If you are a fan of Mike and Mike in the Morning on ESPN, you know that when they receive disagreeable e-mail comments they will "ban" people from the show for specific periods of time. There have been lifetime bans, month-long bans, and bans for only a day or two. I've decided to take a page from that playbook and "ban" some things of my own.
Lifetime ban to all cheesy furniture outlet commercials. Here in Western North Carolina, the offensive annoyance is Mattress Max. The people on television should not be permitted before the camera. Ever. And they think they are bloody Hi-Larious, with their geeky little promos. ("Mattress Max will save you mo-neeeeeeey!") Um, no. This is not indiginous only to this area, as everyplace I've ever lived had their very own version. (see: "Chuck's Furniture Mart" in Morgantown. You know where it is: "to the right, to the right, to the right of the Morgantown Mall.") Ugh. Go away low-budget, self-produced horrors of advertising. You. Are banned.
Lifetime ban to American Idol and any remnants from said show. I know my bitterness rises from the skeptacular Bo/Carrie finale, but really. I think we know now that the winner of this show is not necessarily the best singer from the group. (i.e. Jennifer Hudson, superstar loser.) So, can we put it to rest? It's on seventeen times a week, it sucks the energy from everything in its path, Randy hasn't given a sounder critique than, "Wow, dog, you are...wow, dog" since Season Two and Paula continues down the incoherent rabbithole in which she is queen of her own little world. To top it off, even I know about Sanjaya and that pathetic crying little tweener in the crowd - and I don't watch the darn thing! Enough already. This is what has created the horror known as The Jonas Brothers. (I don't need proof. I just know that's true.) You are banned, the lot of you. (You too, Jonases. Now, go away.)
Lifetime ban to the Octuplet Mom. Go home and take care of the FOURTEEN kids you now have through artificial means. You asked for those fertility treatments and obviously, that worked out. Right or wrong, I am so incredibly tired of hearing about her and her gaggle of offspring. I understand that these kids might lose in the end, but there are lots of kids out there born with the short straw. It's sad. Life isn't fair. This lady certainly did those kids a disservice and I'm truly sympathetic - for the kids. But can we let her fifteen minutes of fame expire? Please? Banned, I say!
Whoo. I feel better now that I got those things off my chest. So, everyone say it with me now: Banned Together!
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Monday, February 23, 2009
Oscars and Beyond
My sister got married last year and afterward, she described a condition wherein new brides have a post-partum-like depressive period when all the pomp and circumstance is over. I think now that the Oscars and Super Bowl and football season and holidays are all said and done, I may enter that same blue time myself. But, before I go, one more post to honor this most wonderful time of year!
So, the Oscar producers certainly mixed it up. They veered away from the traditional order of business and handed out the awards in a totally different sequence. All I could think was, "What if nominees, as I would if I were there, counted on that same-old order and went to the bar to get a drink and missed their category completely? Do you think someone warned them beforehand? I hope so!"
They tinkered with the stage and props, added a bunch of bells and whistles, and poked a lot more fun at Hollywood than usual. I can hear the rumblings from staunch purists (like, me!) But, although change is sometimes hard, by the end I decided I liked most of them (though not all.) This morning, I see online that many of my favorite parts are everyone else's pet peeves. Go figure.
But, most importantly, the winners! I personally adored the five past actors giving little speeches to the nominees, in place of the tired old film clips. It might not be for everyone, but it touched me to see true emotion on the nervous nominees' faces when honored by acting legends like that.
Penelope Cruz's win for Best Supporting Actress - not surprising, but satisfying. Heath Ledger's family certainly spoke with heart and emotion, and though I was prepared for that moment, it still left me teary-eyed. Kate Winslet finally made it to the podium and her bit about practiced speeches in front of her bathroom mirror really hit home for me. (I am guilty of such tricks to this day!) And Sean Penn? Awesome, deserved, funny, humble (for him) and lovely. A terrific and important moment.
"Slumdog Millionaire" really had its moments, and props must go out to all involved in the film. (For a minute there, it seemed all of India might join them onstage to accept the big prize!) My personal favorite: all those little kids. If you've seen the movie (and now, you all have no excuse not to!) you know the importance those children play and how precious their cinematic performances. It tickled me to see them recognized, almost as much as Danny Boyle's shout-out to Tigger! My love for him shot up tremendously in that moment, as we both apparently hold great affinity for Winnie the Pooh.
I don't know if next year's telecast will return to the more traditional version or not. It would be nice to see them incorporate some of the best ideas from last night's show and move toward more innovation. Regardless, I can take a small break from super manic movie-watching and go back to my normal habit of just plain old movie mania.
In closing, this year was most satisfying, even though my fave film did not win. I can't take a thing away from "Slumdog Millionaire" because it really is a great story. So, another year down and another new crop of movies on the horizon. Before we totally move on, just a couple personal highlights of mine:
**I loved when "Man On Wire" balanced that Oscar on his nose and did a magic trick! But my first thought as he ran up there, when I saw his eyes glance skyward? "Oh my gosh, dude's going to climb something!" (Hee!)
**Seth Rogan and James Franco in the "Pineapple Express" bit about the alleged comedies? Brilliant, especially when they showed the "Milk" kissing scene. That truly was laugh-out-loud funny. (And a reminder that James Franco got seriously snubbed.)
**Hugh Jackman did an opening song! I had resigned myself to only having that luxury when Billy Crystal hosted. As soon as it ended, I thought to myself (and said aloud to my husband), "I must learn that!" (And for those who don't know, my sister and I can sing all Billy Crystal's little parodies from each year, on cue, anytime you ask us. Add this one to the list - give me a day or two.)
So, that's it. I guess my Oscar posts have come to an end. Boo-hoo. On the other hand, it's never too early to start prepping for next year! Yay for art and flim and acting and great perfomances and movie stars! (And, in passing, yay for whoever coined the phrase "Angeloony" in description of those, like me, completely infatuated with Angelina Jolie. That is just too good - as is she.)
See ya next time!
So, the Oscar producers certainly mixed it up. They veered away from the traditional order of business and handed out the awards in a totally different sequence. All I could think was, "What if nominees, as I would if I were there, counted on that same-old order and went to the bar to get a drink and missed their category completely? Do you think someone warned them beforehand? I hope so!"
They tinkered with the stage and props, added a bunch of bells and whistles, and poked a lot more fun at Hollywood than usual. I can hear the rumblings from staunch purists (like, me!) But, although change is sometimes hard, by the end I decided I liked most of them (though not all.) This morning, I see online that many of my favorite parts are everyone else's pet peeves. Go figure.
But, most importantly, the winners! I personally adored the five past actors giving little speeches to the nominees, in place of the tired old film clips. It might not be for everyone, but it touched me to see true emotion on the nervous nominees' faces when honored by acting legends like that.
Penelope Cruz's win for Best Supporting Actress - not surprising, but satisfying. Heath Ledger's family certainly spoke with heart and emotion, and though I was prepared for that moment, it still left me teary-eyed. Kate Winslet finally made it to the podium and her bit about practiced speeches in front of her bathroom mirror really hit home for me. (I am guilty of such tricks to this day!) And Sean Penn? Awesome, deserved, funny, humble (for him) and lovely. A terrific and important moment.
"Slumdog Millionaire" really had its moments, and props must go out to all involved in the film. (For a minute there, it seemed all of India might join them onstage to accept the big prize!) My personal favorite: all those little kids. If you've seen the movie (and now, you all have no excuse not to!) you know the importance those children play and how precious their cinematic performances. It tickled me to see them recognized, almost as much as Danny Boyle's shout-out to Tigger! My love for him shot up tremendously in that moment, as we both apparently hold great affinity for Winnie the Pooh.
I don't know if next year's telecast will return to the more traditional version or not. It would be nice to see them incorporate some of the best ideas from last night's show and move toward more innovation. Regardless, I can take a small break from super manic movie-watching and go back to my normal habit of just plain old movie mania.
In closing, this year was most satisfying, even though my fave film did not win. I can't take a thing away from "Slumdog Millionaire" because it really is a great story. So, another year down and another new crop of movies on the horizon. Before we totally move on, just a couple personal highlights of mine:
**I loved when "Man On Wire" balanced that Oscar on his nose and did a magic trick! But my first thought as he ran up there, when I saw his eyes glance skyward? "Oh my gosh, dude's going to climb something!" (Hee!)
**Seth Rogan and James Franco in the "Pineapple Express" bit about the alleged comedies? Brilliant, especially when they showed the "Milk" kissing scene. That truly was laugh-out-loud funny. (And a reminder that James Franco got seriously snubbed.)
**Hugh Jackman did an opening song! I had resigned myself to only having that luxury when Billy Crystal hosted. As soon as it ended, I thought to myself (and said aloud to my husband), "I must learn that!" (And for those who don't know, my sister and I can sing all Billy Crystal's little parodies from each year, on cue, anytime you ask us. Add this one to the list - give me a day or two.)
So, that's it. I guess my Oscar posts have come to an end. Boo-hoo. On the other hand, it's never too early to start prepping for next year! Yay for art and flim and acting and great perfomances and movie stars! (And, in passing, yay for whoever coined the phrase "Angeloony" in description of those, like me, completely infatuated with Angelina Jolie. That is just too good - as is she.)
See ya next time!
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Oscar Watch 14.0
This is it. Movies are watched and picks are made - in the big categories, in the little ones, all the way around. The competition within the family is always furious - the winner of the pool gets bragging rights and that's about it, but apparently for us, it's enough. Even though I see many of the nominated films, I don't always win the pool, usually due to my incessant need to go with what I want to win and not what will likely take the prize. We'll see how it goes this year! Drumroll please...
