Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Albums I've Been Listening To This Semester

I spent this semester listening to a lot of music, so I figure I'd share what I've been listening to for the last few months. And because I'm clearly the second coming of Lester Bangs (note: that was sarcasm), I'm going to briefly review them. So in no particular order (well ok I put The Replacements first because they're The Replacements, dammit. Of course they're going to be first (second note: I may or may not be a Replacements fanboy (pointless third set of parentheses (I think this sentence is now FUBAR)))), here are a handful of albums I listened to a lot at various times over the semester:

Let It Be — The Replacements
If I were stranded on a desert island and could only pick one album to bring with me, it'd be this one without a doubt. It's perfect. Paul Westerberg's lyrics, which switch back and forth from facetious to thoughtful, fit perfectly with the driving guitars and music that sounds more like a band just jamming together in a garage than meticulously recording an album in a music studio.


Mylo Xyloto — Coldplay
Yes, I know. It's Coldplay, and people love to hate Coldplay. Well you know what? Haters gonna hate, and this was a decent album. This isn't the same Coldplay that made Parachutes and A Quick Rush Of Blood To The Head, as the band has seemed to build on the sound it developed on Viva La Vida. It's rhythm oriented and synth heavy, but the ringing guitars are still there.


Sigh No More — Mumford & Sons
A friend described Mumford & Sons to me as merely Coldplay with banjos. As a fan of both Coldplay and banjos, I'm perfectly ok with this description. Sure, their songs are a bit formulaic and they all have random banjo solos popping up, but it's a folk album. What else do you expect? I'm excited to see what they do next, with this being their first album.


Magic — Bruce Springsteen
I'm a big Springsteen fan, but I really only enjoy the music he made early on in his career. I rarely get around to listening to anything after Born In The USA, and so I often forget about how good The Rising and Magic were, two of the albums he made in the 2000s after regrouping with the E-Street Band (Working On A Dream was fairly unremarkable). This album is energetic and has a modern, evolved E-Street sound that compliment Springsteen's subtly dark lyrics, which reflect on the Bush Administration and the war in the Middle East.


Take Off Your Pants And Jacket — Blink 182
Pop punk is a genre I'm a bit conflicted about: On one hand, I like the fast and furious sound that's derivative of protopunk bands like The Stooges, but on the other, I tend not to care for the lyrics because I couldn't care less about high school angst. But in this case, I grew quite attached to this album for a few weeks. I think the fact that Blink 182 utilizes two lead singers helps keep the album sounding fresh. And of course "Happy Holidays You Bastard" is just a really entertaining song.


The Clash — The Clash
I hope that because it's 2011, I don't have to say anything about how great The Clash are. It's assumed at this point. This is an album I like to put on when when people come over and when I can't make a decision as to what to listen to (and considering I have over 14,000 songs, this speeds the decision-making process up quite a bit). It's loud, and it's real punk.


Boy — U2
Everyone knows how great The Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby are. War and The Unforgettable Fire are probably also recognized as good early U2 albums, but Boy tends to get overlooked, possibly because it's their debut album and wasn't much of a hit. But it's right out of the post-punk genre, sounding a bit like Joy Division but with Bono's enthusiasm replacing Ian Curtis's dreariness. The fifth track, "Out Of Control," is a particular favorite of mine.


Panopticon — Isis
Is post-metal an actual genre of music, or did I just invent that term? If you're unfamiliar with Isis, just imagine Sigur Ros combined with Tool. If you're unfamiliar with those bands, I'm afraid I can't help you (just stop reading and Youtube "Popplagio" and "Parabola." You're welcome). Most of the songs build slowly to a deafening, pulsing crescendo of sweeping, distorted guitars and guttural vocals. Post-metal? Progressive metal? Alternative metal? I dunno. Whatever it may be, Isis is good at it.

_______________________________________________________

Some albums have great songs, but as a whole either aren't so good or just didn't do it for me. Here are some individual songs that I've been listening to that aren't from the albums listed above:

"Set Fire To The Rain" — Adele
"Raining Blood" — Slayer
"Wake Up" "Sprawl II (Mountains Beyond Mountains)" — Arcade Fire
"Disarm" "Galapogos" — Smashing Pumpkins
"Violet Hill" — Coldplay
"Power" "All Of The Lights" "Homecoming" — Kayne West
"Exit" — U2
"Long Forgotten Sons" — Rise Against
"Walk" — Foo Fighters
"Awful" — Hole
"All Apologies" — Nirvana

(I thought about apologizing here at the end for possibly sounding like a pretentious music snob (which I admit I kind of am), but you know what? This is what I like to listen to. If you don't like it, I don't care. I'll enjoy it by myself if I have to.)

Until next time, Orange Hat Guy

Friday, November 11, 2011

Breaking Down the Penn State Debacle (Part Three)

As I mentioned in my last post but didn't expand on, Joe Paterno made a bizarre appearance Wednesday night a few hours after he was fired. ESPN was fortunate enough to have a camera crew stationed outside Paterno's house, which appeared to have become a rallying point for the rioters. JoePa came out for about a minute, gave an unscripted statement to the students, and then headed back inside.

This post isn't really about media coverage. It's aimed at Paterno's utter cluelessness about how to handle the situation.

JoePa heads down to give a statement

A few minutes past midnight, after students had been rioting for about and hour-and-a-half following the announcement of his firing, Paterno came out of his house. A large group of students and supporters had shown up on his lawn, as they had done for the past few days when it became apparent Paterno's job was in danger. Paterno, without a prepared statement in hand, came up to a handful of reporters.

"I want to say hello to all these great students, who I love." "You guys are great."

Those were some of the first words out of his mouth after stepping in front of the microphones. He embraced them. No critical words, no reprimand for destroying street lamps and turning over news vans. Instead, Paterno comes out with smiles and waves, completely embracing the crowd. Maybe he didn't know the extent of what was going on. But he knew exactly why he was let go, and what crimes he likely covered up.


"Hey look, get a good night's sleep and study, alright?"

This is the last thing Paterno says before initially heading back towards his house. That's all he says to try and quell the situation. That's not much of a genuine plea. He's still smiling and feeding off the crowd, if you can believe it.


JoePa turns to head back in

As he's walking back towards his front door, Paterno turned around when someone shouted "I love you." This earned a thumbs up from Paterno. Then suddenly Paterno turns around and heads back towards the group of reporters he just spoke to.


"One thing: Pray a little bit for those victims." 

He said it as if it were an afterthought, like something he had forgotten to say the first time he was in front of the cameras. How does that slip your mind? How is your first concern to go out there and positively greet the swarming crowd instead of asking for people to show some respect? How do you possibly put yourself first?


JoePa heads back in for the final time

Paterno headed back into in home for the last time, but stopped to pump his fist in support of the crowds that are cheering and chanting his name. Showing solidarity with the very people you were (quite poorly) trying to calm down is a little bit antithetical. And yet that exactly what Paterno did during the minute or so that this whole bizarre encounter took place.

We don't know the extent of what Paterno's guilty of, but it's clear he has little perspective about this whole situation. This is not about Paterno's firing, nor what the future of the football program is. This is about everyone who was hurt by the actions and inactions taken by members of Penn State. Any chance Paterno had to redeem himself is now effectively gone. If he had pointed that out, maybe he healing process could have begun for Penn State. Instead Paterno rubbed salt in the wound, one that won't heal anytime soon.

Until next time, Orange Hat Guy

Breaking Down the Penn State Debacle (Part Two)

As I'm writing this, it's Thursday afternoon. I still have the previous night's events stuck in my head, and Twitter's still blowing up with breaking news, opinions, and just about everything else that even marginally relates to what's been going on at Penn State. I was so caught up in what happened Wednesday night, I stayed up until 3:30 a.m. writing about it in my previous post.

I started watching the Board of Trustees' press conference a little after 10 p.m. The announcement that Joe Paterno would be fired came around 10:14. I was glued to my computer, watching feeds of CNN, ESPN, and the local ABC affiliate that gave coverage to the rioting. It wasn't until three hours later, around 1:15 that it seemed like everything had died down and that it was ok to stop watching what was going on.

I initially planned on writing only one blog entry on this subject, but as I began breaking down the press conference question by question, it became apparent that there was much more to this than I could fit in one reasonably-sized post. The press conference itself was a whole difference media monster than the coverage CNN and ESPN devoted to the situation. So that's what I'll look at now: The positives and negatives of both network's media coverage of the event.

Immediately following the press conference

Following the press conference, (which ESPN did carry via a local ABC affiliate) CNN immediately jumped into covering the riots (at that point a large number of students were gathering in support of Paterno) that had broken out in State College. ESPN, from what I understand, was not covering the formation of the riots. Plus one for CNN, if you're keeping score.

But it was clear that the anchor CNN rolled out to cover this breaking news story was in over her head. One of her first questions to someone on the ground in State College concerned when Penn State's next football game was. At around the same time, ESPN apparently had Matt Millen on to react to the firing. Millen, who played under Paterno while in college, is arguably the biggest conflict of interest ESPN has. Millen says he's a close friend of Paterno and Jerry Sandusky. But after a bizarre yet heartfelt appearance on Sportscenter earlier in the day, Millen should not have been allowed on air to discuss this. Yes, he's analyst who's paid to give his opinion, which he likely did (I hadn't turned to ESPN yet), but he's too attached to this to stay objective.

