The Curious Case of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Well, my skiing didn't get much better on Sunday than it had been on Saturday and part of that was due to lousy conditions for our first visit to Windham Mountain in New York. It looks like the kind of place I'd like if the weather would have cooperated. However with temperatures pushing 60 degrees it's hard to expect much of anything with regard to keeping snow going. The plan is to head back for the end of this week into the weekend and temperatures look like they'll be more in line with this time of year. Four days of skiing was cut to three before we ever got to started on the road and then down to two after skiing the first two days. Talk about exhausting.

Anyway, on Sunday night we decided to go back to the theater to catch another big movie of the season, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, starring Brad Pitt along with Cate Blanchett and Tilda Swinton. It's adapted from a 1920s story by F. Scott Fitzgerald about a man who is born in his eighties and ages backwards.

The acting was, as expected, first-rate. The effects and look of the movie were top-notch. The ability of camera work and effects to make the actors look as young and old as they're presented here was exceptional. The shots of flashbacks were notable for their genuine look. I would be surprised if this doesn't get the movie an Oscar nomination at the very least.

My problems with the movie, however, were numerous and several of them I can't mention here as it would spoil much of the plot. Suffice to say that many of the plot points just didn't work for me. I couldn't suspend my disbelief enough to enjoy the tale.

From very near the beginning I felt like this was a movie trying to go where Forrest Gump went before. I then found that the script was written by the same person who wrote the Gump script. This is, at best, Gump Lite. What's worse is that its long 2 hour 47 minute running time feels much longer. Many elements were visited, re-visited and re-visted yet again for no benefit. The present day scenes in a hospital are disjointed and feel forced as if the writers didn't know how best to keep the past events moving on their own merit. The biggest problem of all revolves around how Benjamin came to suffer his unique fate. It just wasn't believable.

There are some nice bits. One character regails us with his life experiences with lightening that you find yourself looking forward to. The ending is also surprisingly powerful, though even it suffers from some confused thinking. All in all I came away very disappointed by a movie many are touting as one of the year's best efforts.

Why I Wanted To See It:
Compelling fantasy plot. Lots of Best Picture talk. Cate Blanchett.

Preconceived Notions:
Would the movie be as compelling as the previews? What's his story? How could this happen?

During The Movie:
Great look. Boredom. Overly long scenes. Why does almost no one seem shocked?

Immediate Afterthoughts:
The movie was just way too long for what it was. The final pay-off was emotional but not worth the long investment that came before it. So many of the plot points seemed almost ripped from the pages of Forrest Gump. The 1957 movie, The Incredible Shrinking Man did this type of story much better.

My Ride of the Valkyrie

This week I headed out to ski for the first time this year after taking last season off entirely. It became evident at the end of the season before that my leg still wasn't recovered enough from my earlier break. While I went into the winter of 07-08 with lots of hope that just wasn't enough to override the aching and general "wonkiness" of my leg.

This year we started the season just as I did in 06-07--at Elk Mountain in the Poconos. We decided to get a room in Scranton so that we'd be pretty much half-way between Elk and Camelback. However, the weather turned on us a week ago and hit the area with days in the 50's. Elk barely had any solid terrain going so boredom kicked in earlier than usual. Tomorrow we plan to head up to a New York resort in hopes of mitigating the high temps a bit.

I had a positive first outing. Like before it was tentative and I'm still a long way from getting back to full form. In fact, today I had a moment of clarity in accepting that I'm 44 and this might be the best it gets. My son's skiing continued to evolve and he outpaced me the entire day. Even when I tried to take him I found I just couldn't pull it off.

So, we found ourselves in Scranton, Pennsylvania, which is a pretty sleepy smallish city, bored and back from the ski run too early to head to bed. Instead we headed into town to see the Tom Cruise movie Valkyrie about the attempted assassination of Adolf Hitler in July of 1944.

This film has been maligned heavily by some critics so I relented to seeing it mainly due to my son's insistence. I'm glad I gave in. The movie was quite good and entertaining throughout.

It moves at a blinding pace for a 136 minute movie (and that's a very good thing).

The acting is solid from top-to-bottom with the possible exception of Eddie Izzard. Friends of mine know I'm an Izzard fan but as a comic. His acting isn't at the Steve Martin level let alone the Steve McQueen level.

