Cinematic Perfection Vol. 1

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This critic has seen more than 600 films (Currently working on an exact figure, will figure it out by the end of this week). The fact of that matter is I am a very harsh critic, and one that does not give high marks very often, especially recently. Nonetheless, there are movies in which received the highest honor from me. Yes, perfect scores coming from me do exist, and I am every so often throwing reviews of movies that I absolutely loved and adored to prove to you that yes I can enjoy movies just as much as hate them.

These are in no order, they are all equally amazing movies that should be viewed by everybody---at least once
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vol. 1
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Erasing memories of a loved one: eternal sunshine, or a black hole sun?, 16 July 2007

Author: diac228 (diac1987@netscape.net) from Orlando, Florida

Who you are is shaped from what you've seen, what you've experienced, what you've felt, and what you've learned; getting rid of any portion of the past diminishes a part of you, it strips away a piece of you. Gondry's film Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind explores love in a different way; what happens when its over, and you want to move on by destroying what had happened before. Can somebody continue living life after forgetting events that had occurred to him or her years ago? This concept is very unique, quite bizarre, but is handled so perfectly it speaks to the soul, becomes food for thought, and is a blessing disguised in 108 minutes of deep, insightful popcorn entertainment. Flawlessly written by Kaufman and Gondry, wonderfully acted by Carrey and Winslet, and beautifully directed by Gondry, Eternal Sunshine is a bittersweet movie that should bring out tears of joy and despair in anyone that has been through the highs and lows of love.

Eternal Sunshine follows a quiet, tightly wounded, almost emotionless man by the name of Joel (Jim Carrey) whom just learned that his ex-girlfriend, the carefree, impulsive, unpredictable, and needy Clementine (Kate Winslet) erased him from her memory using a special procedure. In retaliation, Joel attempts to undergo the same procedure, to destroy any living evidence of a relationship. However, as the procedure is underway and Joel is running around through the memories inside his head, he realizes just how much he still loves her and how empty he would become if the woman that turned his life around suddenly vanishes. In his mind he races to save any shred of memory of Clementine, despite the doctors successfully dismantling his mind at the same time. In the meantime, not all is well amongst the people involved with the procedure, as the memory-erasing business impacted their morals, their beliefs about love, and their sympathy towards people in general.

The movie is displayed in a very unstructured manner, which pretty much represents the hostile timeframe of recollections. Eternal Sunshine is displayed in a totally non-linear format, and repeatedly jumps settings with little or no warning whatsoever. That aspect alone requires multiple viewings of this film just to see how genius the directing and editing really is. The writing staff delivers one of the most original love tales in recent memory (pun intended), as they craft a deep story about a bond between two people that love and need each other, whether they know it or not. Every line, every bit of dialogue is important and strengthens the belief that Joel and Clementine were meant for each other.

Complimenting the writing is the excellent direction of Goundry. While the visual effects were stunning, the story propels the movie instead of the imagery, which is a rarity. Goundry doesn't just film, he films and then edits severely using a montage of colors, blurs, textures, angles, and also alternates with different speeds throughout the entire movie to set the tone and mood of the moment. His music videos aren't as great as critics claim (Personally, Spike Jonze destroys him) but all his usual music video techniques shine brilliantly in this film. Clever editing (that should have at least gotten an Oscar nod) helps display the chaos towards the climax in the movie.

Finally however, we have to give a special congratulations to Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet for providing yet another great performance as the main couple in the movie. You saw them at their happiest, their saddest, their angriest, and at their most caring. Both actors have a nice range of roles in their resume, but ranking high up there in terms of performances are the ones here. Supporting cast is very good too, especially by that of Kirsten Dunst as the adorable employee of the morally questionable company behind the memory-erasing procedure.

For being a sci-fi movie, this plays off as incredibly believable, partly because it never goes over-the-top. The erasing process was never dwelled upon nor was it totally explained as to how it works and how its possible, but raises a lot of moral questions long after the movie is over. How much would someone change after taking away a special person from their life? Even when the sun settles and it's all over, can the love still remain? Can the love still be there? Eternal Sunshine raises so many questions and leaves so much room for discussion, that it can become an event in itself to discuss the movie after watching it.

