Another date night... New Moon

Yes, it's been a while. I've been really busy since school started. Grading the papers of 150 students is a lot harder than 60 students, not to mention the other paperwork and administrative trivia that comes with working at a large high school instead of a small alternative school with 100 students.

Anyway, we were able to have our second "date" since Liam was born, and this time, we went to see New Moon. Yes, I am an adult male, and I have read all four books. So there.

With that out of the way, I can say that the movie was a very faithful adaptation of the book. Enough teen angst for five movies. The 2-hour plus running time was a bit too long, and parts of the movie dragged, but the acting and the characters were mostly spot-on.

The larger budget is clearly evident. The whole movie seems to have more of a Hollywood polish on it. They have clearly made an effort to make the vampires look more like vampires, with the pale skin and wild eye colors.

Props to Taylor Lautner, who almost lost the part of Jacob for this movie because he wasn't "mature enough," so he hit the weight room and proved everyone wrong.

The movie is worth seeing just for the end, when we meet the Volturi, who are basically the head vampires in charge. Michael Sheen is perfectly cast as Aro. He owns this part.

Overall, if you liked the book, you will like the movie. If you didn't like the book, you will find yourself saying "What is this crap?"

Funny article on time travel in the Trek universe

As a longtime Trekker, I appreciated this... Tuesday Morning Quarterback, a football columnist for ESPN, gripes about the overuse of time travel in the Star Trek universe, and his guide to Star Trek time travel lists pretty much every way characters have traveled through time on all the shows and movies. Go to this link and scroll about 3/4 of the way down. This is funny, and makes fun of Trek while still being respectful to the beloved franchise.

Anong the examples: Can you point out where these are from?

• "To travel 78 years into the future, fall into a mysterious naturally occurring band of energy that grants wishes."
• "To go exactly three days backward in time, 'cold start' the warp engines."
• "To travel 300 years into the past, follow an enemy starship that is able to open 'time windows.' After destroying the enemy ship, seeming to strand you in the past, return to the future by flying really fast while the captain says something like, 'Now we'd better return to the future.' "
• "To travel 400 years into Earth's past, fly a spaceship whose engine overheats. To return to the future, fly directly into an atomic bomb test in New Mexico in 1947."

Date Day! HP6 and the Search for Chick-Fil-A

Today was our first real "date" since Liam was born in April. We hired a babysitter, went to the movies and grabbed a late lunch. Then we got back to the house, put Liam in the car and had an interesting evening...

First of all, the movie! "Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince" was nothing but great, as I expected. I know this sounds corny, but we have gotten to know these characters so well in the books as well as the movies, so watching this was almost like getting together with old friends and catching up. The acting, effects, and story didn't disappoint. Jim Broadbent as Horace Slughorn was a great addition to the cast, and Michael Gambon as Dumbledore seems to get better with every movie. Also, this movie was 2 1/2 hours, but it went by really quickly. (Compared to Transformers 2, which was the same length, and just plodded along). David Yates' directing was great, and I am glad he is staying on to do the last two films. Finally, it was great to see a Quidditch match again! My only gripe, which Jaci brought to my attention, and I definitely agree with, is that the narrative didn't flow as well as it did in Part 5. Steve Kloves, who wrote the screenplay for movies 1-4 returns for this movie, but maybe they should have kept Michael Goldenberg, who wrote the screenplay for 5. This was the first time Jaci has been to the movie theater since Liam was born, and I am glad it was a worthwhile outing for her.

Then, with Liam in the car, it was on to lovely York, about a 25 minute drive due west. I wanted to go to Gloria Jean's Coffee, which sells K-cups for my Keurig coffee maker (best father's day present ever!) and since Lancaster doesn't have a Chick-Fil-A, we would stop there for dinner. I don't really understand this, because the Park City Center is a pretty big and busy mall. It even has an Apple store. Yet in the food court, there are three Chinese restaurants, and no Chick-Fil-A. We really like Chick-Fil-A, because their food is good, and it is pretty healthy by fast food standards. All of their sandwiches have fewer than 500 calories. As far as I am concerned, they are much better than Sub-par, I mean Subway, the other fast food chain that claims to be healthy. Unfortunately, they accomplish this with lunchmeat that contains 90 percent water and 10 percent unidentified, artificially flavored meat-like substance. Overall their sandwiches have as much flavor as a block of styrofoam.

Anyway, we went to the York Galleria, which was on the east side of York (closer to us), and hit Gloria Jean's and Walmart for office supplies for Jaci's new job. We went to the food court and found no Chick-Fil-A. After a call to 411, we found out that it was actually in the West Manchester Mall, on the other side of town. We figured that we were already out here, so what's another 15 minutes. So we get to this mall. It was getting late, so Jaci and Liam stayed in the car, and I went in. What an odd sight this mall was. First of all, there was a Walmart next to a Macy's. Also, more than half of the stores were vacant, so this was a semi-dead mall. Of course, the Chick-Fil-A was on the opposite side of the mall from where we parked, so it was a 10 minute walk to get there. Finally, I get there, and the line extends out of the store. Apparently, from conversations I overheard, it was crowded because a movie theater was down the hall, and people snuck the Chick-Fil-A food into the theater. Can't say I blame them. I finally get my food. It was getting dark, and there were some weirdos wandering about, so I walked pretty quickly to get out of there. Internet research has told me that the vacancies (many stores relocated to the newer, nicer Galleria) and young punks at the movie theater have given this mall a bad reputation. Locals call it the West Rapechester Mall. Because I value my life, and I want my son to grow up with a father, suffice it to say that the next time I have a craving for Chick-Fil-A, I will head the other direction to Downingtown. And I really hope they build a restaurant somewhere in the Lancaster area.

