Posts
We have here a letter from the one and only President of the United States George W. Bush. In it he confesses to being a "passionable fan" of The Seasonal "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" Friday Afternoon Quote, mainly because it is "not as lengthy" as the other blog entries. He also notes that it was in fact "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" that caused him to "instigate" at recent meetings with NASA that it would be beneficial to "add time travel to the space program as soon as possible". Ladies and gentlemen, if you still require proof that our President is a no-nonsense man of action I can only assume this must be it.
Keep up the good work, Mr. President, and thanks for reading!
Bones: "What's the matter with you?"
Woman: "Kidney dialysis."
Bones: "Dialysis? What is this, the dark ages?"
Friday, June 30, 2006
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Superman Returns
Yes, Superman is back. And contradictory to most summer films, “Superman Returns” chooses to put its characters and personal relationships front and center. This is not to say there is no action because there is plenty (including a sequence involving an airplane AND a space shuttle but more on that in a minute). But it grounds itself and that sets it apart from so much of the summertime cinema schlock.
Superman (Iowa’s own Brandon Routh) has returned to earth after a 5 year absence in which he had gone back to his home planet of Krypton. In his absence, Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) has not simply written a renowned article but won the Pullitzer Prize for her piece “Why the World Doesn’t Need Superman”. A bit bitter, perhaps? Understandably so. And here’s where the movie differs from your typical slam-bang summer action thriller. The driving element is Superman and Lois. She has begun dating someone at the Daily Planet (who, thank God, isn’t sketched as the over-the-top jerk of a boyfriend) and now Superman’s return stirs up old feelings, naturally. “Everyone was in love with him,” she explains to her boyfriend. “But were you?” he asks.
Meanwhile, Superman gets back to his old world-saving ways but note the initial event that causes him to do so? It’s the plane AND space shuttle (I assure you, more on this in a minute) that are out of control. Who’s on that plane? Lois Lane, of course, and that’s the key. He’s back but it’s Lois that pushes him ALL the way back. Are you paying attention, Michael Bay?
At the outset of the movie, I was concerned that it seemed Routh was just mimicking Christopher Reeve. But then I thought maybe it was just because Routh looks so much like Christopher Reeve. But then I thought maybe it was just because, hey, that's how Clark Kent is. And before long I wasn't even thinking about it anymore.
Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey) is also up to his usual no-good, as he must be, but his no-good is more the side-show than the main attraction. This is not a bad thing. And this does not mean the side-show is weak. I enjoyed his diabolical scheme. It is ludicrous in just the right way and Spacey does a good job as Superman’s nemesis. I always thought Gene Hackman’s performance in the original movie was a bit too comic. But here Spacey plays it pretty much straight evil and wisely leaves the comedy to his sidekick (Parker Posey, who does a great job at it). I loved the scene where’s she clomping around in her high-heels specifically so Lex can hear her clomping around in them.
The problem with the movie is the pacing, specifically the action. Director Bryan Singer puts his biggest and best action scene first – the aforementioned plane AND space shuttle. It’s pulsating, dig-your-fingernails-into-the-seat-cushion type suspense. In fact, it drew applause at the screening I attended. But, again, it comes first. So the rest of the action sequences are just a let-down compared to this. Either, you place it at the end or put it in the middle so it functions as the crux of the movie. But not the beginning. Start strong, finish stronger.
Also (and this is a random complaint but, man, did it bother me), what was going on with Frank Langella as the chief newspaper-man at the Daily Planet? This character is supposed chomp on cigars like he chews scenery - yelling, and hollering, and spouting run-on sentences filled with bloated adjectives. But Langella played him so sullenly. Every time he was onscreen the movie lost mounds of energy. Were they trying to play against the stereotype? Probably but that's one stereotype that is a stereotype for good reason.
Ah, but I quibble. This was a good movie. Was it out-and-out spectacular? Not really. Will it wind up on any end-of-the-year Top 10 Lists? No. But I thought about it well past the theater parking lot and for a summer movie you can't really ask for any more than that.
Superman (Iowa’s own Brandon Routh) has returned to earth after a 5 year absence in which he had gone back to his home planet of Krypton. In his absence, Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) has not simply written a renowned article but won the Pullitzer Prize for her piece “Why the World Doesn’t Need Superman”. A bit bitter, perhaps? Understandably so. And here’s where the movie differs from your typical slam-bang summer action thriller. The driving element is Superman and Lois. She has begun dating someone at the Daily Planet (who, thank God, isn’t sketched as the over-the-top jerk of a boyfriend) and now Superman’s return stirs up old feelings, naturally. “Everyone was in love with him,” she explains to her boyfriend. “But were you?” he asks.
Meanwhile, Superman gets back to his old world-saving ways but note the initial event that causes him to do so? It’s the plane AND space shuttle (I assure you, more on this in a minute) that are out of control. Who’s on that plane? Lois Lane, of course, and that’s the key. He’s back but it’s Lois that pushes him ALL the way back. Are you paying attention, Michael Bay?
At the outset of the movie, I was concerned that it seemed Routh was just mimicking Christopher Reeve. But then I thought maybe it was just because Routh looks so much like Christopher Reeve. But then I thought maybe it was just because, hey, that's how Clark Kent is. And before long I wasn't even thinking about it anymore.
Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey) is also up to his usual no-good, as he must be, but his no-good is more the side-show than the main attraction. This is not a bad thing. And this does not mean the side-show is weak. I enjoyed his diabolical scheme. It is ludicrous in just the right way and Spacey does a good job as Superman’s nemesis. I always thought Gene Hackman’s performance in the original movie was a bit too comic. But here Spacey plays it pretty much straight evil and wisely leaves the comedy to his sidekick (Parker Posey, who does a great job at it). I loved the scene where’s she clomping around in her high-heels specifically so Lex can hear her clomping around in them.
The problem with the movie is the pacing, specifically the action. Director Bryan Singer puts his biggest and best action scene first – the aforementioned plane AND space shuttle. It’s pulsating, dig-your-fingernails-into-the-seat-cushion type suspense. In fact, it drew applause at the screening I attended. But, again, it comes first. So the rest of the action sequences are just a let-down compared to this. Either, you place it at the end or put it in the middle so it functions as the crux of the movie. But not the beginning. Start strong, finish stronger.
Also (and this is a random complaint but, man, did it bother me), what was going on with Frank Langella as the chief newspaper-man at the Daily Planet? This character is supposed chomp on cigars like he chews scenery - yelling, and hollering, and spouting run-on sentences filled with bloated adjectives. But Langella played him so sullenly. Every time he was onscreen the movie lost mounds of energy. Were they trying to play against the stereotype? Probably but that's one stereotype that is a stereotype for good reason.
Ah, but I quibble. This was a good movie. Was it out-and-out spectacular? Not really. Will it wind up on any end-of-the-year Top 10 Lists? No. But I thought about it well past the theater parking lot and for a summer movie you can't really ask for any more than that.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Bottoms Up
This afternoon Cinema Romantico learned via its daily edition of the Chicago Sun Times that the long-running rumor of music's pre-eminent guitarist/vodka drinker/palm tree enthusiast Keith Richards appearing as the father of Johnny Depp's infamous Captain Jack Sparrow in "Pirates of the Caribbean" is no longer a mere rumor. He is officially slated to appear in said role in the third installment of the film franchise set to be relased in the summer of 2007.
I haven't been this excited since I learned Sylvester Stallone himself had penned the screenplay for "Driven".
I haven't been this excited since I learned Sylvester Stallone himself had penned the screenplay for "Driven".
Monday, June 26, 2006
They Won't Back Down
I stated a couple of weeks ago that Cinema Romantico does not find the need to leave the world of cinema except in extreme cases. Two things, however, are prompting an extreme case this morning. 1.) The absolute awfulness of "Click" makes me need to leave the cinema world just briefly in order to re-gain the notion that, yes, movies are a wonderful thing. 2.) An editorial in yesterday's Chicago Tribune.
Steve Johnson writes of The Dixie Chicks' in "My Country and Western right or wrong". He writes, of course, of The Dixie Chicks being shunned by all those (purported) country and western stations that supported for them so long not necessarily because their new album drifts so far from what is considered today to be country music (although I'm sure that's part of it) but because of Natalie Maines' still infamous comments about George W. Bush. Naturally, I stand on the side of Natalie Maines. Even if I hated their music (which I don't) or disliked her (which I don't) I would still defend her right to say whatever the hell she wants.
But what struck me the most in the article was the following paragraph: "They also made waves this year by insulting ABC's 'The View', asking 'Would Bruce Springsteen do 'The View'? It's been interpreted as the Chicks' being full of themselves, but their web site explains that they've taken 'What would Bruce Springsteen do?' as a mantra for personal integrity."
As if I needed any more reasons to love those Dixie Chicks. I do want to make it quite clear that I liked them before I read this article. I bought their new album "Taking the Long Way" a couple weeks ago and find it quite exhilirating. It's become my favorite go-to-work album, actually, which is a critical part of my life. It is quite a departure from what is supposedly considered to be normal country music and while the lyrics certainly could have been shallow attacks on everyone and anything that's irritated them in light of the storm that's unfairly come down on Maines in recent years, they aren't. The lyrics are mature and insightful and refuse (except for one or two moments, and even then they don't go to the extreme) to directly discuss what has happened in the past.