Bottom Line: With excellent acting, directing, editing, and visuals backing a unique yet engrossing story about love, memories, and all the hardships and happiness it brings, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is easily one of the best films of 2004. While the concept and the presentation of the movie may distract and even drive away the avid moviegoer, underneath the complexities of some of the scenes lies a very basic theme about moving on: You can move on, try to forget, but the love for that person remains, forever and always, and so will the memories, whether you like it or not. Just watch it, whether you are alone, with somebody, or more than one person (in which case, shame on you). But can a spotless mind be a happy mind? Not sure but a spotless film like this one is hard to catch, so whenever you have the chance to see it, take it.

The Hangover: 7/10

The Hangover (2009)

0 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
A hangover of a film that you won't soon forget., 22 June 2009

The Hangover is one of those movies that could have really been something special, if the pieces were placed together well. The plot was engaging, the acting was great, the pacing was perfect, and the premise itself is something unique and overall a win-win scenario. What was left? The content within the plot. The right blend of humor and comical suspense could elevate this to one of the comedic greats of recent decades. But, they just missed the mark, barely missed the mark. Oh, but it was so close. The Hangover is an excellent story about escapades and mayhem in Vegas and their consequences, but gets hindered because of the overload of crude humor, softer second act, and an under-written character that wasn't funny at all. Despite these setbacks, The Hangover is worthy of a viewing, especially if you enjoyed Todd Phillips' brand of crude adult humor.

In the surprise-sleeper hit of the summer, we follow two good friends of the groom and the bride's brother taking the groom to Vegas for a bachelor party before the wedding. All of a sudden, it is morning, three of the four wakes up to a disastrous room; and a random baby nearby. Oh and there's a chicken and a tiger in the hotel room as well. One is missing a tooth, the other has scratches everywhere, and one is missing pants. The groom is missing. The rest of the movie is spent picking up clues as to what happened, how it happened, and where on earth the groom went. The setup is crazy, and the events that unfolded the evening before was just as crazy. This is a sort of script the mainstream hasn't experienced in quite some time. The movie becomes mostly comedy, but with hints of mystery as well.

The best part of the movie is most definitely the screenplay, which was molded well by Jon Lucas and Scott Moore. Instead of a Ferrell or Apatow production which creates a situation and improvisation fills in the gaps, The Hangover relies strictly on plot and what twists and turns are thrown to our main characters. The hangover peeps encounter an angry Mike Tyson, disgruntled cops, gangsters, and much more in the span of 48 hours that follow the mysteriously drunken evening. This is the first raunchy comedy script I've seen that deserves at least an Oscar nod for its creativity since The 40-Year-Old Virgin several years ago.

Of course, it's the premise that sold the tickets, since virtually nobody knew who was actually in the film. Nonetheless, Bradley Cooper and Ed Helms steal the show with their outstanding performances as the frontrunners in the chase for the truth of the previous evening and the groom. Everyone else (even Mike Tyson) does a respectable job, with the exception of one. Zach Galifianakis' role as the screw-loose brother of the bride just falls flat most of the time. His character comes cross as a mix of a pedophile, a druggie, and Brick from Anchorman (in terms of the random statements and questions). This mix fails because Steve Carell perfected the dimwit role as Brick, and there virtually no consistency with Alan's character. He is the one role that was not fleshed out.

Your other drawback is the amount of crude humor. Crude humor is best in small doses (see: Blazing Saddles, Airplane, Dumb and Dumber, 40-Year-Old Virgin). In The Hangover, it's a bit overblown, and sometimes is used to try to save a scene. Todd Phillips improved upon his pacing abilities and good shots of Las Vegas, but still relies too much on crude humor and not enough on other ways to make the audience laugh. The tale didn't need the gross comedy, and would have been a great production altogether if they had toned down on the nastiness. The final scene makes you want to cringe almost.