5 amusement/theme parks I really want to visit

My final post after my Hersheypark experience. After riding a bunch of great coasters, I want to hit the parks and ride as many top-ranked coasters and record holders as I can. With a small child, it will probably be a very long time before I make it to all of these parks.

If anyone has any opinions or experiences about any of these parks (or other parks), please share them!

1. Cedar Point, Sandusky, Ohio

This is the undisputed coaster capital of the world, with 17 roller coasters. Among the highlights are the Magnum XL-200. Built in 1989, it was the first coaster to break the 200-foot barrier, and it is still supposedly a great ride. Dwarfing this ride is Millennium Force (pictured), which boasts a 300-foot drop at an 85-degree angle. I have heard accounts about people blacking out on this coaster. Even more intense is the Top Thrill Dragster, which launches riders to a staggering 120 mph, before they climbing straight up 420 feet. Of course, what goes up must come down. I don't know if I would be able to handle this one yet.

2. Universal Studios/Islands of Adventure, Orlando, Florida

I have already visited these parks, but I was too much of a wuss to get on any of the coasters. In Islands of Adventure, I hear the Hulk coaster is an incredible ride, Dueling Dragons are a lot of fun, and there is supposedly a roller coaster being built at the park's Harry Potter themed area now under construction. The Universal Studios park has The Mummy, which is supposedly one of the top-rated indoor coasters, and the brand new Rip, Ride and Rockit coaster, which has the world's first non-inverted loop. Google this coaster and you will see what the non-inverted loop looks like.

3. Kings Island, Mason, Ohio

This is another large park, with 15 coasters. The main reason I want to visit this park is for The Beast. When this coaster opened in 1979, it held virtually every record- it was the tallest, fastest and longest. At 7,359 feet, it is still the longest coaster in the U.S., and the ride experience is almost 5 minutes. Among the elements are four tunnels, and two big drops (135 and 141 feet.) The 141 foot drop is a gradual 18-degree drop, but it is a helix that starts out slow, and gradually goes faster and faster until it seems like the coaster is hurtling out of control. It is supposedly one of the most memorable moments on any coaster.

4. Six Flags Great Adventure, Jackson, N.J.

This park is horribly crowded, and I have heard many stories about the park's less-than-savory clientele (line jumpers, New Yorkers, etc.) Still, it boasts a trifecta of what could be three of the greatest coasters on the planet. Nitro is a 230-foot behemoth that is very similar to Apollo's Chariot at Busch Gardens Europe, currently my favorite coaster. Second is El Toro, which many say is the world's best wooden coaster. It is a staggering 181 feet tall, and the first drop is a steep 76 degrees. Many have said this is the best first drop on any coaster. El Toro rockets along at 70 mph, but is silky smooth thanks to prefabricated construction (meaning it is put together in large pieces as opposed to being hammered together by hand, like most woodies). Last but certainly not least is Kingda Ka. At 456 feet and a max speed of 128 mph, it is the world's tallest, fastest roller coaster. Again, I am not sure I can hack this, but it would be nice to brag to people that I have ridden the record holder.

5. Holiday World, Santa Claus, Indiana

This is supposedly one of the great smaller parks, similar to Knoebels. According to the park website, the reasonable $40 admission gets you free parking, free sunscreen and free unlimited soft drinks. It has three of the world's top ranked wooden coasters: The Voyage, The Raven and The Legend. In Amusement Today magazine, The Voyage received more votes than any other coaster, wooden or steel, as the world's best coaster. The coaster has a 154-foot drop, and boasts 24 seconds of airtime, a world record.

Hersheypark v. Dorney Park

Since I have been to the two major theme parks in SE Pennsylvania, I thought I would compare their strengths and weaknesses and figure out which is the better park. Here goes.

Admission: Dorney Park is about $42 for an adult ticket, Hershey is a whopping $52. Parking is $10 for both parks. You can find discounts for both of these parks at different grocery stores and fast food restaurants around the area. Hersheypark is a little bit larger overall, but both parks have a lineup of world-class coasters and both tickets include admission to the on-site waterpark. Because the economy is so lousy and everyone is trying to save money, I will give the edge to the less expensive Dorney Park.

Coasters: This was a tough one. Hershey has 11 coasters, Dorney has 9. Both parks have an older woodie (Thunderhawk/Comet), and Dorney's Thunderhawk is the better of the two. Both have a great inverted coaster (Talon/Great Bear) and Hershey's Great Bear has the slight edge. Dorney is the only park with a 200-foot hypercoaster (Steel Force), and it's an awesome ride. Hydra: The Revenge is a great floorless coaster, which Hersheypark does not have. Hersheypark has limited space, so they had to be a little more creative. Storm Runner is a crazy launch coaster and is a wild, intense ride. Fahrenheit has a 97-degree first drop that goes beyond vertical, and is the best coaster in the park. Also, Hersheypark is the only of the two parks to have modern wooden coasters. Lightning Racer is one of the top woodies I have ridden, and I didn't ride Wildcat because it is supposed to be really rough. Finally, Dorney Park got rid of the Laser and replaced it with a stupid shuttle coaster. Because of its variety of coasters that can please casual coaster riders and daredevils alike, Hersheypark wins by a nose.

