I make it a point to get to an auto show every year. I love cars, I love to drive, and I love to look at, sit in, and drive everything out there that's new. Over the past few years, I have alternated between Pennsylvania's three major auto shows in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and the smaller Pennsylvania Auto Show in Harrisburg. I decided on Harrisburg this year because Toyota joined Ford in hosting a ride and drive event this year, and I just didn't feel like driving three hours to Philly or Pittsburgh. Also, the Farm Show complex is just outside the city, so the test drive route has some hills and curves, as opposed to the auto shows in Philly and Pittsburgh, which is nothing but lights and bumper-to-bumper traffic. Also, the tickets are a reasonable $8 online, and you even get a 1-year subscription to Motor Trend magazine, which will come in handy if we run out of toilet paper. Anyway, if you are interested in cars, read on to see my test drive experiences, the cars I saw, and some overall impressions.
I will start with the test drives. I am glad I came on a Friday, because there was no line, and I was able to hop out of one car and into another at both the Ford and Toyota events. Here are the test drives in the order I took them. I started with Ford.
Mustang Ecoboost: Since I drive a minivan, this was a welcome change of pace. The test drive route took us into the state department of agriculture grounds, which takes you around curves and up hills. This Mustang has a 2.3 liter turbo 4, which makes an impressive 310 horsepower while getting 31 mpg on the highway. I did feel a bit of turbo lag, but the 'Stang was definitely quick enough when the power kicked in. As always, I love the balance and handling of a good rear-wheel drive car. This is also a great performance bargain at less than $30,000. Still, if I was ever able to get a Mustang, I would still go for the V8. I love the low-end grunt and neck-snapping power delivery of the larger engine. Besides, this is an American musclecar icon, and, in my opinion, it just isn't right to have a small engine in this kind of car, unless they rename it the Mustang SVO. And yes, I know you can also get a turbo four in the Camaro. Sigh.
F-150 2.7 liter Ecoboost: I drove this pickup because a good friend of mine is on the engineering team for this particular engine as a thermal dynamics engineer. I believe he works with the engine's coolant system. I apologize if I am mistaken. The latest version of America's best selling vehicle now has a lighter aluminum body (I jokingly tell my friend it is a Budweiser can on wheels), and a virtually infinite number of configurations. The pickup I drove accelerated briskly, and rode and handled very well for a pickup truck. I have always liked the way the F-150 drove, and, if I ever had the need for a pickup truck, I would get an F-150. That day may come, because I am sick of hearing my cousin moan and groan about how he is the only person in the family with a pickup truck, and is always being called to help people move or haul stuff. My only nits to pick are with the overly macho interior, which has too many sharp angles for my tastes. Also, this particular model stickered at $46,000, and it had cloth seats. The base model with rear wheel drive and a regular cab is about $26,000. Pickup trucks sure aren't cheap. By the way, this great engine will make its way into the 2017 Ford Fusion Sport, which will be the family sedan from hell. Can Ford rename it the Fusion SHO?
Fusion Energi: This is a plug-in hybrid version of Ford's midsized sedan. It can run on just electric power for 20 miles, but the gas engine kicks in when needed. The product rep told me that they can get between 80-90 mpg on the highway on long trips. When you run out of juice, the 4-cylinder gas engine still gets a respectable 38 miles per gallon. It was an interesting sensation to start the car and hear nothing. It wasn't until I went up a hill when I began to hear the engine. With a combined 183 horsepower between both powerplants, performance was adequate, although I am sure most Fusion Energi buyers aren't looking for a hot rod. The Fusion Energi starts at $33,000, but the $7,500 tax credit from the Feds makes this a reasonable proposition. Also, unlike the Prius, which somehow got even uglier this year, the Fusion Energi actually looks like a normal car. This is good for most people, bad for pretentious tree huggers who want the whole world to know they are driving a fuel-efficient car.
Now on to Toyota, the world's finest maker of transportation appliances and vehicles for people who don't like to drive.
