Batman 3 Title and a new Villian will rise... But who?

In a recent interview, The Dark Knight director Christopher Nolan finally spilled some much anticipated information regarding the next edition in the re-vamped Batman franchise.

The third installment of the Caped Crusader's exploits will be called The Dark Knight Rises. I freakin' love this title. First of all it capitalizes on the most recent movie's title which in case you were hanging out in the Unibomber's old shack the last couple years, made a considerable amount of money. Secondly I hated some of the other possible titles like Gotham City or Gotham. Both titles shift the focus away from Batman which is totally unacceptable. And The Caped Crusader? Well I may be reading too much into this but it kind of sounds like a creepy gay porn so....no. Some had suggested that The Dark Knight Returns might be a good title but unfortunately it's also the title of one of the most revered graphic novels of all time. (If you're a Batman fan or even if you're not I highly recommend checking out Frank Miller's masterpiece. It is awesome.) In the final analysis I'm happy with the title.

What other people might not be so happy about is who is NOT going to be the villain in the third film, namely The Riddler. Now I'll admit I was initially disappointed in this decision because I thought either Johnny Depp or Joseph Gordon-Levitt would have made a fantastic Riddler. Then I got to thinking about it and I think Christopher Nolan is again right on the money with this decision. The Riddler is really just a Joker derivative and we've already been there done that twice now. Plus The Riddler is not as sadistic or malevolent as other Batman villains as he mostly just uses well thought out riddles to try to trap Batman. Most importantly is that I think it will be very hard to go dark with this character. As we've seen from the last two Batman films, Nolan makes a concerted effort to be as gritty, realistic, and dark as possible when it comes to Batman. The Riddler is too campy of a character to take seriously as a "dark" villain. (Don't believe me? Check out Frank Gorshin in the 60s Batman television show or Jim Carrey in 1995's Batman Forever. Neither of those performances are kisses from a rose.)

The other villain possibility that had been kicked around but ultimately discarded was Mr. Freeze. While he is a kind of tortured dark character, his storyline is just a little too unrealistic and doesn't jibe well with the gritty world that Nolan has created. Also I think Arnold Schwarzenegger's performance in 1997's Batman and Robin pretty much killed the chances of anyone taking that villain seriously. Thanks Arnie.

So the question remains? Who will be the next Batman villain? I have some thoughts so I thought I'd run through five possibilities and provide a percentage likelihood that the particular villain shows up.

1. Dr. Hugo Strange

A lot of people might not be familiar with this character but he actually predates the Joker in the Batman universe. He was one of the first reoccurring Batman villains first appearing in Detective Comics #36 in February 1940. He's a genius level scientist who originally stole a concentrated lightning machine that allowed him to create a dense fog to rob banks. Another storyline had him using a growth hormone on asylum patients that causes them to become mindless brutes.

This is the villain that has been getting the most run lately. There have been rumors that Rochester's own Phillip Seymour Hoffman may snag the role. (Rumors also have him playing Penguin.) Others have speculated that recently signed Tom Hardy (most recently of Inception) could have him taking the role.

I'm not sure about this choice only because he seems a little like a precursor to The Scarecrow but if it happens I trust Nolan's ability to create a plausible story. Likelihood of appearance: 85%

2. Selina Kyle/Catwoman

I didn't particularly care for Michelle Phieffer's performance in 1992's Batman Returns and re-doing her story arc might be a very good idea. She was originally depicted as a whip carrying burglar who had a tendency towards high stakes thefts. However in later incarnations she is more of an anti-hero rather than a primary villain of Batman. Catwoman has also played at being Batman's love interest over the years and their love/hate dynamic has made for interesting fictional fare. The fact that many writers in the modern era have interpreted her antics as a response to a history of abuse also adds a dark edge to the possible storyline. To add fuel to the fire Nolan has apparently been interviewing several prominent actresses to take on a "significant" role. Likelihood of appearance: 75%

3. Dr. Thomas Elliott/Hush

Now this may be the most intriguing villain and the one I would like to see most. Hush is as about as far from the "gimmicky" Batman villains as you can get.

Elliot is originally a childhood friend of Bruce Wayne and actually used to teach Bruce how to think like opponents when they played together. He was incredibly wealthy and brilliant but unlike Bruce hated his parents who were controlling and manipulative. As a boy he rigs his father's car and kills him but his mother survives thanks to Thomas Wayne. When Bruce's parents are killed and Thomas begins to see that Wayne is living a life of apparent leisure he develops an abnormal hatred of Bruce Wayne. Later he goes on to be a brilliant surgeon, however his animosity remains and through various manipulations of Batman's enemies and his closest allies Hush seeks to bring Batman down.

