Spolier Review - World Series

October is a month of full of franchises that have been long running.  Most of these are horror franchises such as Halloween, Saw, and most recently Paranormal Activity.  However, no franchise seems to have been longer running than World Series, now in its 111^th installment.  The franchise has certainly had its ups and downs, but you have to commend the producers for consistent putting a product out year after year.  World Series took some bold steps in casting decisions this year, and I think they ultimately paid off, even if the first few acts were a bit of a bore.

Overall, the producers did a great job with casting.  It was a bit of gamble to bring in a complete unknown like the Kansas City Royals as the underdog protagonist, but it paid off in spades.  The audience couldn’t help but root for these no-name kids from the Midwest.  Given the pool of talent the producers had to work with, I thought it was a fine choice having the San Francisco Giants as the hated juggernaut.  It was pretty uninspired casting, but given that several other big names were unavailable, they fit the bill and played their role well here.

World Series has always been known for excruciating run times manage to pay off the longer they go.  This year was no exception.  The first six acts were pretty uneventful for the most part, but the final act was a treat for all who stuck around.  One of the things I’ve always appreciated about this franchise is that you can drop in at any time and really not miss too much.  Besides the development of the Bumgarner character, you didn’t miss much if you skipped the first six acts. 

The end was pretty fantastic, and best of all, it felt REAL.  How often do we see these scrappy underdogs get just what they need at the very end against their greatest nemesis?  It’s almost a cliché.  I thought the producers took a bold stand by getting the Royals right there in the end against Bumgarner (of course they brought him back; I think everyone saw that coming) and ultimately falling short.  The end achieved something rarely seen in this franchise: respect and adoration for both sides.  You couldn’t help but at least appreciate what the Giants had done, even if it was at the expense of the fan favorite.

I thought the technical work was fine.  The director heavily relied on static shots over the pitcher’s shoulder, which has always been a solid tried-and-true method.  I thought there were some nice aerial shots as well.  There were some great close-ups in the last act that really showed the emotion everyone was going through.  It was solid work as always.

Overall, World Series 2014 was a solid entry into the franchise.  I don’t think it will have the same iconic status as other entries in the franchise though.  We had an underdog protagonist that was easy to root for, and an antagonist that we came to begrudgingly accept in an ending that felt earned.  I don’t know if I’ll come back to the franchise when it inevitably comes back next October, but if the cast looks interesting, I may catch some of the later acts yet again.

+ Fun characters

+ Genuine ending that felt earned

- Interminably long

Grade: B

Mediocrities Categories

The tentative list of categories is as follows:

Best Picture
Best Director
Best Actor
Best Actress
Best Supporting Actor
Best Supporting Actress
Best Writing
Best Cinematography, or Prettiest
Best Score
Best Scene
Worst Movie
Worst Performance

I added a page on the spreadsheet that goes into more detail.  For the lead acting categories, I added everyone that qualifies.  For the supporting categories, I think I got anyone that received any praise in our reviews.  I added a bunch of best scene candidates on the spreadsheet.  Add personal favorites, if only to remind us that they exist.

Any other categories worth adding?

The Importance of Rewatchability

I’ve noticed more and more that people are mentioning whether or not they’d rewatch a movie, implying that it affects their grade.  I’ve touched on it before, but I’m curious now how much weight each of us puts on a movie’s rewatchability.  Personally, it means next to nothing to me.  There’s far too much easily accessible good media out there for me to ever factor this in.  Hell, the last movie I think I sat down to rewatch was The Two Towers, and that was two years ago.  (Not counting movies for MMC of couse.)

Like I said, with so many options out there, what is the appeal to rewatching anything?  I know it helps a little with comedy, as some jokes are better the second time around, but with a Western like Butch Cassidy or a documentary like Dear Zachary, does a rewatch really help?  And isn’t that experience powerful enough especially with Dear Zachary to stand on its own?  And at the same time, why would you choose to rewatch any movie when you could watch something like The Graduate or Apocalypse Now for the first time?  I loved Apocalypse Now and gave it an A – I have no desire to ever watch it again.  I had a great experience with it; why change how that went with another viewing?

I’m also getting to the point where the need to rewatch a movie is becoming a negative for me.  This is why I bumped my Major League grade down to a B after watching it recently, and I should probably revise my Anchorman grade, b/c it has this same dilemma.  Saying a movie needs watched again is almost an apology for the content.  90% of a typical movie’s audience will only see the movie once.  I see it as a small failure of the director that their movie needs to be consumed multiple times in order to “get it.”  That’s what makes a movie like Inception so impressive – the plot is nuts and complicated, yet you can catch everything in a single viewing so long as you’re paying attention.

Now, that being said… My next pick is a movie we’ve all seen, so I’m definitely bucking the trend whenever I get to pick again.

Spoiler-free Gone Girl Review

As I watched the previews for “Gone Girl,” I couldn’t help thinking that 2014 has blessed us with a stacked Awards’ Season.  With “Interstellar,” “Fury,” “American Sniper,” and “Exodus: Gods and Kings” coming soon (yes, I’m sucker and am cautiously optimistic for Exodus) as well as some fun big-budget stuff like “Mockingjay” and “The Battle of the Five Armies” out there too, I was thinking that Gone Girl might be good, but I doubted I would walk away thinking it was going to be a guaranteed multi-Oscar winner… And lo and behold, that’s exactly how I felt.

If you’ve seen “The Social Network,” you should know what you’re getting into stylistically with Gone Girl.  The movie looks like a David Fincher movie, and that’s a good thing.  It wasn’t over-directed in any sense, but we get several great shots, particularly during a pivotal scene near the end of the movie that I won’t get into.  Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross are on music like in Social Network, and they did a fantastic job of using the score to lead the audience to the exact emotions Fincher is trying to portray.  Reznor and Ross are probably the early frontrunners for Best Original Score in what is the first of many nominations this movie will garner come Oscar time.

