Ogling ‘The Voice’

I don’t know if anybody else has been watching The Voice. I guess if, according to host Carson Daly, the original singles from the two top vote-getters (Dia Frampton and Javier Colon) reached numbers 1 and 2 on the iTunes charts, then someone must be watching. Well, this essay is for all you people who, admittedly like me, have nothing better to do this summer.

When I first saw promos for The Voice last spring, I was completely uninterested. Another singing competition show? C’mon people. We already have America’s Got Talent, which always seems to come down to singers, American Idol, the perennial juggernaut and granddaddy of them all, and, at least according to Wikipedia, 176 other “Singing Competition” shows over the years. One-hundred and seventy-six!? You have got to be joking. I know, I know, some of those shows are international. I don’t care. That’s a ton of freaking singing shows.

But my disinterest wasn’t even really based on the subject matter. I kind of like shows like this. I was a religious viewer of American Idol until I started college where, without a TV in my dorm, I couldn’t find a regular place to watch it. It was based on the drag of it all. I really just didn’t want to devote any more time to a stupid singing show. I mean, there are so many better things that I could be devoting my time to. Like reading a book or playing a musical instrument or conversing with humans or preparing myself mentally and spiritually for second season 2 of Bachelor Pad.

But I give just about everything a chance, so I tuned in (err, “clicked in” via Hulu) to the first episode. And it was pretty neat. It had a new feel. I wouldn’t exactly say it was “fresh”, as so many people seem to like to do. But it was cool. I was happy that they’d at least managed to get judges who were recognizable and relevant. Ok, Xtina isn’t all that relevant, but she was at one point. And she’s famous and accomplished enough for that not to really matter. But the other three judges are all very good at what they do. Cee Lo is on top of the pop world right now and is literally a genius. You will never convince me otherwise. Adam Levine is the frontman for one of the biggest bands on the planet. They still sell out enormous theaters and maybe even a stadium or two. And Blake Shelton is apparently a really famous country singer. He’s also apparently married to an equally famous country singer. Cool. I’ll play ball.

The whole point of the show was for the judges, or coaches as they were so endearingly called, to choose teams of singers based on their voice alone and then have those singers compete against each other until someone is crowned “The Voice”. Which, in principle, is a pretty cool premise. And quite a different one. The Voice wants to be the anti-Idol. American Idol is about star power. It’s about being beautiful, young, and talented. In that order. It’s about looking the part and then hoping you have enough musical ability to parlay winning a reality show into a legitimate singing career. Except that formula doesn’t really work. In the 10-year history of Idol only one actual star, Carrie Underwood, has come out on top. And the list of Idol winners who didn’t make it in the real world is laughable. Or, at least it would be, if you even remembered any of them.

The Voice is the first (major) network television show to attempt to fight American Idol. But it’s not playing with that same formula. Because Idol doesn’t create stars, it just creates ratings and millions of dollars for FOX. By emphasizing the singing ability of the contestants first, The Voice is attempting to transcend all of the glitz and glamour, all of the superficiality of American Idol, and actually develop a legitimately talented star.

And it might have worked. Except for the fact that 15 minutes into the first episode the four coaches turned their chairs around to confront a female singer who none of them had deemed worthy and Cee Lo said, “Damn girl, if I’da known you looked like that I’da turned my chair around for ya.” You see, she was beautiful, by all standards, and under different circumstances, she would have been deemed more than worthy of advancing in a singing competition. Because no matter how many times our mom, first grade teacher, and weepy girlfriend tell us that it’s what’s on the inside that counts, we don’t buy it. Not for one minute.

Fast forward to the finale. We have four contestants remaining, whittled down to one representative from each of the coaches teams. I’ll describe them to you. And because every detail counts, I’m going to be honest and not particularly politically correct. Get over it.

Javier Colon

· Team Adam

· Dark-skinned Hispanic dad

· Wears dorky, blank flexfit hats that are cocked awkwardly to the left

· Completely golden, but not very relevant voice

Vicci Martinez

· Team Cee Lo

· Kind of dykey short girl

· Seems to exhibit relevant fashion sense

· Really cool, raspy rock-and-roll voice

Beverly McClellan

· Team Christina

· Totally dykey 40-something

· Dresses like a Johnny Depp character who used to be a skinhead

· Has kind of an edgy-Tracy Chapman/Janice Joplin thing going on

Dia Frampton

· Team Blake

· Doey eyed, super cute, ambiguously ethnic

· Typical indie chick sensibilies

· Charming, warbling singer/songwriter voice

It’s an incredibly diverse final. Exactly what the producers wanted, I’m sure.

