TGITDNMAR (10/31/08)

It's that time again for TGITDNMAR, which (obviously) stands for Thank God It's The Day New Movies Are Released.

It's not even my birthday (though today does mark the LAMB's first birthday!), but I got my wish. We've gone from a few weeks in a row with up to 4 or 5 wide releases back to a normal one this time around, as there are only two. As a bonus, I've barely heard of the first one (not all that surprising given the genre, though). Either way, it makes for an easy decision for Mrs. Fletch and I this weekend...

Zack and Miri Make a Porno
Has it really been nearly ten years since Kevin Smith made a movie that I cared about? Dogma was released in 1999! Though some loved his Clerks sequel, I surely wasn't one of them, and his other features (Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, Jersey Girl) are filed in my head as "underwhelming but kinda fun" and "no interest in seeing," respectively.

This one feels different. Maybe it's the Rogen/Banks-led cast (I'm also looking forward to Craig Robinson, who almost stole Pineapple Express), maybe it's the renewed sense of controversy in Smith's work (see this post from From the Front Row for more on this sad, but not entirely unexpected turn of events) - whatever it is, I'm psyched to see this.
Fletch's Chance of Viewing (in the theater): 99%, or less than the percentage of my daily recommended intake of fat grams I'll be ingesting today. Damn Halloween candies.

The Haunting of Molly Hartley
The poster for this horror flick lists a bunch of names - Haley Bennett, Jake Weber, Chace Crawford, Shanna Collins, etc. - and I've not heard of a single one of them. In fact, looking at the full cast and crew, I don't think there's a single person that I'm familiar with. For a feature film with a $5 mil budget being widely distributed, this may be a first. It's all the same, I suppose, though, as I'd likely not be going anywhere near it anyway. Weird, though. Are these all CW/WB/Disney Channel kids or something?
Fletch's Chance of Viewing: 0% , or equal to the percentage of actors I...

And then...

My obligatory Halloween-related post

You might have noticed I'm not a big horror film fan, and those seem to be the topic du jour these days (I know, that's repetitive). Well, last year I gave you my favorite Halloween Happenstance movies. This year, I'm going lo-fi and just giving you an ecard. Of course, it's not just any ecard...



http://www.someecards.com/

And then...

The Survivor blog is dead! Long live the Survivor blog!

Just an official note that I'm discontinuing the Survivor recaps, though with my spotty record thus far season (two eps out of five not written about), this note may seem late.

With TGITDNMAR on Fridays and the desire to have a fresh non-Survivor post up on Thursdays, I find myself struggling to get it done either while watching or in the short time between watching and going to bed, and I'm finding that my heart's just not in it.

As it's one of the few shows that I watch religiously, there's a more than decent chance that I'll still bring it up regularly (I always have some random thoughts on it), but the weekly commitment is something that I just can't, well, commit to.

If you're looking for a recap or just some fun insights into the show, I recommend you head over to Robb's site as he is still doing what he does, and I'll be there for sure every week (I think Kano writes about it sometimes, too, but he's recently changed his site to be almost entirely movie-centric, so I'm not sure). Also, Survivor.com, linked below, aggregates a bunch of recaps (mine used to be one of them), so that's another good resource.

Survivor news at Survivor.com
Survivor homepage at CBS.com

And then...

So...who else is dying to see Twilight?

And then...

Hey you! Act more Bill Pullmanish, ok?

I'm either really boring, or terrible at recognizing my own tendencies. Allow me to explain.

I was wondering what it must be like for someone like Christopher Walken or Bill Shatner. Wondering what happens when you get so famous that people can mimic you so easily that a twelve year old could guess who was being mimicked within ten seconds. Wondering what happens when the Shat is filming an episode of Boston Whatever or a commercial and the director tells him to "tone down the Shat-ness" a bit. Wondering what happens when Walken is told to "just talk normal for these lines."

Would they have any idea what to do (or not do)? Would you? What aspects of your personality - the way you walk, the tone and/or inflection of your speech - would you be able to identify and be less you?

I have no idea what mine would be, and I've decided it's either because I have none, or because - duh - I'm me, and I don't spend all day watching footage of myself. But you'd think you might know some anyway. I'm guessing Woody Allen is aware that he does that "speak really fast rambley" thing that he does on occasion, just as I'm sure Sam Jackson knows he has a tendency to scream a bit. And though you probably know those traits of Allen and Jackson just from my descriptions, they remain awfully vague ones.

If I indeed do have none, I can probably think of worse things. After all, I can't imagine what it would be like to be told to act "less Paul Newmanish" or "more Robert Redfordy" - some people just don't have a schtick (for lack of a better word).

But I wish I did, and I wish I knew what they were, just in case someone tells me to "tone down the Dylanness a bit."

And then...

