The End

Namaste...

LOST comes to an end tonight.

Not really saddened by this news. The creative forces asked for it to end because they knew what story they wanted to tell. This tells me that the show has always been in good hands and will probably end in a very fulfilling manner. I'm keeping all expectations out of the experience, however.

This show has given viewers a journey unlike anything we've ever seen, and I'm ready to see our characters' story get their finale. The characters have always been at the heart of the show for me. The "mythology" aspects are entertaining and do serve their purpose in helping the story along. But this show is the best show on TV (aka, restored my faith in television) because of the characters and their story.

The laughs and tears along the way have come from them. The heartbreak, sorrow, jubilation, and joy are owed to them.

I don't know what my reaction will be. Frankly, I don't care (provided it's not "That's it!?"). I've always placed faith in the writers, never seriously questioning a single decision they've made. Some say this is my biggest fault in watching this show. That may turn out to be true, but I've always maintained that until it's done and we have the big picture, I'm not in a position to judge/question. Yes, I have both positive and negative emotional reactions to the events in the show. The emotional journey is unparalleled. But I have never interjected a personal vision into the show.

So, with that in mind, I enter the finale with great anticipation but no expectations. I look forward to the last Dharma van ride, accompanied with some Three Dog Night, along this journey. It's been incredible so far. Now let's see what the last 2.5 hours hold...

NOTE: I will be watching the finale tomorrow (for personal reasons), so I will be going "silent" or "off-the-grid" with respect to all forms of communication and electronics. I can and will address it when I've seen it.

In the Loop - An Instant Classic

For those that don't know, I adhere to a strict 24-hour rule when it comes to watching movies. That is, I refuse to form an official opinion regarding the film, given the emotions that result from the immediacy of a viewing. Yes, films are designed to make us feel something, and I'm not saying I'm trying to lose those feelings. I just want to see if they are rather fleeting.

There is something to be said for how we feel immediately after a movie. Some might argue those feelings are more profound and can never be matched. Others argue that the more profound feelings are those we have days, weeks, or even years after we've seen a movie (for the first time).

I don't want to argue the above disagreement. Instead, I was simply explaining a sort of "litmus test" I have for cinema. (Although, that's not really the best description; neither is "barometer," so we'll just move on.)

Well, every so often, a film comes along that doesn't need the 24-hour rule. These films are rarely the terrible ones. (Yes, Tommy, I am talking to you.) To use a borrowed moniker, these are the "instant classics." The Dark Knight was one such film for me. However, since that time in 2008, I haven't really had any films that really didn't require the 24-hour rule. I may have said that about certain films, but I think I was getting carried away with my feelings.

Consider In the Loop (2009) the latest such film. I just recently saw this movie, and it was a riot. I haven't laughed that hard or frequently in quite some time, if ever. I am tempted to say it's the funniest movie I've seen, but I'll grant that that claim should not be definitively spoken/written for some time.

But I do know that this film is a masterpiece, regardless of where it ranks on a list of comedies. It is a British comedy film, satirizing 21st-century politics. More specifically, U.S. and British build-up to a war in the Middle East (think the 2nd Gulf War, aka the Iraq War).

Don't be alarmed by the political themes. It is great comedy in itself and as someone who refuses to come down on either side of the fence regarding the war, I did not ever feel that whatever political message there may be was never in the way of my enjoyment of terrific writing and acting and some of the best one-lines I've ever heard. Comedy came first, as it should. (Feel free to disagree with that last claim, as it is a strong one.)

The only thing one could possibly be alarmed with is the "language." (I hate that term. What makes certain words "language" while the rest are just language?) I never thought it was an issue, probably because I was laughing nonstop. But, if you do have a problem with that, be warned here and now.

I won't speak much to the plot, as there is a fair amount of intrigue, especially near the end. Just know that this is one of the few films to which I will stake my reputation. To quote A.O. Scott (critic at The New York Times, with whom I have my fair share of disagreements):

"The audience, meanwhile, is likely to die laughing. While “In the Loop” is a highly disciplined inquiry into a very serious subject, it is also, line by filthy line, scene by chaotic scene, by far the funniest big-screen satire in recent memory."