Other Rides: Dorney Park has 59, Hersheypark has 62. Both parks have a decent log flume, and a "shoot the chutes" ride. Dorney's White Water Landing has some theming before the big drop. Hershey's Tidal Force has no theming, but is really tall at 100 feet and has a great drop. Both rides will get you completely drenched. Both parks have a good assortment of kiddie rides and what I like to call "spin n' puke" rides (scrambler, pirate ship, rotor, anything that involves repetitive motion.). Dorney has a dedicated kid-themed area called Camp Snoopy. It also has a great River Rapids ride that is long, well-themed and very entertaining. Hershey tore their river rapids ride down to make room for a lazy river and wave pool. Even though Hershey boasts more water rides, Dorney's Wildwater Kingdom is a very large water park with lots of great slides and a long lazy river. The non-coaster rides are easily won by Dorney Park.

Lines: No contest here. During my visit to Dorney, lots of people were in the water park, so there was little to no wait on all of the coasters. Even Steel Force. There was a short wait (10-20 minutes) for the water rides (log flume, White Water Landing). I visited Hershey during the week, and the line times ranged from 5 minutes for Lighting Racer to over an hour for Fahrenheit. Also, there were signs at Fahrenheit for a single riders line (My wife didn't have the stomach for that one), but it was not open! Boooooooo! Thankfully, I encountered no line jumpers at either park. We got through Dorney in half a day and rode each coaster several times. Hersheypark was an all-day affair, and I could only ride each coaster once. Without question, Dorney Park wins here.

Food: Both of these parks have mediocre, overpriced food. If you want a park with delicious food that is reasonably priced, travel about 2 1/2 hours to Knoebels, a great park located in the middle of nowhere. Anyway, both parks have decent sit-down restaurants. I give an edge to Hersheypark because of a better variety of eateries (Subway, Dunkin Donuts, etc.)

Theming and landscaping: Dorney Park is a lot cleaner than it was in previous years, but it still looks rather plain, and there isn't much theming anywhere. Hersheypark is divided into several loosely themed areas, the hilly terrain and waterways throughout the park are scenic, and the landscaping is done well. A dixieland band was making its way around the park, and I made sure to give a shout out to the trombone player. Hersheypark is the easy winner here, but its theming still pales in comparison to Disney, Universal and Busch Gardens Europe.

Staff: Employees were consistently polite and friendly at both parks. The ride ops at Dorney seemed to do a better job getting people on and off the rides. One more complaint, considering the crowds and long waits I experienced at Hershey, they could have filled all the seats on the coasters. I saw Great Bear return to the station with two empty seats in the front row! Another person in line jokingly said that they must have fallen off during the ride. The only ride ops at Hershey who seemed to know what they were doing were on Tidal Force, the shoot the chutes ride. Dorney Park is the clear winner here.

Overall score: Dorney Park 4, Hersheypark 3. Dorney Park wins because of its short lines, semi-reasonable admission price and a good lineup of non-coaster rides. However, I highly recommend both parks. Hershey has a great lineup of coasters, and is very family-friendly. It is busier because many tourists from around the nation visit Hershey, while Dorney is marketed more as a regional park. As for the future, Dorney just had its zoning laws changed, so look for some taller, faster coasters to be built. Hershey is pretty much out of space, so they will have to do something drastic, like expand into the massive parking lot and build a garage, in order to expand. With the economy in its current state, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

R.I.P., Michael Jackson

This was truly a shock to all of us. This really hit home with me, because I grew up listening to "Thriller" and "Bad" on vinyl. I was at the age when I was really starting to enjoy and appreciate music when "Thriller" came out. MJ was the first singer I really became a fan of. I still think "Thriller" is the greatest album ever. Yes, even better than any Beatles album. (say what you will about the White Album, but Ob-La-Di Ob-La-Da and Revolution #9 will always be there.)

We have truly lost one of the greats. He was a true game changer, and like Elvis and the Beatles, redefined music and the music industry as we know it. Like the Beatles, other artists will cite him as an influence for many decades to come. Listening to "Thriller" (the album, not just the song) again, I think it can't be defined in terms of a genre, because it uses bits and pieces of R&B, soul, rock, pop and funk, and blends it all into a musical masterwork. He does the same thing with "Bad," which is a notch below "Thriller," but still a classic. Quincy Jones, who produced both of these albums, also deserves a lot of props.

Also, who could forget the first time we saw him do the moonwalk? Look at 3:40 into this video. Also, the dancing and choreography on the Thriller video is perfect.

Yes, he was a bit on the eccentric side, especially in more recent years. However, I believe he will be remembered for his talents as a musician and a performer rather than the weird stuff he did.

Oscar finally does something right!

The Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences made the biggest change to the Oscars that I can remember in my lifetime... There will now be 10 Best Picture nominees. I think this is a good thing, although I wish thet would have done it last year.

The Academy realizes that they need to bring more commercially successful movies into the mix, especially after many vociferous complaints that "The Dark Knight" was snubbed. I wasn't exactly happy about it either.

So, the hope is that more commercial fare will be nominated, instead of the usual artsy-fartsy Masterpiece Theatre stuff. How many people actually watched "The Reader?" Or will the Academy refuse to pander to the masses and just nominate more of the same boring stuff?

As for what movies could be helped this year, I am not sure because I haven't seen too much. I am told that Pixar's "Up" is a possibility, and people are even talking up "Star Trek." Don't get me wrong, I am a fan, and "Star Trek" was a great movie, but I I don't know if I would call it Best Picture material. It pales in comparison to "TDK" which transcended its popcorn movie conventions and changed the game in so many ways. It is one of the best movies I have ever seen. Director Christopher Nolan says he probably won't continue the "Batman" franchise because it is virtually impossible to top "TDK," and I think Heath Ledger's untimely death may have something to do with it as well.