One ironic thing in the movie is the number of actors in it that were somewhat recently involved in the German film Zwartboek or Black Book. This was a top favorite of mine just a year or so ago and worth your time if you haven't seen it yet. At least four noteworthy parts here are played by characters from that film and oddly in similar roles.

As for the story itself it clearly had to overcome a couple of major hurdles. First, anything Tom Cruise does these days seems to have to be ridiculed. Second, we all know the outcome of the movie since it's based on true events. Third, the makers decided to film this in English for English audiences while allowing the actors to mainly speak without employing a German accent.

I found all of these concerns to be moot. The movie does a strong job of conveying the flavor of the event and does keep you on the edge of your seat for most of the film. The final sequences are emotional and you cannot help but pull for the doomed conspirators at every opportunity. You continually think, "If just this one thing went differently...."

Cruise should be proud of this film regardless of its place in history--and by that I mean its exposure, or lack thereof, at the Oscars. I can't say anyone was really Oscar-worthy but that still doesn't make this a bad movie. It's a solid story and one worth your time.

Why I Wanted To See It:
I'm a WWII history buff and my son wanted to see it.

Preconceived Notions:
Could Tom Cruise give this story the gravitas it deserves?

During The Movie:
"Hey, that's another actor from Black Book!" Come on... let this one thing go right.

Immediate Afterthoughts:
What sort of reviewer sees this type of movie and can't see its potential wide appeal? I wonder how accurate it was to actual history. Time to head to Wikipedia.

When Did Limited Tolerance Take Over For Compassion?

One other thing many on the Right espouse that has been bugging me for some time is the so-called "War on Christmas" so dubbed by Bill O'Reilly.

What bothers me about this is that it's not only incorrect but contrary to the very nature of what this season should be about and what we, as a people, should be reaching to achieve.

First of all, none of the retailers have conspired to declare war on Christmas. All many of them have done is to evolve, unlike those that support the war theory, to show compassion for all their potential shoppers.

The radio this week has been filled with irate callers asking other listeners to boycott retailers that choose to say Merry Christmas (which isn't even an accurate term) over the more inclusive "Happy Holiday" or "Have a nice Holiday." Great thinking from the arm of our society that's supposed to be enlightened with regard to fiscal sanity. Just what our retailers need this year--a bunch of idiots boycotting their stores over something ridiculous.

Second, when did it become poor taste to try and reach out and include everyone in our celebrations and society? What is it with these people that they can't show compassion for others at a time when compassion is supposed to be the guiding force of the season?

One caller pointed out that when someone says, "Have a nice Holiday" to him, he says, "No, Merry Christmas." Sounds one step away from Scrooge to me. In what way are these people put out when someone takes the time to acknowledge them and wish them a happy season? Must that well-wishing only be phrased one way? Heck, we allow several ways to acknowledge a sneeze. Can't we allow for several ways to wish all people a joyous holiday?

Do you really think a Christian greeted with "Happy Holidays" is slighted to the same degree as a Jew who is wished a Merry Christmas? That's about as insulting as asking an overweight woman when she's expecting. These people speak of compassion and yet, at nearly every opportunity to show it they eschew it over the smallest of so-called injustices. So what if others are in the minority. Isn't that part of the point of compassion? You've got the bigger stick. Must you whack people over the head with it just because you can? Is that really the lesson you teach your children? Be careful as Republicans are currently in the minority. If the rest of us move from "turn the other cheek" to your mantra of "an eye for an eye" you might not feel so brave. Don't worry though. We're not the vindictive type.

I don't know about the rest of you but I will have a merry Christmas while I wish the rest of you a happy holiday whatever form that may take. I even wish good fortune on those of our flock that have forgotten what the point of this season is.

OMG... Sean Hannity Made A Mistake

Last week, on both his radio show and his Fox News show, Sean Hannity made it absolutely clear that President-Elect Barack Obama waited until today to release his internal report on the Blagojevich scandal so that he could release all the bad news in it during a period where no one would be paying attention.

Well, I was paying attention.

It turns out that, as is typical with Mr. Hannity, his prediction was totally erroneous. The report is out today and it says, quite boringly, exactly what they said it would say when this all started--that they didn't find anyone who did anything wrong.

