This probably won't be too long of an entry, since the show was, for the most part, blah. It was overlong and boring, and there wasn't a single major upset. Since I haven't seen many of the movies, I won't get into whether so and so deserved to win. Here are some various thoughts about the show:
The host: I think Neil Patrick Harris is very talented, and from what I can tell, he seems like a genuinely nice person and a dad who loves his kids. I really wanted to like him here and say he did a good job, but, unfortunately, I can't. The song and dance number, as expected, was great, but, overall, many of his jokes were corny, his interactions with the audience were awkward, and his "Oscar predictions" magic trick fell flat and wasted time as an already overlong show was trying to end. He didn't lay a total egg like, say, James Franco, but he just wasn't that good, and was a big step down from Ellen DeGeneres, who did a wonderful job last year.
The winners: I stand corrected. My prediction about "Boyhood" didn't come true, because "Birdman" won most of the major guild awards, and there was even some undeserved backlash about "Boyhood," with comments like "If I was given 12 years, I can make an Oscar-winning movie too." I look forward to seeing "Birdman," because I hear it is a well-constructed and well-acted film, although I hear it's a bit artsy-fartsy.
The presenters: As many people pointed out, all 20 acting nominees were white. I warned that the Oscar voters will overcompensate next year, likely nominating mediocre performances as long as they can get some blacks on next year's Oscar ballots so they can make up for this year. What I didn't realize was going to happen was that the overcompensation would start at the ceremony. There were 15, yes, 15 black presenters at the ceremony. This was no accident.
The soapbox: That is what the microphone became for Oscar winners because several winners aired their political beliefs. I am on the fence on this. Many of the issues the winners brought up had some connection to the movies they were involved with. Common and John Legend won for "Glory" from the movie "Selma" and almost had to say something about the continuing struggle for equal rights. Patricia Arquette spoke about wage inequality, having played a single mother in "Boyhood." Again, I am on the fence, because the Oscar stage is not a soapbox, but these are relevant issues that were brought up in these movies, so I will give them a pass. However, every winner was given raucous applause, a stark contrast to Michael Moore, who rightfully accused George W. Bush of waging a phony war during his acceptance speech for "Fahrenheit 9/11" many years ago, and was booed off the stage. I was touched by Best Adapted Screenplay winner Graham Moore talk about his attempted suicide and tell us all to embrace our weirdness. It almost took away my anger after "Whiplash" didn't win this category.
The orchestra: This was the night the winners said F--- you to the orchestra. Apparently at least two winners couldn't care less that they were getting played off, because they just kept on talking. They both had meaningful things to say about their families and the issues their films dealt with, and I admire their rebellious spirit. My advice to the director- next time, just kill the microphone.
The songs: "Everything is Awesome" from the Lego Movie was a lot of fun to watch and listen to. The aforementioned John Legend and Common gave an emotional performance of "Glory," which was the deserving winner. Tim McGraw did a fine job of singing a song Glen Campbell wrote to his family about his battle with Alzheimer's. The other two songs were boring.
The diva: I am referring, of course, to the one and only Lady Gaga. I was very impressed with her vocal ability singing a medley from "The Sound of Music." I bet NBC wishes they had hired her instead of Carrie Underwood when they aired a live version of the musical. However, not to take from Gaga's wonderful performance, but there was no particular reason to make this a part of the show, and it added 10 minutes to an already overlong show. This is one of the reasons the show went 40 minutes long.
The stiffs: First of all, the audience was told during the commercial to hold their applause until the entire dead person montage was over, taking away one of the most delightfully tacky parts of the show in which some dead people get more applause than other dead people. Nonetheless, Robin Williams and Mike Nichols managed to get some applause. Despite the lame excuses made by the Academy, the omissions of Joan Rivers and Elaine Stritch are inexcusable. And where the hell was Jon Lovitz? Finally, Jennifer Hudson comes out afterwards and sings some song from the cancelled "Smash" TV show. She sounded great, but again, this added 4 minutes. This is another reason the show went 40 minutes long.
The insult: When Sean Penn awarded "Birdman" Best Picture, he made the comment "How did this son of a bitch get his green card?" referring to director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu. Many people screamed "racism!", saying things like "This only confirms even more that the Oscars are a white man's ceremony." I just saw it as one friend busting on another friend. The two worked together on "21 Grams" and have been together ever since. Inarritu even said he thought the comment was "hilarious."
The supporrting actor award, won by J.K. Simmons for "Whiplash": All I have to say is this: Good job.
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
Sunday, February 15, 2015
Taking on snotty jazz aficionados who didn't like Whiplash! *SPOILERS*
"Whiplash" is a great movie. J.K. Simmons is a shoo-in to win the supporting actor Oscar for his unbelievable performance, and the screenplay has a decent shot at winning as well. Personally, for lack of a better term, the movie blew me away. It is the best movie I have seen in a while. The acting and story are intense and thought-provoking, and it is about one of my favorite genres of music - jazz. However, some movie critics, and snotty people who claim to be jazz experts have beaten up on the movie. This annoys me because jazz is not a mainstream genre. This movie could get more people interested in this great form of music, especially high school and college students. Even though this movie is helping to increase awareness of jazz music, a few stuck-up jerks have seen fit to criticize this movie. I am going to present some of the arguments from movie critics and jazz "experts" and proceed to do what I do best- shoot them the hell down. By the way, there will be some spoilers ahead, so don't read this if you haven't seen the movie.
The way jazz music is taught and learned in the movie is completely wrong!
No f---ing s---, Sherlock! No one ever said this movie was a primer on how to teach jazz. Many people argued that J.K. Simmons' character was teaching solely for technical mastery. This is obviously not the best way to teach jazz, but I have seen it done before. As a matter of fact, one of the jazz bands my band competed against in high school was infamous for it. Obviously, constantly belittling your students is obviously not a good way to teach anything, although I have seen teachers of all subjects do this. It is important to remember that this is a movie, a work of fiction. More specifically, it is a psychological thriller focusing on the relationship between the two main characters, which happens to use a college jazz band as a backdrop. As director Damien Chazelle said, "This movie is as much about jazz music as 'Titanic' was about avoiding icebergs."
That Charlie Parker story is all wrong.
An anecdote frequently retold in the movie goes something like this. Charlie Parker goofed a solo, and drummer Jo Jones threw a cymbal at his head, nearly decapitating him. Because of this, Charlie Parker practiced harder, came back and played an unbelievable solo, and became Bird. In real life, supposedly, Parker was off tempo, and Jones effectively "gave him the gong" by throwing the cymbal on the ground. Again, I will stress that this movie is a work of fiction. So the story was changed slightly for dramatic effect. I don't see what the big deal is, and either way, many people agree that this incident was one of the events that led to Charlie Parker becoming the greatest jazz saxophonist ever. (sorry, Kenny G fans).
Why would the main character have Buddy Rich as a role model? He wasn't a musician, he was a TV and radio personality, a "loud and insensitive technical whiz". Also, he was a complete jerk to his band members.
Where do I begin with this one? Much of this snark comes from Richard Brody, a widely respected film critic for the New Yorker. This is his opinion, but I particularly disagree with his opinions about jazz, and he comes off as just another conceited New York know-it-all. This really struck a nerve with me, because, thanks to listening to tapes from my "Uncle" Jack Conboy, I have been a huge fan of Buddy Rich since I started listening to jazz as a child. He is one of my favorite jazz musicians, and I'm not even a drummer! He is more than just a technical player and a TV personality. He is exactly what his nickname says he is- The World's Greatest Drummer. He could do things on a drum kit that no one did or will ever do. He still outplays today's drummers with giant sets and double bass pedals. Although he did have the tendency to show off sometimes with one-handed drum rolls and the like, Buddy Rich's legacy was much, much more than that. His technique as well as his style are perfect. If you need convincing, just listen to the "West Side Story Medley." He was a better drummer than Roach or Krupa. He completely blew both of them away in the famous "drum battles". Today's best drummers (IMO), like Neal Peart, Questlove, Bill Bruford, Steve Smith, Lars Ulrich and Carter Beauford, don't even come close. Peart even admits to this. Despite what Mr. Brody says, Buddy Rich's drumming was not all loud and insensitive. He doesn't just sit there and bash the drums like many rock drummers do. His solos, such as that in the "West Side Story Medley" have shape. Like a good book or movie, his solos slowly build to an explosive ending. Rich has influenced and continues to influence jazz and rock drummers to this day. I have found that most jazz critics tend to bash music that is loud and in your face, and seem to assume that all jazz should be played by quartets in smoke-filled clubs. "In your face" jazz from performers like Buddy Rich and Maynard Ferguson is entertaining and easy to get into and enjoy, and got me interested in jazz when I was a teenager. Later on, I was better able to appreciate musicians like Sonny Rollins and Miles Davis, that, one can argue, are more of an acquired taste. Finally, there is no denying the fact that Buddy Rich was a nasty cuss, as the famous "bus tapes" demonstrate (The Buddy Rich tirade (NSFW) set to the music of Neal Hefti's "Cute" is particularly hilarious). But, the thing is, Buddy was so great, and demanded the same excellence from his band, that one could argue that he earned the right to be the way he was. Finally, Buddy constantly lambasted his band members, and Fletcher (J.K. Simmons' character) often launched tirades on members of his band. I don't think this is a coincidence.
Your hands don't bleed when you play drums (unless you are holding the sticks the wrong way).
No, they don't. But, once again, this is a work of fiction, and certain elements of the story may be exaggerated for dramatic effect. I don't have a problem with this.
The quality of the drumming in this movie is mediocre at best.
Again, I am not a drummer. If I were a drummer, my feelings may be different. As a musician, I think Miles Teller, who did almost all of his own drumming in the movie, did a fantastic job. Before this movie, Teller had some experience as a rock drummer. He even admitted he didn't know how to grip the sticks correctly. This movie was made on a very short shooting schedule so it could premiere at the Sundance Film Festival. As a result, Teller only had a couple of days to practice before they started shooting the movie. The bottom line is that Teller is an actor. He played the part of a jazz drummer, and part of this role included drumming. As an actor, he convinced me and many others that his character was a great drummer.