Good for them. And good for them for making the kind of album they wanted, damn the consequences. I like these Dixie Chicks more and more every time I learn something new about them. I know a thing or two about Mr. Springsteen, believe me, and what they have done and what they continue to do is something that would make Mr. Springsteen and any Springsteen fan proud. Hell, it's something that would make any true American proud.
Steve Johnson writes of The Dixie Chicks' in "My Country and Western right or wrong". He writes, of course, of The Dixie Chicks being shunned by all those (purported) country and western stations that supported for them so long not necessarily because their new album drifts so far from what is considered today to be country music (although I'm sure that's part of it) but because of Natalie Maines' still infamous comments about George W. Bush. Naturally, I stand on the side of Natalie Maines. Even if I hated their music (which I don't) or disliked her (which I don't) I would still defend her right to say whatever the hell she wants.
But what struck me the most in the article was the following paragraph: "They also made waves this year by insulting ABC's 'The View', asking 'Would Bruce Springsteen do 'The View'? It's been interpreted as the Chicks' being full of themselves, but their web site explains that they've taken 'What would Bruce Springsteen do?' as a mantra for personal integrity."
As if I needed any more reasons to love those Dixie Chicks. I do want to make it quite clear that I liked them before I read this article. I bought their new album "Taking the Long Way" a couple weeks ago and find it quite exhilirating. It's become my favorite go-to-work album, actually, which is a critical part of my life. It is quite a departure from what is supposedly considered to be normal country music and while the lyrics certainly could have been shallow attacks on everyone and anything that's irritated them in light of the storm that's unfairly come down on Maines in recent years, they aren't. The lyrics are mature and insightful and refuse (except for one or two moments, and even then they don't go to the extreme) to directly discuss what has happened in the past.
Good for them. And good for them for making the kind of album they wanted, damn the consequences. I like these Dixie Chicks more and more every time I learn something new about them. I know a thing or two about Mr. Springsteen, believe me, and what they have done and what they continue to do is something that would make Mr. Springsteen and any Springsteen fan proud. Hell, it's something that would make any true American proud.
Saturday, June 24, 2006
Click It Off (For the Love of God, Click It Off)
You've gotta' hand it to Adam Sandler - the guy has discovered and perfected a formula that works. The outline for his movies is as set in stone as a Bond film. It's "what the people want". That's what I always hear, at least. Adam Sandler gives the "people what they want". Of course, how do the "people" know any better? Advertisers and studio execs stuff what they assume "people" want right down the "people's" throat. "People" don't get really get a choice and if they do they're so used to what they get they just choose the same thing. It's the equivalent of eating fish your whole life in Des Moines. You come to assume that's how fish is supposed to taste. Then one day you have fish in Half Moon Bay, California and you realize that's how fish is supposed to taste. But, of course, most people out there would get to Half Moon Bay and choose to have a burger and fries instead because that piece of fish looks a bit too exotic (kind of like those funky Italian neo-realism films). After all, why watch, say, "The Bicycle Thief" when "Happy Gilmore" is on TNT for 461st time?
But there I go digressing, as I'm so prone to do. This entire review threatens to become a diatribe on Adam Sandler and that's not my intention. Well, maybe it is - but it shouldn't be. I enjoy Adam Sandler......a little bit. I enjoyed most of "The Wedding Singer". I appreciated Bob Barker kicking the crap out of him in "Happy Gilmore". The college football fanatic in me adored the Brent Musburger/Dan Fouts cameos in "The Waterboy". And I downright loved "Punch Drunk Love" although that was less an Adam Sandler movie than a movie Adam Sandler was in. (And isn't that the classic film snob thing to say? The best Adam Sandler movie is "Punch Drunk Love"? It totally is and that's why I'm proud to say it.)
Damn it! I'm digressing again! What movie is this thing supposed to be about? Right, "Click". That's what I just watched. Let me get my bearings straight here. Okay........so, I saw "Click" last night. It tells the story of Michael Newman (Adam Sandler) a workaholic who comes into possession of a universal remote control that literally allows him to control his universe. You can pretty much guess each and every plot point from there since, after all, it's an Adam Sandler movie. But that's not fair, is it? The esteemed film critic Roger Ebert says, "It's not what a movie is about but how it's about it." This is an excellent creed to follow and one which I do. So how is "Click" about it?
The "humor" is of the variety wherein if you were to, let's say, make a bet with your fellow theater-goer as to how long it would take for there to be a scene with a dog humping something you wouldn't even have time to determine the stakes before, by golly, a dog turned up humping something. (And what exactly is the genesis of the dog humping something scene? Do writers actually think this is clever? Do they laugh out loud while they type it? Do they high-five each other when they're done?)
I mean, you'd think a movie where a guy can control his own life would go in all kinds of cool and unique directions, but not a chance. He simply fast forwards through arguments with his wife and (get ready to laugh until your jaw hurts!) make his boss fat. (High-five!) It's all the more frustrating because there's funny things on the fringe of the movie that aren't explored. There's something truly humorous, I think, in Christopher Walken working out of the backroom of a Bed, Bath and Beyond but it just lays there. There's a gag involving James Earl Jones' doing a voice-over that's the funniest thing in the movie. But it only happens twice. Why? Why limit this to a mere two times? Oh, right. We need to see a dog humping something again (high-five).
And, by the way, what's the deal with these movies where a guy gets special powers being so consumed with promotions at work. That's the biggest crisis he has in the whole movie. That was the biggest crisis Jim Carrey had in "Bruce Almighty". Why can't they push it further and deeper? Oh, right. They'd prefer to have dogs humping something (high-five).
Midway through I thought to myself wouldn't it be wonderful if the movie actually didn't conclude with the "it was all a dream" scene? But then I realized just how stupid that thought was. And then I realized just how stupid this whole movie was. And then I realized I just wished (and here I'm staying with the spirit of the clever humor of the movie itself) I had a universal remote of my own so I could fast-forward straight through to end and get it over with.
Perhaps most disturbing, though, is Sandler's failure to recognize the theme of his own movie. It suddenly veers in the third act from a "comedy" to, essentially, a very crummy variation on "It's a Wonderful Life". Sandler has realized that life isn't about work and that he needs to follow his heart and do what's right. And I think if the Sandler at the end of "Click" learned of the real Adam Sandler's movie choices, he'd kick his ass.
(Note: Last week I addressed the fact that Kate Beckinsale was in need of a new agent and what poor actress should turn up in "Click" as the ancient archetype of the neglected yet supportive spouse but Kate Beckinsale? Couldn't they have given her one decent line? Just one? Uh, no. So, in relation to this, I will say to any agents or studio heads that may stumble upon this blog, I have a biting, chracter-driven script with a dark-haired female as the lead. Okay. Not really. But I could bang one out this weekend.)
But there I go digressing, as I'm so prone to do. This entire review threatens to become a diatribe on Adam Sandler and that's not my intention. Well, maybe it is - but it shouldn't be. I enjoy Adam Sandler......a little bit. I enjoyed most of "The Wedding Singer". I appreciated Bob Barker kicking the crap out of him in "Happy Gilmore". The college football fanatic in me adored the Brent Musburger/Dan Fouts cameos in "The Waterboy". And I downright loved "Punch Drunk Love" although that was less an Adam Sandler movie than a movie Adam Sandler was in. (And isn't that the classic film snob thing to say? The best Adam Sandler movie is "Punch Drunk Love"? It totally is and that's why I'm proud to say it.)
Damn it! I'm digressing again! What movie is this thing supposed to be about? Right, "Click". That's what I just watched. Let me get my bearings straight here. Okay........so, I saw "Click" last night. It tells the story of Michael Newman (Adam Sandler) a workaholic who comes into possession of a universal remote control that literally allows him to control his universe. You can pretty much guess each and every plot point from there since, after all, it's an Adam Sandler movie. But that's not fair, is it? The esteemed film critic Roger Ebert says, "It's not what a movie is about but how it's about it." This is an excellent creed to follow and one which I do. So how is "Click" about it?
The "humor" is of the variety wherein if you were to, let's say, make a bet with your fellow theater-goer as to how long it would take for there to be a scene with a dog humping something you wouldn't even have time to determine the stakes before, by golly, a dog turned up humping something. (And what exactly is the genesis of the dog humping something scene? Do writers actually think this is clever? Do they laugh out loud while they type it? Do they high-five each other when they're done?)
I mean, you'd think a movie where a guy can control his own life would go in all kinds of cool and unique directions, but not a chance. He simply fast forwards through arguments with his wife and (get ready to laugh until your jaw hurts!) make his boss fat. (High-five!) It's all the more frustrating because there's funny things on the fringe of the movie that aren't explored. There's something truly humorous, I think, in Christopher Walken working out of the backroom of a Bed, Bath and Beyond but it just lays there. There's a gag involving James Earl Jones' doing a voice-over that's the funniest thing in the movie. But it only happens twice. Why? Why limit this to a mere two times? Oh, right. We need to see a dog humping something again (high-five).
And, by the way, what's the deal with these movies where a guy gets special powers being so consumed with promotions at work. That's the biggest crisis he has in the whole movie. That was the biggest crisis Jim Carrey had in "Bruce Almighty". Why can't they push it further and deeper? Oh, right. They'd prefer to have dogs humping something (high-five).
Midway through I thought to myself wouldn't it be wonderful if the movie actually didn't conclude with the "it was all a dream" scene? But then I realized just how stupid that thought was. And then I realized just how stupid this whole movie was. And then I realized I just wished (and here I'm staying with the spirit of the clever humor of the movie itself) I had a universal remote of my own so I could fast-forward straight through to end and get it over with.
