David Theiss

Producer(s): Dr. Dre (exec), Eminem, Just Blaze, DJ Khalil, Boi-1da, Denaun Porter, Emile, Havoc, Jim Jonsin, Alex da Kid

Release Date: June 22nd, 2010 (Internet Leak: June 7th, 2010)

Rarely does an artist release an album that makes its predecessor sound immediately insignificant.  ”Relapse,” Eminem’s first album after a 5 year hiatus by way of drug dependency, was billed as his comeback.  Upon it’s summer 2009 release, “Relapse” was head and shoulders better than his flaccid 2004 release “Encore,” so most people (including yours truly) were more than happy to lavish praise upon it.  Everything about it was improved from “Encore:” lyrics, production, subject matter, maturity.  Was it repetitive?  Absolutely.  But it was refreshing to have Eminem back and flashing signs of brilliance again – even if we had to put up with tired jabs at Kim Kardashian and Ellen Degenerous.

Well, throw that album out the window.  ”Recovery” is Eminem’s true comeback.  Within the first minute of the first track it’s completely evident: Eminem has stepped his game up to another level.  Lyrically, he’s on a rampage.  Not in the schtick-shock way that he’s been known to (repeatedly) turn to.  But instead, Eminem gets rid of every crutch he’s turned to in the past and just spits.  His mother is only mentioned in passing, gross out humor is all but gone, teen-pop icons almost entirely get a pass.  ”Recovery” is a serious record dealing with self-examination and all out ‘fuck you’ bravado.  If “Relapse” was an album dedicated to testing whether or not his rap muscle still worked, “Recovery” shows that not only does it work and work just fine, it’s in better shape than it’s ever been.

Em employs a few strange bedfellows, including Pink and Rihanna, whose cameos prove effective in varying degrees – the Rihanna track “Love the Way You Lie” has hit single written all over it (who’da thought?).  Pink isn’t as successful as “Won’t Back Down” is an aggressive rap/rock track that suffers from both its bloated length and the fact that it’s just too loud and assaulting on the ears.  Meanwhile, the 5 minute epic “No Love” featuring Lil Wayne is already proving to be a watershed moment for both artists (much better than the hollow “Drop the World”), and is certain to be a track bumped in car systems everywhere.  Eminem always knows how to finish an album, too.  The hidden track “Untitled” like “Underground” before it, is a throwback to the maniacal and scatterbrain Shady rants from albums past.

The album also benefits from Em’s decision to branch out with different producers other than his longtime partner Dr. Dre.  A song like “25 to Life” which suffers from an old and played out metaphor, gets lifted to an album highlight by an inventive beat.  Sonically, “Recovery” sounds new and refreshing and the absence of Dr. Dre’s repetitive horns and piano really allow Eminem to stand out on his own – not that he’s had any trouble ever doing that.

It’s not all great though.  While there isn’t nearly as much filler as previous outings, there are still a few tracks I could do without and long time Eminem fans are still pining for a Royce guest spot that is always rumored to be happening but never does.

So, where does “Recovery” rank in the Eminem collection?  Well, if you put “The Slim Shady LP” and “The Marshall Mathers LP” at 1 and 1A I think this release comes in right behind it.  It’s more focused and driven than “The Eminem Show” and leaps and bounds ahead of “Relapse.”  This is a record I can see propelling Eminem back into the mainstream of the hip-hop consciousness again like he was back in ’02 and ’03.  But instead of being a novelty shock act, he’s stepped out as a legit and seminal hip-hop artist.  He’s always claimed to be one of the greatest and now he’s cemented his place among the best in the game.  It’s a mature and defining record that shows so much promise for what lies ahead.

For the first time in a long time, the future for Eminem is bright.