Directed by Armando Iannucci; written by Mr. Iannucci, Jesse Armstrong, Simon Blackwell and Tony Roche; released by IFC Films. Running time: 1 hour 46 minutes. This film is not rated.

WITH: Anna Chlumsky (Liza), Chris Addison (Toby), David Rasche (Linton), Gina McKee (Judy), James Gandolfini (General Miller), Mimi Kennedy (Karen), Olivia Poulet (Suzy), Peter Capaldi (Malcolm Tucker), Steve Coogan (Paul Michaelson), Tom Hollander (Simon Foster) and Zach Woods (Chad).

P.S. Here is an excellent clip, although it is very representative of the aforementioned "language" issue.

The Sixteen Year Gap or: The Western Revival

"People are always asking me why they don't make Westerns like they used to."

- Roy Rogers

Heck, I even find myself asking this very question about the past decade or so. For a while, the last great Western was Unforgiven (1992). Tombstone (1993) and Wyatt Earp (1994) are very good films that tried to correct this, but they just do not have the staying power that Eastwood's masterpiece has.

Thankfully, though, the second half of this past decade saw a resurgence of Westerns that are probably some of the best since the early 90s. The year 2007 was especially kind in this regard. That year saw the release of three Westerns that have to be considered amongst this resurgence, mostly due to the fact that they offer a breath of fresh air, some spark of originality.

The three from 2007 that I am referring to are The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, Seraphim Falls, and 3:10 to Yuma. These three films have unique visual styles. They have stories that are not only fresh in terms of cinema as a whole but even in their Western genre. (Yes, I took into account that 3:10 to Yuma is a remake.)

These three films also have tremendous casts. The level of acting in Westerns has changed considerably since Leone's "Spaghetti Westerns," and these three films are great illustrations of how it has changed for the better. Plus, Russell Crowe and Liam Neeson are two of my favorite actors, so their presence in any film is bound to elevate the level of the cast in my eyes.

There are many types of Westerns, and two of the most popular types are the Outlaw and the Revisionist Westerns. Jesse James and 3:10 are your Outlaw Westerns. Seraphim Falls has the distinction of being what some call a Revisionist Western, in that the romanticism of the the Traditional Western is bucked for a darker tone that favors elements of realism. (Actually, Jesse James is probably a mix of Outlaw and Revisionist.)

Another Western of the Outlaw/Revisionist mix is Australia's The Proposition (2005). I hate to sound repetitive, but this film stands out for the same reasons as the previous three: a strong cast, a fresh story, and a unique visual style. The Proposition is probably edgier, grittier, and more intense that the above three, which is saying something considering just how violent and rough the previous three are.

Although the Space Western is normally considered more science fiction than western, 2005's Space Western entry Serenity (a continuation of the Fox series Firefly) has always felt more like a Western. Of course, enjoyment of this movie is 5x better if you are familiar with the TV series and 10x better if you have seen Firefly in its entirety (not too difficult considering Fox made one of the worst decisions in television history by canceling it and leaving us with only 14 episodes). Malcolm Reynolds is one of the most enduring characters of all-time, due in large part to terrific writing and the incredible acting of Nathan Fillion. Without a doubt, Serenity joins the other four films as part of the resurgence of good Westerns.

The final film I will mention is also the only Traditional Western of the bunch: Appaloosa (2008). Because it is based on Robert B. Parker's novel of the same name, it is a foregone conclusion that whatever weaknesses the film has are not a result of the writing. It turns out, though, that this film's only weakness is just one cast member (Renee Zellweger). Outside of that, the film tells a story that never loosens its grip on the audience. The dialogue is fantastic, but the more impressive is just how no-frills the story is. The characters are actually at the heart of this story.

Another example of its realistic, no-frills story is that one very important shootout in the movie is over before you even have time to process what has happened. Instead of some elaborate, drawn-out sequence, the story paints a picture of how things like that most likely went down. I was amazed at the power of its brevity, considering the amount of tension that was a part of the set-up. I had never seen anything like that before in any movie, especially a Western.