Why are there no black or female musicians in the movie?
Yes, one critic even plays the race card. I wholeheartedly agree that many of jazz's pioneers and innovators were and are African American. Many music historians say jazz traces its origins back to the songs slaves sang in their masters' fields. However, the fact is that most big bands in American colleges and universities are almost entirely comprised of white males. If you don't believe me, go to the websites of different colleges and look at the pictures of the bands. If they weren't holding instruments, you might confuse them with the Young Republicans club. And, by the way, one of the musicians in the movie was a woman, even though she was quickly dismissed by J.K. Simmons' character.
"Able to infuse every scene with a sense of immediacy and electricity, you'll marvel at just how accomplished an indie feature this is."
Finally, someone gets the idea. Leave it to Joblo.com.
The way jazz music is taught and learned in the movie is completely wrong!
No f---ing s---, Sherlock! No one ever said this movie was a primer on how to teach jazz. Many people argued that J.K. Simmons' character was teaching solely for technical mastery. This is obviously not the best way to teach jazz, but I have seen it done before. As a matter of fact, one of the jazz bands my band competed against in high school was infamous for it. Obviously, constantly belittling your students is obviously not a good way to teach anything, although I have seen teachers of all subjects do this. It is important to remember that this is a movie, a work of fiction. More specifically, it is a psychological thriller focusing on the relationship between the two main characters, which happens to use a college jazz band as a backdrop. As director Damien Chazelle said, "This movie is as much about jazz music as 'Titanic' was about avoiding icebergs."
That Charlie Parker story is all wrong.
An anecdote frequently retold in the movie goes something like this. Charlie Parker goofed a solo, and drummer Jo Jones threw a cymbal at his head, nearly decapitating him. Because of this, Charlie Parker practiced harder, came back and played an unbelievable solo, and became Bird. In real life, supposedly, Parker was off tempo, and Jones effectively "gave him the gong" by throwing the cymbal on the ground. Again, I will stress that this movie is a work of fiction. So the story was changed slightly for dramatic effect. I don't see what the big deal is, and either way, many people agree that this incident was one of the events that led to Charlie Parker becoming the greatest jazz saxophonist ever. (sorry, Kenny G fans).
Why would the main character have Buddy Rich as a role model? He wasn't a musician, he was a TV and radio personality, a "loud and insensitive technical whiz". Also, he was a complete jerk to his band members.
Where do I begin with this one? Much of this snark comes from Richard Brody, a widely respected film critic for the New Yorker. This is his opinion, but I particularly disagree with his opinions about jazz, and he comes off as just another conceited New York know-it-all. This really struck a nerve with me, because, thanks to listening to tapes from my "Uncle" Jack Conboy, I have been a huge fan of Buddy Rich since I started listening to jazz as a child. He is one of my favorite jazz musicians, and I'm not even a drummer! He is more than just a technical player and a TV personality. He is exactly what his nickname says he is- The World's Greatest Drummer. He could do things on a drum kit that no one did or will ever do. He still outplays today's drummers with giant sets and double bass pedals. Although he did have the tendency to show off sometimes with one-handed drum rolls and the like, Buddy Rich's legacy was much, much more than that. His technique as well as his style are perfect. If you need convincing, just listen to the "West Side Story Medley." He was a better drummer than Roach or Krupa. He completely blew both of them away in the famous "drum battles". Today's best drummers (IMO), like Neal Peart, Questlove, Bill Bruford, Steve Smith, Lars Ulrich and Carter Beauford, don't even come close. Peart even admits to this. Despite what Mr. Brody says, Buddy Rich's drumming was not all loud and insensitive. He doesn't just sit there and bash the drums like many rock drummers do. His solos, such as that in the "West Side Story Medley" have shape. Like a good book or movie, his solos slowly build to an explosive ending. Rich has influenced and continues to influence jazz and rock drummers to this day. I have found that most jazz critics tend to bash music that is loud and in your face, and seem to assume that all jazz should be played by quartets in smoke-filled clubs. "In your face" jazz from performers like Buddy Rich and Maynard Ferguson is entertaining and easy to get into and enjoy, and got me interested in jazz when I was a teenager. Later on, I was better able to appreciate musicians like Sonny Rollins and Miles Davis, that, one can argue, are more of an acquired taste. Finally, there is no denying the fact that Buddy Rich was a nasty cuss, as the famous "bus tapes" demonstrate (The Buddy Rich tirade (NSFW) set to the music of Neal Hefti's "Cute" is particularly hilarious). But, the thing is, Buddy was so great, and demanded the same excellence from his band, that one could argue that he earned the right to be the way he was. Finally, Buddy constantly lambasted his band members, and Fletcher (J.K. Simmons' character) often launched tirades on members of his band. I don't think this is a coincidence.
Your hands don't bleed when you play drums (unless you are holding the sticks the wrong way).
No, they don't. But, once again, this is a work of fiction, and certain elements of the story may be exaggerated for dramatic effect. I don't have a problem with this.
The quality of the drumming in this movie is mediocre at best.
Again, I am not a drummer. If I were a drummer, my feelings may be different. As a musician, I think Miles Teller, who did almost all of his own drumming in the movie, did a fantastic job. Before this movie, Teller had some experience as a rock drummer. He even admitted he didn't know how to grip the sticks correctly. This movie was made on a very short shooting schedule so it could premiere at the Sundance Film Festival. As a result, Teller only had a couple of days to practice before they started shooting the movie. The bottom line is that Teller is an actor. He played the part of a jazz drummer, and part of this role included drumming. As an actor, he convinced me and many others that his character was a great drummer.
Why are there no black or female musicians in the movie?
Yes, one critic even plays the race card. I wholeheartedly agree that many of jazz's pioneers and innovators were and are African American. Many music historians say jazz traces its origins back to the songs slaves sang in their masters' fields. However, the fact is that most big bands in American colleges and universities are almost entirely comprised of white males. If you don't believe me, go to the websites of different colleges and look at the pictures of the bands. If they weren't holding instruments, you might confuse them with the Young Republicans club. And, by the way, one of the musicians in the movie was a woman, even though she was quickly dismissed by J.K. Simmons' character.
"Able to infuse every scene with a sense of immediacy and electricity, you'll marvel at just how accomplished an indie feature this is."
Finally, someone gets the idea. Leave it to Joblo.com.
Sunday, January 25, 2015
My take on the 2015 Oscar nominations
The awards season, as Drew Carey so accurately put it, is a bunch of people making millions of dollars patting each other on the back. Still, I am fascinated by the Oscars, and predicting their outcome. Why am I so engaged by such masturbatory self-fulfillment? First of all, because I find it entertaining, and secondly, I do think the Oscars has some value because they sometimes get people to watch smaller films (like Whiplash), and see great films and great actors that may never have seen otherwise.
Here are some opinions and projections for what will happen during the big show. Keep in mind that I have only seen 3 of the 8 nominees (better than the 0 I saw last year), and a lot of this is based on what I am reading, and general trends I have seen from past Oscar ceremonies.
Best picture: I will talk briefly about the three movies I have seen.
The Grand Budapest Hotel: I liked this movie a lot. The film, about the concierge and lobby boy of an Eastern European hotel, is full of witty moments and black humor and had me laughing out loud at times, but it also does a good job at crafting characters and their relationships. It is directed by Wes Anderson, so it obviously incorporates his distinctive directing style with whimsical, colorful set pieces, and trademark shots of people in the center of the frame looking directly at the camera. I can guarantee you that if you didn't like Anderson's other movies, you will not like this one. This is a deserving first nomination for Anderson, but this film has no chance of winning the big prize.
Whiplash: My personal favorite movie of the year, and the best movie I have seen in a long time. Yes, it's that good. This film is about a drummer at a jazz conservatory who tries to win the approval of a tyrannical band director. I immediately connected to this movie, because it was about one of my other true passions (besides movies): jazz music. However, this movie is about more than jazz. This is about a young man doing anything and everything he can to win someone else's approval. This is definitely not one of those typical awards bait triumph-of-the-human-spirit movies. You will understand what I mean when you watch it. As you've probably heard, J.K. Simmons gives the standout performance here as band director Terence Fletcher. Simmons, who, until now, was best known as well-coiffed newspaper editor J. Jonah Jameson from the Tobey Maguire Spider Man movies, portrays a character who is manipulative, frightening and purely evil at times, but you understand his motivation. Simmons is the front-runner for supporting actor, and it would be an understatement to say this is well-deserved. I don't think this will win best picture, for the reasons I explain below when I talk about "Boyhood."
Boyhood: This movie follows a young man through 12 years of his life. However, this was not done with different actors, makeup or any other kind of movie magic. The crew got together once every year over a 12-year period. In other words, it took 12 years to make this movie, so the aging of the characters is 100% real. I thoroughly enjoyed watching Boyhood, but I can't go so far as to say I loved it. Some critics say nothing really happened in the movie, but I agree with director Richard Linklater's argument that childhood is made up of many small moments. I though it dragged a little bit, and it delves a little too much into artsy-fartsy existentialism towards the end of the movie. This was the same type of dialogue that made me turn Linklater's film Before Sunrise off after 30 minutes. Nevertheless, it all seemed to have a degree of realism that you don't usually see in movies. Someone I know said the story got a lot of details right as to what happens when there is a divorce, and the movie really hit home with him. (Director Linklater is a child of divorced parents). The performances from Ethan Hawke, and especially Patricia Arquette, who is likely to win for supporting actress, are believable and moving. Ellar Coltrane, who plays the main character, also grew up into quite a good actor. Boyhood is now the favorite to win best picture, and will win because Oscar voters like to see Something That Has Never Been Done Before. That is why Forrest Gump, a mediocre movie, beat The Shawshank Redemption and Pulp F------- Fiction to win best picture, and that is why Titanic brought home a boatload of Oscars (no pun intended). Because this is a well acted and well-executed movie, I am sure it will win Best Picture becasuse it is, like I said, Something That Has Never Been Done Before.
