Well, it was suggested to me that I should write a review of all of the films that I see and I figured that wasnt such a bad idea. I may not be the best critic, and I usually enjoy most of what I see because I know enough about films before hand, I always have a good idea as to whether I will like them or not, but its always good to reflect, and odds are I will go into things that are not strictly related to the film itself. So here goes, Toy Story 3, my thoughts!
Pixar is the one film company that is guaranteed at least a $50 million opening. WB, Sony, Miramax, Marvel; They can all open films to $60 mil and they can all open films to $6 mil, but Pixar is so known for their quality that no matter what film they offer, it will open big, get great reviews and overall be a success.
This is a blessing, but it's also a curse. Is it fair that everytime I see a Pixar film I expect near perfection?
You know what, it is fair. Nothing wrong with having large expectations, especially when every single time out they meet or exceed my expectations, and while I wouldn't call Toy Story 3 a masterpiece, it is pretty darn close.
It's been a while since Woody, Buzz and the gang were last seen, and like us, a lot has changed. Their owner Andy is now entering college and the toys are worried that they will just be distant memories. This is only the first 15 minutes of the film, but it the theme of moving on is present throughout the entire film, this is all you should know going in.
For the next almost 2 hours, we go on another adventure with the characters we love and it is fantastic. While the first half was good, the 2nd half, where the film basically becomes Escape From Alcatraz with toys, it truly becomes amazing.
Like all Pixar films, many themes are tackled for the adults, while there is plenty of humor for the kiddies to be 100% entertained as well. The film itself can be seen as a metaphor for living a christian life, and while I may not agree with that, you shouldn't dislike something just because it is not in agreement with you. This film should be applauded for having such serious issues wrapped around a G rated movie.
I could be wrong, and some of these may be condisdered spoilers, but Lotso-Huggin Bear losing faith in his owner is clearly symbolic for losing faith in God. Also, Woody wanting to basically live for Andy, and please him in any way which is necessary, represents us, as God's children, living to please him. Finally, there are plenty of ways toys can "die". Whether they break, get thrown away or any other way, but when the toys were close to perishing, the scene was clearly a representation of Hell.
The voice cast is perfect as always, and new additions Ned Beatty, Michael Keaton as Ken, Jeff Garlin, Bonnie Hunt and Whoopie Goldberg all perform admirably as well.
Like all Pixar films as of late, this one really gets the tears flowing as well, which is astounding considering these characters are toys! Now I wont lie and say that I cried, but at one point when the characters simply have nothing to say, and are ready to accept their fate, and the only thing that they can do is be silent, hold hands, and be together, I would be lying if I said I didnt get a little choked up. NO TEARS! But they were on their way.
Finally, I want to talk about the villain in Toy Story 3, Lotso Huggin Bear (who is voiced by Ned Beatty AND smells like strawberries!). Now, you all know how much I love Pixar. They tell great stories, say a little something extra, theyre funny and entertaining for all ages, but their villains are easily the greatest in film today.
Pop in any old DVD you have and really take a look at the villain. Do they actually have motives for doing what they are doing? Probably not (money doesnt count. a 4 year old could write a script where a bad guy does something for money). Is what theyre doing terrible? Probably. And that, in my opinion, is where things go wrong. Don't get me wrong, Lotso is doing something terrible, but it is very easy to understand where he is coming from. The line between hero and villain should be blurred in my opinion. A straight up villain isnt fun. They have no real motives other than they are supposed to be bad; thats boring. Lotso has reasons for doing what he is doing. He has been hurt in the past, and he can't stand for that to happen again, and although he has a odd way of showing it, he doesnt really want it to happen to anyone else either. Every step of the way you want to rip Lotso's stiching's out, but at the same time, if you were him, you would probably be doing the same exact thing. Thats what makes a great villain, and if you go back and look at Pixar's films, the majority of them are the same way. (just look at last year's Pixar film, Up. Charles Muntz just wanted what was rightfully his. yea, he wasnt the nicest guy doing the nicest things, but if you were in his situation, wouldnt you do the same? wouldnt you be upset that you were considered a fraud, even though you werent?). Theres real depth to every character in these films, and that is why Pixar is the best company making movies today.
Did you read that last paragraph? I just wrote an entire paragraph about a purple (or pink, im not good with colors), stuffed bear that smells like strawberries whose name is Lotso, but never for a second did i not consider him anything but real, and that is the magic of this film. These are computer generated toys, that are voiced by A-list actors, but they never seem anything but 100% real and sincere. They all have motives, they all have depth and they all truly live a life of their own.