In my opinion, Appaloosa is one of the new great westerns (despite its previously mentioned flaw). The other five are very good films that have also been a part of the recent resurgence of good, fresh Westerns. Now, why there was a fifteen-year hiatus of good westerns is a mystery to me and a matter of debate between myself and other moviegoers. But at least it isn't a problem we are dealing with currently.

P.S.

v.

On which side of the great debate do you find yourself?

A Toaster with Pictures?

"Television is just another appliance. It's just a toaster with pictures."

- Mark S. Fowler, former FCC Chairman

You mean this thing?

You see, I prefer this guy.

Sure thing, Mark. Whatever you say.

Wait, what's that Billy?

"It used to be that we in films were the lowest form of art. Now we have something to look down on."

- Billy Wilder (supposedly)

"Television is called a medium because it is neither rare or well done."

Ooo, big talk from Mr. Anony Mous.

These three people have one thing common: they fail at life.

In all seriousness, I'm afraid these guys must have missed out on quality television. I say this because television has become a player in my life. This has only happened recently, though.

Before 2004, outside of reruns of certain childhood staples like "Home Improvement" and certain Nickelodeon shows like "Legends of the Hidden Temple" and "Are You Afraid of the Dark?," television had no value for me. Considering we were/are in the age of the sitcoms, it was hard to find shows that separated themselves from the rest of the pack by offering something to us viewers. ("Seinfeld" reurns, you are excused.)

That all changed when I saw a TV spot for some show that looked like Cast Away on steroids and with an actual cast.

Of course, I'm referring to "Lost."

According to Leibniz, the "best of all possible" shows.

This show is solely responsible for my current television-watching habits. It restored my faith in television. It also helped pave the way for shows that abandoned the sitcom genre. (To be fair, these kinds of shows were already prevalent on certain pay-for-TV channels like HBO, Showtime, etc.) For all of this, I'm very grateful.

Probably because I now find myself closely following many shows. I've invested a lot of time and emotions into these. Because doing anything less completely undermines why someone would chose to be entertained by a story-telling medium.

So, in order to share my excitement and enjoyment of these shows,--and so maybe you can learn a little bit more about me--I've decided to highlight some of my favorites.

This is not a comprehensive list. And these are only shows that are currently on TV. (Not currently airing, necessarily.) If a show is not on this list, it doesn't mean I don't enjoy it. I can name about 15 shows that I thoroughly enjoy. These are just some of the ones that I enjoy more. (Heck, let's not forget that it might be the case that I haven't even seen a particular show.)

For example:

"The Office" has left me crying from laughter. I can't even begin to recount the number of times I've probably woken up surrounding rooms with a hardy guffaw. But I'm not including it on this list.

"FlashForward" has a very interesting premise that probably has more philosophical implications than any other show I watch. (Yes, that includes "Lost.") But I'm not listing it.

Simply put, these are the shows that permeate my thoughts more than the others. Their episodes have stayed with me for weeks, months, and even years after the initial viewing.

So, without further ado, some of my favorite shows currently on TV (in alphabetical order, except the last one for the most obvious reason):

[Well, let me stop here and go ahead and say this: all of these shows are fantastic for many reasons. At the heart of them is fantabulous writing. So, I will try to avoid repetition by giving general props to the writers. I'll try to mention certain aspects of the writing for each show. (Also, I'm avoiding synopses because those are easily accessible.)]

"Castle"

"Castle" is a rare breed of show. The show is not a straight-up comedy or drama. It's leads, Stana Katic and Nathan Fillion, are dazzling in their performances. Their chemistry is rarely seen on television, film or stage. This on top of the fact that it features some of the best writing/dialogue I've seen since "Gilmore Girls."

Now, to be honest, I have often times tuned out during certain cases, simply because I'm so caught up in the actors and their characters. "But Jordan, doesn't that mean that the writing can't be all that good since it doesn't command your attention?"

No, I don't believe it does. The cases themselves are always a treat, since they are very original/creative. And the cases do lead to a character growth over the season. It's just that Fillion and Katic, along with Jon Huertas and Seamus Dever, are always doing so much in a scene, I will focus on the little nuances and gems in their performance.

