Posts
(The following is a slight revision to the famous Ernest Lawrence Thayer poem "Casey at the Bat" in honor of Nebraska's first bowl game on New Year's Day in 12 years. Happy New Year, loyal readers, and GO BIG RED!!!)
The outlook wasn't brilliant for the Nebraska eleven that day:
The score stood 28 to 24, with but one minute more to play,
And then when Taylor took a sack and Lucky only made a short gain,
A pall-like silence fell upon the red-clad patrons of the game.
A straggling few got up to go in deep despair. The rest
Clung to that hope which springs eternal in the human breast;
They thought, "If only Purify could get a crack at catching that ball
We'd put up even money now, with Purify ready to make the haul."
But third and ten became third and twenty, courtesy of a hold
And then Taylor threw it away when no pass was good as gold;
So with that the stricken multitude sighed and they groaned,
For there seemed but little chance of Purify getting to the end zone.
But Swift made a finger-tip grab, to the wonderment of all,
And Jackson broke a run as marvelous as the Taj Mahal;
And when the dust had lifted, and fans saw the run’s effect,
Nebraska was at Auburn’s twenty with seven seconds left.
Then from seventy thousand throats there rose a lusty yell;
It rumbled through the valley, it rattled in the dell;
It pounded on the mountain and ricocheted off everything in sight,
For Purify, mighty Purify, was split out wide to the right.
There was ease in Purify's manner as he toed the scrimmage line;
There was pride in Purify's bearing as he knew everything was fine.
And when, responding to the cheers, he flashed a smile with a glow
No stranger in the crowd could doubt to #16 they would throw.
Seventy thousand eyes were on him as he faked right and then set sail
The opposing corner tried to stall him but only managed to fail;
Then while the trash-talking safety illegally pushed Purify from his place,
Defiance flashed in Purify's eye, a sneer curled upon his face.
And now the pigskin came hurtling, screaming through the air,
And Purify stood a-watching in the end zone with haughty grandeur there;
Like a phoenix from the ashes did the great Purify rise,
The seventy thousand spectators could scarcely believe their eyes.
The sneer is gone from Purify’s face replaced by a hidden fire,
He pounds his spikes into the turf and stands tall like a spire;
And now Taylor holds the ball, and now he makes the throw,
And now Purify leaves the ground and up into the air he does go.
Oh, down at the Cotton Bowl the sun is shining bright,
The band is playing loudly and the cheerleaders hearts are light;
And corn-heads sip bloody mary's, and Auburn fans in orange frown,
For there was plenty of joy in Dallas when mighty Purify made the touchdown.
Friday, December 29, 2006
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Children of Men
It's one of those infamous apocalyptic worlds of the near future. In this case it is London of the year 2027 and mankind has lost its ability to procreate. As the movie opens the youngest person in the world - baby Diego - has just been killed. "He was a wanker anyway," advises Theo (Clive Owen), our main character. This gives us a quick insight into who this guy is and how he feels.
Theo is summoned to meet with his ex-wife Julian (Julianne Moore) who is a leader of a terrorist group protecting a young woman, Kee, who has miraculously become pregnant. She enlists Theo to help get Kee to the english coast where, in turn, they can get her into the so-called "Human Project", which may or may not exist. At the same time, some of her followers may have other ideas for Kee. And she knows this.
This sets in motion a tense, pulse-pounding (feel free to insert any other adjectives of your choice) race against time in an attempt to get Kee to the coast and away from anyone who may do her harm and/or use her coming child for their own gain.
To say anything story-wise beyond this would be to ruin it and so I will not. But this is an expertly made film. Directory Alfonso Cuaron films many of his action sequences in long, unbroken camera shots which only serve to heighten the intensity. There were several instances in which I had no choice but to grip the side of my theater chair as it became almost unbearable.
The film thankfully stays clear of any inane explanations of anything. It is not interested in how the world got to where it is. No reasons are given as to why no one can procreate, and that is just as it should be. No one pauses to engage in backstory for the audience's conveinence. At one point Theo asks Juliann, "Were your parents in New York when it happened?" What was "it", exactly? They don't say and they wouldn't because they - meaning the characters - already know. That's how you write dialogue.
One would also expect everyone to pause between trying to save Kee's life to ruminate philosophically and thus deliver the message of the film to us in a neat package. But you would be wrong. Much like Leonardo DiCaprio in "Blood Diamond", the characters here develop via their decisions - Theo in particular. He is not sketched as a valorous over-the-top hero but as a guy who ends up having to take on an immense task and growing as he carries it out.
Alternately terrifying and thrilling, "Children of Men" is one of the best movies this year.
Theo is summoned to meet with his ex-wife Julian (Julianne Moore) who is a leader of a terrorist group protecting a young woman, Kee, who has miraculously become pregnant. She enlists Theo to help get Kee to the english coast where, in turn, they can get her into the so-called "Human Project", which may or may not exist. At the same time, some of her followers may have other ideas for Kee. And she knows this.
This sets in motion a tense, pulse-pounding (feel free to insert any other adjectives of your choice) race against time in an attempt to get Kee to the coast and away from anyone who may do her harm and/or use her coming child for their own gain.
To say anything story-wise beyond this would be to ruin it and so I will not. But this is an expertly made film. Directory Alfonso Cuaron films many of his action sequences in long, unbroken camera shots which only serve to heighten the intensity. There were several instances in which I had no choice but to grip the side of my theater chair as it became almost unbearable.
The film thankfully stays clear of any inane explanations of anything. It is not interested in how the world got to where it is. No reasons are given as to why no one can procreate, and that is just as it should be. No one pauses to engage in backstory for the audience's conveinence. At one point Theo asks Juliann, "Were your parents in New York when it happened?" What was "it", exactly? They don't say and they wouldn't because they - meaning the characters - already know. That's how you write dialogue.
One would also expect everyone to pause between trying to save Kee's life to ruminate philosophically and thus deliver the message of the film to us in a neat package. But you would be wrong. Much like Leonardo DiCaprio in "Blood Diamond", the characters here develop via their decisions - Theo in particular. He is not sketched as a valorous over-the-top hero but as a guy who ends up having to take on an immense task and growing as he carries it out.
Alternately terrifying and thrilling, "Children of Men" is one of the best movies this year.
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
We Are Marshall
Happy Valley. Rocky Top. The Little Brown Jug.
If any of those things make sense in any way to you then “We Are Marshall” is a movie you will probably enjoy. If you’re left scratching your head then “We Are Marshall” is a movie you will probably not enjoy. Yes, it’s that simple.
The young woman who sat next to me during the screening certainly did not enjoy it. When she first sat down I found myself attracted to her. But by the end, after she had checked her cellphone half-a-dozen times and sighed repeatedly, I just wanted her to go away. If you don’t like it, walk out and spare the rest of us. Okay?
But there I go indulging in my favorite pasttime of digressing.
"We Are Marshall" is the story of a horrifically tragic plane crash in 1970 that killed 75 football players, coaches and fans of Marshall University in Huntington, West Virginia. At first, the school chooses to suspend the program, but the fierce devotion of one of the few varsity players not aboard the plane forces them to reverse that decison. The Marshall President (David Straithairn) hires a relative unknown Jack Lengyle (Matthew McConaghey) to coach the team and help them rise "from the ashes".