Strongest Tracks: “Cold Wind Blows” and “No Love”

Weakest Tracks: “W.T.P.” and “Won’t Back Down”

My Grade: A-

As many surely know, Verizon has taken direct aim at AT&T and the iPhone with their new “Droid” line of handsets running Google’s Android operating system.  Technically, the newly released HTC Incredible is the successor to the original Droid which has sold extremely well in the United States since its launch in November.  My wireless contract just ended, so I bought the Incredible on the day of its release, and luckily too, as my BlackBerry abruptly decided to stop turning on the very next day.  My quick thoughts on the phone are as follows:

• The first thing you’ll notice when you pick up the device is the screen – and that’s because the screen is the phone.  The 3.7 inch AMOLED screen is pretty amazing, but not as striking as all the published online reviews would lead you to believe.  It’s nice, but I’m not sure I could tell the different between it an the WVGA screen of the original Droid.  I have yet to see them side by side, so maybe I could.  But as of now, the screen is brilliant but not a gamechanger.
• The second thing you’ll notice is the phone is thin – super thin.  I’ve been using a BlackBerry Curve 8330 for the past 2 years and the HTC Increidble literally feels like half a phone.  At first I didn’t like it because it made the handset feel fragile, but over time I’ve gotten used to it.  It’s really amazing how thin these devices are getting and I can’t even imagine the form factor of the device I’ll buy 2 years from now.
• Then there’s the much ballyhooed 1GHz “Snapdragon” processor inside which allows the phone to flat-out fly.  There’s no such thing as lag on this device.  App downloads literally take less than 10 seconds over Verizon’s 3G network and web pages load at an alarming speed.  I haven’t had  too much experience with it over WiFi, but I suspect that when I do, I will be equally impressed.
• The raised back cover is not the eyesore I expected, but rather it provides a nice soft-feel grip when holding the phone.  A real plus and not worth all the negative speculation it got in the run-up to its release.
• Signing in with your Google account and having the deep integration with all the Google services you use is the biggest advantage over the iPhone in my book.  Gmail, Contacts, Google Voice, Youtube, Google Docs, and many more that I have yet to use on the phone are all there and readily available and usable on Android.  Amazing.
• Also, moving from a phone with a full QWERTY keyboard (BlackBerry) to this couldn’t have been less painful.  Typing is easy as can be and the new voice-to-text input option is friggin’ awesome.  Until getting this device I was leery of using a touchscreen only phone for fear that typing and data input would be a hassle.  It isn’t.  I can definitively say touchscreen’s are the future (I do miss my big keyboard juuuust a little, though).
• As for the negative, there’s really only one thing: battery life.  A full day of heavy use is impossible with the current battery.  A full day of moderate use is still hard to achieve.  I’m toying with the idea of buying a larger battery, but I really don’t want to.  You shouldn’t have to blow an extra $50 just so you can use your phone for a single full day.  Turn off the WiFi and GPS when you’re not using it and use a Task Killer to keep power consumption down.  Other than that, there’s little you can do to save battery.  It’s really disappointing.

In all, I’m thoroughly impressed with the phone and extremely happy I bought it.  It’s a huge step up from anything BlackBerry has to offer and really rivals (and in many aspects, surpasses) the iPhone.  Android is an amazingly power OS and the HTC Sense UI (that I thought I wouldn’t like, by the way) really pretties it up and makes it more user friendly.  I’m eager to see what the next iPhone has to offer aside from the OS 4.0 updates that were rolled out a few weeks ago. But in all, the HTC Incredible is truly a fantastic device and will be very hard to top.

Just for the sake of clarity: the above picture is one of Tony Horton, not me. Just to clear that up.

In the days following the night of my engagement, I came to the horrifying realization that a wedding would inevitably be followed up by a honeymoon.  Honeymoons are typically spent in tropical environments, I’m told – with much of the time spent without a shirt.  It is during these times that your new wife/husband will want to take a few pictures so you can look back on these happy moments and see how much fun you had forever, and ever, and ever, and ever.  Which is exactly how long those pictures will last.

It was this thought, coupled with my bathroom mirror, that made me realize I needed to get in shape.

With the last meaningful exercise ending the second my feet hit the sand on my final long jump the week after I graduated high school, it would be accurate to say trying to be fit again was going to take a significant commitment.  I had tried going running, but the weather was cooling down and the prospect of running in sub 15 degree temperatures wasn’t appealing.  Appealing even less was the idea of paying $40 a month for a gym membership that would be used once a week at the most – and as I’m sure many people already know, spending money on a gym alone does not a good body make.