The set-up/payoff in this show is great. For example, Episode 2.13 "Sucker Punch" may be one of the best hours of television I have ever seen. Ever. Why? Because the show had been building to a point, and this episode gave us that while opening up a related can of worms. It gave us so much, yet the mystery lingered/lingers on. (I might also add it's the only episode of "Castle" that has moved me to tears. That episode was so good, my friends, so good.)

Bottom Line: If you are a fan of clever but fun television, this show delivers because of characters that are wonderfully written and acted. The chemistry of the leads is enough to make this one of the best shows currently on television.

"Glee"

Let's be clear: this show, like any other, has its faults. But more people are less willing to forgive the ones of "Glee" for some unknown reason. I'll be honest: these people either are way too critical (especially given the current state of television) or they have no joy in their life.

But "Glee" is simply that: 43 minutes of joy.

I was very frustrated at first, because all these characters had to do in the first part of Season 1 was simply tell the truth. Their problems were easily avoidable, so I had a hard time caring about their struggles.

But then two things happened. 1) I realized every show I watch has its characters suffering from a lack of honest and forthcoming behavior. Every.Single.One. 2) The show got better/matured/became more honest with itself.

That has been the key. Take for instance the latest episode, 1.16 or "Home." For the longest time, the characters have been so selfish. Not a bad thing if the writing were not as sympathetic to that as it had been earlier in the season. Finally, though, the show called out this selfishness: Burt Hummel became the voice of reason. (Who woulda thunk it!?)

I could compliment the writers for wonderful characters and the lines they utter, the actors who do a great job bringing these characters to life, the wonderful soundtrack that features wonderful music, voices, arrangements, covers, etc. But that should be obvious.

So should the aspect I am gonna compliment instead. But she's so terrific, I had to give Jane Lynch props. Now, she benefits from the show's best lines/writing, but Jane Lynch does a masterful job nonetheless. Sue is without a doubt the only person I root for unconditionally, despite her terrible nature.

Bottom Line: Deftly balancing a unique combination of humor, drama and music, "Glee" is able to lift the soul. Because it does the best job of that out the shows on this list, it is one of the best shows currently on television.

"Lie to Me"

This show is probably going to be cancelled. A real shame, considering this show is very well crafted.

At the heart of LtM is one of my favorite sciences: interpreting microexpressions, through the Facial Action Coding System, and body language. (Thanks Wiki!) This show doesn't get bogged down by the science, though. That's probably because Tim Roth (Dr. Cal Lightman, the main character) is the man.

Of all these shows, he's probably the strongest lead. It's a real treat that he is getting a wider range of exposure because he is most definitely in the exclusive group of exceptional actors.

During the first season, the show kinda hit the "procedural" routine. However, because of the talent behind this show, it's one of the few that can keep it fresh. Plus, all shows have a story arc that spans the entirety of the series, one that spans the entirety of its seasons, and one that spans only the length of its episodes.

I think one reason this show works so well is that even the episode story arcs are not wasted because unlike a "Law and Order," our characters' other arcs are influenced.

Bottom Line: Even though this show is the least publicized of these six, it's one of the most interesting and, as a result, one of best shows currently on television.

"Mad Men"

MM is outstanding. The biggest reason I'm a fan is because it captures the psychology and sociology of a by-gone era. (Maybe "era" isn't the best word since Season 1 takes place right as the 1960s are just beginning.) After reading "Revolutionary Road" and seeing how well Richard Yates gave that time a distinct feel, it's great to see MM do that with equal, if not more, success.

The feel of that time is captured through the dialogue, the sets, the costumes, the makeup/hair, etc. No attention to detail seems to be spared. Heck, I know the word "swell" has fallen off the map now, but I find myself using it just as frequently as these characters do.

Because of how much emotion I invest in shows (especially the ones I really enjoy, and especially these six), I find that this show is the most difficult to watch. It's definitely the darkest of these six, but "dark" is not the best word. Neither is "tragic." Wait, "melancholic" is it. Yup, "melancholic." This doesn't make the show unbearable as I may have suggested earlier. Just that this show takes a heavier emotional toll on me.