One hour after the press conference

I stayed with CNN during the hour following the press conference, as it appeared that ESPN was not covering the actions that were occurring in State College. This lasted until the network brought in Anderson Cooper to interview Dr. Phil about the scandal. Dr. Phil. You read that correctly. I was waiting for Cooper to finish with him and then move on to Dr. Drew, as he seemed like the next perfectly illogical option.

After this interview, CNN appeared to wrap up its nonstop coverage of the scandal and rioting. I switched over to ESPN, which finally appeared to be covering the escalating situation in State College. Stuart Scott and Steve Levy were given the difficult task of anchoring something that sports anchors are rarely asked to cover: Breaking news that's (somewhat) unrelated to the field of sports journalism. This was a tough task for the duo. It's also worth noting that Stuart Scott is no longer widely revered by ESPN viewers, and if often criticized for his laid back on-camera demeanor.

From what I could tell, Scott and Levy at one point were on air for over an hour without a single break, from 11:30 p.m. or so until around 12:45 a.m. It is my view, as well as the general consensus of those I follow on Twitter that Scott and Levy handled a very delicate situation very well. While there were no remarkable moments or announcements that will go down in broadcasting lore (this wasn't exactly on the same scale of Jim McKay's job covering the Munich massacre in 1972), they didn't make any real mistakes.

(One minor odd moment was when Stuart Scott mentioned that reaction on Twitter was split about 60/40 for/against the firing. My stream as well as many others who commented on Scott's statement were vehemently in support of his firing. Obviously we all follow a wide array of opinionated people, but it seems as if this particular statement conflicted with the general consensus).

What ESPN did suffer from was a lack of video from the scene. It had a handful of reporters on the ground and did carry images from a local ABC affiliate, but those images came from a single locked camera at one particular location. The reporters on the ground did a fine job to try and paint a picture of the scene going on, which included flipped news vans, downed lamp posts, thrown debris, and clashes with police. In this day and age, it's hard to understand why ESPN didn't have live coverage. Cell phones can pretty much do anything, and I'm sure ESPN has the capability of synching live streaming video (from platforms such as Skype) with its television broadcast.

Two hours after the press conference

By the time ESPN did whip out its cameras, the fanfare had begun to die down. JoePa came out to try and quell the students, but ended giving a mind-blowingly dumb appearance (which I'll detail in an upcoming post). And instead of devoting coverage to the rioting, ESPN focused on student reactions. And asking for the opinions of rioting college students right around the time that the bars get their largest number of customers is not the wisest thing to do. The first group of students interviewed were, unsurprisingly, in support of Joe Paterno.

"There's no crime. This is Penn State. There's no crime here." "He should coach until the end of time."


These were some of the things the students told ESPN. I'm no surprised. You're asking drunk, rowdy  belligerent, college-age rioters what their opinions are about their dear old JoePa. There's a phrase I've heard thrown around about Packers fans a from a few years back: "People in Green Bay pray to two people on Sundays—Jesus and Brett Favre." Well, people in State College pray to JoePa.

Amazingly, the second time ESPN went to ask members of the swarming crowd for a sound bite they were able to come across a student who actually gave an intelligent answer. I don't know how much luck was involved in finding this student, and I'm conflicted about how to credit ESPN. It's great that they were able to find a counter voice to the rioting and pro-Paterno crowd. But this isn't a story that necessitates two sides. This student stood out because the pro-Paterno crowd had been give a soap box to stand on (and riot on). Those people were idiots, and it's unfortunate this student was put in comparison to them, essentially equating the two view points.

Three hours after the press conference

Shortly after that interview ESPN finally went to break for the first time on over an hour (unless I somehow missed a commercial break). When it returned from break, ESPN turned its coverage to the NBA lockout, the first time in several hours that it changed the subject away from the scene in State College. The reports from the people in the middle of the action made it appear as if the crowd had begun to disperse and that police were slowly but steadily dissipating the rioters. I don't have a problem with ESPN cutting away from its Penn State coverage in order to avoid an over saturation of coverage, something ESPN is notorious for screwing up.

I finally turned ESPN off and began to collect myself. I don't know whether this is a watershed moment in sports journalism yet, but right now it certainly feels like something that will be discussed for a long time. I'm certainly not finished writing about it, and the story itself is far from over. Next up, I want to tackle JoePa's statement he gave to students a few hours into the rioting, looking more deeply at the role of social media (i.e. Twitter) in breaking news stories such as this, and the debate concerning the alleged scapegoating of JoePa by the media.

Until next time, Orange Hat Guy

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Breaking Down the Penn State Debacle (Part One)

It's hard to believe the events that occurred Thursday evening. Starting with the appallingly bad actions taken by media at the press conference where Penn State broke the news of Joe Paterno's firing and ending with rioting by members of Penn State's student body, it's a challenge to make sense of it all. I'll try to break everything down piece by piece over the next few days, including the different media coverage as well as the rioters themselves. There's a lot to get through, and there's sure to be more in the next few days as more heads roll and protests continue.

The Press Conference

The Board of Trustees at Penn State held a press conference to discuss the issues surrounding Paterno and the university. The future of Paterno, who is 84 and has shown no desire to stop coaching anytime soon, had been in question for the past few days. Pressure was put both him and the school for his tenure at Penn State to end, though this pressure was not without controversy (as the ensuing riots obviously proved).

"Joe Paterno is no longer the head football coach, effective immediately."

Before John Surma, who spoke on behalf of the board, could even finish reading this statement, the room was filled with boos and cries of outrage and dismay. Outrage. There was visceral outrage by those in the media who were present at the press conference over Paterno's firing. This was a room filled with reporters. This was a room filled with journalists.

"Who will coach on Saturday?"

That was the first question asked after Surma gave his opening statement. I wish I were kidding. I'm sure that a lot of the reporters there cover the football team or work for local news affiliates. This was the first question blurted out, and it was blurted out by multiple people. I can understand that being a sports reporter in this situation might put someone in an unfamiliar situation. But to be more concerned with that than the situation at hand? Are you kidding me?

"What was the driving reason behind the removal of coach Paterno?"

This was the third question. Are you serious? Perhaps it was not going straight to the authorities upon hearing his assistant coach sexually assaulted a 10-year-old. Perhaps it was not going to the authorities at all. Paterno learned about the assault in 2002. Perhaps it was not firing the coach right away. Perhaps it was lying to a grand jury about how much he knew about the initial incident.

"Given the popularity of coach Paterno, how hard a decision was this for you and your colleagues to make?"

This was the fifth question asked. Think about what you just asked, sir. How hard a decision was it to fire a man who covered up child sexual abuse? How hard to you think it was? You'll notice a running theme with the questions asked at the press conference, how the reporters asking the questions appear to have a Joe-Paterno-is-God complex. I know he's been there since the 1960s. Darren Rovell pointed out that at the time of his hiring, Simon & Garfunkel's The Sound of Silence was the number one song. He's an institution. He's also covered up child abuse for nearly a decade.

"Should coach Paterno have alerted the police when he learned of the allegations in 2002?"

Eighth question. If you can call it a question.

"Did you see him [Paterno] in person or over the phone?"

While Surma didn't answer the question, earlier reports stated that Paterno was fired over the phone. Members of the media loudly grumbled about this as Surma avoided answering the question. "You would let a man go that's been here over 46 years and won't tell us if you let him go over the phone or in person?" one reporter griped. When Surma mentioned a phone conversation, multiple people groaned. "You didn't have the courtesy to go to his house?" another asked, with someone else chipping in, "after 60 years?" Clearly these journalists (and I use that term lightly) have their eyes on the ball.

"What would you say to those that this is a rush to judgment?"

Have you read the grand jury testimony? It's quite unequivocally clear about what Joe Paterno's role was in this case. In fact, it's so clear that the only issue is whether Paterno committed perjury when giving his testimony. Many men have been fired for much less. I know it's hard to watch an idol go down in flames, but no one's infallible.

"What would be the harm in letting the coach continue through the end of the season?"

I'm not sure. Maybe it would be a signal that Penn State doesn't care if you protect child predators as long as you win football games. That's a sure way to draw in prospective students. In fact, it should definitely be the new school slogan.

"Do you think the authorities should have been alerted?"

Are you fucking kidding me?

"So you don't rush to judgment when it comes to facts but you rush to judgement when it comes to dismissing coach Paterno?"

This wise ass sounded quite proud of himself for asking this rhetorical question. A couple reporters even laughed snidely after this question was asked. Read the grand jury testimony. There's not much rushing to do.

"Sir, are you aware of the number of students that were marching back and forth campus when they thought there was a possibility of this happening? And therefore, what are you concerned about happening tonight"

Unfortunately, this boded to be all too true, as rioting on and near campus took place. And yet the question was framed in a hostile manner, as if to try and place the blame of whatever the reaction to Paterno's firing was squarely on Surma and the Board of Trustees. It should be noted that Paterno did little to quell the rioting. By the time he spoke, lamp posts had been upended and news vans had been flipped over.

"What do you make of the perception that the Board has been gunning for coach Paterno since '04 and this has provided the perfect opportunity for his dismissal?"

This was actually the last question asked, and it fittingly went the conspiracy theory route. I'm pretty sure there was a second shooter on the grassy knoll when Joe Paterno was fired. Joe Paterno's also never been on the field at Ohio State. That was staged and filmed in a Hollywood studio.

"What was coach Paterno's reaction?" "Who made the call?" "Have you though about changing the Board?" "Is coach Paterno subject to compensation?" "Was there any pressure from the outside like the governor's office or anyone else?"

A handful of meaningless questions, none of which were directed at Paterno's (or anyone else's) criminal  activity. I don't go to a school where any of the current coaches are revered as saints, and Bob Knight was before my time. But I find it almost inconceivable that a room full of journalists can have so much trouble staying objective in this situation.