Hannity has been on a rampage, so cock-sure of his fallible predictions, that he's suggested Obama was dirty and was certain his future Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, was up to no good. He kept referring to 21 instances of "Rahm-bo's" name and how this clearly couldn't be good.

Well, according to the Obama team Emanuel only spoke to the Governor and his aide once or twice and spoke to him about his old House seat and the Senate seat. He suggested a name for the Senate seat but later Obama ruled out communicating any preferences after that point. Sounds like fishy business there doesn't it?

Furthermore Mr. Hannity kept pointing to visions of wrong-doing regarding the Service Employees International Union and Blagojevich's desire to become the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The report notes that those involved in this discussion on Obama's side specifically agreed it would never happen.

Why do I still listen? Pure entertainment.

Caroline Is Nostalgic Not Senatorial

Caroline Kennedy will forever be in the hearts of anyone my age and older for the touching images of her and her father and the lasting images of her and little John at their father's funeral.

As far as I can tell that's just about all she has in the way of qualifications to be a Senator. Okay, she lives in New York and is the right age but aside from those two qualifications simply being a Kennedy is not enough.

The Bush family is filled with bright people and look what we got with the current President.

Where I draw the line with Republicans is with the concept that those who were against Governor Sarah Palin but are for Caroline Kennedy owe Palin an apology. That concept misses the point entirely. It's amazing to me how reliably some Republicans manage to see Palin through heavily tinted rose-colored glasses.

Everything they see in her others see 180 degrees in the other direction. Someone has to figure out why we see this woman so differently. What supporters see as honest and genuine, people like me, see as insulting and contrived.

Caroline Kennedy, as far as I can tell at this point, does not impress me as being qualified to be a Senator from New York. I think she'd be better off running for the House first and then taking a run at the Senate. However, I think she realizes that if she waits, that opportunity may not be there for her later. The difference between Kennedy and Palin has, in my view, almost nothing to do with their experience. It has everything to do with stated commentary.

With Kennedy we currently have nothing to go on. She simply has not allowed any access yet. With Palin what we saw was continually at odds with what she was saying and doing. Much of it didn't even pass for common sense. Her comment about having foreign policy experience because Alaska borders Russia was total nonsense. Her invoking phrases like "hockey mom" and "Joe six-pack" came off as pandering. It wasn't just the terms but the way she enunciated them that came off as fake. She'd pick up any talking point like it was hammer regardless of its origin and just flail away with it.

The final straw for me was the situation regarding her clothes. Why was this a big deal? I'll tell you why. Here was someone who specifically chose to stand on a platform and shouted loudly for all to hear that she had a record of always being against excess in government. She identified her main strength against excess as being her down-home attitude--that she was an everyday basic person like you and me. We didn't tag her with that moniker. She brought that grouping to the party and wielded it like a weapon. She then totally destroyed the entire effort, in the minds of people like me, by willingly and happily jumping at the chance to wear all those extravagant outfits and accepting all the perks. Watching her youngest daughter waltz around with a $4,000 purse stood in stark contrast to the stated disdain for excess. It exposed her for what I believe her to be--a charlatan.

Caroline Kennedy may very well turn out to be the same. However, at this point she simply hasn't given us enough to go on. The only people who would owe Palin an apology are those who only marked experience as their criteria. I know very few who fall into this category. Most of us that don't support her do so for far more than just the experience aspect.

The jury is still out on Kennedy at this point. If this is all we get then she should not be handed the Senate seat. For me, that would be one minor step short of what is alleged to have been going on in Illinois.

I Must Admit--I Had Doubt

This Friday we tempted the Gods by venturing forth to see Doubt. This is the movie version of a Tony Award-winning play about a 1964 Catholic school and the people who shape its direction.

Let me jump right to the main impact. This is one of those movies you see to watch an acting Tour de Force. It's quite a stellar set of performances. Philip Seymour Hoffman is, as always, excellent. Here he plays the new priest trying to bring compassion to an institution that seems to exist only to combat it. His portrayal is dead-on. Within moments you forget it's Hoffman and think this actor has been in the priesthood his entire life. Amy Adams plays the young innocent Sister James in a way made for Adams. She too does an excellent job here. And then we get to the promised land. Meryl Streep owns the role of Sister Aloysius Beauvier, the unflappable, unbending, seemingly unfeeling principal of the school. Her portrayal is nothing short of Oscar-worthy and that makes two roles this year for which she must be considered (the other being her work in Mamma Mia). The movie is worth seeing just for this portrayal alone. The rest is just a bonus.