Perhaps most disturbing, though, is Sandler's failure to recognize the theme of his own movie. It suddenly veers in the third act from a "comedy" to, essentially, a very crummy variation on "It's a Wonderful Life". Sandler has realized that life isn't about work and that he needs to follow his heart and do what's right. And I think if the Sandler at the end of "Click" learned of the real Adam Sandler's movie choices, he'd kick his ass.
(Note: Last week I addressed the fact that Kate Beckinsale was in need of a new agent and what poor actress should turn up in "Click" as the ancient archetype of the neglected yet supportive spouse but Kate Beckinsale? Couldn't they have given her one decent line? Just one? Uh, no. So, in relation to this, I will say to any agents or studio heads that may stumble upon this blog, I have a biting, chracter-driven script with a dark-haired female as the lead. Okay. Not really. But I could bang one out this weekend.)
Friday, June 23, 2006
The Seasonal "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" Friday Afternoon Quote
This week Cinema Romantico learned that fellow blogger Al Gore was so threatened by The Seasonal "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" Friday Afternoon Quote stealing his blogging thunder that he has begun The Seasonal "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier" Friday Afternoon Quote. (Sample: "So it's me you want, you Klingon bastards?! Come and get me!")
That Al Gore, always the "first" to everything. But this does not concern Cinema Romantico for we all know whose blog is pilfering from the better movie.
Gillian: "Are you sure you won't change your mind?"
Spock: "Is there something wrong with the one I have?"
That Al Gore, always the "first" to everything. But this does not concern Cinema Romantico for we all know whose blog is pilfering from the better movie.
Gillian: "Are you sure you won't change your mind?"
Spock: "Is there something wrong with the one I have?"
The Squid and the Whale
(This is a re-posting of an entry originally written in November. Last night, however, I watched "The Squid and the Whale" for the second time. And - much like seeing Neko Case twice - it was fantastic the first time but downright incredible on the second go-around.)
On Sunday afternoon I attended a viewing of “The Squid and the Whale”. It was written and directed by Noah Baumbach, most recently the co-writer of “The Life Aquatic”. But he was also writer/director of the cult classic (a cult of which I’m part) “Kicking and Screaming”. His gift for extraordinary dialogue was evident with that feature and is still on display with his new one – but with the new one his ability to write deep, complex characters has strengthened notably.
The film is an autobiographical story detailing the divorce of 2 writers (Jeff Daniels and Laura Linney) and how it affects them and their two young sons. I've always favored rich characters over plot, and so this movie was a little slice of wonderful to me. The divorce sets things in motion but then it’s a series of vignettes without an over-abundance of arc. I mean, when is there ever a swooping character arc in real life? I only wish I had some kind of arc to my life.
The parents are sketched as two people who wanted to have kids but didn’t know what to do with the kids once they had them. The father particularly is a vivid characterization of someone who fancies himself a literary genius, providing advice to his son he probably thinks is very helpful. For instance, when his son notes his high school class is reading “A Tale of Two Cities”, the father makes the comment it’s merely “minor Dickens”. I did enjoy when the son invites his father to see “Short Circuit”, the father insists they see the new family friendly David Lynch movie “Blue Velvet”. Frightening as it is, I can totally see myself as a father nixing my son’s desire to see the latest Disney animated feature in order to drag him to the new Spike Lee drama.
The father keeps re-iterating to his son that he did not cheat during the course of his marriage, though she did. Not because he didn’t want to necessarily, but more because he knew he could use the not-cheating as ammunition for post-divorce proceedings. The son is written quite consciously as a chip off the father’s block. This is rare anymore in films as usually the script dictates how the son should act and doesn’t take into account how the father may have affected the son’s behavior. When the son is making out with his girlfriend he pauses, observes her face and says, “I wish you didn’t have so many freckles”. You can just picture the father saying that to a girl at his son’s age. The younger son has a very odd reaction to the divorce, and I’m still not sure how I feel about it. Although the simple fact that I’m still thinking about the movie a day later speaks of its quality.
The mother meanwhile takes up with the tennis pro (though he’s not on the level of McEnroe or Connors, remember) who coaches the youngest son. The tennis pro is an underwritten role, though William Baldwin gets a surprising amount of mileage out of a single line – “my brother”. Anna Paquin also turns up an underwritten role as a student of the father which allows her to reinforce the fact that perhaps no actress working today can flesh out an underwritten role better (see: “Finding Forrester”, “Almost Famous”, “Buffalo Soldiers”, etc).
The end scene is a callback to an earlier moment in which the oldest son visits a therapist. The “therapist sequence” is common to film but this is one of the “therapist sequences” I’ve seen. It starts with the son questioning the validity of his therapist (“so you don’t have a PHD?”), then turns to the son – who has been on his father’s side the whole time – realizing his father wasn’t really around that much when he was younger, and then to fondly remembering he and his mom going to the Natural History Museum to see the squid and the whale exhibit.
Can you guess where the movie ends? All I can say is I had a big smile on my face when I left the theater. This is one of the best films of the year.
On Sunday afternoon I attended a viewing of “The Squid and the Whale”. It was written and directed by Noah Baumbach, most recently the co-writer of “The Life Aquatic”. But he was also writer/director of the cult classic (a cult of which I’m part) “Kicking and Screaming”. His gift for extraordinary dialogue was evident with that feature and is still on display with his new one – but with the new one his ability to write deep, complex characters has strengthened notably.
The film is an autobiographical story detailing the divorce of 2 writers (Jeff Daniels and Laura Linney) and how it affects them and their two young sons. I've always favored rich characters over plot, and so this movie was a little slice of wonderful to me. The divorce sets things in motion but then it’s a series of vignettes without an over-abundance of arc. I mean, when is there ever a swooping character arc in real life? I only wish I had some kind of arc to my life.
The parents are sketched as two people who wanted to have kids but didn’t know what to do with the kids once they had them. The father particularly is a vivid characterization of someone who fancies himself a literary genius, providing advice to his son he probably thinks is very helpful. For instance, when his son notes his high school class is reading “A Tale of Two Cities”, the father makes the comment it’s merely “minor Dickens”. I did enjoy when the son invites his father to see “Short Circuit”, the father insists they see the new family friendly David Lynch movie “Blue Velvet”. Frightening as it is, I can totally see myself as a father nixing my son’s desire to see the latest Disney animated feature in order to drag him to the new Spike Lee drama.
The father keeps re-iterating to his son that he did not cheat during the course of his marriage, though she did. Not because he didn’t want to necessarily, but more because he knew he could use the not-cheating as ammunition for post-divorce proceedings. The son is written quite consciously as a chip off the father’s block. This is rare anymore in films as usually the script dictates how the son should act and doesn’t take into account how the father may have affected the son’s behavior. When the son is making out with his girlfriend he pauses, observes her face and says, “I wish you didn’t have so many freckles”. You can just picture the father saying that to a girl at his son’s age. The younger son has a very odd reaction to the divorce, and I’m still not sure how I feel about it. Although the simple fact that I’m still thinking about the movie a day later speaks of its quality.
The mother meanwhile takes up with the tennis pro (though he’s not on the level of McEnroe or Connors, remember) who coaches the youngest son. The tennis pro is an underwritten role, though William Baldwin gets a surprising amount of mileage out of a single line – “my brother”. Anna Paquin also turns up an underwritten role as a student of the father which allows her to reinforce the fact that perhaps no actress working today can flesh out an underwritten role better (see: “Finding Forrester”, “Almost Famous”, “Buffalo Soldiers”, etc).
The end scene is a callback to an earlier moment in which the oldest son visits a therapist. The “therapist sequence” is common to film but this is one of the “therapist sequences” I’ve seen. It starts with the son questioning the validity of his therapist (“so you don’t have a PHD?”), then turns to the son – who has been on his father’s side the whole time – realizing his father wasn’t really around that much when he was younger, and then to fondly remembering he and his mom going to the Natural History Museum to see the squid and the whale exhibit.
Can you guess where the movie ends? All I can say is I had a big smile on my face when I left the theater. This is one of the best films of the year.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Actors Most in Need of a New Agent
Today is June 21, the first day of summer, or in other words - the summer solstice. Ah yes, solstice. My dictionary advises me a solstice is 1.) The two times of the year when the sun is at its greatest distance from the celestial equator and 2.) A highest point or culmination. A highest point, you say? There are many actors and actresses in Hollywood who have hit what would seem to be their highest point and/or culmination and now seem incapable of re-attaining this point. Does it have to be this way? Gosh darn it, I don't think so. I just think they have the wrong people representing them. And today - on the summer solstice - I will name a few of them. This is not to poke fun or criticize but merely to confirm they have the necessary talent and should they dump their respective agents counseling them to accept roles for "money" and "what my sources tell me are potentially awesome box office returns" that talent can burn once again with the amazing heat of the first day of summer.