I know what you’re thinking. “Dia won, didn’t she? The attractive girl beat out the three other weird finalists, thus proving your point about American’s lust for…well…lust.” Wrong! She came in second. Javier won.

Here’s the thing though, she sort of felt like a ringer. (And she sort of was. Hey hipster girls, remember Meg & Dia from your emo days? Yeah, same Dia. Go figure, huh?) She always seemed like someone to drum up interest in the show. Her iTunes singles from the show, which included a cover of The Fray’s cover of Kanye West’s “Heartless” (although The Fray’s version was never mentioned), were routinely near the top of the iTunes charts. She was cool and popular and pretty. I’m not saying the competition was rigged. Although, if it was, I would neither be surprised nor care in the slightest. I’m just saying that her general charm, image, and sex appeal, in both Blake Shelton’s wandering hillbilly eyes and the eyes of the voting audience advanced her as far as she did, not her voice.

I’m also not saying that there’s anything wrong with that. It’s the reality of the situation. It’s the reality of the music industry that we, as American consumers, have created. Let’s do a couple brief case studies. First let’s look at Katy Perry. She’s produced hit single after hit single after hit single. She’s released 5 hit singles off of her latest album. Five! That’s some Beatles action right there. And she’s managed to do it without actually making any real contributions to the world aside from providing us with ample opportunities to ogle her ample cleavage. Next let’s look at Adele. She’s currently sitting at number 2 with her song “Rolling in the Deep”. It’s a killer song that carries serious lyrical weight and she has a killer voice. But let’s be honest, she doesn’t exactly look like a superstar, if you know what I mean. Even in the video for that song, she’s sitting in a chair the whole time and the camera never focuses on her, uh, “full figure”. If she looked more like the Katy Perry, or even the kind of dykey Vicci Martinez, she’d be all over the talk shows, and music video stations. She’d have two or three singles instead of just one. And she probably would have been discovered or whatever much, much sooner. And that’s just the reality.

So don’t go and pat yourselves on the back just yet, America. It’s nice that the just-a-bit-too-old-dork-dad Javier Colon won The Voice. And even though his singing voice is not really applicable to anything remotely resembling popular music, it really is very nice. But none of it means a damn thing. It doesn’t mean that we’ve somehow transcended physical appearance. It doesn’t mean that we’ve rejected the idolatry of American Idol. It doesn’t mean that we’ve changed. We are who we are. And we are shallow. Sorry, NBC’s The Voice. We’re just not who you want us to be.

The Town

First off, let me apologize for skipping the month of August. And most of September. Stuff happens. Next, let me say that Ray LaMontagne was a weird choice for the music in the closing credits of The Town. But that's pretty much the only problem I had with the entire film.

A lot of star power can sometimes be tough on a movie. It can overwhelm the audience. It also makes me wary of how good a movie's going to be. Sometimes I look at a movie that has a bunch of people that I know in it and start to think that everyone signed on because they knew so and so was in it too. But the star power in this movie did not disappoint. Ben Affleck, from Good Will Hunting, Armageddon, and formerly of "Bennifer", plays Doug MacRay, a bank robber who, along with his childhood best friend, played by Jeremy Renner, from The Hurt Locker, stages money truck and bank heists in Charlestown, a neighborhood of Boston. Charlestown has a rep for being a breeding ground for bank robbers. The opening credits of the film contain a quote that reads something like, "In Charlestown, robbing banks is a trade. Passed down from fathers to sons." In this case, Affleck's father, played by Chris Cooper, who has literally been in so many great movies that listing them would be futile, even though I'm pretty sure you don't know who he is. You'd know him if you saw him, but you should know him by name. "Chris Cooper", Google him. Cooper is serving consecutive life sentences for a robbery that went wrong and ended with the killing of the truck guards. Even though he's only in one scene in the entire movie, he nails it. Really, I can't say it enough, you need to know who this guy is by name. Affleck and Renner lead a crew with two other insignificant members that works for The Florist, played by Pete Postlethwaite, from The Usual Suspects, and Inception. Much like Cooper's part in this movie, the Florist's is relatively small but still significant and really well acted. Blake Lively, from Gossip Girl, plays Renner's sister and Affleck's one time girlfriend/hookup. And she was really good. I was actually super surprised. I've only ever seen like 2 episodes of Gossip Girl and I was more impressed by her looks and the absurd nature of that show than I was with her acting. But she was really very good. She pulled off the trashy Boston broad with a 2-year-old and drug problem better than I would've imagined. Even her accent was good. Jon Hamm, Don Draper from Mad Men, played the FBI agent trying to catch them. He was good, but sort of unremarkable. Also, Rebecca Hall, from Vicky Christina Barcelona, plays Claire, a woman that Affleck, Renner, et al., kidnap during a heist and subsequently let free, but we'll get more to this story arc in a second.