Jon Hamm is excellent as Don Draper, one of the most compelling characters of any story. Add to him a very solid cast and writing that takes hold of you (and never lets go) and the results are highly successful.

Bottom Line: A show with little to no faults, "Mad Men" has taken story-telling to a new level. Because of this and how well it acts as a case study or time capsule of a by-gone time, "Mad Men" is one of the best shows currently on television.

"Modern Family"

This may be the only 21-minute show on the list, but it definitely has the most comedic bang for the buck. The beauty of this show is that it captures the true essence of the family dynamic. If great comedy is simply great observation, then this show has figured it out. These things are funny in and of themselves, but what puts it over the top is that the comedy has an uncanny ability to resemble the truth of it all.

Great comedic ensemble performance from the cast. In a cast that includes Julie Bowen, Jesse Tyler Ferguson, Eric Stonestreet, and Ed O'Neill, Ty Burrell is definitely the one with the best individual performance. He has his character down so well, I wanna call him Phil Dunphy anytime I see him in a performance outside MF. Just cracks me up seeing him on-screen.

The show has great rhythm. Probably the best of the list. I mean, MF is comedy, which tends to depend on excellent rhythm and timing.

Bottom Line: This show is an absolute riot. Given that this show procures more laughter than any other show airing, it's one of the best shows currently on television.

"Lost"

For me to say why this show is on this list is really difficult, given that this is the best show on television and the one that brought me back to TV (is)land.

This show is criticized for its slowly realized sci-fi theme. Too bad, it's always been about the characters. Yes, the island mythology is absorbing and fascinating. But for me, it has always been about the characters. And even when the show is done, it will continue to be about the characters. Forget getting caught up in the otherwise trivial mysteries. (Which, I admit, can be fun.)

I don't even know how to describe the emotions that begin to swell when I think about the characters and their story. I'm not sure what'll happen when the show is over, but my emotions will be high. Even if it is simple contentment, it will be an overwhelming feeling of being content/satisfied.

I have slowly realized that Michael Giacchino may be my favorite movie/television composer. He has offered us numerous scores that are great. It was only a matter of time he was recognized, and thanks to "Up," he got his recognition. But his work on "Lost" is his best. And--I realize this may sound ludicrous--I am slowly warming to the idea that his work on "Lost" may be my favorite score all-time, television or movie.

"Lost" has the best acting of any show, from the top to the bottom of the cast. Terry O'Quinn and Michael Emerson play my favorite characters. They also happen to be the best actors of the bunch. Coincidence? Maybe... probably, actually.

I am leaving out a ton of stuff that should be mentioned, but succinctly putting my feelings of "Lost" into words is rather difficult to begin with. So, I'll just let what incoherent mess I've left above stand by itself.

Bottom Line: A show with no faults. Excellent in every way. Any positive aspects of a TV show or the making of a television show you can think of, "Lost" has. But the characters and their story alone make this the best show currently on television.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Now your turn: what are your thoughts? Agree or disagree? Why? Maybe you have further questions about a show?

***But most importantly: what am I missing here? What belongs? Which shows are must-sees?***

Ranking the Best Picture Winners (2000-2009)

I don't know how much explanation you'll find sufficient. I hope that however much I write about a film, there is a clear reasoning behind it.

10. Slumdog Millionaire

This has got to be one of the most overrated films of the past decade. The script was decent, in that there were many setup/payoff moments that were great. However, I never felt like the main character had anything at stake or that it was doubtful he'd win. Some say that shouldn't matter, but since the film's tone tried to make it matter to us, it's failure to offer me suspense is a big detraction. There were even moment where I was just flat-out bored.

This film also ranks so low due to the fact that it benefitted from a weak Oscar field. Seriously, how could Gran Torino or The Dark Knight not get nominated!? (And look at this poster: thank goodness they are not giving anything away...)

Slumdog's last place position on this list is a strong indictment of my feelings toward it. However, to make matter worse, this film grades significantly lower than the rest of the films. That is, the biggest gap in quality is between #10 and #9. Slumdog is the only film on this list I don't enjoy. Although I like #9-1, there is also a clear distinction amongst them as to which are the better films.

