The Great Dane Barks

Glamorous Job? Think Again!

2009-07-23T08:48:00.003-05:00

I recently saw the movie "New In Town" starring Renee Zellweger and Harry Connick Jr. on DVD. As far as romantic comedies go, it was very average- a few funny moments, very predictable plot, etc. and doesn't have much for me to reccommend. However, I strongly encorage you to rent or buy the DVD just to catch the Special Features section on the making of the movie. For anyone who thinks of the movie business as nothing but a glamorous cushy gig, this featurette will put those notions to rest.
The movie, a fish out of water tale about a big city Florida girl being forced to relocate to a small town in Minnesota, was shot in Winnipeg Canada. The stars are well-known, and some well-respected character actors are also in the cast. The featurette talks about- and shows - what they went through, literally shooting some scenes in temperatures of 50 below zero! To have that kind of dedication in shooting what can best be described as a light piece of fluff is to show what kind of a work ethic most actors have for their craft. No matter what you think of the movie itself, this Special Feature makes it worth at least the rental investment!

2009-05-07T16:43:00.004-05:00

One of my guilty pleasures is "American Idol". I'm usually pretty good at predicting who's going home (although Allison's departure May 6th was disappointing beyond words).
No, I'm not going to start posting weekly "Idol" updates. I can't do better than EW's Michael Slezak and won't even try. No, what prompts this missive is something I've seen at least three times this season on the "Idol" results show and it's become a pandemic in the pop/hip-hop music industry. My question is this: Does anyone just sing anymore for us to listen to? First it was Flo Rida. Then Jamie Foxx. And now most recently none other than "Idol" judge Paula Abdul has treated us to a "song" on the "Idol" results show in which their sterling pipes are processed through the device known as a vocoder. I didn't mind this piece of equipment when it was used as a device to augment a song (such as Bon Jovi's "Livin' On A Prayer" or Cher's "Life After Love"). Now you can't turn on a hip hop station without hearing almost every vocal delivered through the vocoder.
I find it especially egregious when it is used on a show like "Idol", which is supposed to be about singing talent. When one of the people judging the contestants and another who is acting as a "mentor" resorts to using a special effects device to deliver a song, what does that tell these pop-star hopefuls about how far true vocal talent will get them in the music business?
Please, let's cut down on the use of the vocoder. And if we can't, someone please convince the producers of "American Idol" to book only guest stars who actually can sing without trickery.

Quickie Review of a Movie Now on Video

2009-04-06T09:22:00.004-05:00

Just watched "A Good Year" with Russell Crowe. Beautiful scenery of Provence France. Other than that, let it be said here that Ridley Scott should never attempt to make another movie in the romance genre. I can't even call it a romantic comedy, because it was barely funny in places and Crowe's character was unlikeable enough to even make the romance angle not that enjoyable. All in all, I think I would've rather gone to work on a Sunday night than watched this movie.

Opening Day 2009

2009-04-06T08:55:00.006-05:00

I can't let Opening Day go by without doing my annual Texas Rangers report. Last year, I posted after a week had gone by and mentioned my guarded optimism. The negatives I pointed out came to fruition but despite that, the Rangers still finished in second place, albeit with a losing record at 79-83.
For 2009, I'm going to state it right here- I am even more optimistic about Texas this season! Strange I know- there doesn't seem to have been any appreciable change in the league worst pitching staff or the league worst defense. And yet I think both those areas will improve- maybe not dramatically, but they will improve. The starting rotation seems to be healthy for a change and if one goes down, there are at least two options before having to go down to the farm for a replacement (Jason Jennings and Scott Feldman). Plus, free agent Ben Sheets is still looming as a possibility come July or August. At the back end of the bullpen, CJ Wilson appears to be healthy this year and Frank Francisco continues looking good as the closer. I can see the staff ERA coming down. Even if it only goes down half a run a game and is still over 5, that still translates to 81 less earned runs a game.
Defensively, gold glover (yes the Rangers did have a Gold Glover with their defense) Michael Young is moving to third. He may not win a Gold Glove there, but will still probably be an improvement on Ramon Vasquez, who manned that corner most of the time last year. Elvis Andrus, who is projected as a future Gold Glover will now be the shortstop, but if he doesn't work out, future Hall of Famer Omar Vizquel is there for back-up. Pitchers accounted for way too many errors last year and a rigorous off-season session put together by Nolan Ryan stressed fielding the position. I'm not as sure about the outfield strength defensively, but I figure if the Rangers can cut down their errors by only 10-15 on the year (only 1 less error every 11-16 games), that could translate into ten less runs or more.
That brings us to the offense. Gone are Milton Bradley and Gerald Laird (Ramon Vasquez too, but he played many different positions). I don't see much drop-off from those two, as their replacements are Nelson Cruz and Jerrod Saltalamacchia. Cruz was a monster in Triple-A last year and has been projected as a future All-Star. Saltalamacchia should be able to do at least as well as Laird, but if he doesn't, Taylor Teagarden has a lot of potential as his back-up. Add to that a full year from Chris Davis, hopefully an injury-free year from Hank Blalock and the same consistent performance from Hamilton, Byrd, Murphy, Kinsler and Young and the offense should be as good if not better than last year. If they score less runs than last year, it won't be by much.
In conclusion: Equal offense plus slightly better defense plus slightly better pitching and I can see this team winning ten more games this year. 89-73 might not make the playoffs but it will put my Rangers strongly in the mix and make for an exciting year.

Does Media Bias Exist?

2008-09-12T13:38:00.003-05:00

If it's a presidential election year, the words "Media bias" are going to bandied about right and left (or conservative and liberal if you'd like). The right will talk about a liberal media bias (specifically the major broadcast networks, MSNBC, the NY Times & The Washington Post) and the left will say there's no such thing while at the same time denigrating Fox News Network for exactly the same thing. The question is, is there such a thing as media bias?
Before addressing this, let me preface by letting you know I am a moderate Republican. I do not consider myself a "conservative" or a "liberal". I prefer our country be ruled from the center, whether Democrats or Republicans are in power. I also make a living as a member of the media. Now that I've gotten that out of the way, some of you will take what I have to say as gospel while others will be convinced I have a huge ax to grind.
The simple answer is yes, Virginia, there is such a thing as media bias. The problem is, it is a simplistic answer. The real answer is much more complicated. There is intentional and unintentional media bias. There is also the fact that finding scandal, no matter which party commits it, drives ratings and/or circulation, so the media are constantly looking for candidates, officeholders and celebrities to make a mistake. As a Republican, I might tend to see bias when it goes against my party, while paying little attention when the bias is against the opposition.
Here's an example of media bias (from my own biased point of view). In her first interview since being named as John McCain's VP choice, ABC's Charles Gibson asked Sarah Palin if she hesitated for a moment before accepting the position of running mate. She said no. Gibson persisted. Was there ever a moment of doubt that you could do the job? Palin answered no. Gibson persisted. Doesn't that take a lot of hubris (arrogance)? The moment that question came out, it became a case of media bias. Gibson already had made up his mind that someone in Palin's position must have had at least a moment of self-doubt when asked to serve as a VP candidate. Why is that? If I'm offered a promotion at work, am I supposed to express to anyone that I have a doubt as to whether I can do the job? And is it arrogant of me not to? I don't think so.
I don't know where Gibson's bias in this one individual example comes from and I will concede it did NOT have to do with the Republican Party or conservatives. My personal opinion is that Gibson feels someone who hasn't been on the national stage before should have self-doubt about taking a position that would put them on that stage.
At the same time, maybe Gibson has, as I'm sure many Americans have, a bias against the state of Alaska as it pertains to the rest of the country. While this is a moot point, I would be willing to bet that had Palin come into the interview with the exact same qualifications but was instead from the state of Rhode Island (or Delaware, home to VP candidate Joe Biden), the question of hubris or even the initial questions about hesitancy and self-doubt, would not have come up. Why? Because the national media is more familiar with the state of Rhode Island, due to its proximity to Washington DC and New York, where most of said media members work and thus, the media would already know who this person is.
Unintentional bias occurs when someone in the media doesn't understand the context from which their subject speaks. Again, I point to Gibson's Palin interview. There was much made of his question to her about what she meant when speaking in her church about our servicemen in Iraq and if she was saying we were fighting a war from God. He then ran a clip of Palin speaking in her church that most certainly gave me the impression she did indeed believe that. Palin said that's not what she meant and explained her context. I wasn't buying it.
About two hours later, a network ran the same clip of Palin in church, but then added what she had said next in the church. It totally put Palin's explanation to Gibson in agreement. This time, the editing of the church clip turns into a case of media bias. In this case, I'd like to think this was unintentional bias- that someone (either an editor or Gibson himself) with a more limited understanding of religion didn't even realize how much the context of the church remarks changed when cutting the last section off. Intentional or not, now you have two cases of bias in the same interview and the perception becomes that once again the media is biased against conservatives and even Christians.
While I have not spent as much time looking at the opposition party, I'm sure there are examples that Obama supporters can bring up about the same thing. Hillary Clinton, I'm sure, feels there was a lot of media bias towards Obama in the primaries. The fact is, it does exist, sometimes on purpose, sometimes not. And until some members of the mainstream media get off their own high horses and really try to examine the subject, it will continue to exist.

Who's Doing The Giving Back?