So, after waking up before 11 AM on the weekends, as I’ve been known to do recently, I stumbled upon a ridiculous infomercial for a series of workout DVD’s called P9ox.  While it seemed like being interested in the product was in and of itself getting scammed (infomercials just feel dirty), I eventually got interested enough to seek out the DVD’s (I got them for free – while I didn’t do this, rumor has it, they can be found at many local libraries – or on the Internet – that’s just what I’ve heard).  With my new fiance telling me she was really pumped to see me do my week of P7x and then quit, I committed myself to doing it, and low and behold, 90 days later I had done the entire “classic” workout.

Well, for the most part.

P90x is a six day-a-week workout schedule, coupled with an intense, comprehensive diet plan (which I didn’t even attempt to follow).  Various workouts target specific muscle groups.  Namely, core/abs, legs, biceps, triceps, chest, and back (with a little shoulder work sprinkled in).  The workouts are done at near break-neck speed and are comprised of a variety of moves.  But, just to clarify, I’ve provided a quick key to help you figure out how the workouts are done:

Chest workout = push-ups.  Back workout = pull-ups.  Arm workout = weighted curls/weighted “kickbacks.”  Leg workout = squats/jumps.  And abs, well…

Do this for 90 days and you’ll be ripped - or so the infomercials would have you believe.  So, 90 days later, am I ripped?  Quite honestly, the answer to that would be no.  But I have seen results of which I have never seen in my life.  I may be in the best shape of my life (I was in pretty good shape at various points in high school) and I feel as good as I ever have.  I have a little bit of abs where I’ve never had abs before – a little bit of muscle in my arms that I’ve never had before – muscle in my chest and back that I’ve never had before – and my legs feel as strong as they ever have.  The best part is, these results are done in your own home with the aid of virtually no equipment.  All you need is a pull-up bar ($30 at Target) and some dumbbells.  There’s really no other way to put it: while you may not see the results that you see on the infomercial, there’s really no way around it.  You will see significant results if you do the 90 day program.  You will lose weight, you will gain muscle.  There’s really no way not to.

The trick is sticking with it.  The workouts are hard.  They aren’t nearly impossible and if you’ve played any sport in your life you’ll find that there isn’t a workout that is any harder than your hardest basketball, football, or track practice.  For older folks who’ve haven’t worked out in 10+ years, I’d guess starting this program would be a little bit of a shock to your body – but it’s possible.  The video’s provide you with variations of each workout that allow people of different ability levels to modify so they aren’t expected to do plyometric push-ups in week 1.  Each day lends itself to a workout totaling about an hour.  As they say, “keep pushing play” and the rest will take care of itself.

I think what allowed me to keep going and really enjoy the workouts was the wit and wisdom of the lead trainer, Tony Horton.  First, the guy is yolked (as any fitness DVD personality would be – see above).  But in addition to that, he’s endlessly watchable, entertaining, and full of tips, tricks, and encouragement.  I’ve found from reading around the Internet that many find him incredibly annoying – I guess that’s why they let you mute his audio track.  But I love it.  All his stupid one-liners, all his accents, his douchey bragging and showing off – I love it all.  To see someone so excited and jacked to be fit and to be so committed to it, is honestly kind of inspiring.  It’s hokey, but it’s true.

The best recommendation I can give is this: after finishing my first 90 days, I’m genuinely excited to start again.  Since I didn’t take before-and-after pics, I guess I have an obligation to go through again to document my results.   But my first 90 results are undeniable and real – and anyone committed to do the program can do the same.  When I’m done with the second go-through (I’ll finish around the beginning of May) I’ll try to suppress my feelings of douchey-ness and post the pics.  Or maybe not.

Full Disclosure: I didn’t follow the diet plan or even try to.  I tried to eat better, but the dollar menu at Wendy’s can get the best of you sometimes.  I’m really hunkering down on my diet the second go-around.  We’ll see how that goes.  Also, one day of the week, the workout is a 90 minute yoga exercise.  It might have been my favorite workout.  Only problem is, I literally never did it.  The hour and a half time commitment is just too much, to say nothing of the fact that yoga is ridiculously hard.  I’ve already come to terms with the fact that I won’t allow myself to skip it when I do the program again – at least not all of it.

Also, I think it goes without saying, but there are a lot of bogus P90x reviews on the web, so for anyone that doesn’t know me or who I am: I AM NOT A BEACHBODY COACH.

Check back in 90 or so days and I’ll let you know how it all went.  But if you’re even kind of interested in the program, you should absolutely try it.