For example, take...

9. Chicago

This is a fun and entertaining film. About the only weak spot that cannot be overcome is Renee Zellweger. Other than that, this film sizzles with the same energy that made the stage production a success.

The best part of the production numbers, oddly enough, is the music. In a visual medium, its Danny Elfman's work with the Kander & Ebb source that makes this film what it is. It is only enhanced by the film's stylish visuals.

But this film does have its faults. The story is not as clear and tight as it should be, jumping from character to character like... well, a stage play. But, this film is a good experience overall.

8. Crash

Crash is in the same tier as Chicago: much better than Slumdog but clearly behind the other films, due to its weaknesses.

Crash really rubs some people the wrong way. For everyone that feels the film handled the themes of prejudice and racism with great candor and care, there is someone who feels the film is insensitive and exploitative.

To me, though, my problem is with the Dickensian way that numerous coincidences hurl our characters into the heart of their stories. You can show the type of interconnectedness the film is aiming for without the use of freak chance.

But the direction and the acting are strong. And the script does manage to overcome its weaknesses for the most part, because I was affected and my emotions were stirred.

7. The Hurt Locker

The Hurt Locker is a film that many people down South really think is overrated. I thought it was a wonderful piece of filmmaking. Editing was awesome. Like Crash, the director and actors are in full control of their roles.

The criticism it most receives is that it is boring/predictable/just okay. I never felt that way, so we'll just have to disagree. The tension in the film is gonna be different for everyone, so there is no way to say that someone is just wrong for feeling one way or the other.

My only issue with the film is its length. I don't say that, though, because of boredom or the issues I mentioned above. The film had its share of scenes that, looking back, I enjoyed but could have been cut without hurting the film.

This film, along with the six ranked above it, are in that tier where weaknesses in the films are few and far between. These films are the good/great films.

6. No Country for Old Men

For my money, Michael Clayton was the best film of 2007. That's a strong statement, considering the amount of love No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood get. Heck, those two films are ones I really enjoyed. (Yes, I did enjoy TWBB.)

This film is beautifully shot. I don't know if there is anyone better at directing atmospheric films. The Coen Bros. do a masterful job of that. This film also has tremendous dialogue, for which I confess I have a sweet spot.

Some people complain about the pace and/or the ending. I'll admit, I was perplexed the first time, as I had drifted off during Tommy Lee Jones's monologue at the end. When I saw the screen abruptly go black, I felt irritated. But in that instance, I was to blame.

Whenever I see it again, it makes perfect sense. Even though TLJ's character is considered a supporting one, the title/theme of the film has his character at its heart. So, if you were annoyed but haven't revisited it, I recommend you do so. If you have done so and were still irritated, then we have another fundamental difference for which there is no and should be no resolution.

5. The Departed

Even if this movie was terrible, Floyd's "Comfortably Numb" with Van Morrison would place this in the top 5. It only helps that this film is dynamite.

Such a volatile film... language and violence that would make Tarantino blush. Yet, I never felt it was gratuitous (even Mark Wahlberg's character).

The acting is at such a high level. The cast does a terrific job with William Monahan's script.

Gotta love cop mysteries. Especially ones by Scorsese. Especially ones with the ending this film has. So shocked by the last 20 minutes of this movie. Holy crap!

Some people think this may be one of Scorsese's weaker films. They probably hold this film to a higher standard, since it is the one that brought him much Oscar gold. But, this film is a great effort by Scorsese and will become a classic in his canon (if it isn't already).

4. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

The last installment of my generation's Star Wars trilogy. 'nough said.

3. Million Dollar Baby

I'm pretty sure men everywhere have a man-crush on Clint. If you are a man and this strikes you as curious, you are probably cursed forever...

This may be Eastwood's most mature film as a director. This, or Letters from Iwo Jima. Of course, I may be biased when it comes to Eastwood, as two of his films made it into my Top 20 Films of the Past Decade list.

But I don't think I am that biased. I ask you: name a weakness of Million Dollar Baby. It is hard for me to come up with one. Some people may complain about the pace, but this story's second half thrives upon the film slowing down.