I loved Sammy Sosa growing up. He was the best baseball player in the world, no matter what Mark McGwire did. I was as much a diehard Sosa fan as anyone else in Chicago. But then things turned sour. Sosa left the team under troublesome circumstances, and it's become all too clear that Sosa used steroids. I've watched as my idol growing up (aside from Michael Jordan, of course) slowly become an unsympathetic figure, one that no longer deserves the devotion I once gave him. I realized this before I set foot in a journalism classroom.

"What do you think Joe Paterno has meant to this university?"

Joe Paterno has been the face of Penn State for a few decades now. He looks like everyone's grandpa and doesn't coach for Ohio State, so everyone loves him. And I mean everyone. I have an aunt and uncle who live in State College that don't care about football at all. They can tell you how to win at Robo Rally or Settlers of Catan, but have no clue what a draw play is or when to risk an onside kick. Even they know who Joe Paterno is.

I understand that he's an institution. He's JoePa. He's 84 and still going strong. But this isn't about untarnished legacies or reputations. This is about dozens of children who were sexually abused. This is about Joe Paterno's failure to protect these kids. This is about the university's failure to protect these kids.   No one remembered that. Not when they were rioting, and not when they were asking questions at the press conference.

Go back and look. There's not a single question, or even a single mention of the victims. Not one. Joe Paterno failed to do what was right. And Thursday evening, so did the journalists at that press conference.

Until next time, Orange Hat Guy

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

RIP, House MD

No, neither the show nor the eponymous doctor have died. But after watching the first three episodes of the eighth season, I'm ready for the show to be put down. Am I bailing too quickly by giving up after only three episodes? I don't think so, because House hasn't been good for a while now (which I wrote about back in the spring), and as someone who used to be a huge fan of the show, I'd prefer to see it mercifully put down than to continue on like a wounded animal.

Let's recap this season so far: House is in jail, that should be intere—oh look, Foreman sprung him at the beginning of the second episodes. Guess there won't be any sort of seasonal arc about that. And wait, Foreman's the new dean of medicine? What? (Lise Edelstein left the show) Instead of seeking a new character to instill some new energy into the show, the producers again took the easy option of "Hey! Let's use one of our regulars!" And has been pointed out by House himself, Foreman is as about exciting as watching paint dry. (No offense to Omar Epps; Foreman has just become an incredibly boring character who pretends he doesn't pander to House's every whim when in fact he does).

And Thirteen? (I still can't believe they call her that; She's been on the show for three seasons). Well, she leaves after episode three, and it had to be one of the worst send-offs I've seen recently. She shows up halfway through the episode after not appearing in the first two episodes of the season, has some minor sub-plot, and then boom, House "fires" her right at the end of the episode out of the goodness of his heart so that she can spend the last few years of her life with her lover. As I've pointed out in the past, Thirteen is much like other previous characters on House in that she used to be quite interesting. Giving her Huntington's was a bold move. But after season five (when the show started going down hill), I can't really recall any decent character development.

Chase? Taub? Haven't seen them at all. No idea what's up with them. No idea if the actors are still working for the show. Instead, there's some random medical student with some bullshit backstory designed to make her unique from all of House's former team members. I guess what makes her different is that she's pretty apathetic to House's antics (fortunately he hasn't done anything that ridiculous yet), but she reminds me too much of Chase in that respect. And now there's another doctor from the first episode who's probably just there to replace Olivia Wilde's pretty face. Rhetorical question time: Who are these two new doctors? Why do I care about them? I'm not just going to accept them because they're on House and after seven seasons I'm not supposed to question this decision.

Wilson is still around, but at this point, the House/Wilson relationship is as stale as it can get. Fight, make up, fight, make up, etc. House drives his car into Cuddy's living room (which could have killed her had she been in there), but Wilson's already buddying up with House at the end of the second episode. Are you kidding me? That's not the same James Wilson from the first couple seasons.

Please, House producers, let the show die. Don't try to drag it on for as long as the network allows you to. The longer the show goes, more you're betraying the original spirit of the characters and the show. I know deep down House is just another medical procedural, but at times it was an excellent character drama, delving into different characters and moral stances through each episode's patient-of-the-week format. House used to be a compelling character, one that left the audience guessing as to why he was so bitter and cynical. There was a time when you really pitied him: I'm thinking of a moment early in the show when House sees Cameron, Chase, and Foreman enjoying each other's company in a restaurant, and House thinks about joining them but then doesn't, and instead is left out in the cold by himself. But that mystery's seemingly been solved: He's just an asshole. Pretty crummy way to solve that one.

Here's an idea how to end the show: Maybe let House finally realize how destructive he truly is. Cameron's gone. Chase's gone. Taub's gone. Thirteen's gone. Kutner's gone. Cuddy's gone. Cutthroat Bitch is gone. Amber Tamblyn's gone. Have Foreman leave. But more importantly, finally have Wilson leave. There House is, alone, friendless, and addicted to Vicodin, all of which are his own doing. I've always thought the show, whenever it would finally get around to it, would end with House committing suicide. All of his pain, both inner and physical, would finally be gone. But because of how ridiculous the last two seasons have been, his suicide would be cheapened because he's no longer the pitiable and suffering character he once was. So now I don't think you can end House on a proper note, because he's not the same character that made him so compelling.

Until next time, Orange Hat Guy

Thursday, September 29, 2011

"Sports Are Better Than Anything Else, Always"

*Note: Title credit goes to ESPN's Scott Van Pelt.

Wow. Last night was something, wasn't it. Dan Johnson? Who the hell is he? Robert Andino? Who the hell is that? Evan Longoria? Ok, might've heard of him. This kind of stuff isn't supposed to happen until late in October, long after the regular season's given way to the playoffs. But it did. And it didn't just happen. This wasn't just a "that's baseball" moment. This was the sports equivalent of poetry, of magic. It had underdogs and heavy favorites. It had nobodies becoming super heroes, and it had super heroes doing what they do best.

Derek Jeter didn't do anything impressive. Alex Rodriguez wasn't there to choke it away. Mariano Rivera wasn't out there to close it out. No one threw the game of their life, no dueling shutouts or strike out battles.The Phillies tied the Braves with a sacrifice fly. The Red Sox tied their game on a balk. A balk. Not a clutch base hit or home run. On a tiny little flinch by an Orioles pitcher. The guy who hit the game-tying home run for the Rays probably won't even make the post-season roster. I had to Google the guy who had the game-winning hit for the Orioles to find out his name. There won't even be a one-game playoff to determine a wild card spot.

But then the Rays scored six runs in the bottom of the eighth inning to pull within a run of the Yankees. Then the Braves' unhittable closer was hittable and blew the save. Then Dan Johnson happened. Then the Braves lost. Then the Red Sox blew the lead in the bottom of the ninth. Then Robert Andino happened. Then Evan Longoria happened.

I know that in the grand scheme of things, last night wasn't one of the greatest moments in sports history. It probably doesn't even breach the top ten. It was more about being in the moment, rather than the moment itself compared to others. But you had to be there, glued to the TV, sitting on the edge of your seat, holding your jaw to keep it from hitting the floor. You had to be there, hoping the night wouldn't end.

It did, of course. We probably won't ever see another night of baseball quite like that, but that's ok, because you can't replicate perfection.

Until next time, Orange Hat Guy

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

How Not to Make a Horror Movie

I just got done watching "Insidious," a supernatural horror film that I though was going to be good and scary. It wasn't. Well, it was, but only for about half an hour. After that, it became painfully obvious that the filmmakers were using the exact same technique to try and scare the audience over and over and over again, completely ruining the film's second half. I should also mention that I'm not a huge fan of supernatural horror, because generally there's nothing the protagonist(s) can do to overcome what's haunting them (I.E. my problem with "The Grudge").

The first few scare moment were pretty decent, albeit the sound effects dragged them down somewhat. They were fairly standard frightening moments: Shapes in the background, faces suddenly popping up and creeping on a baby, an unseen intruder, and sudden appearances of bloody hand prints. Let me talk about one particular scene that really stood out to me, which came early on in the movie and really raised my hopes that this would be a good movie.

The unseen intruder scene was particularly well done, as it relied on different techniques to achieve a suspenseful sequence than pretty much every other scare moment. It relied on natural sound (the home alarm went off), mystery (the antagonist had yet to be revealed, so the possibility of an unexplained intruder really fit with the building creepy tone), the set lighting was revealed little by little (the house lights would only illuminate so much), and the choreography of Patrick Wilson (the lead actor) moving throughout the  house without the camera revealing too much as it moved from room to room. And thanks to a few earlier scare moments, the sequence felt genuinely frightening and suspenseful.

But unfortunately all the other scare moments and scenes after that  relied on the exact same techniques: jump cuts and sound effects. The sound would go down to near silence, the camera would do a close up on a particular actor, then quickly do a jump cut to whatever specter was haunting said character while at the same time a loud sound effect is struck up (just in case you blinked) to break the silence. Then the specter is gone. The filmmakers used this technique the entire second half of the movie. Every. Single. Time.

Pretty soon, you're jumping not because you're scared by what's on screen, but because of your innate reflex to the sudden loud sound effect that cuts through the silence. After a while you stop jumping because the moments aren't just the same technique, but they become entirely predictable. Once there's a brief period of silence, you're expecting a scare moment. The rest of the movie is effectively ruined (well, the horror aspect at least, though the rest of "Insidious" also kind of stunk; minor SPOILER ALERT: the twist ending didn't come as a surprise at all, thanks to the final act's soporific climax).

