"Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" Movie Review

This week we take a look at one of the summer’s big blockbusters, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (PG-13). Shia LaBeouf and Megan Fox return as teenagers teaming up with one group of alien robots (Autobots), to fight another group of alien robots (Decepticons) in a battle for Earth. Michael Bay directs.

Andy: This summer has been very hit and miss with very little middle-of-the-road material. Not surprisingly, you can place Transformers 2 solidly in the miss column. This movie epitomizes why sequels don’t often work. There is virtually no time spent on further developing the characters, the plot is treated like an annoyance that must be overcome in order to show robots blowing stuff up, and most of the jokes are dumber and more offensive than in the first movie. Almost every aspect of the original Transformers movie that was acceptable has been minimized here, and it’s not like the first movie was all that amazing.

Ryan: The first Transformers film was a fun summer movie. In retrospect it wasn't very impressionable but I do remember it being an entertaining spectacle. But I have to agree with everything Andy mentions with regard to the sequel. Besides some cutting-edge special effects (and those even feel watered down) the sequel brings absolutely nothing to the table. This is the worst kind of sequel where everything is repackaged, recycled and remodeled from the original. Bay attempts to the up the ante with regard to the action and drama but the movie completely collapses under it's own bloated weight.

Andy: Unfortunately, the problems with Transformers 2 are not limited to what makes sequels bad. There are two characters, Autobot twins named Skids and Mudflap, who give every indication that the filmmakers are perpetuating negative racial stereotypes. These characters banter with each other in what can only be described as an urban dialect, one of them has a gold tooth (which makes NO sense on a robot / car), and at one point they admit that they cannot read. As if all of this is not offensive enough, the characters are used only for “comic relief,” doing nothing to drive the plot or resolve conflicts. It is not surprising, then, that some critics have evoked the minstrel shows of the late 1800s for a comparison to these characters. At the very least, Michael Bay should acknowledge that perpetuating these stereotypes is irresponsible, and it’s pretty easy to argue that it is overtly racist.

Ryan: The racism concern is a fair question and it's up to each moviegoer to process this how they see fit. I did find it offensive. But what further perplexes me is how Bay and company could produce these characters, Skids and Mudflap, and not see the reds flags. For the most part the Transformer characters in the film have zero personality. Consequently it baffles me in that the filmmakers would purposely spend time developing characters that would be offensive. It's completely misguided. Additionally besides the characters being offensive from a racial standpoint they're also offensive to kids who are going to be watching the movie. I know the film is rated PG-13 but kids are going to go to this movie and the some of the language in the film, especially the gangster talk by these two characters, is inappropriate for most kids.

Andy: Transformers 2 is a ridiculously long movie that does not hold itself together very well at all. A basic mantra of creative writing teachers is “show, don’t tell.” In movie making, you would think that it is even more important to show the plot moving forward, rather than tell it. You would also think that over the course of 2 hours and 30 minutes there would be plenty of time for a story line to play out, but this is not so. On several occasions the plot is simply explained in a thirty second monologue by one of the robots. Having a character explain what is going on saves time for more explosions!

Ryan: Some summer films can be two and half hours long and its acceptable (like last year's The Dark Knight). With Transformers 2 it's not. The movie is mind-numbing and I'm not even sure if that's a strong enough word for it. Another manta I would throw out there is “less is more.” There are so many explosions in this movie that by the end of the film one is numb to it. One's senses are overloaded by the endless action of the film. Normally that's what one wants with a summer action flick but it just becomes noise by the end.

In the summer there's always going to be a market for nonsensical blockbusters but there still has to be something there to grab you. It's just not happening with Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Final grade: D+.

10 Best Picture Nominees ??????

Today, The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced that the Best Picture category will expand from five nominations to ten.

Seriously.

I was pretty taken aback when I heard this news. It's not earth-shattering news but in my world it is noteworthy, to say the least.

