Loaner car review: 2015 Jeep Cherokee Limited

Once again, the transmission in my 2011 Grand Caravan decided to act up. This time, it was the torque converter. Because you have to disassemble the entire tranny to replace the torque converter, BZ Motors in Lewisburg (recommended by my cousin who is a mechanic for the Army) told me they only had two transmission guys and the work would take more than a week. I told them I needed a loaner car if I was going to be without a car for such a long time.

Kudos to BZ Motors, because they got me a loaner car without any argument, and according to Chrysler's warranty rules, they didn't have to. (GM, by the way, requires that dealers provide a loaner car for overnight warranty work). So thanks again to BZ Motors for going above and beyond.

So, we pull into the parking lot, and I was expecting a 10-year-old Neon or something. Instead, I see a brand new Jeep Cherokee with leather seats and a full multimedia system.

I was able to spend more than a week with the Cherokee and put more than 1,000 miles on it, including a 3-hour trip to the Philadelphia area.

So... here goes.

Exterior styling: Those of you used to boxy Jeeps will be disappointed. The Cherokee, a replacement for the Liberty, which was outclassed by all its rivals the day it debuted many years ago, is a major departure from other Jeeps, and it looks great. Stylingwise, it is a nice alternative to its competitors such as the "Chick car" Honda CR-V, the "transportation appliance" Toyota RAV4 and the "Box on Wheels" Subaru Forester. I especially like the front, with the running lights at the top, and the actual headlights down near the bumper. I think the swoopy styling cuts into the cargo room in the back, though. More on this later.

Interior styling/features: This is really where Chrysler nailed it. The interior is designed and appointed very well. There are soft-touch materials and hand-stitched leather throughout the dash and interior. The dash is dominated by an 8-inch color screen which controls the multimedia system and other functions like climate control. However, there are a few redundant buttons and knobs for frequently used controls like the radio volume, and adjusting the temperature and fan. This was a great idea and a great alternative to many cars out there that just have a screen and a knob, and you have to go through 5 different screens just to turn the heat up. My phone was able to connect to the car via Bluetooth in seconds. The only feature I had trouble with was trying to use Pandora through Chrysler's UConnect app. I got it to work once, but after that it was saying my phone wasn't set up or something like that. No problem, because I was easily able to use Pandora using the Bluetooth connection to my phone. There is also a large color screen on the instrument panel between the dials that can display different information like the speed, fuel economy or even tire pressure (important for off-roading, or so I've heard). The leather seats are very comfortable.

Performance: The Jeep comes standard with a 2.4 liter "Tigershark" 4 cylinder with 182 horsepower. Available is a 3.2 liter version of Chrysler's Pentastar V6 with 271 hp. This model had the 4 cylinder, and acceleration, especially on hills, was sluggish. This is one of the heavier SUVs in its class (I think only the Chevy Equinox is heavier), and a vehicle this size with the heavy 4x4 hardware seems like too much for the 4-cylinder. The engine had to work hard to accelerate, and could be a little noisy at times. I am told the V6 is a much better fit for this SUV. All Cherokees come with a 9-speed automatic. When the new Cherokee debuted for the 2014 model year, there were some highly publicized problems with this transmission starting with the launch of the Cherokee being delayed because of tranny problems, and then many people complaining of jerky shifts, the transmission not shifting at all, and even people who were left stranded by their brand new cars after the transmission seized up. Some software updates seemed to remedy most of the problems, and I had no real problems with my 2015 model, so I am guessing they worked out the bugs. The transmission shifted smoothly. I did see it hunting for gears a few times, but not to the point where it was intrusive. Car and Driver questions if the ninth gear even exists. I think it only shifts into the top gear if you are going over 100 mph. I didn't like the car's handling. The steering was too light and offered little feedback. Understeer is very noticeable, and it seemed ponderous around turns. I like to say that my minivan handles like a smaller vehicle, but this compact-midsize SUV seemed to handle like a bigger vehicle. Otherwise, the car has a smooth ride, and the brakes are responsive. Finally it should be noted that my wife, who is not a car enthusiast, thought the car drove just fine, and had none of the criticisms that I did.

Off-road ability: I didn't have this on any rough trails, but I did drive the Jeep on some smooth dirt and gravel roads in Pennsylvania's Bald Eagle State Forest. The Jeep took the bumps very well, and rode smoothly going as fast as 55 mph on a gravel road. Not as fortunate was the wild chicken I hit while traveling this fast. The Trailhawk trim level is trail-rated, and should be more than capable off road.