2008-04-10T09:35:00.003-05:00

I'm an American Idol fan. I'm in front of the tube every Tuesday and Wednesday night once the competition gets underway (I am tired of the full month of auditions and watch very little until Hollywood week).
Last night was the 2nd annual Idol Gives Back, a fund-raising effort for a variety of worthy causes. I applaud fund-raisers in general and know there is no shortage of worthy causes. I do, however, have a bone to pick over this: who exactly is doing the giving?
The answer is apparently everybody but the people behind American Idol. If you read the mission statement of the Idol Gives Back Foundation, you'll read in their "How We Do It" section that "Idol Gives Back Foundation harnesses American Idol's ability to capture America's hearts and the power of entertainment to benefit some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world." In other words, they put on a show and get other people to give. They don't do most of the actual giving.
Even when they talk about proceeds from downloading the performances on the show, Ryan Secrest was sure to say "net proceeds." Translation: Everybody gets paid first: the recording artists who performed, iTunes, the TV network, etc.
Again, I know the producers are giving the profits from these downloads (if any). But I'm willing to lay odds that the extra money they make from the increased advertising revenue on the show more than makes up for the amount they give up. Meanwhile, it's we, the viewers, who are giving altruistically.
Maybe I'm quibbling, but I have a problem with the way media entities quantify the value of their entertainment charity. Clear Channel Entertainment, the largest radio conglomerate in the country, brags about how much they've given in charity. On closer inspection, though, one part of that "giving" is the amount of time they make available for public service announcements on their airwaves- no money changes hands. The other big part of their "giving" is the fundraisers their stations organized. Admirable? Certainly. But again, those are direct donations from you and me. But did they give any actual money themselves? They don't make that very clear.
If a corporation is giving back, let them tell us how much they're kicking in themselves. If it's the user of their product that's doing the bulk of the donating to the corporation's cause, the corporation shouldn't take all the credit for it.
For clarity's sake, let's call last night's show "Idol Viewers Give Back."

The Boys of Summer Return

2008-04-07T12:32:00.005-05:00

I've been a diehard Texas Rangers fan since they were the Washington Senators. That gives me a level of baseball frustration almost as intense as that of Cubs fans. I told one of my sons and my son-in-law, both certified Rangers head-against-the-wall beaters like myself, that for some strange reason, I felt cautiously optimistic about the 2008 season.
On paper, the best the Rangers can hope for is a third place finish in the AL West, yet I remain optimistic. With the finish of the season's first week, I see signs my optimism is justified, as well as signs that I am doomed to another summer of "Wait 'til next year!"
On the plus side, the Rangers were 3-3, pretty good considering all six games were on the road at Seattle and Anaheim, the top dogs of the West. Better yet, the Rangers got 5 quality starts from their pitchers in the first 6 games, after being dead last in the AL in 2007.
Kevin Millwood, who was forgettable last year, tossed a complete game in his second start. The Rangers had ZERO complete games last year. Vicente Padilla, another starter with a terrible '07 campaign, also had two quality starts.
Best of all, newcomers Ben Broussard, Milton Bradley and Josh Hamilton paid immediate dividends at the plate, along with David Murphy, who came over from the Red Sox late in the '07 season, taking the pressure off mainstays Michael Young, Ian Kinsler and Hank Blalock. Holdover catcher Gerald Laird also had a 2 HR 6 RBI game against the Angels, increasing hopes his 2006 season was more indicative of his talent than 2007.
One can't be a Rangers fan, however, without also noticing the glass half-empty, so here's why my early season optimism must be taken with a grain of salt. The Mariners and Angels hit a combined .294 against Texas pitching, easily the highest average against a pitching staff in the league after one week. That means Rangers pitchers wiggled out of a lot of jams, but they need to improve or it'll be a long season. The fielding still sucks. Last year, Texas allowed more unearned runs than any team and they're already next to last after only one week. And while it's nice seeing Ben Broussard hit three HR's in the first week, he's never hit more than 19 in a season, and that was his rookie year in 2005.
The Rangers have a killer April: 20 of their first 28 games are against teams with winning records last season, 13 of those against Seattle, Anaheim, Detroit and Boston. Another three are against the Twins, just under .500 a year ago. The remaining five are against Baltimore and Kansas City.
With that in mind, I now quantify my optimism for 2008. If Texas finishes April at 13-15 or better, a winning record for the season is a real possibility. If they finish 12-16 or worse, you'll see my head raising a lot of bumps this summer, while my wall gets more and more dents.

How To Save Western Civilization Without Writing A Word

2008-01-07T13:00:00.001-06:00

Having watched my beloved Redskins have their improbable playoff run ended by Seattle on Saturday, I decided to bypass the Jacksonville-Pittsburgh AFC game and switched to the live Presidential debates on ABC.
I had seen snippets of debates from both parties over the past couple of months, but this was the first time to observe most of the remaining candidates over a long period of time, with both parties allotted two hours.
Quite a few things occurred to me.
I realized how long it had been since I'd spent this much real time watching candidates make a case for themselves without a talking head or scribe telling me what happened.
I wished ABC had allowed all the candidates in. It would have been nice to hear from Duncan Hunter for the Republicans along with Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich for the Democrats (Fox even excluded Ron Paul from their Sunday debate, but I didn't watch that one).
I was impressed with Bill Richardson, whom I hadn't given any thought to prior to the debates. He thumped his hand on the table a few too many times, but he gave many thoughtful, intelligent responses.
And I thought about the writer's strike.
The fact is, I wouldn't have seen this debate at all if it hadn't been for the strike. I would have watched another show or stayed with football if it hadn't been offered. And I'm willing to bet the debate never would have been offered on network TV had it not been for the strike.
We are now at the point where the networks are running out of new episodes of their scripted shows. Thus, they need to find alternative programming. Usually it's reality shows, many of which are forgotten as soon as they're over. Someone at ABC, though, got a brilliant idea- it doesn't get any more real than the presidential elections. Thanks to that one thought, many of us got a real education about the people who want to be our next leader of the free world. In the process, ABC managed to fill four hours of prime time programming without having to unnecessarily burn up a new episode of "Men In Trees", "Women's Murder Club" or "According to Jim."
I've mentioned before that I support the writers in their work stoppage. They deserve their piece of the revenue pie from online programming sales. The powers that be should be quick to realize it and give them as close to what they want as possible (hey, I'm willing to let them save a little face). Yet, for the second time, I find myself hoping the strike lasts a month or two longer.
The longer it lasts, the better the chance the big four networks might devote some of their prime-time programming void to the presidential primaries. In turn, we will become a better-informed electorate.
If that happens, part of the settlement with the writers should be a piece of the revenue pie from election coverage, because their strike helped make that revenue happen.

An Open Letter To Time Warner Cable

2007-11-27T16:21:00.001-06:00

Dear Cable Company,
I have been a customer of yours for awhile. I haven't had many complaints about your business besides wishing you charged lower rates (but who doesn't complain about that). Recently, however, I joined the HDTV owners ranks. Since making that switch, I have to say I am surprised how behind the digital revolution curve you are.
First of all, the people in your local office act as if they could care less about the customers they're serving. In addition, when I tried to exchange my digital cable box for an HD cable box, there weren't any in stock. That seems to indicate a shortcoming in your Product Forecasting Department. I returned two days later to find I could get an HD box, but only if I wanted to add HD DVR service (another $7 a month). Fortunately for you, my wife and I had already decided to do this. Otherwise, I might have cancelled my account with you there and then.
While there, I asked about switching my package from Showtime to HBO. I was told my particular programming package wasn't available anymore, so making that change would actually cost me more for everything I'm paying for. Here's a helpful hint: Let your current customers switch things around within their plan, whether you've discontinued that plan for new customers or not. That promotes goodwill instead of making your customers feel you're just out for more of their money. What harm is there in letting me switch from Showtime to HBO without making me reconfigure everything I'm paying for?
Next helpful hint: DirecTV is currently offering 80 channels in HD. Time Warner Cable is offering only 12, three of which are my local HD channels. Seems to me you'd be wanting to add more HD channels right and left in order to keep competing with satellite!
Lastly, I have a hard time understanding the picture-in-picture capability you have provided with the HD-DVR. While I get to watch HD programming in the widescreen 16 x 9 format, you have chosen to place your PIP capability on the screen where a standard 4 x 3 format would be. Thus, your PIP is always going to interfere with a major part of the picture, while the wide edges of the screen are wide open. For some reason, Dish Network subscribers don't have this problem. They can adjust where their PIP goes.
Feel free to take me up on some of my suggestions. In fact, feel compelled to do that. Because I can very easily become an ex-Time Warner Cable subscriber in the next couple of months. I'm sure there are also a lot of other TWC subscribers that might do the same if you continue to lag behind your competition in adapting to this new era of television.
Sincerely,
Me

I'm Not A WGA Member

2007-11-15T17:14:00.000-06:00

Contrary to popular belief, I have not been silent for the past month because I am part of the Writer's Guild of America strike. I should be so lucky to do something worthy enough to require my joining that union. No, I have merely been entirely too busy with other things to keep up my blog. I hope to do something about that over the next days. With a week's vacation coming up, I hope to find some time to rant and rave about a few things.
I am actually torn between two positions by the Writer's strike. The Dr. Jekyll writer in me agrees wholeheartedly that Guild members deserve more compensation to account for the explosion of DVD sales and on-line viewing. After all, if it wasn't for the writers, much of what we see would never see the light of day.
But there is also my Mr. Hyde- the one who views all these TV shows and movies. That persona realizes there is now such a proliferation of choices, there is no longer enough time to catch up on all of the current shows, some of which are undoubtedly quite good. For Mr. Hyde, the longer the writer's strike goes on the better, because once his regular shows go into reruns, he will finally have the time to sample some of those other shows.
So WGA members, I hope you get what you want and deserve. I guess I just don't want you to get it too terribly soon so I can see more of your current work!