This is a character right up Christopher Nolan's alley. He's dark, highly intelligent, is a master marksman with guns and scalpels, and has a grudge against Batman/Bruce Wayne. Would LOVE to see this happen. Problem is his storyline involves a LOT of other Batman villains. Likelihood of appearance: 60%

4. Oswald Cobblepot/The Penguin

Although Danny DeVito did a superb job playing the titular bird addled supervillain in 1992's Batman Returns, a return of the villain might be very likely.

The Penguin fancies himself as kind of an aristocratic gangster. He's primarily a mobster and a thief and while cunning and clever isn't particularly intelligent. Penguin also likes to employ different umbrellas that have various functions.

There are a couple of problems with this character. For one he's already been done before and any repeat performance will undoubtedly draw comparisons to DeVito. Also he's not a malevolent or physically imposing character, nor is he highly intelligent. Neither of these elements match up well against Batman in my opinion. Maybe most importantly he is WAY too campy. Additionally he has been named again and again one of the worst Batman villains of all time. Not a very ringing endorsement. Likelihood of appearance: 40%

5. Bane

Bane is a very fascinating villain particularly in the history of the Batman universe. Bane was the first real character to put Batman out of commission for a extended length of time by breaking his back over his knee. Born in a prison on the fictional Caribbean Republic of Santa Prisca, Bane is raised in the penal system killing his first man at age 8. He also has above average intelligence and reads every book he can get his hands as well as fine tuning his body in the prison's gym. Eventually Bane is chosen as a test subject for a steroid called Venom and gains enormous strength. However, he has to take the steroid every 12 hours or suffer terrible side effects.

Bane eventually escapes the prison and goes to Gotham seeking to rule the city like he did the prison. Knowing that Batman rules by fear Bane decides that the only way to rule Gotham is to destroy Batman. Consequently he releases every prisoner in Arkham Asylum and Batman spends three months locking them back up. By then Batman is exhausted, Bane has discovered his secret identity, and the fight ends badly for the Dark Knight.

Bane as a villain and the whole Knightfall story arc from the early 90s is extremely compelling. It would make for great drama. However, the problem is that again it involves too many of Batman's other villains and the story arc is too long to fit into a 2 1/2 hour movie. Additionally, I'm not so sure how well a super steroid like Venom would play on screen. Again Bane was already depicted in Batman and Robin and Joel Douchemacher completely ruined that character. Likelihood of appearance: 20%

So many villains. So little time. Fortunately for us Christopher Nolan already has a draft of the script and I'm sure he knows what villain(s) he's going to use and the direction he wants to take. (He's just not telling.) Nevertheless, I have total confidence that he will deliver another solid installment in the Batman franchise.

Movies out for the week of October 25th

**Please note that all movies listed are on blu-ray and DVD unless otherwise specified
Releasing on Tuesday October 26th: The Alien Anthology (blu-ray), The Back to the Future trilogy (blu-ray), The Girl Who Played With Fire, Sex and the City 2, You Don't Know Jack (DVD only), Paths of Glory, Winter's Bone, CSI NY Season 6 (DVD only), Star Wars: The Clone Wars season 2, The Venture Brother Season 4 vol. 1 (DVD only), Elf Collector's Pack, Maniac, Legend of the Black Scorpion (blu-ray), Altitude, Lake Placid 3 (DVD only), Cannibal Girls (DVD only)

JAO: Out of Africa

Plot: Based loosely on the autobiographical book of the same name, 1985's Out of Africa follows the exploits of Danish Baroness Karen Blixen (Meryl Streep) in Kenya from 1914 to 1931. The relationship between European settlers and the natives of Kenya, the struggles of Karen to create a successful coffee farm, and Karen's torrid love affair with big game hunter Denys Finch Hatton (Robert Redford) are all major focal points in the film.

Review: I first saw Out of Africa in my Introduction to Sociology class in 1998. My mother and father had always spoken highly of the film and by most critics accounts it was a grand sweeping epic. The critics in this case were correct. Out of Africa was an epic.

An epically bad film.

Maudlin, self-indulgent, long, and mind numbingly boring, Out of Africa was one of the most painful movie experiences I've ever had. I've watched episodes of Antiques Roadshow that were more compelling than this film.