Sometimes a movie tries to make a point, teach the audience a lesson. Sometimes a movie just tries to entertain. I think this film was just meant to tell a good story. Some might say that telling a good story is the same as entertaining, but I don't think it is. Telling a good story isn't about the audience. It's about the characters. It's not about keeping your attention. Even though it does. Telling a good story is about something almost intangible. It's about something that transcends typical forms of entertainment. It's just about the story.

The Town is just about the story. The struggle that Affleck has with his identity as a criminal, his burgeoning feelings for Rebecca Hall, his waning feelings for Blake Lively, Hamm's mission to arrest them, Chris Cooper's power issues, the Florist's power issues, Renner's power issues, are all just part of the story. One aspect is not more important than any other. And that's what made this movie so great. It seamlessly blended the characters into one single narrative arc.

And it was great to look at too. Affleck did a great job at the helm directing. And writing. And starring. The trifecta. Affleck has made some bad movie choices. His list of bad movies is longer than his list of good ones. But those good ones really shine. The Town will go down as one of his good ones. Probably his best since his breakthrough with Good Will Hunting, which he co-wrote with Matt Damon. But Affleck has fought his alcoholism, and he's been married to Jennifer Garner for 5 years now. He's an adult. And he's about to make a massive comeback. I think we're about to see Affleck be better than he's ever been, with a lot more writing and directing credits. His career is not over.

I highly recommend this film. And it's really for everybody. It's incredibly accessible, and it's filled with all kinds of great Boston things that a homer like me really likes. Including some awesome glamour shots of the Bunker Hill Monument (which, little tidbit, was designed by Solomon Willard, who I am related too) and Fenway Park, the greatest place on earth. And for all out LOST fans out there, the Man in Black is in it. So, quick rundown: star power, good story, Fenway, Man in Black. If that's not enough reason to see a movie, I don't know what is.

Inception

People like to look back on the 1960s. The 60s were a pivotal decade in history, at least in the US. Culturally, politically, economically, creatively. It was a decade where drugs inspired people. Or so we sometimes say. The question often becomes, "Are drugs the cause of creativity in a person, or does creativity in a person cause the desire for drugs?" I guess I don't really know the answer to that. I do know one thing though. There is absolutely no way that Inception was written by a person who does not use drugs.

I know that there's a word out there to describe this film, I just can't quite put my finger on it. It's just beyond my grasp. Unique. Groundbreaking. Creative. I feel like a 4th grader taking a standardized writing test mixed with a movie trailer writer.

I've just never seen anything quite like it. The story involves this concept called shared dreaming. As one person dreams, other's can enter into his subconscious and exist in that same dream. It's a real concept, actually, but I'm pretty sure the same people who believe in telepathy are the same ones who are touting the reality of shared dreaming. So do with that what you will. You know what, I don't think I can really go into a detailed synopsis and do it any justice. The IMDb synopsis starts out really detailed and ends with short sentences and storyline gaps. And that's what I'm afraid mine will do. And I don't want that to happen. Lets run down the characters and go into some themes and see where that leads us.