-Cuba Gooding Jr. There is a little-known rule set forth by the Academy of Motion Pictures & Sciences many years ago that stipulates if an actor or actress has not made a film resembling decent within 10 years of winning his or her Oscar, they must return that Oscar to the Academy. It’s so little-known in fact that any Academy member you interrogate will deny its very existence. But I’m mentioning it because Cuba Gooding Jr. won his Oscar in March of 1997 which means the 10 year anniversary of that date is right around the corner. And tragically movies such as “Boat Trip”, “Rat Race”, and (gulp) “Snow Dogs” do not resemble decent. This guy has got to be getting better offers than “Snow Dogs”. Doesn’t he? Who’s his agent and how soon can we kick him out the door? I don’t want to see the Academy’s little-known rule enforced for only the second time. (Oh, Whoopi Goldberg will claim the Academy never took back her Oscar but get yourself invited to her house and tell me if you see one anywhere.) And so unless Cuba gets it in gear and lands himself a real role, that Oscar could be taken down off the mantle. What agent’s going to heed the call of the once great Rod Tidwell?
-Mark Ruffalo. This is absolutely not a knock on Mr. Ruffalo, who I think is one of the finest actors of his generation. His skill is unquestioned. His performance in “You Can Count on Me” was the best performance given by any male that year. The problem is why isn’t he in more movies such as “You Can Count on Me”? He was fantastic in a bit part in “Collateral” and even in a movie like “13 Going on 30” he exudes talent and charisma. So what’s going on? Huh?! HUH?! WHAT’S THE MATTER WITH YOU, HOLLYWOOD?! DO YOU NEED A SMACK IN THE HEAD OR SOMETHING?! NO MORE SUPPORTING ROLES FOR THIS GUY, OKAY?! NO MORE ROMANTIC COMEDIES! GIVE THIS GUY A REAL ROLE, DAMN IT! GIVE THIS GUY MULTIPLE REAL ROLES! YOU WOULDN’T SEND DEREK JETER UP TO THE PLATE WITH A STICK FROM A DYING MAPLE TREE, WOULD YOU?! ARRRGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!
-Kate Beckinsale. Admittedly, there’s not that much in Kate Beckinsale’s arsenal that would prompt hard-hitting agents to think she owned the requisite skill to justify taking her on as a client. “Van Helsing” put me to sleep in the theater (literally). “Pearl Harbor” was, well, “Pearl Harbor”. I myself am a committed devotee of “Serendipity” but I doubt most people share of my views of that film. Yet, in spite of all this Cinema Romantico is betting that Beckinsale is next the Julianne Moore. Moore toiled for years in soap operas and in dreck like “Assassins” and “Nine Months”. But once she started landing real roles she showed off some serious acting chops and has become one of our finest actresses. But directors had to take a chance on Moore. That was the key. I would take the chance on Beckinsale myself but Paramount won’t return my calls. So who’s it gonna’ be? Show some guts, potential agents. And blog-readers, I ask you remember who called it when it happens.
-Kate Hudson. This one is primarily to satisfy my curiosity. Which is the real Kate Hudson? The one who shone so amazingly brightly as band-aid Penny Lane in Cameron Crowe’s utter masterpiece “Almost Famous”? Or the one who “graced” cinemas with “Raising Helen”? The problem is that she hasn’t landed a role comparable to Penny Lane since. Will someone give her a halfway-decent role so I can get an answer to my question? Please?
-Elisabeth Shue. See directly above except substitute "Leaving Las Vegas" for "Almost Famous". Had she won the Oscar for "Leaving Las Vegas" (and she was certainly deserving) she too would be in danger of having it reneged.
-Cuba Gooding Jr. There is a little-known rule set forth by the Academy of Motion Pictures & Sciences many years ago that stipulates if an actor or actress has not made a film resembling decent within 10 years of winning his or her Oscar, they must return that Oscar to the Academy. It’s so little-known in fact that any Academy member you interrogate will deny its very existence. But I’m mentioning it because Cuba Gooding Jr. won his Oscar in March of 1997 which means the 10 year anniversary of that date is right around the corner. And tragically movies such as “Boat Trip”, “Rat Race”, and (gulp) “Snow Dogs” do not resemble decent. This guy has got to be getting better offers than “Snow Dogs”. Doesn’t he? Who’s his agent and how soon can we kick him out the door? I don’t want to see the Academy’s little-known rule enforced for only the second time. (Oh, Whoopi Goldberg will claim the Academy never took back her Oscar but get yourself invited to her house and tell me if you see one anywhere.) And so unless Cuba gets it in gear and lands himself a real role, that Oscar could be taken down off the mantle. What agent’s going to heed the call of the once great Rod Tidwell?
-Mark Ruffalo. This is absolutely not a knock on Mr. Ruffalo, who I think is one of the finest actors of his generation. His skill is unquestioned. His performance in “You Can Count on Me” was the best performance given by any male that year. The problem is why isn’t he in more movies such as “You Can Count on Me”? He was fantastic in a bit part in “Collateral” and even in a movie like “13 Going on 30” he exudes talent and charisma. So what’s going on? Huh?! HUH?! WHAT’S THE MATTER WITH YOU, HOLLYWOOD?! DO YOU NEED A SMACK IN THE HEAD OR SOMETHING?! NO MORE SUPPORTING ROLES FOR THIS GUY, OKAY?! NO MORE ROMANTIC COMEDIES! GIVE THIS GUY A REAL ROLE, DAMN IT! GIVE THIS GUY MULTIPLE REAL ROLES! YOU WOULDN’T SEND DEREK JETER UP TO THE PLATE WITH A STICK FROM A DYING MAPLE TREE, WOULD YOU?! ARRRGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!
-Kate Beckinsale. Admittedly, there’s not that much in Kate Beckinsale’s arsenal that would prompt hard-hitting agents to think she owned the requisite skill to justify taking her on as a client. “Van Helsing” put me to sleep in the theater (literally). “Pearl Harbor” was, well, “Pearl Harbor”. I myself am a committed devotee of “Serendipity” but I doubt most people share of my views of that film. Yet, in spite of all this Cinema Romantico is betting that Beckinsale is next the Julianne Moore. Moore toiled for years in soap operas and in dreck like “Assassins” and “Nine Months”. But once she started landing real roles she showed off some serious acting chops and has become one of our finest actresses. But directors had to take a chance on Moore. That was the key. I would take the chance on Beckinsale myself but Paramount won’t return my calls. So who’s it gonna’ be? Show some guts, potential agents. And blog-readers, I ask you remember who called it when it happens.
-Kate Hudson. This one is primarily to satisfy my curiosity. Which is the real Kate Hudson? The one who shone so amazingly brightly as band-aid Penny Lane in Cameron Crowe’s utter masterpiece “Almost Famous”? Or the one who “graced” cinemas with “Raising Helen”? The problem is that she hasn’t landed a role comparable to Penny Lane since. Will someone give her a halfway-decent role so I can get an answer to my question? Please?
-Elisabeth Shue. See directly above except substitute "Leaving Las Vegas" for "Almost Famous". Had she won the Oscar for "Leaving Las Vegas" (and she was certainly deserving) she too would be in danger of having it reneged.
Monday, June 19, 2006
All Good Things Must Pass
There is a movie-watching phenomenon which I refer to as the Unforced Smile. This occurs when you view a film and suddenly realize that you've been smiling for the last 10, 15, 20, 25, who-knows-how-many minutes but didn't even know it. This isn't necessarily because the movie has been funny. It's because the movie has been so damn good you can't help but grin. I was smiling during every last second of "A Prairie Home Companion". It's wonderful - just wonderful - and therefore fairly obvious to say I found it to be far and away the best movie thus far of 2006.
The film is not really an expose into the goings-on backstage at the real Prairie Home Companion. Nor is it a character study of the real Garrison Keillor. This is, however, a Robert Altman movie which makes it very distinct. There is not a great deal of so-called plot. Scenes tend to meander. Altman shoots it very much like a play with long takes and the camera gliding from one actor to another. There is also a lot of singing. I don't ever recall the movie being billed as a musical but it may as well have been. There are ballads and bluegrass tunes and songs about awful jokes and coffee. And they're all glorious, just as they are in real life on the real show. Early in the film Lily Tomlin (half of the delightful singing duo The Johnson Girls with Meryl Streep) says, "Singing is the only thing that keeps my mind right." This speaks for every character in the film. They all need their songs to keep right and this is a night when they desperately need to stay right.
It's the last broadcast of "A Prairie Home Companion", a show that's been on the air "since Jesus was in third grade". The Axeman (Tommy Lee Jones) from Texas is coming into town to close it down and turn the Fitzgerald Theater into a parking lot. On top of that an Angel of Death (Virginia Madsen) is forever hovering in the wings, waiting to take a person or perhaps persons with her.
There are those who will say the movie is about nothing but this could not be further from the truth. This movie is about everything. It is about life and death and facing one own's mortality. But most of these issues are never addressed head-on. They're discussed in short spurts and fits but mostly things simply happen to the characters, the characters react to them, and it's their reactions that give us insight.
The host of the show GK (Garrison Keillor himself) is forever going off on long-winded passages - often stopping in the middle to correct himself - that sometimes last right up until the nanosecond before the show returns to the air. Is he in denial about the show ending? He's not. "I do every show like it's my last," he proclaims at one point. People often say this type of thing but GK is a person who says it, means it and does it.
Guy Noir (Kevin Kline) is the theater's security guard and not only occupied with the show's impending doom but also with the Angel of Death ("her hair is what God had in mind when he said let there be hair"). The singing cowboys Dusty (Woody Harrelson) and Lefty (John C. Reilly) are forever irritating the poor stage manager. The Johnson Girls share a rapport that is utterly Minnesotan. Listening to them talk was just like listening to relatives and family friends talk during my many trips to Red Wing, Minnesota as a kid. The chemistry between Meryl Streep and Lily Tomlin as The Johnson Girls is simply amazing. It might be the best thing in the movie (and that's saying something). In classic Altman fashion their dialogue overlaps, and then they break into song, and back into dialogue, and so on and so forth.