Fletch's Film Review: Burn After Reading & Choke

It's been at least a month since I saw Burn After Reading, and probably three weeks since I saw Choke, and I've yet to come remotely close to writing a review for either. It really makes no sense - it's not as if we're talking about Transformers or some other brainless popcorn flick that has nothing to say about society. Okay, maybe Burn does, since it's a straight-up Coen farce, but still, it's a farce for smart people, or at least adults.

And Choke - hell, I read the book a couple months ago just in preparation for the movie. Of course, I could tell from the trailer that I wouldn't enjoy the film as much as the printed version, and you know what they say about self-fulfilling prophecies. You don't? Well, neither do I. I guess that they come true - that's why they're probably called self-fulfilling after all.

Anyway, I guess you could say I enjoyed both of these films but that neither is terribly remarkable, with Choke being less memorable than Burn, thanks mostly to the goofball performances of Clooney, Pitt and McDormand and the straight-man jobs turned in by J.K. Simmons and Richard Jenkins (the clubhouse leaders in that category, by the way). So long as you don't expect the Coens to explain D.C. politics and/or the intricacies of the espionage trade, you'll likely come out happy. It's a slice-of-life film in the truest sense, only the slices seem to be made of satire and black humor, if not downright dislike (for the characters).

Fletch's Film Rating:

"Darn tootin!"


Calling Choke "less remarkable" doesn't mean it's necessarily bad - it's just the more forgettable of the two. Sam Rockwell is his usual appealing self - even when wondering and doing what Jesus would not do - and the supporting cast is affable (including Kelly McDonald and Angelica Huston, but Brad William Henke gets and gives the best role with Denny). I suppose the best and worst thing I can say about it is that it's wildly faithful to the novel; best as in "Yay for a faithful adaptation," but worst because despite that loyalty, the novel read like a more important, more meaningful work than the film turned out to be. Whereas the printed version felt like a big book with "big ideas," the movie plays more like a standard sex comedy with a few quirks thrown in (the low budget/production values don't help the cause). Still, I give it a mild recommendation.

Fletch's Film Rating:

"You seem a decent fellow. I hate to kill you."

And then...

Stained Glass Cinema #13

Evan's climbing up the leaderboard. Jason/Daniel - be afraid. Be very afraid.

I've decided to stump you all this time. I'll give you one hint that ought not help you at all: I've seen this film at some point in the last two years. Scratch that - I'll give you another hint, in the interest of full disclosure: this appears to be the DVD cover art, not the original theatrical poster. I didn't realize that at the time of the creation of the stained glass version.

























Standings:
Jason/Daniel - 3
Evan Derrick - 2
Steel11Kane - 1
TonyD - 1
Luke Harrington - 1
Rachel - 1
Adam Ross - 1
Jason Soto - 1
Fletch - 1 (meaning I stumped you)

And then...

LAMB Movie of the Month: Revolver

Or as I like to call it, Voice-over: The Movie.

Now, I'm not going to go all the way and say that this is complete drivel, because it's not. It does, however, seem to be the classic case of a filmmaker (Guy Ritchie) overreaching his storytelling abilities, or not knowing how best to use the talents that he (or she) has. That's the nicer way of saying that Revolver is a clusterf*ck. A mess of a movie, but not in a good-mess way like Southland Tales - instead the bad, boring type of mess, where it feels like nothing really happens, but you've been dragged along on a cross-country trip to watch that nothing happen.

Jason Statham and his wig play Jake Green, a con man fresh out of seven years in prison, time served for (or because?) of a casino overlord played by Ray Liotta. Or at least he's fresh out for the first minute of the film. Then, it jumps ahead in time two additional years, for the sole purpose of later feeding us the knowledge that Green has amassed himself "more money than [he] could ever spend" during that time. Of course, that's not good enough for Jake - he wants revenge on Dorothy Macha (Liotta, and yes, his character's first name really is Dorothy).

From there, the film spirals into a complex soup of cons, chess, 12 dollar bills, rare blood diseases, random animation, gratuitous nudity, a dash of over-the-top violence, tanning rooms, Liotta ass, Liotta pockmarks, and Liotta bad acting, all tied together with more voice-overs than you've likely heard in a year's worth of film watching. What is it that they say about voice-overs? That they're the crutch of a bad writer?

The rampant use of voice-overs gets somewhat of a pass by virtue of the twistified ending (as do some of the other whacked-out elements of the plot), but it's not that good of an ending - not one good enough to make you wonder why Ritchie and Luc Besson were not only involved in this, but responsible for it. It may not be worse than oh-so-many B-level crime dramas out there, but it's got to be one of the worst when you factor in the "talent" that made it.

Fletch's Film Rating:

"I want you to punch me as hard as you can."

In case you couldn't tell, Revolver was the LAMB's Movie of the Month for October. See more reviews of it, and other MOTM's here.

And then...

Cause I am....perplexed.

If you're one of those people that don't go to the theater much, the last month or so has paid you dividends that you might not even be aware of. Here in Arizona, Mrs. Fletch and I are loyal Harkins Theaters customers, and for the past couple years, they've been running "programming" from ScreenVision, a company that packages interviews, clips, songs and advertising into 15-minute clips that run before a movie. They change the content roughly every month or so.