Starring: George Clooney, Vera Farmiga, Anna Kendrick, Jason Bateman

Directed by: Jason Reitman

Since this came out a few weeks ago, I won’t go into a big, long review or try to break the movie down all that much.  But for the sake of chronicling what movies I’ve seen, I’ll go ahead with a pretty quick review.

“Up in the Air” was great.  It stars George Clooney as Ryan Bingham - a guy whose job it is to fire people.  He’s called a “Termination Facilitator” and it’s his job to do the things that your spineless boss won’t: tell you that you’re (abruptly) out of a job.  He’s brought in by companies that are quickly downsizing – something that one would think is happening frequently these days.  Ryan follows a very strict lifestyle: he flies around the country for 300+ days a year – virtually living on a plane – and his only interactions are with the men and women he’s firing and his fellow nomads who he meets on hazy nights in hotel bars.  It’s a lonely life, but it is uniquely his.

The film is an interesting examination of a compelling lifestyle.  He’s not married but he has a family, though his two sisters really don’t know him.  It bothers him that he’s not close to his family, but that’s who he is.  Roger Ebert cleverly and accurately describes Ryan as “one of those people you meet but never get to know.”  He doesn’t apologize for this, but he’s never unlikable.  It’s just his makeup.  It’s in his DNA and he couldn’t get it out if he wanted to.

In all, the movie is extremely  poignant and topical.  It deals the realities of unemployment and hopelessness as it relates to losing your job in a really mature and sophisticated way. It is a movie that is perfectly married to the times and should be seen by everyone.  Clooney is great, the supporting cast who I haven’t mentioned here, is also great.  Jason Reitman, coming off of the success of Juno, has directed another interesting and important film.

Excellent, excellent work.

My Grade: A

P.S. Katie thought it was depressing.

Starring: Sam Worthington, Zoë Saldaña, Stephen Lang, Giavanni Ribisi, Sigourney Weaver

Directed by: James Cameron

After 15 years of hype and anticipation, Project 880, or James Camerons’ Avatar, is finally here.  Reviews have been overwhelmingly positive and anticipation has reached a fever pitch.  Hell, Roger Ebert cited Star Wars in the first paragraph of his review to describe the experience.  Everyone knows the general story by now as it has been rehashed again and again in the media as of late so I won’t do so here.  The only question that remains is whether or not Avatar lives up to the hype.  Is it as good as everyone hoped it would be?  And the answer is: kinda.

Avatar is a pretty good movie.  That’s as far as I can go.  It’s not great by any stretch of the imagination and all the “four star” and “A” ratings that it’s getting are really boggling my mind.  Sadly, with a movie this big, it will turn out that if I don’t absolutely love it, most of my comments will be negative, and most people will take from this review the idea that I must obviously hate the movie.  And that couldn’t be further from the truth.  So, right from the beginning I’ll say it: Avatar is a good movie.  I liked it a lot.  I recommend it and you should definitely go see it.  But with all that being said, Avatar can be described as nothing else but a modest disappointment.  I feel similarly to this movie as I did to Inglourious Basterds.  Both were built up so much and were ultimately victims of their own hype.  I’ll try to break it down:

Story: At the end of the day, the story of the movie may be the biggest disappointment.  It’s completely trite and cliche and is based off the oldest of character archetypes.  There are no surprises or interesting character developments.  You don’t get any insight into any of the character nor do any of them particularly make any huge changes throughout the movie that the film doesn’t absolutely require them to.  Minus all the affects and artistic design, you have seen this movie before – many, many times.  And the saddest part is that its so predictable.  While it’s nowhere near as bad as the Star Wars prequels, something still feels very stiff and sterile; like there’s a fill-in-the-blanks book somewhere for directors that teaches them how to make “epic”  movies.  The whole film feels rushed (which is quite an accomplishment for a film that runs 2 hours and 40 minutes) and is lacking any actual “moments” that don’t constitute marveling at the technology or CGI.  Story details that should be given real time to breathe are discussed only in passing and with little attention.  To say the least, I expected a lot more.

And on top of that all, it’s really preachy.  The ignorant and greedy white man seeks to steal land and resources from an innocent and peaceful indigenous people.  The real-world overtones are so clunky and obvious they’re almost groan-inducing.  And even though I’m in film’s wheelhouse as far as my political leanings as they relate to the lessons of the movie – even I found it pretty lame (Note: using the term “shock and awe,” at any time, is retarded – sorry).

