For 52 years, the Lewiston Kiwanis Peach Festival has offered residents and tourists alike the opportunity to indulge in some good old-fashioned fun, food and camaraderie toward the end of the summer season. Whether it’s playing games in the midway, listening to live music or simply basking in the local scenery, the event caters to people of all ages who are looking to take advantage of everything this area has to offer.
“We’ve been fortunate to add events through the years to make the festival bigger and involve more people and families. It’s grown to be a spectacular event,” says Festival Chairman Jerry Wolfgang, when discussing how popular the occasion has become since its inception. “We’ve always maintained over the years that this is for families.”
Wolfgang’s emphasis on family is cemented by the absence of a beer tent which, for many festivals, would mean a major hit to overall revenue, but Wolfgang isn’t worried. He points out that the Kiwanis Club alone uses “13,000 pounds of fruit to make the peach shortcake” and that the coveted dessert has a reputation for selling out rather quickly, so the fundraising efforts should be just fine throughout the three-day period.
In the past, the question of venue has come up among concerned members of the community, but this year the inquiries were laid to rest early.
At their Feb. 17 meeting, The Village of Lewiston Board of Trustees passed a motion to allow the Kiwanis Club to once again hold the event at Academy Park, which many residents feel is the best fit.
“Having it at the plateau was too congested and drew too many complaints,” says Trustee Michael Marra, referring to one of the festival’s prior locations. “Things such as facility contracts and other insurance issues can be complicated, so Academy Park seems to be the most accommodating.”
Trustee William Geiben also supports the use of Academy Park, saying that local businesses “wouldn’t be able to survive without festivals and spending from visitors,” so it’s important to create a situation where both attendees and vendors can view the festival as a success.
Although the festival has evolved, Geiben also says it’s important to remember that its original purpose was to support the farmers by promoting their annual peach crop. With vendors poised to go through 13,000 pounds of peaches, the initial intention remains firmly in tact.
Time: Friday Sept. 11 (5 p.m. – 11 p.m.)
Saturday Sept. 12 (11 a.m. - 11 p.m.)
Sunday Sept. 13 (11 a.m. – 10 p.m.)
Admission: Free
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
The Last House on the Left
With a piece of cringe-inducing torture porn such as "The Last House on the Left," you know exactly what you're getting. F-bombs will drop, grass will be smoked and people will be offed in the most grotesque fashion imaginable. That said, the result of this latest horror reimagining is surprisingly effective to the point that Wes Craven's 1972 original looks almost tame in comparison.
What I found interesting about the new film is that its tone is 180 degrees different than what Craven was going for. His work had an absurd sense of Manson-esque anarchy that made you unsure whether or not the obvious comedic elements should be laughed at, but the insanity here leaves no time for antics. When these girls embark on their boneheaded ganja quest, director Dennis Iliadis wastes no time testing the audience's tolerance for moral turpitude.
Those familiar with the original know what happens next, so I'll spare you the grimy details. The bottom line is that if you have the stomach for it, it's actually a pretty well-made, albeit disturbing addition to the genre.
- ** 1/2 out of 4 - It would've been 3, but that final scene was completely superfluous.
What I found interesting about the new film is that its tone is 180 degrees different than what Craven was going for. His work had an absurd sense of Manson-esque anarchy that made you unsure whether or not the obvious comedic elements should be laughed at, but the insanity here leaves no time for antics. When these girls embark on their boneheaded ganja quest, director Dennis Iliadis wastes no time testing the audience's tolerance for moral turpitude.
Those familiar with the original know what happens next, so I'll spare you the grimy details. The bottom line is that if you have the stomach for it, it's actually a pretty well-made, albeit disturbing addition to the genre.
- ** 1/2 out of 4 - It would've been 3, but that final scene was completely superfluous.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Watchmen
Disclaimer - I've yet to read the graphic novel, so every reaction is based solely on the film itself.
Now that I’ve had some time to digest all 162 minutes of Zack Snyder’s ponderous adaptation of “Watchmen,” I think it’s time to sort through the wreckage of this ambitious yet terminally flawed project. During the miraculously executed opening montage, I kept thinking that I was about to experience something truly fanciful and reflective, but it was only a matter of time before delight turned to despair. I wanted to like it.
Actually, I thought pretty highly of it walking out of the theatre and was eager to see it again just to make sure I wasn’t hallucinating. Alas, reality set in and what I initially believed to be an out-of-this-world piece of pulp noir was reduced to just another insipid riff on the superhero’s dilemma.
Instead of serving up a standard review, I decided to highlight what I liked and didn’t like about this film separately, because I’m admittedly a little unsure of the long-term impact this picture will have on critics and fanboys alike. But enough small talk. Let’s get down to business.