There are several problems with Out of Africa right from the get go. The first and most significant is the pacing. If you're planning on ever watching this movie you better down a six pack of Red Bull because you're going to need it. Speed this a'int. It's more like "Hey Out of Africa the tortoise called and he wants you to speed up!" We're forced to endure endless shots of the African countryside which while breathtaking are also exhausting and tedious. Don't get me wrong, the cinematography is beautiful and David Watkin deserved the Academy Award, but for the love of God this is supposed to be a drama, not an episode of Meercat Manor. Someone should have told director Sydney Pollack (who won the Academy Award for this film by the way) that if he wanted his audience to watch a 161 minute movie about Africa that they should have waited ten years and seen Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls twice.

It would be even worse if the awful pacing detracted from a compelling story but Out of Africa doesn't even have that to fall back on. The plot is virtually non-existent fleeting from one scene to the next with no sense of coherency. And let us not forget the acting. While I consider Meryl Streep to be one of the finest actresses who ever lived (she so got jobbed for the Academy Award last year losing to Sandra Bullock) her performance is painful to behold in this film. It's not so much that Streep's acting is bad, it's just that her character is so boring. How is anyone supposed to relate to a rich white baroness from Denmark who has a bad marriage. A bad marriage huh? You and about a gazillion other people sweetheart. (Not me though. My wife is wonderful :) ) To make matters worse Redford's acting is equally bland. Karen's love affair with Hatton (Redford) is so meandering and devoid of passion that you'd probably get better sparks between Janet Reno and James Stevens (Anthony Hopkins) from The Remains of the Day. I found myself cheering when Karen contracted syphilis and Hatton died in a plane crash. They were the two most rewarding and exciting things to come out of Out of Africa.

A common, and I think valid, complaint among moviegoers and critics alike is that today's films focus too much on spectacle and not story. Out of Africa proves that a movie doesn't have to have aliens or large explosions to be more about spectacle than story. Sometimes all you need are shots of endless African plains. And even though Out of Africa won best picture in 1985 it proves that members of the Academy can also be wrong.

My suggestion is to only watch Out of Africa if you need to go out of consciousness and into a coma.

My rating: 4/10

DITRC: Time Bandits

Plot: Six dwarfs led by Randall (David Rappaport) who work for the Supreme Being, have stolen a map that allows them to travel to various points in time helping them to steal gold, historical artifacts, and artistic works in the hopes of becoming rich. Along the way they join up with Kevin (Craig Warnock) an 11 year old boy obsessed with history and ignored by his parents. With Evil (David Warner) and the Supreme Being (Ralph Richardson) out to get the map, Kevin and the boys are out for an amazing adventure through space and time.

Review: Terry Gilliam's 1981 classic is a real children's fantasy and it is comes as no surprise that this film had immense appeal when I first saw it at age seven. However, I recently had a chance to view it again at The Dryden Theater and I find it still holds up after all these years.

What makes Time Bandits so intriguing and memorable is how diligently Gilliam shot this film from the perspective of a child. Many shots by cinematographer Peter Biziou are two to three feet lower than a normal shot, thus emphasizing the view of the world from a child's perspective. Even the dwarfs, who are technically adults, are really just substitute children. They even have a child's impulses jumping from the time of Napoleon to the era of King Agamemnon willy-nilly without any regard for danger.

Even more significant are the time frames that Kevin, Randall, and the rest of the dwarfs jump to. They tend to be more of the exciting eras of history that children like to learn about such as the time of Robin Hood. (Incidentally Robin Hood is played by John Cleese who is hysterical as the Prince of Thieves, sporting a gigantic green hat.)

Furthermore, Time Bandits succeeds ultimately, not because of the songs of George Harrison (although they are quite good) but because of how relatable Kevin is as a character. On the one hand Kevin is ignored and misunderstood by his parents, which is something probably all of us have experienced at one time or another. On the other hand Kevin has an immense capacity for imagination. You only need to view the ending scenes of the film where Kevin tries to combat Evil with cowboys and tanks to understand that.

What makes Time Bandits even more accessible is the combination of major cameos with the level of humor throughout the movie. Whether it's Ian Holm as Napoleon lamenting about his height or Little John continually punching people in the face who offer up gifts to Robin Hood, there is humor to be found everywhere. There are so many jokes that I missed as a kid that I finally got as an adult. For example, at one point Kevin asks the Supreme Being, "Why is there evil in the world?" to which the Supreme Being replies, "I'm not sure. Something to do with free will I think." Classic.

Time Bandits is a tight, fun, well written, zany, and hilarious film that reminds us all of the joys of childhood and how important it is not to forget them. I highly recommend letting yourself be stolen by this movie for a few hours.

My rating: 8/10

We Enter a New Era!!!