Meryl Streep's daughter Lola (Lindsay Lohan) is constantly writing poetry laced with death. ("People hanging themselves with extension chords......things like that.") A word here about Lohan. Everyone else in the cast is marvelous but that pretty much goes without saying. But Lohan - who, of course, gets much attention for her off-screen activities - is excellent. She is pitch-perfect. And I must say I saw a little of myself in Lola. Oh, maybe not in the obsession with death but there were numerous times I found myself as a kid sitting off to the side of adults scribbling in a notebook and dreaming of getting called to the "big stage" to save the adults' bacon at a key moment.
Even the Angel of Death herself has a few questions regarding the subject she represents. It seems she died in a car crash while listening to GK's show years ago. He had told a joke and while she was trying to figure out what made it funny she wound up driving off the road and that was it. Now she wants to know just what made that god-damn joke so humorous.
A key development is an old-time singer who passes away during the late stages of the show. GK won't do a tribute to his passing the same as he won't do a tribute to the show's passing. Lola is the young idealist and confronts him. "I'm at the point where if I start doing eulogies it's all I'd do," he says. The Johnson Girls perform a song honoring him but never say such. Dusty and Lefty sing a seemingly never-ending tune, "Bad jokes - Lord, I love 'em. Can't get enough of 'em." They need to sing to keep their minds right, remember?
The ending is the most poetic moment in the whole film. There are also those who will call the ending ambiguous but it is not ambiguous at all. I won't say anything else than to say it doesn't matter who she's come for since she comes for every one of us eventually.
"If you're happy, be patient - this will pass." - GK
The film is not really an expose into the goings-on backstage at the real Prairie Home Companion. Nor is it a character study of the real Garrison Keillor. This is, however, a Robert Altman movie which makes it very distinct. There is not a great deal of so-called plot. Scenes tend to meander. Altman shoots it very much like a play with long takes and the camera gliding from one actor to another. There is also a lot of singing. I don't ever recall the movie being billed as a musical but it may as well have been. There are ballads and bluegrass tunes and songs about awful jokes and coffee. And they're all glorious, just as they are in real life on the real show. Early in the film Lily Tomlin (half of the delightful singing duo The Johnson Girls with Meryl Streep) says, "Singing is the only thing that keeps my mind right." This speaks for every character in the film. They all need their songs to keep right and this is a night when they desperately need to stay right.
It's the last broadcast of "A Prairie Home Companion", a show that's been on the air "since Jesus was in third grade". The Axeman (Tommy Lee Jones) from Texas is coming into town to close it down and turn the Fitzgerald Theater into a parking lot. On top of that an Angel of Death (Virginia Madsen) is forever hovering in the wings, waiting to take a person or perhaps persons with her.
There are those who will say the movie is about nothing but this could not be further from the truth. This movie is about everything. It is about life and death and facing one own's mortality. But most of these issues are never addressed head-on. They're discussed in short spurts and fits but mostly things simply happen to the characters, the characters react to them, and it's their reactions that give us insight.
The host of the show GK (Garrison Keillor himself) is forever going off on long-winded passages - often stopping in the middle to correct himself - that sometimes last right up until the nanosecond before the show returns to the air. Is he in denial about the show ending? He's not. "I do every show like it's my last," he proclaims at one point. People often say this type of thing but GK is a person who says it, means it and does it.
Guy Noir (Kevin Kline) is the theater's security guard and not only occupied with the show's impending doom but also with the Angel of Death ("her hair is what God had in mind when he said let there be hair"). The singing cowboys Dusty (Woody Harrelson) and Lefty (John C. Reilly) are forever irritating the poor stage manager. The Johnson Girls share a rapport that is utterly Minnesotan. Listening to them talk was just like listening to relatives and family friends talk during my many trips to Red Wing, Minnesota as a kid. The chemistry between Meryl Streep and Lily Tomlin as The Johnson Girls is simply amazing. It might be the best thing in the movie (and that's saying something). In classic Altman fashion their dialogue overlaps, and then they break into song, and back into dialogue, and so on and so forth.
Meryl Streep's daughter Lola (Lindsay Lohan) is constantly writing poetry laced with death. ("People hanging themselves with extension chords......things like that.") A word here about Lohan. Everyone else in the cast is marvelous but that pretty much goes without saying. But Lohan - who, of course, gets much attention for her off-screen activities - is excellent. She is pitch-perfect. And I must say I saw a little of myself in Lola. Oh, maybe not in the obsession with death but there were numerous times I found myself as a kid sitting off to the side of adults scribbling in a notebook and dreaming of getting called to the "big stage" to save the adults' bacon at a key moment.
Even the Angel of Death herself has a few questions regarding the subject she represents. It seems she died in a car crash while listening to GK's show years ago. He had told a joke and while she was trying to figure out what made it funny she wound up driving off the road and that was it. Now she wants to know just what made that god-damn joke so humorous.
A key development is an old-time singer who passes away during the late stages of the show. GK won't do a tribute to his passing the same as he won't do a tribute to the show's passing. Lola is the young idealist and confronts him. "I'm at the point where if I start doing eulogies it's all I'd do," he says. The Johnson Girls perform a song honoring him but never say such. Dusty and Lefty sing a seemingly never-ending tune, "Bad jokes - Lord, I love 'em. Can't get enough of 'em." They need to sing to keep their minds right, remember?
The ending is the most poetic moment in the whole film. There are also those who will call the ending ambiguous but it is not ambiguous at all. I won't say anything else than to say it doesn't matter who she's come for since she comes for every one of us eventually.
"If you're happy, be patient - this will pass." - GK
Friday, June 16, 2006
The Seasonal "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" Friday Afternoon Quote
Q: What's the difference between Cinema Romantico and www.barbarastreisand.com?
A: Cinema Romantico is the only one of the two with The Seasonal "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" Friday Afternoon Quote, that's what!
"You mean I have to die to discuss your insights on death?"
-Bones
A: Cinema Romantico is the only one of the two with The Seasonal "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" Friday Afternoon Quote, that's what!
"You mean I have to die to discuss your insights on death?"
-Bones
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Inspiration Comes in Many Ways
This evening the AFI (American Film Institute) will introduce its yearly Top 100 List. This year's category? The 100 most inspiring movies. No doubt their list will be fairly accurate with a few glaring omissions and some incorrect ordering. But Cinema Romantico thought it would be a good idea to contribute to all the ridiculous hyperbole with a list of its own. No one likes arbitrary lists more than Cinema Romantico, after all. So today I will unveil my most inspiring movies. Not the movies which I think sum up inspiration for the general public but movies that simply inspire me the most. And feel free to list below some of the films which stir you. (Note: "Last of the Mohicans" and "Million Dollar Baby" will not be included on this list as they go without saying. Except I just said them. Damn........)
-Shakespeare in Love. This is for the writer in me. It doesn't matter that it's Shakespeare - it's all the little references to him picking up material from every possible place, no matter how strange. It's him not being able to get past his writer's block until he stumbles upon his muse (muses exist, yes they do). No movie makes me want to get off the couch once it's finished and dash to the word processor to generate a few pages more this one. I remember vividly one night when I desperately needed a pick-me-up popping this in, drinking a six pack and by the end I was bouncing around the room with one of the greatest cravings to write I've ever possessed. I tossed off about 20 pages that night and awoke in the morning to find they were all trash. But damn it, was I happy!
-Without Limits. This is a biopic of American long distance sensation Steve Prefontaine. The more I watch this, the more I find in common with the man they called Pre. Oh, not athletically speaking, of course, but on a different level. The way he felt about running is quite similar to the way I feel about writing. A character in the movie says, "Pre was troubled by the fact that a great effort could lose a race and a mediocre effort could win one." I leave that to you to determine how that relates to modern-day cinema (very accurately, I must say). Pre ran the way he ran and damn anyone who told him different. A race to him was a "work of art". A screenplay is the same to me.
Toward the end there is a moment that drives me to tears every time. Pre has just been offered two million dollars to turn pro which means he would become ineligible for the Olympics - essentially his one and only dream. He doesn't know what he should do. And, searching for an answer, he goes for a run. I have those moments sometimes when I'm so lost and confused and angered and irritated and the only thing that can quell it is sitting down at my computer and writing.
-Adventures of Robin Hood. Robin enters the hall of Prince John with the dead deer slung over his shoulders. He throws it on the table. He sits down at the banquet table. He eats. He drinks. He advises he will lead a revolt against Prince John. Maid Marian gasps, "You speak treason." Without batting an eye Robin replies, "Fluently." I don't mean to be cruel but if this doesn't inspire you to stand up and cheer, you have no soul.
-Rocky. What never seems to get any attention with this magnificent movie is the first half hour. These scenes establish just who this Rocky Balboa is and we don't get to the "sporting" angle of the film until after they have done so. A movie made today would cut these scenes because they move too "slowly". Then, of course, nobody cares whether or not he wins during the final fight and nobody remembers the movie. As it is, the first time he tries to ascend those famous steps of the Philadelphia library you can hardly stand to watch. And when he races up them the second time, even the most hardened cynic whoops his or her approval.