Best Picture: I picked "Slumdog Millionaire" because I bet it will win. If I were an Oscar voter with a real ballot, I'd still pick "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button." It stands out even now as the most well-rounded of all the films, and I will stand my ground on that.
Best Director: I'll go with Danny Boyle for "Slumdog Millionaire" though I'd love to see David Fincher get it for "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button." His ability to combine cutting edge special effects with deeply moving performances in an epic film amazes me.
Best Actor: A close call, but I'm going with Sean Penn in "Milk." Incidentally, this is also my choice as the best of the year. Mickey Rourke comes a close second and I won't be surprised if he won, but Sean Penn's Harvey Milk resonates more and more.
Best Actress: Another close one. I've picked Kate Winslet in "The Reader" in a real slugfest with Meryl Streep in "Doubt." I think Kate wins it by a hair and is my choice as the best. Though I do agree with some recent rumblings that if any other actress acted as well as Meryl Streep, she'd win hands-down. Meryl Streep is so good in everything, it works against her apparently.
Best Supporting Actor: Of course my pick is Heath Ledger and everyone in the pool, even those who typically go against the grain, has picked him. Alive or dead, it's the best performance of the bunch this year.
Best Supporting Actress: Might as well stick the names in a hat and pick one randomly. These ladies are all so good, I still can't decide. I finally marked my ballot for Taraji P. Henson in "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" but don't even know as of now if she's really my choice as the best. Anyone who wins this one deserves it wholeheartedly and it should be exciting just to see who does take it. I think it might be Penelope Cruz, but as evident with my pick, I think the advance buzz could be wrong. Good, tense races like this make it fun!
So, the tension builds until the big spectacle tonight. I'm especially anxious to see Hugh Jackman as the host and for the rumored Baz Luhrmann song-and-dance numbers. Most of all, I can't wait to see who wins what, what surprises may come, and which stunner packs the most emotional wallop. (Last year, hands down, it was Marketa Irglova and Glen Hansard winning Best Song for Falling Slowly from the remarkable indie hit "Once.")
There's always something which warrants a rewind - and if you don't believe me, stop by sometime and we can review the Oscar ceremonies from the past fifteen or more years. Happy watching!
Best Picture: I picked "Slumdog Millionaire" because I bet it will win. If I were an Oscar voter with a real ballot, I'd still pick "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button." It stands out even now as the most well-rounded of all the films, and I will stand my ground on that.
Best Director: I'll go with Danny Boyle for "Slumdog Millionaire" though I'd love to see David Fincher get it for "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button." His ability to combine cutting edge special effects with deeply moving performances in an epic film amazes me.
Best Actor: A close call, but I'm going with Sean Penn in "Milk." Incidentally, this is also my choice as the best of the year. Mickey Rourke comes a close second and I won't be surprised if he won, but Sean Penn's Harvey Milk resonates more and more.
Best Actress: Another close one. I've picked Kate Winslet in "The Reader" in a real slugfest with Meryl Streep in "Doubt." I think Kate wins it by a hair and is my choice as the best. Though I do agree with some recent rumblings that if any other actress acted as well as Meryl Streep, she'd win hands-down. Meryl Streep is so good in everything, it works against her apparently.
Best Supporting Actor: Of course my pick is Heath Ledger and everyone in the pool, even those who typically go against the grain, has picked him. Alive or dead, it's the best performance of the bunch this year.
Best Supporting Actress: Might as well stick the names in a hat and pick one randomly. These ladies are all so good, I still can't decide. I finally marked my ballot for Taraji P. Henson in "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" but don't even know as of now if she's really my choice as the best. Anyone who wins this one deserves it wholeheartedly and it should be exciting just to see who does take it. I think it might be Penelope Cruz, but as evident with my pick, I think the advance buzz could be wrong. Good, tense races like this make it fun!
So, the tension builds until the big spectacle tonight. I'm especially anxious to see Hugh Jackman as the host and for the rumored Baz Luhrmann song-and-dance numbers. Most of all, I can't wait to see who wins what, what surprises may come, and which stunner packs the most emotional wallop. (Last year, hands down, it was Marketa Irglova and Glen Hansard winning Best Song for Falling Slowly from the remarkable indie hit "Once.")
There's always something which warrants a rewind - and if you don't believe me, stop by sometime and we can review the Oscar ceremonies from the past fifteen or more years. Happy watching!
Oscar Watch 13.0
Today, there will be two posts: this final review post and then my own picks for the Oscar ballot. So, with no time to waste, I must get to it!
Penelope Cruz is nominated as Best Supporting Actress for "Vicky Cristina Barcelona." This is Woody Allen's latest relationship comedy and it delivers. I have not traditionally placed Woody Allen on the same pedestal as other film geeks, but I generally enjoy his work. This film places Rebecca Hall (Vicky) and Scarlett Johansson (Cristina) in Barcelona with Javier Bardem (Juan Antonio) and gives them all sorts of sexy scenarios in which to play out fears and desires. Penelope Cruz joins in as Maria Elena, Javier Bardem's unstable ex-wife, who complicates the interludes with her antics.
The film overall is pleasant and provocative. I enjoyed it and could watch it again, as the dialogue and acting are sharp. Mostly, it looks fabulous. The Spanish landscapes are gorgeous and a testament to Spain's obvious beauty. (To quote Liz Lemon on 30 Rock, "I want to go to there.")
Penelope Cruz really brought this film to another level. At her first introduction, you think her inclusion could melt into jealous sterotypes and simply add tension to the semi-established relationships. But it is not the case. Credit goes to Woody Allen's writing, but also to Penelope Cruz's ability to make Maria Elena likeable, yet unbalanced in a somewhat understandable way. And her character's decisions seem to make sense - to both those onscreen and the audience.
This is Penelope's second nomination in recent years and she might win this time. The Best Supporting Actress category is absolutely the most difficult to pick, as all five women gave emotionally satisfying, memorable performances. The Academy likes Woody Allen (possibly less-so than before the Soon-Yi debacle) and could reward him through this nomination.
Regardless, "Vicky Cristina Barcelona" is enjoyable and Penelope Cruz does a good job in her role. Her fate on Oscar night? Well, at this point, it's less than twelve hours away, so we shall wait and see!
Penelope Cruz is nominated as Best Supporting Actress for "Vicky Cristina Barcelona." This is Woody Allen's latest relationship comedy and it delivers. I have not traditionally placed Woody Allen on the same pedestal as other film geeks, but I generally enjoy his work. This film places Rebecca Hall (Vicky) and Scarlett Johansson (Cristina) in Barcelona with Javier Bardem (Juan Antonio) and gives them all sorts of sexy scenarios in which to play out fears and desires. Penelope Cruz joins in as Maria Elena, Javier Bardem's unstable ex-wife, who complicates the interludes with her antics.
The film overall is pleasant and provocative. I enjoyed it and could watch it again, as the dialogue and acting are sharp. Mostly, it looks fabulous. The Spanish landscapes are gorgeous and a testament to Spain's obvious beauty. (To quote Liz Lemon on 30 Rock, "I want to go to there.")
Penelope Cruz really brought this film to another level. At her first introduction, you think her inclusion could melt into jealous sterotypes and simply add tension to the semi-established relationships. But it is not the case. Credit goes to Woody Allen's writing, but also to Penelope Cruz's ability to make Maria Elena likeable, yet unbalanced in a somewhat understandable way. And her character's decisions seem to make sense - to both those onscreen and the audience.
This is Penelope's second nomination in recent years and she might win this time. The Best Supporting Actress category is absolutely the most difficult to pick, as all five women gave emotionally satisfying, memorable performances. The Academy likes Woody Allen (possibly less-so than before the Soon-Yi debacle) and could reward him through this nomination.
Regardless, "Vicky Cristina Barcelona" is enjoyable and Penelope Cruz does a good job in her role. Her fate on Oscar night? Well, at this point, it's less than twelve hours away, so we shall wait and see!
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Oscar Watch 12.0
As they say in sports, it's almost time for the "talking to stop and the game to begin!" The Oscars are here in a little more than a day. I am proud of my "movies seen" record. It always occurs to me that I may see more nominated films than those who actually cast a vote, since seeing the movie is not actually required before the voting. The injustice! Oh well...
When you sit down to watch a Clint Eastwood film, you can guarantee it won't be a dull experience. His string of recent directorial marvels includes "Mystic River" and "Gran Torino." (That latter film is tough, raw, edgy, and highly emotional. Although not nominated, it is something to see and discuss.) He owns two Academy Awards for directing "Unforgiven" and "Million Dollar Baby." While I may personally not like those films, I won't disagree that they are powerful pieces of work.
In his film "Changeling" he creates another dark, gritty story and Angelina Jolie anchors it with one of her strongest performances ever. She is such a big movie star, sometimes I think her awesome acting chops get overlooked - and then she does work like this to remind everyone. (Should I recuse myself from review? Because my admiration for her is hard to put into words. I think she's talented beyond belief and her strange quirkiness only adds to her charm. I love her big, sprawling, ecclectic family and find her beauty mesmerizing. She is considered a bit of a hero, if you will. I'll attempt to regain some neutrality...)
Her work is the film's sole big-category nomination as Best Actress. She plays Christine Collins, a single mother in the 1920's whose son, Walter, disappears one evening from their California home. The perpetually corrupt LAPD brings her a boy and claims victory in the reunion - but this boy is not Walter. And when Christine tells them so, they go to devious and terrible lengths in their treatment of her to defend their (dis)honorable reputation.