But it seems like the video seen below, a joint collaboration between Kid Rock, the National Guard, and Dale Earnhardt, Jr., has been running for about 35 years. I'm certainly not an unbiased observer, being neither a fan of the Kid nor Dale, Jr., but this is just a baffling, awfully put together piece of "entertainment."

While Kid sings about...something (sample lyric: "'Cause freedom ain't so free/When you breathe red, white and blue/I'm giving all of myself/How 'bout you?"), we're shown a few subplots, if that's what you want to call them. On one hand, we have American soldiers, serving freedom all over the globe via the kicking of soccer balls to innocent children - always a gesture seen as heroic over the globe. On the other, we have Dale Jr. driving fast and turning left.

Say what you will for the marketing tactics of the U.S. military - this fits into the usual "trying to make it look cool" tactic, but it's a complete clusterf*ck. Aside from containing a number of elements that 17-year old Southern males might really, really like, can anyone tell what Detroit-based rap-rock-country fusion acts, NASCAR and the National Guard have to do with each other? Where's the Confederate Flag or shout-outs to Georgia football?

I hope Kid and Dale were paid handsomely, because it sure seems more like a sell-out move and less like a patriotic endorsement.

And then...

TGITDNMAR (10/24/08)

It's that time again for TGITDNMAR, which (obviously) stands for Thank God It's The Day New Movies Are Released.

Seriously, five wide releases? I don't want to hear any bitching from Hollywood about how their flicks aren't making as much as they used to; they used to put out two, maybe three, wide releases a week, right? Am I crazy? I don't like this, and you know why? I'll tell you why - because it makes doing this feature harder every week, damnit. What do I have to do to get a two-release week, huh?

High School Musical 3
No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no.
Fletch's Chance of Viewing (in the theater): No.


Changeling
"Give me back my son!!"

I won't be satisfied unless Angelina Jolie spouts those words, in order or not, at some point during this film. She might even have a few classic lines up her sleeve.

And please help me - I can't be the only guy that thinks this guy (Jeffrey Donovan, from USA's Burn Notice) is stealing Guy Pearce's roles. He's not his twin or anything, but he looks enough and sounds enough like him to be his brother. Bothers me for some reason...
Fletch's Chance of Viewing: 10% , or equal to the size of the child compared to Angie's head in that poster.

Saw V
Finally. I've been waiting all these years. I saw the first Saw on DVD a few years back and told myself that I would skip all sequels until they hit number five. That time has come, and I just don't know what to do with myself. I guess I'll do nothing.

Ok, so I could not possibly care less about this franchise; if you do, go to Nick's place - he's doing a fancy schmancy saw blog-a-thon type thing.
Fletch's Chance of Viewing: 10%, but only if I'm really dying to see Constantine again.

Synecdoche, New York
Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes.

But can someone please spell the first word of this phonetically for me, please? Thanks.
Fletch's Chance of Viewing: 100%, if and when it hits Phoenix.

Pride and Glory
You know, I'm willing to ignore the fact that this flick has just about the most generic title around, making it sound like an inspirational tale about an inner-city badminton team from the 60s overcoming adversity to win over their community and place third in their conference championships.

It's as if the writer(s) consciously tried to think of the most boring title they could. "Heart and Soul? No. Strength and Determination? Nah. No Guts, No Glory? Crap. How about just Pride and Glory? Winner!"

Anyway, I'm willing to forget that. But could this look more like We Own the Night ("I'm done wichou!") or scads of other cop/family movies from the last twenty years?

The sad part is, with just Norton and Farrell attached, I'll probably go see it, despite the fact that the sight of Jon Voight attempting to seriously act these days just makes me giggle. He's great at being bad (Varsity Blues, Anaconda), but awful at anything else.
Fletch's Chance of Viewing: 50%

Passengers
Anne Hathaway, Partick Wilson, David Morse, Andre Braugher and many others star in this, and I hadn't even heard of this movie until today?!?!?! Either I'm seriously off my game, the movie is terrible and has been sitting on the shelf, the movie has been terribly, terribly promoted, or some combination of the three. I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's most likely a combo of the latter two, as I'm in the target demo for it; I mean, I haven't seen much of anything ad-wise for HSM3, either, but I wouldn't expect to. Bizarre.

Suffice it to say, I'm still interested. Pacific Northwest-based thriller with that cast? Count me in.
Fletch's Chance of Viewing: 60%

And then...

Top 50 films

I've been sitting on this post for what feels like three years, only that's not possible, as this blog has only been in existence for 22 months or so. Really, I probably started it when Nayana of The Center Seat posted her Top 100 back in April, which was followed by a number of other people leaching onto the idea and posting theirs in the few weeks thereafter. As with fashion (and music, sometimes), I never set trends and I never like being in that group of followers immediately when something is popular; heck, I didn't even launch a MySpace page until a year ago or so, and I still have yet to join Facebook.