What the Yankees and CBS Have In Common

2007-10-19T13:34:00.001-05:00

Joe Torre is no longer the manager of the New York Yankees. He turned down a contract offer with a base salary 33% lower than what he made this year. An overwhelming number of media pundits and columnists are taking the time today to call Torre a "class act" and to castigate the Yankees for disrespecting the contributions of Torre over the past twelve years.
I'm not a Yankee fan. In fact, I belong to the Yankee Haters Club. Anybody who beats the Yankees is fine by me. And in further fact, this entry isn't even about Torre leaving the Yankees. But today I feel much the same as those pundits and columnists do, because the CBS Television Network essentially is doing the same thing that the Yankees did, albeit for just one week.
"Without A Trace" is not a ratings monster, but it is a respectable performer and one of the best-written shows on television today. Last season, CBS disrespected the show by moving it from Thursday nights, where it regularly beat "ER", to Sunday nights, where it's ratings were decent but not great. This season, I thought CBS had seen the light by moving the show back to Thursdays. Indeed, right from the open of the fall season, "Without A Trace" was outperforming last year's Thursday night entry, "Shark" by a healthy margin. So what does CBS do to reward old reliable? Last night they pre-empted it to bring us the premiere episode of "Viva Laughlin", easily one of the worst new shows of the year.
I'm sure the network's strategy was to put this turkey in a primo time slot so the legion of "Without A Trace" fans would see it and hopefully follow it to it's regular time slot on Saturday nights. Two problems: One, "Viva Laughlin" in no way, shape or form resembles "Without A Trace" so it's doubtful that audience would really follow the show to Saturday night; and two, all this maneuver does is ensure that a large number of people will now know that "Viva Laughlin" is the proverbial vacuum cleaner. I bet after the first 15 minutes, NBC's "ER" and ABC's "Big Shots" got a huge influx of viewers courtesy of CBS.
One thing the networks say they've learned over the past couple of seasons is that viewers don't like seeing a lot of reruns sandwiched between new episodes, so shows like "Lost", "24" "Heroes", etc. now are airing straight through with no repeats. I wish the networks would also remember another thing about viewers: We don't like our shows pre-empted so you can give us a "sneak preview" of a show you already suspect has little chance to succeed. I guess I should be grateful, though. Thanks to CBS, I got to bed an hour earlier than usual last night, giving me much more energy to write today!

This TV Season's Winners & Losers

2007-09-24T11:28:00.000-05:00

The new network Prime Time season begins in earnest Monday September 24th. I've picked my favorites, but favorites don't always mean success. Everything depends on where it's scheduled and what other shows it's up against. With that in mind, here's who I think will succeed or fail in their opening time slot.

Monday: CBS' "The Big Bang Theory" will succeed, only because it's in the Monday night comedy line-up that has brought reasonably good returns for the network. NBC's "Chuck" and Fox's "K-Ville", however are going up against that, as well as ABC's juggernaut "Dancing With The Stars". I'm afraid that spells doom for those two. ABC's "Samantha Who?" benefits from being sandwiched between "Dancing With The Stars" and "The Bachelor."

Tuesday: Everything is a returning series on CBS, NBC, Fox and CW leading off, and that means absolutely no chance for ABC's "Cavemen" and "Carpoolers." "Reaper" on CW has gotten good buzz, but has no chance against "House" and the "Dancing" results show. CBS' "Cane" has a good shot against ABC and NBC, whose "Boston Legal" and "Law and Order: SVU" don't garner killer ratings.

Wednesday: All new for ABC with "Pushing Daisies", "Private Practice" and "Dirty Sexy Money". The first stands a good shot because "Kid Nation" on CBS and "Back To You" on Fox have both premiered and gotten just so-so ratings. I think "Kid Nation" will run it's course but not be renewed while "Back To You" will survive a full season. New shows have head-to-head competition after that. Either ABC's "Private Practice" becomes a breakout hit and destroys everyone else or it survives and shares success with NBC's "Bionic Woman". Finally, ABC's "Dirty, Sexy Money" should have enough to beat NBC's "Life."

Thursday: The only major new show here is ABC's "Big Shots", going up against "Without A Trace" and "ER". Needless to say, it has no shot of lasting long.

Friday: There's going to be an interesting battle in the middle time slot, with ABC's "Women's Murder Club", CBS' "Moonlight", returning "Friday Night Lights" on NBC and Fox checking in with "Nashville." There are no clear winners here, with Fox the only clear loser. This could be like Thursday, with everybody getting about an equal share of the pie.

Sunday: About the only new thing here is CBS' "Viva Laughlin" going up against "Extreme Makeover", "Sunday Night Football" and the combo of "The Simpsons" and "King Of The Hill." Failure for the new show is imminent.

Recap: Winners: "Samantha Who", "The Big Bang Theory", "Cane", "Pushing Daisies", "Back To You", "Private Practice", "Dirty Sexy Money", "Women's Murder Club"

Losers: "Chuck", "Journeyman", "K-Ville", "Aliens In America", "Cavemen", "Carpoolers", "Reaper", "Life", "Gossip Girl", "Big Shots", "Don't Forget The Lyrics", "Next Great American Band", "Nashville", "Viva Laughlin"

Maybe: "Bionic Woman", "Moonlight"

Makes it but won't get renewed: "Kid Nation"

Another Sad Day For The Media

2007-09-19T21:57:00.000-05:00

I honestly don't know which cable news network was on the TV I was hearing from another room tonight (althought I suspect it was Fox), but it so disgusted me I had to turn it off. Whoever was the anchor in this case (not one of the usual night crew that I've heard, so it may not have been Fox) was interviewing "OJ Simpson's Best Friend". The station was on for about ten minutes and the anchor doing the interview was doing non-stop baiting: Does OJ have a temper? Why do you think he was so angry on that tape? You say the tape was doctored but someone else says it wasn't, so what do you have to say about that? Who's going to pay for OJ's lawyer? We have Mark Fuhrman here. What do you have to say about OJ, Mark? And after all the badgering, OJ was released after posting bail and they went to live coverage like it was the Bronco chase all over again. Oh and by the way, if OJ posted bail, where did he get the money, friend? Was it his own or did someone give it to him? We know OJ loves to talk. Do you think he'll talk too much now that he's free? He could face the rest of his life in prison (that was repeated at least five times in the ten minutes I listened. It got so bad, even Fuhrman said hey, let's calm down before we taint the jury pool and let's treat this as the separate case it is, not a chance to avenge a previous verdict.
I think OJ killed his wife. I think it was a travesty of justice then. I also think what's going on now is a travesty of the media, and honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if this was a set-up at all. Someone made an audio tape of the incident and profited from it already. The whole thing stinks and the media is playing a willing player to the stink. Another reason why sometimes I hate being a part of this business myself (although at least I'm only behind the scenes and not a part of the news side).

Fall Season Predictions Part 2

2007-09-10T20:40:00.000-05:00

Journeyman (NBC): This will follow "Heroes" on Monday nights. Show about a man who goes back in time to change history for the better. Success will depend on whether viewers want two sci-fi shows back to back. It didn't work a couple years ago for ABC and I don't know if it'll work here either.
Samantha Who? (ABC): New sitcom with Christina Applegate as a woman who has amnesia and is finding out what a bad person she was. Interesting premise that could work. I hope so, because there haven't been very many good sitcoms the past few years.
Carpoolers (ABC): Again, a possibly interesting premise focusing on the lives of a group of carpoolers. I saw some of the pilot and it wasn't terribly funny. Also, there would necessarily have to be scenes in the car, and I think that'll get old pretty quick.
The Big Bang Theory (CBS): Your basic brainy nerds who want to go out with the foxy girls. This time, though, one of the foxy girls is a brain as well. Limited appeal show and seems like a strange fit for CBS, one of the highest skewing networks. Success seems doubtful.
Big Shots (ABC): Think "Desperate Housewives" from the male perspective. Think failure.
Nashville (Fox): New reality show following a group of musicians trying to make it in the Music Capital of the World. This is not a "voting people off" reality show. Some country fans might like this, but unless there are some very charismatic cast members, I don't see this as being a hit.
K-Ville (Fox): I was going to wait on this until I actually saw the pilot, which is available now on the Fox network web site, but I still haven't had the chance to check it out. A drama set in post-Katrina New Orleans, this could be a hit if it doesn't constantly hammer on what wasn't done and focuses on what is and isn't being done.
Chuck (NBC): Comedy/Action series about a uber-nerd guy who apparently has all kinds of government secrets on a chip in his brain, so naturally everyone wants to get him and the chip to achieve world domination. Makes me want to up-chuck.
That's most of the new shows for the fall and what I think they should do, based on concept alone. Next up, looking at the respective schedules to try to pick what they will do, based on when they air and who they're up against.

'Roid Rage In The WWE

2007-09-07T16:21:00.000-05:00

The WWE recently announced the suspension of ten of it's wrestlers following the reports of steroid use by one of it's wrestlers, the late Chris Benoit. This is causing a great debate in my brain. On the one hand, the WWE is so scripted in storylines, for all I know none of the other wrestlers were using steroids, but Vince McMahon can now exploit that they were for new storylines. On the other hand, if the ten were doing steroids, because the WWE is such scripted entertainment, what difference does it make if the wrestlers were following the rules of their sport or not? We know just from watching that what rules there are in the ring are made to be broken, so why should I care about this? I'm just so confused...