RAV4: The Rav is all new for this year. I drove a loaded model. The two-tone black and tan interior looked fantastic. I would call it the best in its class. The Toyota people took us on a much shorter drive, basically around the block, so I couldn't get a feel of how well it drove. Like any Toyota, the power, ride and handling were adequate and competent. It is a perfectly good SUV that I am sure will be reliable, and I would recommend it to people. My wife would love this car. The MSRP of the RAV is about $37,000, which is on par with other loaded vehicles in this class.
Camry: The Camry I drove was also loaded. It had the V6 engine, leather-appointed interior with attractive red stitching, and a complement of active safety features such as lane-departure warning, adaptive cruise control, and a pre-collision system, which will apply the brakes if it senses that a frontal collision is imminent. These features have been in high-end cars like Mercedes for several years, and it is good to see them trickle down to cars for the masses. This car was really quick, thanks to the V6, which, in the interest of fuel economy, may be phased out of the next redesign. Again, I couldn't get too much of a feel for the ride and handling, but they felt fine for the short drive. Again, not the world's most exciting car, but one I would definitely recommend to others.
Other comments from the test drive: I asked both reps if someone has ever wrecked a car on a test drive, they both said no, and both people had been doing this for several years. Both reps were very nice, provided good information, but did not outright try to sell the car. I had a very good conversation with Joe, the rep from Toyota, who knew a great deal about their products and the industry. He even admitted that the Dodge Grand Caravan, the car I drive, is startlingly fast, and can blow the doors off a Sienna, Toyota's minivan. I conceded that, as fast as it is, my Caravan at 80,000 miles already had two major transmission repairs and will be gone when it hits 100k and the powertrain warranty ends. I would guess that most Siennas won't have those kind of transmission issues.
Other observations from the auto show:
Prototypes and pre-production models: The big disadvantage to coming to a smaller show like this one is the lack of pre-production cars that are all over the news at the big shows in Detroit and Los Angeles. I give a lot of credit to Ford, who brought by far the most preproduction cars. I saw the Focus ST, which, with 350 horsepower, will be an unbelievably fast hot hatch. Also there was the Lincoln Continental, which didn't look bad at all in person. I think this is a good car to help save this brand. The rest of the Lincolns were awright, awright, awright. They also brought the pre-production Super Duty pickup, which borrows some of the styling cues from the new F-150 as well as the aluminum body made from the millions of recycled Pepsi cans that are being sent to Dearborn. Conspicuously absent was the new Chrysler Pacifica minivan. Judging from the pictures, this is the nicest looking minivan I have ever seen, and I would love to see one in the flesh.
Car I forgot even existed: The Buick Cascada 4-seat convertible is a rebadged, Polish-built Opel with a 1.6 liter turbo engine and a porky curb weight of just under 4,000 pounds. Since the Chrysler LeBaron convertible is no longer sold, Michael Scott would approve of this car.
Car I can't believe still exists: The Cadillac ELR. This is what happens when you take a Chevy Volt, put leather seats in it, and add $20,000 to the price. Virtually none of these cars were sold, but the ELR soldiers on, because this plug-in hybrid helps Caddy's image. This car was not present in the Cadillac display, nor were the new CT6 and XT5. (Update: It turns out Caddy pulled the proverbial plug on the ELR on 2/3/16, the same day Toyota killed the Scion brand).
Most expensive car you could actually sit in: A $115,000 loaded Corvette Z06 convertible. This sounds expensive until you realize this car can blow the doors off most Ferraris that cost double or triple this amount. Finally, the interior of this car almost justifies its price tag, and is no longer the GM plastic parts-bin nightmare that it was before.
Coolest interiors: The i3, the electric car from BMW, takes a minimalist, Scandinavian approach to its interior with eucalyptus wood on the dash and carbon fiber plastic in the door panels. Also there is no instrument panel, just one screen over the steering wheel, and another screen mounted in the center of the dash. Unfortunately, this car has a range of only 81 miles, which increases to about 150 if you pony up another $4,000 for the range extender.