Hello all! I've decided that I'd like to start doing two new weekly segments on my blog as it relates to movies. The articles are going to be called "Diamonds In The Rough Cut" (abbreviated DITRC) and "Jaded and Overrated" (abbreviated JAO). Each week I'll look at one film that is a cinematic "gem" I think gets overlooked and also a so called "masterpiece" or well regarded film that I think is overrated. Enjoy! And as always your feedback is welcome!

What the Hell Mel?

There are some things that are just inexplicable in life: the Horsehead Nebula, the Cubs being unable to win a World Series in over a 100 years, and why people find The Three Stooges funny.

Mel Gibson falls into the inexplicable category.

Over the last five years he single handedly has become one of the most polarizing figures in Hollywood and that's saying a lot considering we've had to deal with Paris Hilton's "acting" career. To say old Mel has run into some public relations problems in his time is like saying Carl Palladino has some minor issues with homosexuals. Let's run down the laundry list shall we? Ahem:

December 1991: Makes anti-gay statements in a Spanish magazine called El Pais

February 2004: Passion of the Christ is released sparking debate over anti-Semitism

July 2006: Arrested for DUI with an open container and stating to the police officer, "Fucking Jews...the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world." (The arresting officer was Jewish)

July 2010: Mel is recorded by his girlfriend Oksana Grigorieva making racist comments saying that if she was "raped by a pack of niggers" she would be to blame. Also there were rumors during that month that he referred to Latinos as "wetbacks."

Um....yeah.

Obviously this behavior is absolutely deplorable. For a long time I tried to defend Gibson but if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's probably a raging bigot. In the end it looks like South Park maybe got it right. (FYI--I still don't believe there is anything anti-Semitic about The Passion of the Christ. Several of the lead characters in the film were Jews. I find it highly unlikely they'd agree to be in movie of this magnitude if they thought it was in anyway anti-Semitic.)

However, Mel's actions raise an interesting question. Should an actor's personal life detract from A) their movies or B) negatively influence a possible acting award? The website joblo.com raised this issue a few weeks ago in an article I read and I thought it warranted another look. The reason I bring this up is because very soon Mel Gibson will be coming out with a film directed by Jodi Foster called The Beaver. Insert joke here. Hey insert...beaver... ah well moving on. It follows the exploits of the CEO of a toy company with mental problems who uses a beaver puppet to communicate better with his family. As bat-shit crazy insane as that sounds the early scuttlebutt is that Gibson's performance is nothing short of brilliant and could earn him an Academy Award nomination.

The short answer to the question for me is: no. An actor's personal life should not detract from his personal accomplishments or films. It's like that with various cultural situations. Wagner was a raging anti-Semite but his music is still loved by many people worldwide. Ty Cobb was a dyed in the wool bigot but it doesn't make his accomplishments on the baseball field any less incredible. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves (and apparently liked to get busy with them) but it doesn't make his importance to the history of our nation any less significant.

Unfortunately, Hollywood doesn't always act in a logical manner. People in the industry are known to hold a grudge and considering there are quite a bit of people of the Jewish faith employed in Hollywood, (WARNING: I am NOT saying the Jews run Hollywood so please don't comment back to me calling me an anti-Semite ok?) I'm guessing they might have a tough time separating the man from the movie. So much of Hollywood is a popularity contest it's laughable. Don't believe me? Check out the "Academy Award winning performance" of Sandra Bullock from last year's The Blind Side. That she even got a nomination for that overrated film is proof positive of my point.

The long and short of it is I'm not going to remove Braveheart from my top five list just because Mel Gibson is an alcoholic manic depressive. It is possible to separate the man from the movie.

Although I don't think it's possible to separate the laughs from the above picture.

Out on video this week!

Here's what's new on video for the week of October 18th: How to Train Your Dragon, Apocalypse Now, The Rocky Horror Picture Show (blu-ray), Seven Samurai (blu-ray), Psycho (blu-ray), Moulin Rouge (blu-ray), Romeo and Juliet (blu-ray), The Howling Trilogy (blu-ray), Smash His Camera, Mirrors 2, Please Give, Night of the Demons, Until the Light Takes Us, The Real L Word Season 1, Pee Wee's Playhouse (series), The Bionic Woman (season 1), Tapout (complete series)

Weight Loss Progress Week 2

Hello all! Time for my weekly check-in to update you on my weight loss progress. In the past week I've stopped eating after dinner and switched from regular soda to diet soda and water. Also I've severely limited my sweets intake and begun walking. The result? I'm happy to say I've lost 4 pounds! Yay!
I think the most helpful thing I have going right now regarding my weight loss is the book "This Year I Will..." It talks a lot about setting goals, making small changes, and transforming bad habits into good ones. One thing I've noticed is that between 900pm and 930pm I have a strong desire to eat something. Notice I said "to eat" not that I was hungry. Every time this happens I just ask myself, "Is eating the (blank) worth it?" Then I have a glass of water. Things are going well so far. Here's to keeping it up! (The weight loss I mean.)