Fall TV Season Preview Volume 1

2007-08-31T18:10:00.000-05:00

Face it, the summer TV season was horrid. The only thing I watched with any regularity, as my readers know, was "On The Lot", and that got tiring enough that I stopped blogging the last two weeks of the show (for the record, I was happy Will won it and disgusted by the obvious taping of his meeting with Spielberg. You just know all three finalists had a piece in the can for whoever won.).
Now we're still three weeks away from the start of the new season so what can I do? I've heard some of the hype about some of the shows and hereby offer my predictions on the fate of a few before they even hit the air:
"Kid Nation" (CBS): This one has already been getting a lot of bad press and I admit I have qualms about this show myself. A reality show about kids setting up their own society in an old west ghost town, it has caught flack about possibly violating child labor laws and lack of adult supervision. I'm sure the adult supervision was there medically speaking and CBS may have indeed violated no state laws in New Mexico, where it was filmed. My problem is with exploiting children for the purpose of entertaining us. The difference between this show and a regular sitcom or drama is in this case, the kids aren't paid (reality show cast members aren't paid). I don't plan to watch this show, I hope it fails and I hope the kids who participated don't suffer any permanent scars.
"Cavemen" (ABC): Based on the Geico commercial characters. I saw about ten minutes of the pilot episode. I think it'll be one of the first cancellations.
"Bionic Woman" (NBC): A revamping of the 70's show, it is apparently tops in name recognition among viewers. Still, I think this will go down the tubes, as one superhero show like "Heroes" will be enough for viewers.
"Back To You" (Fox): Fox has high hopes for this show, featuring the return of Kelsey Grammer and Patricia Heaton to series TV. I have high hopes for it too. I'm putting it down as a potential hit.
"Viva Laughlin" (CBS): A musical, yes a musical drama. I don't think that has been attempted since Steven Bochco tried it on a cop show about 15 years ago. Hopefully it will be another 15 years after this one tanks.
"Dirty Sexy Money" (ABC): Peter Krause of "Six Feet Under" stars as an attorney representing a spoiled rich Hilton-type family. I hate the title, but I hope it succeeds just because I like Krause!
"Kane" (CBS): This one hasn't been hyped a lot. Jimmy Smits stars as the patriarch of a Hispanic family. If this is written well, it could be a surprise hit with the rapidly growing Hispanic population.
"Pushing Daisies" (ABC): This is getting great buzz from the critics. It touches on the supernatural, romantic comedy and detective show all in one. Think along the lines of "Moonlighting". I am definitely giving this one a shot and it could be the breakout hit of the year.
That's Volume 1 of my pre-season predictions. Volume 2 coming soon.

Coming Down To The Wire

2007-08-07T20:05:00.000-05:00

After taking last week off, I return to another week of "On The Lot" reviews. The show is coming down to the wire and my early favorite to win the competition, Zach, was booted off tonight. I was surprised when he was in the bottom two last week and disheartened that he was voted off this week.

My new favorite to win it is Will Bigham. His effort this week certainly helps his chances of making it to the final. All four directors had to make a film with the same general premise of a man waking up in a dress and not knowing how it happened. Will chose to make the man the boss at a company filled with yes men. Will did more with dialogue this week than he ever has and it worked. It was funny, the acting was good and the story was also very good. Of all the directors remaining, I really think Will has the best commercial potential.

On the other hand there was Sam's effort. Sam really should have gone home a couple weeks ago and I think (I hope) he sealed his fate this week with a predictable by the book plot of a sexist boss getting his comeuppance from his female office staff. It dragged horribly and wasn't particularly funny either.

Adam is the other favorite to win it all. His movie was the most inventive with the men in dresses turning out to be dolls that children are playing with. Great special effects, the payoff was very funny. My only problem with it was the acting. The Barbie and Ken type characters were great, but the GI Joe star and his Russian nemesis were only so-so and they were the ones driving the action. So I was kind of weirded out by the time we got to the payoff and thus wasn't as exhilerated by the film as the judges were.

Jason was last up and his film about a nerd's revenge at one of his high school tormenters was funny at first. The sight gags of a man in a ballerina outfit dancing and later kissing his next door neighbor were laugh out loud funny. When I found out the reason for it all, I became less interested. And the finale of the bomb going off made the whole thing a little too cartoonish to me.

For the third straight week, I've got to pick Sam as the one going home, but the way the past two weeks have gone, it sure isn't a safe bet!

Deep Thoughts Happen In A Blink

2007-08-06T15:29:00.000-05:00

Just before my recent trip to Maryland, I came across the non-fiction paperback "Blink" by Malcolm Gladwell. This was easily the most fascinating book I've read all year. In fact, if you're still reading this after my first two sentences, then you have an idea of what the book is about!

"Blink" is one of the few books I've read that deals with psychology and doesn't get so caught up in scientific terms that the reader gets lost. In short, "Blink" is about snap judgements- how we make them, why we make them, how they can be our best friends or our worst enemies.

Gladwell does a great job telling us stories about rapid cognition- from how one can instinctively tell something is wrong, even when we can't articulate why to how we can, unfortunately, give the benefit of the doubt to people strictly on the basis of looks to why most big business CEO's are tall.

Throughout the book, Gladwell introduces us to an assortment of psychologists whose studies make for fascinating reading. There's the researcher who can put a couple together for fifteen minutes and tell with over 90% accuracy which ones will still be married in fifteen years. There are the two scientists who have studied facial expressions to such a degree they can look at silent film for less than a minute and describe the people they see to a remarkable degree of accuracy.

If there is a shortfall in the book, it is that Gladwell underdelivers on the implied promise of telling us how we can improve our own rapid cognition, writing more in generalities than specifics. That aside, "Blink" has much to offer and I heartily recommend it. It also spurred me to buy Gladwell's first book, "The Tipping Point", which I will doubtless review in another couple of weeks.

Because It's A Habit...

2007-07-27T12:25:00.001-05:00

It's been three days and whoever really wanted to know my thoughts can't possibly care anymore, but habit forces me to write my weekly "On The Lot" review. Time constraints forced my delay, but I did watch the show Tuesday night to see six films with a hint of romance. First up was favorite Zach with "The Bonus Feature", his homage to a variety of movies. I liked the concept- a couple hits play on an in-car DVD player without putting the DVD in and find themselves transported into a different movie every time they press “Play”. The special effects were great, but there wasn't much romance. It was one of Zach's weaker efforts, but it was still pretty good.
Next was Will's "Unplugged", in which two desk lamps try to get together after hours at an office where they reside in adjoining cubicles. Will has been criticized for not having enough dialogue in his films and this was no exception. He does need to work with actors more. But it is also a rare filmmaker who can keep audiences interested in a story strictly through music and visuals. Will is that exception and deserves praise for it!
Sam was lucky he wasn’t eliminated last week. His luck should run out this week after "American Hoe." A couple sending out wedding invitations get into an argument when the groom brings home Farm History stamps instead of heart stamps. The film's title made a dead giveaway of one joke and ruined my enjoyment of the film. It was too obvious and easily the worst film of the night.
Jason's "Old Home Boyz" was delightful. A concept I've often thought about- what would a high school reunion be like for a class raised on hip hop with songs about hoes and drugs? Jason did one better and focused on the dance moves. Seeing people 50 years later getting into a dance-off over a girl was hysterical. Seeing a few more moves busted would've been nice, but all in all, a very satisfying film.
Andrew's "Keep Off Grass" was an example of biting off more than one can chew. It was a great idea- a superhero couple gets into an argument and wreaks havoc on a man's garden. Andrew, though, spent too much time building up the argument to where the destruction begins, and the moment they leave the scene, it still looks like everything is in place. The special effects were kind of cheesy too. Andrew is one of the favorites but may find himself in trouble with this film.
Finally there was Adam's "Girl Trouble". A man tells his friend about the girl he brought home the night before. But the girl apparently is an older guy in drag. His friend tries to convince him of the problem but the man won't listen, accusing his friend of not wanting him to be happy. There was a mild surprise ending and some amusing "American Beauty" imagery, but it was not my favorite- a one-note piece that was stretched to it’s limit at two minutes.
Final Thoughts: Sam will be gone this week, Will had the best film of the week. And please don't get me started on the pleated bath towel that Adrianna was wearing.

Lights! Camera! Action!

2007-07-17T22:36:00.001-05:00

Action week this week during "On The Lot", and of the five filmmakers on display this week, two showed a very good eye for action, one a somewhat good eye and two will probably be shown the door by the voting public.

This week's strongest films were "Sweet" from Jason Epperson and Andrew Hunt's "Zero2Sixty". Neither were true action pics, but both took different situations and added interesting action sequences. Jason's film covered the mad dash of a husband to get his wife an anniversary gift when she's expected home in 15 minutes. In the course of finding flowers for the missus, the husband manages to rescue a baby and stop a bank robber from getting away- funny stuff. Meanwhile, Andrew brought us the story of a car being stolen off a new car lot and the hot pursuit that ensures featuring an FBI agent with car salesman in tow spouting platitudes about the car they're using for the chase. Persistence pays off for the salesman in the end. Great story, good car chase scene, very effective.

The only other contestant who came close was Mateen Kemet with his look at a purse-snatching and the chase that ensues. The overall storyline wasn't so hot, but I was impressed with the editing on the action sequences. Since action was the theme of the week, he showed an eye for pleasing the audience with the action.

That left films 1 and 4 and my picks for getting the boot this week. Sam Friedlander did a short about a bounty hunter catching his man and getting involved in a shoot-out with people who want to keep his bounty from testifying in a trial. Lots of shooting but the dialogue was lame and it came off as a poor "Midnight Run" imitation. Finally, there was Kenny Luby and his short "Losers", a skateboarding film concerning a race between the usual arrogant boarder and the physics teacher who fills in for his injured son. The action- the race- was filmed reasonably well, but the acting was terrible. Also, in the middle of the race, we inexplicably get a shot of a lizard cheering for the father- very weird.

Strictly on the basis of this week's films, my guess is Sam and Kenny are going home this week. I hope that's the case, but Mateen could get the boot instead of Sam. I hope not. I think Mateen has more interesting things to say and I want to see what more he can bring us.