Considering this is a true story it's hard to disparage it, yet it just seems odd that so many cliched moments from other sports movies turn up. There are a whole gaggle of training montages and, of course, the beginning of the 1st act is perfectly symmetrical to the end of the 3rd act and there are passionate speeches heaped upon passoniate speeches.
People in this movie don’t just talk. Not even close. They don’t even talk in “movie talk”. They take it a step further than that. For instance, if you and I were go into Subway and sit down to eat we would have a conversation resembling this:
Me: “How’s the Italian B.M.T.?”
You: “Good.”
Now let’s take a look at how this conversation would play out within the world of “We Are Marshall”:
Me: “How’s the Italian B.M.T.?”
You: “I used to come to Subway with my wife. She'd always get the Italian B.M.T. even though salami was guaranteed to make her sick. She just loved the taste of salami so much she couldn’t help it. So she’d order it, she’d enjoy it, and then we’d have to drive home right away before she got ill. And I’d hold her hair back while she leaned over the toilet and she’d smile at me and say……..it was all worth it.”
You may think I’m exaggerating. But I’m not. Trust me. All the dialogue is like this. I understand the typical sports movie has to contain the over-the-top speeches by coaches to players and players to players. But everybody makes over-the-top speeches in this movie.
The opening of the film advises us This Is A True Story. It doesn’t say This Is Based On A True Story. Thus, am I meant to assume that in real life everyone in Huntington, West Virginia talks like this? Doesn’t that get exhausting?
So yeah, it's a typical sports movie. But, speaking only for me, I'm willing to forgive all those cliches and painfully sappy moments more than someone such as the girl who sat next to me in theater. And that's probably because I know where Happy Valley is. And she probably doesn't.
If any of those things make sense in any way to you then “We Are Marshall” is a movie you will probably enjoy. If you’re left scratching your head then “We Are Marshall” is a movie you will probably not enjoy. Yes, it’s that simple.
The young woman who sat next to me during the screening certainly did not enjoy it. When she first sat down I found myself attracted to her. But by the end, after she had checked her cellphone half-a-dozen times and sighed repeatedly, I just wanted her to go away. If you don’t like it, walk out and spare the rest of us. Okay?
But there I go indulging in my favorite pasttime of digressing.
"We Are Marshall" is the story of a horrifically tragic plane crash in 1970 that killed 75 football players, coaches and fans of Marshall University in Huntington, West Virginia. At first, the school chooses to suspend the program, but the fierce devotion of one of the few varsity players not aboard the plane forces them to reverse that decison. The Marshall President (David Straithairn) hires a relative unknown Jack Lengyle (Matthew McConaghey) to coach the team and help them rise "from the ashes".
Considering this is a true story it's hard to disparage it, yet it just seems odd that so many cliched moments from other sports movies turn up. There are a whole gaggle of training montages and, of course, the beginning of the 1st act is perfectly symmetrical to the end of the 3rd act and there are passionate speeches heaped upon passoniate speeches.
People in this movie don’t just talk. Not even close. They don’t even talk in “movie talk”. They take it a step further than that. For instance, if you and I were go into Subway and sit down to eat we would have a conversation resembling this:
Me: “How’s the Italian B.M.T.?”
You: “Good.”
Now let’s take a look at how this conversation would play out within the world of “We Are Marshall”:
Me: “How’s the Italian B.M.T.?”
You: “I used to come to Subway with my wife. She'd always get the Italian B.M.T. even though salami was guaranteed to make her sick. She just loved the taste of salami so much she couldn’t help it. So she’d order it, she’d enjoy it, and then we’d have to drive home right away before she got ill. And I’d hold her hair back while she leaned over the toilet and she’d smile at me and say……..it was all worth it.”
You may think I’m exaggerating. But I’m not. Trust me. All the dialogue is like this. I understand the typical sports movie has to contain the over-the-top speeches by coaches to players and players to players. But everybody makes over-the-top speeches in this movie.
The opening of the film advises us This Is A True Story. It doesn’t say This Is Based On A True Story. Thus, am I meant to assume that in real life everyone in Huntington, West Virginia talks like this? Doesn’t that get exhausting?
So yeah, it's a typical sports movie. But, speaking only for me, I'm willing to forgive all those cliches and painfully sappy moments more than someone such as the girl who sat next to me in theater. And that's probably because I know where Happy Valley is. And she probably doesn't.
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
In Defense of Serendipity
All right, it's time for an explanation. I'm tired of hiding in the darkness, feigning embarrassment and making excuses. It's time for honesty. I like the movie "Serendipity". It makes me happy. And I think it's good, truly and deeply and down to its core.
Let me be clear, it is not a guilty pleasure movie. We all have those but that is a movie wherein we know it's bad and admit it's bad and still like it anyway. I do not think it's bad. I hold the opinion that is, in fact, quite good. You may not agree. In fact, pretty much everyone I know does not agree. Admittedly, it is a formulaic film. It is a romantic comedy. It is schmaltz. I'm aware of this. And yet..........
Raise your hand if you're familiar with Bob Beamon. Bob Beamon was the man who at the 1968 Mexico City Summer Olympics set the world record in the long jump with a leap of 29 feet 2 1/2 inches. Now, there are a few interesting notes regarding this record. His jump on that day broke the existing world record by nearly two feet. He became the first man to not only jump further than 29 feet but the first man to jump further than 28 feet. No long jumper would even reach 28 feet again for another 12 years. But here's the kicker - prior to that fateful day Beamon had never jumped further than 27 feet 3 inches and after that fateful day he never jumped further than 27 feet. Think about that for a moment.
"Serendipity" is my movie equivalent of Bob Beamon.
Nothing prior to it and nothing after it would ever indicate in any fashion that "Serendipity" is a movie I would love let alone tolerate. But somehow on that fateful fall evening I watched it for the first time everything - my emotional state, the movie gods, whatever else - came together and I fell deeply in love with a movie I would ordinarily have no business loving.
A vital sequence occurs midway through when John Cusack (our lead) and Jeremy Piven (filling the “best friend” role) travel to an apartment service company in an attempt to track down an old address for Mr. Cusack's soulmate (Kate Beckinsale). The valorous temp manning the desk explains he can’t provide this info as it is against the law. Of course, in the end, he does provide the info. This is why it’s key. Are you the type of annoying movie-watcher who would instantly comment, “That would never happen in real life.” Or are you the type of movie-watcher who would holler, “Go, temp, go!”
Most people with whom I discuss this movie instantly want to discredit it due to its lack of being associated with reality. For instance, rather than Kate Beckinsale simply providing her phone # to John Cusack after sharing the special evening which constitutes the first act, she decides they should each send something out into the world (a $5 dollar for him, a used book for her) with their respective phone #'s to let fate decide if and when they should meet again. "Why wouldn't she just give him her phone number?" people immediately ask. Meanwhile, the vein in my head bulges and threatens to pop as I endure their empty rhetoric.
Of course, it isn't based in reality. It's not going for real drama or real emotional payoffs. Why are people so angry at "Serendipity" for not being "Sophie's Choice"? People blather on about the fact that movies cannot violate the world in which they exist. Fair enough. "Serendipity" immediately establishes itself as existing in a world where a guy and a girl can meet when trying to purchase the same pair of gloves by using dialogue that sounds as if a screenwriter coached them in their respective apartments just before setting out on their shopping expedition and never violates that world for the remainder of the movie's running time.