The other interior worth mentioning is the Volvo XC90. With its small, but powerful engine, focus on safety, and seamless use of technology, this SUV is a game changer. The interior is tastefully decked out in leather and wood, and has a large, vertical screen in the center of the dash which is intuitive and easy to operate. There are also a handful of redundant controls under the screen for the volume, defogger, and other functions. Volvo has created an interior that is both beautiful and functional.
Most British option: The "Bespoke interior charge" on the Rolls Royce Wraith, one of several options that pushed the price of this car up to a staggering $390,000, making this the perfect car for rappers or pro athletes. To paraphrase the great Colin Firth, "Now the first thing every gentleman needs is a good interior. By which I mean, a bespoke interior. Never off the peg."
Overall impression #1: After driving the Camry, and looking at cars around the show, the next generation of safety features is making its way to affordable cars, and not just Lexus and Mercedes. About 10 years ago, multiple airbags on the front and sides of the car were becoming common. Now just about every car has them, along with traction control and stability control. Even backup cameras will be required in every car by 2018. We are now seeing a new, more active generation of safety features trickling down from luxury cars to affordable cars. Features like adaptive cruise control, lane departure warning, front crash avoidance and rear cross traffic alert systems are becoming more and more common, and it is possible they may soon become required equipment, and that's a good thing.
Overall impression #2: Boy, are new cars expensive. The average new car transaction is well over $30,000. The RAV 4 i drove was $37,000. A $65,000 pickup truck is not out of the question. Even loaded compact cars like the Cruze and the Focus push into the high 20s. Granted, these are based on the MSRP and not the out-the-door price from a dealership, but still, cars are a lousy investment, and this reinforces my belief that my money is better spent on a used car.
Sunday, January 31, 2016
Sunday, January 17, 2016
My take on the 2016 Oscar nominations
First of all, let me again preface this with the fact that the Oscars is the ultimate exercise in people in the film industry doing what they do best - pat each other on the back. Still, they are fun to follow and fun to predict. I think the Oscars do get more people interested in the movies, and that's a good thing.
So, they might as well call it the Achievements By White People In Film Awards. I thought after last year, they would overcompensate and nominate several African Americans, even if their performances weren't that great. Boy, was I wrong. Instead, for the second year in a row, all 20 acting nominees are white as rice. I am not the type of person who thinks that diversity should be mandated. I disagree in principle with affirmative action. But, to not have a single acting nominee for the second year in a row is unacceptable, and serves as evidence that the Academy needs to get their shit together. From what I have read and seen, there are worthy performances this year including Michael B. Jordan in "Creed" and Idris Elba in "Beasts Of No Nation." Hell, I wouldn't have even minded seeing John Boyega's name mentioned for "Star Wars: The Force Awakens." Again, the Academy is made up of too many old, white people. Ideally, turnover in the organization will lead to a younger, more diverse Academy, but it's not happening quickly enough. The Academy may want to consider expanding its ranks to prevent this from happening again. I just hope they don't do something stupid like require a "minority" nominee in each category. With this rant out of the way, here are my insights and observations on the nominations. I have seen very few of the nominees, so most of this comes from what I have read and heard.
Best picture: I have seen a whopping two of the eight nominees. Here is my take on both of these movies.
The Martian: Loved it. Loved the book, which I read in four days. Loved the movie, which is a great adaptation of the book. Easily one of the best movies I have seen this year. I liked that it was "science fact," and all the technology and science in the movie is real. And, of course, this guy. He was great, and truly deserved his acting nomination. More on director Ridley Scott later...
Mad Max: Fury Road: I was pleasantly surprised to see such a balls-to-the-wall action movie nominated for best picture, and 9 other Oscars. The movie was essentially one long car chase, but the screenplay had just enough depth to get the viewer invested in the characters. The action scenes, which heavily favored stuntwork and practical effects over CGI, are impeccably staged, and the movie's vision of a post-apocalyptic world was sometimes bizarre but always inventive. Very entertaining to watch overall, which is not something that can be said about many other stuffy and artsy Best Picture contenders.