This is a crime drama wrapped in an emotional saga of pain and justice. The look of the picture is unquestionably remarkable, the story is strong and all the supporting players near-perfect. But Angelina Jolie is what you will remember after the credits roll. Her love and determination tears at you through the screen. This film is based on true events and you have to think, were the real Christine Collins alive, she would approve of Ms. Jolie's delicate, nuanced portrayal of her courageous fight.
As per usual, Clint Eastwood has fashioned an emotionally difficult picture through which to sit. But, also true to form, it pays off in spades. "Changeling" is worth a rental. Angelina Jolie could very will win an Oscar for this role. I don't know if that will happen this year, but her nomination is certainly well-earned.
When you sit down to watch a Clint Eastwood film, you can guarantee it won't be a dull experience. His string of recent directorial marvels includes "Mystic River" and "Gran Torino." (That latter film is tough, raw, edgy, and highly emotional. Although not nominated, it is something to see and discuss.) He owns two Academy Awards for directing "Unforgiven" and "Million Dollar Baby." While I may personally not like those films, I won't disagree that they are powerful pieces of work.
In his film "Changeling" he creates another dark, gritty story and Angelina Jolie anchors it with one of her strongest performances ever. She is such a big movie star, sometimes I think her awesome acting chops get overlooked - and then she does work like this to remind everyone. (Should I recuse myself from review? Because my admiration for her is hard to put into words. I think she's talented beyond belief and her strange quirkiness only adds to her charm. I love her big, sprawling, ecclectic family and find her beauty mesmerizing. She is considered a bit of a hero, if you will. I'll attempt to regain some neutrality...)
Her work is the film's sole big-category nomination as Best Actress. She plays Christine Collins, a single mother in the 1920's whose son, Walter, disappears one evening from their California home. The perpetually corrupt LAPD brings her a boy and claims victory in the reunion - but this boy is not Walter. And when Christine tells them so, they go to devious and terrible lengths in their treatment of her to defend their (dis)honorable reputation.
This is a crime drama wrapped in an emotional saga of pain and justice. The look of the picture is unquestionably remarkable, the story is strong and all the supporting players near-perfect. But Angelina Jolie is what you will remember after the credits roll. Her love and determination tears at you through the screen. This film is based on true events and you have to think, were the real Christine Collins alive, she would approve of Ms. Jolie's delicate, nuanced portrayal of her courageous fight.
As per usual, Clint Eastwood has fashioned an emotionally difficult picture through which to sit. But, also true to form, it pays off in spades. "Changeling" is worth a rental. Angelina Jolie could very will win an Oscar for this role. I don't know if that will happen this year, but her nomination is certainly well-earned.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Oscar Watch 11.0
A round-up of two different acting noms: Melissa Leo, Best Actress hopeful for "Frozen River" and Robert Downey Jr., Best Supporting Actor contender for "Tropic Thunder."
These two couldn't diverge more if you scripted it. (Neither is to blame that I chose to lump them together in my meager little blog post!) Melissa Leo has that real quality about her - which means she actually looks like a real person in this movie, not like a Hollywood glamazon dirtied up to play poor. Robert Downey Jr. puts on black face and is hilarious doing so.
"Frozen River" is a tense little thriller. It engages you right into its cold, odd little world. Melissa Leo is Ray, a dollar-store cashier who just wants a new double-wide for her two sons and herself after her husband takes the last of their money and traipses off to Atlantic City to gamble it away. She unwittingly gets mixed up in smuggling illegal aliens across the American-Canadian border with a girl native to the adjoining Mohawk Reservation.
It's not a typical picture, but it more than holds your interest throughout. Melissa Leo is actually understated in many ways - which makes it a bit of a surprise the Academy noticed her role in a small film released before the late-December rush. But it's refreshing, and though I don't know if she will beat some of the power players she's up against, she could. It is certainly a mesmerizing performance.
Conversely, Robert Downey Jr. plays an Australian method actor in black face in the witty "Tropic Thunder." The Academy's well-known discrimination against comic performers in actual funny roles is literally only the second biggest hurdle he must face, as he is up against Heath Ledger.
As a fan of Robert Downey Jr., both before and after his difficulties with cocaine and the legal system, I am happy to see this nomination for this role. He's ironic and hysterical. This movie isn't perfect - there are some real uneven moments - but it's pretty darn funny. Robert Downey Jr.'s take on this character makes the film for me, and in any other year, I might even say he had a real chance. Just not this year.
Both of these actors are real long shots to win the gold man Sunday evening. It's nice to be included in the group, though, and you just don't know: strange and wonderful things sometimes happen on Oscar night.
These two couldn't diverge more if you scripted it. (Neither is to blame that I chose to lump them together in my meager little blog post!) Melissa Leo has that real quality about her - which means she actually looks like a real person in this movie, not like a Hollywood glamazon dirtied up to play poor. Robert Downey Jr. puts on black face and is hilarious doing so.
"Frozen River" is a tense little thriller. It engages you right into its cold, odd little world. Melissa Leo is Ray, a dollar-store cashier who just wants a new double-wide for her two sons and herself after her husband takes the last of their money and traipses off to Atlantic City to gamble it away. She unwittingly gets mixed up in smuggling illegal aliens across the American-Canadian border with a girl native to the adjoining Mohawk Reservation.
It's not a typical picture, but it more than holds your interest throughout. Melissa Leo is actually understated in many ways - which makes it a bit of a surprise the Academy noticed her role in a small film released before the late-December rush. But it's refreshing, and though I don't know if she will beat some of the power players she's up against, she could. It is certainly a mesmerizing performance.
Conversely, Robert Downey Jr. plays an Australian method actor in black face in the witty "Tropic Thunder." The Academy's well-known discrimination against comic performers in actual funny roles is literally only the second biggest hurdle he must face, as he is up against Heath Ledger.
As a fan of Robert Downey Jr., both before and after his difficulties with cocaine and the legal system, I am happy to see this nomination for this role. He's ironic and hysterical. This movie isn't perfect - there are some real uneven moments - but it's pretty darn funny. Robert Downey Jr.'s take on this character makes the film for me, and in any other year, I might even say he had a real chance. Just not this year.
Both of these actors are real long shots to win the gold man Sunday evening. It's nice to be included in the group, though, and you just don't know: strange and wonderful things sometimes happen on Oscar night.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Oscar Watch 10.5
A few nights ago, I pondered deeply: How many times in the past ten years have I been disappointed with the Oscar wins? I tell myself it's about half the time, but I don't know if that is accurate. So, let's see:
1998: "Shakespeare In Love" over "Saving Private Ryan." Ugh. While I may like "Shakespeare In Love" better, it's because war movies aren't my speed. But is it better? Um, nope. This year was a disappointment for sure, all the way around.
1999: "American Beauty" takes it all. I won't disagree with that choice per se, but the movies were all so strong it's hard to pick the "Best." See the nominees: "The Green Mile", "The Sixth Sense", "The Cider House Rules" and "The Insider." It's hard! But, the real snub came when Russell Crowe did not win Best Actor. See: Next year...
2000 : "Gladiator" beats out "Traffic" even though Steven Soderbergh wins Best Director and Ridley Scott does not. That is always the sure-fire way to tell no one can make up their minds. I did not agree at the time, and still have trouble with this...but not nearly the problem I have with Russell Crowe winning Best Actor this year. I love, love, love Russell Crowe, but his win should have come last year for "The Insider" and not here. His performance in "The Insider" ranks, to me, as one of the very best ever. An example of the right actor winning for the wrong role.
2001: "A Beautiful Mind" wins and "Moulin Rouge" does not. Enough said. I can appreciate the reasons behind it, but I don't agree. The Academy has a hard time rewarding new filmmaking styles. (Witness "Pulp Fiction" losing to "Forrest Gump." I rest my case.) So, Baz Luhrman's frenetic, hyper-realized musical certainly does not look like the traditional Best Picture, no matter the visual brilliance of it. I won't say it's a total wash, though.
2002: "Chicago" beats both "The Pianist" and "Gangs of New York" and no once since the ceremony ended will let anyone forget it. The outrage - from some of the same people who voted for crying out loud! This is just wrong on many, many levels - even though I adore "Chicago" on stage and screen, love the music and wish I could play Velma Kelly sometime. But seriously, people...just, seriously. At least there is a silver lining - Adrien Brody's surprise win for Best Actor in "The Pianist" ranks as one of my best Oscar moments ever! They got that right for sure.
2003: "The Lord of the Rings - Return of the King" is awarded top prize, since Peter Jackson had to be rewarded for his groundbreaking trilogy. I would personally have picked "Mystic River" but I appreciate the choice. In terms of filmmaking on a whole, Peter Jackson did create a new mold.
2004: The "Million Dollar Baby" year. Oh, boy. It's hard to even talk about it. Clint Eastwood is a major Hollywood player and last year, for "Mystic River", I would have stood up and cheered for his win. But this? I can't get in line...too bad because "The Aviator" is tremendous and one of Martin Scorsese's best.
2005: The whole "Crash" debacle. I think I"ve already discussed this. Suffice it to say that "Crash" manipulated its audience and likewise, manipulated itself into the top Oscar spot. It's not a terrible movie and I don't hate it. But it's not the best of that year.
2006: Finally! "The Departed" wins Martin Scorsese's first Best Director prize. (That itself is scandalous.) This is by far the right decision. Yea! A lot of cheers for this one!