And I don't think it is a good idea. One, it waters down the recognition of being a Best Picture nominee. Ten is a lot of movies. There should be some honor in just being a nominee for Best Picture. Now I think that distinction doesn't mean as much as it used too. Getting to that number ten might prove to be problematic in years where it will be hard pressed to argue that there are ten films worthy of being Best Picture. Just look at this year's nominees...I would argue that three of them (Frost/Nixon, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and The Reader) shouldn't have been nominated in the first place.

Second, it's just a cheap attempt to increase ratings...and maybe buzz regarding the ceremony. There's no question that the snubs of The Dark Knight and of WALL-E hurt the telecast in that it didn't draw in those casual viewers. Instead of reviewing and tinkering with the complicated film nomination process they have decided to take the easy way out and to expand the category to include, for example, those movies that were commercial successes. Granted this also opens the door for indie films and foreign films to get nominated as well but those kind of nominations aren't going to increase the hype like say a Dark Knight would have last February.

Instead of trying to deal with the biases (of a lot of academy members) against genre films and comedies the Academy thinks quantity is going to be more important than quality. I really think this is just an over reaction of the Academy blowing it by not nominating The Dark Knight for Best Picture.

Normally with five nominations in the Best Picture category one can ascertain that it's going to come down to two...maybe three movies that could actually win. That just being nominated is award for the other two or three films. Now we are going to have ten movies in the running. Does anybody think that with ten movies that there's a possibility that any of those ten films could actually win? And is it possible that the vote will be so splintered that a film that gains BS momentum (like last year's The Reader) could end up winning Best Picture. I don't mean to sound old and crotchety but I just don't like it. I also don't like their reasoning that just because they did it in the '30's and '40's that it means that it's a good idea. That doesn't make a lot sense to me.

"Year One" Movie Review

This week we are taking a look at the comedy Year One (PG-13). Jack Black and Michael Cera star as ancient tribesmen who are kicked out of their tribe and end up going on an adventure. Harold Ramis directs.

Ryan: I didn't have high expectations for Year One but I did think that it could be a decent comedy. The idea of Jack Black and Michael Cera doing “their thing” in a pre-historic comedy had potential. But after only ten minutes the act began to wane and by the end of the film it had completely worn out. Simply stated Year One is a bad film. It's not funny. It's not entertaining. In fact it has a couple of scenes that are just down right repulsive to watch. Maybe this idea would have worked as a ten-minute sketch on a comedy show. But as it is this ninety-seven minute comedy is excruciating to sit through.

Andy: There is really no way to sugar coat how bad this movie is. It never took strong hold of a story that anyone was likely to care about, and the characters come across as annoying before they ever even have a chance to be funny. You know going into a movie like this that there is going to be very little in the way of plot, but to fail on being funny as well is virtually unacceptable.

Ryan: Harold Ramis has directed, written or starred in some of the most memorable comedic classics of the past thirty years such as Animal House, Caddyshack, Vacation, Ghostbusters and Groundhog Day. Needless to say Year One is at the opposite end of the spectrum from those above-mentioned movies. Arguably this is Ramis’s biggest cinematic failure. The movie is such a train wreck that it’s unfair to place all the blame on Ramis. But he is the director and the film has absolutely no cinematic vision or direction.

Andy: It is very disappointing to see talent of this level putting out such a questionable movie. Ramis has not been in peak form for a long time now, but I think most people who sit through Year One will be surprised at how inadequate an otherwise proven director can be. Simply put, the movie is a mess, and the director is the primary one to blame.

Ryan: I don’t believe that this movie will hurt the careers of Jack Black or Michael Cera but it’s certainly a hiccup in their respected resumes. Neither of them are in top form but it’s also clear from the material (or lack there of) that they had absolutely nothing to work with. If one’s looking for a summer comedy I recommend going to watch The Hangover again and steering clear of the cinematic debacle that is Year One.