Foreground vs. Background
Jump cuts can work. Brief, incomplete glimpses of monsters can be incredibly frightening, as it really draws on each individual audience member's imagination to fill in what's missing. But they should be used sparingly. If I were to go back and watch "Insidious" again, counting the number of jump cut scare moments, I'd probably count at least two dozen different moments. Complete Overkill. You also don't need jump cuts to induce thrills. Take "Halloween," for example. That relied on the reverse: Long shots that emphasis the foreground versus the background, with Michael Myers always lurking in the corner of the frame. The scare isn't forced onto the viewer. (Also, "The Strangers" is a great example of this stylistic approach, though the ending of the movie sucked).

Well I think I've reached the end of my rant. I just happen to find it sad when something that has potential goes to waste. As I stated earlier, the first half hour of "Insidious" was great. But then it became formulaic and boring, not to mention the rather ridiculous supernatural elements that dominated the final act. Better luck next time, filmmakers.

Until next time, Orange Hat Guy

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

The 14th Inning Stretch

I ordered a hot dog, a giant pretzel, a bottle of water, and a bag of peanuts before finding my friend and heading back to our seats. A baseball game really isn't complete without a hot dog or two and a bag of peanuts. I finished the hot dog pretty quickly, but my friend and I didn't empty that bag of peanuts until around one in the morning, as we were leaving the ballpark. At that point, the concourses were practically empty, and the walkway leading down from the upper deck seating to ground level was inhabited solely by the two of us. It looked as if the walkway had already been cleaned: There was no trash, no bottles or wrappers lying around, so I hope the two us casually dropping empty peanut shells as we scarfed down the last of what remained in the bag didn't cause too much of a mess.

When we got to the train station, a north-bound train had already arrived, and my friend had the brilliant idea of trying to make it to the front car, which happened to be a few hundred feet away from the stairs we had just descended from. Naturally, we ran along the platform up to towards the front car, only for the doors to close and the train to depart before we reached that particular car. I don't particularly care which subway car I ride in, but my friend seems to prefer the very first one. And so we wound up defeated, out of breath and sweaty, waiting for the next train to arrive.

It's odd to see a train station so empty after a sporting event. I've been to tons of baseball and football games, and every time the nearest station is always packed to the brim with fans heading home. People are usually packed along the sides, and there's always a mad dash to enter the subway cars once a train arrives. You have to be smart about how you board one of these trains: Try to get in first, and you might wind up stuck in the middle of a packed car, with little room to stand. You'll have to do a whole lot of fighting through the crowd of people to get to the door when your stop arrives. Go too late, and you're either smashed up against a bunch of people and the door, or you miss the train altogether because it's too packed.

But this night wasn't like that. There were only a few thousand fans left at the game when it finally ended, and so the nearby train station wasn't even half-filled. The last time I was waiting for a train at this station, I saw a mouse scrambling around near the tracks. He kept poking around the layer of rocks that lay underneath the rails, but I didn't seem him on this night.

About ten minutes later, another north-bound train made its way into the station, and we managed to get on to the first car, presumably to the delight of my friend. It's not a very long ride back to the station that nearest to my apartment, and it just so happens that my friend and I live close enough that we're only one stop apart, so neither of us had to take a long journey alone. When my friend's stop arrived, I shook his hand and wished him well in his second year of college. My stop, of course, came next, and after walking two blocks made it back to my apartment in one piece, collapsing into bed around two.

 I've been to about 50 baseball games in my life, and my friend's probably been to about 100 baseball games. I've visited four different Major League ballparks, and my friend's been to a dozen. In all that time, we've seen our fair share of exciting, rare, boring, painful, memorable, and truly fun moments. Baseball is, in a way, like a box of chocolates (to steal a phrase). Together, the two of have gone to 150 baseball games, and every single one of the them was unique in some way. We've seen walk-offs, back-to-back home runs, diving catches, amazing throws, Cy Young winners, MVPs, future Hall of Famers, you name it.

I've been to four baseball games this year, none of them very remarkable. Two were White Sox games, two were Cubs games. The Sox managed to win both of their games, and the Cubs were able to win the second game I went to. This particular game, the second White Sox game, wasn't exactly the game of the century. The Sox kept blowing every single lead they had managed to gain. At one point, they walked in the tying run. Three times the Sox wasted triples by leaving the runners stranded on third. Another time they loaded the bases with one out and failed to score. On the Indians' side, their star pitcher was giving up hits left and right. And though they kept managing to tie it up, the Indians could never gain a lead.

The Sox managed to blow the lead in the top of the ninth inning, and then proceeded to put the winning run in scoring position with less than two outs in the bottom of the ninth, only to leave him stranded. Extra innings is always fun because its brings along a sense of unstructured uncertaintly. Normally you expect a baseball game to go nine innings, and that seems to happen about 99 percent of the time. But when we get into extras, it's kind of freeing because all bets are off. There's no set end point, no ties, no sudden death elimination. If we have to go 26 innings to settle a game, we'll go 26 innings.

As the game wore on and plunged deeper into extra innings, both sides began to run out of pitchers, and neither offense was could do anything useful with a bat. I'm not sure which is worse: Sloppy play on the field or futility at the plate, but the latter definitely was painful to witness in this game. I'm sure that most of the people who had been watching the game at home had turned it off by now, tired of seeing this rather pathetic excuse for a baseball game. The stadium, which was only about half full at the start of the game, had only a few thousand fans remaining, with more leaving after every half inning of play during extras.

My friend and I moved up to the first row of our section, as the ballpark was nearly empty. By this point it was well past midnight, and we figured that only the diehards and the Indians fans who traveled all the way to Chicago to see the game were sticking around to see the end of this pitiful thing. Our section, which at one point consisted of mostly White Sox fans, was now made up of about two dozen people, many of whom were Indians fans, including me. (To be clear: I'm a Cubs fan and my friend's a Sox fan. I went to the game to spend some time with my friend, and root against the Sox, of course.)

The 7th inning stretch is a baseball tradition. Everyone knows the words to "Take Me Out To The Ball Game" by the time they're ten years old, and knows to shout their favorite team at the appropriate moment. It's such a famous piece of Americana that when I was in China, it was the song that my travel mates and I chose to teach out host family after being given the task to help them learn a song in English. It has a simple melody, the lyrics aren't too wordy, and practically anyone can sing it, regardless of their vocal range.

It also seems to come at the perfect time. You might thing that the middle of the 5th inning, the halfway mark of a 9-inning ballgame, would be a better spot. But that'd feel too early, in the sense that both not enough baseball's been played and that there's too much baseball left to be played. The 6th inning also doesn't quite work. You're still getting a sense of what the game's like. And the 8th inning? Way too late; the game's nearly over. But the middle of the 7th? By this time, you've watched enough baseball to get a good sense of how the game's gone, and although more than half the game has gone by, there's still a decent amount of baseball yet to be played.

My friend and I sang along to the 7th inning stretch, our arms wrapped around each other's shoulders, swaying to the tempo of the organist who accompanied the rest of the stadium. It's one of the few times when rival fans can join together, except, of course, for the "root, root root for the ___" part. When we were done singing and stretching, we sat back down to watch the bottom half of the inning. A few hours later, the two of us stood up again and sang "Take Me Out To The Ball Game" for a second time. It wasn't because we were bored, or because we wanted to pass the time after running all the way down station platform and just missing our train. We sang it again because it was the middle of the 14th inning, and an encore was demanded.

Few baseball games make it to extra innings, and fewer still make it to 14 innings. That makes the 14th inning stretch a rare event. In fact, this happened to be the first time that either of us got to take part in the 14th inning stretch, and keep in mind that we've been to about 150 games, collectively. And for all the poor performances on the field that night by the two teams, the 14th inning stretch made the entire night worth it, for some reason. I think what I liked most about it is just how absurd the concept is. "It's been another seven innings of baseball, so let's sing it again!" It's kind of utterly ridiculous (in a good way) to do it over, but it does seem to reflect the ridiculousness of the game at hand: Here you are in the 14th inning, both teams are refusing to win the stupid game, and it's very likely that that this game will go on for another 14 innings. It's like a reward for stick around to witness all this awful baseball.

The final out of the 13th inning was probably the most excited I was all night simply because it guaranteed that this ridiculous yet wonderful event would take place, and I would get to be there to take part in it. The top of the 14th went by quickly enough, with the Indians failing to score a run. I'll admit, I was slightly worried that the park wouldn't play "Take Me Out To The Ball Game," and that my friend and I would have to a cappella it on our own. But sure enough, the public address announcer that there would indeed be a 14th inning stretch, and as he finished speaking, the organ began to play, leading those of us left into the song.

Again we stood, again we sang, and again we stretched. It was the most fun I had all night. All of the game's struggles vanished during that period of time. The poor pitching, the horrid hitting, all of it was forgotten or put aside for a little while. This made the whole game worth it, the whole terrible, awful, abysmal game worth it. It was absurd and ridiculous and perfect. And perfect timing as well. The Sox managed to win it during the bottom of the inning, mercifully ending the game after that wonderful high note.

I wonder what the 21st inning stretch is like...

Until next time, Orange Hat Guy

Sunday, August 7, 2011

"Rise of the Planet of the Apes" Review

Two Stars

I almost decided not to write a review for this movie, because it didn't seem to be going anywhere for a while. It just did't seem worth it to write about a movie that wasn't really good or bad, that seemingly was middling on, without much intrigue. It wasn't boring per se, rather it was uninteresting, if that makes sense to you. But the second half of the movie changed my mind. Did it get better? Kind of. The tempo certainly picked up, which helped, and the story began to have some serious development. But the ending didn't sit well with me, and the movie ultimately fizzled for me.