Gone Girl will likely also walk away with Best Adapted Screenplay without any real competition.  The movie is 145 minutes long, but it’s a VERY quick 145 minutes.  Gilllian Flynn wrote the movie as well as the novel it’s based on, and she did a fantastic job bringing the story through a very dense plot with quite a few events to stuff in.  Best of all, unlike a previous Fincher film we’re all familiar with, “The Game,” this is a movie that stands on its own even after knowing the twists.  I credit that to the story Flynn wrote and, more importantly, the characters in that story.

Kissel said on the Facebook group that he was worried about this movie being spoiled if he doesn’t see it soon.  He’s probably right; I give it about two more weeks before SNL does something involving Amy Dunne, amazingly portrayed by Rosamund Pike.  Pike is getting a Best Actress nomination for her work here.  Pike plays Dunne through several stages of her disastrous five-year marriage with Nick, and she nails all of them with flying colors.  Based on everything else coming out this year, I don’t know how she gets beaten for the award. 

Pike’s performance overshadows the rest of the cast, but I also wanted to call out Carrie Coon and Nick’s sister Margo.  Coon has had a breakout 2014, playing the sympathetic and nutty Nora on “The Leftovers” as well.  This will probably be where most people discover Coon, and she’s very good as Margo.  Ben Affleck as Nick does a good job as the bumbling straight man for a large portion of the movie.  He will probably not get any accolades, but he was good.

I have no real qualms with this movie other than the historical inaccuracies that no one was talking about quinoa in 2007 and Nick is seen playing Battlefield 4 in a 2010 flashback (game came out in 2013).  Ugh, fact check fools.  Ok, I do have one thing I didn’t like, but it’s a semi-spoiler that I will not get into now.

As you can tell, I loved Gone Girl.  If it came out in 2013, it would have definitely given “12 Years a Slave” a run for its money (haven’t seen 12 Years yet, so I can’t definitively comment, but considering “American Hustle” was so talked about, I think my statement is fair).  It’s David Fincher at his best, masterfully creating a dark and creepy thriller that will stick with you.

+ Rosamund Pike

+ Carrie Coon

+ Great Script that makes 145 minutes fly by

+ Fincher doing really good Fincher stuff

+ Reznor and Ross with another awesome score

- [REDACTED – SPOILER]

Grade: A+

Please do not post spoilers in the comments!  Once enough of us have seen it, we can start a separate spoiler thread.

What Phil Claimed about Beatles Fans

 Phil posited, "Whenever anyone under 37 tells me their favorite band is The Beatles, I always ask the same two questions: 1) Are your parents huge Beatles fans and 2) Do you go to a lot of concerts. I almost invariably get the same two answers: yes and no. That tells me they just aren’t a big fan of music in general and they’re purely tapping into nostalgia. They choose the Beatles b/c it’s a fairly inoffensive answer and they don’t have much more to draw on. I got bad news for you: The Beatles have been iterated on. If you asked an alien to listen to the Beatles and Oasis and asked the alien who the better band is, it would pick Oasis..."

Most of you know I am a huge fan of The Beatles and will often defend them when people attempt to trash them or their fans. When Phil claimed Beatles fans are not well educated in music, I immediately became interested.  Here my answers to your questions.  1) No  2) No.  My dad is not a huge fan but was like everyone else growing up in America throughout the 1960s - typically enjoying The Beatles. My mom is a big Patsy Cline and Elvis fan.  She appreciates The Beatles but not exactly a big fan.  I turned on to them when I was teenager because I would rather listen to Rubber Soul (one of their better albums) than any rap or the pop shit on the mainstream radio during the mid to late 90s.  When I heard the White Album, Revolver, and Abbey Road, I was sold.

Why do I not go to concerts?  I don't like the atmosphere.  I saw O.A.R. live and it was fun but I could easily enjoy "Crazy Game of Poker," "City on Down," and "This Town" through my home stereo system and/or phone.  I saw Lifehouse and Dot Dot Dot at the Bluebird when I lived in Bloomington and the both put on great shows but I hated feeling trapped.  I have no interest in being around a mosh pit or a lot of weed so concerts aren't my scene.

Yes, Phil is correct that The Beatles were iterated but way sooner than Oasis.  The Beatles kicked off the British Invasion during the mid 1960s and were successful.  From their success, we heard from other noun based bands prefaced by an article such as The Rolling Stones, The Who, The Zombies, The Hollies, The Animals, The Kinks, The Moody Blues, The Troggs, and The Yardbirds.  So yes, Phil, The Beatles were iterated but they also iterated other bands,  One song that gets mistakenly credited to them is "Twist and Shout."  That song belongs to the Isley Brothers, it's just that The Beatles did it better.  They also covered Buddy Holly's "Words of Love," and it sounds better than the original. The Beatles get mimicked when bands don't even know they are doing it.

Now, Phil specifically mentioned Oasis as iterating The Beatles.  The Beatles were a four member band with each member playing an instrument and singing.  Oasis had (have?) five members and more or less resemble The Rolling Stones.  Why compare them to The Beatles?  Because they're British?  Well, so are the Stones and have the same amount of members, so why not the Stones?  Would Phil think the same way if someone said The Stones were his/her favorite band?  The Who?  Zeppelin?  Aerosmith?  Hahaha - Aerosmith...anyway.  I think it comes down to the fact Phil doesn't like The Beatles or that they are consistently ranked as the top band by Rolling Stone Magazine. I sense some jealousy.