2007: "No Country For Old Men" and the Cohen brothers win. I love the Cohens. I don't agree with this choice over the more deserving "There Will Be Blood." But, Daniel Day Lewis did win as Best Actor, so I guess there is some atonement in that.
So, all in all, I only count four years I could say were personally satisfying and one that was truly awesome. So, forty percent of the time I'm happy. Huh.
Doesn't matter! The Oscars are less than a week away! I wonder how it will turn out this year? I can't wait to find out. I hope you can't either!
1998: "Shakespeare In Love" over "Saving Private Ryan." Ugh. While I may like "Shakespeare In Love" better, it's because war movies aren't my speed. But is it better? Um, nope. This year was a disappointment for sure, all the way around.
1999: "American Beauty" takes it all. I won't disagree with that choice per se, but the movies were all so strong it's hard to pick the "Best." See the nominees: "The Green Mile", "The Sixth Sense", "The Cider House Rules" and "The Insider." It's hard! But, the real snub came when Russell Crowe did not win Best Actor. See: Next year...
2000 : "Gladiator" beats out "Traffic" even though Steven Soderbergh wins Best Director and Ridley Scott does not. That is always the sure-fire way to tell no one can make up their minds. I did not agree at the time, and still have trouble with this...but not nearly the problem I have with Russell Crowe winning Best Actor this year. I love, love, love Russell Crowe, but his win should have come last year for "The Insider" and not here. His performance in "The Insider" ranks, to me, as one of the very best ever. An example of the right actor winning for the wrong role.
2001: "A Beautiful Mind" wins and "Moulin Rouge" does not. Enough said. I can appreciate the reasons behind it, but I don't agree. The Academy has a hard time rewarding new filmmaking styles. (Witness "Pulp Fiction" losing to "Forrest Gump." I rest my case.) So, Baz Luhrman's frenetic, hyper-realized musical certainly does not look like the traditional Best Picture, no matter the visual brilliance of it. I won't say it's a total wash, though.
2002: "Chicago" beats both "The Pianist" and "Gangs of New York" and no once since the ceremony ended will let anyone forget it. The outrage - from some of the same people who voted for crying out loud! This is just wrong on many, many levels - even though I adore "Chicago" on stage and screen, love the music and wish I could play Velma Kelly sometime. But seriously, people...just, seriously. At least there is a silver lining - Adrien Brody's surprise win for Best Actor in "The Pianist" ranks as one of my best Oscar moments ever! They got that right for sure.
2003: "The Lord of the Rings - Return of the King" is awarded top prize, since Peter Jackson had to be rewarded for his groundbreaking trilogy. I would personally have picked "Mystic River" but I appreciate the choice. In terms of filmmaking on a whole, Peter Jackson did create a new mold.
2004: The "Million Dollar Baby" year. Oh, boy. It's hard to even talk about it. Clint Eastwood is a major Hollywood player and last year, for "Mystic River", I would have stood up and cheered for his win. But this? I can't get in line...too bad because "The Aviator" is tremendous and one of Martin Scorsese's best.
2005: The whole "Crash" debacle. I think I"ve already discussed this. Suffice it to say that "Crash" manipulated its audience and likewise, manipulated itself into the top Oscar spot. It's not a terrible movie and I don't hate it. But it's not the best of that year.
2006: Finally! "The Departed" wins Martin Scorsese's first Best Director prize. (That itself is scandalous.) This is by far the right decision. Yea! A lot of cheers for this one!
2007: "No Country For Old Men" and the Cohen brothers win. I love the Cohens. I don't agree with this choice over the more deserving "There Will Be Blood." But, Daniel Day Lewis did win as Best Actor, so I guess there is some atonement in that.
So, all in all, I only count four years I could say were personally satisfying and one that was truly awesome. So, forty percent of the time I'm happy. Huh.
Doesn't matter! The Oscars are less than a week away! I wonder how it will turn out this year? I can't wait to find out. I hope you can't either!
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Oscar Watch 10.0
A week from today, the Oscar race will be over and the statuettes awarded. I'm almost prepared to start preliminary predictions. Still, there are a few performances of which I haven't yet written. One in particular will transcend the movie and nomination and analyze all that the Oscars really mean to me: Heath Ledger in "The Dark Knight."
It's been a year since Heath Ledger's tragic death. I have yet to totally believe it's real. I know I had no personal relationship with the actor, but his work onscreen feels so meaningful, so heartfelt. Like so many others, he impacted my life with his talent and will forever be missed. Perhaps that is why it's difficult to talk about him and his likely sure-lock to win.
"The Dark Knight" certainly lays claim to being the year's most popular movie. I recently rewatched it and, honestly, it's a fine piece of filmmaking. But it is Heath Ledger's Joker who makes it sizzle. Christopher Nolan fashioned a fine new Batman in "Batman Begins" and you will never hear an argument from me when Christian Bale is cast as the lead. (Though, given recent events, you may hear an argument from him...)
But let's be honest: there was no Oscar buzz for "Batman Begins" and rightfully so. I think "The Dark Knight" draws its strength from Heath Ledger in such a powerful way, he infuses himself into every ounce of that movie, whether or not he is actually onscreen.
For those reasons, I believe his nomination is deserved and the right place in which to honor this picture. I can feel the criticism bubble around me, as I know many feel passionately that this movie should be nominated in the prestigious categories, too. But, honestly, if not for Heath Ledger, this is a great summer popcorn flick that rakes in a bunch of cash. And it's well-done. But it is not the art film it is in its current form. Heath Ledger rises above and beyond what anyone could have expected from him, and in turn raises the bar for this picture. Plain and simple, Heath Ledger makes "The Dark Knight."
I'm sure he will win the Oscar next week. It saddens me because he should be here to accept and bask in that moment, although from what I've read about him, he would likely be quite uncomfortable in that sort of spotlight. In actuality, this whole thing highlights a major flaw in the Academy Awards. (Not the only one, mind you - I have a whole post planned for my biggest Oscar pet peeves and why, though I love the Oscars, about half the time I highly disagree with the Academy's selections.)
Heath Ledger should have died an Oscar winner, for his gut-wrenching turn in "Brokeback Mountain." Now, I love Philip Seymour Hoffman and "Capote" showcased his brilliance, but he should not have beaten Heath Ledger for Best Actor. The "Brokeback Mountain" year still has me incredibly miffed. If you ever want a spirited discussion wherein I turn red with disgust, ask me sometime about "Crash" winning Best Picture that year. Total travesty...
Regardless, I know the ways of the Academy. Sometimes, youngsters don't win for the most-deserving nomination because there is someone else that year who, for a myriad of reasons, will win instead. It's political, plain and simple. It drives me nuts because I am a purist in most every area and especially in this one. If you turn in the best performance in a year, you should win. I don't think it should matter whether your competitors previously lost and now need the "make-up" win. I don't care if the Academy feels you must "pay your dues" or "have time" to win later. (A rule that the Academy only follows in certain cases and other times throws right out the window when someone, you know, deserves to win!)
I don't know what the Academy as a whole thought when they cast their ballots that year - or any year. But, Heath Ledger had that buzz about him - he was great, he was destined for big things, and he'd probably win an Oscar or two or three in his time. "Brokeback Mountain" apparently was not his time.
And then, his time ended. Yes, it stings when people die prematurely and no, no one could really predict that coming. But it just shows how fragile it all is. Anyone can go at any time. Thus, in my opinion, you should be rewarded when what you've done deserves the prize. (And believe me, I have thought that he lost that Oscar fair and square because the voters belived Hoffman's work better. But, frankly, I don't buy it.) You should not have to wait because no one, not even famous, talented movie stars, is guaranteed time on this Earth to fulfill a destiny.
So, unless something completely nuts happens, Heath Ledger will be an Oscar winner next week. And he deserves it. Is he the best this year? Well, it is debatable - but hardly worth the time because I don't see a scenario wherein he does not win. And I'm not angry about that, and would not be even if he were alive and well.
It is a bummer, though, that he is not alive and well. His last performance will eerily live on as his legacy. Real life is not fair, you know. And apparently, neither is life onscreen.
It's been a year since Heath Ledger's tragic death. I have yet to totally believe it's real. I know I had no personal relationship with the actor, but his work onscreen feels so meaningful, so heartfelt. Like so many others, he impacted my life with his talent and will forever be missed. Perhaps that is why it's difficult to talk about him and his likely sure-lock to win.
"The Dark Knight" certainly lays claim to being the year's most popular movie. I recently rewatched it and, honestly, it's a fine piece of filmmaking. But it is Heath Ledger's Joker who makes it sizzle. Christopher Nolan fashioned a fine new Batman in "Batman Begins" and you will never hear an argument from me when Christian Bale is cast as the lead. (Though, given recent events, you may hear an argument from him...)
But let's be honest: there was no Oscar buzz for "Batman Begins" and rightfully so. I think "The Dark Knight" draws its strength from Heath Ledger in such a powerful way, he infuses himself into every ounce of that movie, whether or not he is actually onscreen.
For those reasons, I believe his nomination is deserved and the right place in which to honor this picture. I can feel the criticism bubble around me, as I know many feel passionately that this movie should be nominated in the prestigious categories, too. But, honestly, if not for Heath Ledger, this is a great summer popcorn flick that rakes in a bunch of cash. And it's well-done. But it is not the art film it is in its current form. Heath Ledger rises above and beyond what anyone could have expected from him, and in turn raises the bar for this picture. Plain and simple, Heath Ledger makes "The Dark Knight."