-Batman Begins. I'm including this one because it is the most recent movie I saw that truly inspired me. At the end, Batman is about to swoop off to battle his arch nemesis but Rachel Dawes (i.e. The Love Interest) steps forward and says, "You might get killed. At least tell me your name." But instead of revealing his identity by merely giving his name he repeats a line verbatim that Rachel had said to him (as Bruce Wayne rather than Batman) earlier: "It's not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me." "Bruce?" she says. And then the music swells. And then he swoops off. I cannot even begin to illustrate the enormity of the grin that appeared on my face. Sweet Mary Mother of God, what a moment!!!
-Shakespeare in Love. This is for the writer in me. It doesn't matter that it's Shakespeare - it's all the little references to him picking up material from every possible place, no matter how strange. It's him not being able to get past his writer's block until he stumbles upon his muse (muses exist, yes they do). No movie makes me want to get off the couch once it's finished and dash to the word processor to generate a few pages more this one. I remember vividly one night when I desperately needed a pick-me-up popping this in, drinking a six pack and by the end I was bouncing around the room with one of the greatest cravings to write I've ever possessed. I tossed off about 20 pages that night and awoke in the morning to find they were all trash. But damn it, was I happy!
-Without Limits. This is a biopic of American long distance sensation Steve Prefontaine. The more I watch this, the more I find in common with the man they called Pre. Oh, not athletically speaking, of course, but on a different level. The way he felt about running is quite similar to the way I feel about writing. A character in the movie says, "Pre was troubled by the fact that a great effort could lose a race and a mediocre effort could win one." I leave that to you to determine how that relates to modern-day cinema (very accurately, I must say). Pre ran the way he ran and damn anyone who told him different. A race to him was a "work of art". A screenplay is the same to me.
Toward the end there is a moment that drives me to tears every time. Pre has just been offered two million dollars to turn pro which means he would become ineligible for the Olympics - essentially his one and only dream. He doesn't know what he should do. And, searching for an answer, he goes for a run. I have those moments sometimes when I'm so lost and confused and angered and irritated and the only thing that can quell it is sitting down at my computer and writing.
-Adventures of Robin Hood. Robin enters the hall of Prince John with the dead deer slung over his shoulders. He throws it on the table. He sits down at the banquet table. He eats. He drinks. He advises he will lead a revolt against Prince John. Maid Marian gasps, "You speak treason." Without batting an eye Robin replies, "Fluently." I don't mean to be cruel but if this doesn't inspire you to stand up and cheer, you have no soul.
-Rocky. What never seems to get any attention with this magnificent movie is the first half hour. These scenes establish just who this Rocky Balboa is and we don't get to the "sporting" angle of the film until after they have done so. A movie made today would cut these scenes because they move too "slowly". Then, of course, nobody cares whether or not he wins during the final fight and nobody remembers the movie. As it is, the first time he tries to ascend those famous steps of the Philadelphia library you can hardly stand to watch. And when he races up them the second time, even the most hardened cynic whoops his or her approval.
-Batman Begins. I'm including this one because it is the most recent movie I saw that truly inspired me. At the end, Batman is about to swoop off to battle his arch nemesis but Rachel Dawes (i.e. The Love Interest) steps forward and says, "You might get killed. At least tell me your name." But instead of revealing his identity by merely giving his name he repeats a line verbatim that Rachel had said to him (as Bruce Wayne rather than Batman) earlier: "It's not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me." "Bruce?" she says. And then the music swells. And then he swoops off. I cannot even begin to illustrate the enormity of the grin that appeared on my face. Sweet Mary Mother of God, what a moment!!!
Monday, June 12, 2006
Life As It Should Be
Only occasionally does Cinema Romantico find the need to leave the realm of movies to discuss other matters. In fact, I believe it's only happened once. But today it must happen again as the events of this past Saturday night warrant a hymn of praise, the likes of which will be overblown to an extent most of my readers may never have experienced.
I saw Bruce Springsteen and The Seeger Sessions Band live in my hometown. Now it should be noted I am irrefutably biased when it comes to Gentleman Bruce. He is my idol. He is the greatest writer ever to live since William Shakespeare. He is the greatest live performer to have ever graced the earth. Any arguments you make against the statements I have just made are pointless for the simple fact that I am right and you are wrong. That's just the way it is.
I've name-checked all the great movies I've been able to see since coming to Chicago but allow me to list just a few of the wonderous musical shows this move has afforded me. I was 15 feet away from Win Butler and Regine Chassagne and the rest of The Arcade Fire at the Riviera (a venue just featured in "The Break Up"). I was 5 feet away from Kathleen Edwards at Martyrs as she sauntered onstage with a glass of scotch (which nearly caused me to ask for her hand in marriage). I stood with my elbows on the stage for the duration of an entire Neko Case show at the Vic. And yet as magnificent as each of these shows were they just can't compete with what Sir Bruce can do before a live crowd regardless of where your seats may reside. In Detroit we sat in the second row balcony......behind the stage. In New York City we sat up against a wall.....behind the stage. At the Rosemont Theater in Chicago we sat in the second to last row of the whole auditorium. But on Saturday night in Des Moines we were priveleged enough to stand not more than 30 feet away from the microphone which Bruce occupied for a majority of the evening. Until he......well, we'll get to that in a moment.
That Springsteen show I saw at the Palace of Auburn Hills in Detroit, Michigan on September 9, 1999 was the greatest concert (perhaps the greatest thing) these eyes had ever seen, if only because it was the first Springsteen show I'd been fortunate enough to witness. So with that in mind we'll say that his June 10, 2006 show at the Wells Fargo Arena in Des Moines, Iowa was the greatest concert (perhaps the greatest thing) I've ever seen - part 1A. Yes, it was that good. You truly cannot understand what the man can do on a stage until you've seen it. His shows can change lives and save them and affirm them.
If you don't believe me, just ask any Springsteen-show virgin from Saturday and they'll tell you.
His show on Saturday night was part church service, part racous funeral service, part passionate protest. Or, in other words, it was exactly what it was billed to be - a hootenanny. Except it laid shame to anything else that has ever dared to call itself a hootenanny. There were guitars and fiddles and banjos and accordions and trumpets and trombones and a tuba. Even a tuba solo. There were crowd sing-a-long's and vintage Springsteen theatrics and dancing up the wazoo and several mentions of Iowa's "world pork expo".
He made "Old Dan Tucker" - written 162 years ago - rock harder than any modern day song I've heard in years. Pure and simple. He closed his main set with "Pay Me My Money Down", which seemed to last forever - and if it had gone on longer than that I would not have complained. He reinvented his acoustic tune "Open All Night" as New Orleans swing which in turn caused me to shake Andrea my fellow concert-goer and scream "this is the greatest thing I've ever heard in my life"! At least it was until he played the most scorching version of his own "Ramrod" I've ever heard (including the show-closing version he played in Detroit that almost caused me to spontaneously combust). This one he reinvented as what he called "Texicali". It was the type of thing for which words are utterly useless. And I heeded Bruce's advice to put on my "dancing shoes" while listening to it. It's amazing to me that I - arguably the most neurotic person you'll ever encounter - can lose every hint of self-consciousness during a Springsteen show. I dance and sway and shout and sing along and pump my fist and if someone near me doesn't like it they can piss right off. At one point he would not continue with a song until he had made every last person in the Wells Fargo Arena climb to their feet.
People often talk about so-called "out-of-body" experiences. I'd never believed it - not until Saturday night, that is. During the second song of the evening Bruce left his mic and sidled down the stage to his right and, suddenly, he was a mere 10 feet (!) away from us. Bruce (my idol! the man who has got me through the rockiest times of my life and accompanied me for many of the grandest!) Springsteen! I'm fairly certain at that point I left my body. Not for long, mind you, but I do remember ever so briefly hovering over myself for a moment.
Bruce has a tendency to make such things happen.
I saw Bruce Springsteen and The Seeger Sessions Band live in my hometown. Now it should be noted I am irrefutably biased when it comes to Gentleman Bruce. He is my idol. He is the greatest writer ever to live since William Shakespeare. He is the greatest live performer to have ever graced the earth. Any arguments you make against the statements I have just made are pointless for the simple fact that I am right and you are wrong. That's just the way it is.
I've name-checked all the great movies I've been able to see since coming to Chicago but allow me to list just a few of the wonderous musical shows this move has afforded me. I was 15 feet away from Win Butler and Regine Chassagne and the rest of The Arcade Fire at the Riviera (a venue just featured in "The Break Up"). I was 5 feet away from Kathleen Edwards at Martyrs as she sauntered onstage with a glass of scotch (which nearly caused me to ask for her hand in marriage). I stood with my elbows on the stage for the duration of an entire Neko Case show at the Vic. And yet as magnificent as each of these shows were they just can't compete with what Sir Bruce can do before a live crowd regardless of where your seats may reside. In Detroit we sat in the second row balcony......behind the stage. In New York City we sat up against a wall.....behind the stage. At the Rosemont Theater in Chicago we sat in the second to last row of the whole auditorium. But on Saturday night in Des Moines we were priveleged enough to stand not more than 30 feet away from the microphone which Bruce occupied for a majority of the evening. Until he......well, we'll get to that in a moment.