As far as the story itself, it's one anyone with an understanding of Catholicism, especially from circa 1964, will immediately relate to. The biggest problem with it is that it takes nearly half the movie, or longer, to get off the ground. The first part is all deep introspective background on everyone involved and, to be honest, it's a bit much.

That said it's still not a total loss. The payoff is worth it as long as you can get to it.

Why I Wanted To See It:
It was getting solid reviews for the strong acting and the script.

Preconceived Notions:
I thought it would be laden with unnecessary religious dogma that would put me to sleep.

During The Movie:
I nearly gave up on it thinking it would never get moving but when it did I was captivated.

Immediate Afterthoughts:
I can't think of a movie with better acting across the board this entire year. Meryl Streep is second to none.

Frost/Nixon Was More Than I Expected

This past weekend found us at the theater to see the premiere of Frost/Nixon. This biopic details the events surrounding the 1977 interview between David Frost and Richard Nixon. Nixon had left the office of the President in disgrace three years before and felt he needed this interview to set the record straight and hopefully catapult from it back into the political landscape.

The previews for the movie were poorly done. They made Frost look like a cartoon character. They also exposed the biggest plot element for no good reason. Because of this I really didn't expect to like this movie. Added to that concern were the reviews. Here's another movie with a plus-90 (92 at the time) rating on Rotten Tomatoes and that always scares me.

First, the movie is beautifully shot. Every scene is paced well and you never feel bored about what pretty much boils down to a discussion. Ron Howard clearly knows what he's doing as we know from many of his past films and this one is no exception.

I lived through this period first-hand and, like most younger citizens, viewed Nixon as the embodiment of all things Presidential. I was shocked when I watched his resignation live on TV. I read a lot about it and covered it in detail in school for years afterward. I thought I knew the story well.

As I've said before, to me a good biopic doesn't just tell us what we already know but tells us the things we don't know and provides us the correct perspectives for the actions of those involved. Frost/Nixon does a very good job of this with one exception. We get it for Frost and many of the surrounding characters. We don't fully get it for Nixon. Richard Nixon was a very smart man and here he comes off a bit bumbling in a way that I don't think represents reality. The movie would have been just a bit better if it managed to get this part a bit more accurately.

That said, it's still an excellent movie. You're taken with it for nearly all of its 2-hour running time and feel far more versed on the topic after seeing it than before. The acting is absolutely first-rate. Frank Langella plays Nixon wonderfully and Michael Sheen presents a great Frost. The rest of the cast is just as polished.

The only other minor complaint I had about the movie was about the closing textual narrative. It suggests blandly that Nixon never did recover and that's a bit of an overstatement. In his last years Nixon managed to win over much of the country with respect to his foreign affairs acumen. His brilliance on that topic came across whenever he was interviewed. Much of his concerns then would be viewed today as prophetic and it's a disservice to not point this out in the film.

Why I Wanted To See It:
I've had an interest in the subject matter for years.

Preconceived Notions:
The preview made it look a bit goofy.

During The Movie:
Complete Interest. Wow, Rebecca Hall is hot!

Immediate Afterthoughts:
What a great movie. It really did succeeds at taking a topic about an interview and making it a riveting experience.

Perhaps Ironic Justice?

I do not believe in DRM (Digital Rights Management) for music or any media. It's a form of copy protection and I've written many times about the issues of copy protection. It protects almost nothing, annoys most everyone (except the pirates) and reduces revenue. Anyone thinking this helps capitalism doesn't have a clue what they're talking about. It all sounds great on paper but just doesn't work in the real world.

For me, if I buy an album I don't care if it's from a store and I get a CD or online and I get a download. To me, I OWN the album in question. You can argue all you want about the industry concept of licensing but that's all it is to me. If I pay you for your music I should be able to play it where I want to when I want to and without hassle.

I've found a very nice service called Music Giants that sells CD-quality digital music for about $1.99 a track. I find that a bit high but acceptable for now as virtually everyone else selling digital music sells you low-quality (in my opinion) MP3's. I'm not paying anyone anything for crippled-quality music.