Fuel economy: The Cherokee delivered about 23-25 mpg in mixed city and highway driving. That is decent but not outstanding for a vehicle this size and weight.

Safety: Like most vehicles in its class: A full complement of airbags, including overhead and knee airbags, traction control and stability control are standard. Crash test ratings are good, with mostly 4- and 5-star ratings. However, the Jeep received a rating of "marginal" in the front small overlap test, during which the dummy's head slid off the airbag and hit the dashboard. Ouch!

Space/utility: The back seats are roomy for the class. I wasn't happy about the lack of cargo room in the back. My two kids' bicycles barely fit, but my nieces' bikes, which are larger, didn't even come close. The sleek styling takes away from the cargo room.

Value: The "Sport" model starts at about $23,000 for front-wheel drive and a 4 cylinder engine. Power everything, a 5 inch multimedia touch screen and Bluetooth connectivity are standard. The Limited I drove had 4-wheel drive, heated leather seats, a larger 8-inch display and remote vehicle start. This vehicle was about $29,000. A loaded Trailhawk with all available options gets into the mid- to high-30s. I think this is a good value for the money and competitive with other vehicles in its class.

Would I buy it: In a word, no. Although I enjoyed driving it, and loved the styling inside and out, I don't like the way it handles, and most importantly, the reliability problems with the transmission are a major concern. I think the V6 should be standard with all 4-wheel drive models, because the 4-cylinder just isn't powerful enough. It looks like Jeep has worked out the bugs, and they are now selling a ton of these cars. After another year or two, I may recommend this to other people, especially if they are Jeep fanatics. The Honda, even though it looks like a chick car, supposedly handles better, and has a more refined powertrain. I would buy the Subaru Forester, because the Legacy I currently own is a great car, and the crash test results for the Forester put other vehicles in this class, including the Cherokee, to shame. Overall, I would say the Cherokee has what it takes to compete in this segment, but improvements need to be made for the Jeep to take the lead in the compact-midsize SUV class.

What's good:
Looks great inside and out
Multimedia system
Off-road ability

What isn't good
Loosey-goosey handling
Sluggish acceleration with the 4-cylinder engine
Limited cargo space

The best of Leonard Nimoy

A couple of days ago, the worlds of science fiction and pop culture lost one of its greatest characters and most talented actors.

When Star Trek premiered in 1966, it broke new ground in that it had an African American and an Asian American in its cast. Another character was Mr. Spock, a half-human, half-alien hybrid with pointy ears, who suppresses his emotions. I give Gene Roddenberry credit for coming up with these ideas. Many actors would have just recited the lines in a flat, emotionless voice, resulting in a one-dimensional character (like Tuvok on Voyager). However, Nimoy was able to give some subtle hints of emotion such as the raising of the eyebrows, and how he said "fascinating" in a semi-interested voice. Also, his friendships that developed with Kirk and McCoy, and their frequent debates about logic vs. humanity are some of the elements that made the original series great. Spock quickly became the most popular character on the series.

Star Trek is now a franchise that spawned four additional television series (of varying quality) and 12 movies (again, of varying quality), with a 13th movie due to come out in 2016 in time for the 50th anniversary of the franchise, not to mention video games, books, countless conventions, a now-closed theme park attraction, and enough fan fiction to provide a lifetime of reading material (mostly consisting of characters engaged in coitus with each other). Someone even wrote the Bible in Klingon.

Anyway, my point is, without Spock, there would be no franchise. He made the original series the phenomenon that it was, and the movies would not have been complete without him. One critic said that when it comes to all the characters in the entire franchise, he is "at the head of the table." Shatner, being the pompous ass that he is, may argue otherwise, and, I can't deny that Kirk's "Horatio Hornblower" style of command was another key element of the series, but Spock made the Star Trek the science fiction juggernaut that it is today.

Here are what I think are a few of Nimoy's greatest moments as an actor, mostly as Spock. I am told he had a great part on "Fringe," but I haven't had a chance to watch that show.  All five Star Trek TV series and some of the movies can be found on Netflix. Watch and enjoy!

Spoiler alerts!

"The Galileo Seven" (the original series, Season 1, Episode 16): Notable because it is Spock's first experience as a commanding officer. Spock and six of his fellow crewmen are sent to investigate some type of space anomaly. They end up crash landing on a nearby planet, and Spock, uses logic rather than emotion, to try to get him and his crew off the planet. A good, action-oriented episode with valid arguments from not only Spock but also some of the crew who disagree with him.