With that said, the film isnt perfect. The opening scene is great, but the next 20-30 min arent the best, but once the escape is on, the film cant get any better. It is also a little unsettling seeing Pixar join the sequel crowd, with this and Cars 2 next year, but it doesnt make much of a difference when the films are so good. Most sequels are cash grabs that mean nothing, but this film truly has a purpose for existing as it wraps up this trilogy perfectly, and it honestly wouldn't upset me if another trilogy happened in 5 years. The 3-D is good, but not 100% necessary, but thats really about it. Pixar has a reputation and they have earned it. This film is another one to be proud of and another film that I am happy i saw. In one of the worst movie summers in recent memory, the past 4 I have seen have all been very strong, and there may be some repeat viewings in my future.
Toy Story 3 is funny, has depth, themes to convey and truly touches your heart in more ways than one. It is the rare third film in a series that has justification behind its existance and truly closes out a story in the best way possible. It may not be the best Pixar film ever (we all know that goes to Wall*E, come on now), and it may not even be the best Toy Story, but come on, Pixar can't be perfect everytime, lets get our expectations in check!
Also, one last quick note, the short before hand, (I forget what its called, either Day and Night, or Night and Day. thanks for confusing me Tom Cruise!), is amazing. Simply amazing. Thats one area where Pixar keeps upping itself everytime. The blending of 2D and 3D is just astonishing.
Keep up the good work Pixar. (A-)
Monday, June 21, 2010
Saturday, June 19, 2010
3 movie day; 3 movie reviews
Hey guys. So yesterday I went to 3 movies, so here are some quick thoughts on all of them!
First off, I saw The Killer Inside Me, starring Casey Affleck, Jessica Alba, Kate Hudson and Ned Beatty. If you guys have heard of this film, it is probably due to the "graphic violence". People have spoken out against this film, and a woman at the Sundance film festival even yelled at the director during his Q&A, telling him he should be ashamed of himself.
Well, that lady should be ashamed of herself. First off, this isn't technically a violent film. There are 2 scenes that involve violence, combining about 7 minutes of screen time; that's it. The last 45 minutes of Avatar was people killing each other. What about The A-Team? That is basically people killing each other for 2 hours; and that's the problem with our society.
If no blood is shown, or it isn't realistic, such as in District 9, we cheer whenever a person dies. Good guys win, bad guys dead, everybody cheer! But violence is not a good thing. Even turn on the TV; everywhere you look theres showed with people being shot or murdered, and we don't even think about it, but once something is shown REALISTICALLY, people have a hissy fit. Violence should bother you. You shouldn't be able to watch what happens in this film comfortably. If the happenings of the A-team happened in front of you, you would not be cheering.
I am in no way saying that films like The A-team or Avatar or District-9 are bad (even though 2 of them are), all I am saying is that just because 97% of films don't portray violence realistically, don't be disgusted by one of the few films that actually do.
People will find any reason to complain, and the film still was made, so who really cares? Well, I do, because people are annoying. But I will have to deal with it.
The film itself was very good, the violence was brutal (as it should be), Casey Affleck, Ned Beatty and Simon Baker all gave great performances, and it also contained probably my favorite opening credit sequence of the year. With that said though, it kind of fell apart in the end. The use of CGI was necessary, because I don't know how they could have sensibly put that scene together, but since they had no money, the CGI is bad (and that's being nice). The ending didn't really sit well with me and seemed a bit far fetched in more than one area, and when you combine that with the lackluster CGI, I was kind of taken out of the film at the most crucial time. But overall the film was good and definitely worth a look. Ive said this many times before regarding different things, but at the end of the day, this film will cause conversation, whether you think the violence is repulsive, or if you think those people who think its repulsive are idiots, and anything that can create a conversation cant be all bad. (B)
The second film I saw this weekend was Cyrus, starring John C. Reilly, Jonah Hill and Marisa Tomei. Directed by the Duplass Brothers of "Puffy Chair" and "Baghead" fame, and two of the pioneers of the Mumblecore movement, comes a film that on the surface may seem like the most cliche film there can be, but what happens is anything but cliche. John C. Reilly plays, get this.... John! A depressed 40-something year old who at a party, meets Molly (Marisa Tomei) who seems to be the woman of his dreams and more. Unfortunately, Molly has a son, Cyrus (Jonah Hill), and their relationship is definitely close to say the least.