The movie begins with Will Rodman (James Franco), a scientist who's working on a cure for Alzheimer's, which has afflicted his father (John Lithgow), by testing an experimental retrovirus on chimpanzees. After the trial is shut down because one of the chimps got loose and began wreaking havoc in an effort to protect its just-born baby, Will takes in the baby chimp (christened "Caesar") and raises it himself. As Caesar (Andy Serkis, though digitally rendered) gets older, he begins to demonstrate extraordinarily enhanced mental abilities, including understanding human speech. This leads Will to believe that the retrovirus works, and persuades his boss to restart the trials with a slightly modified retrovirus.

But then things take a turn for the worse: Caesar is sent to an animal control compound for primates after attacking one of Will's neighbors, and one of the scientists working on the new retrovirus accidentally inhales it. The compound that Caesar is placed in is run by John Landon (Brian Cox), whose son Dodge (Tom Felton) takes great pleasure in mistreating all the apes that are housed there. Using his enhanced cognitive skills, Caesar soon begins hatching a plan to escape and bring back canisters of the retrovirus in order to smarten up the rest of the apes.

Now, this wasn't a bad movie, but wasn't really a good one either. It has some major plot holes, and doesn't seem sure which side it supports (humans or apes). I've already talked about the pacing issues that really hindered the first half of the movie, and I feel that this contributes to that uncertainty. In the first half, director Rupert Wyatt really tries to get the audience to sympathize for Caesar, which is totally understandable. He tries to do the same thing when we watch Malfoy viciously mistreat the rest of the apes, but by the time the climax of the film roles around (a giant battle on the Golden Gate Bridge), that sympathy is lost.

I'm not sure if the ambiguity of this showdown between humans and apes was intentional, but it didn't come off like it was intentional. Instead, there were times when you were supposed to root for apes and times when you were supposed to root for humans, based on whichever scenario fit the plot at that specific point (though it seemed like we were meant to sympathize with the apes more). At least, that's the impression it left on me, which made the ending all the more confusing. We all know what eventually happens, that the apes become major antagonists for humankind. Wyatt could have told his story better if it was clearer who the audience was supposed to root for, because it's hard for me to root for apes that will eventually enslave us.

But here's the problem with all of that: The root cause for these apes to revolt against humanity stems from how Tom Felton's character treats them. Their entire basis for asserting their dominance comes from the actions of a single person who, unfortunately for us, happens to be a gigantic asshole. There's a moment during the battle on the Golden Gate Bridge when one of the chimps has an opportunity to save a human's life. (Minor SPOILER) The chimp doesn't save him. How am I supposed to sympathize with these apes now? They're acting as immorally as the human that drove them revolt, which makes them no better than Felton's monstrous character. Why didn't they instead follow Will's example? He chose to adopt Caesar rather than putting him down, raised Caesar as best one can, and had profound respect for chimpanzees.

The movie makes a limited effort to suggest that this is all our own fault, that because we use animals as test subjects we got what was coming to us. But I don't buy that. This really isn't the place to argue over animal rights or the ethical implications surrounding live animal testing, but suggesting that an eye for an eye is what humans should pay as penance for using chimpanzees in their drug testing doesn't sit well with me. I guess, then, that this movie's biggest problem is that it tries to say too much, but actually doesn't say enough, and when it does try to say something, it doesn't say it very well.

But that doesn't detract from the other elements of the movie. Franco, Lithgow, Felton, and Serkis are all excellent, the latter in particular. Much like he's done before with Gollum, and then as the gorilla in "King Kong," Andy Serkis played the hell out a character that was ultimately rendered digitally. His performance shouldn't be overlooked because you don't see his face. I'm not certain how much of Caesar was Andy Serkis and how much of it was only CGI, but I have a good enough understanding of how characters like Caesar are rendered to know that Serkis put in a whole lot of work, and it really came off on screen. Most of the other apes are remarkably well done too, though I wonder how much of their behavior was at all accurate.

So here we are, at the conclusion of this review. From what Wikipedia tells me, "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" is the first in a rebooted series, so we'll have to wait and see if this does indeed hold true. Certain elements were set up as potential sequel material (the scientist who accidentally inhaled the retrovirus; brief news report of the launch of a manned mission to Mars), but this movie could just as easily be a standalone piece. It would've been nice if the movie had been set in New York instead of San Francisco, and having the movie end with an ominous shot of the Statue of Liberty, but maybe they're saving that for one of the sequels.

Sunday, July 24, 2011

"Captain America: The First Avenger" Review

Three Stars

Yup. Another superhero movie. It seems like there have been about 20 of them released this summer, but I think this is the last one, in case you're starting to get burned out by them. If I had to rank where "Captain America" stands, I'd probably put it behind "X-Men: First Class" as the second best of the summer, with a fair lead over "Thor" and finally "Green Lantern" in last place. "Captain America" and "Thor" are, of course, Marvel characters whose movies are setting up next summer's "The Avengers," which I personally can't wait to see (I'm a Joss Whedon fanboy, and he's heading the project). But the difference between these two films is that only "Captain America" really feels like it could stand on its own, that it wasn't made simply to set up "The Avengers."

The film starts in the present where S.H.I.E.L.D discovers some wreckage that houses a rather important piece of equipment used by Captain America. Then we quickly jump back to the early 1940s, where World War II is in full force, and a tiny Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) is continually rejected from army recruiters because of his diminutive size. But he is soon taken in by a military scientist who believes he can change the scrawny, 90-pound Rogers into an enormous, muscular superhuman with a special serum. At the same time, Nazi Johann Schmidt (Hugo Weaving) has come up with his own serum that fuels his desire to conquer the world, and has his own personal army. Rogers soon takes the persona of Captain America, and as a member of the U.S. Army, he helps lead the fight to stop Schmidt from global domination.

I liked the plot, and this was one of the few movies I've seen this summer where I felt none of the action scenes were over the top. Sure, there's a lot of CGI and fiery explosions, but everything felt justified, and the rhythm of movie wasn't messed up. Director Joe Johnston paces the film very well, as it doesn't feel too long, and none of the action sequences feel like overkill (maybe a bit excessive, but nothing as excessive as "Transformers"). The script is also fairly well written. I can't recall cringing or rolling my eyes at any of the lines, and most superhero movies can't pass that test. There was a great balance between the serious and the lighthearted, and at no point did the story itself seem to try to do too much and become corny. One thing that I think helped is that Captain America's costume was an actual physical costume and not a painfully unnecessary CGI body suit (I'm looking at you, "Green Lantern"). But Johann Schmidt, whose serum turns him into the hideous Red Skull, ends up with a completely CG head, which, while beautifully rendered, could have been just as easily created using prosthetics, thus not wasting much of Weaving's performance (and Weaving is masterful when it comes to playing villains).

Yet as much I love watching Hugo Weaving, his character was the one thing that dragged down the movie for me. Johann Schmidt was entirely one-dimensional, and those types of villains simply aren't interesting. The brilliance behind "The Dark Knight" came from the Joker, and the seeming inability to understand his madness. You don't know why he aspires to create chaos, or what's caused him to lose any sense of morality. And because of that, he's a fascinating, complex villain and the driving force behind what made that movie so great. Johann Schmidt? He wants world domination, and he'll kill anyone who tries to stop him. I've heard that one before, and I've heard it a lot. I know this Captain America, and the metaphor of good versus evil couldn't be any clearer, but simple good versus evil is boring. Magneto is a great villain because he has compelling motivations for waging war against non-mutants. The Green Goblin is similar to the Joker, and another example of a great villain. Johann Schmidt? Not so much.

On the acting front, Chris Evans and Hugo Weaving both have a great presence on the screen. A scene-stealing Tommy Lee Jones plays the hard-nosed Colonel Chester Philips, Hayley Atwell plays Peggy Carter, a British ally and love interest for Rogers, and Dominic Carter does a fine job as Howard Stark, the father of Tony Stark/Iron Man. Everyone puts in a fine performance (and Weaving's would have been even better if they left his face alone), and Evans really fills the part of Captain America, not just Steve Rogers. Tommy Lee Jones is simply brilliant as always, and Dominic Carter really seems to mimic a lot of the mannerisms of Robert Downey Jr. (though he tones down Downey Jr.'s quirkiness quite a bit). I would have liked to see the romance between Rogers and Carter played up a tiny bit more, but Atwell and Evans have good chemistry, and although a romance is inevitable in a superhero movie, this one's done better than most.

Overall, I quite liked "Captain America." I'll reiterate that it didn't feel like it was made simply to move forward with the planned Avengers film, like "Thor" unfortunately did. It didn't feel too fantastical (though Schmidt's army and his base in the Alps were a bit silly), and had a pretty good script with a great cast acting it all out. It runs about two hours, and ending's pretty solid. It isn't overdone with some sort of never-ending epic battle that either takes too long or doesn't match with the rest of the movie, as final showdowns can sometimes do.

A few other notes: I didn't see it in 3D, and you don't need to either. I'm really starting to agree with Roger Ebert that 3D does nothing for your movie, unless you really go all out with it and the 3D truly matches the tone of the film (even "Avatar," which I saw in IMAX 3D was quite impressived with, was still just as good in 2D when I recently watched it in on a regular TV). The music, composed by veteran Alan Silvestri, was pretty good throughout, and though I felt it was at times a bit much, I think Silvestri simply wanted to write a rousing and patriotic-sounding score worthy of a hero like Captain America. And don't forget to stick around after the credits....