The only problem with this solution is that most of the music on Music Giants (just as is the case with all the other digital stores) is DRM. Some of the music they offer doesn't have it but nearly all the big names have DRM on their music. What this means is that the music can only be played on specific devices and if I lose the file (new hard drive, etc.) then I have to buy it again.

Not that long ago there was a tool that let you strip the DRM from the songs so that you could back them up and play them where you wanted. However, this tool stopped working and now people resort to utilities that are essentially re-recorders. They intercept the song data as it's being played on your PC and record that into a track that has no DRM in it. It's all a bit goofy but it's one of the easier ways to get around the DRM.

Anyway, I went out and bought one of these utilities. They pretty much all cost around $30. The one I chose is called Sound Taxi. It does just what all the others do and does it in a nice interface.

So then not long after buying it I had a hard drive start to act up. I bought a replacement and ended up having to not only replace the hard drive but also re-install Windows XP. A couple of months have gone by since then. I just now bought my latest music from Music Giants and went to run Sound Taxi. It complained that it wasn't registered. This happens all the time when you re-install Windows. However, all my attempts to re-register it failed so I sent a note to customer service.

Then the fun began. Their support sends replies, it seems, all at once. All my replies from them come between 5:45am and 6:15am. By this I assume they're in Europe somewhere and only respond to their questions at their convenience and not the customers. Their reply was to send me a new validation key. Great--except it didn't work. So I wrote back that the key didn't work and their reply was that the key works just fine as long as it's on the PC with a specific ID number. That ID is what I had on the PC before the re-install of Windows.

The catch is that there's no way to ever get back to that number unless I travel back in time to before I did the re-install. Their support tells you that your license only allows their software to work on the PC you bought it for setup the way it was the day you bought it.

The ironic part of all this is that I bought this software to avoid exactly this type of scheme from my music! Are these people kidding? I then did some Google searches to find that others also view this as a scam and that they not only do this to a lot of people but under different names. The other big one they use is "All-Music-Converter".

For me it's a $30 lesson learned. I'll spread the word on this one to anyone that I talk to about audio and I've already found a replacement that doesn't charge this way. I'll mention it later if it proves to be a good solution.

Role Models Models Apatow On The Low

We just saw the comedy Role Models starring Paul Rudd, Seann William Scott and, in another seemingly time-defying credit, Elizabeth Banks. This is another in a seemingly-viral expansion of Judd Apatow-like comedies that aren't from Mr. Apatow (and usually shows).

I'm beginning to think that we're seeing the start of a new clique ala the 80's Brat Pack. The earlier incarnation fascinated many with a bevy of 80's hits including a few that still resonate today. It included the likes of Demi Moore (pre-breast job), Rob Lowe (pre-sex scandal), Ally Sheedy, Emilio Estevez, Molly Ringwald, Anthony Michael Hall, Andrew McCarthy and Judd Nelson. That group brought us essentially a dozen interlinked movies of various degrees of quality.

Role Models gives us Apatow-like alums Rudd, Banks, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Jane Lynch, Ken Jeong, Joe Lo Truglio and possibly a hundred others for all I know. On the plus side it did spare me from perennial alum Michael Cera failing to play another straight guy.
Role Models is very standard comedy fare. This one is mainly Rudd's baby and he's just not in the same league as Apatow or a few of the other alums that took the scripting journey before him. It is full of laughs but they're pretty crass and predictable. The story doesn't really seem to exist except to lead us to the next joke. It's all pretty unbelievable and you never really care a bit about anyone here.

If you've had a hard day and need something primal that will make you laugh but won't make any demands on your head then this is the movie for you. It will make you laugh but you won't remember what it was you laughed at an hour after seeing the movie.

Why I Wanted To See It:
Very little else playing at the time.

Preconceived Notions:
Looked potentially funny but reservedly so.

During The Movie:
More Apatow-alumni. Funny but erratic.

Immediate Afterthoughts:
Could have been better. Paul Rudd has to see this as a bit of a let-down.

