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
Sunday, July 24, 2011
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.
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.
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
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
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
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:
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)