The typical romantic comedy sets itself up as a fantasy and then at some point (usually in the third act) changes course and wants you to view its characters and situations as being based in reality. "Serendipity" does not. It establishes itself as a fairytale and stays that way to the very last frame.
Another common complaint is the fate of John Cusack’s fiancé, the one he spurns to track down Kate Beckinsale. But it doesn't matter what happens to his fiancé. As I stated moments ago, this is a fairytale. The definition we find of fairytale here advises us that is a "highly implausible story". If "Serendipity" were a story grounded in plausibility then the fiancé would function as a real character and then her fate would matter. But as it is a fairytale, and therefore not grounded in plausibility, the fiancé does not function as a real character and her fate is inconsequential. She exists merely to act as the catalyst which sends our hero on his quest for girl proper.
“Serendipity” fans care not at all for plausibility. We are hopeless romantics. We believe in fate, and in destiny, and in soulmates. The spurned fiancé is nice enough but we realize she is not John Cusack's soulmate. Duh. Kate Beckinsale is.
If you’re rooting for the spurned fiancé (or even wanting to know what happens to the spurned fiancé) you're probably the same type of person who wonders why in "Titanic" Jack didn't angle the door so both Rose AND he could get on. You're the type of person who should not even be allowed into movie theaters.
For a very long time I was ashamed to admit how much I liked the movie. Then for awhile I chose to call it a guilty pleasure but that wasn't accurate either. But I'm ashamed no longer. Today I will tell you precisely what "Serendipity" is and always will be - one of my favorite movies.
Let me be clear, it is not a guilty pleasure movie. We all have those but that is a movie wherein we know it's bad and admit it's bad and still like it anyway. I do not think it's bad. I hold the opinion that is, in fact, quite good. You may not agree. In fact, pretty much everyone I know does not agree. Admittedly, it is a formulaic film. It is a romantic comedy. It is schmaltz. I'm aware of this. And yet..........
Raise your hand if you're familiar with Bob Beamon. Bob Beamon was the man who at the 1968 Mexico City Summer Olympics set the world record in the long jump with a leap of 29 feet 2 1/2 inches. Now, there are a few interesting notes regarding this record. His jump on that day broke the existing world record by nearly two feet. He became the first man to not only jump further than 29 feet but the first man to jump further than 28 feet. No long jumper would even reach 28 feet again for another 12 years. But here's the kicker - prior to that fateful day Beamon had never jumped further than 27 feet 3 inches and after that fateful day he never jumped further than 27 feet. Think about that for a moment.
"Serendipity" is my movie equivalent of Bob Beamon.
Nothing prior to it and nothing after it would ever indicate in any fashion that "Serendipity" is a movie I would love let alone tolerate. But somehow on that fateful fall evening I watched it for the first time everything - my emotional state, the movie gods, whatever else - came together and I fell deeply in love with a movie I would ordinarily have no business loving.A vital sequence occurs midway through when John Cusack (our lead) and Jeremy Piven (filling the “best friend” role) travel to an apartment service company in an attempt to track down an old address for Mr. Cusack's soulmate (Kate Beckinsale). The valorous temp manning the desk explains he can’t provide this info as it is against the law. Of course, in the end, he does provide the info. This is why it’s key. Are you the type of annoying movie-watcher who would instantly comment, “That would never happen in real life.” Or are you the type of movie-watcher who would holler, “Go, temp, go!”
Most people with whom I discuss this movie instantly want to discredit it due to its lack of being associated with reality. For instance, rather than Kate Beckinsale simply providing her phone # to John Cusack after sharing the special evening which constitutes the first act, she decides they should each send something out into the world (a $5 dollar for him, a used book for her) with their respective phone #'s to let fate decide if and when they should meet again. "Why wouldn't she just give him her phone number?" people immediately ask. Meanwhile, the vein in my head bulges and threatens to pop as I endure their empty rhetoric.
Of course, it isn't based in reality. It's not going for real drama or real emotional payoffs. Why are people so angry at "Serendipity" for not being "Sophie's Choice"? People blather on about the fact that movies cannot violate the world in which they exist. Fair enough. "Serendipity" immediately establishes itself as existing in a world where a guy and a girl can meet when trying to purchase the same pair of gloves by using dialogue that sounds as if a screenwriter coached them in their respective apartments just before setting out on their shopping expedition and never violates that world for the remainder of the movie's running time.
The typical romantic comedy sets itself up as a fantasy and then at some point (usually in the third act) changes course and wants you to view its characters and situations as being based in reality. "Serendipity" does not. It establishes itself as a fairytale and stays that way to the very last frame.Another common complaint is the fate of John Cusack’s fiancé, the one he spurns to track down Kate Beckinsale. But it doesn't matter what happens to his fiancé. As I stated moments ago, this is a fairytale. The definition we find of fairytale here advises us that is a "highly implausible story". If "Serendipity" were a story grounded in plausibility then the fiancé would function as a real character and then her fate would matter. But as it is a fairytale, and therefore not grounded in plausibility, the fiancé does not function as a real character and her fate is inconsequential. She exists merely to act as the catalyst which sends our hero on his quest for girl proper.
“Serendipity” fans care not at all for plausibility. We are hopeless romantics. We believe in fate, and in destiny, and in soulmates. The spurned fiancé is nice enough but we realize she is not John Cusack's soulmate. Duh. Kate Beckinsale is.
If you’re rooting for the spurned fiancé (or even wanting to know what happens to the spurned fiancé) you're probably the same type of person who wonders why in "Titanic" Jack didn't angle the door so both Rose AND he could get on. You're the type of person who should not even be allowed into movie theaters.
For a very long time I was ashamed to admit how much I liked the movie. Then for awhile I chose to call it a guilty pleasure but that wasn't accurate either. But I'm ashamed no longer. Today I will tell you precisely what "Serendipity" is and always will be - one of my favorite movies.
Monday, December 18, 2006
Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan
Well, I will definitely say "Borat" is funny. I would even say parts of it are hilarious. I literally laughed out loud probably 7 or 8 times, which is a lot for me. At the same time, the film is also awkward. Painfully awkward. There are moments which made me squish down far deeper into my seat than any horror movie. Kind of like the moment when..........but I don't want to give anything away if you haven't seen it. Shock value counts for a lot with something such as "Borat".
For anyone who may not know the movie is the story of the title character who is sent to the United States by his native country of Kazakhstan in an effort to learn about American culture in an effort to use what he learns to assist his own country. But then his journey turns into..........but I won't give that away, either. Let's just say it makes a sizable statement regarding the current state of the American dream.
Much of the movie could be considered an indictment of the rampant naivete in America. Some of the responses Borat elicits from Americans are downright disturbing. Granted, I don't know how much of this was staged and how much is authentic, but many of the responses of these people seem genuine. I know the infamous frat boys we see in the film are suing, saying they were fed liquor beforehand by the filmmakers, but I have a hard time not thinking what these frat boys say are what they would say even if they weren't featured in a movie.
Also, Borat's road trip goes primarily through the south and so you could also say his indictment is restricted solely to that portion of the United States. However, being from the midwest I can safely say I've seen the same cluelessness and racial prejudice from many citizens in my part of the world. (For instance, and this is a true story, as I walked back to the train after seeing the movie I encountered four young men who were yelling at no one in particular about how much they hated black people - though that wasn't the term they were actually using. I only wished Borat had been with me at that moment.)