Performances: There are two actual performances in the movie: Zoë Saldaña who we only see as a CG character Neytiri, and Stephen Lang as the evil corporate mercenary Miles Quatrich.  Both are excellent and really anchor the movie.   Saldaña particularly pulls off quite a feat due to the fact that her performance is 100% motion-captured but feels true and authentic throughout.  Other than those two, the performances are all pretty poor.  Sam Worthington shows even less charisma than he did in Terminator Salvation and Sygourney Weaver is just going through the motions as the bleeding-heart scientist.  The script is much to blame as it doesn’t give them much to work with by way of memorable lines or witty dialogue, but with so much talent you would expect more.

Visual Effects: Quite honestly, the real star of the movie.  The environments are absolutely stunning.  Pandora is a living breathing world that always feels complete and tactile – it’s feels like a real place.  They far surpass the Star Wars prequels’ use of CG environments and finally moves beyond the video gamey feel that many of those backdrops had – i.e. it doesn’t feel like actors standing in front of a big painting.  The flora and fauna all feel appropriately beautiful  and the creature models are spectacular.  The Na’vi character models are also very good, but still fall short of being completely photo-realistic as Cameron intended.  Their facial expressions are particularly stunning in their realism as is the realism of the mouth movements when speaking.

3-D: This gets a “meh” in my book.  Some parts are really cool – particularly the flying scenes and anything having to do with real heights.  But for the most part the 3-D is just a novelty.  It’s cool and adds a little bit of flavor to the movie, but I’d like to see it again without the 3-D on the big screen.  Plus, it seems like the frame rate suffers in scenes with really fast movement – but that only happens a few times.  Particle effects and the smalls jellyfish like creatures that float around look pretty awesome, as well.

So, while the story isn’t as compelling as advertised, and despite all my gripes, the movie is still very good.  The middle of the film especially, when Sam Worthington’s character is learning the ways of the Na’vi, is where the movie is strongest as well as the final showdown between Sully and Colonel Quatrich.  Everyone should really go see it regardless of your movie interest for the sheer fact that it’s a true EVENT film – an event film of a quality we don’t seem to get anymore.

My Grade: (a mildly underwhelmed, but strong) B Read more…

Starring: Robert De Niro, Drew Barrymore, Sam Rockwell, Kate Beckinsale

Directed by: Kirk Jones

I’ve taken a few days off before writing about this for no other reason other than the fact that blogging has gotten a little tedious.  It’s hard to sit down at the computer and pump out three or four paragraphs these days.  I’m not overly busy, I think it’s just because I’m overly lazy.  But, in any event, Katie (shout out!) and I did see “Everybody’s Fine” this past weekend, so I’d really be slacking big-time if I didn’t take the time out to write at least a little tid-bit.

The general theme of the movie seemed to revolve around Robert De Niro as a widowed patriarch of a family trying to reconnect to his four children, three of which are played by Kate Beckinsale, Sam Rockwell, and Drew Barrymore.  Since all four of his children live as far away from each other as cinematically possible, the movie sends De Niro on a trip around the country on trains and automobiles (he doesn’t fly apparently for health reasons) surprising each child one at a time.

Going into “Everybody’s Fine” I had pretty indifferent expectations.  I figured Robert De Niro hasn’t been in a great dramatic picture since Jackie Brown, odds were I was going to be blown away by this movie either.

And I was right.

However, the movie is really good.  De Niro, even if he looks a little uncomfortable throughout, has genuine charm as the wandering father.  While each of his three children are only given limited screen time, their stories’ feel complete and complement the over-arching story arch nicely.  And even if no real resolution comes at the end of the film, there is an extremely touching scene involving De Niro speaking to a family member beyond the grave that is especially emotional (Katie was tears-down-her-cheeks crying).

“Everybody’s Fine” is just the movie I need.  It has primed the film pump and will hold me over until Avatar hits this Friday.  I’ll definitely be writing a bigger review for that – and hopefully in a more prompt manner than this one.

My Grade: B

Bruce Springsteen crowd surfs back to the stage during his November 10th performance in Clevleand, Ohio.