Likes –
The Opening Sequence – Set to Bob Dylan’s anthemic “The Times They Are A-Changin’,” the first ten minutes provide a splendid Gump-esque glimpse into the history of the Watchmen and how their intervention in such events as Vietnam and Watergate helped shape the bizarro 1985 in which the story is set. Watching Dr. Manhattan singlehandedly eliminate the North Vietnamese army is one of the more amusing sights here, but the coolness of it all is too great to last as Snyder is never able to recapture the thrill of this first act.
Rorschach – I’m probably not the first (or the last) to say this, but Jackie Earle Haley owns this movie. As the resident sociopath of the troupe, he narrates the film with an alarming tenor reminiscent of Christian Bale’s bat voice and patrols the streets looking to eviscerate every sordid scumbag in sight. It’s when his inkblot mask comes off that we really get the sense of an angst-ridden soul out for justice, but however fanatically blood-spattered the unmasking period is, the intrigue quickly evaporates once the mask goes back on.
The Comedian – He’s pompous, loutish, and despicable, but Jeffrey Dean Morgan dives into this character with reckless abandon. Although he’s shown mostly through flashbacks, we get the sense that Edward Blake enjoys being a boozing womanizer just as much as a supposed hero, because saving people just doesn’t feel as gratifying without a little something for the effort. Seeing as how most of the other characters are dull and uninspiring, I wouldn’t mind seeing a film based on The Comedian himself. At least that would have some soul.
The Soundtrack – Other than the aforementioned Dylan tune, here are some of the other songs littered throughout the film:
“All Along the Watchtower” – Jimi Hendrix
“The Sounds of Silence” – Simon and Garfunkel
“Hallelujah” – Leonard Cohen (During the sex scene, no less)
“Me and Bobby McGee” – Janis Joplin
“I’m Your Boogie Man” – K.C. and the Sunshine Band
“Unforgettable” – Nat King Cole
I enjoyed this eclectic mix of music a great deal, but still found the placement of certain songs to be awkward and clichéd.
Zack Snyder – From what diehard fans tell me, “Watchmen” is the most faithful comic book adaptation ever made and Snyder should be commended for taking on such a risky project. I agree with the latter to a certain extent, because if it’s really identical to the novel, it’s not Snyder’s fault that the material doesn’t translate well to the screen. I enjoyed his work on “Dawn of the Dead” very much and found “300” entertaining enough, so I don’t think it’s fair to blame everything on him. He made the film he wanted and, for me, it just didn’t pan out the way I hoped it would.
Dislikes –
Nite Owl, Silk Spectre II, Ozymandias, and Dr. Manhattan – None of these characters did anything to enhance my experience and I could’ve easily done without them.
Patrick Wilson – He’s a fine actor with a résumé that includes “Hard Candy,” “Little Children” and “Lakeview Terrace,” but he feels wasted behind a whiny character that resembles a middle-school science teacher more than a conflicted vigilante.
Malin Akerman – “Her interpretation of this character teeters between adorable and offensively annoying, but if that’s indeed how the character was written, she’s more than done her job.”
I wrote the above line about Akerman in my review of “The Heartbreak Kid” back in 2007 and I think it manages to sum up her work as Silk Spectre II just the same.
Matthew Goode – I don’t watch the show, but I have to think that the conniving women on “Gossip Girl” exhibit more sparkling malice that Goode does as Ozymandias.
Billy Crudup – The role of Dr. Manhattan doesn’t require much emotion, so I felt Crudup’s range wasn’t tested enough to warrant discussion. He’s buried by subpar effects and deserved better material.
Special Effects – The much-anticipated visual effects resulted in a mixed bag. At times, they’re the most incredible display you’ve ever seen and at others, they look like something out of Roland Emmerich’s “10,000 B.C.”
For example, the scene in which Dr. Manhattan and Silk Spectre II are having a discussion on Mars is just awful.
I think my biggest issue with the film is that too many stretches exist where I was left wondering why the creators let things slip away so quickly. The promise established by the first few scenes was tremendous to say the least and for a project that took this long to be developed, it should’ve been much more consequential.
- ** ½ out of 4
Now that I’ve had some time to digest all 162 minutes of Zack Snyder’s ponderous adaptation of “Watchmen,” I think it’s time to sort through the wreckage of this ambitious yet terminally flawed project. During the miraculously executed opening montage, I kept thinking that I was about to experience something truly fanciful and reflective, but it was only a matter of time before delight turned to despair. I wanted to like it.
Actually, I thought pretty highly of it walking out of the theatre and was eager to see it again just to make sure I wasn’t hallucinating. Alas, reality set in and what I initially believed to be an out-of-this-world piece of pulp noir was reduced to just another insipid riff on the superhero’s dilemma.