I'm sure he will win the Oscar next week. It saddens me because he should be here to accept and bask in that moment, although from what I've read about him, he would likely be quite uncomfortable in that sort of spotlight. In actuality, this whole thing highlights a major flaw in the Academy Awards. (Not the only one, mind you - I have a whole post planned for my biggest Oscar pet peeves and why, though I love the Oscars, about half the time I highly disagree with the Academy's selections.)
Heath Ledger should have died an Oscar winner, for his gut-wrenching turn in "Brokeback Mountain." Now, I love Philip Seymour Hoffman and "Capote" showcased his brilliance, but he should not have beaten Heath Ledger for Best Actor. The "Brokeback Mountain" year still has me incredibly miffed. If you ever want a spirited discussion wherein I turn red with disgust, ask me sometime about "Crash" winning Best Picture that year. Total travesty...
Regardless, I know the ways of the Academy. Sometimes, youngsters don't win for the most-deserving nomination because there is someone else that year who, for a myriad of reasons, will win instead. It's political, plain and simple. It drives me nuts because I am a purist in most every area and especially in this one. If you turn in the best performance in a year, you should win. I don't think it should matter whether your competitors previously lost and now need the "make-up" win. I don't care if the Academy feels you must "pay your dues" or "have time" to win later. (A rule that the Academy only follows in certain cases and other times throws right out the window when someone, you know, deserves to win!)
I don't know what the Academy as a whole thought when they cast their ballots that year - or any year. But, Heath Ledger had that buzz about him - he was great, he was destined for big things, and he'd probably win an Oscar or two or three in his time. "Brokeback Mountain" apparently was not his time.
And then, his time ended. Yes, it stings when people die prematurely and no, no one could really predict that coming. But it just shows how fragile it all is. Anyone can go at any time. Thus, in my opinion, you should be rewarded when what you've done deserves the prize. (And believe me, I have thought that he lost that Oscar fair and square because the voters belived Hoffman's work better. But, frankly, I don't buy it.) You should not have to wait because no one, not even famous, talented movie stars, is guaranteed time on this Earth to fulfill a destiny.
So, unless something completely nuts happens, Heath Ledger will be an Oscar winner next week. And he deserves it. Is he the best this year? Well, it is debatable - but hardly worth the time because I don't see a scenario wherein he does not win. And I'm not angry about that, and would not be even if he were alive and well.
It is a bummer, though, that he is not alive and well. His last performance will eerily live on as his legacy. Real life is not fair, you know. And apparently, neither is life onscreen.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Love, Love, Love...
Isn't it weird that Valentine's Day this year comes on the heels of Friday the 13th? Or is it just appropriate? I mean, I love Valentine's Day, mostly because it is all pink and hearts and smiles and hugs. But let's be real about it: it's a Hallmark holiday, made up for consumerism. Today, beleagured men line up to buy overpriced flowers and jewelry to show how much they "love" their partners.
I've never really been too much about the material gifts, though in my younger days I can admit I fell victim to the enormous pressure to make this day count. I've received some pretty nice things over the years from various suitors, some expensive and some just thoughtful. Not all of them meant true love. In some cases, no real emotions were involved whatsoever. So be it. I'm sure it was fun while it lasted!
Some of my best V-Day memories involve my girlfriends at our favorite bar, dancing the night away with the rest of the lonely singles. And that's okay too. Love, for me, has always included both the romantic and the platonic and each is most important in its own way.
This year, we've decided against the traditional celebration. In meager college years, this day equalled an excuse for a fancy dinner out. Sometimes, this day has been roses and lobster dinners at home. Last year, it was an extravagant trip to Las Vegas, with Cirque du Soleil and gourmet eats. (It has also been long lines in restaurants where the very next day, you can eat the same food without waiting a minute. Long gone is the insanity of that!)
Now, we are going with pizza and an evening of "The Princess Bride" - my all-time absolute favorite film ever, inspiration for a fairy tale life of love if ever one existed. We will curl up with the dogs and then eat chocolate cake with chocolate ice cream and just be together. Not much different from other nights, really, because as you get older, that is what love...is.
Happy Valentine's Day to one and all. No matter the celebration you choose, may this day of love be filled with just that in all its treasured forms.
I've never really been too much about the material gifts, though in my younger days I can admit I fell victim to the enormous pressure to make this day count. I've received some pretty nice things over the years from various suitors, some expensive and some just thoughtful. Not all of them meant true love. In some cases, no real emotions were involved whatsoever. So be it. I'm sure it was fun while it lasted!
Some of my best V-Day memories involve my girlfriends at our favorite bar, dancing the night away with the rest of the lonely singles. And that's okay too. Love, for me, has always included both the romantic and the platonic and each is most important in its own way.
This year, we've decided against the traditional celebration. In meager college years, this day equalled an excuse for a fancy dinner out. Sometimes, this day has been roses and lobster dinners at home. Last year, it was an extravagant trip to Las Vegas, with Cirque du Soleil and gourmet eats. (It has also been long lines in restaurants where the very next day, you can eat the same food without waiting a minute. Long gone is the insanity of that!)
Now, we are going with pizza and an evening of "The Princess Bride" - my all-time absolute favorite film ever, inspiration for a fairy tale life of love if ever one existed. We will curl up with the dogs and then eat chocolate cake with chocolate ice cream and just be together. Not much different from other nights, really, because as you get older, that is what love...is.
Happy Valentine's Day to one and all. No matter the celebration you choose, may this day of love be filled with just that in all its treasured forms.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Oscar Watch 9.0
There are some films which just reek of strong acting and while you watch, you realize the amazement to see such talent together onscreen. "Doubt" certainly falls into this category.
Notice the nominations alone: Meryl Streep, who seems to garner a nod for showing her face. And this is not to say it's undeserved, as she's simply marvelous and grows more so with age. Amy Adams, who is one of my absolute favorite stars ever since "Junebug" so fascinated and enthralled me. (If you have not seen it, go do it. Right now!) Philip Seymour Hoffman, a fantastic addition no matter what he does and no matter how disheveled he looks doing it. And Viola Davis, a newcomer who has one tantalizing, suspenseful showdown with Meryl Streep which will stick with you long after the film's end.
This, too, was a stage play, much like "Frost/Nixon." I bet it was a doozy onstage, though it certainly did not star the caliber of actors we have here. The premise is instant intrigue: a priest, Philip Seymour Hoffman, at a Catholic school shows (too much?) interest in a young boy, who also is the first black student admitted to this New York City private school in the 1950's. The nuns, school principal Meryl Streep and teacher Amy Adams, delve into whether something inappropriate happened and what, exactly, they should do if it did. Along the way, there is a mighty confrontation of the young boy's mother, Viola Davis, which only serves to complicate.
As you might imagine, this is a dialogue-heavy, intense drama which pulls you along its path. I can bet it worked better onstage, but the look of the film adds to the foreboding nature of its plot. There is a lot of rain and wind and blustery cold. And in the end, there is no real contrition, if you will.
But it's the journey that matters most. And to witness the talent of these fine actors is something to see. I don't know, given the master class of actors involved in the Oscar races this year, whether any of this film's nominees will walk away a winner. (Meryl Streep and Philip Seymour Hoffman already have won, of course.) I do think they are worthy addtions to the group, and I think the film shows them off nicely.
"Doubt" will get you thinking and could start some interesting conversations. That, too, is a testament to a fine film.
Notice the nominations alone: Meryl Streep, who seems to garner a nod for showing her face. And this is not to say it's undeserved, as she's simply marvelous and grows more so with age. Amy Adams, who is one of my absolute favorite stars ever since "Junebug" so fascinated and enthralled me. (If you have not seen it, go do it. Right now!) Philip Seymour Hoffman, a fantastic addition no matter what he does and no matter how disheveled he looks doing it. And Viola Davis, a newcomer who has one tantalizing, suspenseful showdown with Meryl Streep which will stick with you long after the film's end.
This, too, was a stage play, much like "Frost/Nixon." I bet it was a doozy onstage, though it certainly did not star the caliber of actors we have here. The premise is instant intrigue: a priest, Philip Seymour Hoffman, at a Catholic school shows (too much?) interest in a young boy, who also is the first black student admitted to this New York City private school in the 1950's. The nuns, school principal Meryl Streep and teacher Amy Adams, delve into whether something inappropriate happened and what, exactly, they should do if it did. Along the way, there is a mighty confrontation of the young boy's mother, Viola Davis, which only serves to complicate.
As you might imagine, this is a dialogue-heavy, intense drama which pulls you along its path. I can bet it worked better onstage, but the look of the film adds to the foreboding nature of its plot. There is a lot of rain and wind and blustery cold. And in the end, there is no real contrition, if you will.
But it's the journey that matters most. And to witness the talent of these fine actors is something to see. I don't know, given the master class of actors involved in the Oscar races this year, whether any of this film's nominees will walk away a winner. (Meryl Streep and Philip Seymour Hoffman already have won, of course.) I do think they are worthy addtions to the group, and I think the film shows them off nicely.
"Doubt" will get you thinking and could start some interesting conversations. That, too, is a testament to a fine film.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Oscar Watch 8.0
Oscar night draws gleefully nigh. (Don't you just love the word "nigh" in modern times - or is it just me?) I am excited and ready. There are few performances I must catch before the big night and luckily, they will bow on DVD prior to Sunday, February 22nd. (Melissa Leo in "Frozen River" and Angelina Jolie in "Changeling" for starters.)
Sadly, I must do without a few films as well. "Revolutionary Road" and its nominated supporting actor Michael Shannon never fit my schedule and, most disappointing of all, I will miss Anne Hathaway's leading performance in "Rachel Getting Married." I so wanted to see that latter film, but it just slipped away from the theaters too quickly.