Until next time, Orange Hat Guy

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Vampires Don't Sparkle

(Note: I've used some strong language in this post, so it's possibly NSFW. Carry on, if you can.)

I am not proud to say this, but I have watched the first three Twilight movies. Why would I subject myself to this heinous torture? Frankly, I'm not sure I made the right decision to watch them in the first place. But you can't call something completely and utter shit without actually knowing what you're talking about (and now that I've seen the first three movies, I'm justified in calling Twilight complete and utter shit). You see, here's the thing: Vampires don't sparkle. Period. Once I heard that Twilight vampires sparkle in sunshine (instead of BURSTING INTO FLAMES AND DYING A HORRIBLE DEATH), I knew that the works of Stephanie Meyer were going to be amazing.

Call me strange, but the concept that a 100-year-old vampire feels so alone (with his supportive, large family) and emotionally crippled (because he gets to live forever, and that totally sucks) that he needed the love and affection of some random high school chick is a LITTLE pathetic. But only a little* (*A WHOLE FUCKING LOT).

So to save you from suffering the misery that I went through, here's the plot (and I use that term loosely) for the third movie, which I watched last week:

Bella wants to marry Edward. Because getting married when you're 18 is such a great idea.

Edward wants to wait until after they graduate, but I think Bella was being all whiny for some reason.

Jacob shows up. Shirt status: on. Also, when Edward and Jacob get all pouty, Bella utters this fantastic line: "I'm, like, Switzerland, ok?!" Brilliant. Oscar-worthy.

There's random shit happening as vampires are eating people. Meanwhile, Bella's dad goes through the movie with the same confused expression on his face, probably a result of the actor wondering "Why the hell did I agree do do this shit?"

At one point Edward and Bella go to Florida. Because fuck you, that's why. Still no discernible plot.

There's a graduation. Anna Kendrick gives a speech where the message to graduates is "I dunno what the hell I'm gonna do, or if I'm gonna be successful in life, and that's ok!"

Something something something random vampires still eating people.

Did you know werewolves never wear shirts? Jacob shirt status: off.

People running through forests really, really fast!

Vampires and werewolves don't get along because something that happened 100 YEARS AGO is still a sore subject, and neither is enlightened enough to bury the hatchet. Suspenseful.

Because Edward loves Bella so much and wants to protect her from those random vampires who aren't targeting anyone in particular, Edward decides to abandon her to his most hated enemies, the werewolves.

Somewhere around this point Ron Howard's daughter shows up. The red hair is a welcome relief from the dull green and gray of the rest of the movie.

People running through forests really, really fast! Again!

Jacob tries to show Bella he's the better man for her by admitting he wants to cockblock Edward and then sexually assaults her (ok, he tried to kiss her, but I like the Rifftrax description better).

There's still no rising action. And we're already more than halfway through this damn movie.

Oh, look. Dakota Fanning. Isn't she above this kind of garbage? Oh, she's a Voltouri (or however the hell it's spelled)? Ok then, what the fuck does that mean?

NOW a plot develops: Ron Howard's daughter is raising a vampire army to kill Bella because Bella DIDN'T kill her vampire boyfriend. Revenge: These vampires don't do it very well.

So Edward's family once again allies itself with its hated enemies in order to protect Bella.

This is the perfect opportunity for Bella to tell Edward and Jacob that she loves both of them. And they both love her, and since this was written by a Mormon, problem solved, right? Nope. Polygamy is only ok when it allows old guys to marry a bunch of 13-year-olds.

This also another perfect opportunity to show Wolf-boy sans shirt. Even though he's in the middle of a blizzard. Because blizzards happen in May.

People running through forests really, really fast! For a third time!

This vampire army, which is supposed to be super strong and a verifiable threat to Bella's life, is wiped out in about five minutes. And did you know that vampires are just giant glass China dolls, and punching them in the face will cause their heads to shatter into pieces?

Ron Howard's daughter and some random vampire fight Edward and Jacob for about two minutes. During this fight, Bella tries to save Edward by cutting herself and having her blood lure Ron Howard's daughter's attention away from Edward. Sadly, Bella doesn't bleed out. Ron Howard's daughter and the other vampire lose.

Guess what? The movie's still not over! Jacob's terribly injured, and Edward, being a supportive boyfriend, totally doesn't give a shit.

There's one more scene, I think, where Bella and Edward are lying together in a field. I think they were discussing their upcoming wedding, but I can't be sure. I was too busy puking after being fed shit for two straight hours to pay attention to it.

Thus endeth the movie. Thank fucking god. And I'm serious, that's the actual movie. It was awful, even with the Rifftrax. And not even in the it's-so-awful-it's-funny kind of way. The acting was horrendous, and that leads me to believe that the actors think Twilight is a piece of shit as well, and they're purposely phoning it in because they have nothing to work with and don't care about putting any effort into their acting. They probably can't wait to finish the stupid series and work on actual movies. As for the first two movies, I've already begun to repress my memories of them, so I won't be recapping them. I know you're all incredibly disappointed.

Until next time, Orange Hat Guy

Friday, July 15, 2011

"Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows: Part Two" Review

Four Stars

So, it's all over. At least, until they remake it in about 25 years.

Seven books, eight movies, and one gigantic pop culture phenomenon spread out over more than a decade. And now that journey's reached its end, with the final installment of the movie adaptation of the seventh book now in theaters. It's a bittersweet moment, to be sure. It's always hard to say goodbye to beloved adventures that stretched across pages and movie screens and captivate us in ways we never would have thought possible when we opened the book or sat in the theater seat for the very first time.

If you're like me, you started reading Harry Potter when as a kid, and continued to read it as you grew older, moving slowly from childhood through high school and beyond. Perhaps the most amazing thing about the series was how it didn't lose that majestic quality it had when you were first sucked into the magical world that J.K. Rowling created. Reading Harry Potter at 16 felt the same as it did when I first read them at 9 or 10, and that's quite a remarkable feat. At 16, you try very hard to fit in with the cool trends and avoid being labeled a dorky bookworm, but when it came to Harry Potter, social trends be damned.

And as much as I can't wait to see the movie (I'm writing this part beforehand, on purpose), I feel underwhelmed. I'm not as excited as I was for the first part, probably because that was the beginning of the end, and not the end itself. Now, I'm faced with the finality that's generated by knowing this grand adventure is coming to an end tonight, probably around 2:45am (Of course I'm seeing it at midnight). It's the same sense of finality that I've felt when watching the end of a great TV series, but it's a much smaller feeling than I thought it would be. Simply put, the movies don't hold their weight against the books.

All that anticipation and feelings of finality were spent on when the final book came out. That's when the adventure truly came to an end, and the movie can't match that moment when there were no more words left to read or pages left to turn.

Now I'm off to see the movie. I'll be back in a few.

Ok, I'm back! Actually, it's the next morning. There's no way I'd be coherent enough to write a review at 3:00 am so I've waited until I actually got some sleep to get things underway. How was the showing? Pretty good. There was a line stretching around the block outside of the movie theater I went to, and I saw that a lot of people were dressed up to an extent (nothing hugely extravagant from what I could tell, mostly people with wands, glasses, and scars drawn on their foreheads). I did see it in 3D, because that appeared to be the only available option when I was looking to order tickets ahead of time, and I'll talk more about the 3D elements later. It might have been a coincidence that the 3D glasses looked like Harry Potter's glasses, but somehow I doubt that.

I don't need to tell you the plot; I assume you already know that. But as a refresher, we start out in Bill and Fleur's cottage, where Harry, Ron, and Hermione are preparing to continue their search for more of Voldemort's horcruxes following Dobby's death. They, of course, go searching in Bellatrix's vault at Gringotts, and Helena Bonham Carter as Emma Watson as Hermione as Bellatrix is a delight to watch. After that, it's off to Hogwarts for a gigantic battle that takes up the last half of the movie (the movie itself runs about two hours). They fight, they fight some more, and then they fight again, all while Harry, Ron, and Hermione (and Neville! Seriously, Neville = BAMF) are running around, hunting down horcruxes and Snapes.

The story's told very well, with a few adjustments and modifications from the book here and there, and those changes didn't feel out of place. The movie started out a bit slow, as the scenes at Bill and Fleur's cottage are mostly exposition that either sets up the rest of the movie or reminds everyone of what happened in Part One. Once we get to Helena Bonham Carter as Emma Watson as Hermione as Bellatrix, however, the movie really being to kick into gear. Even when having to fit in sequences such as Harry searching for the Grey Lady, or looking into Snape's memories, or destroying Ravenclaw's diadem, whatever the hell a diadem is.

The acting's top notch, as once again Daniel Radcliffe, Alan Rickman, Matthew Lewis (Neville) and Ray Fiennes (Voldemort) are excellent. My only issue is that this movie really puts Harry at the forefront, with everyone else quite noticeably pushed to the side. The problem with this is that beloved characters such as the rest of the Weasleys, Bellatrix, Lupin, Malfoy, and others are, for the most part, merely present in the film. You see them, and maybe they have a few lines or the camera briefly focuses on them during a battle, but that's it. For example, I don't recall Mr. Weasley having a single line in the film, and Bellatrix (the actual character, not Helena Bonham Carter as Emma Watson as Hermione as Bellatrix) is seen standing by Voldemort's side, but that's about it. I don't know if there's really a fix for this, though, so I'll try to let it go.