What: Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band Concert

Where: The Quicken Loans Arena – Cleveland, Ohio

When: Tuesday, November 10th, 2009 – approx. 8:20 PM to 11:20 PM

As anyone who has seen him live knows, a Bruce Springsteen concert is one part rock’n'roll and one part spiritual sermon.   The line between rock star and preacher gets blurred more than a few times during the course of a single  performance, and when those dual roles can meld together and become one, his music can become something bigger and something special – it’s when he goes from simply rocking the house, as he says, to “building a house.”

I was fortunate enough to get to see Bruce Springsteen live for the second time in my life, both times with my dad, this past Tuesday, and we were both absolutely blown away by the performance.  I was able to see him in Cleveland in 2007 on the Magic Tour and was really impressed by the energy and enthusiasm Springsteen and his E Street band brought to his (sometimes 30 year-old) material and how the crowd, of literally all ages, still responded so strongly and passionately to him.  And while I really enjoyed that concert two years ago, it was nothing compared to the three hour epic he put on Tuesday night.

For the final stretch of this US tour, it was decided that instead of force-feeding new music to crowds, he would instead build a set list almost exclusively of his tried-and-true classics – and for a select number of crowds, he would play entire albums cover to cover.  Incredibly, on this night, Cleveland was treated to a concert waterlogged with virtually every Boss hit a fan could ask for including the entire 1975 classic album (and in my opinion, the greatest record ever produced), Born to Run.

While I could go through a blow-by-blow of every song – detailing what I loved and what didn’t go so well – I’ll spare those details and instead give a quick overview of the highlights:

• A new song about Giants Stadium (“The Old Girl” as he calls it), and the opening song “Wrecking Ball” was an appropriately gravel-choked and nostalgic way to open the show.  Hear the new song, performed in said Giants Stadium, here.
• While “Thunder Road” and “Tenth Avenue Freeze Out” were great in their own right, the Born To Run set didn’t truly take off until “Backstreets.”  This is the street corner poet storytelling music many Springsteen fans love and, because he truly doesn’t write songs like this anymore, miss.
• The “Meeting Across the River” and “Jungleland” pairing was amazing – you could practically smell the wet Jersey pavement in the arena.  The crowd was virtually still during trumpeter Curt Ramm’s bluesy “River” riffs and got star-struck during Clarence Clemons’ sax solo in “Jungleland“ by way of some well placed spotlights and disco ball.
• Bruce then collected signs requesting songs from the crowd and filled a few of those requests, playing rollicking renditions of “Red Headed Woman,” “Pink Cadillac” and the emotional “Back in Your Arms” – all were great.
• He ended with the crowd pleaser “Badlands” before coming back out for a pseudo-encore which included the staples “Dancing in the Dark,” the fun and folky “American Land,” and finished the night up with the bombastic “Rosalita.”

By the time it was all said and done, about three hours had passed since the first chords rang through The Q and everyone seemed supremely satisfied and more than a little exhausted.  Many people walking out, some with Springsteen concert shirts dating back to the mid-’70′s, were calling the show an “all-time great” performance.  And while I doubt it surpasses the legendary 1978 Agora performance (which many Springsteen aficionados agree is his best live performance ever), it still was an incredible and unforgettable time.

See the complete set list here.

Katie and I decided to take a night to ourselves, which for whatever reason, happens less and less these days.  Since we rarely get to spend any meaningful time together, we decided to go to a quick dinner and then see a movie – the former of my choosing and the latter of hers.

The Tremont TapHouse

For dinner, we went to the Tremont TapHouse – a little bar-slash-restaurant situated in the trendy and perpetually up-and-coming Tremont neighborhood of Cleveland.  I went there after a late-night walk in the rain and really enjoyed the beer list and the pierogies I ordered – and since I’m really not into spending a ton of money on dinner with a big fat wedding bill looming later next year, I really dug the prices, as well.

Once we got there we were immediately struck by how crowded it was – bustling I think would be the term.  It was filled with groups of young professionals, all with Blackberry’s in tow, enjoying each other’s company and an end-of-the-week cocktail.  We snagged the last free table near the back and ordered our food.  We both got burgers so I’m not going to spend a whole lot of time on that.  They were both really good, the place was great with a fun atmosphere, we both really liked it.