Bottom Line: Not as funny as everyone is making it out to be, but it's still a hilarious movie full of unpredictable moments and insanity. This sleeper hit proves you don't need big stars to make money; just deliver a premise too fun to pass up. The writing is superb, the acting (for the most part) is great, and the surprises keep you engaged with what is going on. If you can get past the crude, then you'll find a gem that's a few polishes away from truly shining among the greats. Instead, it settles for Phillips' best film since Old School, and one of the funniest raunch fests of the decade.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen: 4/10

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)

More of the same. Except its just the same. Just more of it., 24 June 2009

Bigger is better; that's what Hollywood and the Michael Bay team believes. They believe that if you hurl everything from the first film, enhance it a gajabazillion times, and then enhance it even more, you'll have a better film. This mathematical formula has been used for action blockbusters since the early 80s when Empire Strikes Back unleashed its sequelness for the world to see. However, for years, we critics (and moviegoers) have shouted back: "Check the math!!!" Well, we don't really actually say that, but sometimes more of something is too much of something---get what I am saying? Let's simplify: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is basically the original film except louder, longer, more stereotypical, and even more anti-climactic. All the strengths and flaws from the original transform their way into the sequel, and the end result is another Michael Bay firestorm of explosions (you know the kind, in which there are explosions inside explosions).

In Transformers 1 ½ (my interpretation, my title) we follow Sam as he heads off to college. But, trouble is brewing as a source of unspeakable energy is being hunted by the enemy (that sounds awfully familiar). Before you know it, evil transformers are everywhere, and our heroes see themselves being overwhelmed by the enemy and also by the United States whom is finding Prime and his followers more a burden than helpful. 8 million dollar script gets you a repeat of the original script, with more dialogue and more backstory. Call me crazy, but in a franchise known for the fights and the awesome robots, do we really need deep conversations about relationships? Roberto Orci (writer of Star Trek and several episodes of Alias) should know better. The other writers, well, their (Ehren Kruger and Alex Kurtzman) previous work wasn't as impressive.

More. More is the recurring theme to this film. More transformers, more characters, more action, more talking, more exploding, more music, more comic relief, more build-up, more fights, more close-ups, more special effects, more scenery, more military vehicles and weaponry, more stereotypes, more danger, more deaths, and to top it all off, more animal humping. There was more Megan Fox showing off her body instead of her acting. There was more from the parents (Kevin Dunn and Julie White), as they throw in more sexual humor and a surprising bit of drug-related humor as well. The parents was actually one of the better portions of the movie, as they provided the best comic relief; much better than the hoards of transformers whose only job was to attempt to make the audience laugh.

In a film that has more, there are surprisingly less of other elements. There was less Optimus Prime than the original, there was actually less robot-on-robot fighting, as more of the action sequences involved the military going at it against the robots (Funny how we only see the United States military in the entire movie despite the fact that the fighting took place in two other countries). Michael Bay cannot deny he loves the military and the weaponry brought, since this film could have passed off as an Army recruitment video describing and showing just what the United States army is capable of. Bay himself dons the same directing techniques as all his other films; the man is coming off as a one-trick pony.

Despite all the setbacks, you will see this film for one main reason: the special effects. The special effects team yet again delivers some of the best work in history, as the transformers themselves look absolutely fantastic and full of detail. The special effects never drop from prime quality, and is the main strength in the entire film. The fights themselves do improve, as the scope and range allow us to accurately see who is fighting whom. Unfortunately, the third act is where almost all the intense and gigantic action is, as the previous two acts had little blurbs of action. What hampers Transformers 1 ½ even more is that like in the original, the final battle (and the ending itself) is extremely anti-climactic. When the main and grand finale does appear, you are already tired from all the build-up that happened for about 45 minutes. There just wasn't enough activity coming from our robotic heroes, all the focus was on the military.

Bottom Line: Am I being too harsh to a blockbuster flick? Most people would say so but guess what, summer action blockbusters can be noisy, explosive, and smart at the same time. This has been proved with the likes of Jaws, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Last Crusade, True Lies, Speed, Pirates of the Caribbean, Terminator 2, and even Michael Bay's very own The Rock. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen will satisfy the action junkies loosely, but only if they are willing to accept all the drawbacks, especially that of the franchise changing from robots vs. robots to man vs. robots. 150 minutes, several stereotypes, hundreds of explosions, and a couple dues ex mahcinas later, a weak sequel arrives.

The ironic thing is I grade this film the same as the original. So, more does not equal better in this case, and more does not equal worse either. It just means, more of the same, and it's the same sort of stuff that prevents this franchise from ever being halfway-decent.

The Proposal: 7/10

The Proposal (2009)

More than you would expect in a romcom with a rehashed plot., 22 June 2009

The Romcom is a genre that becomes increasingly easy to craft, but as the years go on, it's a genre that is liked less and less by critics of all ages. Unlike the genres of action, sci-fi, and even comedy, the amount of ideas for a romantic comedy become quite limited. You can only find so many ways to make people fall in love before you realize you've seen it before. In recent years, romantic comedies rely much more on star power and chemistry rather than storytelling; since the story is probably something done before in dozens of other movies, romantic novels, television productions, plays, musicals, etc.

