevin Spacey, Jennifer Aniston, Colin Ferrell) all for different reasons. After all three reach their breaking point, they decide that their lives would be better if their bosses ceased to exist. What follows is their hilarious efforts in finding a way to get it done without getting caught. The premise was promising and thanks to a fresh script by Michael Markovitz, John Daly, and Jonathan Goldstein, the potential was indeed delivered—although not in the ways you'd expect.
The cast is hands-down the standout reason why this movie works. As a matter of fact its also its one minor flaw because we have tons of talent that were not utilized enough because some of the performances were so hilarious in the minimal material given. The bosses themselves were convincingly awful, especially the always-reliable Kevin Spacey as this sadistic, manipulative, and extremely cruel president of a company. Colin Ferrell and Jennifer Aniston step out of their usual roles and surprisingly deliver plenty of laughs with their own cruelly aggressive mannerisms. The main three also provided plenty of laughs and played off each other perfectly well, with Charlie Day being the best of the three. Day's experience with the mildly-dark "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" definitely shows off here, as his whiny and high-pitched voice perfectly matches his character persona and offers the most laughs and one-liners.
Seth Gordon's resume as director has been an interesting one; ranging from the enjoyable Fistful of Quarters to the weak-weak Four Christmases. In here, he keeps the pace constantly quick, constantly throws a crazy scenario to pit our heroes in, and never gives you a chance to breathe and realize how preposterous this movie really is. The movie's raunchiness is matched by its grim sense of humor—you need a dark strong heart to laugh at some of the mean-spirited shtick that is embedded in the 100 minute timeframe. In this movie, nobody is safe, and you never know just what might happen next. Unpredictability is essential in comedy, and the best part of Horrible Bosses is how it can remain one step ahead of you while still giving plenty to laugh about. We are laughing at our heroes but secretly we are definitely rooting for them too. Yes folks, you will secretly be hoping that they do indeed do the dirty deed.
Bottom Line: The talent pool runs deep here, and is the main reason why the film works. Luckily for us and the cast, they also got to work with great pacing, a fun script, and fresh dark humor that can inject life in this dismal summer season. The underrated talent of Sudekis, Day, and Bateman continue to quietly shine in Hollywood as they are hilarious from the first second to the closing credits. But let's not forget the triple-villain team of Aniston, Spacey, and Ferrell, which infused even more humor (and craziness) into the comedy. To sum it up, the film works in its dark manner, as Horrible Bosses never takes itself seriously, but you'll be too deep into laughter to notice the difference. The movie is dark as the movie earned its R rating easily, but if you can handle it you are in for a uproarious ride. Keep an eye on this one, as it is one of the best summer surprises in recent years.
With the NFL and NBA hitting lockout status in recent days this is the opportunity for baseball to make a leap of faith and change up its image a little, to try to attract new fans. Yes baseball is the most traditional professional sport out there, as no other sport contains so many small, faulty, and unwritten rules. MLB has never been a fan of changes, even if it means improving the overall sport. I am going to present to you my dream season, what I think the 2012 season should look like in terms of scheduling structure. As for changes to the game itself, I’ve already discussed in many previous articles.
My dream season consists of:
1) The Houston Astros moving to the AL West OR the Milwaukee Brewers move to AL Central, moving Kansas City Royals to AL West.
It is extremely unfair that the divisions are not evened out. The AL West becomes a cakewalk because of minimal competition when compared to the likes of the AL East and the NL Central. The sixth team from the NL Central should be removed and placed in the AL. If it’s the Astros, automatically throw them in the West so they can match up with their rival the Texas Rangers. If it’s the Brewers, the last team to switch leagues, then they should go back to the AL Central while at the same time move the westernmost AL Central team to the West—in which case it’s the Royals. It might be odd to see the Royals in the same division as the Athletics and the Mariners, but we need 6 divisions of 5 teams. It is the only fair way to do it.
2) 6 Games versus every non-divisional opponent in your league
One way to limit the amount of games is reduce the amount of times you play each team in your league. We can start with the teams not in your division. Usually the number varies from 6-9 games. We should flatten it, even it out, make it just 6 games against each opponent, no questions asked. As long as your opponent is in the league but not in your division, you will engage in two series against them—one home, one away. With my 15-team format, that means you’ll get 66 games in this category.
3) 12 Games versus your divisional rivals
Usually each team has to play each rival 18 times. If we can lower that down to 12, the value of the games will increase dramatically and can make the season far shorter. With the 15 team format with 5 teams in each division, you’ll see 4 teams a total of 12 times each. That makes it 48 games. If we do the math, we are now at a far more manageable 114 games against your division as opposed to 140+ in seasons we see nowadays.
4) 6 Games against “Rival” Franchise
Love or hate Interleague, its here to stay. The numbers have always been better, the ratings have always been good, and so have the attendance figures. Almost every team has their so-called rival, and these games must remain on schedule. The Mets should still play the Yankees, the Marlins should still play the Rays, the Royals should still play the Cardinals, the Orioles should play the Nationals, etc. One series at home, one series away. Still doing the math? We are now at 120 games.