"Public Enemies" is also a contender now, because it is viewed as an epic movie with the potential for great performances, but appeals to the mainstream.

The studios are bitching about the new rule, and are complaining that the have to make more movies to target Oscar voters and how Oscar campaigns will cost money in these tough economic times. First of all, if times are so tough, why are A-list actors still being paid $25-$30 million? Secondly, why don't they just drop all of the Oscar baiting and campaigns and just make good movies? Look at "The Departed." Scorsese said he didn't care about awards, he and his cast and crew just wanted to make a great movie that people would enjoy, and it won several awards, including Best Picture. Also, After 10 years, Pixar has yet to make a bad movie, and I am pretty sure the main goal of John Lasseter and the gang is to entertain people, not to win awards. Look at how good "Iron Man" was. Also, maybe some good comedy movies may finally get their due respect. Some comedies with sharp writing like "Tropic Thunder," "Shaun of the Dead," and "Borat" could have benefitted under the new rules.

This is probably one of the few times I can say to Sid Ganis and the folks at the Academy, "Job well done."

2009 Audi Q5

This is Audi's newest crossover, meant to compete with the new Mercedes GLK, the BMW X3, and the Lexus RS. It is built on the A4's platform. This is one of the best looking SUVs out there, only surpassed by Cadillac's new SRX. The engine is a 270-hp direct injection V6. In Europe and other global markets, the 211-hp turbo 4 is offered, and with gas prices and the economy being what they are, it would be a good idea for Audi to offer the engine here in the U.S. The price is $37,200, and it is hitting showrooms right now.

2009 Audi A4

The 2009 Audi A4 is an all-new car, and one of my favorites, which explains all of the pictures. The A4 is significantly larger in almost all dimensions, and is now larger than its two major competitors, the BMW 3-series and the Mercedes C-Class. The 2.0 T's engine is more powerful than the 2008 model, and also more fuel-efficient. The reviews are not as enthusiastic about the '09 model because it is not as powerful as its German rivals, and, even though the car starts at $31,000, it can get really expensive really quickly when you start adding options. Overall, although this is an attractive car inside and out, it is no longer a standout when it comes to performance and value.

More cars for the insanely rich: Lamborghini Murcielago LP640

Holy good gravy! Yes, that lime green is a factory color. Pictures don't do this paint job (or this car) justice. Yes, the fuel mileage on this v-12 is 8 city/13 highway, making this the least fuel efficient car you can buy in the U.S. Yes, this guzzler of an engine produces 632 horsepower and propels this car from 0-60 in 3.3 seconds. Yes, this car is said to top 219 mph. It can be yours for $354,000. However, the Lambo folks need to look in the rear view mirror, because the Corvette ZR1 can almost match the Lamborghini's numbers, and do it for about 1/3 of the price. However, this car may stand out in a crowd a little more than a Corvette.

Cars for the filthy rich: Rolls Royce Phantom Drophead

As usual, Frank Kerbeck had his usual lineup of unbelievably expensive cars on display. Rappers, pro athletes and CEOs take notice! The latest from Rolls is the Drophead coupe. The 6.8 liter v12 puts out 453 hp and the nearly three-ton car gets 11 mpg in the city and 18 highway. Many cows and trees gave their lives to create the opulent interior. Base price is an unbelievable $420,000. Add the $3000 gas guzzler tax and the insurance for this car and the result is astronomical. Despite the economic slump, this car is selling well.

Infiniti G convertible

Infiniti answers Lexus with its own hardtop convertible, this one based on the RWD G-series. Power comes from a strong 325-hp V6. This will go on sale in the summer.

2010 Lexus IS250C

Lexus chops the top off of its rear wheel drive IS sedan. The aluminum convertible hardtop is fully automatic and retracts in about 25 seconds. Powertrains and the interior are shared with the IS sedan. This car arrives in the spring.

2010 Lexus RX350

Lexus' popular crossover vehicle is all new for 2010. Every body panel is different, but it's obvious that they don't want to mess with the basic design. The interior is more daring, and it was tough to get pictures of the car on the turntable. Notice the floating center console. The engine gets a slight bump in power, and the all-wheel-drive hardware is all-new. The RX starts at $37,625 and hits showrooms later this month.

The Philly car show - 2009

Last Friday was my annual pilgrimage to the Pennsylvania Convention Center to walk through 500,000 square feet of beautiful new cars. Few things are more fun to me. Supposedly the majority of car show visitors are in the market for a new car. Not me. I just bought a car in December. I have gone to the show every year since I was 12. This year I took the camera and I will be commenting about the newer cars I saw. This year's show had a lot of 2010 cars that won't hit dealerships for a few months, more than I remember seeing in recent memory. I will have a separate post for each car to avoid confusion with the photos I took. Also, about the photos, they were taken with a small handheld digital camera, and most were taken with one hand, and the quality of the pics is so-so.

Christian Bale goes nuts!

I am sure you have heard the 3-plus minute profanity-laced tirade that Christian Bale unleashed on the DP for "Terminator: Salvation." Supposedly, the DP walked into the shot and interrupted the scene while Bale was acting.