But I won't dwell on the negative! Next up for review is a small, impressive film you could rent on DVD right now, today - "The Visitor." Its star, Richard Jenkins, is nominated for Best Actor. He himself describes his chances to win as, "Please. I have no chance." But, regardless of that, this movie is well worth the watch, especially since this type of film often does not get the audience it deserves. (And on a side note, any film which can motivate me to think about possibly going back to the practice of law is quite an achievement! That in itself should win some kind of award!)
This movie touches on many social, relevant issues - our country's over-zealous immigration laws, right versus wrong, love and loss. Richard Jenkins is the type of actor who plays in numerous films, but is kind of nameless - like, you'll recognize him as "that guy who was the dad in 'Step-Brothers'" or something like that. He really marvels here in a touching, warm-hearted portrayal of a middle-aged widower who accidentally discovers he can still feel passion for people and life.
Sometimes, I truly prefer these small movies. And sometimes, I will admit, I long for the ditzy Hollywood ending because the realism hurts my heart too much. This is not a "feel-good" film. It's depressing, though humor slides in at many turns. It is, however, worth your time. I hope Richard Jenkins can transform this into some more starring turns. He is very, very good.
"The Visitor" likely won't win anything on Oscar night. But the attention it's garnered with its nominations surely won it a few more viewers. And that is the realy beauty of the Academy Awards.
Sadly, I must do without a few films as well. "Revolutionary Road" and its nominated supporting actor Michael Shannon never fit my schedule and, most disappointing of all, I will miss Anne Hathaway's leading performance in "Rachel Getting Married." I so wanted to see that latter film, but it just slipped away from the theaters too quickly.
But I won't dwell on the negative! Next up for review is a small, impressive film you could rent on DVD right now, today - "The Visitor." Its star, Richard Jenkins, is nominated for Best Actor. He himself describes his chances to win as, "Please. I have no chance." But, regardless of that, this movie is well worth the watch, especially since this type of film often does not get the audience it deserves. (And on a side note, any film which can motivate me to think about possibly going back to the practice of law is quite an achievement! That in itself should win some kind of award!)
This movie touches on many social, relevant issues - our country's over-zealous immigration laws, right versus wrong, love and loss. Richard Jenkins is the type of actor who plays in numerous films, but is kind of nameless - like, you'll recognize him as "that guy who was the dad in 'Step-Brothers'" or something like that. He really marvels here in a touching, warm-hearted portrayal of a middle-aged widower who accidentally discovers he can still feel passion for people and life.
Sometimes, I truly prefer these small movies. And sometimes, I will admit, I long for the ditzy Hollywood ending because the realism hurts my heart too much. This is not a "feel-good" film. It's depressing, though humor slides in at many turns. It is, however, worth your time. I hope Richard Jenkins can transform this into some more starring turns. He is very, very good.
"The Visitor" likely won't win anything on Oscar night. But the attention it's garnered with its nominations surely won it a few more viewers. And that is the realy beauty of the Academy Awards.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Did You Ever Notice?
Randomly, and with no particular point to be made, things I've noticed and/or learned in this new year:
**Mitch Berger, the Steelers' punter, deserves an Academy Award for this on-field theatrics - maybe "Best Flop" for his performance in the AFC Championship game. (Not that you'll hear any complaints from Steeler Nation, mind you. I"m just saying...)
**People can be mighty righteous. See Exhibit A: Michael Phelps and a bong hit. Come on, now - he's a twenty-something-year-old kid at a college party who smoked some pot. Half the folks ready to lynch him as a "bad example" probably smoked their fair share in college, and the other half wishes they had. Some of them might even roll a fat one now and again, on weekends away from the family when they re-live the freedom of irresponsibility. (I, for one, am suspect of anyone who did not get high in college.) Michael Phelps is a super-talented millionaire who took a bong hit. It's not like he toked up pool side in Beijing, for crying out loud. I'm ready to boycott Kellogg's for their dropping him as a sponsor. Don't we collectively as a country have bigger things on our plate than a little bit of weed? Seriously...
**We're supposedly in a recession, but I still can't get out of Target without waiting in line while shoppers in front of me buy necessities like new 300-thread-count sheets, bottled water, and dog toys. I'm not criticizing, just noticing. (I myself can't seem to check-out without spending at least a hundred bucks, so no stones thrown by me.)
**There are those walking among us who buy into infomercials. In fact, one such person sleeps next to me at night. Say it isn't so! But I recently read an online article about the Snuggie - you know, blanket with arm-holes - and its influence on pop culture. (My favorite part of the advertisement is when the family all dons their respective Snuggies to keep warm at a sporting event - they look like wizards ala Harry Potter and company at a Quiddich match! Priceless.) I guess even when times are bad, folks can scrounge $19.99 for a ShamWow. Those genius marketers know what they are doing! Good to know.
So, wisdom comes in odd packages. Like the ShamWow spokesman says in his other masterpiece campaign for the SlapChop, "Linguine, Fettuccini, Martini, Bikini!" (That has absolutely nothing to do with anything. I just find it hysterical and will quote it whenever I get the chance, no matter the situation.)
Words to live by, my friends. Keep your eyes open in this wacky world - there is no telling what you'll see!
**Mitch Berger, the Steelers' punter, deserves an Academy Award for this on-field theatrics - maybe "Best Flop" for his performance in the AFC Championship game. (Not that you'll hear any complaints from Steeler Nation, mind you. I"m just saying...)
**People can be mighty righteous. See Exhibit A: Michael Phelps and a bong hit. Come on, now - he's a twenty-something-year-old kid at a college party who smoked some pot. Half the folks ready to lynch him as a "bad example" probably smoked their fair share in college, and the other half wishes they had. Some of them might even roll a fat one now and again, on weekends away from the family when they re-live the freedom of irresponsibility. (I, for one, am suspect of anyone who did not get high in college.) Michael Phelps is a super-talented millionaire who took a bong hit. It's not like he toked up pool side in Beijing, for crying out loud. I'm ready to boycott Kellogg's for their dropping him as a sponsor. Don't we collectively as a country have bigger things on our plate than a little bit of weed? Seriously...
**We're supposedly in a recession, but I still can't get out of Target without waiting in line while shoppers in front of me buy necessities like new 300-thread-count sheets, bottled water, and dog toys. I'm not criticizing, just noticing. (I myself can't seem to check-out without spending at least a hundred bucks, so no stones thrown by me.)
**There are those walking among us who buy into infomercials. In fact, one such person sleeps next to me at night. Say it isn't so! But I recently read an online article about the Snuggie - you know, blanket with arm-holes - and its influence on pop culture. (My favorite part of the advertisement is when the family all dons their respective Snuggies to keep warm at a sporting event - they look like wizards ala Harry Potter and company at a Quiddich match! Priceless.) I guess even when times are bad, folks can scrounge $19.99 for a ShamWow. Those genius marketers know what they are doing! Good to know.
So, wisdom comes in odd packages. Like the ShamWow spokesman says in his other masterpiece campaign for the SlapChop, "Linguine, Fettuccini, Martini, Bikini!" (That has absolutely nothing to do with anything. I just find it hysterical and will quote it whenever I get the chance, no matter the situation.)
Words to live by, my friends. Keep your eyes open in this wacky world - there is no telling what you'll see!
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Oscar Watch 7.0
Next up is the last installment in Best Picture nominees: "Frost/Nixon." In addition, perennial Hollywood favorite and all-around nice guy Ron Howard scored a Best Director nomination and Frank Langella a Best Actor nod.
This docudrama tells the story of British talk-show host David Frost's infamous televised interviews with newly-resigned President Richard Nixon. The story is told as if a documentary crew followed up with the folks involved in bringing the interviews to life. This method adds some intrigue to the already fascinating journey to make these interviews happen.
With all the circus-like coverage of Tricky Dick's White House departure, no one had gotten the former Commander in Chief to confess his actual wrongdoing or apologize to a cynical nation and David Frost sees a gold mine in being the first to get it done. Mr. Frost is played with a twinkling eye and unerlying wit by Michael Sheen. He truly embodies a radiant energy and turns in a layered performance. The bond he forms with Richard Nixon, purely by accident and to his surprise, is brought to life by strong acting on his part.
Frank Langella does a great job as Richard M. Nixon, showing a symapthetic side to the much maligned historical figure. He won the Tony Award for this perfomance on Broadway, in the stage play upon which the film is based. Having been a baby when this played out in real life, I don't remember the actual events. (President Nixon resigned the day I was born. Literally.)
I do know that this story has been fictionalized and much dramatic license taken. But I do not care. It is suspenseful in a much different way from an action film and allows you to see layers of a character usually thought of in one-dimensional tones. In the end, Richard Nixon was a lonely and confused old man who had poor social skills. Does that excuse his inexcusable actions? Of course not. Does it make him human? Yes.
Is this movie worthy of all the praise heaped upon it? I'd say it is. It is not for everyone. But if you like history made into movies, this is a good one. I doubt it will take home any big prizes on Oscar night, but it's well-acted and well-directed and touches upon a story not everyone remembers.
And it is a story worth telling.
This docudrama tells the story of British talk-show host David Frost's infamous televised interviews with newly-resigned President Richard Nixon. The story is told as if a documentary crew followed up with the folks involved in bringing the interviews to life. This method adds some intrigue to the already fascinating journey to make these interviews happen.