That Springsteen show I saw at the Palace of Auburn Hills in Detroit, Michigan on September 9, 1999 was the greatest concert (perhaps the greatest thing) these eyes had ever seen, if only because it was the first Springsteen show I'd been fortunate enough to witness. So with that in mind we'll say that his June 10, 2006 show at the Wells Fargo Arena in Des Moines, Iowa was the greatest concert (perhaps the greatest thing) I've ever seen - part 1A. Yes, it was that good. You truly cannot understand what the man can do on a stage until you've seen it. His shows can change lives and save them and affirm them.
If you don't believe me, just ask any Springsteen-show virgin from Saturday and they'll tell you.
His show on Saturday night was part church service, part racous funeral service, part passionate protest. Or, in other words, it was exactly what it was billed to be - a hootenanny. Except it laid shame to anything else that has ever dared to call itself a hootenanny. There were guitars and fiddles and banjos and accordions and trumpets and trombones and a tuba. Even a tuba solo. There were crowd sing-a-long's and vintage Springsteen theatrics and dancing up the wazoo and several mentions of Iowa's "world pork expo".
He made "Old Dan Tucker" - written 162 years ago - rock harder than any modern day song I've heard in years. Pure and simple. He closed his main set with "Pay Me My Money Down", which seemed to last forever - and if it had gone on longer than that I would not have complained. He reinvented his acoustic tune "Open All Night" as New Orleans swing which in turn caused me to shake Andrea my fellow concert-goer and scream "this is the greatest thing I've ever heard in my life"! At least it was until he played the most scorching version of his own "Ramrod" I've ever heard (including the show-closing version he played in Detroit that almost caused me to spontaneously combust). This one he reinvented as what he called "Texicali". It was the type of thing for which words are utterly useless. And I heeded Bruce's advice to put on my "dancing shoes" while listening to it. It's amazing to me that I - arguably the most neurotic person you'll ever encounter - can lose every hint of self-consciousness during a Springsteen show. I dance and sway and shout and sing along and pump my fist and if someone near me doesn't like it they can piss right off. At one point he would not continue with a song until he had made every last person in the Wells Fargo Arena climb to their feet.
People often talk about so-called "out-of-body" experiences. I'd never believed it - not until Saturday night, that is. During the second song of the evening Bruce left his mic and sidled down the stage to his right and, suddenly, he was a mere 10 feet (!) away from us. Bruce (my idol! the man who has got me through the rockiest times of my life and accompanied me for many of the grandest!) Springsteen! I'm fairly certain at that point I left my body. Not for long, mind you, but I do remember ever so briefly hovering over myself for a moment.
Bruce has a tendency to make such things happen.
Friday, June 09, 2006
The Seasonal "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" Friday Afternoon Quote
Although it’s only been a tradition for two weeks I’ve already elicited numerous responses of utter elation regarding The Seasonal “Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home” Friday Afternoon Quote.
Here’s an example – “It’s the most wonderful thing to happen to blogging since former Iowa State Basketball "star" Paul ‘Yes, I Fell Into the Lane During a Teammate’s Free Throw Attempt Thereby Negating a Very Valuable Point In a Game To Decide Whether or Not We Would Go to the Final Four’ Shirley blogged a few times awhile back for the NBA.” So hop aboard this bandwagon of good times, blog-readers, while there's still time!
Spock: “They like you very much, but they are not the hell your whales.”
Gillian: “I suppose they told you that.”
Spock: “The hell they did.”
Here’s an example – “It’s the most wonderful thing to happen to blogging since former Iowa State Basketball "star" Paul ‘Yes, I Fell Into the Lane During a Teammate’s Free Throw Attempt Thereby Negating a Very Valuable Point In a Game To Decide Whether or Not We Would Go to the Final Four’ Shirley blogged a few times awhile back for the NBA.” So hop aboard this bandwagon of good times, blog-readers, while there's still time!
Spock: “They like you very much, but they are not the hell your whales.”
Gillian: “I suppose they told you that.”
Spock: “The hell they did.”
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
The Break Up
Watching "The Break Up" I found myself struck by three things.
1.) One of the ancient phrases associated with movies is, I would pay to hear (insert an actor's name) read the phonebook. It's safe to say that I would pay to hear Vince Vaughn read the phone book.
It's a personal preference, of course, but I find Vince Vaughn hilarious. His verbal assault on the poor flight attendant in "Made" is one of the funniest things I've ever seen. Most screenwriters are a little sad when actors start changing lines and ad-libbing. But I doubt any screenwriter would be anything but pleased once Vince chooses to improv on the set. Everything this guy says is funny and I can't imagine it's all on the page. I'm quoting from memory here but lines like, "I'll just be a listener" and "I've got two Polish guys with no future" just slay me. His reading of the phone book wouldn't be any simple reading. He would launch into extended monologues regarding things such as, say, the origin of an absurd last name and how we went to college with a guy of the same name who enjoyed eating hot dogs with grape jelly.
2.) Wonderful supporting characters can make an okay comedy good and a good comedy great.
"The Break Up" has a few strong ones. Judy Davis chews some scenery as Jennifer Aniston's boss/artist, Marilyn Dean ("why are you blaspheming in the synagogue of Marilyn Dean"). Vincent D'Onfrio is also good as Vince Vaughn's brother and somehow manages to turn the accepting of tour logs into the most poignant moment of the whole film.
Best of all, though, is Jennifer Aniston's brother Richard (John Michael Higgins) - lead singer of a men's choir, The Tone Rangers. I loved how he posed a question at the dinner table to Vince Vaughn's brother solely so he could use the brother's answer to spin it into a diatribe on his own love for music. Come on, we ALL know people like that. Tragically, however, he's only in two scenes - arguably two of the most humorous scenes in the entire movie - including a sing-a-long at the aforementioned dinner table. Did more of this material get left on the cutting room floor? Were the filmmakers unaware of how good he was? Did the studio feel he distracted too much from the "money"?
3.) Comedies can't suddenly shift and go serious.
If you choose to be a straight comedy you can't swerve from the line. And if you desire to turn serious in the third act then you have to plant the seeds in the first and second act. Otherwise the plant of seriousness will appear a bit gangly. And oh how the third act of "The Break Up" is gangly.
It turns that way once Vince and Jennifer seem sad to have broken up. But why are they so sad? It seems more to do with jealously, and a pitiful fear of loneliness, and the screenwriter telling him they're supposed to be than anything else. Vince doesn't even talk like he did at the start of the film. I point to the scene where he has set up the dinner table for the two of them but it turns out Jennifer has brought another guy home. This was a classic set up for the Vince Vaughn pratter. But we get nothing. Don't betray the character (and the actor) because of a yearning to try and be a "real" movie.
So Vince Vaughn amused me - as usual. There were some solid supporting characters - they were just underused. And it certainly shifted with a suddeness to go serious. Therefore, Cinema Romantico gives "The Break Up" a Don't Go.
1.) One of the ancient phrases associated with movies is, I would pay to hear (insert an actor's name) read the phonebook. It's safe to say that I would pay to hear Vince Vaughn read the phone book.
It's a personal preference, of course, but I find Vince Vaughn hilarious. His verbal assault on the poor flight attendant in "Made" is one of the funniest things I've ever seen. Most screenwriters are a little sad when actors start changing lines and ad-libbing. But I doubt any screenwriter would be anything but pleased once Vince chooses to improv on the set. Everything this guy says is funny and I can't imagine it's all on the page. I'm quoting from memory here but lines like, "I'll just be a listener" and "I've got two Polish guys with no future" just slay me. His reading of the phone book wouldn't be any simple reading. He would launch into extended monologues regarding things such as, say, the origin of an absurd last name and how we went to college with a guy of the same name who enjoyed eating hot dogs with grape jelly.
2.) Wonderful supporting characters can make an okay comedy good and a good comedy great.
"The Break Up" has a few strong ones. Judy Davis chews some scenery as Jennifer Aniston's boss/artist, Marilyn Dean ("why are you blaspheming in the synagogue of Marilyn Dean"). Vincent D'Onfrio is also good as Vince Vaughn's brother and somehow manages to turn the accepting of tour logs into the most poignant moment of the whole film.
Best of all, though, is Jennifer Aniston's brother Richard (John Michael Higgins) - lead singer of a men's choir, The Tone Rangers. I loved how he posed a question at the dinner table to Vince Vaughn's brother solely so he could use the brother's answer to spin it into a diatribe on his own love for music. Come on, we ALL know people like that. Tragically, however, he's only in two scenes - arguably two of the most humorous scenes in the entire movie - including a sing-a-long at the aforementioned dinner table. Did more of this material get left on the cutting room floor? Were the filmmakers unaware of how good he was? Did the studio feel he distracted too much from the "money"?
3.) Comedies can't suddenly shift and go serious.
If you choose to be a straight comedy you can't swerve from the line. And if you desire to turn serious in the third act then you have to plant the seeds in the first and second act. Otherwise the plant of seriousness will appear a bit gangly. And oh how the third act of "The Break Up" is gangly.
It turns that way once Vince and Jennifer seem sad to have broken up. But why are they so sad? It seems more to do with jealously, and a pitiful fear of loneliness, and the screenwriter telling him they're supposed to be than anything else. Vince doesn't even talk like he did at the start of the film. I point to the scene where he has set up the dinner table for the two of them but it turns out Jennifer has brought another guy home. This was a classic set up for the Vince Vaughn pratter. But we get nothing. Don't betray the character (and the actor) because of a yearning to try and be a "real" movie.