Leonardo DiCaprio, The Departed, Catch Me If You Can, Titanic, etc, plays an expert at what's called extraction. The process of sharing a dream, and convincing the person who's dream you're in to tell you their secrets, be that personal, financial, or otherwise. Joseph Gordon-Levitt, (500) Days of Summer, Angels in the Outfield, plays DiCaprio's partner in the extraction business. Ellen Page, Juno, plays a young "Architect", a person who creates the fictional, subconscious realities in which shared dreaming takes place. Ken Watanabe, one of the 3 Japanese guys in pretty much every movie you've ever seen that had a Japanese guy in it, plays a powerful businessman named Saito who hires DiCaprio and his team to, instead of extract a thought from someone's subconscious, place a thought in their head. Cillian Murphy, Scarecrow from the Batman movies, plays the man into whose head Saito wants the thought placed.

This film is about reality. And perception. And confidence that you know what is real. We find that DiCaprio is in some ways trapped in a dream world with his wife, played by Marion Cotillard, Nine, Public Enemies. She lost touch with reality, after living 50 years with DiCaprio in a dream. Because for every minute of time in the real world, much more time takes place in the dream. She was convinced that reality was not real. And it wasn't, to her. She was so convinced that she took her own life, hoping that, by dying, she would "wake up" and be back in her own reality. DiCaprio's guilt over his wife's death, drives him to pursue her in the dream world. To recreate her in his own mind and dream that he is there with her. It's almost as if he's trying to convince himself that the dream world is real, he just can't do it.

Reality is a complicated thing for something that should be so straightforward. I mean, what's real is real. Right? Surely one can distinguish fact from fiction. Right? But post-moderns like us don't believe in absolute truth. We're relativists. Existentialists. Fools. The notion that everything is relative, is just that. Foolish. If everything is relative, then why believe in anything? Why believe in God, or heaven, or even your 5 senses or love? That notion should be absurd. But to most, it's not. This film is a masterful treatise on the necessity of reality. The necessity of truth. Some things have to be real. Some things have to be true. Because if they're not, we'll go crazy. Imagine if your entire world was suddenly all a lie. Remember The Truman Show? Remember how after you saw that for the first time you spent a week looking for cameras in your mirror? Think about really believing that everything you've ever know was fabricated. You wouldn't be able to take it. You'd spiral into depression. You'd kill yourself. I guarantee it. That's why people become suicidal when they have existential breakdowns. Pretty much everyone knows someone who's experienced some sort of crisis like that. I do. When people start disbelieving reality, things gets scary. You have to trust your eyes, your ears, your mind. You have to put your faith in what you know to be true. That's the only way to live.

This film is an absolute must see. It's the best movie out right now, and it's the best new release I've seen this year. An instant Oscar front-runner. And don't worry, I haven't nearly given enough away to ruin anything. You're still safe. Take your non-jackass friends (because your jackass friends will either complain about it or pretend they understood any of it) and see it as soon as possible. See it in IMAX too, it'll be worth it.

Waiting

Ok, let's cut right to it. This one's going to be short. This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I turned it off about 45 minutes in, which I never do. I always finish movies, even if I don't like them. As far as I'm concerned, this movie had no redeemable qualities. The vulgarity was over the top. And listen, I'm a 2o-year-old college student. Vulgarity is, in many ways, the norm. But this was just too much.

The ensemble cast is pretty funny individually. Ryan Reynolds, Van Wilder, Just Friends, Wolverine, plays a mid-twenties guy who works at a restaurant. Justin Long, Hi I'm a Mac, plays a mid-twenties guy who works at a restaurant. Anna Faris, Scary Movies, Observe and Report, plays a mid-twenties girl who works at a restaurant. Want me to go on? That's all there is to this. The cast is fully undeveloped, and everyone starts telling nut sack jokes after the first minute.

I love comedies. I always have. And I know this movie's 5 years old, but this movie made me sad for the future of comedy. This movie got rave reviews from my friends. Which doesn't really say much about my friends. There is zero intelligence, zero inspiration, and zero authentic comedy in this movie. I bought this one, unfortunately, for a dollar at Plato's Closet along with Blazing Saddles, the Mel Brooks classic. An interesting pairing, in retrospect. Brooks' films were always derided for being vulgar, racy, on the edge. But in a good way. They're witty. They say something about the society we live in. Whether that something is race, religion, modernization, Brooks was always saying something. This movie says something too. It says, "I think I can get high school and college guys to see this movie because it's really dirty. They won't ask for anything more." Well, I'm asking for something more. Let's go back to more intelligent comedies. Comedies that make a statement. Comedies that make you laugh, not vomit. I don't need to watch a movie to get nutsack jokes. My friends make enough of those already.