The snubs:
Before everyone starts moaning and groaning, let me get this out of the way. Star Wars: The Force Awakens was a good movie, not a great movie. It was entertaining, and I am glad I saw it in the theater. Yes, it was much better than the prequels, but that's not really saying much. It was, as far as I am concerned, not a Best Picture-caliber movie. Nor should the screenplay be nominated, because it was more or less a remix of Episode IV. It is truly deserving of the 5 technical awards it is nominated for, particularly John Williams' 50th nomination for score. One can use the popular argument that it is now the top-grossing movie of all time, but, as I have said before, just because McDonald's is the most popular place to eat in the U.S. doesn't make it the best. Also, I am not yet ready to mention Quentin Tarantino for The Hateful Eight, since I haven't seen it, the reviews are all over the map, and some, not all, of his work tends to be self-indulgent.
Ridley Scott: This one has the most people talking, and justifiably so. The 78-year-old director of "The Martian" did a great job here, using the device of cameras mounted in the astronauts' habitat and rover. It is unfortunate that he gets nominated for mediocrity like Gladiator, but not this. My guess is the Academy doesn't see Scott as an artist, but rather a commercial director who cranks out blockbusters. In their defense, he has helmed many multimillion dollar productions, and some of them, like Legend and Hannibal, were complete junk. However, based on this film, he deserves a nomination. On a similar note, Steven Spielberg was shut out of this category again, even though "Bridge of Spies" was nominated for Best Picture.
Inside Out: Since they have space for 10 Best Picture nominees, and there were eight this year, this deserves a Best Picture nomination. This was a great-looking movie that told an original, engaging story. It is one of the best movies to come out of Pixar in years. The Academy hesitates to give animated films a shot at the big prize (only two animated movies were ever nominated), instead relegating them to the best animated feature category. I am sure this is because an animated feature doesn't require the same crew and filmmaking process that are required by a live-action movie. Still, if we are honoring the best movies of the year, "Inside Out" deserved a spot on this list.
Straight Outta Compton: I haven't seen it, but I am looking forward to watching this critically-acclaimed story about the origins of gangsta rap group N.W.A. Supposedly, this movie also deserved a Best Picture nomination. If this an indication of who picks these awards, this film's only nomination was for the four white people who wrote the screenplay.
Charlize Theron: Since Mad Max: Fury Road was nominated for 10 Oscars, why not recognize its performances? As Imperator Furiosa, Theron was the toughest, baddest action heroine I have seen since Sigourney Weaver's performances as Ellen Ripley in the Alien franchise. Female action heroes are few and far between, and are often pushed into the background (see The Avengers). Theron owned this part, and deserved a nomination for Best Actress.
See You Again: For the Best Original Song category, This Wiz Khalifa hit from Furious 7 is well-written and catchy, and supposedly packs an emotional wallop at the end of the movie given the untimely death of Paul Walker. Sam Smith is great, but "Writing's on the Wall" from Spectre is not his best work.
Young people: 9-year-old Jacob Tremblay, who was supposedly outstanding in Room, a disturbing story about a boy and his mother kidnapped and held in a small room, was not nominated. Brie Larson, who played his mother, was nominated, and the film was also nominated for director, screenplay and picture.
Old people: Usually there are a handful of very old actors nominated, if only to recognize their body of work. This year, the oldest nominee is 68-year-old Charlotte Rampling for 45 Years. Supposedly, Jane Fonda and Helen Mirren both delivered worthy performances.
Other observations:
God may no longer hate Leonardo DiCaprio. After five nominations and no prize, he is the heavy favorite to win Best Actor for his performance in The Revenant. If it takes getting eaten by a bear to win an Oscar, so be it. Still I wouldn't be surprised if Eddie Redmayne, or this guy pulls the upset.
As of right now, this is one of the most wide-open Best Picture races I have seen in a while. The Revenant is the favorite right now, but I am also hearing and reading that Spotlight and The Big Short are possibilities. I am even hearing that Mad Max could pull an upset. We will probably get a clearer picture of what is going to happen after the guild awards, which take place over the next month.