As for Sacha Baron Cohen, it's been a long time since I've been so blown away by an actor. He is - if nothing else - utterly committed to the roles he plays. But he is something else. In less than a week I have seen him play two completely different roles and had I not known beforehand that it was Cohen there would have been no way to guess. He inhabits the role. He inhabits it like a funny Daniel Day Lewis.
Is this the funniest movie of all time, as some have claimed? No. Not even close. It's still just the old comedic-sketches-strung-together-by-a-threadbare-plot. But it definitely made me laugh. At times it made even me guffaw. But Cohen? This guy's the real deal.
For anyone who may not know the movie is the story of the title character who is sent to the United States by his native country of Kazakhstan in an effort to learn about American culture in an effort to use what he learns to assist his own country. But then his journey turns into..........but I won't give that away, either. Let's just say it makes a sizable statement regarding the current state of the American dream.
Much of the movie could be considered an indictment of the rampant naivete in America. Some of the responses Borat elicits from Americans are downright disturbing. Granted, I don't know how much of this was staged and how much is authentic, but many of the responses of these people seem genuine. I know the infamous frat boys we see in the film are suing, saying they were fed liquor beforehand by the filmmakers, but I have a hard time not thinking what these frat boys say are what they would say even if they weren't featured in a movie.
Also, Borat's road trip goes primarily through the south and so you could also say his indictment is restricted solely to that portion of the United States. However, being from the midwest I can safely say I've seen the same cluelessness and racial prejudice from many citizens in my part of the world. (For instance, and this is a true story, as I walked back to the train after seeing the movie I encountered four young men who were yelling at no one in particular about how much they hated black people - though that wasn't the term they were actually using. I only wished Borat had been with me at that moment.)
As for Sacha Baron Cohen, it's been a long time since I've been so blown away by an actor. He is - if nothing else - utterly committed to the roles he plays. But he is something else. In less than a week I have seen him play two completely different roles and had I not known beforehand that it was Cohen there would have been no way to guess. He inhabits the role. He inhabits it like a funny Daniel Day Lewis.
Is this the funniest movie of all time, as some have claimed? No. Not even close. It's still just the old comedic-sketches-strung-together-by-a-threadbare-plot. But it definitely made me laugh. At times it made even me guffaw. But Cohen? This guy's the real deal.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Talladega Nights: The Ballad of (Jean Girard)
The esteemed film critic Roger Ebert has written of the difficulty in composing a review for a comedic movie. In regards to writing one such review he said, "Faced with a dilemma like this, the experienced critic falls back on a reliable ploy. He gives away some of the best jokes and punch lines." And so I think about heeding this advice for my review of this past summer's send-up of NASCAR culture (actually titled "Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby")which stars Will Ferrell as the title character, "the best (driver) there is". I think about relaying the fact it makes the best use of the indelible Pat Benatar song "We Belong" in movie history. I think about advising that the line "You taste of America" made me laugh so hard milk would have come out my nose had I, in fact, been drinking milk. But, of course, none of this means anything if you haven't seen the movie because it's all out of context. Hmmmm........so what do I write about? Oh yes, I can't believe forgot. I'll write about that.
Sascha Baron Cohen.
I have yet to see "Borat" (the incessant hype of it being so amazingly good has kind of kept me away - which is odd as I so incessantly hype anything I like on this very blog, but oh well) though I had planned on seeing it at some point. But I may now have to bump up my timetable. His performance in "Talladega Nights" as the French Formula One driver Jean Girard, Ricky Bobby's main rival, stands well above anything else in the movie. Perhaps this is because I like to claim I'm far more sophisticated than your average NASCAR fan. Or perhaps this is because I secretly yearn to be French. (Who wouldn't? A life of sitting in cafe's, drinking coffee and scribbling in a notebook seems quite appealing.)
But no, it's because Cohen's performance is downright amazing. From the moment he turns up putting smooth jazz on the jukebox in a NASCAR bar, I was rooting for the bad guy. He slips entirely into character and refrains from winking at the audience even once. Everyone gets good lines but he seems to elevate his somehow. He makes his straight moments hysterical by refusing to overplay them. ("Au revoir, Ricky Bobby. Au revoir.") And he lends his character the most brilliant kind of shallow depth when he reveals his true reasons for coming to America.
One could say with "Borat" and all the recent success of Will Ferrell that the two reigning comic geniuses of the industry go head-to-head in this movie. On Cinema Romantico's scorecard, Cohen wins.
Sascha Baron Cohen.
I have yet to see "Borat" (the incessant hype of it being so amazingly good has kind of kept me away - which is odd as I so incessantly hype anything I like on this very blog, but oh well) though I had planned on seeing it at some point. But I may now have to bump up my timetable. His performance in "Talladega Nights" as the French Formula One driver Jean Girard, Ricky Bobby's main rival, stands well above anything else in the movie. Perhaps this is because I like to claim I'm far more sophisticated than your average NASCAR fan. Or perhaps this is because I secretly yearn to be French. (Who wouldn't? A life of sitting in cafe's, drinking coffee and scribbling in a notebook seems quite appealing.)
But no, it's because Cohen's performance is downright amazing. From the moment he turns up putting smooth jazz on the jukebox in a NASCAR bar, I was rooting for the bad guy. He slips entirely into character and refrains from winking at the audience even once. Everyone gets good lines but he seems to elevate his somehow. He makes his straight moments hysterical by refusing to overplay them. ("Au revoir, Ricky Bobby. Au revoir.") And he lends his character the most brilliant kind of shallow depth when he reveals his true reasons for coming to America.
One could say with "Borat" and all the recent success of Will Ferrell that the two reigning comic geniuses of the industry go head-to-head in this movie. On Cinema Romantico's scorecard, Cohen wins.
Monday, December 11, 2006
Blood Diamond
This truly is the most wonderful time of the year. In less than 7 days, back-to-back, I saw "10 Items or Less" and "Blood Diamond" - which will wind up being two of the best movies of the whole year. Oh, 11 months of cinematic crap is but a small price to pay for the movie-going treasures of December.
"Blood Diamond" is an epic, action-packed story concerning the brutal "conflict diamond" trade in the African nation of Sierra Leone set against the backdrop of that nation's Civil War in the late '90's. Now such subject matter would usually lead one to believe this is one of those so-called "important" films. You know, the kind that usually leads to a multitude of Oscar nominations. Well, it may be "important" but if the characters and the story don't amount to anything I personally could not care less how "important" it is.
Well, guess what? The characters and story work spectacularly in "Blood Diamond".
The movie does not wait long to get going. Djimon Honsou is Solomon Vandy, an African fishermen, whose family is taken prisoner by rebels while he is pressed into service as a slave in the diamond trade. He finds a particulary massive diamond which he hides and then buries. Shortly after doing so, the government raids the mining camp and places Vandy in jail. While there, South African mercenary Danny Archer (Leonardo DiCaprio) overhears about this supposed diamond Vandy buried, gets him out of jail and forces Vandy into a partnership to get this diamond. At the same time, American journalist Maddy Bowen (Jennifer Connelly) is on the hunt to break a story regarding the realities of the diamond trade and needs Archer to provide neccesary info to give the story legitimacy. While AT THE SAME TIME we also follow Vandy's young son who is essentially brainwashed and enlisted as a rebel soldier, willing to turn against his father if need be.