I like to do these things on my own time, when they've been around long enough to not be labeled as fads that fade away quickly (Kris Kross, anyone?). Of course, all that really has nothing to do with listing my Top 50 movies, as that's neither a trend nor a fad; people have been doing them for years and they're not exactly unique. Still, I just wanted to give you (and me) a good excuse for why it took me six months to post this. I feel better, anyway.

I put these down in chunks of ten. For whatever reason, I found it much easier to rank and file them that way, allowing me to write off each ten as "complete" before moving on. As it stands, they're probably not 100% in perfect numerical order (heck, some are grouped together just based on what they are - I'm looking at you, Star Wars films), but as a person who has a hard time deciding favorites, the groups should suffice. On the whole, it's safe to say that I prefer a film in the second group over a film in the third, but there could certainly be some debate if I were to really break if down on a case-by-case basis.

It should be noted (and somewhat obvious, but you never know) that these are my favorite films, not necessarily the best of all time. In other words, they're my "Desert Island 50," or whatever that fad was for labeling your favorites...

Pulp Fiction
Fight Club
Fletch
The Princess Bride
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Ferris Bueller's Day Off
True Romance
12 Monkeys
Amelie
Run Lola Run

The Big Lebowski
Star Wars
The Empire Strikes Back
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Go
Get Shorty
Out of Sight
Rushmore
The Royal Tenenbaums
Office Space

The Matrix
Trainspotting
The Shawshank Redemption
Boogie Nights
Swingers
Se7en
Snatch
Dazed and Confused
Batman
Die Hard

Ocean's Eleven
Memento
Fargo
Idiocracy
Dumb and Dumber
Top Gun
Roadhouse
Last of the Mohicans
Dead Poets Society
The Goonies

Caddyshack
The Jerk
The Usual Suspects
Code 46
Jackie Brown
Back to the Future
Being John Malkovich
Predator
Point Break
Garden State

At this point, you should totally copy me and do a post just like this, linking back to me and my totally original idea. Everyone's doing it...

And then...

Fletch's Film Review: W.

Imagine Lorne Michaels wants to produce a comedy-laced drama. He has a virtually unlimited budget but instead of his cast of not ready for prime time players, he has all of Hollywood available at his fingertips. He hires an A-list director, picks as his target a lame duck president with but a few months left in office and off he goes.

That's pretty much what W. feels like. While we can watch Tony Hopkins play Nixon or Paul Giamatti play John Adams with nary a thought, the recency of Stone's subject puts the stench of "skit" on his film and it can't escape it, no matter how seriously he or his actors take it.

Most of them do. James Cromwell is all business as the senior Bush, only sounding like Dana Carvey for his first line delivered. Richard Dreyfuss is at his Machiavellian best as the brains behind Bush's two terms, and specifically the surge towards the Iraq War, the present day focus of the film. Scott Glenn and Jeffrey Wright were casting coups as Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell, respectively, and Ellen Burstyn brings more character to Barbara Bush than 30 years in the limelight ever did. Elizabeth Banks is wasted in a non-role where she does little but vaguely resemble Laura Bush, while Thandie Newton makes out somewhat worse, getting just a couple lines as Condi Rice while having been "uglified" for the role. At least she's funny when she speaks, as she's asked to do so with prosthetic tooth and/or a massive overbite. And then there's ol' W himself...

Josh Brolin is all but unrecognizable as our current Commander-in-Chief, slipping so far into the characterization that he seems to out-Bush Bush at times. He's not going for Will Ferrell-type "strategerie," but that doesn't mean there aren't scads of laughs to be found, particularly when he masterfully pulls off W.'s sheepish/cocksure chuckle or tells Cheney that he, in fact and of course, "is the decider."

Such bon mots are the joys of W., and really all that it can be taken for. Whereas we can safely write off artistic license when a filmmaker does a bio on someone from centuries ago (after all, who are we to dispute the conversations between long dead faces?), that feat isn't so easily accomplished when all the subjects of the film are not just with us, but still in office (in most cases). How seriously can we take one of the many scenes between George W. and his father when we know damn well that none of the parties involved were involved at all with the film?

For what it's worth, Stone doesn't take advantage of that lack of accountability - or at least, it doesn't appear so. His is a sympathetic picture of our President, a man that we are stuck with now and in our rear-view mirrors, for better or worse. He paints G.W. as an occasionally bitter, often playful, frequently drunk schlub with aspirations beyond his intellect but nothing worse than the best intentions for himself and, eventually, his country. And that's probably nicer than I'd be to any President that still says "nucular."

Fletch's Film Rating:

"Darn tootin!"

And then...

Stained Glass Cinema #12

Congrats to Jason Soto, king of the B movies for getting the answer to the last one, which, as it happens, is a terrible movie (Love Potion No. 9).

This latest one seems like a real challenge. I know the answer, and yet I look at the image below and it still makes no sense to me. And I'm even giving you the easier of the two options for this poster (the smaller the puzzle pieces, the easier it is). Good luck.