The Invention of Lying

Starring: Ricky Gervais, Jennifer Garner, Jonah Hill, Louis C.K., Rob Lowe

Directed By: Ricky Gervais and Matthew Robinson

Next, we shot on over to the glitzy and glamorous Crocker Park Cinema in Manhattan Westlake to see UK Office genius Ricky Gervais‘ new comedy, “The Invention of Lying” – a film which takes place in a world where no one has the ability to lie and everyone tells everyone exactly what they’re feeling.  Gervais plays a frumpy “Lecture Films” writer who, after a horribly deflating date with Jennifer Garner, is fired from his job and learns that virtually no one likes him.  While drowning his sorrows, his brain clicks into gear and he stumbles upon the first lie mankind has ever heard.  Naturally, everyone believes him, and thus begin the shenanigans.

Gervais is his usual brilliant self.  He is self-deprecating, relatable, hysterical, and neurotic all at the same time.  His verbal ticks and subtle traits are in full force and are just as funny as the have always been.  He even gets to display some of his dramatic chops in a pretty touching hospital scene that really serves as the center of the entire film.  He is a natural comic actor and there needs to be more movies that center around him like this film and the extremely underrated “Ghost Town.”

Other than the rock-solid Gervias, the movie is full of surprises.  The first curveball the movie throws is the fact that it’s chock-full of huge movie stars who pop-up in small bit parts.  See if you can spot Edward Norton and Phillip Seymor-Hoffman in quick hitter roles – Johah Hill, Rob Lowe, Tina Fey, Jeffrey Tambour, Jason Bateman, and Gervais’s Office writing partner Steven Merchant all turn up and are all memorable without distracting from the story or the stars.

The second surprise is kind of new age message of the film.  The movie’s plot centers almost entirely around religion and the meaning of life and death.  They movie mocks and derides religion and its social purpose pretty overtly, which could turn some people off (no problem with me, however).  What is disappointing about this is that while death and religion are pretty heady issues to tackle, the movie doesn’t really have anything new or original or clever to say on the subjects and the movie devolves into a predictably  formulaic final reel that mildly disappoints.  In all though, “The Invention of Lying” is a nice little movie.  We both really enjoyed it as well.

In all, it was a lovely, and much needed, night out.

My Grade (for the movie not the entire night): B

Starring: Brad Pitt, Christoph Waltz, Mélanie Laurent, Eli Roth

Directed By: Quentin Tarantino

Dan Trachtenberg: It’s by far his best movie since Pulp Fiction.

Jeff Cannata: It might be better than Pulp Fiction.

That little quote popped up in the middle of the Totally Rad Show’s review of Quentin Tarantino’s new movie “Inglourious Basterds.”  I’ve come to trust those guys and their opinions over the years I’ve watched their podcast, so naturally my hopes were high.  Quentin Tarrantino, while not my favorite modern director (that distinction goes to Paul Thomas Anderson), is without a doubt the most widely admired and arguably the most influential of the new-age, ”VCR film school” bunch.

So in short, is “Inglourious Basterds” better than “Pulp Fiction?”  No.

Is it his best movie since “Pulp Fiction?”  Honestly?  No.

Unfortunately, I have to say “Inglourious Basterds” is a modest disappointment.  It is the weakest of his big, tent-pole features (I’m conveniently excluding “Death Proof“) and is surprisingly self-indulgent and lacking focus.  The film basically boils down to four or five extended conversations that try to ratchet up the tension and suspense of an impending explosion of violence that hangs over every scene.  Most of these conversations involve Christoph Waltz’s Jew-Hunting Nazi Colonel Hans Landa.  He is the true star of the film.  The character has a smug creepiness that owns every scene he appears in.  Landa is often one step ahead of the audience, and we’re always aware of this, even if we don’t know exactly what information he has, which gives every exchange the prospect of turning bloody at a moments notice.  Waltz is simply excellent.

The disappointment belongs to the title characters: The Basterds.  The problem is that each one of them lack any resemblance of actual character – including Bard Pitt’s Aldo Raine.  Tarantino will go extended periods of time without them on the screen, which leaves the time we have with The Basterds feeling rushed and lacking any real meat.  These characters are nothing more than Nazi hunting cartoons (which isn’t entirely a bad thing all the time), and frankly I expect more from a QT picture.  That isn’t to say that the moments with them aren’t memorable: Raine convincing Nazi’s to rat out their comrades’ positions and the trio of Basterds speaking Italian before the film are all great and hilarious and masterfully crafted.

