COP OUT

Once upon a time Kevin Smith made a decent movie with a star-studded cast… and they all lived happily ever after. If it sounds familiar, that’s because it is. COP OUT wasn’t nearly as disappointing as I expected it to be, but there really isn’t much to say about how wonderful or funny it is either. Normally I enjoy Smith’s films, but this one wasn’t quite up to standards. I’ve learned that he generally writes his own stuff. According to Entertainment Weekly, this is the first time he’s directed a film and not at least co-written it. So I suppose I have to go a little easy on him – he’s out of his comfort zone.

The story itself is pretty generic. It’s an interracial buddy cop film. Bruce Willis and Tracy Morgan are partners who, after nine years (a key plot point brought up again and again), still manage to put up with each other on a daily basis. Willis is the collected, serious bad boy to Morgan’s anecdotal somewhat slow, shouting hysteric. After a drug bust gone bad, they get put on unpaid probation. Willis is devastated, as he needs to pay for his daughter’s wedding (big name #3 – Michelle Trachtenberg), or give in and allow his ex’s new husband to pay the tab. As a way to get money, Willis plans on selling a very rare vintage baseball card, but is foiled in his attempt to do so when it’s stolen by Sean William Scott (#4). Willis and Morgan set out to find Scott, discover what happen to the card, and end up involved in a deal with a gang leader, played by one of my personal favorites, Guillermo Diaz (#5). Unfortunately, Diaz’s performance is exaggerated and generically stereotypical.

Stylistically the film was all over the map. The cinematography wasn’t bad, and I’d say the effects were pretty well done. Kevin Smith doesn’t have much action movie experience under his belt, so all things considered he did a good job. The slow motion sequences were well placed and not over done. The gun fights weren’t nearly as poorly done as they could have been. In terms of the genre, COP OUT fits in it’s own way. It’s clear that the film is supposed to be an “homage” to the 80s buddy-cop genre, and it works. But, the cheesy music took it one step too far. Distracting, overdone, corny… it was ridiculous. One point less Mr. Smith. Sorry.

Willis put on a decent show. His part honestly could have been played by anyone, but he did it justice. He brings a seriousness to roles like these that manifests in hilarity. You can’t help but laugh out loud. But, I will say that the scenes in which I found Willis most amusing were as a result of his back and forths with Sean William Scott. In a nutshell, Scott steals the movie. His backseat quips and jail cell schtick are probably the most memorable portions of the film. And for the record, I really never noticed how much he looks and acts like Paul Rudd. It’s an uncanny resemblance. Just, ya know, to put that out there.

Another point on the acting: I’m all for Tracy Morgan in a leading roll, but I’m convinced the man cannot speak without slurring his words or mumbling. Honestly, there were some scenes where I had absolutely no idea what he was saying. All I could think was, “Gee Kevin Smith, were there really no other usable takes than the incoherent ones you’ve chosen?” He’s hilarious and I love him, but Morgan’s dribbling and mushing of his dialogue became distracting very early on.

For the record, lets get into some of the other random celebrity appearances, shall we?

#6 Rashida Jones

#7 Kevin Pollak

#8 Adam Brody

#9 Susie Essman

#10 Jason Lee

#11 Fred Armisen

I'm very interested in finding out how much they were all paid. Obviously it's not always about the money, but this isn't one of those movies actors due for the street cred or award nods.

Aside from the obvious problems with this film, it was amusing. There were some truly laugh out loud moments. As rainy day movies go, this one is a winner. But, at a time when people are flocking to see the re-released Oscar nominated films, COP OUT is seriously going to suffer in the box office – with or without help from the less than flattering reviews it’s been getting.

A little behind the ball on this one

Eric Rohmer passed away on January 11^th, 2010 and I didn’t even know about it until Friday February 19^th, at 3:48pm. How did this happen? One of the most influential and creative minds in the film world, and there wasn’t even a single blip on my radar for an entire month… I could actually see myself still going on blindly until another month from now when the Oscars annual tribute to those who have passed is screened. But what the hell!? Really? How did I not know about this?

Do I not read enough news? Yes, I can honestly say I don’t follow the news as much as I’d like. Do I not watch enough television? Certainly not. Although I don’t watch much news, I do watch entertainment channels. Even they cover important details about people like Rohmer…. Or so I thought… So what happened? Was his death simply washed over by more important and significant information like Tiger Woods’ pending apology (which was a disappointment as expected anyway)? Or Kourtney Kardashian’s baby’s father being an insolent prick? Or the Olympics for that matter? Was everyone so caught up in the hype of international athleticism that this incredible man’s death was just swept under the rug with all the other things I feel I should know?

The New York Times published a lovely obituary. But why didn’t I receive an email update when it was put out!? I got an email when Bill Clinton went to the hospital. I got an email when Sean White won a gold medal. I get an email every time civilians are injured in the Middle East. So how is it that Eric Rohmer wasn’t considered important enough to warrant an email alert?