The Selma Snubs: I have yet to see "Selma," and I hear the movie and the performances are top-notch. However, its only nominations are for Best Picture and Best Original Song. Its director and actors were not nominated, and, as a result, all 20 acting nominees are white folks. Whoops. A few theories as to Selma's failure to earn more nominations are being thrown around: The Academy is made up of too many old white men, The movie plays fast and loose with history (apparently people forget what the term dramatic license means), the cast and directors are newcomers and aren't familiar to Academy members, etc. The one that makes sense to me is that the studio released the movie at the last minute, and it wasn't able to get screeners to the Academy Members in a timely fashion. Unlike the HFPA and the Golden Globes, members of the Academy actually like to watch movies before nominating them, and not enough members were actually able to see the movie.
As I mentioned, the acting nominees are whiter than the Republican Party. Not only is it unfortunate that they didn't nominate one of many worthy performances by minorities this year, but this also means they will probably overcompensate next year, meaning that every somewhat decent or even mediocre performance by a minority will be nominated, and it will end up like the year that Halle Berry won for Monster's Ball (the sole decent performance by a horrible actress), and Denzel Washington won for Training Day (good, but not his best, he should won for Philadelphia or Malcolm X).
Other snubs:
Amy Adams: Critics say that her performance in "Big Eyes" is one of her best. Poor Amy is becoming the female Leonardo DiCaprio. Five nominations, no wins, and she couldn't even snag a nomination this year.
The Lego Movie: This is the one most people are bitching about. I haven't seen it, but it was reviewed well by critics, and lots of people went to see it. Many people were shocked this wasn't one of the 5 nominated films, and the movie's director even built his own Oscar out of Legos.
Miles Teller: J.K. Simmons may have had the flashier role in "Whiplash," but Downingtown native Teller, who played the main character in this movie, also deserves some recognition. Without giving anything away, the motivation of this character is very clear, and you can almost feel the struggle he goes through as he tries to reach his goal. You will see a lot more of this young actor in the future, and I am not just talking about the stupid Divergent movie series.
Guardians of the Galaxy: I realize it will be a cold day in hell before the Academy nominates a comic book/superhero movie for anything besides technical awards, but this space adventure suprised everyone with how entertaining and well-crafted it actually was. I personally believe writer/director James Gunn should have received a nomination for best adapted screenplay. Yes, the screenplay is mostly formula (a group of good guys, a bad guy and Yondu, a.k.a. Blue Merle, look for a powerful shiny thing). But this screenplay is full of intelligent touches, memorable characters, pop culture references, and a ton of irreverent humor that made this movie a blast to watch. And we can't forget the funky '70s "awesome mix" soundtrack.
Life Itself: The snub that irked me the most was the documentary on the life of film critic Roger Ebert. Skillfully directed by Steve James, who also directed the unforgettable "Hoop Dreams," this gives as full and well-rounded a picture of Ebert's life as one possibly can in 2 hours. It pulls no punches, detailing his early days as a journalist during which, according to others, he was an obnoxious, pompous ass, as well as his fight against cancer, during which his boneless, rubbery jaw hangs from his face, rendering him unable to talk, and necessitating the use of a keyboard to communicate. I admire Ebert's courage as he doesn't hesitate to show what cancer has done to his body, as opposed to many celebrities who hide from the public. The documentary also does a great job showing Ebert's relationship with his late TV partner, Gene Siskel. Although the two were adversaries from competing papers in Chicago and certainly were not friends, you always sensed mutual respect between the two critics. Finally, you get to see what a truly kind woman Chaz Ebert, Roger's wife, is. They have a strong, loving marriage that started at an AA meeting, of all places. This missing nomination is a mystery to all, because this was supposed to be a frontrunner in the documentary feature category. Furthermore, Ebert was always an advocate for this form of filmmaking, frequently promoting and praising many documentary films. You would think some of these directors would show their appreciation.
Other observations besides snubs:
Meryl Streep: This legendary actress picks up an unprecedented 19th nomination. Some people have said "Into the Woods" isn't that good, and she was nominated just for being Meryl Streep. In my opinion, you can't criticize anyone with this many accolades, especially because she is so modest and appreciative. It will only be a matter of time before we see nomination number 20.
Best song nominees: After last year's lineup which included a couple of genuine pop hits, and a little-known tune called "Let It Go," this year's slate of nominees, comparatively speaking, aren't the most exciting bunch of songs I've ever heard. Maybe they will just play snippets, as they have done in past years.
Award for Outstanding Performance by an Old Fart: Every year, there seems to be an award that goes to an elderly, well-respected actor just for appearing in a movie. This year it is octogenarian Robert Duvall for his performance in The Judge. I heard that this was a decent performance in an otherwise lousy movie. Clint "I talk to chairs" Eastwood doesn't count this time because he was only nominated for director.
I will be back after the Oscars to give a recap of the night's events. Please comment if you have any other snubs, surprises or opinions you want to discuss.
Here are some opinions and projections for what will happen during the big show. Keep in mind that I have only seen 3 of the 8 nominees (better than the 0 I saw last year), and a lot of this is based on what I am reading, and general trends I have seen from past Oscar ceremonies.
Best picture: I will talk briefly about the three movies I have seen.
The Grand Budapest Hotel: I liked this movie a lot. The film, about the concierge and lobby boy of an Eastern European hotel, is full of witty moments and black humor and had me laughing out loud at times, but it also does a good job at crafting characters and their relationships. It is directed by Wes Anderson, so it obviously incorporates his distinctive directing style with whimsical, colorful set pieces, and trademark shots of people in the center of the frame looking directly at the camera. I can guarantee you that if you didn't like Anderson's other movies, you will not like this one. This is a deserving first nomination for Anderson, but this film has no chance of winning the big prize.
Whiplash: My personal favorite movie of the year, and the best movie I have seen in a long time. Yes, it's that good. This film is about a drummer at a jazz conservatory who tries to win the approval of a tyrannical band director. I immediately connected to this movie, because it was about one of my other true passions (besides movies): jazz music. However, this movie is about more than jazz. This is about a young man doing anything and everything he can to win someone else's approval. This is definitely not one of those typical awards bait triumph-of-the-human-spirit movies. You will understand what I mean when you watch it. As you've probably heard, J.K. Simmons gives the standout performance here as band director Terence Fletcher. Simmons, who, until now, was best known as well-coiffed newspaper editor J. Jonah Jameson from the Tobey Maguire Spider Man movies, portrays a character who is manipulative, frightening and purely evil at times, but you understand his motivation. Simmons is the front-runner for supporting actor, and it would be an understatement to say this is well-deserved. I don't think this will win best picture, for the reasons I explain below when I talk about "Boyhood."
Boyhood: This movie follows a young man through 12 years of his life. However, this was not done with different actors, makeup or any other kind of movie magic. The crew got together once every year over a 12-year period. In other words, it took 12 years to make this movie, so the aging of the characters is 100% real. I thoroughly enjoyed watching Boyhood, but I can't go so far as to say I loved it. Some critics say nothing really happened in the movie, but I agree with director Richard Linklater's argument that childhood is made up of many small moments. I though it dragged a little bit, and it delves a little too much into artsy-fartsy existentialism towards the end of the movie. This was the same type of dialogue that made me turn Linklater's film Before Sunrise off after 30 minutes. Nevertheless, it all seemed to have a degree of realism that you don't usually see in movies. Someone I know said the story got a lot of details right as to what happens when there is a divorce, and the movie really hit home with him. (Director Linklater is a child of divorced parents). The performances from Ethan Hawke, and especially Patricia Arquette, who is likely to win for supporting actress, are believable and moving. Ellar Coltrane, who plays the main character, also grew up into quite a good actor. Boyhood is now the favorite to win best picture, and will win because Oscar voters like to see Something That Has Never Been Done Before. That is why Forrest Gump, a mediocre movie, beat The Shawshank Redemption and Pulp F------- Fiction to win best picture, and that is why Titanic brought home a boatload of Oscars (no pun intended). Because this is a well acted and well-executed movie, I am sure it will win Best Picture becasuse it is, like I said, Something That Has Never Been Done Before.
The Selma Snubs: I have yet to see "Selma," and I hear the movie and the performances are top-notch. However, its only nominations are for Best Picture and Best Original Song. Its director and actors were not nominated, and, as a result, all 20 acting nominees are white folks. Whoops. A few theories as to Selma's failure to earn more nominations are being thrown around: The Academy is made up of too many old white men, The movie plays fast and loose with history (apparently people forget what the term dramatic license means), the cast and directors are newcomers and aren't familiar to Academy members, etc. The one that makes sense to me is that the studio released the movie at the last minute, and it wasn't able to get screeners to the Academy Members in a timely fashion. Unlike the HFPA and the Golden Globes, members of the Academy actually like to watch movies before nominating them, and not enough members were actually able to see the movie.
As I mentioned, the acting nominees are whiter than the Republican Party. Not only is it unfortunate that they didn't nominate one of many worthy performances by minorities this year, but this also means they will probably overcompensate next year, meaning that every somewhat decent or even mediocre performance by a minority will be nominated, and it will end up like the year that Halle Berry won for Monster's Ball (the sole decent performance by a horrible actress), and Denzel Washington won for Training Day (good, but not his best, he should won for Philadelphia or Malcolm X).
Other snubs:
Amy Adams: Critics say that her performance in "Big Eyes" is one of her best. Poor Amy is becoming the female Leonardo DiCaprio. Five nominations, no wins, and she couldn't even snag a nomination this year.
The Lego Movie: This is the one most people are bitching about. I haven't seen it, but it was reviewed well by critics, and lots of people went to see it. Many people were shocked this wasn't one of the 5 nominated films, and the movie's director even built his own Oscar out of Legos.
Miles Teller: J.K. Simmons may have had the flashier role in "Whiplash," but Downingtown native Teller, who played the main character in this movie, also deserves some recognition. Without giving anything away, the motivation of this character is very clear, and you can almost feel the struggle he goes through as he tries to reach his goal. You will see a lot more of this young actor in the future, and I am not just talking about the stupid Divergent movie series.
