You know it's bad news bears when even I don't feel like posting. bad news grizzly bears even. Anyway, here's a list of stuff that went down before, during, and after my adventure in central Washington this weekend, in order of least to most interesting. Kind of.
-on drive, listened to all Led Zeppelin's studio albums, in order
-made it in three and a half hours. mostly to spite nancy's mom
-drove home barefoot due to extremely waterlogged shoes
-took a nap on an indian reservation
-ran into, and hung out with, samuel higgins
-saw my first real-life bong
-was asked if I had a joint, twice
-decided, for very minimal reasons, that i hate yakima
-was nonplussed by rogue wave
-had more fun watching architecture in helsinki than any other band ever
-was throughly underwhelmed, even more than last time, by sufjan
-enjoyed iron & wine's set (he finished with my three favorite songs)
-witnessed barrel fires and slip and slides down hills (once on a picnic table)
-stayed until 1:45 to see the end of the flaming lips set
-decided wayne coyne is the best showman in the world
-jammed to ben harper like it was junior year all over again
-was standing in line, in shorts and a tshirt because it got really hot, to meet sam beam of iron & wine, when the worst hail storm i've ever experienced in my life hit. for ten-plus minutes, with two short respites.
-would not leave to find shelter or my coat, was saved by kindly gentleman with extra hat and jacket five or six minutes into storm
-met sam beam, who blew away all my expectations
-wished you were there
post script
the shins were good too. their keyboardist is a major tool though
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Monday, May 22, 2006
THE DA VINCI CODE
If I had to nail down exactly what I thought about The Da Vinci Code, it’d probably be that I just felt it was wasted potential. You’re dealing with a massive story, probably one of the biggest you could tell while still giving it a real world setting (despite its massive factual errors, granted), with some of the biggest stars and best actors not just in the United States, but also abroad, and this is the film that results.
I’ve never read the book, but the idea behind it is interesting and exactly the kind of high concept needed for a summer flick – Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and fathered children, a secret that a sect of the Catholic Church has been covering up for centuries. There’s a lot else going on in the flick, but that’s the meat. There’s a big problem with making this the central mystery of the film, and that’s not just a problem because so many people read the book. Or that everyone who didn’t heard it from someone who had. It’s that they put it in the damn trailer, so you spend the first two thirds of the film watching two people solve a mystery you already know the outcome of. And by the time a big secret is revealed about a main character in the story at the end of the film (I’m not going to spoil it for the two of you who don’t know what I mean), you had that one figured out just as easily.
And plot-wise, none of this would bother me if the film was half as entertaining or engaging as the trailer led me to believe. See, with thrillers, you really have to go for two things. First, you have to engage the audience, keep them guessing and make them feel like they’re solving the mystery right along with the main characters. Then, you have to make it fun. Not always fun like the ball pit at Discovery Zone is fun (God knows Se7en was damn horrifying, but there is a fun there like akin to what you get from a jigsaw puzzle). The Da Vinci Code has neither. It explains every step of it so explicitly that any joy of discovery there might have been is instantly sucked from it. The worst instance is a monologue that explains the afore-mentioned big revelation about a main character that goes on forever, saying one single idea time and time again.
Instead of making a tightly-woven, smart thriller, and I think you can mostly blame director Ron Howard for this (whose best work, Apollo 13 and Cinderella Man, is emotion-centric), the flick spends a lot of time trying to make its religious ideas seem important and its characters far deeper than they are. Any fun the mystery could have is wiped away with constant reminders that “no, kids, it’s about Jesus.” There are flashbacks and backstories thrown in for absolutely no reason to try to pass as characterization, but they largely (especially Robert Langdon’s fear of small spaces and Silas’ troubled youth) have absolutely nothing to do with the story and do nothing to add to the characters. Unfortunately, the actors largely can’t save it. Tom Hanks is an actor who, I think, does his best work in comedy, but when he hits his dramatic notes, he really hits them. This is not such an instance. His Robert Langdon is obviously smart (most of his dialogue is him explaining concepts to people who really should know them…but really, that’s most of the dialogue of the film altogether), but he’s horribly boring, which is the worst quality a main character can have. There are a couple fine comedic hits with Ian McKellen that make the character moderately interesting, but for the most part he’s just drab, and mostly just in place to have someone to solve mysteries for or with the audience.