Weight as of October 20, 2010: 233.5 pounds. Net loss: 4 pounds.

You CANNOT regulate violence in the NFL

Somewhere Ray Nitschke is rolling over in his grave.

Did I miss the memo from Roger Goodell and the rest of the NFL that football is no longer a violent sport? This is a league that has produced such names as "Bronco" Nagurski, Jack "The Assassin" Tatum, "Mean" Joe Greene, and Ed "Too Tall" Jones. It's a league dominated by men of great girth, speed, and power, where testosterone is king.

Football by nature is a sport of violence. It is a game where mammoth sized men hit other men at incredibly high speeds. It's part of the fun of the game. Big hits make the crowd go "oooooo." Personally I love a good clean hit. It's exciting.

Now I understand that certain kinds of hits need to be deterred. People who intentionally and consistently cause helmet to helmet hits need to be fined and ejected. In light of recent discoveries about the long term effects of concussions I'm glad that the NFL has taken appropriate steps in the last several years. (No one wants their favorite player to end up like Al Toon.)

However, I am at a loss as to what to make of the NFL's edict this past week saying that "violent conduct will be cause for suspension." Umm...huh? This is a violent sport! You play with a lot of pads. People can get hurt but that's why they call it football and not soccer. Vicious hits are going to happen! You can't go out and tell Ray Lewis not to be Ray Lewis. It's just not good for the league and it sends mixed messages. In fact the announcement is so baffling that star Pittsburgh Steelers defensive end Jerome Harrison is seriously considering retirement.

The NFL on the other hand needs to retire this attitude about violent hits. "Violent" when it comes to football is relative. Every play is violent. We all know there should be reprecussions when a person is horse collared or where there is an intentional helmet to helmet shot, but what about other situations? What about unintentional helmet to helmet hits like the one that the one linebacker London Fletcher distributed last week? Do those warrant fines and suspensions? "Violent" in these cases becomes so subjective it's ridiculous.

Furthermore what about offensive linemen? My good friend John who is a former high school and college offensive lineman consistently tells me that linemen have it the worst. Every play someone is diving at your knees, spitting on you, twisting various parts of your anatomy, and in many ways just making your life miserable. Isn't this vicious and violent as well? How do we regulate it? Can we?

There is already way too much protection for quarterbacks, and if defensive backs breathe on wide receivers it's pass interference. Going down this path would be a travesty and a mistake. I don't want to watch Troy Polamalu make "polite tackles" and neither do the fans. You remember fans don't you NFL? The ones who buy the tickets, the giant foam cheeseheads, and every other piece of memorabilia. Do you really want to alienate these people?

In some ways you can compare this situation to Ben Roethlisberger's recent problems. I applaud Roger Goodell for his actions in suspending the Pittsburgh quarterback but it is not his job to regulate morality. What happens if an NFL player goes to a bar, takes a lady home, has sex, and finds out later that the woman videotaped it and uploaded the whole thing on youtube? Should he be punished for doing something that many red blooded 20 year American males do every Friday night---who aren't pro athletes? I don't think so.

Both of these situations are slippery slopes to tread on. The violence aspect really aggravates me though. I'm begging the NFL: please do not let the NFL degenerate into a highly paid version of flag football. Not only would it be tragic but I don't want to have to listen to Al Michaels and Chris Collinsworth comment on color schemes. Their horrendous by-play is bad enough. Plus there is a greater likelihood that Brett Favre will sext more pictures of his junk to various women, based on the simple fact that he has less padding to remove. No...thank...you.

Regulating violence in the NFL is just like the Vietnam War. Victory is unattainable. So instead of overreacting NFL, continue fining and suspending players who headhunt and intentionally cheap shot others. Doing so is protecting the players. Trying to curtail all violence only hinders and hurts your sport. That's why it's played on the grid iron and not the ball pit at Chuck E Cheese.

Movies out this Week

Movies out for the Week of October 11th (release date October 12th): Jonah Hex, Leaves of Grass, The Oxford Murders, I Am Love, The Magician, Lost Boys: The Thirst, Sex and Lucia, The Ghost Whisperer (complete series), Angel (complete series), CSI Miami Season 8, The Tudors Season 4, Dollhouse Season 2, In Treatment Season 2

Review: The Social Network

Plot: Based on Ben Mezrich's 2009 book The Accidental Billionaires, The Social Network tells the story of the founding of the international social networking website Facebook. Director David Fincher's latest film primarily follows the exploits of founders Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) and Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield).