Guardians of the Galaxy: I realize it will be a cold day in hell before the Academy nominates a comic book/superhero movie for anything besides technical awards, but this space adventure suprised everyone with how entertaining and well-crafted it actually was. I personally believe writer/director James Gunn should have received a nomination for best adapted screenplay. Yes, the screenplay is mostly formula (a group of good guys, a bad guy and Yondu, a.k.a. Blue Merle, look for a powerful shiny thing). But this screenplay is full of intelligent touches, memorable characters, pop culture references, and a ton of irreverent humor that made this movie a blast to watch. And we can't forget the funky '70s "awesome mix" soundtrack.
Life Itself: The snub that irked me the most was the documentary on the life of film critic Roger Ebert. Skillfully directed by Steve James, who also directed the unforgettable "Hoop Dreams," this gives as full and well-rounded a picture of Ebert's life as one possibly can in 2 hours. It pulls no punches, detailing his early days as a journalist during which, according to others, he was an obnoxious, pompous ass, as well as his fight against cancer, during which his boneless, rubbery jaw hangs from his face, rendering him unable to talk, and necessitating the use of a keyboard to communicate. I admire Ebert's courage as he doesn't hesitate to show what cancer has done to his body, as opposed to many celebrities who hide from the public. The documentary also does a great job showing Ebert's relationship with his late TV partner, Gene Siskel. Although the two were adversaries from competing papers in Chicago and certainly were not friends, you always sensed mutual respect between the two critics. Finally, you get to see what a truly kind woman Chaz Ebert, Roger's wife, is. They have a strong, loving marriage that started at an AA meeting, of all places. This missing nomination is a mystery to all, because this was supposed to be a frontrunner in the documentary feature category. Furthermore, Ebert was always an advocate for this form of filmmaking, frequently promoting and praising many documentary films. You would think some of these directors would show their appreciation.
Other observations besides snubs:
Meryl Streep: This legendary actress picks up an unprecedented 19th nomination. Some people have said "Into the Woods" isn't that good, and she was nominated just for being Meryl Streep. In my opinion, you can't criticize anyone with this many accolades, especially because she is so modest and appreciative. It will only be a matter of time before we see nomination number 20.
Best song nominees: After last year's lineup which included a couple of genuine pop hits, and a little-known tune called "Let It Go," this year's slate of nominees, comparatively speaking, aren't the most exciting bunch of songs I've ever heard. Maybe they will just play snippets, as they have done in past years.
Award for Outstanding Performance by an Old Fart: Every year, there seems to be an award that goes to an elderly, well-respected actor just for appearing in a movie. This year it is octogenarian Robert Duvall for his performance in The Judge. I heard that this was a decent performance in an otherwise lousy movie. Clint "I talk to chairs" Eastwood doesn't count this time because he was only nominated for director.
I will be back after the Oscars to give a recap of the night's events. Please comment if you have any other snubs, surprises or opinions you want to discuss.
Saturday, November 15, 2014
What's going on at Pixar?
For a while, Pixar could do no wrong. They were cranking out hit after hit. Every single movie they released was not only a commerical success, but also liked by critics as well as parents that were dragged by their kids to the movies.
Recently, I heard some news that had me a little upset. Pixar recently announced that they would start production on "Toy Story 4," which would hit theaters in 2017. Why did this upset me? I will get to that in a minute. But this announcement had me looking at what Pixar has been doing over the last couple of years, and I am afraid they have lost their creative edge. One could even argue they have "sold out."
So why am I uneasy about "Toy Story 4?" First of all, I believe that the Toy Story films are some of the greatest movies ever made, animated or otherwise. The characters, visuals and writing were all nearly perfect in all three movies. Part 3, which had many of us choking up and holding back tears in the movie theater, provided what I thought was a perfect resolution for the main characters, and a wonderful ending to the story and the themes we have seen played out over the three movies.
My biggest fear is that Toy Story 4 will become the next "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull." The Indiana Jones trilogy, and, yes, I still consider these movies to be a trilogy, are all great movies (although some people have mixed feelings about "Temple of Doom"). The shot at the end of "Last Crusade" that had Indy, his father, Marcus and Sallah riding off into the sunset was a great way to end the story of Indiana Jones. Then, 15 years later, "Crystal Skull" hits theaters. This fourth movie was mediocre at best, with plot lines that are far-fetched, even for Indiana Jones (nuking the fridge?!), some of the worst directing of Steven Spielberg's career, and, of course, CGI monkeys.
Most fans don't even consider "Crystal Skull" part of the trilogy. Many people pretend it doesn't even exist. It has basically left a black mark on what is one of the greatest and most successful movie franchises.
I am afraid that, like "Crystal Skull," "Toy Story 4" is being made solely in the interest of the almighty dollar. John Lasseter, the movie's director and the chief creative advisor for Pixar and Disney Animation Studios, says he has a great story idea and he said "We only make sequels when we have a story that's as good as or better than the original." He also revealed the plot will focus on a love story between Woody and Bo Peep, who wasn't in "Toy Story 3." Normally, I would believe Mr. Lasseter, but the other reason I am deeply concerned about this sequel is Pixar's recent track record.
Let's go back about 13 years or so. From 2001 to 2009, Pixar released a streak of 7 non-sequel, totally original movies that ranged from good (Ratatouille, Cars) to brilliant (Up, The Incredibles, Monsters, Inc., WALL-E). Every single one of these movies are written well, have stunning visuals, and hold up to repeat viewings. I know, because my kids watch them over and over again. "The Incredibles," like the Toy Story movies, is one of my top movies of all time.
Then we get to the current decade. After Toy Story 3 in 2010, things began to go downhill. 2011 saw the release of "Cars 2." This made a ton of money, and like its prequel, became a marketing bonanza. If you have boys, I am sure you have at least one piece Lightning McQueen or Cars swag, whether it's a blanket, toy car, or clothing item. However, despite its commercial success, this was the first Pixar movie ever to get pummeled by movie critics. The poor critical reviews were justified, because the movie was loud, light on story, and full of flaws. For example, there was too much of the Mater character. No offense to Larry the Cable Guy, but Mater works well as a supporting character, but, as a main character, he becomes grating. Many people like me were unpleasantly surprised by this movie, because of Pixar's track record up to this point. Many of us hold Pixar to a higher standard, so it was almost shocking to see such a mediocre film from the studio.
In 2012, "Brave" was released. This is the only Pixar film I haven't seen, because it didn't interest me. According to the critics, it was good, but not great.
Last year was "Monsters University," a prequel to "Monsters, Inc." which, again, was good, but not great.
As for the future, Pixar's next two movies are "Inside Out," in which four different characters portray the emotions of a young girl, and "The Good Dinosaur," which introduces a world where dinosaurs and humans coexist. This looks like another opportunity for some marketing megabucks.
After these two films, several sequels are on the way. Aside from "Toy Story 4,""Finding Dory," a sequel to "Finding Nemo," is in the works, along with "The Incredibles 2," which I am really looking forward to, and "Cars 3", which I am not looking forward to.
In other words, I have seen a drop in the quality and creativity of Pixar's films, and I am also seeing what looks like a shift to more commercial films. Why is this happening? Here are a few theories.
1. They simply ran out of ideas. The crew at Pixar may have hit a creative impasse. Instead of coming up with new ideas, they are recycling old ones. This makes no sense, because they have hired outsiders like former Simpsons animator Brad Bird, who went on to direct "The Incredibles" and "Ratatouille" for Pixar. Maybe they need to hire younger writers with fresh ideas. That having been said, Pixar recruited outsiders Rashida Jones (from The Office and Parks and Recreation), and Will McCormack (from In Plain Sight) to write Toy Story 4.
2. Stiffer competiton from other studios has them making "safer," more commercial movies. For a while, Pixar was untouchable. You had occasional successes from other studios, like the "Shrek" movies from DreamWorks, but from an animation and storytelling perspective, no one could touch Pixar. This has changed. Other studios are putting out animated films that are successful on both a creative and commercial level. DreamWorks has put out "How to Train Your Dragon," which had dazzling animation, a great story and one of the greatest animated characters ever - Toothless the dragon. I haven't seen the sequel, but I am told that it is even better. Universal's Illumination Entertainment has established a successful animated franchise with the "Despicable Me" movies. I am sure everyone knows by now that "Minions" is coming out next summer.
Surprisingly, Pixar's stiffest competiton comes from within the Disney empire. Disney Animation Studios also has John Lasseter as its de facto leader, but they are a completely different group of animators. Their recent string of hits speaks for itself: "Tangled," "Wreck-It Ralph," the newly released "Big Hero 6," and let's not forget "Frozen." All of these are well-written and skillfully animated. Some critics are saying that Disney Animation Studios has taken Pixar's place as the top player in the animation game because of "Frozen." I know all of us, especially those of us with children, are fed up with this movie, but this is a valid argument. "Frozen" was, in a way, a throwback to the great Disney animated musicals, and was a well-written story about empowerment and the conflict between two siblings. Also, the movie looked beautiful, had some great songs (there is a cute little song buried in the middle of the movie called "Let It Go," which you might have missed) and was paced well for the kids. This more mainstream approach was a marked contrast to the more witty and artistic approach of many of Pixar's movies. This is not saying that "Frozen" was better, but it was able to appeal to a wider audience. This could explain why Pixar is bringing back its proven characters and franchises to the big screen rather than introducing more new ideas. This doesn't make sense either, because Pixar's non-sequels such as "Up" and "WALL-E" also made tons of money.
3. The Almighty Dollar. John Lasseter swears up and down that Toy Story 4 is being made because of passion and not profit, but after Pixar's most recent offerings and a look at their future slate, I am hard-pressed to believe it. The recent and future schedule contains all of Pixar's biggest hits and merchandise sellers. Compare this to the period during the first decade of the 2000s, during which Pixar released no sequels, just a bunch of great movies.
That having been said, when Toy Story 4 comes out in 2017, my boys will be 8 and 6, so guess who will be there with bells on the weekend it opens?