Standings:
Jason/Daniel - 3
Steel11Kane - 1
TonyD - 1
Evan Derrick - 1
Luke Harrington - 1
Rachel - 1
Adam Ross - 1

Jason Soto - 1
Fletch - 1 (meaning I stumped you)

And then...

A belated TGITDNMAR

It's that time again for TGITDNMAR, which (obviously) stands for Thank God It's The Day New Movies Are Released.

W.
Saw this Saturday night; review coming. I'll just say that it celebrificates the geniusity of our current president.
Fletch's Chance of Viewing (in the theater): 100%, or equal to the percent of our household that will be doing the happy dance for hours upon Bush's evacuation from office (yes, the dogs and cats will be thrilled, too.)

What Just Happened?
DeNiro. Willis. John Turturro. Stanley Tucci. You'd think this flick would have to be horrible to not have secured a wider release with all those names, but its current 8.4/10 rating on IMDb tells a different story. I've seen the trailer just once and haven't spotted any commercials, so I'm left scratching my head. Sure, Hollywood inside joke films don't typically make a bunch of money, but I'm surely intrigued.
Fletch's Chance of Viewing: 60%

Max Payne
Finally! The triumphant return of Beau Bridges has arrived! I've been waiting for this day for, jeez, I don't know, never, I guess? Oh, but what's this? A Chris O'Donnell sighting as well? Between those appearances and ones by Nelly Furtado and Ludacris, I just don't know what to do with myself. I guess just skip it altogether. Oh, and have I mentioned that Mark Wahlberg is a great supporting actor but a terrible lead before?
Fletch's Chance of Viewing: 10%, but only if I'm really dying to see Constantine again.

The Secret Life of Bees
I've heard that bees are slowly dying in our world and how bad that might be for our ecosystem. Well, someone needs to tell Hollywood this. Or maybe they have, seeing as how bees have dominated the multiplex over the last two decades. The Secret Life of Bees. Bee Movie. Akeelah and the Bee. Ulee's Gold. The Wicker Man. When will it end? And how can I figure out what the next hot animal/insect will be and somehow profit off this? (By the way, it will be aardvarks. You heard it here first.)
Fletch's Chance of Viewing: 3%, only because three rhymes with bee.

Sex Drive
I don't know about you, but my favorite part of the Sex Drive trailer isn't the talking Mexican doughnut suit (huh?) or even Seth Green delivering yuks as a postmodern Amish gent but rather the song that plays throughout it. As a part of my community service, I'll save you time and trouble of looking it up and just tell you that it's called "Time to Pretend" by the band MGMT. Video on YouTube here. As for the movie itself - it doesn't look at all groundbreaking, but it looks like a fun time, especially the one being had by James Marsden, who's always seemed a bit uptight to me.
Fletch's Chance of Viewing: 40%

And then...

Fletch's Film Review: Rachel Getting Married

Was it live, or was it Memorex? That's what you might be asking yourself after seeing Rachel Getting Married, the latest from director Jonathan Demme (The Silence of the Lambs, Philadelphia). After a slump of features, including The Manchurian Candidate and The Truth About Charlie, Demme has gone simple on us. Rachel is presented in verite form, almost documentary-like as it follows Kym (Anne Hathaway) as she leaves rehab to attend her sister's wedding in rural Connecticut.

There's plenty of drama and character development to be found but little plot. Over the course of two hours, we learn what sent Kym on her downward spiral and how it affected those around her, but the film is not interested in giving the audience any sort of closure or resolution. It says "here's this slice of life; take it or leave it."

As I write this, I still don't know what my rating will be - I'm torn completely. It's the kind of movie that's a pleasure to experience - a large, beautiful house, a lush wedding, eclectic music playing nonstop, and top-notch acting are all present. However, as I sat staring, I thought to myself, "It's not our freedom; it's this kind of movie that the terrorists hate us for." An odd thought, to be sure. But what else can be made of this film that's largely about nothing and centers on an upper-middle class white Connecticut family that, while they've surely gone through hard times, spend all their time being angry for what they don't have rather than celebrating what they do? Poor Kym was a druggie that did a terrible thing - get over it! This was made all the worse when I read a summary of the film and learned that this act of hers took place 10 years prior to the events in the film (it was somewhat unclear how long it had been while watching; I would have guessed three).

At times, though, Demme goes too simple on us. There's about a ten-minute stretch during the wedding's reception where you might wonder, "Am I still watching a film or am I watching someone's homemade wedding video?" There's literally no plot movement or dialogue as we watch what appears to be every guest getting their own dance sequence. Still, I can't complain too much - the music, though almost annoyingly nonstop (to the characters as well), is varied and terrific. the wedding is an Indian-themed affair featuring a white woman and a black man, and we get a taste of those and many other cultures. Though the film at times dips into "United Colors of Benetton" mode with its diversity, it was refreshing to see and a joy to experience nonetheless.