The effects are pretty spectacular, but I'm gonna channel my inner Roger Ebert and talk about the problem with 3D. This movie didn't need it at all. If you haven't seen it yet, I'd recommend saving a few bucks and sticking with plain old 2D. It won't change the experience at all. Sure, there's a ten second sequence when the gang breaks into Gringotts that mimics a roller coaster, but that's about it. But aside from that, the 3D really adds nothing to the movie.

I guess all there's left to talk about is what this ending signifies, and what I took away from this movie. I've read a lot of people's reactions online, and saw some people in the theater shed some tears once the movie ended, and people are pretty emotional about it. Some have said this signals the end of their childhood, that they're overwhelmed by the fact that this series is finally over. As for me, I was hoping that I could muster up a bit more enthusiasm once the movie started, but I just couldn't. I felt more excitement going to see Part One, and I think that's because I wasn't sure what was going to happen in terms of where the movie would pause the story. That wasn't the case with this one. I knew exactly how the series was going to end, and I've known how it was going to end for four years.

This is different than going to see the other movies, where I knew how the movie would end, because the series itself would continue. The adventure wasn't over, merely one of the seven chapters of that adventure was over. This is different. This is it, the last chapter. And I knew exactly what was coming. Again I'll emphasize that, for me, Harry Potter truly ended for me when I finished the last book. This didn't change once John Williams' music started playing (though I felt that "The End" by The Doors might also have been appropriate to open the movie) and the Warner Brothers logo appeared on the screen. Now obviously some people feel differently, judging from my Facebook page and the emotional reactions I saw at the theater. And don't get me wrong, Part Two is a great movie that I really enjoyed. It's not only a fitting conclusion to Part One, but also a fitting conclusion to the entire movie series.

Yet that's the thing: It's the end of the movie series. I know that comparing the books and the movies when it comes to their weight in term of the Harry Potter franchise isn't quite fair, but it's precisely the reason why I'm not that emotional about the end of the movies. To me, the films serve as a companion, and aren't interchangeable with the books. Of course I'm bummed about the fact that there won't be any more movies (until they remake it, which is inevitable), because they do, in a way, keep the adventure alive. It's that thing movies have that books don't which makes us crave them. And conversely, books have a quality all their own that movies can never hope to match. But what I'm really getting at (and perhaps beating you over the head with) is that the story of Harry Potter, which is contained within the books, has been over for a while now, and there's nothing this movie can do undo that.

But if that's not the case for you, then go see the movie and pour your heart out. I'm sure you'll love it and feel that it did the book, and the series, justice. Are there changes? Yes. Is Neville Longbottom a serious ass-kicker? Yes. Is Alan Rickman a BAMF? Yes. Is Helena Bonham Carter as Emma Watson as Hermione as Bellatrix awesome? Yes. Should you see it in 3D? No. Will you cry? Maybe. What is the airspeed veloc—Ok I'll stop. The point is, go and see it and love it and cry and laugh and hold on to those two hours as much as you can. This is the big goodbye. Savor it.

Until next time, Orange Hat Guy

Sunday, July 10, 2011

Objectivity In Sports Journalism: A Rant About ESPN

First of all, let me congratulate Derek Jeter on his 3000th hit. I understand that's a major accomplishment, especially because he's the first Yankee to do so, and that's saying something. But here's the thing: I didn't need to tell you that he was the first Yankee to reach that milestone, that Ruth, DiMaggio, Gehrig, or Berra never got number 3000. I didn't need to tell you that Jeter would be the first player ever, Yankee or not, to get his 3000th hit at Yankee Stadium, old or new. The national sports media has already done that, over and over and over again.

If you turned SportsCenter or just about any other show on ESPN during this last week, there was a good chance that you were reminded at least once that Jeter was close to making history. And if you're a big sports fan who has to get your fix of ESPN every day, the number 3000 and the name Derek Jeter was beat mercilessly into your skull at every opportunity. And now that he's reached that milestone, ESPN is once again going all out on its coverage of it. ESPN's broken out old interviews with Jeter as well as new ones, shows the replay of the hit every fifteen minutes, and breaks down the significance of the event after every replay.

It might seem like this is merely a rant about ESPN's coverage of Derek Jeter's 3000th hit, but it's about more than that. This is a rant about ESPN itself, and how it goes completely over the top about certain events, and chooses to trivialize others. Earlier this week, it somehow managed to fit some coverage about the anniversary of LeBron James and The Decision in between its never-ending coverage of Jeter's run towards 3000. Now, there have been about a million things written about The Decision and ESPN's infamous role in putting together such a shameless and biased program, so I won't get into The Decision itself. But choosing to put together a retrospective for the one-year anniversary of it (which I didn't watch but did hear ran about five minutes during every SportsCenter that night) is another example of overkill.

But in order to understand why instances such as these are considered (by me) to be overkill, you have to understand a little more about ESPN, and exactly where the line is drawn in terms of being a member of the news media. People expect media organizations to be, for the most part, unbiased. When something newsworthy happens, the media does the best it can to cover the event in order to keep the public informed. This is how the system is supposed to work, whether the coverage is aimed at foreign affairs, politics, local occurrences, or sports.

But too often now, the media creates the news. Just look at The Decision. The suspense that was created once LeBron James became a free agent was enormous. Basketball fans across the country were constantly trying to figure out where LeBron would want play. And when he finally did make up his mind, he teamed up with ESPN to announce his choice during a one hour special in July. But here's the problem: Stephen A. Smith, a reputable NBA reporter, stated back in June of last year that LeBron would sign with the Miami Heat, which LeBron ended up doing. Sure, this could have been a lucky guess, but it was never mentioned by ESPN in the days leading up to The Decision, when ESPN was probably already setting up The Decision.

And when ESPN's own reporter, Chris Broussard, announced via Twitter in the early morning hours of the day The Decision aired that LeBron to Miami was a confirmed fact, the network went ahead with the program anyway. It had already committed to making the event into a so-called big moment in the history of sports. And even after Chris Bosh and Dwayne Wade announced that they would sign with the Miami Heat several hours before The Decision, a move which signified that there was no doubt LeBron was going to Miami, ESPN went ahead with The Decision.

ESPN was largely responsible for creating all the hype surrounding last year's NBA free agent market, as it did to a lesser extent with its coverage of Jeter's 3000th hit, and this highlights ESPN's main problem. It's supposed to be an unbiased sports media outlet, but it's not doing a very good job with that "unbiased" part. ESPN has largely failed to stay objective, and, at times, appears to be a giant hype machine for whatever sports story they feel like pushing at that particular time. It tries to hide behind the defense that they're only covering what people want to see, but when you're responsible for trying to create that which people want to see (such as the Miami Heat), you've failed to be objective.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying ESPN orchestrated LeBron signing with the Heat. But the "product" that was the newsworthiness of the Miami Heat is (mostly) ESPN's creation. I understand that it can be tough to balance being both a news organization as well as a business that's about entertainment, but lately ESPN hasn't really even tried to. Fortunately for us, Jeter's 3000th hit was a single, unrepeatable event. But LeBron and company are going to be playing for the Miami Heat for the next five years. That's 410 games, not including the playoffs, of LeBron and the Heat for ESPN to cover. And cover. And cover.

The truth of the matter is that ESPN is trying to sell a product to its viewers. It's right there in the name: Entertainment Sports Programming Network. And worse yet, it won't admit to doing so. In the aftermath of The Decision, ESPN's ombudsman refused to acknowledge any mistakes it made in regards to maintaining its objectivity as a news organization. There's been no apology, or even recognition of wrong doing. There's been no change in philosophy (as seen by the Jeter coverage, and celebrating the anniversary of The Decision), or attempt made to regain its objectivity, and that may be the most damning part.

Unfortunately for sports nuts like me, there's no alternative to ESPN. It's closest challenger, as far as I can tell, is Versus, and that's not much of a competitor. Right now, there's simply no way for a sports network to challenge ESPN for supremacy. The only option I've seen is turning to channels like the NFL Network and the MLB Network. But chances are you have to pay extra for them, because they're not included in most basic cable plans. So unfortunately for me, I'm stuck with ESPN.

You still with me? Thanks for sticking along, and don't worry, my rant's nearly finished. I know that some people might think that this is not a huge deal, because there's a vast difference between objectivity in sports networks like ESPN and news networks like CNN, which cover much more significant and newsworthy events. But as a journalism student who's interested in working in sports, reporting the story and not creating it is quite important to me. I've seen the Chicago sports media create and spin stories to their liking, and it's both infuriating and sad. I love writing, and I love sports. I hope to combine those two into a career, so it's heartbreaking to see professional journalists making a mockery of the profession I so strongly desire to have. So here's to hoping that if I make it, I'll have a bit more integrity than what I'm currently seeing in the sports journalism profession today.

Until next time, Orange Hat Guy

Thursday, July 7, 2011

My Future Reading List

Over the last few weeks, I did something I haven't done in quite a long time. I read a book, for my personal enjoyment, and it wasn't Harry Potter. One of the unfortunate things that happened as I went from elementary school to high school and now that I'm in college is that the amount of time I spent reading books for personal enjoyment has, for the most part, greatly diminished. This is not to say that I've stopped reading, as at times I've been overwhelmed with assignments that require me to read books for a class, but I haven't really done it as a leisure activity.