Review: If asked what the most fundamental advancement of the human race has been in the last twenty years, many people would undoubtedly say the Internet. If the Internet is like the founding of Major League Baseball, then the creation of Facebook is like baseball's expansion to California back in the 1950s. Both instances were quantum leaps in their respective fields. And the architect and creator of Facebook is a little known Harvard drop out named Mark Zuckerberg...or was he?

That's ostensibly what The Social Network tries to answer over two hours, yet the answer is almost superfluous. What director David Fincher tries to shine a light on is relationships in the digital age. The story of Facebook is just a medium to examine this idea.

What's really fascinating and ironic is that The Social Network's main character Zuckerberg is very much a socially awkward character. He wants to be liked and accepted by the exclusive clubs at Harvard yet at the same time thinks he's better than them. Zuckerberg wants a solid romantic relationship but at the film's outset acts like a complete "asshole" (her words) to his girlfriend and then goes home and blogs about how she sucks. A social misfit creating the biggest social network website of all time is the height of irony.

Eisenberg is excellent as the young Zuckerberg portraying a man who is constantly in motion, fueled by Mountain Dew, and driven to be first rather than wealthy. Zuckerberg is not a particularly likeable character and yet his pathology, smugness, and wit are fascinating and compelling. Although many call Eisenberg a poor man's Michael Cera I would strongly disagree. Eisenberg is a superior actor and shows an acting level that Cera could only dream of attaining.

Fincher, who's credits include Seven, Fight Club, and Zodiac has taken a brilliant script by Aaron Sorkin and blended it into a smooth film that is as accessible as a status update. Most of the film is shown in flashback alternating between the two separate lawsuits Mark is involved in, one by twin bluebloods Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss (Armie Hammer doing double duty) and one by Eduardo. The plot choice and smooth cuts by editors Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall enhance The Social Network in an engaging way and shows the degeneration of two distinct relationships; one a business relationship, the other a friendship.

While Eisenberg's character often comes across as callous and irritating, Garfield's Eduardo is the polar opposite. He's the one we feel sympathetic for, the one who is emotionally vulnerable. We can feel his sense of betrayal at the settlement hearings or his confrontation with Zuckerberg at Facebook's 1,000,000th member party. Garfield (who is set to star as the main character in the reboot of Spiderman) brings a strong and integral emotional performance to The Social Network.

Not to be outdone either is the third wheel on this acting tricycle: Justin Timberlake, who plays Sean Parker the creator of Napster and advisor to Facebook's founders. Timberlake does a great job of capturing the funny, engaging, paranoid, and coke addled Parker. His telephone call to Zuckerberg after getting arrested for cocaine possession is a sight to behold. Parker is the one who ultimately comes between Eduardo and Zuckerberg. Timberlake shows a real slimy side in his performance that cuts against the wholesome image he's built over the last ten years. It's a great choice and could possibly "bring him on down to Oscarville!" in 2011.

Timberlake's character typifies one of the few flaws of The Social Network however. Too many unlikeable characters. The Winklevoss's are Harvard bluebloods that invite no sympathy despite the fact that Zuckerberg stole their idea, Zuckerberg and Parker are often snide and devious, and even Eduardo's girlfriend is a jealous psycho nut bag. Another flaw is the soundtrack by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. Many of the jarring rifts seems out of place and more suited to a horror film than a drama. Not suprising since Reznor is the founder of the industrial rock band Nine Inch Nails.

Minor grievances not withstanding The Social Network is a fine film that encapsulates the culture of the last couple years. Fincher does an excellent job of holding a mirror up to society and showing it the real the social network both good and bad. While it's not a perfect film like some critics have written, The Social Network is definitely worth a friend request.

My rating: 9/10

Review: The Town

Plot: Doug MacRay (Ben Affleck) is a washed-up former NHL draftee living on the tough streets of the Boston neighborhood of Charlestown. A quarry worker, Ben is also caught up in the criminal underworld of bank robbing with his friend James "Jem" Coughlin (Jeremy Renner). However, after Doug and his group rob a Cambridge bank and Doug begins a relationship with the bank manager Claire (Rebecca Hall) he considers leaving Charlestown and his criminal life behind permanently. But can his friend, his boss, his sense of loyalty, or the FBI let Doug leave for good?