And about that lush wedding - I wonder if the irony struck the cast and crew that the film's wedding might have cost more in real life than it cost them to make the film?

Fletch's Film Rating:

"Darn tootin!"

And then...

Survivor: Gabon - Episode 5 Recap

I don't know how to write this without it seeming like I'm still in slack-off mode from yesterday. Please - don't blame me, blame CBS. Or blame Jeff Probst. Or Sarah Palin. Really, anyone but me.

After all, how can I adequately write a recap of last night's episode when it was a virtual carbon copy of the last two episodes?

Fang (pronounced however the hell people want to anymore) losing every possible challenge? Check. Azucar being sent to Exile Island yet again? Check. "GC" acting like an infant anytime anyone "tells" him to do something? Check.

What's left to tell? Well, GC's disappearing act was interesting; I wish he would have missed the Immunity Challenge - the thought of Probst doing roll call and pulling a Ben Stein when GC's name came up makes me smile. But alas, the big baby showed up to camp just in time to leave for the challenge.

The challenge itself was a travishamockery, though the players weren't at fault. Instead, the designers were squarely to blame. Each team had three roles: goalies, callers, and throwers. The throwers had to toss a wooden stick ball down a hill, over some obstacles, and hopefully into one of several goals. The goalies were blindfolded and were directed where to run to be the callers. The problem? There were five rounds, and at the start of each round, the goalies were brought to the far left of what must have been a 50-yard course, and with the tossing of each ball, were promptly instructed by their callers to sprint 30 yards to their right, with the balls often rolling past them even further still to the right. The people were already blindfolded! Did they really need the added difficulty of jogging across half the course before stopping to hear more orders? It's not as though, had they been positioned in the middle, they would have stopped everything coming towards them because, remember, they're blindfolded. Decent idea, awful execution.

After Fang lost - of course - it was the GC show, as the maintenance supervisor decided that he'd had enough of this terrible game and was set to quit. Of course, the producers tried to throw us a curveball by making us think that Crystal, Ken, et al might try to throw Azucar a curveball by attempting to oust her hidden immunity idol. Once again, the show allows the contestants to search through other contestants belongings (wrong wrong wrong) and, once again, the idiot that had the hidden immunity idol did nothing to ensure that it stayed hidden. I'd keep the damn thing in my shorts, but barring that, at least hide it somewhere around camp that's not in your bag. Dumb dumb dumb.

Of course, that was all a smokescreen. Azucar received no votes, and GC pulled off the "I'm quitting but I'm not quitting" routine that we've seen so many times as he was voted off. Good riddance.

Survivor producers - you're on notice. Please please please stop allowing people onto your show that end up quitting. Maybe they should be subjected to sleep and/or food deprivation prior to the show's start? I don't care what you need to do, just do it, because it's a slap in the face to all the people that tried out and would have stuck with it but weren't selected.

Survivor news at Survivor.com
Survivor homepage at CBS.com

And then...

It's my birthday and I'll slack if I want to...

There's something about going out of town (and being away from a computer for more than 4 hours) that destroys all my blogging momentum. As lame as that sounds, it's actually true. If I were a blogging addict, leaving town would be the first step to recovery. If only my crack addiction could be solved so easily.

True as all that may be (well, short of the crack part), I'm not going to use my recent journey as the excuse for no meaningful posts yesterday or today; instead, I'll use my 32nd birthday. My arthritis is kicking up, I can't see straight, and the thought of thinking makes me nauseous.

Maybe I just need a vacation to help me get over this old age thing.

And then...

Stained Glass Cinema #11

Adam Ross is on the board, getting Extreme Measures (not to be confused with Desperate Measures) last time we played this game. And all with no help from me. Congrats, Adam.

With me being out of town until Tuesday - I'm up in the Great Pacific Northwest helping my grandfather celebrate his 90th birthday (!) - I leave you with your latest challenge. Take your time getting it, waiting for me to return, mock you, and then give hints, if need be.

























Standings:
Jason/Daniel - 3
Steel11Kane - 1
TonyD - 1
Evan Derrick - 1
Luke Harrington - 1
Rachel - 1
Adam Ross - 1
Fletch - 1 (meaning I stumped you)

And then...

TGITDNMAR (10/10/08)

It's that time again for TGITDNMAR, which (obviously) stands for Thank God It's The Day New Movies Are Released.

Ah...just three wide releases this week, with a handful of limited ones (of which I'm profiling only one). That's more like it. Note to Hollywood: don't ever release 12 movies in one weekend again, please, regardless of their quality. I can't take it.

Body of Lies
Part 2 of Ridley Scott's "Lead characters that never share screen time," apparently. I can't wait to watch Brad Pitt and Denzel Washington "star" in some drama where one is in the North Pole while the other is in Paraguay - should be awesome.

I wasn't excited about seeing this from the trailers, as American Gangster left me pretty cold, and I'm not a huge Crowe fan, and this didn't help matters, either.
Fletch's Chance of Viewing (in the theater): 20%, or the chance that Leo's character survives until the end credits. (And Daniel - I wrote all of this in your comments section first. The recycling is happening here.)