While this sounds like a few other movies, the way it is executed is unlike anything else. It is a hysterical film, but there are no punch lines, there are no set pieces, there are no huge build-ups to get to one huge joke. All the humor comes from the awkwardness that these characters face, as well as the genuine character developments that come along the way. While most films would add zany hi jinx and funny noises, the Duplass Brothers decided that they key to this film is developing real characters; real people with real emotions who are in a situation that is difficult for all of them for different reasons. Jonah Hill, who has always been a supporting player in the Apatowverse (other than Superbad), gives his best performance to date. He plays a weird, somewhat sociopathic, yet very sad character and it is truly a star making turn for him. Reilly and Tomei are fantastic and Catherine Keener is always a pleasure as Reilly's ex-wife, but Jonah Hill is a work of art here, developing a character unlike we have ever seen from him before.
There is one specific aspect of the ending that I really enjoy, but I don't want to ruin it for anybody, so we can discuss that after you see the film. But go see it now! It is very funny, it is very awkward, it is somewhat sweet and it is surprisingly very sad. (A-)
The final film I saw yesterday was the documentary Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work. I love documentaries, at the end of the day, they may be my favorite genre of film, and it is because of documentaries like this.
Bowling for Columbine is a great film, but the biggest problem with Michael Moore is that he always has an agenda, and because of that, his films don't seem sincere. Watching his movies, you feel that maybe things are being edited a little unfairly and maybe some scenes that didn't help his argument were left on the cutting room floor.
This film is the complete opposite. It is truly an honest look at this woman that really is a, for lack of a better word, piece of work. Through her obsession with fame and staying relevant, we see someone who after 75 years of success, is still just as insecure as the day she started out. While it goes into her past a little here and there, this film is mostly about one year in her life (the year she did celebrity apprentice, which turned out to be a great year to document).
If there was one word that could describe this film, it would be honest. That truly what it is. An honest look at it's subject matter, and when watching a documentary, what more could you really ask for? Rivers isn't always portrayed in the best way and finding out afterwards that she had no say in the editing or the final cut does not come as a surprise. Rivers may not be everybody cup of tea, but this film is. Whether she is talking about her daughter, her husband's suicide, her feud with Johnny Carson, her career, her friends or arguing with a heckler (someone who DEFINITELY hates The Killer Inside Me), Rivers is always herself, and if you don't like it, I'm sure she has some choice words she could send your way.
Oh, by the way, the film is also hysterical. (A-)
So that's it. Those are the movies I saw today. It's been a while since I had a multiple movie day, but I was able to catch 3 yesterday, they were all indies and they were all solid films. Hopefully you guys get to check out one or all of them and let me know what you think!
First off, I saw The Killer Inside Me, starring Casey Affleck, Jessica Alba, Kate Hudson and Ned Beatty. If you guys have heard of this film, it is probably due to the "graphic violence". People have spoken out against this film, and a woman at the Sundance film festival even yelled at the director during his Q&A, telling him he should be ashamed of himself.
Well, that lady should be ashamed of herself. First off, this isn't technically a violent film. There are 2 scenes that involve violence, combining about 7 minutes of screen time; that's it. The last 45 minutes of Avatar was people killing each other. What about The A-Team? That is basically people killing each other for 2 hours; and that's the problem with our society.
If no blood is shown, or it isn't realistic, such as in District 9, we cheer whenever a person dies. Good guys win, bad guys dead, everybody cheer! But violence is not a good thing. Even turn on the TV; everywhere you look theres showed with people being shot or murdered, and we don't even think about it, but once something is shown REALISTICALLY, people have a hissy fit. Violence should bother you. You shouldn't be able to watch what happens in this film comfortably. If the happenings of the A-team happened in front of you, you would not be cheering.
I am in no way saying that films like The A-team or Avatar or District-9 are bad (even though 2 of them are), all I am saying is that just because 97% of films don't portray violence realistically, don't be disgusted by one of the few films that actually do.
People will find any reason to complain, and the film still was made, so who really cares? Well, I do, because people are annoying. But I will have to deal with it.
The film itself was very good, the violence was brutal (as it should be), Casey Affleck, Ned Beatty and Simon Baker all gave great performances, and it also contained probably my favorite opening credit sequence of the year. With that said though, it kind of fell apart in the end. The use of CGI was necessary, because I don't know how they could have sensibly put that scene together, but since they had no money, the CGI is bad (and that's being nice). The ending didn't really sit well with me and seemed a bit far fetched in more than one area, and when you combine that with the lackluster CGI, I was kind of taken out of the film at the most crucial time. But overall the film was good and definitely worth a look. Ive said this many times before regarding different things, but at the end of the day, this film will cause conversation, whether you think the violence is repulsive, or if you think those people who think its repulsive are idiots, and anything that can create a conversation cant be all bad. (B)
The second film I saw this weekend was Cyrus, starring John C. Reilly, Jonah Hill and Marisa Tomei. Directed by the Duplass Brothers of "Puffy Chair" and "Baghead" fame, and two of the pioneers of the Mumblecore movement, comes a film that on the surface may seem like the most cliche film there can be, but what happens is anything but cliche. John C. Reilly plays, get this.... John! A depressed 40-something year old who at a party, meets Molly (Marisa Tomei) who seems to be the woman of his dreams and more. Unfortunately, Molly has a son, Cyrus (Jonah Hill), and their relationship is definitely close to say the least.