5) 6 Games against Lottery Drawing Team
I have mentioned many times before that we should have a lottery drawing for interleague play, that way any team can have an equal shot at taking on higher-profile teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies, Dodgers, Cubs, etc. Let’s be honest, the schedulers will probably not make a Cubs vs. Royals or a Yankees vs. Nationals series unless it’s randomly chosen. I say out of pure fairness this lottery should occur. Gives us a better chance to see extremely odd matchups like Reds vs. White Sox, Rays vs. Giants, or Red Sox vs. Padres. Doing the math again, it pushes the schedule to 126 games. Just 126 games. Doesn’t that sound much better than 162 games?
In this day and age, 162 games is just far too much. But 126 games sounds much more suitable, and definitely enhances the value of each baseball game.
6) Top 5 Teams make the playoffs
Let me start by saying that I am thoroughly enjoying the current playoff format. I think it’s perfectly fine. And I will be the first to admit that I was hesitant in accepting the format that has been floating around for about a year. The format would be the 4th and 5th seed would fight for the final spot and take on the #1 seed. The only argument is whether or not it should be a one-game elimination match or a three-game series. I say with this format next year, it should be a one-game playoff. Some of the greatest games of all-time have come from one-game playoffs. That way it forces the Wild Card to avoid nabbing the Wild Card seed because they are still one game away from losing the entire season. It would add more insanity to the already-crazy playoff race that occurs every year in Major League Baseball.
The "D" in the report card full of "F"s 1 July 2011
We are now up to the third installment of the action-packed franchise. Is this Transformers also stupid? Yes. Does it still have stupid characters doing idiotic things? Yes. Does it still have Optimus Prime disappearing throughout most the film and still not being quite as bad-arse as his cartoon 80s days? Yes. Is Michael Bay still dropping the ball as director? Yes. Does the franchise still not know how to have a decent ending? Yes. And finally, does it still have this overgrossing obsession about the military? Yes. Despite all this, we have clearly found our best entry in the trilogy, as Dark of the Moon mixes the humor and heart of the first, with the utter carnage of the second, while jacking up the ante in terms of conflict and suspense. That being said, it is freakin’ frustrating to watch sometimes.
With Dark of the Moon, we follow Sam with a new girlfriend but no job and a frustration of now advancing far in life despite saving the world….twice. In the meantime, the Autobots and the Decepticons race to discover the secrets of a spacecraft that had crashed on the moon many decades ago. This discovery will lead to the most haunting conflicts in the franchise as well as a multitude of surprises and twists and turns. Unlike the first two scripts, which didn’t really pack anything juicy other than action scenes, Ehren Kruger’s script actually does a great job fixing the Megan Fox dilemma while adding a dosage of much-needed heart with a much more likable cast of characters and less of the embarrassing stereotypes that we had to suffer through in Revenge of the Fallen. The stakes are much higher and the film never really drags along with unnecessary scenes. That final battle did take a while though….
The special effects have always propelled this franchise during the dullest of moments, and they shine once again with Dark of the Moon. If this doesn’t get at least an Academy Award nomination, I will be extremely disappointing. Action junkies, you will definitely get your money’s worth as a major city becomes a massive battlefield full of nasty destruction and pure mayhem everywhere. In the meantime the Transformer fights, while (once again) minimal, deliver in the visual department. That being said, it was odd to change the blood of the robots from a dark color in the second to a clear red. Not quite sure what they were trying to pull off there. That little note can be pushed aside as we see a gigantic building get torn in half literally and fall on top of another building.
The cast in the third was the strongest, and it’s mostly because of the small roles. While Shia LaBeouf actually disappointed a bit, the Megan Fox replacement (Rosie Huntington-Whiteley) didn’t do half-bad with the minimal material she was given. In the meantime, check out the talent in the small roles department: John Malkovich, Frances McDormand, Ken Jeong, Leonard Nimoy, John Turturro, Patrick Dempsey (okay, so the last one might be pushing it, but he did well. Honest..even though his character was indeed stupid). Of course, the parents once again weren’t in the movie enough (Kevin Dunn, Julie White) and pretty much disappear way before the climax.
Here is where the ball is dropped: Transformers 3 is a pretty stupid movie. There is some heart, some soul maybe, but no smarts. Without spoiling too much, some of our characters (heroes and even villains) just make some dumbfounded moves and utterly questionable decisions that defy logic. And then, Michael Bay, once again, falters as a director. He does indeed have a knack for explosions and military-based scenes, but the robots fighting each other (yet again) are sometimes hard to distinguish. And then he does some very questionable things lake fading the screen to black far too many times (in one instance three times in a small scene that wasn’t even necessary). I miss 90s Michael Bay, when he kept the action close and crisp, but never too close to a point of getting a headache. He got the carnage and destruction scenes right, but once the action picks up amongst those robots, it becomes a frustrating game of Where’s Waldo.