The Road

There are only a few things in the world that give movies a run for their money in terms of my personal entertainment. Sports. Music. Books. That's pretty much it. So when a movie comes along that's based on one of my favorite books of all time, I'm in. The Road, of course, being based on a novel of the same name by brilliant and eccentric author Cormac McCarthy. McCarthy is a genius. For those of you who don't know, he also wrote No Country for Old Men which the Coen brother's brought to the screen back in '07 to the tune of 4 Academy Awards, including best picture, best director, best supporting actor, and best adapted screenplay. Those are 4 serious awards. It's not like they won best sound mixing and costume design. Another of McCarthy's novels, Blood Meridian, is rumored to be in preproduction for a 2011 release. It takes an interesting type of novelist to write books that are adaptable to movies. Some guys have made a career out of it, namely John Grisham and Michael Crichton. With those two guys, it's almost like they wrote screenplays and then just decided to turn their scripts into books first. I guess I can't complain though. The two of them brought us The Firm, Jurassic Park, Twister, The Rainmaker, and A Time to Kill (Matthew McConaughey's only good movie happens to be a great one) among about a dozen other's. But those two guys are mega-commercial. And if you add JK Rowling's Harry Potter movies, Stephanie Meyer's Twilight series, and Nicholas Sparks' chick-flicks into the mix, you'd be hard pressed to find a novel to film adaptation that wasn't an incredibly popular book. That's why McCarthy is so interesting. He's sort of a weird guy. His books are dark. Like really dark. He's a Pulitzer Prize winner. Not a pop star. He's a complete recluse, having given only a handful of interviews in over 25 years. But his books are compelling. So very compelling.

The Road takes place in a post-apocalyptic world. And while we're never really told what exactly happened, it's pretty safe to assume there was some sort of nuclear fallout. Everything on the planet has been wiped clean. All animals and vegetation are dead. A blanket of ash covers everything. And most of the very few people who are left alive have resulted to barbarism. Cannibalism even. Gangs of men rove the barren streets murdering, raping, stealing. Trying to survive. There is no color. Anywhere. The world is bleak, dark, and cold. It's truly a worst case scenario for this planet and for mankind. The plot is simple and the characters are few. A father and son head South towards the ocean. They're nameless and referred to in both the credits and the original novel only as the Man and the Boy. That's the first thing that strikes you. There's not a single character in the entire movie who has a name. It's as if names aren't important. Any past identity has been deemed irrelevant.

The Man, played by Viggo Mortensen of Lord of the Rings fame, is grizzled, protective, weary, suspicious. Whereas the Boy, played by newcomer Kodi Smit-McPhee, is somber, afraid, but yet still curious and hopeful. It's this dynamic that provides much of the driving force of the movie. The Man has a responsibility to protect his son. But it's more than that. It's greater than a responsibility. It's greater than an obligation. It's more of a calling. A commission. A task of paramount importance. After the Man kills a gang member, played by a guy who's name you won't know but who's face I guarantee you'll recognize, who tries to attack the Boy, the Boy asks the Man if they're the good guys. If they will always be the good guys. And while the Man's answers in the affirmative seem to satisfy the Boy somewhat, he still seems uneasy. (Back to that "guy who's name you won't know but who's face I guarantee you'll recognize" bit. I love that. I love recognizing people in movies and even being able to name three or four things that they've been in but still have no idea what their name is. I always wonder if that person considers them self famous. I mean, I know who they are, I just don't know their name. Do you have to know a person's name for them to be famous? There are all kinds of people who I'd recognize and even want to take a picture with or something whose names I don't know. I'd just call them by their character. Is that a bad idea? I don't really care. If I see Rickety Cricket or Mr. Eko running around somewhere, I'm stopping them and taking a picture.)

One particularly interesting aspect of the movie is the use of timeline shift. The Man had a wife and the Boy had a mother. And several times, the timeline shifts back to an earlier point of post-apocalypse where the Man, the Woman, and the Boy were still living together at their home. The Woman, played by Charlize Theron of Moster, The Legend of Bagger Vance, and The Cider House Rules, thinks that the three of them should just commit suicide. end their lives and the constant struggle of life. The Man will have no part of it. Death is not the answer. To the Woman, however, it is the only option. In one of the most stirring scenes of the movie, she removes her coats and everything else shielding her from the bitter cold that seems to have enveloped the earth, and walks out into the utter blackness. Leaving her family behind and effectively killing herself.