Finally, Phil stated that "if you asked an alien to listen to the Beatles and Oasis and asked the alien who the better band is, it would pick Oasis."  That has to be one of the dumbest things I read and sometimes I read an editorial from Fox News.  I can think of three big hits from Oasis: "Wonderwall," "Champagne Supernova," and "Don't Look Back in Anger."  I can think of twenty - seven number one hits from the Beatles so let's contrast.  "Get Back" or "Wonderwall"...."Hey Jude" or "Wonderwall"  "All You Need is Love" or "Wonderwall"..."Eleanor Rigby" or "Wonderwall"...."Help!" or "Wonderwall"....yeah, an alien would not pick Oasis.  I think Phil just enjoyed this SNL skit too much and believed what the Will Ferrell character said

So Phil, I understand I am not like all Beatles' fans you encountered.  After all, I worked as a DJ/Producer in college (big whoop) and had to keep up with new music every week.  To dismiss all fans of one band is way too simplistic.  C'mon, us Beatles' fans are not Yankees fans.  When someone asks me what is my favorite band, I have a tough time answering it because I love Soundgarden, Nirvana, Alice in Chains, Boston, Journey, Florence + The Machine, The Shins, Mellencamp, and many many others.  I then ask the questioner, "of all time?"  If that's the case, it is The Beatles...without hesitation or equivocation. 

Genres: The Debate Continues

Hartman was right all along.  If we're going to do genres, it needs to be formalized.  I started with this link and mostly stuck to it: http://www.filmsite.org/genres.html

Genre proposition is as follows:

Action (sub-genres of Martial Arts (Ong Bak), Superhero (The Avengers), Exploitation (Machete), Spy (Skyfall), Disaster (Sharknado), Revenge (Kill Bill), Bad-Ass (Con Air), Chase (The Fugitive), Revolution (Hunger Games))

Adventure (sub-genres of Treasure Hunt (National Treasure), Fantasy (Lord of the Rings), Journey (Life of Pi), Life Story (Forrest Gump), Swashbuckler (Aladdin))

Comedy (sub-genres of Spoof (Austin Powers), Satire (Office Space), Slapstick (Ace Ventura), Raunchy (There's Something About Mary), Character-Based (Funny People), Romantic (The Ugly Truth), Sports (Major League), Drug (Pineapple Express))

Crime (sub genres of Mafia (Goodfellas), Heist (Ocean's Eleven), Small-Time (Fargo), Gangster (Pulp Fiction), Police (French Connection))

Documentary (sub-genres of Activist (Blackfish), Participatory (Farenheit 9/11), Personal (Dear Zachary), Investigatory (Standard Operating Procedure), Competition (King of Kong), Nature (March of the Penguins), Verite (Only the Young), Performance (Conan O'Brien Can't Stop))

Drama (sub-genres of Historical (Lincoln), Biopic (Walk the Line), Romance (Punch Drunk Love), Family (Little Miss Sunshine), Workplace (Glengarry Glen Ross), Psychodrama (Fight Club), Sports (Rocky), Ensemble (Crash), Coming of Age (Stand By Me), Character Study (There Will Be Blood))

Epic (sub-genres of Sword and Sandals (Gladiator), Heroic (Braveheart), War (Apocalypse Now))

Horror (sub-genres of Torture Porn (Saw), Slasher (Friday the 13th), Serial Killer (Se7en), Satanic (The Exorcist), Home Invasion (Straw Dogs), Psychological (The Shining), Creature (Jaws), Ghosts (Sixth Sense), Zombie (28 Days Later), Mythical (Dracula))

Musicals

Science Fiction (sub-genres of Space Travel (Sunshine), Aliens (Alien), Technology (Terminator 2), Time Travel (Back to the Future), Space Opera (Star Wars))

Westerns (genres of Classic (3:10 to Yuma) and Revisionist (Unforgiven))

What do you think?

Summer TV

In terms of media entertainment, it’s tough to get much worse than July.  If you’re a big movie fan, all the major summer blockbusters are out, and now we’re getting the garbage action stuff.  (Hercules will surely be a guilty pleasure for me though.)  If you’re a sports fan, all you got are preseason NFL reports and dog days baseball.  If you’re a video game fan (like me), you’re getting a lot of solid one-off experiences while waiting for the fall tidal wave.  And if you’re a TV fan, you’re getting the stuff not good enough for the fall/spring, save a couple hidden gems.  So, with that, what the hell is everyone watching?  And better yet, is there anything good out there?  In case you wanna jump into something, here’s how everything is doing in the ratings…

http://uproxx.com/tv/2014/07/how-are-the-new-summer-shows-like-the-strain-and-the-leftovers-doing-in-the-ratings-so-far/

Here’s what I’m watching, from most interesting to least…

The Leftovers

Synopsis: The Leftovers takes place three years after a global "Rapture", which caused the unexplainable disappearance of 2% of the world population. It centers not on the people who were taken, but on the ones left behind, in the hamlet of Mapleton, New York.

My Thoughts: Fantastic concept on paper that is being done… fairly well.  The show mainly follows the town sheriff and his fractured family, using them as a conduit to give us how various groups have come to terms with the event.  Since it’s from the creator of Lost, it’s not surprising that the mystery is the draw.  I also have issues with the central storyline revolving around a strange cult known as The Guilty Remnants. 

(Side note: I was 99.99999% sure that we would not see an on-screen death more gruesome than “you know which one” from Game of Thrones in all of 2014.  HOLY BEJESUS WAS I WRONG.  The one from this week’s episode takes the cake, the pie, and any other desserts you would be offering up.)

Nathan For You

Synopsis: In the series, Fielder plays an off-kilter version of himself, who tries to use his business background (a commerce degree from the University of Victoria (UVIC) in 2005) and life experiences to help struggling companies and people, offering them strategies that no traditional business consultant would dare to attempt.