So Vince Vaughn amused me - as usual. There were some solid supporting characters - they were just underused. And it certainly shifted with a suddeness to go serious. Therefore, Cinema Romantico gives "The Break Up" a Don't Go.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
The Omen
Today "The Omen" opens (on 6-6-06, oh those clever marketers). I will not be seeing "The Omen". But its release makes a perfect excuse to post a quote from the greatest television show there ever was and ever will be.
Elaine: "Kramer, you've seen 'The Omen', right? What exactly was that kid?"
Kramer: "Who, Damien? Nothing, just a mischievous, rambunctious kid."
Elaine: "Kramer, you've seen 'The Omen', right? What exactly was that kid?"
Kramer: "Who, Damien? Nothing, just a mischievous, rambunctious kid."
Monday, June 05, 2006
Dreams Do Come True
There's only one action film. It's the same as Michael Jordan. There were many players before him and quite a few after but he's the one who matters the most. "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is the Michael Jordan of action films. It's it. It's the be-all, end-all of the genre. Nothing will ever equal it. Is it fatalistic to think such a thing? Yes. It's also true.
It's marvelous! Rousing! Inspring! Virtuoso! It takes your breath away at the same time it makes you gasp. It causes your palms to sweat as you grip the side of your chair in excitement. This was before CGI had poisoned every piece of summer entertainment Hollywood has to serve. This was when Spielberg could simply make a movie that was fun and not feel as if he needed to be the guardian of all which is righteous with America. This was Spielberg's finest moment.
However, even with this extraordinary movie Mr. Spielberg still, admittedly, had an inclination to go in the wrong direction. He wanted the character of Marion to be much more of a damsel in distress and incapable of doing much of anything on her own but Karen Allen refused to play her that way. Thank goodness because that's what makes the character entirely memorable. And which caused her not to be back for the sequels and make way for two much less memorable leading ladies.
And for the boneheads who say there's no characterization in this movie I say what the hell are you watching?! Marion's introduction should be a lesson plan for character introductions. The shot contest. What a way to enter a movie! No lines, really, and we know just who this person is. Indy himself is such a great character because he's actually vulnerable. He goes through the whole movie in the hopes of acquring one thing and he doesn't even get it.
Oh, if only I could count the number of times I latched a fake whip around the brown sofa in my basement posing as the truck hauling the Ark of the Covenant and feigning being dragged along a gravel road.
And for Spielberg who has recently become a passionate fan of exposition (see the scenes immediately following the D-Day invasion in "Saving Private Ryan") it is amazing to see the correct lack of exposition here. We go directly from Indy and Marion fleeing an exploding airplane to Indy being told of the truck that will take the Ark of the Covenant.
"Truck?" Indy says. "What truck?" And we're right into the finest action sequence ever captured. If "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is the bible of action movies (and it is) this part is the "walking on the water" passage.
And then the moment that terrifies more me than any moment in cinema history. When Indy looks into the pit, rolls onto his back and sighs, "Snakes? Why'd it have to be snakes?" Which leads to his pal Sallah reciting what I find to be the film's funiest line, "Asps. Very dangerous. You go first." Maybe that's why I go along with Indiana Jones so much. Nazis and poison arrows and an enormous man with a samurai sword and gigantic rolling balls that could crush you do not phase him. They don't even cause him to blink an eye. But snakes? Well, now we've got problems.
I loved this movie so much I even attempted an homage as an 18 year old filmmaker armed with nothing but a VHS camcorder, single tripod and a group of game friends. It was titled "Hawaii Smith and Raiders of the Lost Plate" - telling the tale of adventurer Hawaii Smith (me) seeking the plate used by Jesus Christ at the last supper. It was never finished, sadly, though I did manage to film half of it - including the booby trapped bathroom sequence and my best friend (as the chief villain) on rollerblades hollering the immortal line, "I always wanted to be a figure skater!"
The week of July 21-26 is a week which I am already anticipating for that is the week The Music Box Theater here in Chicago will be screening "Raiders of the Lost Ark". Hosanna! Hosanna in the highest! "Raiders of the Lost Ark" on the big screen?! Surely, you jest? No. I don't. It will be there. And I will be in the front row with a bucket of popcorn and a smile on my face bigger than the one I wore during "The Gift" when She Who Tom Cruise Does Not Deserve found it appropriate to bear the two most dazzling gifts that God gave her.
I have mentioned on many, many occasions all the wonderful and glorious movies I have been able to experience on the big screen courtesy of my move to Chicago. "The Third Man". "Stromboli". "Casablanca" (twice). "Some Like it Hot". But if you had asked me a year ago to name the movies I would most dearly want to see at some point in my life on the big screen I would have said "Last of the Mohicans", of course, and definitely "Raiders of the Lost Ark".
It's marvelous! Rousing! Inspring! Virtuoso! It takes your breath away at the same time it makes you gasp. It causes your palms to sweat as you grip the side of your chair in excitement. This was before CGI had poisoned every piece of summer entertainment Hollywood has to serve. This was when Spielberg could simply make a movie that was fun and not feel as if he needed to be the guardian of all which is righteous with America. This was Spielberg's finest moment.
However, even with this extraordinary movie Mr. Spielberg still, admittedly, had an inclination to go in the wrong direction. He wanted the character of Marion to be much more of a damsel in distress and incapable of doing much of anything on her own but Karen Allen refused to play her that way. Thank goodness because that's what makes the character entirely memorable. And which caused her not to be back for the sequels and make way for two much less memorable leading ladies.
And for the boneheads who say there's no characterization in this movie I say what the hell are you watching?! Marion's introduction should be a lesson plan for character introductions. The shot contest. What a way to enter a movie! No lines, really, and we know just who this person is. Indy himself is such a great character because he's actually vulnerable. He goes through the whole movie in the hopes of acquring one thing and he doesn't even get it.
Oh, if only I could count the number of times I latched a fake whip around the brown sofa in my basement posing as the truck hauling the Ark of the Covenant and feigning being dragged along a gravel road.
And for Spielberg who has recently become a passionate fan of exposition (see the scenes immediately following the D-Day invasion in "Saving Private Ryan") it is amazing to see the correct lack of exposition here. We go directly from Indy and Marion fleeing an exploding airplane to Indy being told of the truck that will take the Ark of the Covenant.
"Truck?" Indy says. "What truck?" And we're right into the finest action sequence ever captured. If "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is the bible of action movies (and it is) this part is the "walking on the water" passage.
And then the moment that terrifies more me than any moment in cinema history. When Indy looks into the pit, rolls onto his back and sighs, "Snakes? Why'd it have to be snakes?" Which leads to his pal Sallah reciting what I find to be the film's funiest line, "Asps. Very dangerous. You go first." Maybe that's why I go along with Indiana Jones so much. Nazis and poison arrows and an enormous man with a samurai sword and gigantic rolling balls that could crush you do not phase him. They don't even cause him to blink an eye. But snakes? Well, now we've got problems.
I loved this movie so much I even attempted an homage as an 18 year old filmmaker armed with nothing but a VHS camcorder, single tripod and a group of game friends. It was titled "Hawaii Smith and Raiders of the Lost Plate" - telling the tale of adventurer Hawaii Smith (me) seeking the plate used by Jesus Christ at the last supper. It was never finished, sadly, though I did manage to film half of it - including the booby trapped bathroom sequence and my best friend (as the chief villain) on rollerblades hollering the immortal line, "I always wanted to be a figure skater!"
The week of July 21-26 is a week which I am already anticipating for that is the week The Music Box Theater here in Chicago will be screening "Raiders of the Lost Ark". Hosanna! Hosanna in the highest! "Raiders of the Lost Ark" on the big screen?! Surely, you jest? No. I don't. It will be there. And I will be in the front row with a bucket of popcorn and a smile on my face bigger than the one I wore during "The Gift" when She Who Tom Cruise Does Not Deserve found it appropriate to bear the two most dazzling gifts that God gave her.
I have mentioned on many, many occasions all the wonderful and glorious movies I have been able to experience on the big screen courtesy of my move to Chicago. "The Third Man". "Stromboli". "Casablanca" (twice). "Some Like it Hot". But if you had asked me a year ago to name the movies I would most dearly want to see at some point in my life on the big screen I would have said "Last of the Mohicans", of course, and definitely "Raiders of the Lost Ark".
Friday, June 02, 2006
The Seasonal "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" Friday Afternoon Quote
Didn't think I'd forget, did you? No, sir, The Seasonal "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" Friday Afternoon Quote is here to stay. In fact, Cinema Romantico went so far as to attempt enlisting the endorsement of William Shatner for this weekly extravaganza of blogging merriment. But unfortunately Mr. Shatner's lawyer advised his endorsement would cost $12.2 million. We then attempted to contact Walter Koenig but his phone is apparently out of service. However, none of this will deter us.
Today's quote will steer us down the most common avenue of humor explored in the film. Due to their being in the 20th century, Spock encounters vulgarities for the first time in his existence and his attempts at being vulgar himself are the comic zenith of this film.
“Your use of language has altered since our arrival. It is currently laced with, shall we say, more colorful metaphors - ‘double dumb-ass on you’ and so forth.” - Spock
Today's quote will steer us down the most common avenue of humor explored in the film. Due to their being in the 20th century, Spock encounters vulgarities for the first time in his existence and his attempts at being vulgar himself are the comic zenith of this film.
“Your use of language has altered since our arrival. It is currently laced with, shall we say, more colorful metaphors - ‘double dumb-ass on you’ and so forth.” - Spock
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)