Things happen in this movie that I honestly don't want to write about. Just some awful, awful things. Some portions of the film are so horrible that the viewer can do nothing but gaze with a somber and depressed disposition. But for every devastatingly awful moment, for every minute spent simply staring at the screen in silence, there is hope. In spite of all of the pain, the suffering, the struggle, the atrocity, this movie, or film as it should justly be called, the story still remains hopeful. And it's because of the Boy. The Boy, having really known no other life, judges every thing and every day against a baseline that to anyone who had lived before the fallout would be horrible. But because horror is normal, there can still be good. And that good really stands out. And even though the Man is jaded, he still teaches his son to find and seek out good. He tells him that he is "carrying the fire" inside of him. He treats him to a can of Coca-Cola. But he never lies to him. He admits his struggles and his downfalls. He is a really good parent. And because of that, the Boy still exhibits some of the wide-eyed wonderment one would expect out of a 10-year-old kid. The Boy even seeks to help other's whom he perceives as another one of the "good guys", including an ancient looking man, played perfectly by the great Robert Duval, an actor who's career achievements and seminal roles are so numerous that you should know exactly who I'm talking about without me giving you the resume cheat sheet like I usually do.

And that's the prevailing message. Amongst disaster, and tragedy, and atrocity, and some of the most inhumane behavior possible, in a world that does not resemble the world we live in today a single bit, good can exist. Good does exist. Did you catch that? Nothing is to evil. No situation is too bleak. No man is too desperate to deny the fact that good exists. I just think that's so amazing. It's so encouraging. The world is a crazy place man. I mean really crazy. We have unstable governments with nuclear weapons, civil war engulfing dozens of countries, more slaves on the planet now than at any other time in world history, and any number of other global and local calamities. A film like this can scare you. What if something like this isn't that far off'? I suppose I can't say for sure what I'd do. I'd like to think I would do the right thing. I'd like to think I'd be one of the "good guys". Good is out there. The word "hope" is used in the book of Job, a book that tells a story of despair, more than a dozen times. Hope is always out there, as long as you want to find it.

I highly recommend this film. I highly recommend this book. And I don't think you need to do one in particular before the other. Both are extremely eye opening and enthralling and devastating and uplifting in different ways. There are quite a few differences between the two, but I'm not a purist. That stuff never bothers me. This movie is really a must see. Just make sure you put yourself if the right state of mind first.

Get Him To The Greek

I learned something tonight. I'm not really into comedies that try and "say something". You know what I mean? The last thing I want is to go to a movie where I intend to laugh and get preached at. Like pretty much every movie Adam Sandler did after The Waterboy. I'm not saying that Get Him To The Greek was like that though. Because it wasn't really. Just thought I'd throw that little tidbit out there.

The trailer for this movie is what really roped me in. Jonah Hill, looking fatter than ever, and Russell Brand, looking more deprived than ever, running around and drinking absinthe. That was pretty much enough for me. And if you don't know about absinthe, check out the story told by L. Gabrielle Penebaz on The Moth Podcast. But anyways, Hill, Superbad, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, plays some sort of low-level record company executive for Pinnacle Records, a fictional record company owned by Sean "Diddy, Puff Daddy, P Diddy, Puffy, Indecisive on What Nickname is Appropriate" Combs. He comes up with the idea to have Aldous Snow, a crazy, drug-addict rock star play a 10th anniversary concert at the Greek Theatre in Los Angeles. Sean "Diddy, Puff Daddy, P Diddy, Puffy, Indecisive on What Nickname is Appropriate" Combs, then decides that it will be Hill who is to bring him from London to LA, via Manhattan for an appearance on the Today Show. Hijinks ensue. But the problem is I now judge all drunken hijinks on a scale from any of the really bad National Lampoon's movies made in the 90s to The Hangover. And just nothing will match up with The Hangover. At least in my mind. And it didn't help that both Brand and Hill can get a little annoying after awhile. They both serve better as ancillary characters in a bigger narrative, instead of as leads.