While this sounds like a few other movies, the way it is executed is unlike anything else. It is a hysterical film, but there are no punch lines, there are no set pieces, there are no huge build-ups to get to one huge joke. All the humor comes from the awkwardness that these characters face, as well as the genuine character developments that come along the way. While most films would add zany hi jinx and funny noises, the Duplass Brothers decided that they key to this film is developing real characters; real people with real emotions who are in a situation that is difficult for all of them for different reasons. Jonah Hill, who has always been a supporting player in the Apatowverse (other than Superbad), gives his best performance to date. He plays a weird, somewhat sociopathic, yet very sad character and it is truly a star making turn for him. Reilly and Tomei are fantastic and Catherine Keener is always a pleasure as Reilly's ex-wife, but Jonah Hill is a work of art here, developing a character unlike we have ever seen from him before.
There is one specific aspect of the ending that I really enjoy, but I don't want to ruin it for anybody, so we can discuss that after you see the film. But go see it now! It is very funny, it is very awkward, it is somewhat sweet and it is surprisingly very sad. (A-)
The final film I saw yesterday was the documentary Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work. I love documentaries, at the end of the day, they may be my favorite genre of film, and it is because of documentaries like this.
Bowling for Columbine is a great film, but the biggest problem with Michael Moore is that he always has an agenda, and because of that, his films don't seem sincere. Watching his movies, you feel that maybe things are being edited a little unfairly and maybe some scenes that didn't help his argument were left on the cutting room floor.
This film is the complete opposite. It is truly an honest look at this woman that really is a, for lack of a better word, piece of work. Through her obsession with fame and staying relevant, we see someone who after 75 years of success, is still just as insecure as the day she started out. While it goes into her past a little here and there, this film is mostly about one year in her life (the year she did celebrity apprentice, which turned out to be a great year to document).
If there was one word that could describe this film, it would be honest. That truly what it is. An honest look at it's subject matter, and when watching a documentary, what more could you really ask for? Rivers isn't always portrayed in the best way and finding out afterwards that she had no say in the editing or the final cut does not come as a surprise. Rivers may not be everybody cup of tea, but this film is. Whether she is talking about her daughter, her husband's suicide, her feud with Johnny Carson, her career, her friends or arguing with a heckler (someone who DEFINITELY hates The Killer Inside Me), Rivers is always herself, and if you don't like it, I'm sure she has some choice words she could send your way.
Oh, by the way, the film is also hysterical. (A-)
So that's it. Those are the movies I saw today. It's been a while since I had a multiple movie day, but I was able to catch 3 yesterday, they were all indies and they were all solid films. Hopefully you guys get to check out one or all of them and let me know what you think!
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Breaking Dawn to be broken into 2 films
Okay, maybe I am biased because I hate Twilight. Honestly, I have not experienced it much, but what I have has been miserable.
I swear the following is a true story. During the MTV Movie Awards (which was pretty much just a love letter to Twilight anyway), they had a ULTRA SPECIAL SUPER SNEAK PEAK!!! of the upcoming The Twilight Saga: Eclipse (are your fans that dumb that you need to remind them in the title what film series they are watching?). Anyway, I am rambling as always. Sorry. SO the clip began and it was just terrible; ungodly horrible. Then it came to me, the clip wasn't terrible, I was just an idiot. This was the MTV Movie Awards! Clearly it was a joke, spoof video that they always have a few of. Then I enjoyed it; knowing that these actors could make fun of themselves and the series was great in my opinion, plus, now some intentional laughs were coming my way!
But then, the joke never came! It wasn't a joke at all. The horror that my eyes were enduring was real; it was actual footage from the film. Im not saying someone who is completely unaware of what is going on in the series, who has no concern for it whatsoever should enjoy the clips, but there is no way in the world that a serious film franchise, which was grossed over $500,000,000 domestically, should ever accidentally be thought of as a spoof. It just shouldn't happen. But it did, and that only re-affirms my lack of faith in this pathetic franchise.