Review: Next to Inception, The Town is easily the best film of 2010 so far. Affleck's directorial followup to 2007's Gone Baby Gone proves definitively that the success of his first film was no one time fluke. Affleck as a director is the real deal. The Town is taunt, poignant, filled with fantastic performances and engages the audience at a visceral and emotional level. Affleck is brilliant at establishing connections to all the film's characters.
The Town is getting a lot of comparisons to 1995's Heat starring Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino. While each film has its merits, Heat had more of a high-class, ultra professional, gentlemen bank robbers feel to it. The Town is much grittier. These bank robbers while professional are blue collar, poor, and don't see a lot of return on their considerable efforts. Most of it goes back to Fergie the Florist, an Irish crime boss played with eerie malevolence by Pete Postlethwaite.
Where The Town trumps Heat however is in the relationships between the characters. The two main relationships are between Doug and Claire and Doug and Jem. While Claire tends to bring out Doug's better qualities (the scene where Doug opens up to Claire about his mother is particularly poignant) Jem invokes Doug loyalty and lifelong friendship. Loyalty is a strong theme in The Town. The devotion that Jem has to Doug is unparalleled. At one point in the movie Doug tells Jem that he needs him to come with him, Jem can't ask why and both of them are going to hurt some people. Jem pauses about three seconds and says, "Who's car are we takin'?" THAT'S loyalty. Renner is perfect in the role as Jem, and his gritty gutsy performance is bound to earn him a Best Supporting Actor nod come Oscar time.
Yet neither one of these relationships works without Affleck's performance. Let's face it, with turns in films like Reindeer Games, Surviving Christmas, and the God-awful Gigli it's fair to say that Affleck's performances have been less than stellar. It is without the slightest bit of irony then that I write that this is the performance of Ben Affleck's career. He is simply fantastic in the role of the conflicted, conscience bound Doug. Every scene is a showstopper, from his confrontation with Jem, to his showdown with FBI agent Adam Frawley (a strong performance by Mad Men's Jon Hamm), to Doug's encounters with his strung out ex-girlfriend Krista (Blake Lively). (Incidentally Blake Lively is phenomenal as Krista. I never would have thought that the girl from Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants could pull off a role like this but she is perfect for the part. And boy do they have her skanked up!)
What sealed it for me however was the short scene between Affleck and Postlethwaite where Doug tries to tell Fergie he's leaving. It just gave me goosebumps. I just couldn't help myself from rooting for Doug and railing against Frawley even though I knew that Doug was the criminal and Frawley was "the good guy." I can't believe I'm going to say this but...there is a good chance that Affleck could be nominated for Best Actor for this film. And if he's not nominated for Best Director it's a crying shame.
Aside from all the great performances The Town is also a great action drama. The bank robbing scenes are slick and taunt thanks in large part to cinematographer Robert Elswit. The opening scene where the gang robs the Cambridge bank alternates between live action and the bank's cameras. The contrast in loud violent sounds to sudden silence and back again is riveting. Many of the shots are also at floor level from the perspective of the hostages. Editor Dylan Tichenor's choices lend an authenticity and alternate perspective to the robbery. Not to be overlooked are the chase scenes as well. Some of the best since The French Connection in my opinion. And anyone who is a Red Sox or Yankees fan, or even if you're not a baseball fan, will love the beauty of the final heist.
The mark of a great film to me is how much you keep thinking about it after the final credits have rolled. I can honestly say that The Town has popped into my head on more than one occassion since I saw it Friday night. As sure as New England clam chowder is thick I assure you once you enter The Town you'll never want to leave.

My rating: 10/10

Straight Moss Homie! NE arrogance is Vikings gain

Tonight on a brisk October evening Randy Moss will step onto the field at the New Meadowlands in the Minnesota purple and gold for the first time in 5 years. It's quite the homecoming for the star wide receiver especially if you look where he's been over the last five seasons. Moss has had his low moments. Being a part of the Oakland Raiders run by the corpse-formally-known-as-Al Davis, was a humbling experience.

However, sometimes you have to go through the crucible to come out as tempered steel. Over the last four years Randy Moss has flourished in New England. Check out the stat line: 50 tds, 3,904 yards receiving, 259 catches, and a trip to the Superbowl. You'd think that at age 33, with these kind of numbers, and still in possession of great hands, speed, and leaping ability the Patriots would be willing to cough up some cash for the Moss Man.

You'd be wrong.

Once again the New England Patriots, Bill Bellicheck, and Bob Kraft have proven why their arrogance knows no bounds. They still seem to live in this delusional fantasy world where people will come to New England or re-sign with New England and take less money to win a championship. Well guess what numb nuts? You haven't won a Superbowl since 2004. The arguement doesn't carry weight anymore.