Reveling In Your Own Glory Is Rarely Good

One thing that bugs me intensely about Sean Hannity is the way he purposely bathes himself in his own aura and attempts to claim patriotic superiority above others. His logo for his site shows him looking skyward (heavenward) draped by a backdrop of an American flag. His radio show opens with a call-to-arms song as if he were Paul Revere in a suit. He made it a shtick on his show to have his callers continually refer to him a "Great American" and he often refers to those who agree with him as the same.

What's most gauling about this man is that he has no concept of what being American really is and what makes it great. He continually casts blame at those who would mention the ills of the country and suggests that any negative talk about the country is akin to being a traitor. He firmly believes that any discussion of negative issues emboldens our enemies and takes great effort to attack anyone that does this.

What Mr. Hannity has forgotten is that the greatest gift of being an American is that we can continually challenge the status quo. We are great because we don't just revel in our own successes. We're never satisfied with them and strive for something bigger.

Tonight on his Fox News show he asked Bill Bennett (who is doing the rounds hawking his latest book) why the media doesn't talk about what a great country we are and how blessed we are. He started this because yesterday Deepak Chopra, on the same show, said that America bore some responsibility for the attacks in India. For someone like Hannity, this is simply unacceptable. Mr. Chopra has benefited from success in America and in Hannity's view that means he should just go home and shut up. He sees it as the highest level of disrespect to benefit from a country and later criticize it in any manner.

This underscores exactly how far off Mr. Hannity has become. First of all, it's completely (and typically) hypocritical of the man. This is someone who continually talks about the force of the free market and how great our capitalist fervor is. This is someone who continually points out how much better we are than France, England and other industrial countries and views the others as suffering the perils of laggards. What Mr. Hannity overlooks is that the very same fervor that corporate America uses to excel is the same fervor real patriots of this country extol to push America forward.

You cannot favor the free market system and, at the same time, be critical of citizens who openly question the actions of the government. The two are nearly identical. Both areas refuse to sit on their laurels and bathe in their current perceived glory. Corporate America sees a big profit and then asks, "Okay, now why wasn't it bigger?" The citizenry gets the chance at the American Dream and then asks, "Okay, now why isn't there more?"

Sean Hannity and all his most ardent fans are what's wrong with this country today. All of them would have been viewed as staunch loyalists in Revolutionary times. They'd have sold our founding fathers up the river in an instant for criticizing King and country. How dare people who succeeded under the caring arms of King George strike out against that very support? Think about it. It took openly questioning the status quo to move away from what had worked for hundreds of years and yet we did it. Today's Hannity-like zealots don't question the country--they question the questioners. It's about as unpatriotic as one can get.

What's most hypocritcal, of course, is that Mr. Hannity refuses to take his own advice. He's succeeded in America and yet he's still out there every day being critical of the real patriots while taking great strides to dress up as one.

Got Milk

Last week we headed out to see the latest Sean Penn film--a biopic entitled Milk. It's the story of the first openly gay politician elected to public office in America.

The story takes place mainly throughout the 1970's and appears to stay very true to the actual events of the man and his time. The film looks very much like the mid-70's with a grainy, dull look from start to finish.

If you don't know the story of Harvey Milk then let me start off just as the movie does (and I'm not sure how I feel about this) that he was killed in 1978. Again, the movie's first few moments point this out so I'm not really exposing any surprises here. I'm mixed on whether I'd have preferred to find that out at the end of the movie or the beginning. At the beginning it allows me to focus on that element and look for enemies and how it might go down. By waiting until the end they'd have maximized the emotional pull.

The acting in the movie is first-rate. Sean Penn does such a good job in the role that you forget it's Penn and just go for the ride. His friends (the main one played by James Franco) are all played perfectly. Additionally the job done by Josh Brolin as Milk's co-worker is notable. I expect Penn to be nominated and wouldn't be at all surprised to find others nominated here as well.

As for the movie itself the story is fairly straight-forward and a bit predictable--especially given that you know the final outcome from the start. There were some moments I felt went on a bit too long and the movie is presented in a methodical fashion. The upside of that is that you'll really feel like you know Milk when it's all over and the emotion is still there by the end. Make no mistake, Harvey Milk was a force. He knew how to build support and maintain it and carried gay rights forward as a result. The movie does a great job of giving you an inside look at how it all was put together.

All in all it's a solid movie with some great acting but I wouldn't nominate it for Best Picture.