Okay, everyone take a breath. You good? You with me? Let's press on.
Simply put, DiCaprio's Danny Archer is one of the richest, most complex movie characters to come along in quite some time. One of the terms that gets tossed about most often when discussing screenwriting is "arc". You know, a character's emotional journey through the script. The character's trek from Point A to Point B. They start off thinking one thing but wind up thinking something different. But as tossed about as this term is most movies these days dispense with any arc at all. The movies that do employ arc rarely do so in an effective manner. An arc is something that should an encompass the entire movie (think Jake Gittes in "Chinatown") but anymore arc is spread out over 3, maybe 4 scenes - sometimes even less. Characters come to life-altering decisions over the course of a single scene. The steps of an entire relationship are condensed into a lone montage (God help us). I don't know if this is because the audience has no patience or because the filmmaker thinks the audience has no patience but this is now the norm.
The makers of "Blood Diamond" trust that we have patience. Danny Archer breaks the mold. His arc sums up the definition of the term. It is gradual. It runs its course over the movie's whole running time.
Will Archer help Solomon find his family? Will Archer help Maddy get the information she needs? What lengths will Archer go to in order to get this diamond? The movie presents choice after choice to the character - the stakes getting higher with each of them - and each time he makes a decision his character deepens and his journey intensifies.
As amazingly drawn as the character is, DiCaprio has to give a performance to match. And he more than holds up his end of the bargain. I think I wrote on this very blog a few months back that DiCaprio's performance in "The Departed" may be the best he's given. Uh, allow me to revise. DiCaprio's performance in "Blood Diamond" may be the best he's given. Oscar nomination gods, are you listening?
I, of course, can't say it's a perfect film. Perhaps it gets just a tad too preachy at parts and the epilogue maybe wants to deify a certain character just a bit. The characters of Solomon and Maddy aren't quite as complex as Archer. Honsou has made a career out of playing noble souls with a single-minded focus and nothing much changes here but his emotional ferocity in every scene sells it. And as written the crusading journalist does not really expand beyond the usual archetype but Connelly re-proves her considerable talent by lending the character fire and depth through her performance.
But why the hell whine about little things like that? Getting one multi-dimensional character in a movie these days is a victory. But getting a character like a Danny Archer is more than mere victory. It's a triumph. Therefore I'm urging you to drop whatever plans you may have had this evening and go see "Blood Diamond" instead. When Archer's moment comes - after all he's been through, and after all you've been through with him - it will be as rewarding a moment as you're likely to ever have inside the glorious darkness of a movie theater.
"Blood Diamond" is an epic, action-packed story concerning the brutal "conflict diamond" trade in the African nation of Sierra Leone set against the backdrop of that nation's Civil War in the late '90's. Now such subject matter would usually lead one to believe this is one of those so-called "important" films. You know, the kind that usually leads to a multitude of Oscar nominations. Well, it may be "important" but if the characters and the story don't amount to anything I personally could not care less how "important" it is.
Well, guess what? The characters and story work spectacularly in "Blood Diamond".
The movie does not wait long to get going. Djimon Honsou is Solomon Vandy, an African fishermen, whose family is taken prisoner by rebels while he is pressed into service as a slave in the diamond trade. He finds a particulary massive diamond which he hides and then buries. Shortly after doing so, the government raids the mining camp and places Vandy in jail. While there, South African mercenary Danny Archer (Leonardo DiCaprio) overhears about this supposed diamond Vandy buried, gets him out of jail and forces Vandy into a partnership to get this diamond. At the same time, American journalist Maddy Bowen (Jennifer Connelly) is on the hunt to break a story regarding the realities of the diamond trade and needs Archer to provide neccesary info to give the story legitimacy. While AT THE SAME TIME we also follow Vandy's young son who is essentially brainwashed and enlisted as a rebel soldier, willing to turn against his father if need be.
Okay, everyone take a breath. You good? You with me? Let's press on.
Simply put, DiCaprio's Danny Archer is one of the richest, most complex movie characters to come along in quite some time. One of the terms that gets tossed about most often when discussing screenwriting is "arc". You know, a character's emotional journey through the script. The character's trek from Point A to Point B. They start off thinking one thing but wind up thinking something different. But as tossed about as this term is most movies these days dispense with any arc at all. The movies that do employ arc rarely do so in an effective manner. An arc is something that should an encompass the entire movie (think Jake Gittes in "Chinatown") but anymore arc is spread out over 3, maybe 4 scenes - sometimes even less. Characters come to life-altering decisions over the course of a single scene. The steps of an entire relationship are condensed into a lone montage (God help us). I don't know if this is because the audience has no patience or because the filmmaker thinks the audience has no patience but this is now the norm.
The makers of "Blood Diamond" trust that we have patience. Danny Archer breaks the mold. His arc sums up the definition of the term. It is gradual. It runs its course over the movie's whole running time.
Will Archer help Solomon find his family? Will Archer help Maddy get the information she needs? What lengths will Archer go to in order to get this diamond? The movie presents choice after choice to the character - the stakes getting higher with each of them - and each time he makes a decision his character deepens and his journey intensifies.
As amazingly drawn as the character is, DiCaprio has to give a performance to match. And he more than holds up his end of the bargain. I think I wrote on this very blog a few months back that DiCaprio's performance in "The Departed" may be the best he's given. Uh, allow me to revise. DiCaprio's performance in "Blood Diamond" may be the best he's given. Oscar nomination gods, are you listening?
I, of course, can't say it's a perfect film. Perhaps it gets just a tad too preachy at parts and the epilogue maybe wants to deify a certain character just a bit. The characters of Solomon and Maddy aren't quite as complex as Archer. Honsou has made a career out of playing noble souls with a single-minded focus and nothing much changes here but his emotional ferocity in every scene sells it. And as written the crusading journalist does not really expand beyond the usual archetype but Connelly re-proves her considerable talent by lending the character fire and depth through her performance.
But why the hell whine about little things like that? Getting one multi-dimensional character in a movie these days is a victory. But getting a character like a Danny Archer is more than mere victory. It's a triumph. Therefore I'm urging you to drop whatever plans you may have had this evening and go see "Blood Diamond" instead. When Archer's moment comes - after all he's been through, and after all you've been through with him - it will be as rewarding a moment as you're likely to ever have inside the glorious darkness of a movie theater.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
A Word About Tradition
Traditions are oh so important, no matter how strange they may seem. For instance, every year in the first week of January I request to take off the third Thursday of March. Why? This is the first day of the NCAA Basketball Tournament and making people work it is an unquestioned crime against humanity. It's my tradition and it's vital to my existence.
But we all have traditions, and I've noticed this is especially true concerning movies and concerning movies around the holidays. Director Daryl A. Moon (recent winner of the Saginaw Valley Bed & Breakfast International Film Festival) advised me last night he makes a point to watch "It's A Wonderful Life" each Christmas. This may seem obvious but when you consider Mr. Moon's cinematic inspirations are Paul Verhoeven and "Twins", I think it says a lot. My best friend Jacob has noted it does not feel like Christmas without watching "Die Hard". A person with whom I once worked had a family custom of viewing "National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation" every December 24th.