My Thoughts: PLEASE TELL ME SOMEONE ELSE IS WATCHING THIS SHOW!  It’s amazing.  Easily the best thing on during the summer.  I have the infamous “Dumb Starbucks” episode DVR’ed currently.

Tyrant

Synopsis: Bassam "Barry" Al Fayeed is from the war-torn fictional country of Abbudin. He has been living in self-imposed exile in Los Angeles for nearly 20 years. Barry, the younger son of Abbudin's dictator, ends his exile to return with his American family to his homeland for his nephew's wedding. His arrival leads to a dramatic culture clash, as he reluctantly returns to the familial and national politics he once left.

My Thoughts:The trailer drew me in and I’ve never watched any FX drama, so why not start here.  I’m not sure I’m gonna last with this one.  Character actions are pretty silly for a show taking itself so seriously, and the potential for the "White Savior" is taken to the nth degree in such an unbelievable way (yes the main character isn't white, but the concept is analogous).

Wilfred

Synopsis: The show follows a young man named Ryan (Elijah Wood) and his neighbor's dog Wilfred (Jason Gann). In the opening episode, Ryan concocts a drug cocktail in order to commit suicide. After this failed attempt, Ryan's neighbor, Jenna (Fiona Gubelmann), knocks on his door to ask him to look after Wilfred, whom Ryan sees and hears as a man in a dog costume.

My Take: I’m dangerously close to “hate-watch” territory with this one.  I just want to see how it ends, and I’m very much prepared to be let down big time.

Emmy Nominations

Here's a solid list of the Emmy nominations with some commentary from Metacritic...

http://www.metacritic.com/feature/2014-primetime-emmy-nominees

No point in going to the insanity that networks get to classify their stuff as comedy/drama/miniseries, as that's a whole other post.  I'm just going to throw out my very unresearched and uninformed predictions in the Drama and Comedy categories.

Drama

Outstanding Drama: We all missed Downton Abbey in the prediction post.  Hey, here's a fun fact - only ONE of these shows aired more than 10 episodes this Emmy year (House of Cards).  Game of Thrones at 10 was second highest.  Even though it should be in miniseries, I'll go True Detective.  Definitely commited to a vision, and it was strong start to finish.  I still think it's cheating it's even in here.
Lead Actor: You know Jon Hamm is licking his chops for 2015.  Regardless, Cranston and McConaughey are a total tossup if you ask me.  I think the voters go with Matthew McConaughey b/c they only have one shot and he definitely deserves something.
Lead Actress: Only show I've ever watched on this list is Scandal, and Kerry Washington ain't winning for that performance.  I'll go chalk here: Claire Danes.
Supporting Actor: It would be a travesty of the highest order if Peter Dinklage lost.  I'm guessing he'll be the biggest favorite to win in the Drama races.
Supporting Actress: I thought Lena Headey had a strong season, so why not?
Guest Actor: I feel like this is a dark horse pick - Joe Morton  made every scene he was in better in Scandal.  I'll go with him.  Bert Cooper is definitely not winning.
Guest Actress: No clue as I only watched three of these shows.  Of those I do watch, Diana Rigg is a standout.
Writing: Maybe I'm crazy, but this one feels like a slam dunk for Moira Walley-Beckett.  Even though I didn't watch Breaking Bad, I've heard how great "Ozymandias" was. 
Director: Another slam dunk.  Cary Joji Fukunaga locked this sucker up with one shot.

Comedy

Outstanding Comedy: I really hope Modern Family doesn't win, only because it's not as good as its legacy would suggest.  Nope, give this one to critic darling Orange is the New Black.
Lead Actor: Jeez, I watch none of these.  Just b/c I like him, Louis C.K.
Lead Actress: Stacked group.  Amy Poehler deserves to win for Leslie Knope at some point, but not sure it's this year.  Julie Louis-Dreyfus in a walk probably.
Supporting Actor: I thought Andre Braugher was great in Brooklyn 99.
Supporting Actress: No clue, as I don't think Kate Mulgrew is one of the stronger OITNB performers.  I thought Anna Chlumsky had a strong year in Veep, so I'll go that route.
Guest Actor: Gary Cole dominated in Veep with a fun role.  Sure.
Guest Actress:  Wow, there are all the OITNB noms.  One of 'em is probably gonna win, and it should probably be Uzo Aduba, who had the toughest role and nailed it.
Writing: No clue.  Veep's writing is always strong, so Simon Blackwell, Tony Roche, Armando Iannucci.
Directing: Hey remember when everyone watched Glee?  Anyway, just b/c they won't shut Modern Family out complete, Julia Mancuso.

Grading Philosophies

Having now completed one full round of Mediocre Movie Reviews, I can’t help but think about our similarities and differences in grading philosophy.  I have been trying to gauge how most of us grade movies, and I feel that we all approach things at a slightly different angle.  This is definitely a good thing – it’d be extremely boring if we all just gave out the same grade.  It’s fun to have divisive movies like Machete Kills out there; the most interesting discussions have come from the movies that divided us the most.  That being said, I was hoping each of us could briefly sum up how we grade movies, just to give the rest of us a better idea where we’re coming from with our grades.