I don’t want to sound like this movie is bad.  It’s not.  In fact, it’s really good.  But we’ve come to expect greatness from Quentin Tarantino and this isn’t great.  His directing is flat and comes off very cliche.  It almost feels at times like he’s doing a parody of himself (i.e. the projection booth scene with it’s uber-slow-mo and overpowering score).  Also, the huge bits of dialogue go on too long at times and are a bit tedious – but these are all nitpicks.

Tarantino knows he’s earned the right to craft huge, extended scenes of nothing but witty and obtuse dialogue – he gets to do this because he’s Quentin Tarantino.  He knows we’ll watch and that we’ll love it.  And maybe that’s the problem.  Tarantino knows he’s good, and in “Inglourious Bastards” we have a movie from a director that has, for the first time in his career, relied upon his wealth of tricks (that are unquestionably uniquely his) at the expense of true substance and creativity.  But I liked this film a lot, regardless.

Anyway…

The final line of the movie goes like this:

Aldo Raine: You know somethin’, Utivich? I think this might just be my masterpiece!

We all get it, okay?  It’s a really good movie, Quentin.  But no – a masterpiece it is not.

My Grade: (a very, very solid) B

Starring: Shia LeBeouf, Megan Fox, Josh Duhamel, Peter Cullen

Directed By: Michael Bay

FLASHBACK: Transformers (2007): My Grade: A-

Phew.

Everyone go ahead and breathe a big sigh of relief.  ”Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” is nowhere near as bad as the reviews have led everyone to believe.  But before I go on, let’s be clear: it’s not even close to as good and fun and joyful as the first Transformers.  Also, the film can be, at times, pretty offensive.  However, these complaints of racism and misogyny are pretty overblown.  The twin “hip-hop” robots are inappropriate (and really not all that funny) to say the least, but to call the film patently racist is going a bit too far.

And with that being said, this entire movie can be summed up as an exercise in going too far.  There’s too much everything in it: outrageous action, ridiculous comedy, decibels, lens flares, nonsensical exposition, and on and on and on.  There’s really not a whole lot to say here.  Revenge of the Fallen offers basically more of what we got in the first film.  There’s a lot of over-the-top comedy between Sam and his parents, between Sam and John Turturro (don’t know what his name is), between Sam and the robots, and between the Robots themselves.  And then there’s also a whole lot of fighting between the robots.  And then there’s even more fighting between the robots.  And then just when you thought there couldn’t possibly be any more fighting between the robots – the robots fight even more. All of these battles give us copious amounts of metal flying all about the screen, with as many spectacular explosions – and people running from them – as I’ve ever seen in a single film.

The pacing is much poorer than the previous installment.  We don’t get any of the Spielbergian awe and wonder this time around nor do we get the great buildup and staging that made the first film so enjoyable.  All the fights are pretty incredible (especially the battle between Prime and the three Decepticons in the forest), but they never aspire to be anything more than spectacle.  There’s no sense of progress, strategy, or of who’s winning or losing – metal bodies fly through the air and after a few minutes someone gets a dagger through their ugly aluminum face – and that sequence of events basically plays out for 2 hours and 40 minutes.  The humans are mere distractions, especially Megan Fox who gets very little to do after her star-turning appearance in the first.

There are little things all over the movie that I could complain about: the dogs in the beginning, Sam’s annoyingly high mother, the final battle sequence that goes on 10 minutes too long, and the finale to that same sequence which is pretty abrupt and anti-climactic.  Even the CGI, at times, looks cartoony and apart from the surrounding environment.  For the most part however, the SFX are pretty spectacular - and probably saved this movie from getting a lower rating for me all by themselves.

 Oh, and there’s also metal alien beards and testicles.

But all and all, it’s really not that bad.  It really isn’t.  In fact, it’s pretty damn fun and it’s a decent summer blockbuster.  You get exactly what you expect.  Exactly.  Just be sure to take some Aspirin with you to the multiplex, because at the end of the day, it’s basically a 3 hour migraine headache.

And when I say that, I’m honestly not complaining – okay, well maybe a little.

My Grade: B-