I feel confident saying that this clearly isn’t just a case of my laziness to collect and absorb news. There was a serious case of inactivity on the media’s part which allowed this information to go unnoticed for over a month. This particular situation leads me to believe that there is something terribly wrong with today’s media priorities. Obviously I don’t believe a singular man’s death is more significant than the crisis in Haiti, or our country’s internal battle over healthcare reform. However, how is it that even entertainment news – “news” which is supposed to cover important details about the inner workings of the industry – did not make any significant mention of Rohmer’s passing? This boggles my mind. There’s something terribly wrong with the system if one of the men who led the way for today’s filmmakers is overlooked. Forty years from now, will Almodivar be so overlooked by American media? Will Quentin Tarantino’s films be all that’s left when he dies?

Okay kids, bold statement… Today’s media doesn’t have the respect for amazingly talented people like Rohmer.

William Hurts His Reputation

Currently sitting at work listening to an interview with William Hurt on NPR.

I've never particularly been a fan of his, but I do respect him, as he is a good actor with many meaningful roles under his belt.

However, he sounds like a complete douche. I really don't understand how I never noticed this before.

He's pretentious, overly articulated, and making himself out to be this incredibly worldly man. He's talking about his family and his ancestry and giggling to himself about their professions and where they're buried.... Who gives a shit? Honestly William, you're making yourself seem like an ass hole. Nobody likes ass holes. Nobody likes people who think highly of themselves, and you are pushing it... oy vey... This is painful..

In His Honor

In honor of the late Éric Rohmer, two film responses from my French Cinema Class first semester senior year.

L'Anglaise Et Le Duke (The Lady and the Duke) 2000

The most striking feature of L’anglaise et le duc is the strong reference to 16^th – 18^th century art, particularly in the sets and scenery. At the very opening of the film the painting comes to life and becomes an active scene. If one were to stop at any point throughout the film, the image would resemble a well-framed portrait or landscape. The staging of the scenes are extremely and obviously calculated to reflect the artistic style of the time period. The muted and pale tones in the environment, as well as the characters’ dress, also serve to enhance the feeling that we are observing period artwork and not simply watching a film. The sense of artistry is not limited to the framing, or even the costumes. All of the interiors and exteriors are characterized by trompe-l’oeil style painting and construction. Meaning (loosely) “to trick the eye,” this technique is characterized by extreme detail and realism, creating the optical illusion of three dimensions. It is obvious throughout the film that the sets are painted and fake, however they are incredibly well done and at some points are relatively realistic. This use of painting within the scenes enhances the sense that each scene is a painting or piece of art in itself. It is these characteristics which give the film such a “strange” look, as well as creating a sense of fantasy and nostalgia.

Le Genou de Claire (Claire's Knee) 1970

The concept and definition of desire is played with in “Le Genou de Claire.” This is most clearly demonstrated by the camera work, paired with the content of Jerome’s dialogue and behavior. Jerome constantly reminds Aurora (as well as the audience) that he is engaged and no longer interested in other women. However, his reasoning behind his devotion to his fiancé is weak – that they should remain together because they are still happy with one another after six years. He shows no real emotion or affection when talking about the woman he should be in love with, as reflected in the shots used. When Jerome and Aurora first meet on the bridge, the camera remains at a comfortable distance from them despite their intimacy and closeness. He tells her about his fiancé, but because of our physical distance from Jerome, we aren’t able to see any emotion on his face. Our distance, I feel, reflects his separation from his own emotions, and is effective in foreshadowing his lack of control over his own desires.

His actual desires are not displayed in dialogue or interactions with others, but in the shots and techniques used. In regards to Claire and her knee, the only time the camera is every really close to Jerome is when he is talking to her – specifically in the scene when she gets injured playing volleyball. He sits close to her, and the camera angle is often a tight shot of both characters, or of her – sitting with her knee up against her chest. When we first become aware of his fascination with her knee, we see her from his point of view and there is a close up of this awkward body part while she’s on the ladder picking cherries. By turning the camera into the eyes of Jerome, we are able to see exactly what he desires and even get a sense of his thoughts and emotions at the time.

When we first meet Laura, the camera plays similar tricks on the audience. At first, it seems as if her entrance is just like any other – the camera focuses on her as she sits at the table with the adults – however it lingers and closes in on her. It becomes clear that we are seeing through Jerome’s eyes, and although he claims he does not feel anything for her later in the film, it is clear that he is drawn to her for some reason. His relationship with Laura again shows the dichotomy between his actions/words and the way the scenes are shot. He constantly tells Aurora about his disinterest in Laura, and there are also scenes in which he reminds the young woman about his wife-to-be. He distances himself from Laura emotionally, yet physically they are always close. They hold hands, she rests against him as if they were a couple, and the camera is always very close to them when they are together. Unlike the scene on the bridge, the proximity of the camera reflects the physical closeness as well as the overall intimacy of the scenes between Laura and Jerome.

What I think is most interesting about the film, however, is the fact that the woman he does desire – Claire – is never very close to him physically, nor does she open up to him at all in their conversations. However, with Laura, they have mature and personal conversations while almost always remaining physically connected.