Now, I know on the spreadsheet, Kissel has included his "rubric" if you will.  I’m glad that works for him, but it feels a little too “checklist” for me personally.  I have a feeling that if Kissel took a Myers-Briggs personality test, he’d score high in the Sensing category (See: http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/sensing-or-intuition.asp).  My personality type doesn’t jive with that sort of system (I’m pretty in the middle on sensing vs. intuition, but I tend to end up closer to the side of intuition), and I end up grading on a much more blurry scale.  That said it’s impossible to give out a grade without having some sort of criteria.  Here are some of the questions I ask myself when formulating my final grade for a movie:

Did this movie achieve its implied objective? – This is far and away my biggest consideration.  Not every movie is made to be a best picture nominee.  If the goal of a movie is to make me think, and it makes me think, I’ll probably give it a decent grade, regardless of my enjoyment.  Not surprisingly, this is VERY difficult to do with comedy, as comedy is so subjective and drawn from personal experiences.  We all have those movies that we basically say “I get it.  Someone probably finds this funny.  I’m just not one of them.”  The example that sticks out to me for this is Bad Santa.  I don’t remember what grade I gave it, but it’s an F- for me personally.  I probably gave it a higher grade because I know some people do find that crap funny, and Billy Bob does a good job of acting in it.

Did I enjoy this movie? – Seems simple enough, but I figured I’d point out it isn’t my chief concern when grading.  As difficult as it can be, I try my damnedest to remove my personal taste best I can.  For example, I must admit that I enjoyed The Game more than Holy Motors while watching.  However, I gave Holy Motors a higher grade.  I felt that it was definitely a better movie, even if it didn’t necessarily enjoy the experience.  This is an issue I will forever have with character pieces.  To me, they tend to meander.

Would I rewatch this movie? – This is a concern depending on the type of movie.  There are several movies I absolutely love that I really don’t need to watch again.  My brother has a theory that many movies only have so many “good watches” in them.  Eventually, you just can’t be emotionally impacted by them anymore.  Gladiator is maybe my favorite movie ever, but I’m pretty confident I’ve exhausted all my “good watches.”  Likewise, I still have a few in the bank for Shawshank Redemption, and I’ve made sure to save them.  Comedies and action movies need to be rewatchable to be good.  They have to pass the “channel surfing test” that I referenced in my Machete Kills review.  The “channel surfing test” is simple – if I were flipping channels and saw this movie on, would I stick with it, and if so, for how long?  If a Rocky movie is on, I might stick depending on what the scene is.  If The Two Towers is on, I’m almost assuredly going to be sucked in for the duration.

Is this movie meant to be watched this way? – Let’s face it, some movies stand on their own, while others demand an experience.  I’m not talking Rocky Horror Picture Show levels necessarily, but some movies are undeniably better to watch in a group.  Not to keep referencing it, but Machete Kills feels like a movie that is meant to be watched with a group of people while everyone is drinking.  Pineapple Express is meant to be watched while stoned (probably).  Again, this is tough to consider, and even tougher to simulate for the purposes of this group.  I wonder what our Machete Kills reviews would have been had we all watched it together, then reviewed on our own after the fact.

That’s a quick summary of some of the things I consider when reviewing.  I know there are a handful of things I do not consider while others do.  Here are two of the biggies that I’ve seen mentioned in other reviews on here that I don’t personally ascribe to.

One of the big things I do not consider that I think many of us do is time & place for older movies like Taxi Driver.  I kind of understand the social climate going on, but I wasn’t watching in 1976.  I watched the movie in 2014, and I want to discuss how the movie felt to me in 2014.  Most people aren’t going to pick up on cultural subtleties of the movie, as they may not have that personal well of knowledge to draw from.  I can only review the movie as a cultural outsider, so I’ll review it from that perspective.  An older movie doesn't necessarily have to draw on its time and place to be interesting.  Some movies are timeless and translate in any climate (see: The Graduate).

I also do not consider whether or not I actually remember the plot.  For the most part, people have terrible memories when it comes to the plot of anything, especially for movies they’ve only seen once.  I cannot tell you a great number of details from Big Fish.  However, I remember the experience and how it made me feel at the time.  If that was strong enough, then it’ll get a higher grade from me.  Many older movies that I did not grade were movies that I watched but could not remember for the life of me any major plot points or my own feelings.  Odds are these are a bunch of B-/C+’s for me, but it probably wouldn’t hurt to rewatch and figure it out before actually grading.

So, with that, how does everyone else grade?  Do you have a checklist method?  Is it purely based on your enjoyment?  Or are we all reviewing the exact same way?

Revisiting Westeros - GoT 1: Winter is Coming

While we wait for this Holy Motors debate to take over our lives (I'm calling it; it will happen), let's begin the "who knows how often I'll actually do this" series we were all waiting for: REVISITING WESTEROS!  Yes, I actually did sit down and watch the very first episode of Game of Thrones for the first time since its original airing.  Some thoughts from that original episode (Spoilers for anyone not caught up are coming):

• I miss Ned Stark.  Sean Bean, bad ass.  Pretty much all you need to know about Ned is in that initial scene where he executes the deserter of the Night's Watch.  "The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword."  Good on you Ned.
• The show felt so much more light-hearted, but that's probably b/c the tragedy isn't until the end.  Watching all the Stark kids interact together was heart-warming and depressing at the same time, knowing where all of them are now.
• If you need a reason to watch anything in this episode, go back and watch Tyrion's first scene.  His hair is RIDICULOUS.  They gave Dinklage some emo blonde wig that looks completely insane.  I'm fairly certain the wig didn't even make it to the end of the episode.  I have no idea why they didn't just reshoot that scene.
• Cersei's character has not changed in the slightest.  Every living character has become someone much different.  Not her.
• I forgot Jon's relationship with Catelyn.  What a bitch, huh?  Jon's relationship with much of the family was interesting.  Of course, it was only for motivation purposes.  I can't see how any of it affects the remainder of the story at this point.
• Speaking of living and dying, here's a list of the cast of this episode, and where they are now.  Not surprised which list is longer.  Enjoy!

Game of Thrones 40: The Children

Well, we have 10 months to talk about this one, so make it count!