Some people may defend Bale, saying he really cares about his profession and takes his work very seriously. Some of these people may even be related to me. I think his behavior is unacceptable. Did the DP make a mistake? Yes. Should Bale have said something to him? Yes. Should Bale have berated him for 3 minutes in front of the crew? Absolutely not. First of all, he sounded like a spoiled child who didn't get his way. Second of all, he wasn't acting like a professional. Those of us in the so-called "real world," meaning those of us who don't have jobs as movie actors, would probably get fired for behavior like that. Someone in an office or factory can't talk to a co-worker like that, and I certainly can't talk to my students like that. Unfortunately, celebrities are allowed to do stuff like this because they are celebrities.

Nevertheless, Bale needs to be careful, because he may end up with a bad-boy image like Mickey Rourke, Russell Crowe, and Colin Farrell, he will have fewer opportunities, and the Academy Awards tend to pass on actors who have these types of problems. Christian Bale is a talented actor, and it would be a shame to see it wasted.

Thoughts on the Super Bowl

As I am waiting for parents to show up for conferences... Here are some thoughts I had on the Super Bowl.

- Journey's new lead singer has a really good voice.

- Jennifer Hudson really belted out the national anthem. Kudos for appearing in such a large spotlight after such a horrible tragedy happened with her family.

- Why does Matt Millen have a job with NBC? As my friend Steve so astutely said, he killed a football team. How can you be considered an expert commentator on the game if you killed a football team? On the other hand, the insights from Bill Belichick, who really broke down the game, were interesting.

- The commercials were a disappointment overall. I chuckled at a few of them, but the only ones I laughed out loud at were the re-enactment of the Mean Joe Greene Coke commercial with Troy Polamalu, and my favorite was this gem from Monster.com. Say what you want about the Budweiser Clydesdales, but as far as I'm concerned, it wouldn't be the Super Bowl without them.

- I like some of Bruce Springsteen's music, and I have about 10 or so of his songs on my iPod, but I wouldn't quite consider myself a fan of the Boss. That having been said, the halftime show was phenomenal. One of the best I can remember in recent memory. I wonder when will be the next time they choose a performer under the age of 50. They are still super cautious after the infamous wardrobe malfunction. I would love to see a younger act like Green Day perform (even though I did see Billie Joe Armstrong masturbate on stage, and it wasn't a pretty sight).

- Oh, yeah, there was a football game, too. I came into this thinking that the Cardinals would pull the upset, because they've never won before, and they wanted it more. Both teams played well, but the Steelers stayed true to their game plan of a bruising defense and ball control. A couple of plays in which Ben Roethlisberger evaded several defenders and still managed to complete the pass were truly amazing. He is maturing into one of the league's better quarterbacks, and I am finally starting to believe he deserves the big-money contract he was awarded.

Kurt Warner and the high-powered offense delivered too, but that didn't happen until the 4th quarter, and by that time, it was too little, too late. Warner was in top form, except for that one interception, which unfortunately led to a score and shifted the momentum of the game. However, the Cards' offense deserves just as much blame as Warner because no one was able to tackle James Harrison, who managed to juke a few players as he huffed and puffed his way to the goal line.

In short, the Steelers outplayed and outcoached the Cardinals, who still put up one hell of an effort.

People are saying this was one of the greatest Super Bowls ever. It was a good one, but the best ones that I can think of in my lifetime were XXV, where the Giants won 20-19 after it all came down to a shanked field goal. (Scott Norwood is still the goat here, but it's not that easy to make a 47-yard field goal.) Also XXXIV was really good, when the Titans lost 23-16 to Kurt Warner and the Rams, and were one yard away from the game-tying touchdown as the clock ran out.

Batman, Nolan get shafted!

Tuesday's Oscar nominations conveyed three things to me:

1. Apparently the Academy wants even fewer people to watch the show this year.

2. The Academy voters are out of touch with American moviegoers.

3. The Oscars are no longer relevant.

That is how upset I am about "The Dark Knight" not being nominated for Best Picture, and Christopher Nolan getting snubbed for director. I have a feeling that Heath Ledger wouldn't be nominated in his unbelievable performance as the Joker if he was still alive. This irks me even more than "Shakespeare In Love" beating out "Saving Private Ryan" for Best Picture.

I haven't seen all of the nominees, but TDK was the best movie I had seen last year. I saw "Benjamin Button," and I thought it was a good movie but not a great movie. It bore a striking resemblance to "Forrest Gump" (possibly because both movies had the same screenwriter), but was a little better because of convincing special effects, and director David Fincher's penchant for witty humor and refusal to let the film get overly sentimental. The bottom line is "TDK" was a better movie.

"The Reader" was supposedly the movie that "stole" TDK's spot. It received mixed reviews, and was supposedly just an okay adaptation of the book.

"Slumdog Millionaire" is this year's "Juno," the little film that surprised everyone. After its sweep at the Golden Globes, it's the favorite to win.

Anyway, back to the travesty that is the "TDK" snub. One could argue that Oscar doesn't want to pander, and the public doesn't always like the best movies... Just because McDonald's sells more food than any other restaurant doesn't make it the best. Still, huge moneymakers like "Titanic" and "LOTR: Return of the King" have been nominated for and have won Oscars. Also, most critics said the film brought the "superhero" genre to another level, and had it on most of their top ten lists. I just believe that the Academy thinks it's too good to have a "comic book movie" among their Best Picture nominees.