But now, there is the news that the 4 (and now NOT final film), will actually be split into two films. Don't these people have enough money? Come on. Now it has become a joke. When the first film was made, all of the actors signed 4 picture deals, but now that it has become the biggest thing since peanut butter met jelly, you have to continue to milk the cow for all its worth?
You know what, that's fine with me too. Hollywood is a business, just like everything else, and this will make the producers much more money. I understand that. What bothers me is that the producers say the book is "too complex" for just one film.
Give me a break. Make a terrible film. Fine. Make a terrible franchise. Fine. But do not insult my intelligence. Amazon says the book is about 760 pages long. That inst short, but I highly doubt that can be trimmed into one film.
I am not against films being broken into two; Kill Bill did it beautifully, but they were also honest about it. Quentin Tarantino said he wanted it to be one film, but Harvey Weinstein said people wouldn't go see a four hour movie. Done. Honesty. Simple.
I know I'm not the demographic for these films, so they don't care what I think, but that won't stop me from thinking it. You're not going to admit you want people to pay twice to see the same movie, so just say nothing. People are going to know the truth, but also see the movie no matter what, so don't make yourselves look bad in the process.
But, no matter what, these films will be released in 2, I will be mad, both will make $300 million, Splice wont reach $15 mil, and an angel will lose its wings.
Get your act together America!
I swear the following is a true story. During the MTV Movie Awards (which was pretty much just a love letter to Twilight anyway), they had a ULTRA SPECIAL SUPER SNEAK PEAK!!! of the upcoming The Twilight Saga: Eclipse (are your fans that dumb that you need to remind them in the title what film series they are watching?). Anyway, I am rambling as always. Sorry. SO the clip began and it was just terrible; ungodly horrible. Then it came to me, the clip wasn't terrible, I was just an idiot. This was the MTV Movie Awards! Clearly it was a joke, spoof video that they always have a few of. Then I enjoyed it; knowing that these actors could make fun of themselves and the series was great in my opinion, plus, now some intentional laughs were coming my way!
But then, the joke never came! It wasn't a joke at all. The horror that my eyes were enduring was real; it was actual footage from the film. Im not saying someone who is completely unaware of what is going on in the series, who has no concern for it whatsoever should enjoy the clips, but there is no way in the world that a serious film franchise, which was grossed over $500,000,000 domestically, should ever accidentally be thought of as a spoof. It just shouldn't happen. But it did, and that only re-affirms my lack of faith in this pathetic franchise.
But now, there is the news that the 4 (and now NOT final film), will actually be split into two films. Don't these people have enough money? Come on. Now it has become a joke. When the first film was made, all of the actors signed 4 picture deals, but now that it has become the biggest thing since peanut butter met jelly, you have to continue to milk the cow for all its worth?
You know what, that's fine with me too. Hollywood is a business, just like everything else, and this will make the producers much more money. I understand that. What bothers me is that the producers say the book is "too complex" for just one film.
Give me a break. Make a terrible film. Fine. Make a terrible franchise. Fine. But do not insult my intelligence. Amazon says the book is about 760 pages long. That inst short, but I highly doubt that can be trimmed into one film.
I am not against films being broken into two; Kill Bill did it beautifully, but they were also honest about it. Quentin Tarantino said he wanted it to be one film, but Harvey Weinstein said people wouldn't go see a four hour movie. Done. Honesty. Simple.
I know I'm not the demographic for these films, so they don't care what I think, but that won't stop me from thinking it. You're not going to admit you want people to pay twice to see the same movie, so just say nothing. People are going to know the truth, but also see the movie no matter what, so don't make yourselves look bad in the process.
But, no matter what, these films will be released in 2, I will be mad, both will make $300 million, Splice wont reach $15 mil, and an angel will lose its wings.
Get your act together America!
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Saving the world of Cinema, one ticket at a time
Ladies and gentleman, I come to you today begging you to help me out. Please, do me this one favor and I will be forever grateful to you. This weekend, go see Splice. It's that simple. If you go to a matinee, it may cost you as little as $6 and 2 hours of your time.
Look at the films that have been (or will be) released this summer; I love the franchise, but Iron Man 2, Shrek 4, The A-Team????, The Karate Kid, Marmaduke, Sex and the City 2, the spin-off Get Him to the Greek, Prince of Persia which is based on a video game, Clash of the Titans which is a remake, Robin Hood, Jonah Hex which was a DC comic, Alice in Wonderland, Twilight, Nightmare on Elm Street, films like Killers, which wasn't even screened for critics, and a large amount of other junk that is already based on something else; even Toy Story 3!