When Two Worlds Collide, Some Good Films Occur

2007-07-11T14:38:00.000-05:00

After recording "On The Lot" Tuesday only to find it was instead baseball's All-Star Game, it took until Wednesday to discover this week's episode ran on Monday. So, after just watching the films last week, this week I went online and watched the full episode. I wish I’d watched just the films again. Is there anything more annoying than Adrianna Costas' voice? And now, even the contestants seem to feel obligated to remark on how "beautiful" she is. Sorry, to me she is the epitome of everything that's wrong with Hollywood- only a modicum of talent and succeeding solely because people think she looks good and wears dresses that are too short, too revealing, or both.
But on to the movies, the reason I tolerate that woman's voice every week. This week's theme was "When Two Worlds Collide". The five filmmakers did shorts based on that theme, running the gamut of comedy to social relevance. Most were entertaining. The competition is tightening up!
The first film was by Zach, my favorite to win it all. "Time Upon A Once" was inventive. Two characters who do everything in reverse move into a neighborhood of forward moving people. It touched on social relevance with one neighbor being scared of these strange people, until something happens that makes her accepting. It was a nice film that again shows that Zach has a real humanistic quality to his work.
Next was "The Legend of Donkey Tail Willie" by Hilary, my least favorite director. She finally came up with something I liked- a western fable about a man with a donkey tail looking for love. The story itself was kind of obvious, but was told in a fun way by an old cowboy narrator, making for a nice family-type film.
Will Bigham, another favorite, gave us "Spaghetti", the story of a couple who get lost and find themselves in the middle of a Clint Eastwood style spaghetti western. Overall it was an amusing movie. This is the first time Will has worked with a extensive dialogue. He knows how to tell a story on film, but still needs work at getting the best from his actors' dialogue.
"First Sight" was the latest from Shalani, one of the few directors who has mostly shown us a more serious side. This movie is no different. A superficial woman looks through a pair of special glasses and sees the people she was making fun of in a completely different light. After she sees what she really looks like, a change comes over her. As a longer movie, it would have lost a lot of impact, but at two minutes or so in length, it was a good message piece.
Last up was Adam with "Worldly Possession" and it was the only film I didn't like at all. A special globe meant for an Air Force base is relabeled by a scientist to be delivered to a couple's home. The globe contains special powers, which wreak havoc on the couple's lives. No explanation was ever given as to why the package was relabeled. And even though worse things happen with each thing the couple does to the globe, they still raise the stakes and try something bigger. Maybe there was a message there about the danger of wanting more things, but it was too hidden to be effective.
Two of the five will be going home this week. Based solely on this week's films, it would be Adam and nobody else. Based on entire body of work, it would be Hilary and nobody else. So combine the two and I'll predict Adam and Hilary are the two going home.

When Do We Willingly Stop Suspending Our Disbelief?

2007-07-11T13:35:00.000-05:00

I learned in Theater Appreciation class that watching a play or a movie requires a willing suspension of disbelief. We are transported into a make believe world and accept that, for a couple of hours, it is real. That being said, in reviewing a movie or TV show on this blog, I’ll point out inconsistencies in storylines or characters that made my viewing less than optimal. Indeed, movie critics worldwide use plot and character inconsistencies as one basis for their columns.
I bring this up because my wife and I recently saw “1408”, based on Stephen King’s short story and starring John Cusack. I loved Cusack’s performance. It was a similar to Tom Hanks’ turn in “Castaway”- one person on screen for a long period of time with little to play off of- occasionally another actor, but not much else. Special effects were computer generated later, so he didn’t even have those to work with. Non-actors cannot imagine how difficult a task that truly is for an actor. But I digress.
“1408” is a horror movie, so a lot of willing suspension of disbelief goes into watching it. Thus, I had no problem accepting that a picture, once straight, is now crooked. Clock radio turns itself on? No problem! Of course the walls start dripping blood, that’s a given! And yet, despite all these strange things, I found myself bothered by a window.
Early on, Cusack’s character opens the window, pops his head through and looks out onto the street, only to get startled by the clock radio going off. He bumps his head on the window and returns to the room. When he comes back to the window, it’s closed again. Later, he’s looking out the same window and it slams shut on his hand, causing profuse bleeding. Upon returning to the window, IT’S OPEN AGAIN!!!
The question becomes, why do I accept all kinds of weird things happening in a locked room, but at the same time get bothered by these window sequences? When, in a movie filled with fantastical things and all sorts of mayhem, is one justified pointing out that something is not right and can’t be?
Here’s when. With everything but the two window sequences, Cusack reacted. He noticed the picture was crooked. He saw that the walls were bleeding. And he responded when the clock radio went off. But with the window, it never dawned on him that what was once open was now closed and vice versa. Thus, we have a continuity problem and our disbelief returns.
Continuity problems happen a lot in movies and TV shows. They’re not as prevalent on stage, because of the longer period of time between the start of rehearsals and the curtain going up the first time to the public, leaving plenty of time for rewrites. Some continuity problems occur not because of oversight on anyone’s part but because, in editing, it’s decided to move a scene to earlier or later than originally planned, which I suspect happened in “1408”.
Still, problems like this contribute to a viewer like me not enjoying a movie like “1408” as much as I could.

Horror Night On The Lot

2007-07-04T10:20:00.001-05:00

It was horror night "On The Lot" and the horrow for me was discovering my Media Center didn't record it like it was supposed to. I may rail on the show itself all the time, but it was
a little strange going to the web site and just watching the films without the rest of the show around it.
Horror movies really aren't my favorite genre so my reviews may reflect that a little bit. Andrew's "Midnight Snack" was not so much scary as it was "Scary Movie". It was funny but it was so obvious this was leading up to a funny moment, what frights that were supposed to be there weren't frightening at all. Jason's effort, "Eternal Waters" was much better- one of the best of the night- the story of a mother grieving for her dead son and then being threatened by an intruder herself. Very well done. Kenny's "The Malibu Myth" was everything that's wrong with horror movies, complete with the guy who just wants to get it on with his girlfriend, the obvious set-ups and an intro and outro that was probably reminiscent of "Blair Witch Project." I did like Mateen's "Profile" a lot. It was about real personal horror- what a black man might imagine when he feels he's being pulled over by the cops for no other reason than he's black. I think his film was the most instensely personal. "Anklebiters" was Sam's foray into the genre and I might have enjoyed it even more if he hadn't given it such a title that gives the whole plot away. His creature was perfectly yucky his actors were great, but since the title gave away the whole set-up there was no element of surprise, which is essential in these types of movies. Last up was Shira-Lee's "Open House", the story of an expectant couple looking at an old house for sale. The imagery was pretty good, but the story was very flat and predictable. Best Of The Night: "Eternal Waters" and "Profile". Worst Of The Night: "The Malibu Myth" and "Open House."

Finding Something Good While Flipping Through Channels

2007-06-30T10:30:00.000-05:00

If I'd seen the listing in a TV Guide, I probably wouldn't have even bothered watching it. Instead, I was flipping through channels this morning, came upon it, and couldn't stop watching. It was "Shot In The Dark", a documentary by Adrian Grenier of "Entourage". I'm now sorry I missed the very first part, because it was an incredibly well-done film.
Grenier has done a documentary about going to see his father for the first time in 18 years. While Grenier claims he doesn't harbor any anger or resentments about his father not being there, you can tell in some of the questions he asks him that there is something bubbling underneath the surface. "Shot In The Dark" shows so many sides of relationships- not just Grenier's own relationship with his father, but the dynamics of his mother and father; his father and his stepmother; his grandparents; and the whole history of how and why things happened to bring Grenier to where he is today.
I could certainly relate to the angst of Grenier's father- you can tell he loves his son while at the same time he is uncomfortable and doesn't know what to say to him. I've often felt the same way about my children, and I at least got to see my kids once or twice a year in their formative years. I didn't have an 18 year gap like this one. I can only imagine what Grenier's father must have felt.
At the same time, just as my children are certainly justified in some of the feelings they have about my absence in their lives, Grenier would certainly be justified for any of his negative feelings towards his dad. His father could have called more and he didn't. He could have written and he didn't. Even when they meet, it is at Grenier's grandparents home. Grenier's father won't take him to his own home just an hour away where he lives with his wife.
Again, Grenier claims in the film he doesn't harbor any ill will towards his father, but that wasn't the impression I got from watching. Even after seeing his father, another nine months goes by without any word from him, until Grenier finally decides to call him. At that time, he finally gets to sit down with his stepmother and understand the dynamic that was going on between her and his father and how that affected Grenier's having a relationship with his father.
The ending was kind of weird, with two ficticious, set-up "reunion" scenes, one where Grenier's father totally rejects him and another where they see each other again in an open field, hug and tell each other they'll always be together. While I understand it was presented as "The two ways I fantasized this might end when I first started this" scenarios, it had a negative effect on me, making me question if any of the "reality" that preceded the ending was set up as well.
This is a documentary worth watching. It will tug on your heart strings. I'm not sure how many more showings it will have on HBO, but if you also have digital cable, you can still find it anytime on HBO on Demand. If not, rent "Shot In The Dark" when it comes to your video store.

Why I Sometimes Hate Being In The Media

2007-06-28T09:12:00.000-05:00

I understand demographics. I understand that certain segments of society want to know things about people that other segments could care less about. I understand celebrity obsession, especially in the younger demos. Today's celebrity news finally gave me something from which I could not refrain from expressing my disgust with the very industry that provides me my living.
If you're waiting for the Paris Hilton rant at this time, you're absolutely wrong. While her life and lifestyle has become so caricatured it's become laughable, the one that finally got me today was the "exciting" news that the Spice Girls have agreed to reunite and go on a world tour.
This is why I sometimes hate being part of the media (and for anybody in the UK reading this, understand that I'm speaking from an American perspective. There may be a different way of looking at this story there.). This is a group that had only a handful of hits, of which the first is the only real one worth remembering. They only released three albums in all, the last one barely registering on the charts here. They broke up seven years ago. Yet there has been news of the Spice Girls or individual members of the Spice Girls for seven long interminable years when they have not done anything worth mentioning.
Oooo, one of them married a famous soccer star. Wow, one of them is having Eddie Murphy's baby. Hey, none of them has done anything for seven freaking years!!! And the media is responsible for constantly keeping them in the public eye for doing nothing!
It is because of the proliferation of non-stories like the Spice Girls, individually and collectively, that allow the Parises and Nicoles of the world to infiltrate our brainwaves. I understand the free market rules and the stories wouldn't be there if people didn't buy the papers and magazines and watch them on the tube. Yet, I can't help but think that this Spice Girls Reunion Tour isn't going to sell as many tickets as the promoters are expecting, at least not here in the US. I'll be interested in seeing if the dollars of the reality come close to matching the dollars of the hype.