Update: I have seen "Inside Out," and it was great! It was well-received by critics, and I agree with most of them that it is the best movie I have seen from Pixar since "Up" in 2009. (although as of this writing, I still haven't seen "Brave.") It is not surprising that "Inside Out" comes from director Pete Docter and the same team that was responsible for "Up." It addresses my concern that Pixar has run out of original ideas, because this was a great concept that was executed very well with a great story and memorable characters. I also stand corrected, for the time being, on my criticism that Pixar is playing it safe. This was definitely an original idea, and it is rare these days for an original idea to be so successful. It had a $91 million opening weekend, and Disney/Pixar is bragging that it is the highest-grossing opening weekend for a movie that isn't a sequel or based on other material (like books, video games, theme park rides, etc.) In other words, "Inside Out" has restored some of my faith in Pixar. I am still a little wary about the batch of sequels that is on the way.
Recently, I heard some news that had me a little upset. Pixar recently announced that they would start production on "Toy Story 4," which would hit theaters in 2017. Why did this upset me? I will get to that in a minute. But this announcement had me looking at what Pixar has been doing over the last couple of years, and I am afraid they have lost their creative edge. One could even argue they have "sold out."
So why am I uneasy about "Toy Story 4?" First of all, I believe that the Toy Story films are some of the greatest movies ever made, animated or otherwise. The characters, visuals and writing were all nearly perfect in all three movies. Part 3, which had many of us choking up and holding back tears in the movie theater, provided what I thought was a perfect resolution for the main characters, and a wonderful ending to the story and the themes we have seen played out over the three movies.
My biggest fear is that Toy Story 4 will become the next "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull." The Indiana Jones trilogy, and, yes, I still consider these movies to be a trilogy, are all great movies (although some people have mixed feelings about "Temple of Doom"). The shot at the end of "Last Crusade" that had Indy, his father, Marcus and Sallah riding off into the sunset was a great way to end the story of Indiana Jones. Then, 15 years later, "Crystal Skull" hits theaters. This fourth movie was mediocre at best, with plot lines that are far-fetched, even for Indiana Jones (nuking the fridge?!), some of the worst directing of Steven Spielberg's career, and, of course, CGI monkeys.
Most fans don't even consider "Crystal Skull" part of the trilogy. Many people pretend it doesn't even exist. It has basically left a black mark on what is one of the greatest and most successful movie franchises.
I am afraid that, like "Crystal Skull," "Toy Story 4" is being made solely in the interest of the almighty dollar. John Lasseter, the movie's director and the chief creative advisor for Pixar and Disney Animation Studios, says he has a great story idea and he said "We only make sequels when we have a story that's as good as or better than the original." He also revealed the plot will focus on a love story between Woody and Bo Peep, who wasn't in "Toy Story 3." Normally, I would believe Mr. Lasseter, but the other reason I am deeply concerned about this sequel is Pixar's recent track record.
Let's go back about 13 years or so. From 2001 to 2009, Pixar released a streak of 7 non-sequel, totally original movies that ranged from good (Ratatouille, Cars) to brilliant (Up, The Incredibles, Monsters, Inc., WALL-E). Every single one of these movies are written well, have stunning visuals, and hold up to repeat viewings. I know, because my kids watch them over and over again. "The Incredibles," like the Toy Story movies, is one of my top movies of all time.
Then we get to the current decade. After Toy Story 3 in 2010, things began to go downhill. 2011 saw the release of "Cars 2." This made a ton of money, and like its prequel, became a marketing bonanza. If you have boys, I am sure you have at least one piece Lightning McQueen or Cars swag, whether it's a blanket, toy car, or clothing item. However, despite its commercial success, this was the first Pixar movie ever to get pummeled by movie critics. The poor critical reviews were justified, because the movie was loud, light on story, and full of flaws. For example, there was too much of the Mater character. No offense to Larry the Cable Guy, but Mater works well as a supporting character, but, as a main character, he becomes grating. Many people like me were unpleasantly surprised by this movie, because of Pixar's track record up to this point. Many of us hold Pixar to a higher standard, so it was almost shocking to see such a mediocre film from the studio.
In 2012, "Brave" was released. This is the only Pixar film I haven't seen, because it didn't interest me. According to the critics, it was good, but not great.
Last year was "Monsters University," a prequel to "Monsters, Inc." which, again, was good, but not great.
As for the future, Pixar's next two movies are "Inside Out," in which four different characters portray the emotions of a young girl, and "The Good Dinosaur," which introduces a world where dinosaurs and humans coexist. This looks like another opportunity for some marketing megabucks.
After these two films, several sequels are on the way. Aside from "Toy Story 4,""Finding Dory," a sequel to "Finding Nemo," is in the works, along with "The Incredibles 2," which I am really looking forward to, and "Cars 3", which I am not looking forward to.
In other words, I have seen a drop in the quality and creativity of Pixar's films, and I am also seeing what looks like a shift to more commercial films. Why is this happening? Here are a few theories.
1. They simply ran out of ideas. The crew at Pixar may have hit a creative impasse. Instead of coming up with new ideas, they are recycling old ones. This makes no sense, because they have hired outsiders like former Simpsons animator Brad Bird, who went on to direct "The Incredibles" and "Ratatouille" for Pixar. Maybe they need to hire younger writers with fresh ideas. That having been said, Pixar recruited outsiders Rashida Jones (from The Office and Parks and Recreation), and Will McCormack (from In Plain Sight) to write Toy Story 4.
2. Stiffer competiton from other studios has them making "safer," more commercial movies. For a while, Pixar was untouchable. You had occasional successes from other studios, like the "Shrek" movies from DreamWorks, but from an animation and storytelling perspective, no one could touch Pixar. This has changed. Other studios are putting out animated films that are successful on both a creative and commercial level. DreamWorks has put out "How to Train Your Dragon," which had dazzling animation, a great story and one of the greatest animated characters ever - Toothless the dragon. I haven't seen the sequel, but I am told that it is even better. Universal's Illumination Entertainment has established a successful animated franchise with the "Despicable Me" movies. I am sure everyone knows by now that "Minions" is coming out next summer.
Surprisingly, Pixar's stiffest competiton comes from within the Disney empire. Disney Animation Studios also has John Lasseter as its de facto leader, but they are a completely different group of animators. Their recent string of hits speaks for itself: "Tangled," "Wreck-It Ralph," the newly released "Big Hero 6," and let's not forget "Frozen." All of these are well-written and skillfully animated. Some critics are saying that Disney Animation Studios has taken Pixar's place as the top player in the animation game because of "Frozen." I know all of us, especially those of us with children, are fed up with this movie, but this is a valid argument. "Frozen" was, in a way, a throwback to the great Disney animated musicals, and was a well-written story about empowerment and the conflict between two siblings. Also, the movie looked beautiful, had some great songs (there is a cute little song buried in the middle of the movie called "Let It Go," which you might have missed) and was paced well for the kids. This more mainstream approach was a marked contrast to the more witty and artistic approach of many of Pixar's movies. This is not saying that "Frozen" was better, but it was able to appeal to a wider audience. This could explain why Pixar is bringing back its proven characters and franchises to the big screen rather than introducing more new ideas. This doesn't make sense either, because Pixar's non-sequels such as "Up" and "WALL-E" also made tons of money.
3. The Almighty Dollar. John Lasseter swears up and down that Toy Story 4 is being made because of passion and not profit, but after Pixar's most recent offerings and a look at their future slate, I am hard-pressed to believe it. The recent and future schedule contains all of Pixar's biggest hits and merchandise sellers. Compare this to the period during the first decade of the 2000s, during which Pixar released no sequels, just a bunch of great movies.
That having been said, when Toy Story 4 comes out in 2017, my boys will be 8 and 6, so guess who will be there with bells on the weekend it opens?
Update: I have seen "Inside Out," and it was great! It was well-received by critics, and I agree with most of them that it is the best movie I have seen from Pixar since "Up" in 2009. (although as of this writing, I still haven't seen "Brave.") It is not surprising that "Inside Out" comes from director Pete Docter and the same team that was responsible for "Up." It addresses my concern that Pixar has run out of original ideas, because this was a great concept that was executed very well with a great story and memorable characters. I also stand corrected, for the time being, on my criticism that Pixar is playing it safe. This was definitely an original idea, and it is rare these days for an original idea to be so successful. It had a $91 million opening weekend, and Disney/Pixar is bragging that it is the highest-grossing opening weekend for a movie that isn't a sequel or based on other material (like books, video games, theme park rides, etc.) In other words, "Inside Out" has restored some of my faith in Pixar. I am still a little wary about the batch of sequels that is on the way.
Monday, November 3, 2014
Rental review: Toyota Corolla LE
I figured I would review the rental Toyota Corolla I got to drive while the minivan was in the body shop again. I was rear ended for the second time this year. This time, Enterprise provided me with a Toyota Corolla instead of another minivan, so I figured I would share my overall impressions. Let me preface this review by saying that I view most Toyotas as “transportation appliances,” meaning they are perfectly competent cars that are lacking in soul or excitement. In other words, they are adequate, competent cars for people who don’t enjoy driving. I drove the LE model, which is the middle trim level.
Exterior styling: Not bad. The previous Corolla looked like the transportation appliance that it was. The 2014 Corolla, based on the Furia concept, is sleeker, and has some nice touches, like the LED headlights and upward character line on the sides of the car. S “Sport?” models get a blacked out grille. Overall, a huge improvement over its predecessor.
Interior styling: Again, not bad. There are lots of different shapes and materials that make up the interior, and it is evident that they tried to inject some style into the car. The result is a little busy, but is, once again, a major improvement. There are many soft-touch surfaces throughout the interior. However, the fake stitching on top of the dashboard moulding looks cheap. Gauges are clear and easy to read.