Also, Wall-E, another great film, was snubbed, likely because the film was relegated to the Animated Feature category (which it will most likely win), and didn't want a "cartoon" among their Best Picture nominees. By the way, "Wall-E" has a good shot at winning for Best Original Screenplay, aka the Citizen Kane Pulp Fiction consolation prize (since, once again, TDK's screenplay wasn't nominated.)

Once again, the Academy has proven to me that they are mostly interested in big, sprawling epics, and artsy, stuffy films that are too depressing and/or boring to be watched more than once.

However, there were some good picks that came out of this year's mess. Robert Downey Jr. got a nod for "Tropic Thunder," and Taraji P. Henson was recognized for her role as Benjamin Button's adopted mother.

Some people will probably tune in because on Brangelina's nomination. Pitt was nominated for "Benjamin Button" and Jolie for "Changeling."

Still, I am so upset at this point that I am seriously considering not watching the Oscars this year, because I hope this becomes the lowest-rated telecast in Oscar history, and these guys get the message to either wake up and smell what they are shoveling, and/or bring some new, young blood into the Academy's membership rolls.

More random thoughts...

First of all, Warner Bros. and Fox came to an agreement on "Watchmen," so it will be released as scheduled in March! Apparently, Fox will receive a flat fee along with a cut of the gross, and will even get a piece if there are sequels to this movie. I think that's a little too much money because Fox didn't think the movie would be a success and deliberately tried to unload the movie rights, but the point is the movie will release on time!

I watched "Pineapple Express" on DVD and enjoyed it thoroughly. A very original idea, great acting, great story and a good balance of action and comedy. I also disagree with the critics- the movie was not too long.

Finally, my dude of the month (the previous recipient was Niners coach Mike Singletary), Is Chelsey Sullenburger, the pilot of the US Airways jet that landed in the Hudson River the other day. The plane takes off from LaGuardia, and a flock of birds cripples both of the engines. Sullenberger, a former Air Force fighter pilot who flew the F-4, realizes he won't make it to an airport, so he aims for the river. He keeps the plane in one piece during landing, and keeps his composure, making sure everyone exits the plane in a timely fashion. He even checks the plane twice to make sure no one is left behind. Because this guy did his job perfectly, no one on the plane was killed or seriously injured. The next time I am on a plane, I hope this guy is the pilot.

Another list of the greatest performances.

 So, apparently the folks at Total Film Magazine stole my idea, and compiled a list of the 150 greatest performances ever.

I find it interesting that they also came up with the number 150.

Total Film is a British movie magazine, and this publication and its U.K. counterpart Empire Magazine are both great magazines. They are fun to read, and the writers are simply people who love movies, not snotty film critics who only like artsy-fartsy foreign movies, or like the people at Premiere magazine, who are little more than paid shills for the movie studios. These are just a bunch of guys who love movies, and, like me, are more into the big special-effects movies (at least the good ones) and genre movies. The magazine definitely is geared toward guys, though. (One of their lists is the 69 greatest movie sex scenes.)

This was an interesting list, to say the least. Their knowledge of movies is obviously a lot more broad than mine, and there were a lot of performances from older movies on the list which I either need to see or have no desire to see. First of all, here are the performances that were on my list, and their rank on the TF list.

Robert Shaw, Jaws (150)

Christian Bale, American Psycho (148)

Eddie Murphy, Bowfinger (136)

Morgan Freeman, The Shawshank Redemption (134)

Ben Kingsley, Sexy Beast (128)

Ellen Burstyn, Requiem for a Dream (115)

Uma Thurman, Kill Bill (103)

Daniel Craig, Casino Royale (98)

Paul Giamatti, Sideways (96)

Reese Witherspoon, Election (92)

Tom Hanks, Cast Away (91)

Peter Sellers, Dr. Strangelove (80)

Edward Norton, American History X (72)

Frances McDormand, Fargo (71)

Kathy Bates, Misery (65)

Nicolas Cage, Leaving Las Vegas (61)

Brad Pitt, Fight Club (59)!!!!

Johnny Depp, Edward Scissorhands (55)

Leonardo DiCaprio, What’s Eating Gilbert Grape (53)

Anthony Hopkins, The Silence of the Lambs (48)

Sigourney Weaver, Aliens (47)

Samuel L. Jackson, Pulp Fiction (45)

Malcolm McDowell, A Clockwork Orange (41)

Joe Pesci, Goodfellas (37) - it says in this article that Pesci retired from acting... I can’t blame him after “8 Heads in a Duffel Bag.”

Peter Finch, Network (36)

Hilary Swank, Boys Don’t Cry (16)

Al Pacino, The Godfather Part II (4)

Daniel Day-Lewis, There Will be Blood (3)

28 performances in common! Not too shabby.

Their greatest performance of all time was Nicholson in “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.” I have only seen parts of this movie, and that’s why it wasn’t on my list.

There were also several very daring and creative picks I have to give them credit for, like Christopher Guest in “This Is Spinal Tap” (These go to 11!), John Cusack in “Grosse Point Blank” (which I should have put on the list), Sly Stallone for “Rocky,” (ditto), Steve McQueen, the epitome of coolness in “The Great Escape,” (He was on my list for “The Sand Pebbles”), Winona Ryder in the cult classic “Heathers,” Mark Wahlberg as Dirk Diggler in “Boogie Nights,” Harrison Ford as Han Solo in “Star Wars” (A performance he is supposedly ashamed of), Schwarzenegger as the title role in “The Terminator,” Matthew Broderick in “Ferris Buehler’s Day Off,” Steve Martin in “The Man With Two Brains,” and of course, the Brits can’t leave out Sean Connery as James Bond in “Goldfinger,” the quintessential 007 movie. Finally, you know these people know what they are talking about, because Jeff Bridges as The Dude in “The Big Lebowski” earns a spot on the list.