"This Side of Paradise" (TOS season 1, episode 24): Spock and the crew are on a planet in which plant spores induce feelings of euphoria, and Spock is able to experience a full range of emotions, from falling madly in love to nearly smashing Kirk with a table. Sadly, Spock acknowledges this was the first time he had ever been happy.

"Amok Time" (TOS season 2, episode 1): Here we get our first look at Spock's home planet of Vulcan. Spock is basically in heat, and he will die of horomone overload if he doesn't get back to Vulcan to mate. We meet Spock's "wife" through an arranged marriage, and Kirk ends up as her "champion" and is forced to fight Spock. Spock apparently strangles Kirk to death, but McCoy actually sedated him before the fight, so he was unconscious, not dead. Spock's reaction when he finds out his commanding officer and friend isn't dead is priceless. A campy episode overall, particularly during the fight between Spock and Kirk (which was gamely parodied in the vastly underrated movie "The Cable Guy), but we get to learn a lot about Vulcans and their rituals, giving us a bit of background into Spock's mysterious character.

"Mirror, Mirror" (TOS season 2, episode 4): My personal favorite TOS episode. A transporter snafu lands Kirk, McCoy, Scotty and Uhura in a mirror universe and the first thing they see is Spock with a goatee! In this barbaric mirror universe, crew members kill their superiors to get promoted. Mirror Spock is the highlight of this episode. Even though he is as ruthless as many of his crewmates, he still has the even temper and logical thought process that Spock is known for. Kirk uses logic to convince Mirror Spock to change things before returning to where he came from. In Deep Space Nine, characters return to the Mirror Universe several times, where we do find out that Spock was able to change some things and attempted to bring some peace to the mirror universe.

"Spock's Brain" (Season 3, episode 1): Spock's brain is stolen, and is used as a "controller" for the functions (heat, air, water, etc.) of a civilization on a nearby planet. Writer Gene Coon (using a pseudonym in this episode's credits) must have lost his brain when he wrote this episode, because it is truly awful. I include it here solely for camp value. It is so bad, it's fun to watch, kind of like "Plan 9 from Outer Space."

"Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan:" Easily the best of the Star Trek movies with a great story and a legendary villain. At the end of the movie, Spock makes the ultimate sacrifice to save the ship, because "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... or the one." I know he comes back, but watching the ending scenes of Star Trek II still makes me choke up.

"Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home:" A very popular movie that Trekkers and nonfans alike were able to enjoy. The crew time travels back to the '80s to bring a pair of humpback whales back to the future to save the world. Many fish-out-of-water gags and comic hijinks ensue. Spock is especially funny here. The scene where he mind melds with the whale is unexpected and a good laugh, and he never can get the hang of those "colorful metaphors."

"Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country:" The chancellor of the Klingon high council is assassinated, and Kirk and McCoy are unjustly locked up for the crime. It is up to Spock, functioning as a 23rd century Sherlock Holmes, to spring his two shipmates, and find out who committed the crime. Nimoy co-wrote the story that is an historical allegory to the fall of the Soviet Union.

"Marge vs. The Monorail" (The Simpsons season 4, episode 12): One of the best episodes in The Simpsons 40 or so season run, in which, in a perfect send-up of The Music Man, a con man (played by the late, great Phil Hartman) sells a defective monorail to Springfield. Nimoy, as himself, appears as himself in a star-studded maiden voyage for the monorail. After Nimoy's speech in which he said that the monorail looked like it could do Warp 5, Mayor Quimby says "May the force be with you." Nimoy responds "Do you even know who I am?" And Quimby says "Weren't you one of the Little Rascals?" He then later said his work was done and transported away.

"Star Trek" (2009 movie): Nimoy is the only cast member asked to return, and he has a small but memorable part in this reboot of the franchise. He provides some great advice to a younger Spock and Kirk, and gives a needed connection to the original cast and series. Unlike Kirk's presence in "Generations," this appearance did not seem forced or contrived. I loved the short dialogue between the two Spocks that serves as a baton passing of sorts. Zachary Quinto, by the way, is doing a great job as a younger Spock, considering the size of the shoes he has to fill. Nimoy and Quinto became very close friends after this movie.

"The Transporter Malfunction" (The Big Bang Theory season 5, episode 20): Nimoy provides the voice of a vintage Spock action figure. Sheldon breaks Leonard's extremely rare Mego transporter toy, and Sheldon is ready to lie to Leonard about it, because he thinks it is in mint condition and never taken out of the box. The Spock action figure talks to Sheldon in a dream telling him to tell Leonard the truth. He is then attacked by a Gorn before he wakes up. Overall a great episode.

Oscars 2015

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.

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.

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.

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.

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