I am in no way saying these movies are bad (even though about 90% are), but what ever happened to originality? What ever happened to actually going into a movie theatre and thinking? The past few years, the box office has been booming, and the majority of the films making the big bucks were pieces of junk that the studios put together in 2 minutes. Now the studios know that they don't even need to spend that much time on a film; actually, its better if they don't, because than the film will cost less and their profits will be even larger! We told Hollywood we didn't care about quality or originality, and now we have a chance to tell them differently and re-direct the thoughts of the Hollywood fat-cats.
I am not saying you re going to love Splice (even though I did; it probably currently sits at my #1 film of the year, even though the ending disappointed me so much), but if you care about originality, you must go see it. Splice deals with numerous moral questions that actually make the audience think (imagine that!), some deep Freudian theories that will probably turn many audiences off, a film that says monsters may not be that far off from being here, and they wont come from outer space, or underwater, theyre going to come from us; and is also an overall insane film that is just crazy enough to make you realize not everybody thinks the same.
I know I am rambling, and this is my first post on films, so it is not going to be my best, but it is something I care about. Your huge summer blockbusters will always be there, those films are always going to make a lot of money and nothing will stop them from getting made.
On the other hand though, original films like Splice are not released very often because nobody goes to see them and it's not worth it for the studio to make them, so we need to show Hollywood that there is room for both original, thought provoking films as well as the mindless entertainment that is the norm. Considering it is Sunday, and Splice is on track to make less than $8 mil this weekend, my hopes have already been squashed; but it is not too late. It wont cost you much in terms of money, or time. You may think the film is disgusting and insane and terrible, but at least you would have seen something that is different and whether you like it or not, you will surely be talking about it, and if something creates a conversation, it cant be all bad in my opinion.
If you want any originality, or thinking in your Hollywood films, send a message and go see Splice. If you re comfortable with the way things are, Marmaduke will always be there for you...
Look at the films that have been (or will be) released this summer; I love the franchise, but Iron Man 2, Shrek 4, The A-Team????, The Karate Kid, Marmaduke, Sex and the City 2, the spin-off Get Him to the Greek, Prince of Persia which is based on a video game, Clash of the Titans which is a remake, Robin Hood, Jonah Hex which was a DC comic, Alice in Wonderland, Twilight, Nightmare on Elm Street, films like Killers, which wasn't even screened for critics, and a large amount of other junk that is already based on something else; even Toy Story 3!
I am in no way saying these movies are bad (even though about 90% are), but what ever happened to originality? What ever happened to actually going into a movie theatre and thinking? The past few years, the box office has been booming, and the majority of the films making the big bucks were pieces of junk that the studios put together in 2 minutes. Now the studios know that they don't even need to spend that much time on a film; actually, its better if they don't, because than the film will cost less and their profits will be even larger! We told Hollywood we didn't care about quality or originality, and now we have a chance to tell them differently and re-direct the thoughts of the Hollywood fat-cats.
I am not saying you re going to love Splice (even though I did; it probably currently sits at my #1 film of the year, even though the ending disappointed me so much), but if you care about originality, you must go see it. Splice deals with numerous moral questions that actually make the audience think (imagine that!), some deep Freudian theories that will probably turn many audiences off, a film that says monsters may not be that far off from being here, and they wont come from outer space, or underwater, theyre going to come from us; and is also an overall insane film that is just crazy enough to make you realize not everybody thinks the same.
I know I am rambling, and this is my first post on films, so it is not going to be my best, but it is something I care about. Your huge summer blockbusters will always be there, those films are always going to make a lot of money and nothing will stop them from getting made.
On the other hand though, original films like Splice are not released very often because nobody goes to see them and it's not worth it for the studio to make them, so we need to show Hollywood that there is room for both original, thought provoking films as well as the mindless entertainment that is the norm. Considering it is Sunday, and Splice is on track to make less than $8 mil this weekend, my hopes have already been squashed; but it is not too late. It wont cost you much in terms of money, or time. You may think the film is disgusting and insane and terrible, but at least you would have seen something that is different and whether you like it or not, you will surely be talking about it, and if something creates a conversation, it cant be all bad in my opinion.
If you want any originality, or thinking in your Hollywood films, send a message and go see Splice. If you re comfortable with the way things are, Marmaduke will always be there for you...
Saturday, June 5, 2010
New Site
Hey everybody, just a quick update before I run off to compete in the 2nd annual WCWP Radio Station Whiffleball Tournament.