I too have holiday traditions. My own Christmas is not complete without watching "Serendipity". Each Thanksgiving (as I have written before) I indulge in one of my all-time Top 5 favorite movies "The Myth of Fingerprints".
So what I want to know, people, is this - what are your traditions? What do you watch? And when do you watch them? And why? Everyone, leave a comment. I'm interested. Really.
But we all have traditions, and I've noticed this is especially true concerning movies and concerning movies around the holidays. Director Daryl A. Moon (recent winner of the Saginaw Valley Bed & Breakfast International Film Festival) advised me last night he makes a point to watch "It's A Wonderful Life" each Christmas. This may seem obvious but when you consider Mr. Moon's cinematic inspirations are Paul Verhoeven and "Twins", I think it says a lot. My best friend Jacob has noted it does not feel like Christmas without watching "Die Hard". A person with whom I once worked had a family custom of viewing "National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation" every December 24th.
I too have holiday traditions. My own Christmas is not complete without watching "Serendipity". Each Thanksgiving (as I have written before) I indulge in one of my all-time Top 5 favorite movies "The Myth of Fingerprints".
So what I want to know, people, is this - what are your traditions? What do you watch? And when do you watch them? And why? Everyone, leave a comment. I'm interested. Really.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
For Your Consideration
“For Your Consideration” is the latest from Christopher Guest (of “Best in Show”, “Waiting for Guffman” and "A Mighty Wind") and this time out his posse of improvisers poke fun at the Oscar process. The leading actress (Catherine O'Hara) of a teeny-tiny independent film called "Home For Purim" is notified of an internet rumor that she may be nominated for an Oscar. And then buzz grows for the leading actor (Harry Shearer). And another leading actress (Parker Posey). And soon things are spiraling out of control as everyone becomes desperate to land that coveted nomination.
The movie's amusing, I guess, and diverting, but it just doesn't hold a candle to the previous three features of Guest. There just isn't a lot of material here that's uproariously funny. Not like Parker Posey’s “busy-bee” freak-out in "Best in Show", which was one of the funniest things I've ever seen.
I will admit to the few gags involving the screenwriters (Michael McKean and Bob Balaban) as warming my heart but that's to be expected. At one point "Home For Purim's" director throws the actual script to the floor and we instantly cut to the writers off-camera who exclaim, "He did not just do that."
The acting is of the highest caliber as it always is in Guest's movies. Catherine O’Hara as the film-within-the film leading actress is solid. But I personally found the supporting actors to be the most enjoyable. Fred Willard as the bombastic host of an "Entertainment Tonight"-type TV show. Ed Begley Jr. as the film's flamboyant hair-dresser. John Michael Higgins as a publicist who apparently has just emerged from the depths of a nervous breakdown. That being said, the publicist isn’t all that vital to the story. Whereas previous Christopher Guest movies were based on improv, things still felt structured and characters did not feel wasted. You can’t help but wonder if Guest was just creating characters to make sure all his pals could turn up onscreen.
You really felt something for the lovable schlubs in “Waiting For Guffman”. You wanted their crummy little play to succeed. When Corky St. Clair locked himself in the bathroom you truly wanted him to come back out and press on. But the fate of the actors in “For Your Consideration” doesn’t seem all that important.
It may, however, be the mere fact that spoofing the movie industry has already been done many times and been done well. In the previous three movies Guest tackled subjects that had never really been scene cinematically. So, if you’ll allow me to indulge for a moment, here’s my proposal for Guest’s next film. A send-up of wine culture. Think about the possibilities! I mean, just imagine a wine tasting scene in which Guest is the instructor, Willard is the bombastic (of course) know-it-all who doesn’t know anything, Eugene Levy is the clueless husband whose wife, Catherine O’Hara, really wants to learn, Parker Posey is the snotty yuppie who’s there solely to get drunk and eat cheese and crackers. It could be fantastic!
Maybe I’ll give Chris a call…….
The movie's amusing, I guess, and diverting, but it just doesn't hold a candle to the previous three features of Guest. There just isn't a lot of material here that's uproariously funny. Not like Parker Posey’s “busy-bee” freak-out in "Best in Show", which was one of the funniest things I've ever seen.
I will admit to the few gags involving the screenwriters (Michael McKean and Bob Balaban) as warming my heart but that's to be expected. At one point "Home For Purim's" director throws the actual script to the floor and we instantly cut to the writers off-camera who exclaim, "He did not just do that."
The acting is of the highest caliber as it always is in Guest's movies. Catherine O’Hara as the film-within-the film leading actress is solid. But I personally found the supporting actors to be the most enjoyable. Fred Willard as the bombastic host of an "Entertainment Tonight"-type TV show. Ed Begley Jr. as the film's flamboyant hair-dresser. John Michael Higgins as a publicist who apparently has just emerged from the depths of a nervous breakdown. That being said, the publicist isn’t all that vital to the story. Whereas previous Christopher Guest movies were based on improv, things still felt structured and characters did not feel wasted. You can’t help but wonder if Guest was just creating characters to make sure all his pals could turn up onscreen.
You really felt something for the lovable schlubs in “Waiting For Guffman”. You wanted their crummy little play to succeed. When Corky St. Clair locked himself in the bathroom you truly wanted him to come back out and press on. But the fate of the actors in “For Your Consideration” doesn’t seem all that important.
It may, however, be the mere fact that spoofing the movie industry has already been done many times and been done well. In the previous three movies Guest tackled subjects that had never really been scene cinematically. So, if you’ll allow me to indulge for a moment, here’s my proposal for Guest’s next film. A send-up of wine culture. Think about the possibilities! I mean, just imagine a wine tasting scene in which Guest is the instructor, Willard is the bombastic (of course) know-it-all who doesn’t know anything, Eugene Levy is the clueless husband whose wife, Catherine O’Hara, really wants to learn, Parker Posey is the snotty yuppie who’s there solely to get drunk and eat cheese and crackers. It could be fantastic!
Maybe I’ll give Chris a call…….
Monday, December 04, 2006
10 Items or Less
It seems a lot of the time the best movies of the year sneak up on you. It's not always the case, of course, but often the movies you anticipate the most turn out to be the ones that leave you the most dissapointed. Quite frankly, I didn't even know a movie called "10 Items or Less" existed until I saw an ad for it in the newspaper last week. It appeared intriguing and so I chose to check it out. In "Dr. Strangelove" it was General Buck C. Turgidson who said, "I hate to judge on a thing like that until all the facts are in" and, heeding his statement, I will hold off on making any absolute declarations. But what I will say at this point is that "10 Items or Less" is undoubtedly the best film I've seen so far this year.
Disclaimer: this film was engineered specifically for a person such as Nick Prigge and may not be so specifically created for you. The movie's foundation is built on two things - character and dialogue. Plot is virtually non-existent. The story is slight. Morgan Freeman stars as a famous actor (of action thrillers with Ashley Judd - wink, wink) who has not worked in four years. He is entertaining an offer for a severely independent film. The role calls for him to portray a store manager and so he winds up at a crummy grocery store on the outskirts of L.A. in order to do "research". Once there he meets a feisty cashier (is there any other kind?) named Scarlett who works the 10 items or less lane. The two of them inevitably bond.