I haven't seen Creed yet, but I can't wait to watch it. I couldn't be happier for Sly Stallone, who is certainly the sentimental favorite to win. I certainly won't bet against Rocky Balboa. By the way, if he does win, Stallone should take this opportunity to thank his co-star Michael B. Jordan and director Ryan Coogler, which he neglected to do at the Golden Globes.
Here's hoping the best movies win, and that the awards ceremony is not the usual long, bloated mess.
So, they might as well call it the Achievements By White People In Film Awards. I thought after last year, they would overcompensate and nominate several African Americans, even if their performances weren't that great. Boy, was I wrong. Instead, for the second year in a row, all 20 acting nominees are white as rice. I am not the type of person who thinks that diversity should be mandated. I disagree in principle with affirmative action. But, to not have a single acting nominee for the second year in a row is unacceptable, and serves as evidence that the Academy needs to get their shit together. From what I have read and seen, there are worthy performances this year including Michael B. Jordan in "Creed" and Idris Elba in "Beasts Of No Nation." Hell, I wouldn't have even minded seeing John Boyega's name mentioned for "Star Wars: The Force Awakens." Again, the Academy is made up of too many old, white people. Ideally, turnover in the organization will lead to a younger, more diverse Academy, but it's not happening quickly enough. The Academy may want to consider expanding its ranks to prevent this from happening again. I just hope they don't do something stupid like require a "minority" nominee in each category. With this rant out of the way, here are my insights and observations on the nominations. I have seen very few of the nominees, so most of this comes from what I have read and heard.
Best picture: I have seen a whopping two of the eight nominees. Here is my take on both of these movies.
The Martian: Loved it. Loved the book, which I read in four days. Loved the movie, which is a great adaptation of the book. Easily one of the best movies I have seen this year. I liked that it was "science fact," and all the technology and science in the movie is real. And, of course, this guy. He was great, and truly deserved his acting nomination. More on director Ridley Scott later...
Mad Max: Fury Road: I was pleasantly surprised to see such a balls-to-the-wall action movie nominated for best picture, and 9 other Oscars. The movie was essentially one long car chase, but the screenplay had just enough depth to get the viewer invested in the characters. The action scenes, which heavily favored stuntwork and practical effects over CGI, are impeccably staged, and the movie's vision of a post-apocalyptic world was sometimes bizarre but always inventive. Very entertaining to watch overall, which is not something that can be said about many other stuffy and artsy Best Picture contenders.
The snubs:
Before everyone starts moaning and groaning, let me get this out of the way. Star Wars: The Force Awakens was a good movie, not a great movie. It was entertaining, and I am glad I saw it in the theater. Yes, it was much better than the prequels, but that's not really saying much. It was, as far as I am concerned, not a Best Picture-caliber movie. Nor should the screenplay be nominated, because it was more or less a remix of Episode IV. It is truly deserving of the 5 technical awards it is nominated for, particularly John Williams' 50th nomination for score. One can use the popular argument that it is now the top-grossing movie of all time, but, as I have said before, just because McDonald's is the most popular place to eat in the U.S. doesn't make it the best. Also, I am not yet ready to mention Quentin Tarantino for The Hateful Eight, since I haven't seen it, the reviews are all over the map, and some, not all, of his work tends to be self-indulgent.
Ridley Scott: This one has the most people talking, and justifiably so. The 78-year-old director of "The Martian" did a great job here, using the device of cameras mounted in the astronauts' habitat and rover. It is unfortunate that he gets nominated for mediocrity like Gladiator, but not this. My guess is the Academy doesn't see Scott as an artist, but rather a commercial director who cranks out blockbusters. In their defense, he has helmed many multimillion dollar productions, and some of them, like Legend and Hannibal, were complete junk. However, based on this film, he deserves a nomination. On a similar note, Steven Spielberg was shut out of this category again, even though "Bridge of Spies" was nominated for Best Picture.