"boom shakalaka"

Wow. Just got home from the Brooklyn Bowl and I must say, I just had one of the best nights I've had in some time.

Amazing music and even better company -E Math, thanks for being born today!

Golden Filter put on an incredible show. Their energy was contagious, their sound original.

And I loved every minute of it.

Must say, the Bowl is a pretty damn awesome venue. I expected a night of bowling and cheap bar food, but arrived to a trendy vast and comfortably crowded bar/concert venue.

On a separate but equally legitimate note, I'd like to state, for the record, that there are some unbearably attractive people in Brooklyn.

(Image courtesy of http://greenjar.net)

The Not-So-Super Bowl Commercials

This year's commercials were sub par, to say the very least.

As I'm not a born sports fan, the Super Bowl really means nothing to me. The commercial breaks are always a breath of fresh air for this particular viewer.

Lets start with a few:

1) The Simpson's Coke Ad - What was the point? Sooooo.... Mr. Burns goes broke, looses everything, and wonders Springfield depressed and alone. Okay. And then suddenly everyone has a Coke. Okayyyyyy... and obviously Coke makes everyone happy, sooooo someone takes pity on Burns and shares and he's suddenly happy too...annnnnd... I still don't get it. What's the point? If Coke wanted to pair up with the Simpson's for an effective commercial (or even a full ad campaign), they should have put a little more time into the concept. This was just a failure.

2) Doritos Gym Ad - Really? Do I need to get in to how terrible this was? I'll give them credit, they started off strong. The two guys were funny at first glance - literally. But the second the semi-attractive one got hit with a Dorito hrowing star I lost interest.

3 Google's "Relationship Development" Ad - I'm sorry. But this was too sappy. Yes, the concept was clever. The idea was well executed. But the subject matter was predictable and ridiculous. Honestly... come on Google. We expect you to be clever and cutting edge... Prove us right!!

4) Denny's Ads - Oh jeez. Screaming chickens? What in the world were they thinking!? Really Denny's? Really? I'd say the only good thing about their commercials was the chicken in space. That was funny.

5) GoDaddy.com Ads - I understand that their campaign is based on selling domain names using hot women. I have nothing against it. But come on kids, this is the Super Bowl. Bring it! They did nothing more than they usually do in their commercials. Everyone's looking for something new and exciting, and more than not, something funny... Annnnd GoDaddy didn't deliver.

6) Taco Bell Ad featuring Charles Barkley/Lamar Odem - I'm not even going to touch this one.

Okay... for the record, I'm not a hateful person and there were some ads I thought were successful and hilarious:

1) Snickers featuring Betty White/Abe Vigoda - Hilarious (but the direct reference to her was a bit disappointing)

2) Bud Light House - All I have to say is "Oh here we go..." Brilliant

3) Kia Sorento featuring a collection of whimsical toys - Adorable, hilarious, memorable

Musical Stylings and Other Such Things

Not gunna lie, I'm pretty excited for the next few month...

movies are coming out, concerts are coming up... (and best of all, the Oscars are getting closer by the day!)

Tuesday February 9th - Yesayer

Friday February 12th - Wolfman and Valentine's Day open in theaters

Friday February 19th - Shutter Island opens in theaters

Saturday February 20th - The Golden Filter (Happy Birthday Emma!)

Friday February 26th - The Crazies opens in theaters

Friday March 5th - Alice in Wonderland opens in theaters

Friday March 19th - The Runaways opens in theaters

Tuesday March 23rd - Alphabeat

Friday April 2nd - Clash of the Titans

Welcome Back

Sade is back - her new album set to be released February 9th. An incredibly talented singer with a unique sound, Sade is deserving of a triumphant return to the industry.

She has gone approximately nine years without producing an album, but Soldier of Love is set to be a success. Quoted from guardian.co.uk, "Sade is an artist who creates music purely on inspiration."

However, the music video for the title track "Soldier of Love" is completely uninspired.

Stylistically, Sade seems to be stuck in the 90s. The choreography is reminiscent of Janet Jackson's "Rhythm Nation." But unless you're Rihanna (see "Hard"), it seems time that the military marching dances get pushed to the back of the movement closet. Yes, the song IS about being a "soldier"... in a desert... But we get that. There's no need to push the idea with clichéd visuals.

The video also brings up memories of Janet's "Love Will Never Do Without You." Yes, every woman looks glamorous with the wind blowing through her hair, while dancing and frolicking in the sand with a handsome man, or a horse for that matter. But hasn't it been done a million times before? Everything about the video is overly stylized. It's almost as if Shakira's "Wherever, Whenever" director took acid with the cinematographer from "The Climb" - and the bedazzled the shit out of everything before coming down.

The song itself is great - good beat, engaging hook, etc... But Sade's gotta step it up if she's jumping back onto TV with the big fish like Beyonce, Gaga, Alicia, Leona, Taylor, Pink... okay, you get the point. But hey, if Whitney and Mariah brought themselves back, things could be leaning in Sade's favor.