RocknRolla
Well, the lustre has certainly been snatched from Guy Ritchie's diamond over the last few years, and -- wait a sec, did I really just use that horrible "snatch" reference? I did indeed. Sorry about that.

Anyway, the point still stands. I would bet that even Brooklyn, Donut, Six-Pack and whatever the rest of MadGuy's kids names' are haven't even seen Guy's last three films. Bonus points - can you name them without cheating (the movies, not the kids)? I couldn't, and I'd consider myself a fan of his.

This one thankfully seems to be him bringing it all back home, going to his roots, and any other euphemism there is for when someone gives up on trying the alternative and reverts to the tried and true. With an "edgy" cast (which must not be edgy if I'm using the hack term edgy), including Ludacris, Jeremy Piven and Tom Wilkinson in a bald cap and a dumb name, the crowds are sure to pile in. Or not.

Speaking of that cast, get ready to have yourself some Mark Strong overload. I wouldn't have recognized the name two weeks ago, but his appearance here and in Body of Lies (in what is being called the best performance of the movie by many), along with his kickass resume over the last few years (Stardust, Syriana, Sunshine, uh, Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day) tells me that we're only going to hear more from him. The downside? One of his next projects is the Nic Cage-starrer Kick-Ass. There goes that good buzz...
Fletch's Chance of Viewing: 50%, if it hits Phoenix. If not...video.

City of Ember
Obviously, I don't watch enough Nickelodeon or Disney Channel or wherever the hell they're adverting this flick. Sure, I've heard of it, but I've seen nary a commercial, much less a trailer. Thumbs down for the marketing department there, as with Tim Robbins and Bill Murray aboard, there's plenty of appeal for adults.
Fletch's Chance of Viewing: 10%, on principal alone. If I'm not good enough to advertise to, maybe I don't want to see your crappy "Family" film. Jerks.

Quarantine
I don't have much of an angle here that can't be surmised from seeing one commercial for this: look, it's a Blair Witch rip mixed with a Cloverfield rip, which itself was also a Blair Witch rip of sorts. Throw in a helping of 28 Weeks Later..., The Descent, and/or some other zombie movie and watch my interest level fall. Meh.
Fletch's Chance of Viewing: 2%. You know, I was fine with the alternative commercial style (with the name of the flick and/or website on the top of the screen) when Forgetting Sarah Marshall did it, but I'm already sick of it. I think. Or maybe this movie just has no appeal for me. What a downer to end on.

And then...

Poll results; new poll

Here it is a few weeks after CAGEFEST has ended and I'm finally putting up a new poll. Better late than never, I suppose. No real surprise with the results of your favorite and least favorite Cage flicks, though - Raising Arizona won big as the fave (though I'm wondering what all the "Other" votes were for, and Ghost Rider edged out City of Angels as the least fave. Thankfully, I've not seen Ghost Rider and don't plan to anytime soon. Score one for me.




























This time out, a philosophical question of sorts. Can you name just one favorite film? I don't know if I can...

And then...

Stained Glass Cinema #10

Well, last time out, I more or less stumped you all (more), with me finally giving enough clues that SGC leaders Jason/Daniel (or just Jason this time - it's hard to tell) finally pulling the winner out of his pooper - A Sound of Thunder, starring Ed Burns and Ben Kingsley.

This time - much easier. No hints until there's at least 10 guesses.

























Standings:
Jason/Daniel - 3
Steel11Kane - 1
TonyD - 1
Evan Derrick - 1
Luke Harrington - 1
Rachel - 1
Fletch - 1 (meaning I stumped you)

And then...

And now for something completely unrelated...

I was searching for an e-card for a friend and happened upon someecards.com. Note: I'm not being paid in any way, shape, or form for this endorsement, but if you're ever in need of an e-card and are tired of the same boring crap, go there now. Highest of high comedy - I went through the birthday ones today and was nearly in tears. Here are a few examples:

From their "Birthday" section:


From their "Get Well" section:


From their "Movies" section:

And then...

Fletch's Film Review: Nick & Norah's Infinite Playlist

Like most people that write movie reviews regularly, I have an unwritten rule about not reading other reviews of a film before I write my own (much less before I see a film), unless I don't particularly care about the film in question. This rule has a couple exceptions, naturally. On a typical night when Mrs. Fletch and I return from a trip to the theater, I can often be found reading the review of the film we saw that's featured in Entertainment Weekly, the (Phoenix) New Times, or both. Still, when I do read those, I try not to let them pepper their thoughts into my reviews, choosing instead to try and forget them as quickly as I read them.

This time, however, I can't get the words of New Times reviewer Robert Wilonsky out of mind, if only because they were in such sharp contrast to my thoughts while immediately leaving the theater.