In this decade, the most lucrative romcom hits emerge because of the main actors and their interacting with each other. Movies like Hitch, What Women Want, He's Just Not That Into You, Sex and the City, Knocked Up, and How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days used big stars, big names, and lavish productions for successful profiting. The Proposal does the same exact thing: they took a story we all know (and females love) and pitch it with two likable, bankable, and attractive stars. Add a dosage of beautiful scenery, strong supporting staff, and cute animals, and viola, there's a hit arriving. Yet, for the second time this year, we have a repetitive plot being saved by delightful performances. Just like He's Just Not That into You, it's a predictable ride, but an unexpectedly fun one.

The Proposal is about a stern, cynical, and seemingly heartless boss (Sandra Bullock as Margaret) blackmailing her young and hard-working assistant (Ryan Reynolds as Andrew) to marrying her to avoid being deported. In order to prove to immigration that they are indeed going to marry and it's not a ploy, the new couple heads to Alaska to meet Andrew's loving family. Throughout the trip, the fake couple learns more about each other than expected; and as the plot twists and turns, sparks start appearing. Like I've said before, we've seen this tale before; it's not a groundbreaking tale that will change movie-making forever.

Instead, we rely solely on star power and the supporting cast. Despite the age difference (and the movie experience difference), Reynolds and Bullock have a nice bit of chemistry together, and play off each other's tricks and subtle jabs perfectly. Bullock is very talented, but yet seems to have found a comfortable groove in these romantic comedies, and it is quite frustrating considering her performances in Speed and 28 Days. Reynolds proves that he can mold into different types of roles, as he was a comic book character just a few weeks before this movie's release. Check out the star power behind the support that was not advertised: Craig T. Nelson, Mary Steenburgen, Betty White, Malin Akerman.

Yes, the clichés are present, yes left-field moments do occur (and since when do they not in romantic comedies?), and yes, you can predict where the story goes. Fortunately for us, Disney (in its marketing), and the director Anne Fletcher does a fantastic job hiding the surprises sprinkled throughout the 107 minutes. The surprises range from plot twists, to totally improvised moments in which you can't help but chuckle at the absurdness. Fletcher doesn't dazzle with clever shots or beautiful cinematography, but did do a fantastic job maintaining The Proposal in the PG-13 range with several scenes, especially concerning a nearly graphic yet hilarious moment that must have ruffled some feathers in the censorship department with the nudity involved.

Bottom Line: Once again, I am surprised by a chick flick, and can't help but actually recommend the film, even with the flaws attached. Star power, like in all the good romantic comedies of this decade, is what carries and drives this film away from mediocrity and keeps it afloat even whenever the movie drags the slightest bit. This isn't going to win awards or become analyzed for years to come, but it will improve any gloomy evening with its comedy, chemistry, and overall lovable personality. Loosely shut off the brain and memory of previous flicks, and you'll have a good time.

How to Improve the National Basketball Association

The NBA playoffs are over. The crazy season full of surprises, disappointments, good commercials, epic games, epic meltdowns, biased commentary (Jeff Van Gundy wants to MARRY Kobe Bryant, I swear) and rising ratings has come to an end. And oh boy what an end it was. This year of playoff action was some of the best we’ve seen since the Heat won it all—and those who remember it well remember the absolute insanity contained there. I lost hair on my head that year, as we had too many nail-biters to count.

However, the NBA is still an absolute mess. The referees ruined what could have been the best playoff action since the 90s when every team that entered was actually damn damn good. But it’s not just the refs; it’s the players and the watered-down physical play of the league itself. What used to be a rough-and-tough league full of rivalries, injuries, hostile environments, notable clashes (See: Karl Malone vs. Dennis Rodman) has been dwindled into the second-weakest sports league in the world (the NFL still takes the cake, but that’s a way different story). Even the NHL has improved in recent years with some of their rules and inability to chow down on physical play. I’ve accumulated a list of things that the NBA should think about for next season; these are things that would definitely improve the game and would entice me to watch it.