I havent written much at all over the past few months, but hopefully things will change. I have been very busy with school and that has completely taken over my life. Luckily, im back with a vengeance, and a little bit of a change.
Besides baseball, I am also very passionate about film, and I would like to write some blogs on the film world as well. Whether it be reviews, recent casting, or a strong box office performance from a terrible film; I want to write about these incidents, as well as baseball. The best of both worlds!
I feel like if I have more than one reason to come back to write here, I will come more often, and will only improve my skills as a writer (even though I have zero).
So yeah, thats about it for now. Hopefully you guys like film, because I know that you already enjoy baseball. Im leaving for now, but expect my first new post sometime tomorrow, a review of the Sci-Fi film Splice, starring Adrian Brody and Sarah Polley.
Until next time, wish me luck in the tournament!
I havent written much at all over the past few months, but hopefully things will change. I have been very busy with school and that has completely taken over my life. Luckily, im back with a vengeance, and a little bit of a change.
Besides baseball, I am also very passionate about film, and I would like to write some blogs on the film world as well. Whether it be reviews, recent casting, or a strong box office performance from a terrible film; I want to write about these incidents, as well as baseball. The best of both worlds!
I feel like if I have more than one reason to come back to write here, I will come more often, and will only improve my skills as a writer (even though I have zero).
So yeah, thats about it for now. Hopefully you guys like film, because I know that you already enjoy baseball. Im leaving for now, but expect my first new post sometime tomorrow, a review of the Sci-Fi film Splice, starring Adrian Brody and Sarah Polley.
Until next time, wish me luck in the tournament!
Friday, March 5, 2010
The Fantasy Baseball season is just beginning, ARE YOU READY?
One could easily point out who the best players are this year in baseball when looking at last years stats. But if you are someone who is trying to take every advantage, regarding fantasy baseball then you must look even deeper. For instance if you go to ESPN and look up a player, then click on splits, and then go to years, you have the ability to look up a players stats for the last 3 seasons combined. Here is an example of what I mean:http://espn.go.com/mlb/players/splits?playerId=4574&type=batting3
But why does this matter you might ask yourself? Well using this information will give you a good indication of a few different things. One, it may tell you when a player is particularly good in one month over another. In this case you may be able to pick up a player who is available. Like J.D. Drew, who happens to be really good in the month of June. His stats that month are as follows: .320 AVG/.436 OBP/SLG .660, plus he has 19 HR and 54 RBI. The next best month that you could even compare, he only had 8 HR and 31 RBI.
Another benefit of this is it may tell you if a player is worth keeping or dropping after the all-star break. An example of that is a player like Dan Haren for dropping.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/splits?playerId=5565&type=pitching3&three=1
Adam LaRoche is the opposite, as a player worth acquiring if you can.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/splits?playerId=5879&type=batting3
This may not be for average fan of fantasy baseball, but it is something to use and that you should take advantage of, if you want the best chance of winning your league.
On another note, this is what outfielder, Milton Bradley, had to say this week to the NY Times: "Two years ago, I played, and I was good," Bradley told the newspaper. "I go to Chicago, not good. I've been good my whole career. So, obviously, it was something with Chicago, not me." Bradley was dealt from the Cubs to the Mariners in the off season. So since this must be true, get him asap if he's still available after the first round of your draft this year. Don't be the fool who misses out on the comeback player of the year folks.
As always this has been, Corey Sobel, with a special report
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Winn looks to get a ring
A little over a month ago, my friend Matt Soldano brought up the idea of the Yankees signing Randy Winn to become their left fielder. I thought it could not have been a worse move. He will be 36 next year, and is coming off of a season in which he hit .262 with only two home runs; not to mention a .318 OB% and a .158 BA vs. lefties. I didn't seem him as much of an upgrade over Brett Gardner, since he would be making around $2-3 mil, while Gardner will make around $500,000. Plus, the Yankees do not have many holes, but the one problem they can face is not having a bench hitter who bats right handed and can hit lefty pitchers, hopefully with some power.
Then, after weeks of rumors involving guys such as Marcus Thames, Rocco Baldelli, and Reed Johnson, the Yankees signed Randy Winn to a one year deal for $2 mil. At first, I hated the deal. I didn't think it was worth it and I thought it was the first bad move the Yankees made this offseason. I thought they should have spent that money on a guy who can hit lefties, and they didn't.
But then time went on, some things were reported and I did some further investigation, and because of that, I will admit that I was wrong. This is a good signing and there are many reasons why.