But now that I'm free of those restrictions (I'm fairly confident that I don't need to take any more literature courses), I can finally get back to what I spent much of my time in grade school doing: Picking up a book that interests me and reading it, just for fun. Don't get me wrong, I didn't mind English as a subject. Many of the books I've read over the past several years I quite enjoyed. But I don't really like being forced to read those books, and then analyze them every which way. The fact is, I just don't derive enough satisfaction from the effort I put in when I have to go through a text.

For the most part, I like to read in order to be entertained. I'm interested in a good story. Sure, some of my favorite books require me to look beyond the narrative to truly understand what the story's about (The Great Gatsby, The Catcher in the Rye), but that's not what, for the most part, interests me as a reader. I find that the art of storytelling a fascinating challenge, and that's what drawn me to literature. I spent a good portion of my preteen years pouring through the Animorphs series, The Lord of the Rings trilogy, and Michael Chrichton. All of which told stories that captivated me and kept me entertained from start to finish. And now I'd like to get back to that.

The book that inspired me to write this post was Frank Herbert's Dune, one of the more popular novels of the scifi genre. It's quite a fantastic read, so if you have the chance to read it, I highly recommend you do so. The book focuses on the sociopolitical atmosphere of a futuristic universe where the House Atreides, a duchy that's part of the Imperium, moves to a planet called Arrakis. The planet is one giant desert, with powerful storms, deadly sandworms, and the Fremen, the mysterious natives of Arrakis. Shortly after the House Atreides, which is led by the Duke Leto and his son Paul, arrives on the planet and takes command of the valuable spice trade, chaos and turmoil ensue.

Herbert does a great job of telling a captivating story, based on how he gives you just enough to understand what's going on, but not enough to give you the big picture. This keeps you guessing, not knowing what will come next. And then there's the level of depth that went into creating the universe in which the book is set is. The Dune universe is given incredible detail, from the different races and cultures to the political climate that sparked the first major turning point of the novel.

I can't tell you how much fun I had as I slowly worked my way through Dune during my commutes to and from where I work. And when I powered through the last half of the novel traveling from Chicago to Bloomington and then back to Chicago. It was just as exciting and enthralling as watching a good movie or TV series, and that's something I haven't felt from reading a book in a really long time. TV has probably spoiled me, and things like Netflix Instant aren't helping either. But I look forward to the fall, when I'll have more time to simply sit down, pick up a book, and get lost in some great adventure.

What I'm looking forward to reading, in no particular order:

  • The rest of the Dune series (Frank Herbert)
  • His Dark Materials trilogy (Philip Pullman)
  • A Song of Fire and Ice series (George R.R. Martin)
  • Foundation series (Isaac Asimov)

Until next time, Orange Hat Guy

Monday, June 20, 2011

"Green Lantern" Review

Two-And-A-Half Stars

Blake Lively is quite attractive. She's ridiculously good looking. Really, really ridiculously good looking. Oh right, the rest of the movie. I should probably talk about that. What can I say about it besides that it's your standard origin-story super hero movie? Not much, unfortunately. It hits on the same cliches and plot devices that we've become quite familiar with, thanks to all the different origin-story super hero movies that have come out over the last ten years. So let's see what exactly separates "Green Lantern" from the pack:

  • Lost a close family member/significant other (Spider Man, Iron Man, Batman, Watchmen, GREEN LANTERN)
  • This loss has a profound effect (Spider Man, Iron Man, Batman, Watchmen, GREEN LANTERN)
  • Inherits responsibility that comes with super powers (Spider Man, Iron Man, Batman, Thor, X: Men, Watchmen, GREEN LANTERN)
  • Finds himself in over his head and wants to bail out (Spider Man, Iron Man, X: Men, Watchmen, GREEN LANTERN)
  • Has a realization and changes his mind (Spider Man, Iron Man, X: Men, Watchmen, GREEN LANTERN)
  • Saves the day and gets the girl (All of them except Dr. Manhattan)
As you can see, the movie's pretty much your run-of-the-mill origin story, except this time with a ton of green CGI.

All that being said, I enjoyed "Green Lantern" even though it wasn't very cerebral. Was it good? No, but at least I found myself entertained in the way that simple-minded action movies are. And have I mentioned Blake Lively? Yes? Well let me just mention her one more time: Blake Lively. Ok, I'm done.

The movie follows fighter pilot Hal Jordan, whose father (also a fighter pilot) died in a fiery explosion when Hal was a boy, and Hector Hammond, a scientist and eventual antagonist. Jordan is selected to be the next Green Lantern after another Lantern crash-lands and dies on Earth after a giant evil monster bad guy named Parallax escapes imprisonment and fatally injures the Lantern. As Jordan learns about what it means to be a member of the Green Lantern Corps. (Lanterns must be fearless and utilize will power and imagination to fight evil), Hammond becomes infected with something extraterrestrial and begins to develop both psychic and telekinetic abilities. Oh, and Parallax is coming to destroy Earth.

What "Green Lantern" is really about, though, is confronting failure and fear. Jordan is too afraid to admit that he's afraid (and that was an actual line spoke by Ryan Reynolds, pretty much word for word; there was a lot of terrible dialogue) and worries he can't live up to the memory of his father, who he believed was absolutely fearless. Hammond, on the other hand, is rejected by Blake Lively's character and learns that his own father perceives him as a failure, motivating him to becoming villainous. This conflict is also seen through how good and evil fight in the DC universe: Green Lanterns derive their power from will, while forces like Parallax and Hammond harness and embrace power from fear. Lanterns triumph by overcoming fear through will power.

Now, of course, comes the good news and the bad news about the movie. I'll start first with what worked well. Ryan Reynolds, as Hal Jordan, did quite a good job. I'd say his performance carried the movie. The rest of the cast, while not particularly bad, didn't really stand out or impress. Peter Sarsgaard did what he could with the character of Hector Hammond, and Tim Robbins had a nice bit part, but the ensemble didn't match up to Reynolds or his character. Hal Jordan, at least, was a decent character. His motivations and struggles to accept being a Lantern created a plausible, if predictable, character arc. The only problem is that it's not a big arc. All that happens is that he grows up a little, rather than a lot. He starts out as a nice guy who's afraid to fail, not a spiteful jerk who doesn't care if he finds success. Yes, he puts the weight of his father on his shoulders, but it could have been done better.

But Blake Lively as a fighter pilot? Really? The problem with Blake Lively's character of Carol Ferris is that she's just kind of there. Jordan and Ferris had a prior relationship, but it's never explored enough to buy why they seem to both have deep affection for one another. How serious was it? Were they engaged? We know Jordan walked away from the relationship, as he's apt to do in circumstances where he thinks he might fail, and we also learn that Ferris isn't too hurt by this, but we never learn anything about the relationship. The driving force behind an on-screen romance is why two people are attracted to each other and would risk their lives to save each other. We're never given that reason. So the romance feels forced (and obviously inevitable, because the hero always gets the girl), and Lively's character thus doesn't fit smoothly into the narrative.

Then there's the extensive backstory, the overuse of CGI, the lack of a strong villain, and a lack of serious drama. My problem with the backstory of the Green Lantern Corps. is similar to my issue with "Thor" in that it's too fantastical and undermines the human spirit by making us not alone in the universe. By setting the story in a universe where there are thousands of alien species, many of whom are much wiser than and peaceful than humanity, it makes our hero and our world insignificant. Who cares if a world filled with belligerent, violent people is destroyed? But if we're alone, or at least don't deal with entire extra terrestrial civilizations (like how the rebooted Batman movies or the X: Men franchise don't), the actions Hal Jordan takes are more meaningful. I know I'm griping more about the comic book's setting, and maybe this works better on the page rather than on the big screen, but this felt like a fundamental problem to me. Batman tries to save his city of Gotham, Spider Man had New York, and Professor X tries to prevent a human-mutant war. But what is Hal Jordan fighting for? Besides Blake Lively, of course.

So when we meet Parallax, a giant, smoking figure who plans on devouring Earth, the threat he poses is muted. First of all, he picks Earth because the Lantern who gave Jordan his ring died there, and that Lantern happened to be the person who imprisoned Parallax. So he picks Earth not because of humanity's significance, but because a dying Lantern happened to land there instead of another populated world. One of the things Jordan tries to do at one point in the movie is convince the Green Lantern Corps. of the goodness of humanity and how our planet deserves to be saved, but this is trivialized by why Parallax chooses to destroy Earth. And just to emphasize for one last time about how we don't know what exactly Jordan's fighting for, we never even learn what city he lives in.

And Hammond? His motivations aren't understood very well. Why does he want to hurt people? Sure, his father is disappointed in him, and he doesn't get the girl, but his descent into villainy isn't done very well. Then there's the CGI. There's a lot of it. A whole lot. Even Hal Jordan's suit is computer-generated. Remember when super hero movies had guys in actual costumes? Those were the days. And couldn't Hammond's appearance be done with makeup rather than CGI? Or any of the humanoid Lanterns? No? Ok then, CGI porn it is. Some people love that stuff, and I don't mind it if it's done well and not overused. But boy, do a lot of movies today feel like they overuse CGI. I don't know why directors are choosing to just do everything digitally rather than attempt to do it practically (which lends a bit more realness), but I hope they remember how movies like "The Matrix" used CGI a lot more sparingly than some movies today, and how well that added to the final product.

I hope I don't sound like I'm ranting, because I did enjoy the movie. It was entertaining enough and if you accept it for what it is, then hopefully you'll enjoy it too. I'd just like to believe that it's possible to make a good superhero movie, and by good I mean from a critical standpoint. I do hope that they make a sequel, so that they have a chance to improve on all of the things I mentioned (and for more Blake Lively). 

Until next time, Orange Hat Guy