What does Jon Snow know now? We all happy to see Mance back? Where the hell does Stannis come from? Can you fit that many horse through Castle Black's gate so fast? What exactly is a proper northern drink, anyway?

Can we get Maester Aemon in every episode? Every damn one. Speaking of not Maesters... what's going on with the Mountain?

Welcome back Emilia Clarke, am I right? But, why didn't Daeny tell the ex-slave he can work for his old master, instead of this slave contract thing? Burning toddlers now, Drogon... not cool. Did you get teary eyed for the dragons? Where are your dragons!?!?! Oh, in the catacombs, where you put them.

Skeletons! Any other Skyrim players get excited for this? Any body else get a quick sad feeling for Hodor again? Is that a tree, or a person... it's no raven with three eyes! How's Bran gonna fly?! He could have used that ability in episode 1.

How about Cersei, letting her dad in on the family secret? Shouldn't he be proud.. that's a lot of Lannister blood in those grandchildren!

Who would you have bet on between Brienne and the Hound? More perplexing.. how the hell did Arya and The Hound get away from the gate... I questioned this before, and still do. They wouldn't just let them walk away would they? Logically speaking, Littlefinger and Sansa may have paid good money for Arya, right? Oh well.  Should Arya have given him mercy? Is he dead?!  Anybody forget she was carrying that coin around?

Oh, Tyrion... you just couldn't leave without causing a ruckus, could you? What'd you think about Shae's last moment? In the end, Tywin shit, but not gold, eh? Give me some thoughts on that conversation! Any guess as to where that crate is headed?

I'm sure there's more to talk about... and much to speculate on for next season, especially if you like Dornish things!

Perfect World Emmy's

With the end of Game of Thrones tonight, the 2013-14 Emmy season is basically over.  Nominations get announced next month, and though the Emmy's aren't as clueless as the Oscars, they still make a lot of weird choices.  Focusing on the drama category, I'm curious about which six shows you'd all pick.

As far as shows likely to be nominated, True Detective, Breaking Bad, and Game of Thrones are sure things, and would absolutely make my list.  Hannibal had a spectacular second season, but it has no chance of recognition.  A season that included a dead woman sliding out of a dead horse, or a drugged psychopath eating his own face, isn't going to make the clip show.  Mad Men is doing the bullshit split final seasons that Breaking Bad did, and though I hate that format and AMC for running out the string, it still had a great seven episodes, maybe the best they've ever done.  It might get a nomination but the Emmy's have been pushing it aside for Breaking Bad and maybe True Detective this year.  Lastly, Boardwalk Empire might've had the single greatest episode of the whole season in its season finale.  Not enough people watch it, it probably won't get a nomination, but a season that ended as perfectly as that one did is deserving of all the awards.

If I gave the award, it'd go to Game of Thrones, but in real life, Breaking Bad or True Detective are going to win, with GoT as a dark horse.

The Americans is in the next six.  So is Justified and Parenthood.  I don't watch Homeland or House of Card, and The Walking Dead is... not great.  What do you guys think?

Our Most Divisive Movies

Since it's Friday afternoon and I'm basically just running out the clock at work, I thought I'd look at the ol' spreadsheet and figure out what movies we are the most divided on.  I copied the sheet to excel and calc'ed a variance on all of our grades.  Here are our top 3 by the number of viewers....

8 of 8 Viewers

None - there is not a single movie all eight of us have graded.  Amazing in and of itself.

7 of 8 Viewers

1) Only God Forgives (Average = 1.12, Variance = 1.8) - Grades mostly range from bad to worse with Joe actually liking it.  I'm the only one who hasn't seen it.
2) Bad Santa (2.9, 1.17) - Lot of range here, with four liking and three mostly meh.  Joe has not graded.
3) Pulp Fiction (3.57, 1.06) - Most love, but Bryan and I were not fans.  I don't know what you all see in this movie - Tarantino has four better movies probably.  Joe has not graded.

6 of 8 Viewers

1) Ted (1.25, 1.98) - Besides Riley and me, this is not a Ted crowd.  A 1.25 grade average for this movie is absurd.  Bryan and Joe have not graded.
2) Scott Pilgrim vs The World (2.39, 1.93) - Not surprising; this is a naturally divisive movie.  Drew's F seems unnecessarily harsh.  The Setnors have not graded.
3) Blade: Trinity (2.14, 1.56) - Shane's A+ is throwing the whole curve on this one.  Bryan and Joe have not graded.

5 of 8 Viewers

1) Requiem for a Dream (3.00, 2.00) - No B's, just A's, a C, and a D.  Bryan, Joe, and I have not graded.
2) This is The End (2.47, 1.92) - Not totally surprising, as you have to have a certain level of insanity to go for this comedy.  Also requires liking Pineapple Express to really enjoy the funniest sequence of the movie.  Bobby, Joe, and Sean have not graded.
3) Big Fish (3.13, 1.7) - Primarily dragged down by Bryan's D, as all others enjoyed it.  Jon, Joe, and Drew have not graded.  It's one of my favorite movies ever personally.

4 of 8 Viewers

1) The Fly (2.25, 2.92) - Biggest variance of the bunch.  Bryan, Joe, Drew, and I have not graded (and I never will).
2) Where the Wild Things Are (2.00, 2.74) - How Jon gave this shitshow an A is beyond me.  My C- feels generous.  Shane, Joe, Drew, and Sean have not graded.
3) Into The Wild (1.42, 2.47) - Once again, Jon and his A- have some explaining to do.  Shane, Joe, Sean, and I have not graded.

Any thoughts on some of these?  Surprised only one "club pick" is on there?  I thought it was an interesting list in some instances.  Many of these aren't normally considered divisive, but I guess we're not normal.