Say it with me people: THE PATRIOTS DYNASTY IS OVER.

Apparently Bill and Bob still haven't gotten the memo however. Bellicheck has publicly stated that the Patriots have fine young wide receivers and has implied that the Patriots will be just fine without #81. From Billicheck's remarks I can only conclude that the Kool-Aid man has taken up permanent residence in his home and that he's mainlining PurpleSaurus Rex. Seriously Bill? How about you actually name some of these young talented wide receivers? And while you're at it why don't you explain to the New England fans and Tom Brady why you traded away your only legitimate deep threat. Or explain to Wes Welker why he's going to be double-teamed for the rest of the year. You may even want to tell the offense how they are supposed to score 30+ a game every game because guess what, that defense couldn't force Charlie Weiss out of line at a Krispy Kreme let alone stop an offense like the Colts.

But as they say one man's trash is another man's treasure. And boy oh boy do the Vikings need this pot of gold. With injuries at the wide receiver spots, no legitimate deep threat, and nagging injuries, it's no wonder that Brett Favre has 6 picks against 2 td passes and a pathetic QB rating of 60.4. Having Moss in the lineup is going to be like a fresh set of Wranglers for the 41 year old grandfather. In fact with Moss out there, Adrian Peterson in the backfield, and the NFL being as Jekyll and Hyde as it has been this year (with the exception of the Bills who are more like Karloff's Mummy, i.e. dead and buried) anything is possible. A win against the Jets tonight would be huge.

And now Moss is back with the team he scored 90td, caught 574 balls, and accumlated 9,143 receiving yards for. I've always respected Moss's game. His speed, athletic ability, feet, quickness, hands, and size make him a freak of nature at the wide receiver spot. Yet I have no vested interest in either Moss or the Vikings. I'm just fascinated to see how this all plays out.

Fighting the W Monster

No I'm not talking about George Bush. I'm talking about the one that plagues millions of Americans every year: WEIGHT.

It has been said that as you age more and more things get taken away from you. I contend that often with age the most heinous things are added to you; namely your waistline, your love handles, and your spare tire, or what I like to call the Monster's evil minions.

I look around at our country and I see an America so abundant in food that many of us (myself included) have over indulged to the point that our asscheeks look like two boars fighting over a duvet. The amount of childhood obesity in this country is staggering.

Equally staggering is how much I feel like I've let myself go. When I was a senior in high school I weighed 160 lbs. As of today I weigh 237.5 lbs. "How?" I ask myself, "How did I get to this point?" The answer as you might suspect is fairly obvious: too much food and not enough exercise. But I've realized that the "how" and the "why" aren't important.

Today I reached a point that Tony Robbins (yes I've read Tony Robbins) calls Threshold. It's basically a point where the pain is so pervasive that the person has no choice but to change. I realized today that I'm just sick and tired of being overweight. My energy level stinks, I have sleep apnea, my back hurts, and I avoid mirrors. I'm a pretty positive guy but anyone overweight who tells you that it doesn't effect their self esteem is either lying or more delusional that Mel Gibson's father.

I consider myself very blessed. I have a family and a wife who love me unconditionally. Having said that my decision to change my habits, starting today, doesn't have a lot to do with them. In fact sometimes someone saying, "I love you just the way you are" even spoken with sincerity (and I know it is) becomes a crutch, an excuse. People have told me that getting back to my high school weight is unattainable, that everybody gains weight as they get older and you just have to learn to live with it. Dr. Wayne Dyer proposed a great question when faced with excuses, "Is it true?" I emphatically say NO. Not only are there numerous instances to back up my theory, I speak from personal experience. Eight years ago I lost 48 lbs. I went from 236 all the way to 188...and gained it all back.

Well now my journey to a better weight begins again. People think I can't get back down to 160? WATCH ME. Anybody who reads my blog I encourage you to send me your thoughts and prayers as I start this long road. I'm going to be doing weekly updates on my progress so look out for that. There will be struggles ahead I'm sure of it. But I'm ready.

And to prove my dedication I've made a decision. Any important life changing path deserves a visual reminder. As Herm Edwards former NFL coach said, "Be a man! Put yo' name on it!" Well I'm going to put my beard on it. As of this moment until I reach the 200lb mark I am not going to shave my fu man chu. Once I reach it I'm going to shave it and then not shave it again until I reach 160.

So there you have it. This is week 1 of the Corrye Weight Loss Project. It's like The Allan Parsons Project only not as crappy.

Week One Weight: 237.5 lbs.