Andy: Remarkably, Year One has a fairly decent comedic cast. Black and Cera are usually fairly trustworthy, but here they are just not entertaining. The supporting cast never really gets it together, either. David Cross can be one of the funniest people around, but he wasn’t even close to it here. Oliver Platt does a decent job, but by the time he shows up, the movie is already way beyond saving.

Year One falls short in just about every imaginable way, earning it a D.

Say it ain't so Sammy Sosa

I know it's not really earth shattering news that MLB star Sammy Sosa has been linked to steroids but I was not expecting the news the other day. (And yes...Sammy did testify at the famous 2005 Congressional Hearings--mainly because he was name-dropped in Canseco's book) For those unaware his name was leaked from the 2003 steroid tests that were supposed to be confidential. Alex Rodgriguez's name was leaked earlier in the year. Allegedly 104 players tested positive for a performance enhancing drugs in 2003. Consequently that number triggered the mandatory testing thatMLB currently has.

Nevertheless it just got me thinking about baseball...home runs...and steroids. I think most people suspected Sammy of juicing but his name...up until now...was never linked to any steroid probe...person or even the Mitchell Report. It seemed he was steering clear of the steroid drama that had already engulfed his home run peers...namely...Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire. With people not really being shocked that Sammy is an alleged juicer the question on every one's mind (and this is happening to all these great players who are linked with steroids) is Sammy going to get voted into the Baseball Hall of Fame.

My initial guess...is that he won't get in for awhile. A retired player has to wait five years for their name to appear on the ballot. And then they remain on the ballot for 15 years...unless they receive less than 5% of the vote...than there name is dropped. It takes 75% of the vote by the baseball writers of American to gain admission into the hall of fame. Consequently this could be a twenty year dilemma for hall of fame voters and for people who care to argue about stuff like this (which includes me). And the thing is...it's just not going to be Sammy. From Bonds,McGwire, to Palmerio the debate is going to be endless.

For instance...just look at the top single season home run leaders since 1995 (the cut-off is 50)...




Barry Bonds 73 2001
Mark McGwire 70 1998
Sammy Sosa 66 1998
Mark McGwire 65 1999
Sammy Sosa 64 2001
Sammy Sosa 63 1999
Ryan Howard 58 2006
Mark McGwire 58 1997
Luis Gonzalez 57 2001
Alex Rodriguez 57 2002
Ken Griffey Jr 56 1997
Ken Griffey Jr 56 1998
David Ortiz 54 2006
Alex Rodriguez 54 2007
Mark McGwire 52 1996
Alex Rodriguez 52 2001
Jim Thome 52 2002
Andruw Jones 51 2005
Brady Anderson 50 1996
Albert Belle 50 1995
Prince Fielder 50 2007
Sammy Sosa 50 2000
Greg Vaughn 50 1998

I've bold-face every player that has been linked to steroids. Some are admitted steroid users (A-Rod)...some *cough* allegedly unknowingly took steroids (Bonds)...and some failed drug tests (Sosa)...and some just want to talk about the present and not the past (McGwire). Furthermore some of the other name on the list are going to raise some eyebrows as well. I don't like throwing around baseless accusations but Brady Anderson's 50 home run season and Luis Gonzalez 57 home runs are just flat out suspicious. Anderson's next two prodigious home run seasons of his career are 21 and 24. While Gonzalez went from 31 home runs to 57 and then back to 28 and 26 (in a four year span). Again I'm not accusing these two of juicing but it is also hard to look at these numbers in a legit context.

If anything a list like this does enhance the careers of players like Griffey Jr. and Thome. Both of these guys have over 500 home runs (Griffey has over 600) and they have never been tied to steroids in any capacity. I hope their numbers are legit. I really do. Surely some boppers from this era did it on the up and up.

And I do think that the young home run hitters like Howard and Fielder are doing it without the benefit of PED's. I like to think so but I'm also not naive to think that the steroid testing--while certainly cleaning up a large part of the game--is not going to completely eliminate PED's from the game. For example, there's no efficient test for HGH but hopefully there will be soon.