First off, according to multiple sources, Brian Cashman believes he can get Thames or Baldelli on a minor league contract (not to mention Jamie Hoffman killed lefties at AAA last year, but I would prefer a more established hitter). For me, this is the key. If Gardner fails to hit lefties, Granderson doesn't improve against lefties, and Winn hits vs. lefties like he did last year, the Yankees are going to be lost the approximately 33% of the time they face lefties during the regular season.
Secondly, as mentioned before, Randy Winn hit .158 vs. lefties last year, but his BABIP was an astoundingly bad .178. That is literally almost physically impossible to replicate, and just like Nick Swisher coming into 2009, Randy Winn is almost guaranteed to have somewhat of a bounce back year in 2010. Mark my words, it is almost a guarantee.
When you look past last year, I think people don't realize (especially myself), just how good of a player Randy Winn is. Throughout his career he has hit both lefties and righties well, with a career BA vs. lefties of .280 and .289 vs. righties, leading to a career BA of .286. If you don't include last year, Winn has had double digit home runs in every year since 2002 and even including last year, he has had double digit steals in every year since 2001.
Finally, Winn can play all three OF positions, and except for CF, he can play all of them well. His career UZR/150 for center is -1.3, slightly below average, but in recent years it has been as bad as -13. His rates for left in his career are 3.0 and in right it is 16.4. This will be great for Girardi in late and close games, especially come playoff time. Even though he should not step foot near center field anymore, he is still considered a center fielder and Girardi can have three center fielders in the outfield at the same time late in games; I am sure the pitchers won't mind that at all.
Winn is not going to be the reason the Yankees win or lose the World Series, and while I still prefer Brett Gardner to be the everyday starter, if there is a platoon or if Winn starts, he is still only a $2 mil player. Things need to happen for this to be a solid addition, such as adding a right handed bat or hoping Jamie Hoffman is able to stick in the majors, as well as Winn having a rebound from last season, and based on that horrific BABIP, some sort of rebound in sure to happen.
Look at it this way, Winn is better than Melky, will be a part time player like Melky always should have been, and will be making $1.3 mil less.
Then, after weeks of rumors involving guys such as Marcus Thames, Rocco Baldelli, and Reed Johnson, the Yankees signed Randy Winn to a one year deal for $2 mil. At first, I hated the deal. I didn't think it was worth it and I thought it was the first bad move the Yankees made this offseason. I thought they should have spent that money on a guy who can hit lefties, and they didn't.
But then time went on, some things were reported and I did some further investigation, and because of that, I will admit that I was wrong. This is a good signing and there are many reasons why.
First off, according to multiple sources, Brian Cashman believes he can get Thames or Baldelli on a minor league contract (not to mention Jamie Hoffman killed lefties at AAA last year, but I would prefer a more established hitter). For me, this is the key. If Gardner fails to hit lefties, Granderson doesn't improve against lefties, and Winn hits vs. lefties like he did last year, the Yankees are going to be lost the approximately 33% of the time they face lefties during the regular season.
Secondly, as mentioned before, Randy Winn hit .158 vs. lefties last year, but his BABIP was an astoundingly bad .178. That is literally almost physically impossible to replicate, and just like Nick Swisher coming into 2009, Randy Winn is almost guaranteed to have somewhat of a bounce back year in 2010. Mark my words, it is almost a guarantee.
When you look past last year, I think people don't realize (especially myself), just how good of a player Randy Winn is. Throughout his career he has hit both lefties and righties well, with a career BA vs. lefties of .280 and .289 vs. righties, leading to a career BA of .286. If you don't include last year, Winn has had double digit home runs in every year since 2002 and even including last year, he has had double digit steals in every year since 2001.
Finally, Winn can play all three OF positions, and except for CF, he can play all of them well. His career UZR/150 for center is -1.3, slightly below average, but in recent years it has been as bad as -13. His rates for left in his career are 3.0 and in right it is 16.4. This will be great for Girardi in late and close games, especially come playoff time. Even though he should not step foot near center field anymore, he is still considered a center fielder and Girardi can have three center fielders in the outfield at the same time late in games; I am sure the pitchers won't mind that at all.
Winn is not going to be the reason the Yankees win or lose the World Series, and while I still prefer Brett Gardner to be the everyday starter, if there is a platoon or if Winn starts, he is still only a $2 mil player. Things need to happen for this to be a solid addition, such as adding a right handed bat or hoping Jamie Hoffman is able to stick in the majors, as well as Winn having a rebound from last season, and based on that horrific BABIP, some sort of rebound in sure to happen.
Look at it this way, Winn is better than Melky, will be a part time player like Melky always should have been, and will be making $1.3 mil less.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)