Game of Thrones 39: The Watchers on the Wall

Not many episodes occur completely in one place... and here we are at the Wall for an hour. So...


Give me your thoughts on Aemon... because he's awesome and deserves some Sidepiece time.

Non book readers... when Sam promised not do to die, did you assume he's gonna die (aside from your Team America connection)? I mean, it's the Game of Thrones..  you can't make that promise!

"Jon Snow is mine..."  Did she mean to kill, or to keep?  Why didn't she keep her word when the Magnar of Thenn was fighting Jon!?

What'd you think of the Giants, Mammoths?  Mags running at the inner gate? (a part of me wanted to see what took place down there, and not just the aftermath. It would have been more dramatic at least, if somebody went to check in there earlier, right?)

The contraption on the wall to stop the climbers? Where was that when Jon and them were climbing the wall before?

Ygritte's hesitation to kill Jon... was she going to? How'd her last moments feel for you?

Pyp, Grenn?

How's this compare to Blackwater, for you?

The tracking shot... brilliant. I don't even have a question about it. It was easily the highlight of the episode for me. Shane and I discussed it while playing our NCAA football game online... and the only thing I think we've seen this year on tv that was better was True Detective's single shot scene.

I suppose there aren't many specific questions to ask... since everything happened in one place. I really liked this episode (I saw a bunch of comments about how intense it was, and i think it got my expectations up, but i didn't feel much intensity as much as just quality action), and think it's one definitely in the upper few for this season.

Hannibal Lecter

Once upon a time there was some discussion about Hannibal Lecter on our Facebook chat.  At the time I recall debating Mads Mikkelson's performance on NBCs Hannibal as being on par with Hopkins and potentially even better in moments.  I think my opinions were based on my most recent viewings of Hopkins in Hannibal.  I've just rewatched Silence of the Lambs and two scenes stand out as untouchable.

First- are introduction to Hannbal- standing with his perfect posture very prim and proper he is clearly a type of character we have never seen before.  When he asks Clarice what Miggs said to her and she replied in truth that Miggs said he could smell her cunt.  He paused before saying that he could not.  That pause was a thing of beauty.

Second- the scene again with Clarice in Memphis prior to his escape.  They're pressed for time and speaking much more rapidly now.  His intensity in their dialogue while forcing Clarice to both share and come up with the answers herself by only offering guidance on Buffalo Bill was amazingly good.

I love what Mads has done with the role and I look forward to binge-watching season 2 very soon, but he doesn't quite match Silence of the Lambs Hopkins.

Hannibal performance grades
Silence of the Lambs-Hopkins- A++
Hannibal-Hopkins A-
Hannibal Mads- A


p.s.- Jodie Foster is good too but Julianne Moore holds her own in Hannbal.

Game of Thrones 38: The Mountain and the Viper

What did everybody think? This was definitely one of the most anticipated episodes... as we knew something major was about to happen. Did it live up to the hype, where you let down, was it better than you expected?

The wildlings in Mole's town, Ygritte's decision?

Reek, Theon at Moat Cailin?

Jorah Mormont and the letter... Khaleesi's reaction?

Grey Worm and Missandei?

Littlefinger with the Lords of the Vale... Sansa's performance and change?

Arya and the Hound... the laughter, their future?

Tyrion's tale of the beetles....

And of course the trial by combat? The fight itself, the camera work, the actors, the result... the confession, the verdict?

Satisfying TV Deaths

BREAKING BAD AND SOPRANOS SPOILER BELOW

Joe texted me this morning about how he thinks the murders of Phil Leotardo and Dead Eyed Todd from Breaking Bad are the most satisfying murders in televisions history. I can't disagree on on Phil at all. I even laughed I think.

But Todd made me sad. Jesse, who obviously struggled with Gale's murder, is no doubt going to struggle with this one. The murder of Todd was pure vengeance that solved nothing. I would argue that he lost more of his humanity in killing Todd as opposed to killing Gale. With Gale he was purely manipulated into doing something horrific to save someone's life. With Todd, it was pure, selfish rage. Sure, he's got all that time of being a slave cook to deal with, but that murder will haunt him. It's sad.

(Let's also not pretend Gale wasn't in the game just the same as Declan. Gale's hand were dirty. No one laments over Declan's murder like they do Gale's because Gale was this quirky and relatable nerd and we knew nothing of Declan other than he was also a cook. "You play in dirt, you get dirty.")

So any other TV deaths?

Joffrey was certainly satisfying. Maybe Arzt in Lost as well. (Artz!)

Great Video Game Narratives

Bobby and I inadvertantly fell into a little question of great video game narratives while discussing Taxi Driver.  Kissel mentioned that Taxi Driver is from a time period known as the "golden age" of cinema.  I would say we are currently in what could be best described as a similar golden age for video game narratives.  While it's nearly impossible to have as strong of a story as many amazing movies in the video game space, we are seeing an incredible amount of great stories in games in the 360/PS3 generation, especially later in the generation.  I named a few of my favorites in the Taxi Driver thread, and I figured I'd elaborate on my top 4 here...