As we process this era I'm trying to remain open minded about what it all means. I'm not of the opinion as of now that just because a player has taken steroids that means that they will never (or should never) make the hall of fame. As of today I just look at each player on a case by case basis.

It was just a dirty era.

"The Hangover" Movie Review

With Andy being at the National Forensics League National Tournament, I'll be flying solo this week and taking a look at the R-rated comedy The Hangover. In the film four friends (played by Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, Justin Bartha and Zach Galifianakis) venture to Las Vegas for a one-night bachelor party. When they wake up the next morning they are missing the groom-to-be (Bartha) and do not remember any of the events of the past night. Todd Phillips directs.

Last summer produced some pretty good comedies (Step Brothers, Tropic Thunder and Pineapple Express) but all of them were lacking a certain element that would have propelled them to the next level. Last week's Land of the Lost got the summer off to a bad start—from a comedic standpoint—but rest assured--The Hangover is legit. It is hands-down one of the funniest films that I've seen in months if not years. The R-rated shenanigans might not be for everybody but if one is looking for a genuine funny film then The Hangover is it. From start to finish the movie is consistently laugh-out-loud funny. The movie delivers the laughs like few films. do.

One reason that the comedy works is due to the perfectly casted cast. The movie is lacking in the big names department but that is definitely not an issue. All four leads successfully play off one another and interact in a way that maximizes the laughs. While the entire cast shines, there's no doubt that the breakout performance in the film is that of Galifianakis'. Galifianakis' character is a bit eccentric (to say the least) but he plays him so straight that he's able to garner laughs in almost every scene that he's in. The other star-making performance in the movie is that Cooper's. Cooper has done some solid supporting work here in recent years but with The Hangover he aptly demonstrates that he can headline a summer box-office hit.

This movie is also a nice rebound for the director, Todd Phillips. For the most part the film has received positive reviews and has become somewhat of a box-office phenomenon by surprisingly finishing first for two weeks in a row. Phillips's last effort was the box-office disappointment, and Jon Heder vehicle, School for Scoundrels. But with The Hangover Phillips has added another comedic gem to his catalog, which already includes Road Trip, Old School and Starsky and Hutch. Out of those three films Old School is considered his best work but I'm here to say that The Hangover is every bit as funny as Old School. The Hangover is an instant comedic classic. This is truly a film that has lived up to its buzz.

As an R-rated comedy The Hangover might not be everybody's cup of tea but for those moviegoers looking for a solid summer comedy than look no further than The Hangover.

Final grade: A-.

The Comfort Wipe. . .

. . . more like the burl wipe.

Sesquetennial Fever

Greensburg is turning 150 this year and there's a week long celebration from June 13th through the 20th.

Here's a link to the events...

http://www.greensburg150.com/events.asp


I'm not sure how many of the events that I'm going to be able to attend--since many of them are during day--but if people want something to do and are coming down or up--let me know.

Unfortunately I did not see the Steve Webster Memorial Volley-Tennis tournament on the list of the events.

Zack Morris appears on the Jimmy Fallon Show

"Land of the Lost" Movie Review

This week we take a look at the latest Will Ferrell vehicle, Land of the Lost (PG-13). Based on the cult series of the same name from the 70s, the film tells of Dr. Rick Marshall (Ferrell) and two companions (Anna Friel and Danny McBride) who are transported to a parallel universe with dinosaurs and other fantastic creatures. Brad Silberling directs.

Ryan: Land of the Lost is the first dud of the summer. If someone would have been listening to the screening that I attended they might have thought the audience was watching a drama. There was almost no laughter coming from the moviegoers in attendance. I’m afraid to think what the audience thought of the film because for the most part I was the only one snickering at some of the antics in the movie. But the occasional laugh can’t save this film. This is one of Ferrell’s most lackluster efforts.