The Weekly "Lot" Round-Up

2007-06-26T20:38:00.000-05:00

It's good to see that my negative criticisms of "On The Lot" are starting to dwindle a little bit. There were only two negatives tonight and, unfortunately, there's nothing the producers are going to do to change them: 1) the atrocious outfits of the hostess and 2) the sexist remarks that are starting to make Garry Marshall look like a dirty old man.

Beyond that, this was probably the best episode of "On The Lot" so far. The show got off to the best start ever when they showed last week's loser of the audience vote was told right away instead of having to suffer through waiting a week and then getting the news in front of a live audience. The producers finally understand that these people are grown-ups and deserve some dignity.

Then there were the six films of the week. While none of them totally blew me away, it was the most consistent set of films to date. Even Hillary, who's lucky to still be in the running after her first two movies, had a reasonably entertaining comedy in "Under The Gun", about a mother-daughter team robbing a sperm bank. It wasn't great, but it was the best thing she's done to date.

My favorite to win it all, Zach, came up with another crowd pleaser in "Die Hardly Working", showing the end of a boring day at work. There were no special effects from the master, but lots of sound effects that made it a winner.

Another of my favorites is Will, who this time out gave us "Nerve Endings", a comedy about brain surgery that was absurd and hilarious. David's "How To Have A Girl" was mildly amusing with two lovers trying to be in the dominant position in order to get the gender they want in a child- they just don't agree on the gender. Adam's "Discovering The Wheel", concerning a car that magically appears to a group of cavemen had some funny moments, the best of which was having even cavewomen attracted to the caveman who tames the hot car. The ending left a lot to be desired.

My overall favorite was the first film of the night, "Doctor-In-Law". This one took the well-trod path of an in-law not approving of a spouse and gave it two extra dimensions. First, Shalini made it a father-in-law, son-in-law battle instead bickering women. Then she gave it the extra twist of letting the son-in-law get his revenge. I was not big on Shalini's last film about a gay Indian comic because of it's limited appeal. This time out, with Korean actors, she told a funny tale that any nationality could relate to. "On The Lot" is slowly but surely getting better as a show. Give it a watch next week!

Sunshine On A Cloudy Night

2007-06-19T23:03:00.000-05:00

Time for the weekly "On The Lot" update. I'm happy to report the producers finally listened. The elimination from last week happened early in the show and without too long of a drumroll as arrogant Marty, who did the 3-minute trailer that wasn't really a movie, got the boot.
I had high hopes for this week, knowing that two of the strongest filmmakers from the first round, Zach and Will, were up tonight. I'm pleased to say that made tonight's show so much better than last week's. Will Bigham's movie, "Glass Eye," was amusing but not nearly as strong as his first film. There were also different genres tonight. We had a supposed horror film, "The Orchard", which didn't work at all. The dramatic "Lost" was a bittersweet tale of the end of a relationship. It wasn't great, but it wasn't bad either. "Born Blood" was interesting- I liked the way it was shot, but I expected more out of the ending. Finally there's "Sunshine Girl" and I'll say it here and now: with close to two months left in the competition, I will be very surprised if Zach Lipovsky doesn't win this thing. He's already shown he can do special effects and comedy. Tonight he showed he can tell a story that warms hearts, too. He seems to be taking pages straight from the Spielberg school of movie career advancement. Considering who the executive producer of the show is, that's a pretty good idea!

Killer Movie

2007-06-16T20:04:00.000-05:00

Let me say two things right at the top:
1) Kevin Costner isn't my favorite actor.
2) A movie with a serial killer as the "hero" shouldn't work.
So it almost amazes me to say, I loved Costner, the movie works and "Mr. Brooks" is the best movie I've seen in 2007.
This movie is as dark as it gets, but the combination of excellent performances and great writing make this a must see in the summer of 3-quels.
Kevin Costner does not play a bad guy very often, but as Earl Brooks, he turns in what I consider to be his best acting performance ever. He was a menacing serial killer while at the same time a tender and loving husband and father. William Hurt, as the "voice" inside Mr. Brooks' head, also turns in his strongest performance in years. And the plot ties together with the sub-plots (some of which were a little far-fetched) so beautifully, you might not cheer for Mr. Brooks, but you certainly won't help but admire his ingenuity and his intellect. As for the ending, all I will say is that it hits home to any parent who sees his or her own negative traits manifest themselves in their children. I often gauge how good I think a movie is by how many times I look at my watch to estimate how much time is left in the film. I'm happy to say "Mr. Brooks" is the first movie I've been to this year in which I haven't checked my watch once. Don't miss it!

Style Over Substance

2007-06-12T20:31:00.001-05:00

Style won out over substance on this week's "On The Lot." In more ways than one. I have refrained from complaining about the show's hostess, but now it must be said. By the dress she was wearing tonight, even she wants us to see she's more style than substance. Why they have this woman hosting the show when she's nothing more than eye candy I'll never know. Making matters worse, this week's films as a whole were a lot weaker than last week's. If I had to pick a favorite, it would probably be "Beeline", about a single mother blackmailed by her son into getting him a Playstation 3. The first film, "Polished", about the revenge of an office janitor, was funny but paced way too slow. The other three films were truly style over substance. There was a lot of originality in the cinematography and the editing but very little cohesive storyline. "Love At First Shot" had a subplot that was infinitely more interesting than the main plot. "Dance With The Devil" was the second time Marty Martin really just delivered a trailer for a supposed longer movie. In other words, he shot an ad instead of a film and we only get a rough idea what the "movie" would have been about. The final film, "Edge On The End", was all style- an MTV music video type of style wrapped around a concept of life but not a story. I know these are filmmakers and not writers, but the prize they're going for requires filmmakers who know how to tell a story. Sadly, for all their cinematographic talents, most of tonight's entrants do not. As for the vote from last week's episode, there were two travesties. The first was that Hillary did not get voted off. The second was making the lowest two sit through the whole show before telling them their fate. I'm going to keep watching the show, but like tonight's films, I now realize that as much as I like the concept of the show, what the producers are giving me is more style than substance.

An Icon You Never Thought Of (But You Should)

2007-06-10T13:05:00.000-05:00

Let's talk music. I worked in radio for 20 years and can tell you the music business is hard. The average shelf life of a good artist is five albums- generally 7 or 8 years. You can count the number of bands and/or musicians from a generation who last more than ten years (not including the hangers-on who move to the oldies tours) at probably less than 20, the number who last more than 20 years can be counted on perhaps two hands. For my generation, the short list includes Elton John, Billy Joel, Clapton, Rod Stewart, Santana, Springsteen and little else (the Rolling Stones was the generation before me). For the next generation, we're talking the likes of Madonna, Bon Jovi, U2 and Michael Jackson (for better or worse).

That's pretty rarefied air. So it was with great surprise that, while I was listening to tunes on my iPod the other day, I realized there is another musical artist getting ready to enter his 25th year of putting out albums. And yet, even the most die-hard pop music fan might not come up with his name if they were asked. In fact, he's coming up on 25 years of making albums without hit singles on them. Some radio play yes, but hit singles, no. 25 years tells you a couple of things- first, he must be a good musician and second, he must be a pretty decent song-writer. This guy is both of those things but rarely gets credit for it. In fact, you should really listen to his stuff carefully and discover just how talented musically he really is. So, just shy of a quarter century in the music business, I would like to seriously honor him and submit that he is an icon in his own right, fit to share that status with the U2's, Stones and McCartney's of the world- I give you..... Weird Al Yankovic!

Heroes Well-Written 'Til The End

2007-06-10T12:37:00.000-05:00

I've been taking the last week catching up with "Heroes", NBC's show about normal people whose genetic mutations give them abilities, ie super powers. I had caught the show off and on this season and liked it, but this was my chance to really watch the storyline. "Heroes" is an exceptionally well-written show. I watched this show carefully to see where it's obvious the writers made something up that doesn't jibe with what happened before ("24" is a prime offender) and suprisingly, "Heroes" 1st season was well thought out, especially with so many intersecting characters. In fact, after watching the first 22 episodes, what faults I did find were of the nitpicking variety, so I won't even bring them up. The one thing that really bothered me, though, was the ending of the season finale, episode 23. Everything was great up to the end of the climax, after Sylar was defeated and Nathan flew Peter to the upper reaches of the atmosphere to explode and save New York City from ruin. Then, with allies Parkman and D.L. lying in the street with bullets in them and her Dad suffering at least a broken arm, Claire- who earlier in the season brought Peter back from the dead and saved Ted Sprague from blowing up- inexplicably doesn't do anything to heal any of these people!!! It especially irked me to see her walk off in the "sunset" with her father limping and with his arm in a sling. What kind of daughter are you anyway, Claire???

Ah, but all things considered, I look forward to Season 2 and finding out 1) what happened to the Haitian; 2) what power does Nathan and Peter's mother have; and 3) who is the person worse than Sylar who can see Molly when she tries to find him? And I hope that the current characters don't instantly band together like some "Fantastic Four" organization, What made the series so good in season 1 wasn't the characters' super powers per se, but their process of discovery of their powers. If "Heroes" can keep that, it will continue to be a winner.