Inside Out: Since they have space for 10 Best Picture nominees, and there were eight this year, this deserves a Best Picture nomination. This was a great-looking movie that told an original, engaging story. It is one of the best movies to come out of Pixar in years. The Academy hesitates to give animated films a shot at the big prize (only two animated movies were ever nominated), instead relegating them to the best animated feature category. I am sure this is because an animated feature doesn't require the same crew and filmmaking process that are required by a live-action movie. Still, if we are honoring the best movies of the year, "Inside Out" deserved a spot on this list.
Straight Outta Compton: I haven't seen it, but I am looking forward to watching this critically-acclaimed story about the origins of gangsta rap group N.W.A. Supposedly, this movie also deserved a Best Picture nomination. If this an indication of who picks these awards, this film's only nomination was for the four white people who wrote the screenplay.
Charlize Theron: Since Mad Max: Fury Road was nominated for 10 Oscars, why not recognize its performances? As Imperator Furiosa, Theron was the toughest, baddest action heroine I have seen since Sigourney Weaver's performances as Ellen Ripley in the Alien franchise. Female action heroes are few and far between, and are often pushed into the background (see The Avengers). Theron owned this part, and deserved a nomination for Best Actress.
See You Again: For the Best Original Song category, This Wiz Khalifa hit from Furious 7 is well-written and catchy, and supposedly packs an emotional wallop at the end of the movie given the untimely death of Paul Walker. Sam Smith is great, but "Writing's on the Wall" from Spectre is not his best work.
Young people: 9-year-old Jacob Tremblay, who was supposedly outstanding in Room, a disturbing story about a boy and his mother kidnapped and held in a small room, was not nominated. Brie Larson, who played his mother, was nominated, and the film was also nominated for director, screenplay and picture.
Old people: Usually there are a handful of very old actors nominated, if only to recognize their body of work. This year, the oldest nominee is 68-year-old Charlotte Rampling for 45 Years. Supposedly, Jane Fonda and Helen Mirren both delivered worthy performances.
Other observations:
God may no longer hate Leonardo DiCaprio. After five nominations and no prize, he is the heavy favorite to win Best Actor for his performance in The Revenant. If it takes getting eaten by a bear to win an Oscar, so be it. Still I wouldn't be surprised if Eddie Redmayne, or this guy pulls the upset.
As of right now, this is one of the most wide-open Best Picture races I have seen in a while. The Revenant is the favorite right now, but I am also hearing and reading that Spotlight and The Big Short are possibilities. I am even hearing that Mad Max could pull an upset. We will probably get a clearer picture of what is going to happen after the guild awards, which take place over the next month.
I haven't seen Creed yet, but I can't wait to watch it. I couldn't be happier for Sly Stallone, who is certainly the sentimental favorite to win. I certainly won't bet against Rocky Balboa. By the way, if he does win, Stallone should take this opportunity to thank his co-star Michael B. Jordan and director Ryan Coogler, which he neglected to do at the Golden Globes.
Here's hoping the best movies win, and that the awards ceremony is not the usual long, bloated mess.
Thursday, January 14, 2016
The best of Alan Rickman
 |
| Alan Rickman 1946-2016 |
Recently, we lost another great actor. I was going to say something about him on my upcoming commentary about the Oscar nominations, but Alan Rickman was such a great actor, I felt I had to give him his own post. By all accounts, he was a consummate professional and a nice guy. According to Daniel Radcliffe (the actor who played Harry Potter), Alan Rickman was one of the only people who treated him like a colleague and not a child. It is a shame he was never nominated for an Oscar (although he should have won for Die Hard!), but, according to the late actor, he didn't care much about awards, and said that acting awards come more from roles than performances. I am going to be highlighting what I believe is his best work as an actor. Spoiler alerts ahead.