Performance: Meh. The 132 hp four carries over from the previous model. Acceleration is merely adequate, and this car is easily outrun by others in its class. This car has a “gearless” CVT (continuously valuable transmission), which is obviously designed for fuel economy and not performance. The base model comes with a conventional 4-speed auto, and a 6-speed manual is available on some trim levels. The S has paddle shifters on the steering wheel. Despite the sporty trim of the S model, the car still comes with the lowly base engine. The only optional engine is on the LE Eco model, which has 140 horsepower. There is some steering feel, and the car handles reasonably well, but will never be mistaken for a sports car. I am sure the handling on the S is better on 17-inch wheels. Finally, all models except the ones with 17-inch wheels have rear drum brakes. As far as I am concerned, drum brakes, which tend to fade (lose effectiveness) quickly due to friction and heat, are outdated technology which shouldn’t be on any car, and this was Toyota doing too much cost cutting. Finally, the car rides well, absorbs bumps in the road, and is quiet, smooth and refined.
Fuel economy: Thanks to a fuel-efficient engine and CVT, I averaged a very impressive 34.8 miles per gallon. It only cost me about $30 to fill the tank, and the 2-hour trip through beautiful Pennsylvania from the State College area to Lancaster only used about 1/4 of a tank. I don’t know how people justify buying a Prius, because the mileage on this car is almost as good, the Corolla costs thousands less, and looks like an actual car.
Safety: All models come standard with a full complement of airbags and stability control. The LE, which I drove, had a backup camera. Models with the multimedia system come with a backup camera. The Corolla did well in most IIHS tests, but earned only a “marginal” rating in the front overlap crash test, which puts it behind other cars in its class. Again, no car should have drum brakes.
Space/utility: The wheelbase was stretched for the 2014 model, so there is a lot of rear-seat room for its class. The 13 cubic feet of trunk space is competitive for its class, and held several bags and boxes I was transporting from Lancaster to State College.
Features: All Corollas come standard with power windows, power locks, and Bluetooth, which allows your phone to connect to the car wirelessly, allowing you to use the phone hands-free and listen to music through the phone. The LE, which I drove, had a 6-inch infotainment screen which displayed audio information and detailed fuel economy information. The system is very simple and intuitive, much more so than the infotainment system in my Dodge Grand Caravan. It connected to my iPhone and imported all of my contacts and call history in a matter of seconds. I was easily able to listen to Pandora through my phone. The hands-free phone system worked very well, and the audio system sounded good. The LE had automatic climate control, which was easy to use and worked well.
Value: Pricing starts at $16,900 for the base model. A/C, power windows, power locks and Bluetooth wireless are included. The LE that I drove adds nicer interior trim, the 6-inch multimedia display, backup camera and automatic climate control for about $18,500. Considering the amount of equipment offered, this is a good value for the money.
Would I buy it? I loved the car’s multimedia system. Still, if I needed to buy a car in this class, I would say no. I stand by what I say about Toyota. The Corolla is a perfectly competent, well-made car that is designed for people who want a car to get them from point A to point B. This is not the car for me, but I certainly would recommend this car to other people. I would pass on this car because I would like the utility of a hatchback, and the Corolla only comes as a sedan. Although the Corolla is by no means unpleasant to drive, I would prefer a car that is a little bit more fun, and I don’t like the rear drum brakes. In this class, I have driven the Ford Focus, which is more sporty and is offered as a hatchback. The Mazda3 is supposedly more of a driver’s car, and is also offered in a hatchback. Another car I would consider is the Volkswagen Golf, but the Golf can get very expensive very quickly as you add options. Finally, there is the Subaru Impreza, which offers all-wheel-drive, and I love my current car, the Legacy, even though my wife drives it most of the time. However, I would recommend this car to people because of its good value, outstanding fuel economy, refinement and reliability.
Overall:
What’s good:
Fuel economy
Multimedia system
Good value
Roomy for its class
What’s not good:
Needs more power
Rear drum brakes
Not a driver’s car
Sunday, June 22, 2014
The 10 best and 5 worst roller coasters... That I have ridden... so far.
I have become a total roller coaster junkie.
Here is how it all started...
For those of you who knew me in high school and college, I was a big chicken when it came to roller coasters. I didn't like heights and the feeling of not being in control, so I didn't have any desire to ride them.
I would get on log flumes and some less intense wooden coasters (Hersheypark's Comet) which I didn't mind too much.
Then, in 2008, we took a family vacation to Busch Gardens Europe in Williamsburg. I figured that since I paid $60 to get in to this park, I might as well get my money's worth and try out the roller coasters.
The first ride we get to is the legendary Loch Ness Monster. I was a nervous wreck. The line was long, and they added a train right before I got on, prolonging the suspense. Finally, as the coaster went down the first hill, I was fine. The loops were the part of the coaster I feared the most, but they were the best part of the ride. During and after the ride, I learned why people like coasters so much. It is truly a rush, and there is really no other feeling like it . My wife says that she wishes I hadn't gone to Busch Gardens that day, because all I do during the summer is talk about roller coasters.
Since then, I have made it a point to visit as many parks as possible to ride coasters, and I have familiarized myself with coaster terminology, all of the types of coasters, all of the parks, all of the coaster records, and even which companies manufacture the coasters.
Sadly, while I am beginning to discover and enjoy roller coasters, the novelty has worn off on most people my age. I have had to ride a lot of coasters on my own. My best hope for riding buddies are my two boys when they are old enough.
After my trips to several amusement parks, I can come up with a list of the 10 best coasters I have ridden so far, and I have revised this list in 2015 with a visit to Kennywood. I have also revised the coasters I have already ridden with the additional knowledge and seat time that I have experienced on coasters.
Ladies and gentlemen, here they are!
1. Apollo's Chariot
Park: Busch Gardens Williamsburg
Type: Steel sit-down
Height: 170'
Drop: 210'
Top speed: 73 mph
Inversions: 0
Best part: Airtime, theming, layout
This is the closest I have been to experiencing coaster perfection. First of all, let's start with the hardware. The seat itself is comfortable, and there is only one clamshell-shaped harness that sits across your lap. The sides of the train are open and your feet do not touch the ground. This is designed so you take advantage of the coaster's great airtime.
The first drop is long, fast, and throws you out of your seat. The second drop provides more airtime, and the third drop is a dramatic banked, curved drop towards the water. After an upward helix where you pull 4.5 Gs, you hit the coaster's smaller hills, but there are still plenty of surprises in store, including a surprise final drop into a hidden ravine seems to come out of nowhere. I have ridden coasters that are newer, faster and higher than this, but this is still my top coaster, because the theming, the setup of the seating and trains, and overall design of the ride all work together perfectly.
2. Phoenix
Park: Knoebels
Type: Wooden
Height: 78'
Drop: 72'
Top Speed: 45 mph
Inversions: 0
Best part: Airtime
The Phoenix may not be the tallest or fastest coaster on this list, but it delivers something that can’t be measured using numbers: A great ride experience. This coaster dates back to 1947, when it was built in San Antonio, Texas. The ride was later dismantled and put back together at Knoebels in 1985, giving the coaster its mythical moniker. The Phoenix begins with a long, dark tunnel, then climbs the 78-foot lift hill. It then goes down, and goes out and back several times over hills of different sizes. As the ride goes on, it seems to get increasingly fast and out of control. What truly makes this ride legendary is the frequent negative gravity, or sensation of floating in your seat. Coaster fans call this airtime. Adding to the fun are the restraints that sit several inches above your lap, which allow for plenty of opportunities for riders to be flung out of their seats. You will experience the most airtime in the back seats of the coaster. Although the Phoenix is very forceful, it is never rough, due to good maintenance. The Knoebels crew spends many hours during the off-season replacing track and rehabilitating the coaster as needed. It should also be noted that Knoebels is a great park. Admission is free, so you only pay on a per-ride basis. Parking is also free. The food is some of the best I've ever eaten at an amusement park (don't miss the chicken and waffles at the Alamo), and it is reasonably priced.
3. Skyrush
Park: Hersheypark
Type: Steel sit-down
Height: 212'
Drop: 200'
Top speed: 76 mph
Inversions: 0
Best part: Airtime, layout
Hersheypark’s first coaster to top the 200-foot mark didn’t open until 2012, but it was worth the wait. Riders have the option to sit in the middle with a floor below them, or can be daring, and sit on the “wing seats” at either end, where there is nothing but air underneath. First of all, the cable lift, similar to an elevator, takes riders to the 212-foot high summit in only 10 seconds. Then comes the crazy first drop, which occurs at an 85-degree angle, and accelerates the coaster to 75 mph. This is followed by an intense series of tight turns and five airtime hills that constantly has your body fighting the restraints. Needless to say, this ride is not for the faint of heart, and is the most intense coaster on this list.
First, a point I would like to make, then a tip.
Many people have criticized the restraint system on Skyrush, complaining that the restraints are too tight. Some people are even calling the ride "Thigh Crush." Yes, the restraints are tight, but they weren't painful, and did not detract from the ride. And I am not a small person. These restraints need to be tight because this coaster is good at throwing you in every possible direction.
Finally, as you enter the park and turn left just after the stroller rental booth, there is a path that leads directly to the ride's entrance. This is especially useful if you are making a beeline for the coaster when the park opens.
Update: According to Hersheypark sources, the trains on Skyrush now use a restraint system that uses inflatable cushions, and is now a better fit for riders of all sizes.
Update: According to Hersheypark sources, the trains on Skyrush now use a restraint system that uses inflatable cushions, and is now a better fit for riders of all sizes.
4. Phantom’s Revenge
Park: Kennywood
Type: Steel sit-down
Height: 160'
Drop: 228'
Top speed: 85 mph
Inversions: 0
Best part: The insane second drop
This is the Keystone State’s fastest coaster, and also has the longest drop. What is unusual about this coaster is that the long drop is the second drop on the coaster. The first drop is a curved, 160-foot drop. The coaster then ascends and hits the big drop, a staggering 228-foot plunge into a ravine. As you drop, you pass through the structure of the Thunderbolt, another of the park’s coasters, which provides riders with a “headchopper” effect. The coaster then goes through a series of tight turns and airtime hills. What sets this coaster apart is the way it uses the terrain to its advantage, as it sits on the edge of a ravine with the Monongahela River below. When this coaster first opened as the Steel Phantom in 1991, it had four inversions. However, the coaster was literally a pain in the neck as riders complained about their heads banging on the restraints. The ride was closed, the inversions were removed and the coaster reopened in its current form in 2001.