"Knocked Up": OK, But Not A Knock-Out

2007-06-10T11:42:00.000-05:00

The good news here is that "Knocked Up" can be described as a man's romantic comedy and not a chick flick! All of the same territory is covered as the typical chick flick but since it's from a male perspective, the look and feel are entirely different. So as a male, this is reason to celebrate!
There is a lot to like in "Knocked Up"- some of the scenes are incredibly funny and true to life. My personal favorite scene was when the suspected-of-cheating husband is caught...taking part in a Fantasy Baseball draft. The resulting argument of the spouses, followed by the car argument between Seth Rogen and Katherine Heigl are as true to life as relationship arguments get.
Character-wise (I hope I'm crediting the right actress) Kristen Wiig is hilarious as one of Heigl's bosses at E! Entertainment Television. Underplaying in monotone, she consistently earned my laughter as someone who wants to be everyone's friend while disagreeing with everything that anyone else says. I almost spilled my soda when she said, "This is Hollywood. We hate liars."
Still, for all that's good in "Knocked Up", I could never quite buy a lot of the premise. After getting pregnant from a drunken one-night stand, it's never clear to me A) why Alison chose to involve Ben in the first place, knowing he was happily unemployed, socially inept and generally a poor role model, and B) why she eventually fell for the guy, who was obviously beneath her physically, fiscally, educationally and socially.
There was a bit of gratuitous nudity that didn't need to be there, although I thought the shot of the baby's head crowning in the delivery room was the worst offender of gratuitousness.
Despite those flaws, though, there is enough good to this movie to reccommend it. If you're tired of the usual formula romantic comedies, go see "Knocked Up" for a refreshing change of pace.

Dough: The Musical Rocks!

2007-06-05T20:34:00.001-05:00

OK, this is going to be my summer obsession. The ratings suck to the point that they're cutting back to one episode per week. And the show itself is still being overdramatic in a bad reality show kind of way. But the films shown on "On The Lot" are worth the aggravation. This week, five films were shown and one of the five will be voted off. Film #1, "Broken Pipe Dreams" was clever and gets kudos for using a Boston Terrier. Film #2, "Teri (Blind Date)" OK, but seemed a bit derivative. Film #3, "The First Time I Met The Finklesteins" was like a bad "Meet The Fockers" and was terrible. Film #5, "Laughing Out Loud: A Comic Journey" had beautiful photography but I found the subject hard to understand because of his accent and I wasn't expecting a documentary. But to me, the most original of the night was Film #4, "Dough: The Musical." With a "Little Shop of Horrors" type song and stylistic feel and clever lyrics, it was a total winner for me! Make sure you check it out!
http://www.thelot.com/episodes/?ep=6&vd=68

...And Now, A "Lot" Not To Like

2007-05-30T10:31:00.001-05:00

Yesterday I was praising "On The Lot". Today I am dissing them. No, I'm not disappointed about the filmmakers voted off. I'm just astounded they did the elimination show exactly the way Fox does "American Idol." The hostess brought up the filmmakers, said "America voted..." just like Seacrest and then came the ever-present "We'll let you know.....................after the break!" This format does not work with aspiring directors, some of whom are already past the oldest age to be on Idol. These are grown-ups, for pete's sake!

Here is a show that shows off the creativity of very talented people and the producers and directors put it together just like every other cookie cutter reality talent show out there. They're showing so little creativity themselves, I doubt any of the contestants would demean themselves to actually work on the show if they weren't competing. The only thing the producers haven't done is make sure the three judges include a pompus insult machine, a ditz who really has no bad opinion of anything and someone who "keeps it real" by talking in slang. No, here they have three judges who all seem to be in total agreement about every film they see. Since when do three people agree on 18 films in a row???

The only thing I liked about the results show was reshowing the films of the top three vote-getters. Outside of that, the "You're fired" approach would actually be more humane than putting these people through the torture of Idol-esque cliffhangers.

A "Lot" To Like...

2007-05-29T13:02:00.000-05:00

If you haven't seen Fox' "On The Lot", you owe it to yourself to check it out. This new reality show is for aspiring filmmakers with the winner getting a movie gig at Steven Spielberg's Dreamworks studio. Memorial Day, the 18 finalists all showed a one-minute comedy film they were assigned to put together and the viewing audience votes for their favorites a la American Idol. Three filmmakers will get the boot this week and eventually audience votes will bring it down to one winner.

I do not like the usual three judge panel talking about each film, at least right now, because they all seem to say the same thing. Either all three loved the film or all three hated it- there doesn't seem to be any middle ground right now with them.

But the crux of the show is the films and it's interesting to see all the filmmakers' creativity. It's a great look at what works and what doesn't work in films.

If you haven't seen the show yet, catch up at www.thelot.com.

Two 3-quels Down, Two To Go

2007-05-27T17:55:00.000-05:00

I've now gotten through Spiderman 3 and Shrek 3. Still to come: Pirates 3 and Rush Hour 3 (although I probably won't see Rush Hour since I never saw the first two).
The problem has always been the same with these things- the story lines and/or the characters get stale, and these two movies were no exception.
I give props to Shrek, though, for one thing: Computer animation has now gotten so good that some of the human characters looked as close to real as I've ever seen, particularly the Arthur character. Storyline wise, though, it was the weakest of the three. There were inspired moments, like the role reversal with Puss-N-Boots and Donkey, and I loved the baby shower with all the damsels in distress acting like rich snobs and then waiting to be rescued. By the way, among all those women, who was the character of Doris supposed to be? One of Cinderella's stepsisters? Or another fairy tale character? That one had me confused. And I think this one had too many adult jokes and not enough kids jokes.
As for Spidey, again this was the weakest of the three although it had a great moral about forgiveness and not getting revenge. I actually reccommend this for the kiddies more than Shrek for that reason alone. The two things that bothered me on this one were: 1) having Topher Grace's character just happen to show up at the same church Spiderman is at, and 2) Sandman inexplicably just giving up, telling Spiderman why he did what he did and leaving. In the first instance, I just think it's a real stretch to expect us to believe in a city as big as New York that both characters just happen upon the same church. And in the second case, I don't understand that at all. I know he had a sick daughter and that led him down wrong paths, but there was nothing to indicate that a change of heart was coming for him. Maybe it ended up on the editing room floor.
See these 3-quels at your own peril.

I Once Was Lost But Now I'm Still Lost

2007-05-25T22:23:00.001-05:00

...And I love it! I had to delay seeing it for two days, but I just finished seeing the season finale of Lost and it didn't disappoint. It was sad, after my post last week, to see Charlie meeting his fate after all in the same way it was foretold. But again the writers manage to surprise. This time, instead of the usual flashbacks, they did a two hour episode with flash forwards, which of course, you didn't realize until the end. Now they can take the story in a lot of directions. We could see everybody off the island all of next season or maybe some people leaving and some staying. I love a show that keeps me guessing like this in a good way. I'm looking forward to Season 4 next year!

Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead

2007-05-25T22:17:00.000-05:00

The word is out! Rosie O'Donnell's tenure at The View is over a month ahead of schedule! What a relief. After this week's blow-up with co-host Elizabeth, it is amazing that Rosie just doesn't get it. She keeps on talking about letting her opinion be heard, but spent too much time shouting down and speaking down to those with opposing views. Rosie, your opinion was heard. You just hated that somebody disagreed with it! Adios Rosie. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Praise For A First

2007-05-17T21:12:00.000-05:00

I am a big fan of Lost. The style of storytelling is interesting, the characters are all well-drawn. Some viewers' interest has waned because, to them, the storyline moves forward too slow. This is actually one of the things that makes it so intriguing to me.
Lost is much like the video game Myst. The island is a place you roam through and discover. It is a complete unknown. As you get deeper and deeper, you come upon new things. You don't know what the final outcome is until you get there.
Last night's next to the last episode of the season brought something new that I don't think I've ever encountered before in TV or in the movies- the surprise non-death of a character. The entire episode was devoted to the impending death of Charlie. As the episode progressed, I braced myself for the inevitable. Charlie knew he was going to die and how he was going to die. I watched how he handled it and accepted his fate, knowing his death would mean salvation for those he loved. It was a beautifully executed story. And then what happens? Charlie doesn't die!!! But he still could. As the episode ended, he was being held at gunpoint by two brand new characters.
This is the second time Lost has actually shocked me. The first time it was by how suddenly a main character died, and this time it was because somebody didn't die. That is impressive writing!!! Less people are watching Lost these days, and that's a shame. This is truly one of the best-written shows in television.

If Survivor Mirrors Real Life, No Wonder Real Life Sucks!

2007-05-13T22:14:00.000-05:00

I just finished watching the Survivor finale and, as an avowed supporter of Yau-Man, I am disappointed, dismayed, downhearted and downright pissed!

For good TV, this was the strongest Survivor in years, since the original appearance of Rupert. It was one of the most strategic games ever from a sheer intellectual standpoint. There were a couple of episodes that were riveting for those who love strategy.

I don't have a major problem with Earl taking home the million bucks. He played a great game. But Yau-Man deserved so much more than he got!

Kudos to Yau for being one of the oldest in the game and still beating the younger ones at some of the challenges. He's an inspiration! Once again, though, the old adage of "Nice guys finish last" holds true. It is truly disappointing when you see people do things with integrity and not see it pay off in the end. It's easy to say Survivor is just a game, but the truth is what happens in Survivor happens too much in life, from business to politics to relationships. It begs the question: If integrity isn't enough to get you over the top, then why have integrity at all?

In some respects, I shouldn't be so upset. Earl played the game with a lot of integrity and it paid off for him. And Dreamz, the one with no integrity, didn't get a single vote from the jury. Nor did Cassandra, who never did anything to make her deserving of winning. I just wanted the most deserving people in front of the jury, just as I want the truly deserving people to succeed in life in the end. And everybody knows everything should be done the way I say it should!!!