Audrey Tautou is about as popular as French actresses get in the states, and while she’s never looked hotter onscreen than she does here, she’s never been less interesting (although I’m really just every other American and have only seen her in Amelie and A Very Long Engagement). Even Alfred Molina, a fantastic actor whether it’s in a cameo in Boogie Nights or the villain in Spider-Man, has almost nothing to do in the entire film and makes almost nothing of it. Paul Bettany’s Silas is creepy, but never once feels threatening. Only Ian McKellen manages to show that he developed a real, interesting, layered character, and I wish the film was about him because I might have enjoyed it much more.
What does the film do well? Conspiracy, murder, mystery, intrigue, though that is few and far between. The fun stuff. Had they just given into the ridiculousness of the plot and made it a full-on thriller, I would’ve been all for it. The thriller aspect is also overshadowed by an underlying epic story. And with a story like this, you really have to go for full-on epic or down-and-dirty thriller, and the film tries to strike a balance between the two. It might be possible, but The Da Vinci Code suggests otherwise. There are some fine moments in the film; like I said, even though nearly all of Ian McKellen’s work is there to tell Hanks the answer, he makes it damn compelling to watch. There’s a scene with Paul Bettany in a church that’s pretty cool, purely because Silas is so damn crazy (and watching him pray…that was wacky). But the problem here is the most interesting scenes are those involving supporting characters. And yeah, it’s not abnormal that the bad guys will be more interesting, but it doesn’t make it impossible to overcome. Look at Die Hard, the one that practically invented the suave European villain, but you still can’t wait for Bruce Willis to show up again.
So like I said, it largely feels like a waste. There’s a lot of talent here (Cinderella Man was one of my favorite movies of last year, and I love every member of the cast), but everyone seemed to treat it like a paid vacation to Europe. The filmmakers put so much effort into not offending anyone that they sucked any fun the concept could have had, resulting in a what equates cinematically to a dull leading man solving the morning word jumble. Worst of all, by the end of it he’s handed all the answers, as is the audience, creating a thriller without a single thrill to be found.
I’ve never read the book, but the idea behind it is interesting and exactly the kind of high concept needed for a summer flick – Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and fathered children, a secret that a sect of the Catholic Church has been covering up for centuries. There’s a lot else going on in the flick, but that’s the meat. There’s a big problem with making this the central mystery of the film, and that’s not just a problem because so many people read the book. Or that everyone who didn’t heard it from someone who had. It’s that they put it in the damn trailer, so you spend the first two thirds of the film watching two people solve a mystery you already know the outcome of. And by the time a big secret is revealed about a main character in the story at the end of the film (I’m not going to spoil it for the two of you who don’t know what I mean), you had that one figured out just as easily.
And plot-wise, none of this would bother me if the film was half as entertaining or engaging as the trailer led me to believe. See, with thrillers, you really have to go for two things. First, you have to engage the audience, keep them guessing and make them feel like they’re solving the mystery right along with the main characters. Then, you have to make it fun. Not always fun like the ball pit at Discovery Zone is fun (God knows Se7en was damn horrifying, but there is a fun there like akin to what you get from a jigsaw puzzle). The Da Vinci Code has neither. It explains every step of it so explicitly that any joy of discovery there might have been is instantly sucked from it. The worst instance is a monologue that explains the afore-mentioned big revelation about a main character that goes on forever, saying one single idea time and time again.