Bottom Line: Transformers: Dark of the Moon is the best of the three films, but that’s still not saying too much as the direction is still shoddy, I still don’t care about Shia LeBeouf’s character, there is plenty of stupidity sprinkled throughout, and it still just doesn’t have the quality factor of the better summer blockbusters we’ve seen over the decades. While the casting, writing, and special effects improved, we are still treated to strong potential not being met. The main villains (and coolest robots) are still idiotic and reduced to cameos, as Optimus Prime once again does his I-am-going-to-disappear-for-a-while-and-then-re-appear-later-to-kick-some-arse-once-the-chips-are-down routine. If you are a Transformer fan, you will probably appreciate this much more, as the transformers (while some reduced to cameos) visually look amazing, and the chaos they create is incredible on the big screen. But if you are looking for quality, you may want to peek elsewhere. For some mindless fun, look no further.
And be happy that this is far better than Revenge of the Fallen.
After many home runs, Pixar finally strikes out 1 July 2011
Pixar is arguably the last remaining film company with a perfect track record. From Toy Story to Toy Story 3, each of their films had been met with grand acclaim and multiple Academy Awards. However, I can safely say the perfect track record ends this month. Cars 2 is a bafflingly disappointing movie that tastes even more bitter since its coming from Pixar, the makers of the best computer-animated films of all-time. Everything that has made Pixar movies range from decent to incredible to perfect was neglected here: from the piss-poor script, to the lack of heart, to the lack of humor, right down to even commercializing their film a bit with some awkward product placements and a multitude of new characters that provide nothing more than just providing more toys to sell. Cars 2 was totally unnecessary, and just didn't deliver in any way shape or form---except for the animation.
In Cars 2, we have this bizarre spy plot weaving in with a grand prix championship that takes place around the world. Without spoiling too much, there is a conspiracy going on throughout the grand prix and Tom Mater is sent on a mission to uncover who it might be. At the same time, it loosely threatens his relationship with Lightning. In terms of script, this was by far the weakest because there was no character development, minimal true conflict, no surprises, and it absolutely contradicts the lessons (mildly) learned in the original Cars movie. This movie was made purely for the kids as it offers very little subtle adult humor aside from all the snarly vehicle references.
I will never understand why Pixar felt the need to create this movie whose only purpose was to make money and merchandise the heck out of it. You would think after billions of dollars in revenue with original and clever stories it would be enough to keep their creative juices flowing while at the same time deliver a profit for Disney. But this film was easy to market, easy to distribute. And with that comes laziness, and it was all-too prevalent here. Cars was the film least necessary in the Pixar lineup to warrant a sequel, prequel, whatever. Just the fact that Pixar drove a movie just for profit sake heavily tarnished their credibility as an animation studio that e used to believe was focused in telling great stories in multiple ways.
Let's at least focus a bit on the positive. The voice cast was all back (with the exception of George Carlin and Paul Newman, of course) and with a few new voices in the mix. For the most part they did a good job, even though some didn't have much to work with, incredibly Owen Wilson as the main character Lightning being the main example. The animation was stunningly beautiful, but what else do you expect from Pixar? They are leagues ahead of the next-best animation studio, as their vehicles and settings were detailed down to a T. The action scenes were well-drawn out and have better cinematography as the typical action flick.
And now we shall go back to complaining. The movie felt a lot like Speed Racer: it was a decent racing movie but had a plot too convoluted for children, yet had a premise that was appealing mostly to the kids. Cars 2 suffers from this same fate, it has a spy storyline that complicates itself to a point in which the kids will be utterly lost, but still doesn't have the feel of a movie that the entire family can enjoy—its more a movie for younger boys, who will be utterly lost once the second act kicks in. The movie also doesn't dwell into deeper adult themes like previous Pixar movies like Toy Story 3, Up, and (especially) The Incredibles.
Bottom Line: Cars 2 is Pixar's first disappointment, and it hurts so much more because we know what the studio is capable of. What baffles me the most is the sheer minimal amount of effort to continue the trend and tradition of the preceding Pixar movies. Much like what happened with Indiana Jones 4 (which to this day I deny it exists), it deviated so badly from the formula of success that any strength it may have had is deterred by the fact that….we have seen so much better from that same staff. Cars 2 was pointless, redundant, lifeless, and just nothing like what we are used to seeing.
The original was subtly hinted to be a pet project of Pixar's leader John Lasseter, and the only reason we are even seeing a sequel is because its Lasseter's pet and because merchandise sales were the greatest for Disney since 1994's The Lion King. Let's hope this is just a speed bump and not a downward spiral, because I would hate to see less Up-quality films and more Cars 2-quality flicks. Maybe this will be a wake-up call for the company--especially if they don't win the Best Animated Film Oscar next year. In the meantime, prepare for a snorefest if you are dragged to watch this. Pixar, you finally flopped. Took 25 years and countless good memories, but it has happened.