In his short review, Wilonsky compares and contrasts Nick and Norah to director Peter Sollett's 2002 film, Raising Victor Vargas. In conclusion, he states, "From its indier-than-thou soundtrack...to its split-second hipster cameos (Devendra Banhart, Seth Meyers, John Cho, Kevin Corrigan), this after-hours romantic comedy plays like the exact opposite of Victor Vargas: Where that movie was organic, with every scene hitting just the right note and feeling so magically accidental, Nick and Norah plays like something crafted in a lab by 54-year-old hucksters trying to sell shit to the kids under the cheerless guise of "alternative." Now, I haven't seen Victor Vargas, but while watching Nick and Norah (and the audience), two things struck me more than anything else: 1) I was in the midst of one of those defining "old" experiences where I felt like I was missing something that "the kids" were in on, and 2) this movie felt real, and probably more real to the tweens in the audience than it ever would to me.

Though the plot and some of the writing is pretty standard fare (think Swingers meets Harold & Kumar minus 10 years), the movie was a sort of revelation. This film that features multiple gay characters (and a trip to an underground gay club), the aforementioned indie-rock soundtrack, and a jaunt into the "queercore" scene (which, of course, I've never heard of), is not an independent film; it's a major motion picture released by Columbia Pictures and starring faces from blockbuster comedies. And yet, there was no great hullabaloo about anyone's orientation or religion - these topics that so many people so many years older than the cast can't get over were just part of the character's lives - with no more thought put to them than the clothes on the character's backs. These "plot points" didn't feel manufactured by some studio exec to me - they felt exactly the opposite, as though somehow this film had escaped focus groups and tweaking and homogenizing to the point that no one anywhere would ever be offended by anything.

Whether this has more to do with the age of the actors and intended audience or the setting for the film (Lower East Side Manhattan) is not a question that I can accurately answer. Most likely, it's a combination of the two; regardless, it was damned refreshing.

Fletch's Film Rating:

"Darn tootin!"

And then...

Fletch's Film Review: Religulous

How does the old saying go? Don't talk about religion and politics in public?

If that saying seems like its from another time, it's probably because a) it is, and b) it's not really relevant anymore, or at least practiced by the masses. Try as I might to avoid the topics in my workplace (mostly because my beliefs don't really mesh with the general public's), they invariably come up - the latter (politics) even more so this time of year.

More than anything else, the feeling I got while watching Religulous was joy. In an era where one's religious beliefs are not only talked about constantly nationwide but globally (I'd bet most of us know what Sarah Palin believes, but not what FDR did), it's refreshing to know that the dissenting opinions of Bill Maher and director Larry Charles (Borat, Seinfeld) are being aired on a big screen near you. Well, near you if you're in a near a big city, at least. The two real mavericks have set about to question the thoughts and belief systems of spiritual leaders and common folks the world 'round, and the results are, if not shocking, at least hilarious.

It surprises me somewhat that Charles chose Religulous to be his feature follow-up to Borat, since the two are structured so similarly, and will likely please and anger the same sets of folks, more or less. Via man-on-the-street interviews, video clips, subtitles, and more, Maher roams around the world and back, with the same simple question over and over for his subjects - "Why?" Why do they believe what they believe? Why do they not question their holy books and spiritual leaders? Why don't they - pardon the offense - use common sense when called for, such as when he goes to the Creation Museum, a place where dino-babies and children are shown to be playing near the same babbling brook, intimating that humans and dinosaurs not only roamed the earth simultaneously, but coexisted peacefully?

As much as some of Maher's targets are easy pickings, I am sad to say that, because of that, he and his film will most likely be easy targets as well. By and large, I can't possibly think that the subjects of his interviews are not the best representation of believers worldwide - he starts at a Trucker's Chapel (just like it sounds), hits the aforementioned Creation Museum, and even hits the Holy Land Experience in Orlando and talks to "Jesus" - er, the guy that plays Jesus daily. It's not all this way, though (he speaks with a U.S. Senator, after all, and a Democrat at that), and it's not for a lack of trying. In a recent interview with Entertainment Weekly, Charles had this to say when asked about the easy targets: "Believe me, we tried to get an audience with the Pope. We tried to get the head of the Church of Scientology. There are so many layers of bureaucracy, you can't get to them. So you move down the line until you find somebody willing to talk."

Whether or not Religulous will be any more successful at conversion or "outing" (other pre-existing non-believers, another chief goal for Maher) than Borat was at pointing a mirror to America remains to be seen. Maher's unrelenting smirk and attitude will be hard for true believers to stomach, with them most likely walking away feeling mocked (and rightfully so, at times). But at the very least, it's safe to say that he is fair and balanced, questioning and mocking those of all walks of life and most all creeds spoken about in the Western world (Hinduism and Buddhism are spared, but considering the "press" they're given locally, that's understandable). And besides, it's success as a "documentary" takes a backseat to its success as entertainment - it's an uproariously good time, and I'll get down on my knees and pray for that any day of the week.

Fletch's Film Rating:

"It's in the hole!"

And then...