The actor (whose name is never mentioned) is supposed to have someone from the "crew" pick him up but this person never shows. The actor only knows the phone # for agent but it's a Jewish holiday the next day and no one is there, though I will leave it to you to decide if this is true or the Actor's ploy.
Scarlett has an interview for a job as a secretary at a construction company and this is what passes for "plot". The Actor treats the interview like an audition and coaches Scarlett as they lazily meander their way through L.A.
As the Actor Morgan Freeman gives the performance of the year. We think of him as such a stoic actor but here he is playful, vibrant and alive. I love watching an actor having a good time as he performs and it is clear that Freeman is having an total ball. The Actor is dropped into a world he doesn't know at all and it is genuine fun in watching Freeman lighten up as he helps Scarlett in her quest, meets people he would otherwise never meet and experience unfamiliar things for the first time. Watch as the duo enters a certain superstore with which we're all familiar:
Him: "This is amazing."
Her: "It's Target."
Him: "Fantastic."
As the cashier Paz Vega is Freeman's equal. The duo excels at everything they are asked to do and even help lift moments that may very well have felt saccharine in lesser hands, such as the moment when they provide "10 items or less" in their lives they want to get rid of or keep. But they sell this scene. They really sell it.
The romantic angle you would expect is never played up. The bond remains platonic. This is refreshing. The decisions the two characters wind up making feel like the decisions they would have made even if they had not met this other person. But their chance encounter helps to make them feel more assured about their decisions and their direction in life.
The film is a celebration of the Perfect Day. We've all had them and they're always unexpected. There comes a moment when Freeman and Vega are cruising the freeway and listening to Paul Simon and the looks on both of their faces perfectly express two people who have just realized they've had the Perfect Day. And you can tell they're - as another character in another movie says - "reminiscing this right now".
So okay, let's see, things I want to keep - 10 items or less. My family. My friends. Bruce Springsteen. The holiday season. Eggnog lattes. Nebraska going to the Cotton Bowl. Nameless, beautiful women on the train. Stanley, from "The Office". Chili with cheese on top. And, oh yeah, movies like this one.
Disclaimer: this film was engineered specifically for a person such as Nick Prigge and may not be so specifically created for you. The movie's foundation is built on two things - character and dialogue. Plot is virtually non-existent. The story is slight. Morgan Freeman stars as a famous actor (of action thrillers with Ashley Judd - wink, wink) who has not worked in four years. He is entertaining an offer for a severely independent film. The role calls for him to portray a store manager and so he winds up at a crummy grocery store on the outskirts of L.A. in order to do "research". Once there he meets a feisty cashier (is there any other kind?) named Scarlett who works the 10 items or less lane. The two of them inevitably bond.
The actor (whose name is never mentioned) is supposed to have someone from the "crew" pick him up but this person never shows. The actor only knows the phone # for agent but it's a Jewish holiday the next day and no one is there, though I will leave it to you to decide if this is true or the Actor's ploy.
Scarlett has an interview for a job as a secretary at a construction company and this is what passes for "plot". The Actor treats the interview like an audition and coaches Scarlett as they lazily meander their way through L.A.
As the Actor Morgan Freeman gives the performance of the year. We think of him as such a stoic actor but here he is playful, vibrant and alive. I love watching an actor having a good time as he performs and it is clear that Freeman is having an total ball. The Actor is dropped into a world he doesn't know at all and it is genuine fun in watching Freeman lighten up as he helps Scarlett in her quest, meets people he would otherwise never meet and experience unfamiliar things for the first time. Watch as the duo enters a certain superstore with which we're all familiar:
Him: "This is amazing."
Her: "It's Target."
Him: "Fantastic."
As the cashier Paz Vega is Freeman's equal. The duo excels at everything they are asked to do and even help lift moments that may very well have felt saccharine in lesser hands, such as the moment when they provide "10 items or less" in their lives they want to get rid of or keep. But they sell this scene. They really sell it.
The romantic angle you would expect is never played up. The bond remains platonic. This is refreshing. The decisions the two characters wind up making feel like the decisions they would have made even if they had not met this other person. But their chance encounter helps to make them feel more assured about their decisions and their direction in life.
The film is a celebration of the Perfect Day. We've all had them and they're always unexpected. There comes a moment when Freeman and Vega are cruising the freeway and listening to Paul Simon and the looks on both of their faces perfectly express two people who have just realized they've had the Perfect Day. And you can tell they're - as another character in another movie says - "reminiscing this right now".
So okay, let's see, things I want to keep - 10 items or less. My family. My friends. Bruce Springsteen. The holiday season. Eggnog lattes. Nebraska going to the Cotton Bowl. Nameless, beautiful women on the train. Stanley, from "The Office". Chili with cheese on top. And, oh yeah, movies like this one.
Friday, December 01, 2006
Cornhuskers for Film
Tomorrow my dearly beloved Nebraska Cornhusker Football team will engage their old rival the Oklahoma Sooners for the right to proclaim themselves champions of the Big 12 Conference. This is something that has not happened since before the new century was rung in. And from that point we have fallen to depths no Nebraska fan has ever known. Oh, I know we don't have it as bad as, say, a Duke Football fan (which has lost its last 18 games) but I recall many people advising me that I would surely hop off the bandwagon at the first sign of hard times. However, just as I told anyone who ever made that empty claim over the years, there was no hopping off when the hard times actually hit.
I watched our still-painful-to-discuss 70-10 thrashing (and it wasn't that close, believe me) at the hands of Texas Tech three years ago right down to the final second and sported a Nebraska sweatshirt the following day. I knew traversing those dark times would make it taste so much sweeter when the bright times returned. And, by God, those bright days that were so hard to imagine have re-arrived and, goodness, they taste sweet. The 2006 Nebraska Football Season has been more fun and more magical than any I can recall in quite some time.
Win or lose tomorrow the Big Red will still be the official champions of the Big 12 North and will be going to a New Year's Day Bowl. That alone is enough to make me jump for joy. But if they won tomorrow, well, I'm just trying to keep in mind Gene Hackman saying in "Hoosiers" that winning the state championship would be "beyond our wildest dreams, so let's just keep it right there."
So in anticipation of our biggest game in years, and in maintaining the spirit of this blog, I have decided to honor this year's valiant Nebraska squad by matching up my favorite players (and my least favorite player) with the movie characters whom they most represent. Without further adieu............
Zac Taylor (Quarterback) – Rick Blaine, “Casablanca”. Calm, collected, and in full control at all times. You can’t fluster him. A sticky situation is merely a reason to smile. If a nefarious villain takes your lady friend hostage and then walks into your place with an escort of armed guards and demands cash to pay the ransom on your lady friend's head you want Rick Blaine at your side. He will not only get your lady friend back without paying a cent or firing a shot, he will also score a cigarette off the villain while doing it. If your team is down by a touchdown with 47 seconds left in the game and 99 yards to go you want Zac Taylor as your QB. He will not only get you the touchdown and the 2 point conversion to win, he will do it without aquiring even a single bead of sweat.