5. Intimidator 305
Park: Kings Dominion
Type: Steel sit-down
Height: 305'
Drop: 300'
Top Speed: 90 mph
Inversions: 0
Best part: Speed, twisties
The numbers themselves show that this is one serious coaster. This Dale Earnhardt themed coaster is one of only four coasters in the U.S. to top the 300-foot mark, and it is among the fastest coasters in the world. Although this is one of the best coasters I have ridden so far, I expected it to be even better given its height and speed. Smaller coasters like Apollo's Chariot and Skyrush are more fun to ride and more intense. The first 300' drop is certainly overwhelming, but I thought the drop on Skyrush was scarier (in a good way) despite being 100' shorter. Also, all three of the coasters that are on the top of my list have more airtime than I-305, although I don't think this coaster's primary purpose is to be an airtime machine. What sets I-305 apart is its speed. It hits 90 mph at the bottom of the first hill, and never lets up. The twists and high speed turns make this a blast to ride, although the smaller hills don't provide all that much airtime. Nevertheless, this has become one of my favorite coasters, and is definitely worth the trip to Kings Dominion. By the way, the first turn at the bottom of the massive drop had to be re-profiled, because too many riders were "graying out" on the ride.
6. Fahrenheit
Park: Hersheypark
Type: Steel sit-down
Height/Drop: 123'
Top Speed: 58 mph
Inversions: 6
Best part: First drop
This coaster’s claim to fame is the 97-degree first drop. The 121-foot, beyond vertical drop is definitely memorable. The coaster then goes through a tightly packed layout featuring six inversions, and a couple of good airtime moments. The first inversion, called a Norwegian loop starts to turn in one direction, but fakes riders out by quickly going the other way. This coaster is well-designed, packing a lot of entertaining, well-paced elements into a small space.
7. Storm Runner
Park: Hersheypark
Type: Steel launch
Height: 150'
Drop: 180'
Top speed: 75 mph
Inversions: 3
Best part: Launch, flying snake dive
Here is another coaster that is not for the faint of heart. After leaving the station, the train stops, and an announcement says, “Now get ready, here we go!” The moment you hear the word “go,” the coaster is launched to 72 mph in a quick 2 seconds. Before your body is able to process what just happened, you are going up, straight up, then straight down 180 feet. The coaster then goes into a series of wicked inversions, including a corkscrew roll 100 feet off the ground, giving riders get a great view of the ground 100 feet down. This is followed by the so-called “flying snake dive” which is difficult to describe in words — It must be experienced. The only drawback to this coaster is that it’s a short ride, lasting only about 45 seconds from the launch to the brake run at the end of the ride.
8. Great Bear
Park: Hersheypark
Type: Steel inverted
Height: 90'
Drop: 124'
Top speed: 61 mph
Inversions: 4
Best part: Layout, Last zero-g roll
This is one of two inverted coasters in Pennsylvania, meaning that the track is above the cars, and riders’ feet dangle from the seat. This coaster is shoehorned between several other rides in the park, and makes good use of the space and the terrain. After the drop, riders go through a vertical loop and several other elements in quick succession. Like other great coasters on this list, the ride is forceful but very smooth. Its closeness to other rides like the SooperDooperLooper and Coal Cracker log flume create some good “headchopper” moments. The only reason this ride isn’t ranked higher is because the ride is kind of short, due to the lack of space in this area of the park.
9. Lightning Racer
Park: Hersheypark
Type: Wooden dueling coaster
Height/Drop: 90'
Top speed: 51 mph
Inversions: 0
Best part: Layout, Tunnel
This an ingeniously designed ride that puts a new twist on the racing coaster (in which two trains race to reach the finish line, by adding an element where the two coasters appear to be careening towards each other head-on. This is a fun, relatively smooth wooden coaster with lots of twists, turns and airtime. The ride makes good use of a short tunnel where riders get a surprise pop of airtime. This is also where the on-ride photo is taken. And, like any racing coaster, it is always fun to heckle the people in the opposing train.
10. Thunderbolt
Park: Kennywood
Type: Wooden
Height: 70'
Drop: 90'
Drop: 90'
Top speed: 55 mph
Inversions: 0
Best part: Unpredictable layout
This classic wooden coaster, which dates back to 1924, has a very unconventional layout, which makes for an interesting ride. First of all, as you leave the station, instead of going up a lift hill, you hit a drop, which takes many riders by surprise. The lift hill occurs in the middle of the ride, followed by a helix, which will pin you against the person sitting next to you (you are required to have a partner for this ride). The ride ends with some dramatic drops into a ravine, and they save the best for last — A 95-foot drop, the largest drop on the coaster, that gives you so much airtime you will almost be standing up.
Honorable mentions:
Talon, Dorney Park
Steel Force, Dorney Park
Talon, Dorney Park
Steel Force, Dorney Park
Volcano: The Blast Coaster, Kings Dominion
Twister, Knoebels
Impulse, Knoebels
Sky Rocket, Kennywood
Jack Rabbit, Kennywood
Loch Ness Monster, Busch Gardens Williamsburg
Big Bad Wolf, Busch Gardens Williamsburg (Dismantled, replaced by Verbolten)
Twister, Knoebels
Impulse, Knoebels
Sky Rocket, Kennywood
Jack Rabbit, Kennywood
Loch Ness Monster, Busch Gardens Williamsburg
Big Bad Wolf, Busch Gardens Williamsburg (Dismantled, replaced by Verbolten)
Hydra: The Revenge, Dorney Park
Big Thunder Mountain Railroad, Walt Disney World Magic Kingdom
Spongebob Squarepants Rock Bottom Plunge, Nickelodeon Universe at Mall of America
Now, just for fun, here are 5 of the worst coasters I have ever ridden, in no particular order.
Wildcat
Park: Hersheypark
Type: Wooden
Height: 106'
Drop: 85'
Top speed: 50 mph
Inversions: 0
Worst part: Roughness
If you have back problems, don't even think about riding this. If you don't have back problems, you will by the end of the ride. Unbearable, especially the back of the train. Replacing the original trains with the Millennium Flyer trains used on the Lightning Racer didn't help. This could be a candidate for "RMC Conversion" to a hybrid wood/steel coaster like the New Texas Giant, but if Hersheypark doesn't want to put the time and effort into doing this, This should be turned into scrap wood.
Shockwave
Park: Kings Dominion
Type: Steel Stand Up
Height/Drop: 95'
Top speed: 50 mph
Inversions: 1
Worst part: Wait/loading time, blandness
This is the only stand up roller coaster I have been on so far, and I wasn't impressed. The wait is long, and it takes a while to load because the restraint system is similar to a medieval torture device. Ride ops have to individually adjust everyone before the ride leaves the station. The wait wasn't worth it for a 2-minute ride with a couple of drops, a loop and a some airtime "bunny" hills, which are pointless because it is difficult to catch air while standing up.
Update: This dud of a coaster was CLOSED in August 2015. I don't think it is moving to another park, so it will likely be headed for the junk pile. It is being replaced with a Mondial Revolution ride, which you won't see me on because vomiting is not my idea of fun.
Pepsi Orange Streak
Park: Nickelodeon Universe, Mall of America
Type: Steel sit-down
Height: 60'
Drop: 40'
Top speed: 30 mph
Inversions: 0
Worst part: Lack of thrills
Basically goes back and forth through the indoor amusement park inside the Mall of America. It is a good way to see the park and the mall, but there are no big drops, and it moves along at a blistering 30 mph. Basically a fast monorail. By the way, there are two good coasters in this small park, the Spongebob Squarepants Rock Bottom Plunge (an honorable mention) and the Fairly OddCoaster (decent).
Trailblazer
Park: Hersheypark
Type: Steel sit-down
Height/Drop: 50'
Top speed: 45 mph
Inversions: 0
Worst part: Lack of thrills, theming
This mine cart roller coaster offers no thrilling moments, and the ride has very little theming. Check out this video from Dollywood... this is what a mine cart coaster should look like. I realize this is supposed to be a family coaster that kids can enjoy, but there are better "kiddie" coasters out there like Kozmo's Kurves at Knoebels (say that five times fast) and even the caterpillar coaster that you see at a lot of smaller parks and carnivals. Hersheypark is out of room, and I don't think anyone will miss this if it's scrapped and replaced with something more fun.
Flight of Fear
Parks: Kings Island/Kings Dominion
Type: Indoor steel launch
Height/drop: 74'
Top speed: 54 mph
Inversions: 4
Worst part: Too intense
I think I have a very high threshold of fear when it comes to coasters. I rode the Intimidator 305, one of the tallest and fastest coasters in the world. It was a blast to ride, and I rode it three times in a row without thinking twice. I can say that Flight of Fear is the only coaster that scared me to the point where I thought the ride was unpleasant. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't crying or screaming to get off, but I was happy when the ride was over. The track was very closely intertwined like a spider web, and even though this was a dark ride, I could see the supports and track, and they seemed too close for comfort. Also, the ride was disorienting, and by the end, you couldn't tell which way was up and which way was down. Most people love this coaster, but I can't say I did.
Spongebob Squarepants Rock Bottom Plunge, Nickelodeon Universe at Mall of America
Now, just for fun, here are 5 of the worst coasters I have ever ridden, in no particular order.
Wildcat
Park: Hersheypark
Type: Wooden
Height: 106'
Drop: 85'
Top speed: 50 mph
Inversions: 0
Worst part: Roughness
If you have back problems, don't even think about riding this. If you don't have back problems, you will by the end of the ride. Unbearable, especially the back of the train. Replacing the original trains with the Millennium Flyer trains used on the Lightning Racer didn't help. This could be a candidate for "RMC Conversion" to a hybrid wood/steel coaster like the New Texas Giant, but if Hersheypark doesn't want to put the time and effort into doing this, This should be turned into scrap wood.