4) The Last of Us - A mysterious virus wipes out an extremely large portion of the world's population, leaving the last few humans in a desperate fight for survival.  Set 20 years after the outbreak began, the story primarily follows Joel, a broken man probably in his late-40's who takes odd jobs to survive, who accepts a job to escort a young girl, Ellie, across the wasteland that is the United States.  Clearly drawing inspiration from 28 Days Later and The Walking Dead, Joel & Ellie encounter various packs of "infected" humans, which range from 28 Days Later "fast zombies" to some pretty twisted abominations, most notably the "clickers." They also encounter even more dangerous marauders and savages among their own kind.  It's a series of amazing shorter stories sprinkled into a solid overall narrative.  I could touch on some of the fascinating characters that are met along the way, as each meeting brings a new perspective into a world teetering on the edge of survival.  (Total Play Time: 15 hrs)

3) The Mass Effect Trilogy - The overall narrative of the desparate struggle for the survival of the galaxy doesn't even become clear until about 3/4th's of the way into the first game.  As Commander Shepard, you take it upon yourself to unite the galaxy and stop the impending doom about to befall it.  The story has been done before to an extent, but what hadn't been done quite like this in the past was the individual character development.  You cared about your squad, and it was brutal to have any of them killed, especially when you could have avoided it.  I particularly loved the final game's story, which was absolutely relentless as you sped on to the finale.  (Total Play Time: 40 hrs "critical path"/100 hrs completionist)

2) The Walking Dead Season One - This one can be considered a "high concept" story: a man rescues a young girl and agrees to help her find her parents amid the beginning of a zombie apocalypse.  This drives the bulk of the story, and the relationship that develops between Lee & Clementine is among the most well-realized of any form of media, video game or not.  Every character in their survivor group along the way is also fantastic, each with their own motivations and personalities that were memorable for anyone who played them.  Even Ben, a near throwaway character, was better realized then some main characters in full on trilogies.  (Total Play Time: 12 hrs)

1) Spec Ops: The Line - There are hundreds of military shooters out there, but none of them actually analyzed the real ramifications of war on the innocent and the soldiers quite like The Line.  The premise is simple: you are in command of a small reconnisance team tasked with learning the fate of their fellow soldiers in post-attack Dubai.  The early part of the game is ho-hum enough, but there is a serious turning point about midway through.  We're talking legitimate war crimes here, and the effect they have on those responsible.  Worth noting you can play the ending multiple ways, and the "bad guy" ending is downright chilling.  I've never finished a game and just stared at the credits thinking "WHAT HAVE I DONE?!?!?!"  quite like I did after finishing this one.  (Total Play Time: 6 hrs)

Those are my personal favorites.  A few more that I have played if you're curious....

Bioshock Infinite (15 hrs)
InFamous (12 hrs crit path/20 hrs completionist)
Thomas Was Alone (3 hrs)
Journey (2-3 hrs)
Dragon Age: Origins (30 hrs crit path/50 hrs completionist - story is clearly derivative of Game Of Thrones)
Final Fantasy XIII (40 hrs)
Fable II (20 hrs crit path/50 hrs completionist)
South Park: The Stick of Truth (12 hrs crit path/20 hrs completionist)

Mostly Spoiler-free X-Men: Days of Future Past Review

X-Men: Days of Future Past is the third Marvel super-hero movie of the spring (just had to bring that up.  That's insane), and the fifth movie in the current X-Men series of movies (nope, First Class was not a reboot).  It also marks the return on Bryan Singer to the director chair, who has not directed one of these since the amazing X2.  So, with how well Captain America: The Winter Soldier was received, coupled with Singer's return, Days had a lot to live up.  And, for the most part, it did.

X-Men movies always have a chance of falling into a trap of introducing too many random characters.  This happened badly in The Last Stand and to a lesser extent in First Class.  Days does a good job of focusing on the characters we know already, so there's very little exposition going on here.  Sure, we get a handful of newbies in the future battles with the Sentinels (I was pumped to see Bishop's big screen debut), but they prove to ultimately be window dressing.  It's nice to have a super hero movie where we are immediately thrown into the fray, and get right down to business.

Without getting to much into the plot, the crux of the story involves a little butterfly effect fun where Logan's consciousness is sent into the past to change the course of history and stop the future from ever happening.  So we actually spend most of our time in the 70's, following around Logan and the First Class versions of Prof X, Magneto, Mystique, & Beast, as well as the lone major newcomer, Quicksilver.  I thoroughly enjoyed Jennifer Lawrence as Mystique - she got a much bigger role this time around (shocker), and she nailed it (shocker).  McAvoy is fine as Xavier though I have to admit he's not my favorite.  He does that stupid pained face constantly and, yes, he's constantly touching his temple.  The real shocker was Quicksilver.  I loved his character.  He's clearly comic relief, but he's a lot of fun to have around.

We also got a lot of Peter Dinklage as the defacto human "villain," Dr. Trask.  I found it refreshing that him being a little person had nothing to do with the role.  In fact, there's a solid shot you'll forget he is a little person at some point - it's never mentioned once.  As for his performance, I was slightly underwhelmed as he was rather one-note.  I can't help but compare him to Tyrion, and considering what he's going through on Game of Thrones, it's tough to look at this performance as anything but pedestrian.

I'm not going to go too much into the conclusion other than it was overall a satisfying experience.  The inevitable final battles were tense, but not dragged out in excess.  And yes, they do end up doing the expected parallel final battle a la The Matrix, with action both in the 70's and the future.  Both are well done and have some pretty amazing setpieces I won't go into, as where is the fun in that?  I would like to go a little bit into the denouement, but I feel it's a bit too spoilery.

Overall, I enjoyed the movie.  The 131 minutes moved briskly, there was plenty of solid action, and we didn't have to deal with any boring X-Men for too long.  On a personal note, the X-Men Age of Apocalypse lore is one of my favorites, so I figured it'd bias me unfairly.  Overall, it really didn't, as we spend far more time in the past then in the desolate future.  Looks like if you're going to one "summer" blockbuster this Memorial Day weekend, you'd be best to go to this one.

Grade: B+

Favorite Baseball Movie

As I grade finals watching Major League, I want to know your favorite baseball movie.

First, what makes a good baseball movie, maybe sports movie in general? I think relatively good realism, drama, intriguing characters, and a little comedy are a must. I can't get past a sports movie where they don't look the part.