#1: Every Foul Gives Your Team -2 Points

Hack-a-Shaq-Howard-Wallace will cease to exist. I hate these strategic fouls done at the end of games. Plus they slow down the pacing of the NBA. Now, if we take away points for every foul, then players will not want to do it, allowing for us to see interrupted play for longer periods of time. Flagrant Fouls? -4 points. Technical Fouls? -328 points. I feel sorry for whomever has Dwight Howard and/or Ron Artest as a teammate.



#2: Halfcourt shots = 20 points

Your team is down by an ishload? Have no fear; the 20-pointer is here! So, grab those four-leaf clovers, lucky rabbits, lucky feet, lucky coins, and lucky eyeballs before the game and take those crazy shots at totally random intervals for poops and giggles. However, if someone perfects that shot, we’ll see point averages go up a bit. LeBron will be averaging 100 points a game despite making only 5 shots a game. The stats people will have a field day with this new rule. Let’s add to it: slam dunks are 4 points, full-court shots are 50 points, and free throws are 1483 points. Don’t worry, nobody in the NBA knows how to make free throws….



#3: 7-Second Fireball

The 7-second violation exists, but isn’t utilized well-enough. We need to spice it up. How about, 7 seconds in the shot clock, the center part of the court bursts into flames until the play is over. Not only will that make our players run faster, but will prevent these idiots from backing up all the way to the halfcourt point to run the clock. Play the game you little wimp, or else we can serve you with a side of mashed potatoes and corn. Adding to the mayhem is if a steal is committed and the flames are still bursting. We can have commentators finally say with accuracy “HE’S ON FIRE!!”



#4: Traveling. Forgetting the bags

This one is very simple. Whenever somebody travels the ball, the bench of the opposing team is allowed to throw full suitcases at the guilty. Now these douchebags will never walk with the ball again. That or they’ll never have to purchase luggage for the rest of their life.



#5: Trampolines

Do I need to even explain myself? Installing trampolines on the ground will make competitive play so much more fun. For even more hilarity, we can put them in utterly random locations so players won’t know that they are on a platform until they are halfway in the air. Randomness like this has to work.




#6: Floppers win fake Academy Awards, then get pelted in the head with them.

I hate floppers. A lot. I hate people that pretend like they are fouled. It makes me want to punch a chipmunk. Yes, a chipmunk. However, we can quickly avert this situation by hiring professional acting professors to watch the game. When a flopper is doing his dirty work, the professor presses a special button. When a timeout is called, the award show will be done during the commercial break, in which they reveal the Academy Award for Best Actor in a Supporting or a Leading role. The professional hands it to the player, and then beats him over the head with it. And we won’t call it a foul.

Stupid floppers.



#7: Shot Clock Bomb

George Carlin once recommended that the shot clock should be only two mere seconds. While the concept is definitely entertaining it couldn’t work. However, it bothers me when players pass the ball constantly as if it were a bad game of hot potato. I’ll resolve this issue right now: the ball is a bomb and ticks louder if you don’t hurl it towards the basket. Finally, if it goes 24 seconds without a shot, BOOM! The amount of injured players may increase, the amount of property damage may increase, and so will the amount of near fatalities amongst the players and people in the front row. But hey, it makes for great entertainment. Plus the amount of shots taken per game will definitely increase.



#8: Refs for the refs

If refs screw up, the SuperRefs blow the whistle and hand them a foul. 3 fouls and they won’t get a paycheck. Plain and simple. But who refs the SuperRefs??

#9: 12-on-12

Why only 5-on-5 basketball? I think all 12 players should be on the court at the same time. No substitutions will ever be needed. If a player gets injured, replace him with the mascot. If a 2nd player (or the mascot) gets injured, send in some lucky guy in the front row. If someone needs to use the restroom, well, he can go at anytime, but has to keep in mind its not 12-on-11 for those few seconds.



#10: Sudden Death

Screw overtime, if the game is over and there’s a tie, we go into sudden death. We flip a coin:

Heads: The first shot wins. In this time period, no whistles will be blown. Absolute mayhem follows. We will have fouls, (flagrant, technical, deadly), traveling, goaltending, and any other kind of rule breaking that you can fathom. It will be 10 (or 24) players on the court doing whatever it takes to make the stupid shot. The last time there’s such violence in an arena will be the gladiator days back in the Roman times. Chairs will be thrown, mascots will be sacrificed, and in all the meantime the halfcourt line is on fire, the ball is blowing up every 24 seconds, the refs are sitting in the corner (weeping softly). Sudden Death could take hours and will take lives, but at least your got your money’s worth.