Kudos for putting Daniel Day-Lewis at #3 for “There Will be Blood.” He really was that good.

It looks like each actor can only appear on the list once... I guess that’s why Brando isn’t listed for “The Godfather.” Instead, they recognized him for “On the Waterfront.”

Overall, I think it's a very good list with a wide variety of dates and genres. No list is perfect though... There are a few I disagree with like Kim Basinger in “L.A. Confidential” (was she even acting?) James Spader in “Crash” (the 1996 movie) which was a sick, twisted and downright awful movie. And Ellen Burstyn’s performance in “Requiem for a Dream” was way too low at #115. I would put it in my top five. And out of all of Russell Crowe’s great performances, they recognize the horrendously overrated “Gladiator?!”

Finally, where the hell is Gordon Gekko, the greatest movie character of all time?

12 movies I can't wait to see in 2009

Here are the films I am looking the most forward to this year... Who knows how many of them I will actually see with a baby on the way...

1. Star Trek (5/8)

The good: After Rick Berman ran this franchise into the ground with mediocre series and movies, Trek returns to theaters with J.J. Abrams at the helm, taking on the origin story of Captain Kirk and his crew. As a lifelong Trekker, I have been busting to see this ever since the announcement that the movie would be made. The visuals in the trailer look great, I love the new yet retro look of the Enterprise, and the bridge looks like an Apple Store on crack. Kudos for casting Zachary Quinto as Spock and Simon Pegg as Scotty. I hope this Chris Pine guy can fill the larger-than-life shoes of Jim Kirk.

The bad: The trailer is nonstop action from beginning to end, and I hope the actual movie is not wall-to-wall action, because "Star Trek is about people and emotions." (Gene Roddenberry's exact words). On the other hand, I hope the super hardcore Trekkers give the movie a little bit of latitude and don't expect every little shit detail to be absolutely correct, because this movie, even though it is "Trek," is a re-imagining of the concept. There are already people complaining that the saucer on the Enterprise is the wrong size, and I agree with Shatner that they need to get a life and get out of their parents' basements!

2. Watchmen (3/6?) 

The good: This film, about costumed heroes in an alternate timeline in which the U.S. won the Vietnam War and Nixon is serving his fifth term as president, is based on what many say is the best graphic novel ever created. I am currently 3/4 of the way through it and it has blown me away. The plot, the characters and the artwork is like nothing I have ever seen before. The film has a big enough budget ($130 million) to handle the effects, will be rated R, and has a director (Zack Snyder) who seems to respect the source material. The trailers look damn good!

The bad: Legal problems, particularly a judge's ruling that Fox still owns the rights to the film, and Warner Bros. shouldn't be allowed to release it may delay the film. The result will be millions of pissed off comic book fans and moviegoers, so it would behoove both studios to resolve this dispute ASAFP.

3. Inglorious Basterds (8/21)

The good: Quentin Tarantino directs a film taking place in WWII Europe. He calls the film his version of "The Dirty Dozen." I'm sold!

The bad: Hmmm... I'm thinking....

4. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (7/17)

The good: Director David Yates, who did a great job with "The Order of the Phoenix" returns. Also, I look forward to how a major plot development at the end of the book will turn out on the screen.

The bad: There really isn't anything that can go wrong here.

5. Avatar (12/18)

The good: James Cameron directs his first feature film since "Titanic". That was 11 years ago! Cameron promises a compelling sci-fi script with groundbreaking special effects. I, for one, believe him.

The bad: Multiple production delays and a budget approaching $300 million. This will likely be the most expensive movie ever made. Deja vu, anyone?

6. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (6/26)

The good: The first movie had little substance, but the effects were mind-blowing, and it was an absolute blast to watch. This time around, most of the cast is back, and the budget is up significantly over the first film, so I'm expecting another great popcorn movie.

The bad: Four words, "A Michael Bay Film."

7. Public Enemies (7/1)

The good: Johnny Depp plays John Dillinger, and Christian Bale plays the FBI agent who tries to take him down. I'm sold!

The bad: Michael Mann's last film, "Miami Vice," was a disappointment.

8. Monsters vs. Aliens (3/27)

The good: Good premise, and trailers make the movie look like it will have good action scenes and a lot of laughs. Dreamworks' animation department has been underwhelming lately, churning out "Shrek" sequels, and movies with groups of cute CGI animals that have mostly been 90-minute strings of pop-culture references and little actual plot. This film looks like a refreshing break from this. And Colbert plays the President of the United States!

The bad: The trailers have a few too many flatulence jokes for my tastes, and I hope this doesn't carry over to the movie.

9. X-Men Origins: Wolverine (5/1)

The good: Takes the best character from the X-Men movies and gives him his own story. Hugh Jackman says he loves playing this role.

The bad: Have the X-Men films worn out their welcome? Also, if "Watchmen" gets delayed as a result of the judge ruling that Fox has the rights to the film, many fans promised to boycott this movie, released by Fox.

10. Terminator: Salvation (5/22)

The good: Trailers look great, and the post-apocalyptic storyline looks compelling. Christian Bale portrays John Connor. I'm sold!

The bad: Can a Terminator movie work without Schwarzenegger? And former music video director McG, who was a grade-A hack on the awful Charlie's Angels films, redeemed himself with "We Are Marshall," but he is still a question mark in my book.