With all the circus-like coverage of Tricky Dick's White House departure, no one had gotten the former Commander in Chief to confess his actual wrongdoing or apologize to a cynical nation and David Frost sees a gold mine in being the first to get it done. Mr. Frost is played with a twinkling eye and unerlying wit by Michael Sheen. He truly embodies a radiant energy and turns in a layered performance. The bond he forms with Richard Nixon, purely by accident and to his surprise, is brought to life by strong acting on his part.
Frank Langella does a great job as Richard M. Nixon, showing a symapthetic side to the much maligned historical figure. He won the Tony Award for this perfomance on Broadway, in the stage play upon which the film is based. Having been a baby when this played out in real life, I don't remember the actual events. (President Nixon resigned the day I was born. Literally.)
I do know that this story has been fictionalized and much dramatic license taken. But I do not care. It is suspenseful in a much different way from an action film and allows you to see layers of a character usually thought of in one-dimensional tones. In the end, Richard Nixon was a lonely and confused old man who had poor social skills. Does that excuse his inexcusable actions? Of course not. Does it make him human? Yes.
Is this movie worthy of all the praise heaped upon it? I'd say it is. It is not for everyone. But if you like history made into movies, this is a good one. I doubt it will take home any big prizes on Oscar night, but it's well-acted and well-directed and touches upon a story not everyone remembers.
And it is a story worth telling.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Oscar Watch 6.0
Next, a bit of a departure. Besides the great big important categories at the Oscars - picture, actor, actress, director, and the like - there are smaller races just as exciting. One such contest is Best Animated Feature. Some might argue quite effectively that great films get relegated to this subset simply because they do not star human actors. This could be the case with "Wall-E."
This is a truly unique animated film. No talking animals, no silly dance sequences, no ironic sarcasm, no green ogres. And while there are cute creatures with whom to fall in love, the entire movie does not at all feel like an extended marketing campaign.
"Wall-E" spins a fascinating yarn about a robot sometime in the future designed to pick up trash on an unliveable Earth. In this imagined time, humans have over-consumed so that our dear planet is overrun with debris. People live on a cruise-like spaceship while robots try to find signs of ecological life. The beginning of the film is almost devoid of communication, as Wall-E is entirely isolated, with only a cockroach for a friend. His joy is saving "treasures" from the piles of trash and transporting them to his lair. It is remarkable to see what he has created from the stuff left behind.
One of his obsessions is replaying a VCR copy of "Hello Dolly!" as he sings and dances to the melodies of a bygone era. He twirls and recreates routines with a deep joy familiar to anyone who has been swept away in music. It is touching, emotional, and brilliant. In my perception, this one idea elevates the film to a level I have not experienced in animated storytelling.
One day, a new type of robot arrives: EVE. The two hit it off immediately. Wall-E shows EVE his cache of loot and they fall in love. Eventually, they find themselves on the human's starship and realize they each hold an important key to Earth's success.
This film looks amazing, as do all Pixar productions. There is a strong and wise message attached. But the story and the way it is told is simply genius. I enjoyed every bit of this smart, insightful, deep little gem. For a movie aimed at kids, it is more intelligent than most so-called grown-up fare.
When I first watched this film, it struck me as "simple." I don't mean that in a derogatory way. It is a bit old-fashioned in its approach to story and message, and that is refreshing. I am sure kids found a great deal to fall in love with. Adults could benefit in an even greater way.
This one is on DVD now, so get out there and find yourselves a copy! This is a must-see for any generation. And the message could not be more timely: We need to pay attention to our planet and to each other.
This is a truly unique animated film. No talking animals, no silly dance sequences, no ironic sarcasm, no green ogres. And while there are cute creatures with whom to fall in love, the entire movie does not at all feel like an extended marketing campaign.
"Wall-E" spins a fascinating yarn about a robot sometime in the future designed to pick up trash on an unliveable Earth. In this imagined time, humans have over-consumed so that our dear planet is overrun with debris. People live on a cruise-like spaceship while robots try to find signs of ecological life. The beginning of the film is almost devoid of communication, as Wall-E is entirely isolated, with only a cockroach for a friend. His joy is saving "treasures" from the piles of trash and transporting them to his lair. It is remarkable to see what he has created from the stuff left behind.
One of his obsessions is replaying a VCR copy of "Hello Dolly!" as he sings and dances to the melodies of a bygone era. He twirls and recreates routines with a deep joy familiar to anyone who has been swept away in music. It is touching, emotional, and brilliant. In my perception, this one idea elevates the film to a level I have not experienced in animated storytelling.
One day, a new type of robot arrives: EVE. The two hit it off immediately. Wall-E shows EVE his cache of loot and they fall in love. Eventually, they find themselves on the human's starship and realize they each hold an important key to Earth's success.
This film looks amazing, as do all Pixar productions. There is a strong and wise message attached. But the story and the way it is told is simply genius. I enjoyed every bit of this smart, insightful, deep little gem. For a movie aimed at kids, it is more intelligent than most so-called grown-up fare.
When I first watched this film, it struck me as "simple." I don't mean that in a derogatory way. It is a bit old-fashioned in its approach to story and message, and that is refreshing. I am sure kids found a great deal to fall in love with. Adults could benefit in an even greater way.
This one is on DVD now, so get out there and find yourselves a copy! This is a must-see for any generation. And the message could not be more timely: We need to pay attention to our planet and to each other.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Oscar Watch 5.0
One of the biggest surprises of my Oscar season has been the thoughtful, deep, and insightful film, "The Reader." It is nominated for Best Picture, and Stephen Daldry is nominated as Best Director and Kate Winslet as Best Actress.
Stephen Daldry always brings interesting stories to the screen (for example, "Billy Elliott" and "The Hours") and often scores himself an Oscar nod - though he has never won. In "The Reader" he really outdoes himself and much of it hinges on Kate Winslet's remarkable talent.
This is Kate's sixth nomination and she's only thirty-three years old. (Geez. I'm older than her. What have I done? Kind of makes me feel small and insignificant...) She is often hailed as the best female actor of her generation and even before this film, I would not argue. However, after this movie, it seems almost written in stone as truth.
"The Reader" tells such a complex and moving story, I hate to ruin it. I will say this: the basic plot tells of a thirty-something German woman, Kate Winslet, in post World War II Germany. By chance, she meets a fifteen year old boy and they begin an affair which ends suddenly and without warning. What happens from there deserves to play out onscreen, but it involves Nazi war crimes, dark secrets, books, and growing up. I can't do justice to the storyline and won't try. This is one film where the less you know before going in, the better.
Kate Winslet's paramour is played by a breathtaking young man, David Kross. He is absolutely wonderful and I can't wait to see more of him. He not only has chemistry with Kate Winslet, he transforms from kid to adult in such a believable, human way. To top it off, his acting is on par with Ms. Winslet's, and that is no small feat. (And as a bonus? He is played as an adult in the film by Ralph Fiennes, whom I savor in any performance.)
This picture is brilliant and suspenseful, and certainly not in the traditional sense. Something like this could easily get lost in the shuffle and I've heard mumblings that its inclusion as possible Best Picture is what knocked out "The Dark Knight."
I understand the anger at that exclusion. However, after seeing "The Reader" I can't say it should have been slighted either. The twists and turns in the story, the seemless switches in tone, the look of Germany through the decades, and, most of all, the acting are all first-rate. It is hard to argue against this film as a strong contender.
But in the end, I come back to Kate Winslet. I have not yet seen all her competitors, but I can't believe she will be bested. Her character here is not entirely likable or even good - which makes her performance all the more amazing. She should probably write that speech, if she has not already done so.
If you can find this one, do it. I gurantee you won't soon forget it.
Stephen Daldry always brings interesting stories to the screen (for example, "Billy Elliott" and "The Hours") and often scores himself an Oscar nod - though he has never won. In "The Reader" he really outdoes himself and much of it hinges on Kate Winslet's remarkable talent.
This is Kate's sixth nomination and she's only thirty-three years old. (Geez. I'm older than her. What have I done? Kind of makes me feel small and insignificant...) She is often hailed as the best female actor of her generation and even before this film, I would not argue. However, after this movie, it seems almost written in stone as truth.
"The Reader" tells such a complex and moving story, I hate to ruin it. I will say this: the basic plot tells of a thirty-something German woman, Kate Winslet, in post World War II Germany. By chance, she meets a fifteen year old boy and they begin an affair which ends suddenly and without warning. What happens from there deserves to play out onscreen, but it involves Nazi war crimes, dark secrets, books, and growing up. I can't do justice to the storyline and won't try. This is one film where the less you know before going in, the better.
Kate Winslet's paramour is played by a breathtaking young man, David Kross. He is absolutely wonderful and I can't wait to see more of him. He not only has chemistry with Kate Winslet, he transforms from kid to adult in such a believable, human way. To top it off, his acting is on par with Ms. Winslet's, and that is no small feat. (And as a bonus? He is played as an adult in the film by Ralph Fiennes, whom I savor in any performance.)
This picture is brilliant and suspenseful, and certainly not in the traditional sense. Something like this could easily get lost in the shuffle and I've heard mumblings that its inclusion as possible Best Picture is what knocked out "The Dark Knight."
I understand the anger at that exclusion. However, after seeing "The Reader" I can't say it should have been slighted either. The twists and turns in the story, the seemless switches in tone, the look of Germany through the decades, and, most of all, the acting are all first-rate. It is hard to argue against this film as a strong contender.
But in the end, I come back to Kate Winslet. I have not yet seen all her competitors, but I can't believe she will be bested. Her character here is not entirely likable or even good - which makes her performance all the more amazing. She should probably write that speech, if she has not already done so.