Andy: I found myself moderately entertained by Land of the Lost. I laughed out loud occasionally, and I was never really bored while watching it. But quite frankly, that is not good enough. What Land of the Lost lacks is a plot that is intriguing and characters that you are likely to care about it. Without those two key elements, a movie has to be pretty consistently funny to get by, and Land of the Lost isn’t.

Ryan: Will Ferrell has made some very funny movies. But his act, and it pains me a little to say this, is wearing a little thin. Last year's Step Brothers was a step back in the right direction but Land of the Lost is going to remind moviegoers of some of his more recent and uneventful fare, Blades of Glory and Semi-Pro. Will Ferrell just doing his shtick in a movie isn't enough for the movie to succeed. Audiences are accustomed to his act so consequently the movie has to excel in the other areas of film making. Land of the Lost does not.

Andy: I think for Land of the Lost to really work it had to be more than just a vehicle for Will Ferrell. At this point, we all know what we are getting from Ferrell, and that just can’t be expected to carry a movie anymore. With the shortcomings in plot, the movie really needed the costars to step up. There were promising moments from Danny McBride, who may have had the best lines in the whole movie, but female lead Anna Friel added virtually nothing to the movie.

Ryan: I think this move will finally slow the need to make films based on Generation X nostalgia. From Thunderbirds to Dukes of Hazzard to Speed Racer the track record of making modern feature films based on shows that kids watched in the seventies (and early eighties) is spotty at best. One, I'm not convinced that there's an audience for some of these movies. And secondly, the film version of these properties almost always alienate the core audience that would pay and go see these movies. A movie like Starsky & Hutch worked because it was the right blend of irony and homage while, for example, Land of the Lost failed because it never established what direction it wanted to go in.

Andy: There is no doubt that this movie goes down as a failed example of Gen-X nostalgia. It will be interesting to see if the same holds true later this summer for G.I. Joe. The bottom line is that Land of the Lost may have been okay in concept, but the movie was executed poorly enough that it ended up looking like a mess. I’m not ready to write Will Ferrell off by any means, but it seems like there was a time fairly recently when he might have been able to carry this film. As it is, it will remain one of the more forgettable movies of the summer.

Land of the Lost is a little short on laughs for a comedy, and offers little else to make up for it. Final grade: D+.

Who's Next

No this post is not referring to some dumb shenanigans by ESPN.

Instead my question is who is going to be the next MLB pitcher to win 300 games. This question has been bantered about because Randy Johnson is going for his 300th win today. It seems like whenever a pitcher reaches this milestone the inevitable question is who is going to be next. We heard this same talk when Clemens, Maddux and Glavine all reached the plateau. Conventional wisdom would say that there will be somebody who will do it...that Johnson won't be the last.

Well he probably won't be the last but it's going to be awhile before we see another one.

The next five pitchers on the active win's list is

Jamie Moyer, 250 wins (age, 46)
Andy Pettitte, 220 wins (37)
Pedro Martinez, 214 wins (37)
John Smoltz, 210 wins (42)
Tim Wakefield, 184 wins (42)

Moyer, Smoltz and Wakefield are too old to seriously consider. Martinez, who isn't officially retired, but who also is not on a active roster doesn't seem like a real possibility. Out of that group Pettitte might have the best chance but I don't know if I see him pitching another 5-6 years that it would take to reach 300.

So now we look at some pitchers in their prime...

Roy Halladay, 140 wins (32)
Roy Oswalt, 131 wins (31)
Mark Buehrle, 128 wins (30)
CC Sabathia, 122 wins (28)
Johan Satanna, 116 wins (30)
Carlos Zambrana, 99 wins (28)
Josh Beckett, 95 wins (29)
Jake Peavy, 91 wins (28)

This is not good news in reaching the magic number. Not one pitcher is half way there.

For comparison sake here's the win totals for the the last four pitchers to reach 300 wins after the age of 32...