11. The Wolf Man (11/6)

The good: Now is a good time for a remake of this film, and they wisely decided to keep the setting in 1880s London. Also, the screenplay is co-written by Andrew Kevin Walker, who wrote "Se7en" and gave an uncredited rewrite to "Fight Club." Legendary makeup artist Rick Baker, who was responsible for the shocking transformations in the now classic "An American Werewolf in London" is also working on this film.

The bad: The film was moved from February to November, possibly because of production and/or marketing problems.

12. Untitled Bruno Project (5/15)

The good: "Borat" was one of the funniest movies ever made. In "Bruno," Sascha Baron Cohen is back, this time as a gay Austrian fashion reporter who wants to start a TV show in America. Supposedly "Bruno" uses the same mockumentary filmmaking approach, in which unsuspecting people who are interviewed appear in the movie. Cohen supposedly even made it on to the set of the TV show "Medium" in character, and this footage may or may not appear in the film.

The bad: This type of film was funny once, but could it work a second time?

Deliberately NOT on this list:

2012: Yet another special effects-laden disaster movie from Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin, which I am sure will have about as much depth as a puddle on a sidewalk.

Sherlock Holmes: Robert Downey Jr. is now an A-list star and a good choice to play such a legendary role, but Guy Ritchie should not be directing anything, let alone a big-budget star vehicle. 

The year in movies... A wrap-up

I don't have enough movies to fill a top 10 list, so I will just list my favorites of the year. I hope the Academy decides to recognize more mainstream films as opposed to the usual sprawling epics, period pieces, and artsy-fartsy stuff, because many of this year's summer films have been better and smarter than ever.

"Iron Man": Concentrates more on characters than effects and action, but still is very entertaining. Robert Downey Jr. is perfectly cast.

"The Dark Knight": The best movie of the year, and the ultimate superhero/comic book movie. The intricate plot and complex characterizations, along with some bang-up action sequences make this an unforgettable film. If Chris Nolan decides to make a third movie, he will be hard pressed to top this. If the Academy doesn't give this movie nods for supporting actor (the late Heath Ledger), director, and picture, they should be ashamed of themselves.

"Tropic Thunder": The funniest movie of the year was a great spoof of war movies and viciously poked fun at the shallowness of the movie industry. Robert Downey Jr.'s performance in blackface was one of the many highlights of the film (take notice, Oscar!). Also, the appearance of a certain A-list movie actor as a chubby, balding movie producer was hilarious, though not the career reviver that many people thought it was.

"WALL-E": I wasn't exactly gushing over this when I saw this in the movie theater, but I enjoyed it more and better appreciated the film's intricacies after repeat viewings. WALL-E was visually stunning, and had a great plot despite the limited use of dialogue. The film also communicates a very clear, but not heavy-handed message about the environment.

"Cloverfield": Very clever and creative look at a gigantic creature attacking New York through the eyes of ordinary people. Fun to watch and very scary. Also, the effects were top-notch considering the $25 million budget.

"Hellboy II": See below.

I can't really come up with a worst movies list, since I only saw two truly bad movies this year... "The Happening" and "Be Kind Rewind." I will spare you the details and just advise you to avoid these movies at all costs, although "The Happening" is often so bad it's funny.

Instead, I will give you my biggest disappointments of the year. Here goes...

"Jumper": It looked like a great premise, with a great concept, cool effects and a decent director (Doug Liman). Instead, we get a barely watchable film with a cliched plot, unlikable characters and lousy acting. The film leaves room for a sequel that will never be seen. I am not shedding any tears.

"Indiana Jones and the Lame Space Aliens": Not horrible, but a huge waste of time and money. This movie should not have been made, because it screws up an otherwise great trilogy. The South Park episode on this movie pretty much sums it up.

"Zack and Miri Make a Porno": I thought Seth Rogen's everyman charm and improvisational off-the-cuff acting style would be a perfect match for Kevin Smith's style of moviemaking. Instead, it looks like Smith is trying to make his version of a Judd Apatow movie, except this movie isn't nearly as funny as "The 40-Year-Old Virgin" or "Knocked Up," and the romance between the characters seems saccahrine and artificial.

I guess it's about time I added something...

School is about to start up again on Monday, so I probably should post something while I have the time.

I watched "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button," the first movie I have seen in some time. I enjoyed the movie, liked the concept, and would recommend it, but it didn't knock my socks off. The effects were unbelievable. You couldn't tell what was makeup and what was CGI. Everything looked totally realistic, and the best special effects are the ones you don't notice. Also, Brad Pitt was great, and it's evident that David Fincher is now one of the top film directors out there.

However, the story was a little too much like "Forrest Gump." Both movies were an epic journey through time, but this time it was with someone who ages in reverse rather than a mentally handicapped person. It went for the heartstrings at times, but never went overboard (see Adams, Patch). Again, a good movie, but not particularly memorable and not one of the best of the year.

On DVD, I finally got to watch "Hellboy II." Loved it. A huge improvement over its prequel. Now that director Guillermo Del Toro has made a name for himself ("Pan's Labyrinth" was unbelievably good), the studio let him have free rein on this film. The plot, about an ancient feud between humans and elves was compelling, the characters were well-developed and quite funny at times, and the creatures and effects were great. Del Toro's imagination and creativity are as good as ever here, and he makes the most out of the modest (by today's standards) $80 million budget. I really hope another sequel is on the way, because a lot of plot lines are deliberately left up in the air. And I can't wait to see what he does with "The Hobbit."