Maurice Purify (Wide Receiver) – Hawkeye, “Last of the Mohicans”. Tall, indefatigable and clutch to the zenith. Hawkeye never misses a shot. Purify never drops a ball. Hawkeye defied the British. Purify defied normal offensive strategy by throwing a pass to fellow wide receiver Terrence Nunn for a touchdown. Hawkeye once jumped from the top of a waterfall. Purify once jumped up in the corner of the end zone to make The Catch in order to clinch the Big 12 North title. I don't know whether or not Purify can skin an elk but I'm willing to wager that he can.
Brandon Jackson (Running Back) – Milton Warden, “From Here to Eternity”. Burt Lancaster's first sergeant didn't do much talking - he just did his job. He asked no quarter and wouldn't take your fifty cents, either. The same can be said of Jackson. He began the season #4 on the depth chart in our impressive stable of running backs but rather than whining he merely worked his way up over the course of the season to #1. And just as Milton Warden took charge on December 7, 1941 when someone needed to do so, it was Jackson who took charge when someone needed to do so against Texas courtesy of a 49 yard touchdown catch & run that was so spectacular (he broke, by my count, 173 tackles) that I very nearly had a heart attack in my living room.
Marlon Lucky (Running Back) – Rusty Ryan, “Ocean’s 11”. Brad Pitt's career thief in “Ocean’s 11” was the epitome of cool. Smooth and unflappable. If Rusty was going to pull off a heist at the Taj Mahal he would do so while simultaneously sipping a highball. When Lucky threw the over-the-mantle-picture-perfect halfback-pass against Texas to put us up by a point he did it so casually he may as well have been sipping a highball.
Adam Carriker (Defensive End) – Don Vito Corleone, “The Godfather”. Brutal, but dignified. Ruthless, but honorable. Any Don of any other family knows that a visit from Vito Corleone is not going to end well. Any QB of any opposing team knows that a visit from Carriker is not going to end well. Usually they both conclude with a hit, and usually it's rather violent.
Bill Callahan (Head Coach) – Lando Calrissean, “The Empire Strikes Back” and "Return of the Jedi". At first when he shows up you’re not too sure about this guy. He’s polished (like an ex-NFL coach would be) and knows the right thing to say but you still wonder about him behind the scenes. You're not sure of his real agenda. Yet, at the end of the second movie (the second season) when he finally decides to save Leia and Chewie and attempt to rescue Han (the Alamo Bowl win) you kinda' start to trust him. But by the end of the third movie (the third season) you not only trust him, you straight-up love him.
Andre “Burnt Toast” Jones (Defensive Back) – Inspector Jacques Closeau, “The Pink Panther”. Inept, confused, hapless, yet still he thinks he possesses immense skill (witness his guaranteeing of a "win" prior to our decisive loss at USC). When Closeau enters a room it’s only a matter of time before he bumbles and falls. When Jones steps on a football field it’s only a matter of time before he bumbles and an opposing wide receiver flies past him for a touchdown.
I watched our still-painful-to-discuss 70-10 thrashing (and it wasn't that close, believe me) at the hands of Texas Tech three years ago right down to the final second and sported a Nebraska sweatshirt the following day. I knew traversing those dark times would make it taste so much sweeter when the bright times returned. And, by God, those bright days that were so hard to imagine have re-arrived and, goodness, they taste sweet. The 2006 Nebraska Football Season has been more fun and more magical than any I can recall in quite some time.
Win or lose tomorrow the Big Red will still be the official champions of the Big 12 North and will be going to a New Year's Day Bowl. That alone is enough to make me jump for joy. But if they won tomorrow, well, I'm just trying to keep in mind Gene Hackman saying in "Hoosiers" that winning the state championship would be "beyond our wildest dreams, so let's just keep it right there."
So in anticipation of our biggest game in years, and in maintaining the spirit of this blog, I have decided to honor this year's valiant Nebraska squad by matching up my favorite players (and my least favorite player) with the movie characters whom they most represent. Without further adieu............
Zac Taylor (Quarterback) – Rick Blaine, “Casablanca”. Calm, collected, and in full control at all times. You can’t fluster him. A sticky situation is merely a reason to smile. If a nefarious villain takes your lady friend hostage and then walks into your place with an escort of armed guards and demands cash to pay the ransom on your lady friend's head you want Rick Blaine at your side. He will not only get your lady friend back without paying a cent or firing a shot, he will also score a cigarette off the villain while doing it. If your team is down by a touchdown with 47 seconds left in the game and 99 yards to go you want Zac Taylor as your QB. He will not only get you the touchdown and the 2 point conversion to win, he will do it without aquiring even a single bead of sweat.
Maurice Purify (Wide Receiver) – Hawkeye, “Last of the Mohicans”. Tall, indefatigable and clutch to the zenith. Hawkeye never misses a shot. Purify never drops a ball. Hawkeye defied the British. Purify defied normal offensive strategy by throwing a pass to fellow wide receiver Terrence Nunn for a touchdown. Hawkeye once jumped from the top of a waterfall. Purify once jumped up in the corner of the end zone to make The Catch in order to clinch the Big 12 North title. I don't know whether or not Purify can skin an elk but I'm willing to wager that he can.
Brandon Jackson (Running Back) – Milton Warden, “From Here to Eternity”. Burt Lancaster's first sergeant didn't do much talking - he just did his job. He asked no quarter and wouldn't take your fifty cents, either. The same can be said of Jackson. He began the season #4 on the depth chart in our impressive stable of running backs but rather than whining he merely worked his way up over the course of the season to #1. And just as Milton Warden took charge on December 7, 1941 when someone needed to do so, it was Jackson who took charge when someone needed to do so against Texas courtesy of a 49 yard touchdown catch & run that was so spectacular (he broke, by my count, 173 tackles) that I very nearly had a heart attack in my living room.
Marlon Lucky (Running Back) – Rusty Ryan, “Ocean’s 11”. Brad Pitt's career thief in “Ocean’s 11” was the epitome of cool. Smooth and unflappable. If Rusty was going to pull off a heist at the Taj Mahal he would do so while simultaneously sipping a highball. When Lucky threw the over-the-mantle-picture-perfect halfback-pass against Texas to put us up by a point he did it so casually he may as well have been sipping a highball.
Adam Carriker (Defensive End) – Don Vito Corleone, “The Godfather”. Brutal, but dignified. Ruthless, but honorable. Any Don of any other family knows that a visit from Vito Corleone is not going to end well. Any QB of any opposing team knows that a visit from Carriker is not going to end well. Usually they both conclude with a hit, and usually it's rather violent.
Bill Callahan (Head Coach) – Lando Calrissean, “The Empire Strikes Back” and "Return of the Jedi". At first when he shows up you’re not too sure about this guy. He’s polished (like an ex-NFL coach would be) and knows the right thing to say but you still wonder about him behind the scenes. You're not sure of his real agenda. Yet, at the end of the second movie (the second season) when he finally decides to save Leia and Chewie and attempt to rescue Han (the Alamo Bowl win) you kinda' start to trust him. But by the end of the third movie (the third season) you not only trust him, you straight-up love him.
Andre “Burnt Toast” Jones (Defensive Back) – Inspector Jacques Closeau, “The Pink Panther”. Inept, confused, hapless, yet still he thinks he possesses immense skill (witness his guaranteeing of a "win" prior to our decisive loss at USC). When Closeau enters a room it’s only a matter of time before he bumbles and falls. When Jones steps on a football field it’s only a matter of time before he bumbles and an opposing wide receiver flies past him for a touchdown.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)