Tails: The best player from each team is on the court, nobody else. The entire court turns into a big trampoline. The first shot wins. Nuff’ said.

Yes, by now, you are hoping that the coin is two-sided. It is. It will always land on heads.







Always.


So there you have it, 10 simple ways to improve the NBA. If we follow my lead, the NBA will once again revert to its 90s greatness---with a few differences.



P.S. Always on heads.

I want Disney to fail.

Those that know me best are very aware I am a subtle Disney fanatic. Whether it’s the nearly 6 years of service, my ability to quote Disney movies endlessly (“Hey, I’ve been turned into a cow, can I go home now?”), or the 100+ Disney songs I have, I can say I am a good fan of Walt Disney’s work and carryover success. However, I want Disney World to fail. I want Disney World to be in popularity trouble. I want challengers rising to the occasion. I want Universal, Sea World, and Busch Gardens to really push for chomping away at Disney’s success. Why? Because the technically-still-legal monopolizing that Disney is performing is not allowing for the theme parks to truly branch out, evolve, and improve upon themselves. How can Magic Kingdom better themselves when they don’t have to? Why on earth would Disney want to improve when they have occupied the entire list of 5 busiest theme parks in the world and 5 busiest parks in America?

What has Disney released for the parks lately anyway? A slew of remakes and Toy Story Mania. That’s about it. Not complaining about any of these rides, no, but is that the best they can do? Is Toy Story Mania the peak of Disney creativity? Expedition Everest back in 2005 was phenomenal, and there has been nothing like it from Disney since and even years before its release. Epcot badly needs a new attraction, Magic Kingdom hasn’t had a new attraction in years, and Hollywood Studios still needs some revamping (and American Idol is not the solution). In the meantime, Universal has a massive roller coaster due out this summer and an entirely new section ready for the public next year. Sea World re-created the Shamu show, their dolphin show, and has another roller coaster out this summer. Busch Gardens has revamped its park slightly and has two new attractions from 2008 roaming around. The re-designs of Universal Islands of Adventure and Sea World can be felt throughout the park; re-designing Haunted Mansion and Pirates only affects….those locations.

Of course this idea of revamping costs money, and this is exactly why there is a strong chance I will never be a Disney Imagineer. The main reason is because I am extremely competitive, and Disney really isn’t, because they quite frankly don’t have to. Despite NEVER winning anything in any of the theme park awards that are held annually or biannually (you never see Disney mentioning this, because they never actually win), Disney still pulls the phenomenal attendance numbers. Magic Kingdom receives 15 million people a year. Sea World? 6 million. Epcot hits 10 million a year. Hollywood Studios (In my opinion Disney’s weakest park) receives 9 million. Its competition, Universal Studios, passes 6 million barely. So with these lovely numbers, why would the higher-ups want to achieve the ultimate Disney experience when we as guests seem obviously satisfied with what’s already there? Why would we want to add on and fix what’s in Disney when just throwing in a few new ad campaigns is much cheaper?

Year of a Million Dreams, love it or hate it, was extremely effective and didn’t require new attractions. This new What Are You Celebrating has been a hit with the guests as well. No need to add an attraction to the badly-needing-one Fantasyland. There’s apparently no need to totally fix up Tomorrowland, which now looks like long-ago’s Tomorrow. No need to try to change the Impressions of France and Star Tours films, which have gone through three different decades of viewing. No need to enhance Tom Sawyer Island, Living With The Land, Carousel of Progress or Jungle Cruise; 4 attractions that had Disney’s touch and could also use some facelifting.

So this is what I want to happen: I want Disney to be scared. I want all these parks (I am including Aquatica) to suddenly succeed, to suddenly create massive attendance numbers that will bite into Disney’s success. If this sort of stuff actually happens, then perhaps Disney will wake up and realize that they are aging a bit. It will require about a century of backwards-decision-making to truly spiral Disney into true trouble, but it might take much less for Disney’s bite to become smaller. If Sea World and Universal successfully advertise their plethora of changes, then pixie dust magic may start wearing off ever so slightly. Then guess what, Disney will retort, will retaliate. Maybe then, we’ll have Everest-quality attractions planned for all the parks, and they can come more often than every half-decade. Maybe we’ll see the facelifts that would make Walt Disney proud and not roll so much in his grave.