Clemens, 182
Maddux, 202
Glavine, 173
Johnson, 104

Only Randy Johnson fails to hit the half way point at the age of 32. (Johnson was a late bloomer and he had his best years after the age of 34. He also has over 71 wins since turing 40, which is quite remarkable. So in essence he's a freak--and I don't mean that in a bad way. It's just that his career path is unique).


So I guess it is possible for somebody like Sabathia or Santana to reach 300 wins but they are going to have to pitch well into their 40's.

I just think that it is going to be difficult. With the five man rotation pitchers make fewer starts then their predecessors. The debatable reliance on pitch counts also means that pitchers complete fewer games per season thus decreasing their chance for a decision (win or loss). (For example, The Mets bullpen blew seven victories for Santana last year).

The conditions of the modern game create an environment where it is difficult for pitchers to accumulate high win totals (per season and thus career). But the game does go in cycles so it's very conceivable for a pitcher to reach 300 wins for their career. But I don't see it happening anytime soon.

"Up" Movie Review

Pixar’s latest animated feature is the fantasy-adventure film, Up (PG-13). In the film senior citizen Carl Fredricksen attempts to fulfill his late wife's dream by flying their house to Paradise Falls in South America. His journey becomes more interesting when he discovers a stowaway on his porch, namely that of an eight-year old wilderness explorer. The movie stars the voicing talents of Ed Asner, Christopher Plummer and Jordan Nagai.

Ryan: Pixar has always put out quality animated films but in the past few years they’ve outdone themselves with such instant classics as Ratataouille and WALL-E. Add Up to that list. Up is a great film and the current leader for best movie of the summer. Up is a fun, warm and fulfilling movie. It's a fantasy film that's layered with genuine emotional resonance. When people say that they don’t make movies like they used too than it’s apparent that they haven’t been watching the latest films from Pixar, and that includes Up.

Andy: Up does not waste any time establishing itself as a cut above not only the other animated movies that have come out lately, but pretty much anything that has come out of Hollywood lately. The opening fifteen minutes of the film is just about perfect. Without giving too much away, it tells a complete story that is beautiful and tragic at the same time, taking the viewer from wonder, to joy, to sadness, all setting up the rest of the movie perfectly.

Ryan: It’s not like Pixar is reinventing the wheel when it comes to their movies. Most other animated features that get churned out of Hollywood are formulaic features. It’s like—hey we’re twenty minutes into the movie it’s time for a dance sequence. Or hey insert joke here for the adults in the audience. Or hey we’re almost to the climax so we need a flashback so our main character can make the right decision. But Pixar bucks that trend. They know a good story and more importantly they know how to tell it.

Andy: The bottom line is that Pixar films do not set out to be kids’ movies, they set out to be good movies. The fact that they happen to be cartoons and have characters kids can easily relate to makes it so they are marketed towards children. But last year’s WALL-E and now Up both deal with intriguing stories and touch on themes that are vital for people of any age. It is not easy to make a movie that covers so much critical ground while still captivating children, but Up quite clearly does it.

Ryan: There's been some degree of concern, not so much criticism, that Pixar's feature films are inching closer and closer to appealing more toward adults and not kids. I can see that argument but I don't really buy it. If anything Pixar's movies, and I believe that Up accomplishes this, appeal to moviegoers of all ages. The beauty of a movie like Up is that it has a timeless quality where it will always appeal to people of all ages. It's that rare film that crosses all boundaries. It truly is a fantastic movie.

Andy: Up succeeds on just about every level. It supplies lots of laughs for grown-ups and kids. It has several sub-plots that are well thought out and relevant to most audience members. It is meaningful and entertaining. Some moviegoers may be put off by some of the melding of the fantastic with the realistic, but the bottom line is that there really isn’t much to dislike about Up.

Up has clearly set the bar for the rest of the summer’s movies, earning a well deserved A-.