3-In-1 Review

2007-05-08T15:35:00.000-05:00

While I haven't been to anything new lately (which will end with this weekend's viewing of Spiderman 3), I did see three movies in 24 hours over the weekend:

Freedom Writers: Hillary Swank's movie based on a real-life teacher reaching out to inner-city kids. I liked the movie enough, but I didn't like Hillary. She may have 2 Oscar wins, but the believeability wasn't there for me in this one.

The Queen: Helen Mirren is excellent playing Queen Elizabeth in the aftermath of Princess Diana's death. However, this is not a movie for many people. It's very talky and it's more about the politics after Diana died than what life was like inside the palace before or after Diana's death. I guess it's good to see if it makes you feel better that even the elite can have dysfunctional families.

Luther (2003): I was surprised that this was the movie I liked the best of the three. Most of us raised in a church setting know the name Martin Luther but I, for one, really didn't know much of his story beyond the elementary teaching that he led the Reformation. The movie showed very effectively the problems Luther had with the Catholic church and how that led to his thoughts about proper ways to worship and bringing religion and the Bible to the people. In many ways, Luther's story mirrors the story of Christ encountering the moneychangers at the Temple. Joseph Fiennes is excellent as Luther, showing both his persuasive logical side and a tormented almost tortured side. Sir Peter Ustinov also shone through as Frederick The Wise.

TV or Not TV

2007-04-30T15:41:00.000-05:00

I can't believe I started to do this blog about movies and now I haven't gone to see a movie in almost a month! So I will weigh in on some things on TV that have struck me recently:

Rosie's leaving The View: Insert The Hallelujah Chorus here. It's one thing to have opinions, quite another to disrespect others' opinions. At least her peer Joy Behar adds a punchline so I'll laugh even if I disagree. The announcement came down just days after Barbara Walters twice had to pull her back for going too far on the air (called Bill O'Reilly a racist and claiming Fox News deliberately tries to keep people from knowing what's really going on). Couldn't come to terms on a three year deal? Still coming back to guest host? I think not.

My favorite current TV shows (in no particular order): Lost, Desperate Housewives, The Simpsons, Everybody Hates Chris, CSI, Without A Trace.

Used to be a favorite, but is slipping: 24, American Idol, Survivor

Shows I'd watch more if I had the chance: Heroes, Studio 60 on Sunset Strip

Weighing In On Imus

2007-04-18T21:07:00.000-05:00

Politics and power are fascinating. They are the real reasons Don Imus recently lost his job. I am not going to defend what he said. I believe he should have been suspended from his job for the remarks, which initially he was. But it was the politics and power that got him fired, and that's what bugs me.
What happened seemed pretty straightforward. The statement was made, the statement made the news, Imus apologized, he apologized again, and then yet again. CBS announced a two week suspension and then it got interesting. What happened was the apology tour hit Al Sharpton's radio show.
I spent enough time in radio to know that ratings are as important to radio people as they are to the television industry. If you think Al Sharpton wasn't even thinking about the ratings he could get by getting this "racist" on his program, you'd be mistaken. He knew he'd get a huge audience and he knew how to play it once he got his guest on his show. All of a sudden, the incident became a firestorm that eventually led to the firing.
Still, angry reaction alone does not get a man fired. Politics and economic power do. Political power keeps the outrage in the news. Then, when the outraged have financial clout, they either threaten sponsor boycotts or put enough pressure on advertisers to get them to stop sponsoring. That is what really cost Imus his job.
Consider that late last year, Rosie O'Donnell got in trouble for making racial slurs towards Asians. She apologized by saying she didn't realize she was offending Asians and was sorry, but added she would also probably do something like that again. Rosie is still hosting The View and was not even given a slap on the wrist. Why? Because there was no protest with enough political or economic clout to keep the issue in the news or affect The View's profits for ABC.
If anything good has come out of this, it is the additional discussion it has generated concerning rap and hip hop lyrics, which continually use the same language Imus used and worse on a consistent daily basis. But here, economics rules again. People are buying the stuff, so the record companies are going to keep putting it out until it stops selling.
Maybe some artists will now choose to tone down their lyrics. Or maybe enough people will start complaining to radio stations and practice their economic clout and get the stations to stop programming some of the garbage and force the artists to change if they want to get heard on the radio. That's not censorship, that's self-policing and it's something that's been long overdue on our airwaves.

Death of a Movie Character

2007-04-03T21:16:00.000-05:00

My wife's grandfather recently passed away at the age of 102. I really liked him and his passing moved me.
I started thinking about death in the movies. We see people dying in probably the majority of movies made today and yet, as I thought about it, I could think of very few movie deaths that really moved me. In fact, the only one that immediately came to mind was "Simon Birch". Simon's passing away brought a tear to my eye the first time I saw it in the theater. It still affects me today.
I also thought of "Old Yeller", but quickly realized the only time I saw what many consider one of the biggest tear-jerkers of all time was when I was a child seeing it at a drive-in theater. I fell asleep, so I never saw the dying scene.
I've also had moving experiences at the movies when a character has died but it wasn't shown. Instead we see everyone else's sense of loss- the most recent example I can think of was "The Family Stone."
I know there are probably a lot of films I'm not even thinking about that as soon as someone brings it up, I'll say "Of course! Why didn't I remember that one?" Others I remember, like "Love Story", didn't move me because the characters didn't move me in the first place.
I'd be interested in the examples you can think of. Let me know and I'll be sure to check them out.

"Will" He Ever Stop?

2007-04-01T18:40:00.000-05:00

First it was a soccer movie.
Then Will Ferrell made a NASCAR movie.
Now they're getting ready to premiere Will's new movie where he's a figure skater.
And he's in production now on a movie about basketball.
What's after that? Here are the odds:

3 to 1: Gymnastics
7 to 1: Cycling
12 to 1: Greco-Roman Wrestling
100 to 1: The Scripps-Howard National Spelling Bee
200 to 1: Admits he's run out of ideas and actually looks for something that isn't sports-related.

He Thinks He Loves His Wife, But I Know I Dislike His Movie

2007-03-30T11:11:00.000-05:00

A couple weeks ago, I went with two of my sons to see the new Chris Rock movie "I Think I Love My Wife." I'm a Chris Rock fan. I think he is one of the best stand-ups around today. I'm also a big fan of the TV show he created and narrates on the CW Network ("Everybody Hates Chris"). But this movie does not rank high on his list of career accomplishments.
"I Think I Love My Wife", which Rock starred in, co-wrote and directed, is based on a French movie and something was lost in translation.
I thought I was going to go to a romantic comedy about a man faced with the temptation of cheating on his wife. Instead, I found myself watching a movie about a man who's not having sex with his wife, so he's tempted to have sex with someone else. From the get go, it was a movie about sex and not love (my gosh, have I started becoming an enlightened male or what?). In addition, when we finally reach the climax (of the story, people. Get your minds out of the gutter), it isn't thoughts of his wife that keeps him from straying, it's the thought of his children. I guess this is why the title is "I THINK I Love My Wife", because the film ends without my really knowing whether he does or not. I know he loves his children and he loves his life, but his wife? He loves having sex with her, but as to love, the jury's still out.
To be fair, there are several parts of the movie that are laugh out loud hilarious. As I look back on it, though, I was struck by something. The absolute funniest parts of the movie didn't have anything to do with what Chris Rock was doing on screen, it was what he was saying as the narrator, which is one of the things that makes "Everybody Loves Chris" one of the best sitcoms in years. This film proves through the narration what a great stand-up Chris Rock is. He still doesn't have the knack of making me laugh as an actor.

I KNOW I love MY wife!

Plot Formula I'm Tired Of

2007-03-28T18:25:00.000-05:00

I hate to admit it, but I've started this blog because I just saw the end of the movie "Bring It On". I missed most of the movie, but what I saw in the last 15 minutes of the film was enough for me to once again witness an overused contrivance that I wish Hollywood would just make go away- the use of the "play by play broadcast" or "Public Address Announcer" to move the plot along. I say this as someone who started out in life wanting to be a sportscaster and play-by-play announcer.
While it's true we adopt a "willing suspension of disbelief" (a term I learned in Theatre Appreciation class) when we go to the movies or a play, there are limits for all of us. For me, it's the use of the play-by-play announcer in sports movies.
In a very few movies, it works beautifully. I have no problems with the movie "For Love Of The Game". Play by play was an integral part of the movie, it was done realistically and even honored the game. I also had no problems with "Major League". While Bob Uecker's character could never get away with saying some of the things he said in that movie if he were actually on the air, the gist of what he was doing was spot on. No, what gets me is when, like in "Bring It On", they use the PBP announcers to move the plot, saying things like, "Wait, what's this that they're doing? Can it be possible? Yes it is!" It is so contrived it makes me nauseous.
What it really says is "We don't trust you to get what's happening without our telling you." Even a respectable sports movie like "A League of Their Own" falls into the trap on occasion with the character of the Public Address Announcer. Have you ever been at any game to hear a PA announcer say things like "I can't believe what Dotty Hinson's doing!" or things to that effect? Fortunately, that movie was good enough to survive the mundane PA announcer to be reasonably entertaining. But the worst, the absolute WORST of the sports movies are the kids sports movies.
From "The Mighty Ducks" to "Hockey Night" to "Ladybugs" and just about all of the same genre in between, there is one thing in common. Almost every one of these monstrosities features the teams working their way to the championship and somehow there's a play by play announcer there, even during the regular season. Come on, get a clue- NOBODY BROADCASTS CHILDRENS LEAGUE GAMES UNLESS IT'S A NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP!!!
For that matter, it's just as annoying to see the newspaper montage talking about these little darlings' winning streaks. Unless you live in a real small town, at best a local newspaper might publish Little League standings, but not much more than that. I understand some of these movies are actually made for a kids' audience and they probably get a kick out of imagining a one of their games actually being broadcast on the radio or TV. But if you have to have them there, the least you can do is let the characters act like real PBP or PA announcers, and not just use them as a cheap way to narrate and advance the plot.