Instead of making a tightly-woven, smart thriller, and I think you can mostly blame director Ron Howard for this (whose best work, Apollo 13 and Cinderella Man, is emotion-centric), the flick spends a lot of time trying to make its religious ideas seem important and its characters far deeper than they are. Any fun the mystery could have is wiped away with constant reminders that “no, kids, it’s about Jesus.” There are flashbacks and backstories thrown in for absolutely no reason to try to pass as characterization, but they largely (especially Robert Langdon’s fear of small spaces and Silas’ troubled youth) have absolutely nothing to do with the story and do nothing to add to the characters. Unfortunately, the actors largely can’t save it. Tom Hanks is an actor who, I think, does his best work in comedy, but when he hits his dramatic notes, he really hits them. This is not such an instance. His Robert Langdon is obviously smart (most of his dialogue is him explaining concepts to people who really should know them…but really, that’s most of the dialogue of the film altogether), but he’s horribly boring, which is the worst quality a main character can have. There are a couple fine comedic hits with Ian McKellen that make the character moderately interesting, but for the most part he’s just drab, and mostly just in place to have someone to solve mysteries for or with the audience.
Audrey Tautou is about as popular as French actresses get in the states, and while she’s never looked hotter onscreen than she does here, she’s never been less interesting (although I’m really just every other American and have only seen her in Amelie and A Very Long Engagement). Even Alfred Molina, a fantastic actor whether it’s in a cameo in Boogie Nights or the villain in Spider-Man, has almost nothing to do in the entire film and makes almost nothing of it. Paul Bettany’s Silas is creepy, but never once feels threatening. Only Ian McKellen manages to show that he developed a real, interesting, layered character, and I wish the film was about him because I might have enjoyed it much more.
What does the film do well? Conspiracy, murder, mystery, intrigue, though that is few and far between. The fun stuff. Had they just given into the ridiculousness of the plot and made it a full-on thriller, I would’ve been all for it. The thriller aspect is also overshadowed by an underlying epic story. And with a story like this, you really have to go for full-on epic or down-and-dirty thriller, and the film tries to strike a balance between the two. It might be possible, but The Da Vinci Code suggests otherwise. There are some fine moments in the film; like I said, even though nearly all of Ian McKellen’s work is there to tell Hanks the answer, he makes it damn compelling to watch. There’s a scene with Paul Bettany in a church that’s pretty cool, purely because Silas is so damn crazy (and watching him pray…that was wacky). But the problem here is the most interesting scenes are those involving supporting characters. And yeah, it’s not abnormal that the bad guys will be more interesting, but it doesn’t make it impossible to overcome. Look at Die Hard, the one that practically invented the suave European villain, but you still can’t wait for Bruce Willis to show up again.
So like I said, it largely feels like a waste. There’s a lot of talent here (Cinderella Man was one of my favorite movies of last year, and I love every member of the cast), but everyone seemed to treat it like a paid vacation to Europe. The filmmakers put so much effort into not offending anyone that they sucked any fun the concept could have had, resulting in a what equates cinematically to a dull leading man solving the morning word jumble. Worst of all, by the end of it he’s handed all the answers, as is the audience, creating a thriller without a single thrill to be found.
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Halo
Got a good idea talking to Ben just now. He was telling me all of the fun you guys were having without me, playing Halo and stuff, and it dawned on me, the ultimate way for me to chill with you guys without leaving Ithaca: Online Halo. Anybody who wants in, tell me, and I'll send them the CDs. We can get private games, so it'd just be us. But this way, Pat, me, and anybody else who is either not in PDX or too lazy can play. Granted, its no Halo 2, and its not on Scott's big-ass tv, but it is Halo, and you don't have to use the crappy X-box controls. Anyway, think about it, I'll get CDs made.
PS: So mac users are kinda screwed, I guess... Dammit, Ben, you shoulda bought a PC.
PS: So mac users are kinda screwed, I guess... Dammit, Ben, you shoulda bought a PC.
Monday, May 15, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)