The first sign of this potential biting into success was Aquatica’s phenomenal opening. By the end of the year, it was the third busiest water park in the States and 8th in the world. This was just Year One. Attendance of Typhoon Lagoon and Blizzard Beach actually dropped a little at sight of the competition. While 1% doesn’t sound like much of a drop, it could escalate if the positive reactions coming from International Drive continue.

Bottom Line: I don't really want Disney to actually fail and lose money, but I do believe that Disney needs competition in order to truly show what they are capable of. With their backs against the wall, Disney can release some amazing stuff. Tower of Terror saved MGM Studios back in 1994, and Everest launched Animal Kingdom into worldwide fame and success. However, there isn’t enough competition coming from the others, and I would like to see more so we can see Disney pull out some wild cards.

Personally, my dreams of being a competitive Imagineer with a desire to craft the best rides and parks the world has known is all but dead---but perhaps down the road when Disney executives do decide to really fix up the parks, I’ll be there to provide the ideas. Yes, I want a longer Big Thunder Mountain Railroad. Yes, I want more Soarin’ movies (flying over Europe, Australia, and the Arctic during those beautiful Northern Lights). Yes, I am asking for too much, but if you can dream it, you can do it, granted the financial providers want it to be done. Come on Universal, succeed, so we can see some rivalries actually emerge; instead of the equivalent of a little kid kicking the shins of Yao Ming in an attempt to hurt him.

Just a thought.

DIAC reviews the most popular songs currently on radio

1) Black Eyed Peas: Boom Boom Pow
Usually Their Grade From Me: -2/10
This Song: 3/10

Bottom Line: Black Eyed Peas do have their share of decent beats, but remain failing in terms of lyrics or ability to provide any substance, style, originality, or attempt for consistency in their music. Yea, this song sucks.

2) Lady Gaga: Poker Face
Song: 4/10

Bottom Line: Hip-hop and pop have recently dwelled into electronic and hints of techno. There's a similarity between all of these: They aren't that good.

3) Jamie Foxx: Blame It
Song: 2/10

Bottom Line: See above comment. Now look at the score. Let's move on.

4) Glee Cast: Don't Stop Believin'
Song: 3/10

Bottom Line: Originality is not here. Journey should be furious right now. Its a rock anthem reduced into accapella mumbo-jumbo.

5) Pitbull: I Know You Want Me
Song: 7/10

Bottom Line: Guess what, I honestly do not like Pitbull, I really don't. I have never been a fan of his music. However, with that being said, this song grew on me for unknown reasons. As a matter of fact, this is one of the best 2009 songs I've heard this year. The beat is a bit infectious, and while the song becomes repetitive, the beat and energy prevent it from being annoying.

6) Linkin Park: New Divide
Song: 3/10

Bottom Line: Linkin Park's "mature" music is nowhere near as good as their first two albums, which mesh excellent vocals with angry yet ear-catching guitar riffs and heavy drums. Linkin Park has watered down, and I don't like it. For every "Given Up," we have 4 failure songs from them. We need to drift back to Hybrid Theory quality....please.

7) Kid Cuti: Day n' Nite
Song: 8/10

Bottom Line: The best song of 2009 comes from an artist that has nothing to do with the best version of the track---which is the remix by a couple talented British Djs.

8) Beyonce: Halo
Song: 5/10

Bottom Line: Good vocals. That's about it.

9) Jeremiah: Birthday Sex
Song: -2/10

Bottom Line: I am pretty sure I'd rather shove a screwdriver into both my ears than listen to this song ever again. Holy crap, that's what passes off as love music nowadays? Barry White and Marvin Gaye are rolling in their graves right now. What happened to songs like "Can't get Enough"?!?!?!?!!?

Ugh. Absolute ugh.

10) Katy Perry: Waking Up In Vegas
Song: 2/10

Bottom Line: I must whether be old or have a lot of trouble accepting this new wave of horrendous music that people are unfortunately enjoying nowadays.

I am done.

>_<

Link:
http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/charts/chart_display.jsp?f=The+Billboard+Hot+100&pageNumber=Top+1-10&g=Singles