2. Gladiator

These next two films also made it onto my tops films of the past decade. They are very different, but for me to pick one over the other is almost impossible. (I initially had them tied, but I didn't want to get called out for copping out.)

Of course, Russell Crowe is the common link. He is one of the greatest actors on the current scene. I imagine his work will stand the test of time and place him in the conversation of the all-time greats.

His performances here, along with the performance of Joaquin Phoenix, are what make this film incredible. Joaquin did so well, I used to hate him in other films because of how well he portrayed one of the cinema's great new bad guys.

Of course, Ridley Scott is one of my favorite directors of all time. His visual style is unmatched. He does a fantastic job of surrounding himself with incredible talent, too.

Like Hans Zimmer. His score is simply outstanding. (Heck, just see the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy.)

But what makes this film so good is the story. So heartbreaking at times, so triumphant at others. The mood of the film is balanced, most likely due to the great screenplay. (Well, ignoring the huge historical inaccuracies of the script helps.)

1. A Beautiful Mind

I know this film is called "overrated" by many. For the life of me, I do not know why. Maybe many people feel duped by the end.

But that is precisely why this film is so effective. To experience the same shock and disbelief that Nash himself probably felt when he was told the truth is an absolutely breathtaking cinematic experience. Akiva Goldsman's script is perfect. As a result, of the ten films listed here, this film has the most emotional impact on me.

This is Crowe's best work. I know he won the Oscar for Gladiator but this film should have won him his second. Jennifer Connelly is also amazing, and this is the film that should have snapped Ed Harris's streak of Oscar snubs.

It's hard for me to put into words just how much I love this film. I know one might argue that if it's so good, it should be no problem to say why. But that's precisely it: it's just so obvious that this film is incredible, having to justify why is like justifying why someone should eat when they are hungry. (Man, I hope that makes sense.)

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Anyway, I hope this has been a decent post. If there are any glaring lapses in reason or if I have been unclear or if you simply want to discuss the mertis (or lack thereof) of any of the above films, I'd love to do so.

P.S. Although I did mention it for a few times, let's save talk for whether these films deserved Best Picture for later.

Movie Review: Date Night

**1/2 of **** (2.5 stars out of 4)

Phil & Claire Foster on the run, for fear they will get whacked off.

Phil and Claire Foster (Steve Carell and Tina Fey) are a married couple from New Jersey whose domestic life has become mundane and routine. He is a tax advisor and she is a realtor. They have a weekly “date night” at the local steakhouse, where they play a game that involves them making guesses on surrounding couples’ stories.

They learn during their book club that their best friends, Brad (Mark Ruffalo) and Haley (Kristen Wiig), have become bored by their marriage and are getting a divorce. Many of the reasons they give to Phil and Claire mirror the Foster’s own marriage. So, in an effort to spice up their romance, Phil takes Claire to a trendy, hard-to-get-into Manhattan seafood restaurant—aptly named “Claw.”

Phil decides to take a reservation from the Tripplehorns, who have decided to no-show. Halfway through their meal, two men named Armstrong (Jimmi Simpson) and Collins (Common) take the Fosters out back to question them about a flash drive they believe Phil and Claire stole from mob boss Joe Miletto (Ray Liotta). After being threatened at gunpoint and not seeing any other way out of their predicament, Phil decides to assume the identity of the Tripplehorns and lead them to the flash drive.

Phil’s only plan is to fly by the seat of his pants, and as a result the script gives the rest of the film’s story a fly by night feel. The film’s humor quickly disappears at times. This rarely happens, though, when Steve Carell and Tina Fey are on-screen. Even if they had no chemistry, they are masters of their comedy craft. That they have the ability to make viewers like the Fosters and root for their seemingly simple quest of enjoying a nice date night only adds to their scenes and the story.

However, the movie is very uneven. So much that at certain times, I was thinking “Just shut up already” immediately after a round of boisterous laughter. With some of the talent director Shawn Levy (Cheaper by the Dozen & Night at the Museum) has at his disposal, it is a real shame he could not make a more solid film.