If you can find this one, do it. I gurantee you won't soon forget it.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Oscar Watch 4.0
I'm still obsessed with them "Stillers" and their remarkable, mind-blowing victory, but bear with me as I attempt to focus again on the next exciting chapter in my life: the Oscars.
So, "Slumdog Millionaire" is on quite a run. It's certainly become quite the hip and trendy film. And all the positive attention is deserved. For its two frenetically paced hours, you are transported to India, with all its grandeur and flaws. You climb inside a world which feels authentic, yet alien to what we know day to day. Danny Boyle has directed several projects over the years, but will forever be linked in my mind with "Trainspotting" and that dead baby on the ceiling. (It still gives me chills...) Whichever way you see it, this film is quite different and, honestly, superior.
The backdrop of the story finds Jamal in the hot seat on the Indian version of "Who Wants To Be a Millionaire." As the questions come one after the other, he answers them correctly to the surprise of host and audience. Suspicious of the slumdog's intelligence, he's automatically taken in as a cheat. To explain his knowledge, the film flashbacks through his life and tells us his story. We meet the main players - Jamal and his big brother Salim - when they are kids. Their pasttimes include romps across garbage-strewn landscapes as they navigate a tough, poor life, until one day something terrible happens which leaves them to truly fend for themselves. On their new, scary journey they meet the other protagonist, Latika, and from there on, their individual stories weave through and around each other for the rest of their lives.
By the time Jamal gets to the game show, he has already spun quite a tale. The combination of tension in his life and on the show never feels forced. The film keeps you engaged on both levels. The fact that you don't recognize the faces in the film adds to your being wrapped up in the action from start to finish. Everything about the atmosphere - the dingy feel of the city, the engaging soundtrack, and the true chemistry between the two romantic leads, Jamal and Latika - is spot on. These two young actors - Dev Patel and Freida Pinto - are on the rise and rightfully so. All in all, this film works at every turn.
That said, I enjoyed Slumdog's journey. I'm not sure I'd say it's the best trip I've taken at the cineplex this year, but I admire its tenacity and the places it goes.
So, "Slumdog Millionaire" is on quite a run. It's certainly become quite the hip and trendy film. And all the positive attention is deserved. For its two frenetically paced hours, you are transported to India, with all its grandeur and flaws. You climb inside a world which feels authentic, yet alien to what we know day to day. Danny Boyle has directed several projects over the years, but will forever be linked in my mind with "Trainspotting" and that dead baby on the ceiling. (It still gives me chills...) Whichever way you see it, this film is quite different and, honestly, superior.
The backdrop of the story finds Jamal in the hot seat on the Indian version of "Who Wants To Be a Millionaire." As the questions come one after the other, he answers them correctly to the surprise of host and audience. Suspicious of the slumdog's intelligence, he's automatically taken in as a cheat. To explain his knowledge, the film flashbacks through his life and tells us his story. We meet the main players - Jamal and his big brother Salim - when they are kids. Their pasttimes include romps across garbage-strewn landscapes as they navigate a tough, poor life, until one day something terrible happens which leaves them to truly fend for themselves. On their new, scary journey they meet the other protagonist, Latika, and from there on, their individual stories weave through and around each other for the rest of their lives.
By the time Jamal gets to the game show, he has already spun quite a tale. The combination of tension in his life and on the show never feels forced. The film keeps you engaged on both levels. The fact that you don't recognize the faces in the film adds to your being wrapped up in the action from start to finish. Everything about the atmosphere - the dingy feel of the city, the engaging soundtrack, and the true chemistry between the two romantic leads, Jamal and Latika - is spot on. These two young actors - Dev Patel and Freida Pinto - are on the rise and rightfully so. All in all, this film works at every turn.
That said, I enjoyed Slumdog's journey. I'm not sure I'd say it's the best trip I've taken at the cineplex this year, but I admire its tenacity and the places it goes.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Super Bowl Superstition Six Pack
Woh. That's all I can say about the wild, crazy Super Bowl spectacular last night. The Steelers aren't going to win any style points and if you hated them before that game, you probably really hate them now. (Sorry, Steelers West. Destiny still lives in the Steel City, despite Kurt Warner's claims otherwise. Don't bet against Steelers D. Ever.)
But, pretty points aside, the Steelers won their sixth Lombardi trophy and captured the hearts of Steeler Nation and did it the old Pittsburgh way: trying to give you a simultaneous heart attack, stroke, and meltdown before pulling it out in the last, desperate minutes. As I get older, a portable defibrilator might be a wise investment.
Before the game, my mom led me to an interesting website wherein Steeler fans posted their wacky gameday superstitions. Anyone who knows even a tidbit about me knows I'm super-superstitious and often so nervous, it's hard to actually watch the game. So, reading about other kooks out there with even wierder problems than my own warmed my soul and made me feel closer to my fellow Steeler fanatics.
About halfway through the fourth quarter in last night's fiasco, I retreated to a familiar area: the hallway, where I pace, hope, jump up and down, breathe heavily in series of fives, and repeat mantras in a whisper (things like, "Please, D, please, oh please, you're the best in the league, please, oh please!" You know, things like that.)
We changed our gameday-watching setup mid-season. So, my gameday-watching freak-out routine had to change too. I think my current habits began in the Dallas game and gained strength from there. It culminated during the last few minutes of the second regular season Baltimore game, as I watched Big Ben's game-winning drive through that crack in the door. In my mind, my position there is key to last-minute, game-winning drives to victory. (After last night, don't even attempt to tell me that where I stand and what I do does not matter to the on-field action. I simply point to the highlight reel as evidence and rest my case.)
My mind raced through so many emotions, it would be impossible to pin any one down. But, somewhere, I held out hope that Big Ben and Company could do it. I flashed back to those other games, those other gameclocks ticking dangerously close to quadruple zeros and I thought, "We can do this. One more time, for history, for the Rooneys, for all of us pacing in black and gold hallways around the world. We just can't lose. We just can't."
I won't claim I knew the outcome would be favorable - or, clearly, I might have left the hallway and actually entered the room with the screen. But I felt something pull me closer and closer to that doorway crack and I pushed my eyes into that space and watched Santonio Holmes pull down that perfect pass, through three defenders, in the teeniest space at the edge of the endzone and I totally lost it. It wasn't compelely over at that moment, but I knew in my gut. I felt it.
The Steelers will break your heart sometimes. Last night was not one of those times. Congrats, Ben and Troy and Willie and James and Jeff and Santonio and Mike T. and Hines and Heath and all the rest of the heroes big and small. Congrats to the Steeler Nation and most of all, the Rooney family.
Congrats to me, too, for physically making it through not only that game, but the entire stressful season. Now, only one thought comes to mind: I can't wait for next year! Here we go Steelers - Here we go!!
But, pretty points aside, the Steelers won their sixth Lombardi trophy and captured the hearts of Steeler Nation and did it the old Pittsburgh way: trying to give you a simultaneous heart attack, stroke, and meltdown before pulling it out in the last, desperate minutes. As I get older, a portable defibrilator might be a wise investment.
Before the game, my mom led me to an interesting website wherein Steeler fans posted their wacky gameday superstitions. Anyone who knows even a tidbit about me knows I'm super-superstitious and often so nervous, it's hard to actually watch the game. So, reading about other kooks out there with even wierder problems than my own warmed my soul and made me feel closer to my fellow Steeler fanatics.
About halfway through the fourth quarter in last night's fiasco, I retreated to a familiar area: the hallway, where I pace, hope, jump up and down, breathe heavily in series of fives, and repeat mantras in a whisper (things like, "Please, D, please, oh please, you're the best in the league, please, oh please!" You know, things like that.)
We changed our gameday-watching setup mid-season. So, my gameday-watching freak-out routine had to change too. I think my current habits began in the Dallas game and gained strength from there. It culminated during the last few minutes of the second regular season Baltimore game, as I watched Big Ben's game-winning drive through that crack in the door. In my mind, my position there is key to last-minute, game-winning drives to victory. (After last night, don't even attempt to tell me that where I stand and what I do does not matter to the on-field action. I simply point to the highlight reel as evidence and rest my case.)
My mind raced through so many emotions, it would be impossible to pin any one down. But, somewhere, I held out hope that Big Ben and Company could do it. I flashed back to those other games, those other gameclocks ticking dangerously close to quadruple zeros and I thought, "We can do this. One more time, for history, for the Rooneys, for all of us pacing in black and gold hallways around the world. We just can't lose. We just can't."
I won't claim I knew the outcome would be favorable - or, clearly, I might have left the hallway and actually entered the room with the screen. But I felt something pull me closer and closer to that doorway crack and I pushed my eyes into that space and watched Santonio Holmes pull down that perfect pass, through three defenders, in the teeniest space at the edge of the endzone and I totally lost it. It wasn't compelely over at that moment, but I knew in my gut. I felt it.
The Steelers will break your heart sometimes. Last night was not one of those times. Congrats, Ben and Troy and Willie and James and Jeff and Santonio and Mike T. and Hines and Heath and all the rest of the heroes big and small. Congrats to the Steeler Nation and most of all, the Rooney family.
Congrats to me, too, for physically making it through not only that game, but the entire stressful season. Now, only one thought comes to mind: I can't wait for next year! Here we go Steelers - Here we go!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
About Me
- Stephanie Stark Poling
- Steph's days are complete with little Franco/Mr. Buddy Pants, Pittsburgh Steelers football, Penguins hockey, all things WVU, cold beverages, new handbags, shoe-shopping, pups, and lots and lots of movies. And, of course, her glorious, nutty family.