The plot was also flawed. Inasmuch as there wasn't much of one to speak of. The basic premise was great. Mild mannered guy has to get an insane rock star halfway across the world in 3 days. They just couldn't come up with any really hilarious things for them to do slash have happen to them along the way. Which troubles me. I mean, how hard is that really? I wouldn't have even cared if they stole plot points from any number of comedies about traveling from Point A to Point B.

There were some bright points though. Sean "Diddy, Puff Daddy, P Diddy, Puffy, Indecisive on What Nickname is Appropriate" Combs was actually really funny. And Russell Brand's ex-girlfriend, played by Rose Byrne whom I know primarily from her role in the FX show Damages, is funny, if not a little disconcerting. Damages has been one of my favorite shows for the past couple years, and I highly recommend it. And furthermore, everything that FX does is just really good. The Sheild, Rescue Me, 30 Days, The Riches, Damages, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Archer, The League. All are great programs for completely different reasons. FX gives HBO a run for it's money in terms of original programming, and it's a standard cable channel that doesn't cost extra.

You know, I'd see this one again. Not in the theater because movie tickets are just too damn expensive. But I'll probably end up watching it in the fall with some guys who didn't see it in theaters. I was disappointed by the complete lack of plot, but I did laugh a lot. And that's what comedy is all about Charlie Brown.

Sideways

So I picked up this movie at like TJ Maxx from the bargain movie bin for like $3.99 awhile ago and never watched it. I do that sometimes. I just buy really cheap movies that I'm interested in seeing and that I think will make my overall collection look more impressive. And I knew this one had gotten a fair share of Oscar noms, a respectable 4 during a year that had quite a few good movies come out including Million Dollar Baby, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, The Aviator, Hotel Rwanda just to name a few. And I finally sat down to watch this one tonight. With a glass of wine of course.

The movie is about two 40-something old friends played by Paul Giamatti, one of my favorite actors, and Thomas Haden Church, a guy who I know mostly from George of the Jungle with Brendan Fraser. Giamatti plays a middle school English teacher and aspiring novelist who's divorce two years ago has left him depressed, empty, and drunk. Church plays an actor who's bygone soap opera fame has left him fairly wealthy but kept him living in the past. He's about to get married, so the two of them set off for northern California for a week of wine tasting. Giamatti is a moderate wine expert. Slightly snobby in his tastes, as evidenced by, for whatever reason, his hatred for Merlot. Church is certainly uncultured by Giamatti's standards, but eager to learn and have one last good time before he gets married. Right off the bat, it's clear to see that the two of them have different intentions coming into the weekend. Giamatti wants to just do the one final thing that he enjoys in life, drink wine. And Church wants to have a fling before his wedding.

Enter women. Two women to be exact. Maya, played by Virginia Madsen, who hasn't been in anything that I remember seeing her in, and Stephanie, played by Sandra Oh from Grey's Anatomy. Church and Oh hit it off and Church's intended fling ensues. Giamatti, still reeling from his divorce, is clearly interested in Maya, who seems to return some interest as well. But his insecurities and regrets from the way he dealt with his former wife seem to haunt him and keep him from moving on. Additionally, Church's complete lack of care for his future wife has no regrets about cheating on his fiancée. This bothers Giamatti who, having cheated on his wife, does not want Church to make the same mistakes as he does. Giamatti finally gains the courage to pursue Maya and they have sex and some sort of undeveloped good times before Giamatti lets it spill that Church is getting married. This ruins both of their Napa Valley trysts and send them both back to southern California hurting.

That's the basic plot. But this movie really left me wanting more. I didn't particularly like any of the characters. I think that was the biggest problem. It just seemed like nothing really clicked for me. They story was fairly un-compelling. And while it wasn't totally predictable, there was just very little too it. It was sort of funny. It was sort of romantic. It was sort of interesting. But just sort of. And sort of doesn't really cut it. It was filmed ok. About 40% of it was great from a cinematography standpoint, but the rest of it was just so so. It's almost like the parts that were really great to look at were thrown in there to give a big studio movie some credit. Overall it was a pretty unimpressive movie. I probably wouldn't watch it again. I did learn a little bit about wine tasting towards the beginning. Which was cool. And the movie poster is really cool looking. I certainly wouldn't buy it again. Even at the stellar price of $3.99.