Shockwave
Park: Kings Dominion
Type: Steel Stand Up
Height/Drop: 95'
Top speed: 50 mph
Inversions: 1
Worst part: Wait/loading time, blandness
This is the only stand up roller coaster I have been on so far, and I wasn't impressed. The wait is long, and it takes a while to load because the restraint system is similar to a medieval torture device. Ride ops have to individually adjust everyone before the ride leaves the station. The wait wasn't worth it for a 2-minute ride with a couple of drops, a loop and a some airtime "bunny" hills, which are pointless because it is difficult to catch air while standing up.
Update: This dud of a coaster was CLOSED in August 2015. I don't think it is moving to another park, so it will likely be headed for the junk pile. It is being replaced with a Mondial Revolution ride, which you won't see me on because vomiting is not my idea of fun.
Pepsi Orange Streak
Park: Nickelodeon Universe, Mall of America
Type: Steel sit-down
Height: 60'
Drop: 40'
Top speed: 30 mph
Inversions: 0
Worst part: Lack of thrills
Basically goes back and forth through the indoor amusement park inside the Mall of America. It is a good way to see the park and the mall, but there are no big drops, and it moves along at a blistering 30 mph. Basically a fast monorail. By the way, there are two good coasters in this small park, the Spongebob Squarepants Rock Bottom Plunge (an honorable mention) and the Fairly OddCoaster (decent).
Trailblazer
Park: Hersheypark
Type: Steel sit-down
Height/Drop: 50'
Top speed: 45 mph
Inversions: 0
Worst part: Lack of thrills, theming
This mine cart roller coaster offers no thrilling moments, and the ride has very little theming. Check out this video from Dollywood... this is what a mine cart coaster should look like. I realize this is supposed to be a family coaster that kids can enjoy, but there are better "kiddie" coasters out there like Kozmo's Kurves at Knoebels (say that five times fast) and even the caterpillar coaster that you see at a lot of smaller parks and carnivals. Hersheypark is out of room, and I don't think anyone will miss this if it's scrapped and replaced with something more fun.
Flight of Fear
Parks: Kings Island/Kings Dominion
Type: Indoor steel launch
Height/drop: 74'
Top speed: 54 mph
Inversions: 4
Worst part: Too intense
I think I have a very high threshold of fear when it comes to coasters. I rode the Intimidator 305, one of the tallest and fastest coasters in the world. It was a blast to ride, and I rode it three times in a row without thinking twice. I can say that Flight of Fear is the only coaster that scared me to the point where I thought the ride was unpleasant. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't crying or screaming to get off, but I was happy when the ride was over. The track was very closely intertwined like a spider web, and even though this was a dark ride, I could see the supports and track, and they seemed too close for comfort. Also, the ride was disorienting, and by the end, you couldn't tell which way was up and which way was down. Most people love this coaster, but I can't say I did.
Monday, March 3, 2014
The 2014 Oscar recap
And another year of Hollywood types patting themselves on the back is finished.
Here are my opinions about the show. I won't get into who will win and who should win, because I didn't see any of the best picture nominees. (I hope to remedy this over the next couple of weeks). As you saw on my Facebook page, the only major winner I saw was "Frozen." (update: As of now, I have seen "Gravity" and "Nebraska," both great movies!) Ah, the joys of parenthood. I am here to give my opinions on the show itself.
The hostess with the mostest: Hosting the Oscars is one of the most thankless jobs on Earth. The only stuff you usually hear about the host the next day is what went wrong. Sometimes this criticism is justified, like the year Franco and Hathaway hosted. On the other hand, I agree with most other critics that Ellen DeGeneres did a very good job. She managed to walk the fine line of making fun of celebrities and the ceremony, but didn't come off as mean-spirited (except to Liza Minelli). I read that most of her bits such as the famous selfie and the pizza were not planned and off-the-cuff. It turns out that celebs like Ellen as much as the critics. The show's producer said that more celebrities agreed to be presenters because Ellen was hosting. It is a certainty that she will be back sooner or later on Oscar night.
The year of the song: Usually, the original song performances are when people get up to get a snack or use the bathroom. Not this year. There was some major star power performing these songs. Pharrell Williams performed "Happy," which was my personal favorite of the four songs. U2 did a decent job with a stripped down version of "Ordinary Love," and Karen O had a haunting quality to her voice during her performance of "The Moon Song" from "Her." That brings us to "Let It Go." What can I say about this performance? First, Travolta introduces Idina Menzel as "Adele Dazeem." After that, there was some sort of disconnect between the band and Menzel. The tempo was all over the place and so was the pitch. I am not sure who to blame here. Maybe Menzel was pissed because Travolta couldn't pronounce her name. It may have had something to do with the fact that the band was off site (bad idea). Also, this is technically a very difficult song to sing. At least they got through it (barely).
Who are you wearing?: I usually don't pay too much attention to the fashion unless someone is wearing something completely outrageous like Bjork's famous swan outfit. I didn't see anything egregious this year, but I can't say I liked Pharrell Williams' tux with shorts.
People who are no longer alive: This year's stiffs montage was very tasteful, and the great Phillip Seymour Hoffman received the coveted "anchor" spot. (I would have been happy with him or Ramis there). This was all ruined when Bette Midler walks out and sings one of the cheesiest songs ever written, adding a needless 4 minutes to the ceremony. Whose idea was this?
Best acceptance speech: First of all, I never thought I would live to see Matthew McConaughey win an Oscar for acting. I am told he deserved this, so kudos (Update: He deserved it!). I appreciated how poignant and "real" his speech was, although he seemed like he knew he was going to win and had this entire speech ready to go. Also, sadly, no one got played off the stage this year. I thought the use of the "Jaws" theme to play verbose winners off the stage last year was hilarious.
Best Picture analysis: Coming into the ceremony, it was supposedly a three-picture race between "Gravity," "American Hustle" and "12 Years a Slave." Not having seen any of the movies, I assumed "12 Years" would be a shoo-in. I am not criticizing or being sarcastic when I say that "12 Years" is culturally relevant and shows the triumph of the human spirit. Oscar voters eat this stuff up. Also, I am told this was a very good movie that doesn't pull any punches. However, there were few major upsets, and the awards were spread out among a few movies, which probably means a lot of quality films were released last year. (Update: "Gravity" and "Dallas Buyers Club" were both excellent.)
Wild and Crazy Guy: Steve Martin gets a lifetime achievement award? Isn't he a little young for this?
Best unscripted moment: Bill Murray gives a shout-out to the late Harold Ramis while presenting the award for cinematography.
Finally: God hates Leonardo DiCaprio.
Here are my opinions about the show. I won't get into who will win and who should win, because I didn't see any of the best picture nominees. (I hope to remedy this over the next couple of weeks). As you saw on my Facebook page, the only major winner I saw was "Frozen." (update: As of now, I have seen "Gravity" and "Nebraska," both great movies!) Ah, the joys of parenthood. I am here to give my opinions on the show itself.
The hostess with the mostest: Hosting the Oscars is one of the most thankless jobs on Earth. The only stuff you usually hear about the host the next day is what went wrong. Sometimes this criticism is justified, like the year Franco and Hathaway hosted. On the other hand, I agree with most other critics that Ellen DeGeneres did a very good job. She managed to walk the fine line of making fun of celebrities and the ceremony, but didn't come off as mean-spirited (except to Liza Minelli). I read that most of her bits such as the famous selfie and the pizza were not planned and off-the-cuff. It turns out that celebs like Ellen as much as the critics. The show's producer said that more celebrities agreed to be presenters because Ellen was hosting. It is a certainty that she will be back sooner or later on Oscar night.
The year of the song: Usually, the original song performances are when people get up to get a snack or use the bathroom. Not this year. There was some major star power performing these songs. Pharrell Williams performed "Happy," which was my personal favorite of the four songs. U2 did a decent job with a stripped down version of "Ordinary Love," and Karen O had a haunting quality to her voice during her performance of "The Moon Song" from "Her." That brings us to "Let It Go." What can I say about this performance? First, Travolta introduces Idina Menzel as "Adele Dazeem." After that, there was some sort of disconnect between the band and Menzel. The tempo was all over the place and so was the pitch. I am not sure who to blame here. Maybe Menzel was pissed because Travolta couldn't pronounce her name. It may have had something to do with the fact that the band was off site (bad idea). Also, this is technically a very difficult song to sing. At least they got through it (barely).
Who are you wearing?: I usually don't pay too much attention to the fashion unless someone is wearing something completely outrageous like Bjork's famous swan outfit. I didn't see anything egregious this year, but I can't say I liked Pharrell Williams' tux with shorts.
People who are no longer alive: This year's stiffs montage was very tasteful, and the great Phillip Seymour Hoffman received the coveted "anchor" spot. (I would have been happy with him or Ramis there). This was all ruined when Bette Midler walks out and sings one of the cheesiest songs ever written, adding a needless 4 minutes to the ceremony. Whose idea was this?
Best acceptance speech: First of all, I never thought I would live to see Matthew McConaughey win an Oscar for acting. I am told he deserved this, so kudos (Update: He deserved it!). I appreciated how poignant and "real" his speech was, although he seemed like he knew he was going to win and had this entire speech ready to go. Also, sadly, no one got played off the stage this year. I thought the use of the "Jaws" theme to play verbose winners off the stage last year was hilarious.
Best Picture analysis: Coming into the ceremony, it was supposedly a three-picture race between "Gravity," "American Hustle" and "12 Years a Slave." Not having seen any of the movies, I assumed "12 Years" would be a shoo-in. I am not criticizing or being sarcastic when I say that "12 Years" is culturally relevant and shows the triumph of the human spirit. Oscar voters eat this stuff up. Also, I am told this was a very good movie that doesn't pull any punches. However, there were few major upsets, and the awards were spread out among a few movies, which probably means a lot of quality films were released last year. (Update: "Gravity" and "Dallas Buyers Club" were both excellent.)
Wild and Crazy Guy: Steve Martin gets a lifetime achievement award? Isn't he a little young for this?
Best unscripted moment: Bill Murray gives a shout-out to the late Harold Ramis while presenting the award for cinematography.
Finally: God hates Leonardo DiCaprio.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)