Surprisingly enough, Date Night has its share of story logic. That is, the film does its best to avoid suffering from moments that do no follow from the actions or the personalities of the characters. But the unevenness comes from those instances where it fails to do so. Those scenes shoot themselves in the foot by allowing their middle sections to spiral out of control or to go over-the-top. During the chase scene, it seemed like loud noises were the only constituent. Whether it was due to the volume of the sound in the theater or the obnoxious yelling and effects from the film itself, the potential of the chase scene fizzled out in less than twenty seconds.

Outside of their own mastery of the material, our leads are subjected to scenes and characters that derive their humor from some external source. The humor rarely comes from the story. Rather, it tries to be the result of some contrived mess of circumstances that can cause us to laugh. But the good moments follow from the effort Carell and Fey put forth in staying true to their characters.

Great comedies often times have come from outlandish circumstances, and Date Night has these. But those great comedies do not lose themselves or their focus in all the mayhem. Instead, its characters drive it home. And more often that not, Date Night has its stretches where there is no one behind the wheel.

P.S. I am big fan of William Fichtner. He has a hilarious role in this movie. So, just remember:

This Guy

+

His Broom

=

Comedy Gold

Movie Review: Clash of the Titans

*** of **** (3 stars out of 4)

Clash of the Titans is a wonderful experience for fans of the genre. It is technically impressive and a great roller coaster ride that should allow most viewers to have a fun time. However, it does have its faults, many of which might prove insurmountable for viewers that have no idea what they are getting themselves into.

Clash of the Titans is a remake of the 1981 fantasy adventure film of the same name. Whereas the original has a veteran cast that consists of Maggie Smith, Ursula Andress, Jack Gwillim, and the great Laurence Olivier, we are treated to a cast of rising stars mixed with a fair share of veteran actors.

Perseus (Sam Worthington) is a demi-god--the son of Zeus (Liam Neeson), no less--raised as a fisherman by a human family. Mankind has begun to forsake the gods, and Perseus and his family come across soldiers from Argos toppling a gigantic statue of Zeus into the ocean. Hades (Ralph Fiennes) attacks the humans, killing many of the soldiers and Perseus’s family. Driven by the death of his family, Perseus begins his quest against the gods, in order to kill Hades.

He does not go it alone, as he is aided by Io (Gemma Arterton), the King of Argos (Vincent Regan), and a small group of soldiers, led by Draco (Mads Mikkelsen). Along the way, they run across giant scorpions, magical sand spirits named Djinn, Stygian Witches, and the always-creepy gorgon Medusa. All of this happens in a race against time, as Hades has demanded that Argos repent for its sins. Should Argos not sacrifice the king’s daughter Andromeda (Alexa Davalos) in ten days, Hades will release the Kraken upon Argos, effectively destroying mankind.

This simple quest is framed by a running time of 118 minutes. As a result, the movie suffers from an uneven pace. However, even though editors David Freeman and Vincent Tabaillon struggle with giving the film a nice, steady feeling, the action sequences are the highlight of the film. The action scenes never feel rushed and the story is never cheated during these scenes.

Many of these editing issues can probably be attributed to a script that unsuccessfully tries to juggle the plethora of action scenes with the rest of the story. The script also suffers from some of the most outrageous dialogue I have experienced in an action movie. But the film never takes itself too serious. In fact, that outrageous dialogue is at the heart of some of the films intentionally humorous moments.

Despite the flaws listed above, this film works for its target audience. Anyone who is fan of movies like this knows what they are getting themselves into. We go to have fun. We expect to see outrageous action. And there is nothing wrong with that. Where some films fail is their inability to transcend the ordinary and what has been seen before.

Clash of the Titans does not fall into this trap. Our heroes struggle with their enemies. And it never becomes too obvious that our characters are experiencing an obligatory struggle just for the sake of sustaining the length of the movie. Often times, the characters and their weaknesses are the source of their struggle, so it is refreshing to see an action film that is somewhat driven by the characters.

Yes, this film has its weaknesses. They are not the kind that can be put out of mind easily. However, this movie never pretends to be something it is not. Consequently, many viewers including fans of fantasy action epics can enjoy a fun, wild, and ultimately entertaining film.

Release the Liam!