Die Hard (1987) - Hans Gruber: Greatest movie villain ever. Need I say more? He was ruthless, heartless, and unpredictable. Who can forget the moment when Takagi refused to give him the password to open the safe and said "You are just going to have to kill me." Hans promptly said "okay," and shot him in the head. However he was suave, calm and in control at all times. The character never went over the top like countless other movie villains (see Commando). The best moment in the movie for me was, after he convinced everyone that he and his henchmen were terrorists, he spoke to the FBI and asked for the release of a bunch of random terrorist groups, including the "Asian Dawn." When his partner in crime, Karl, asked what was going on, he responded by covering up the phone and saying "I read about them in Forbes magazine." It turns out that the villains were simply trying to rob the place -- of $600 million in bearer bonds. This was the then 41-year-old Rickman's first feature film. The director and producer of the movie were watching a stage production of Dangerous Liaisons in which Rickman played the evil Vicomte de Valmont. After the play, they both agreed they had their villain. Rickman managed to completely steal the show from headliner Bruce Willis, and that is back when Willis actually tried to act. He was one of the many elements that elevated Die Hard from a run-of-the-mill action flick to one of the greatest movies ever made. How he was not even nominated for an Oscar for this performance baffles me. Maybe it is because he was a newcomer, or because the Academy didn't realize how unbelievably good this movie actually was. Everyone said how great his reaction was during his character's death scene as he fell onto a blue screen. That expression of terror wasn't acting, it was real. A crew member deliberately dropped him one second early to catch him off guard.
Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991) - Sheriff of Nottingham: In Die Hard, he turned a good movie into a classic. With this performance, he turned a bad movie into a watchable one. This was a dark, drab, overly violent movie with erratic pacing, a cheesy love story, and a horrendously bad performance by Kevin Costner. Rickman's scenery-chewing turn as the villainous sheriff brought a much-needed sense of humor and levity to the movie. I loved the line where he threatened to cut Robin Hood's heart out with a spoon. One of his assistants asks "why a spoon?" and his response was "Because it's dull, you twit! It will hurt more." His over-the-top death scene sealed the deal. By the way, did anyone notice that Nottingham won the duel with Robin Hood? The only reason the sheriff died is because Robin cheated by pulling out a dagger.
Galaxy Quest (1999) - Alexander Dane: I love this movie because it does a great job making fun of Star Trek, but is an original story and not an all-out parody. Rickman plays Alexander Dane, an actor who portrays the alien character with a huge fan base - basically the Spock of the movie. However, Dane, like Rickman himself, is a serious actor who adores the craft, and views this iconic character as being beneath him - until he realizes how many people idolize him and his character. I love his deadpan delivery of "By Grabthar's hammer, what a savings" as his character appears at a grand opening of an electronics store.
Harry Potter film series (2001 - 2011) - Severus Snape: Rickman does an outstanding job playing what is easily the most complex character in J.K. Rowling's novels. Is he evil? Is he good? If he dislikes Harry so much, why does he protect him? Rickman was told early on about his complete character arc by Rowling. He kept this a secret from the cast and the crew. The final scene with Snape, when we finally hear the whole story about him, is a real tearjerker as we understand his motivation, and all of his actions throughout all eight movies finally make sense. There were many instances where you could see the character, as a double-agent for Dumbledore, hold back his emotions, particularly the opening scene of Deathly Hallows, Part I, when his friend, a Hogwarts professor, is killed by Voldemort and his Death Eaters.
Love Actually (2003) - Harry: He doesn't play a villain here, just a dick. He does a good job playing a dick, too. In this star-studded movie, which juggles multiple stories about love during the holidays, Rickman's Harry gets caught cheating on his wife. He apologizes, and she stays with him because of their children. One would assume they lived unhappily ever after. This is one of the few romantic movies I enjoyed because not every story, particularly this one, had a happy ending. On a side note, remember poor Andrew Lincoln's character on the outside of their best friends' marriage looking in at Keira Knightley? At least he got to take out his frustrations by killing lots of zombies.
Before you ask, I have no desire to see "Sense and Sensibility," and "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" was just OK to me. Same goes for "Dogma."
Finally, I hope Mr. Rickman is in a better place, sitting on a beach, earning 20 percent.
Saturday, June 27, 2015
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
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.
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
Sunday, March 1, 2015
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)