Instead of serving up a standard review, I decided to highlight what I liked and didn’t like about this film separately, because I’m admittedly a little unsure of the long-term impact this picture will have on critics and fanboys alike. But enough small talk. Let’s get down to business.
Likes –
The Opening Sequence – Set to Bob Dylan’s anthemic “The Times They Are A-Changin’,” the first ten minutes provide a splendid Gump-esque glimpse into the history of the Watchmen and how their intervention in such events as Vietnam and Watergate helped shape the bizarro 1985 in which the story is set. Watching Dr. Manhattan singlehandedly eliminate the North Vietnamese army is one of the more amusing sights here, but the coolness of it all is too great to last as Snyder is never able to recapture the thrill of this first act.
Rorschach – I’m probably not the first (or the last) to say this, but Jackie Earle Haley owns this movie. As the resident sociopath of the troupe, he narrates the film with an alarming tenor reminiscent of Christian Bale’s bat voice and patrols the streets looking to eviscerate every sordid scumbag in sight. It’s when his inkblot mask comes off that we really get the sense of an angst-ridden soul out for justice, but however fanatically blood-spattered the unmasking period is, the intrigue quickly evaporates once the mask goes back on.
The Comedian – He’s pompous, loutish, and despicable, but Jeffrey Dean Morgan dives into this character with reckless abandon. Although he’s shown mostly through flashbacks, we get the sense that Edward Blake enjoys being a boozing womanizer just as much as a supposed hero, because saving people just doesn’t feel as gratifying without a little something for the effort. Seeing as how most of the other characters are dull and uninspiring, I wouldn’t mind seeing a film based on The Comedian himself. At least that would have some soul.
The Soundtrack – Other than the aforementioned Dylan tune, here are some of the other songs littered throughout the film:
“All Along the Watchtower” – Jimi Hendrix
“The Sounds of Silence” – Simon and Garfunkel
“Hallelujah” – Leonard Cohen (During the sex scene, no less)
“Me and Bobby McGee” – Janis Joplin
“I’m Your Boogie Man” – K.C. and the Sunshine Band
“Unforgettable” – Nat King Cole
I enjoyed this eclectic mix of music a great deal, but still found the placement of certain songs to be awkward and clichéd.
Zack Snyder – From what diehard fans tell me, “Watchmen” is the most faithful comic book adaptation ever made and Snyder should be commended for taking on such a risky project. I agree with the latter to a certain extent, because if it’s really identical to the novel, it’s not Snyder’s fault that the material doesn’t translate well to the screen. I enjoyed his work on “Dawn of the Dead” very much and found “300” entertaining enough, so I don’t think it’s fair to blame everything on him. He made the film he wanted and, for me, it just didn’t pan out the way I hoped it would.
Dislikes –
Nite Owl, Silk Spectre II, Ozymandias, and Dr. Manhattan – None of these characters did anything to enhance my experience and I could’ve easily done without them.
Patrick Wilson – He’s a fine actor with a résumé that includes “Hard Candy,” “Little Children” and “Lakeview Terrace,” but he feels wasted behind a whiny character that resembles a middle-school science teacher more than a conflicted vigilante.
Malin Akerman – “Her interpretation of this character teeters between adorable and offensively annoying, but if that’s indeed how the character was written, she’s more than done her job.”
I wrote the above line about Akerman in my review of “The Heartbreak Kid” back in 2007 and I think it manages to sum up her work as Silk Spectre II just the same.
Matthew Goode – I don’t watch the show, but I have to think that the conniving women on “Gossip Girl” exhibit more sparkling malice that Goode does as Ozymandias.
Billy Crudup – The role of Dr. Manhattan doesn’t require much emotion, so I felt Crudup’s range wasn’t tested enough to warrant discussion. He’s buried by subpar effects and deserved better material.
Special Effects – The much-anticipated visual effects resulted in a mixed bag. At times, they’re the most incredible display you’ve ever seen and at others, they look like something out of Roland Emmerich’s “10,000 B.C.”
For example, the scene in which Dr. Manhattan and Silk Spectre II are having a discussion on Mars is just awful.
I think my biggest issue with the film is that too many stretches exist where I was left wondering why the creators let things slip away so quickly. The promise established by the first few scenes was tremendous to say the least and for a project that took this long to be developed, it should’ve been much more consequential.
- ** ½ out of 4
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Taken and Coraline
At less than 90 minutes, Liam Neeson's latest action vehicle "Taken" sure doesn't feel like much. Just as we begin to enjoy seeing the usually reserved thespian annihilate everyone in sight, the film comes to a squeaky clean conclusion that, in my mind, hinders its overall credibility. Are we really supposed to believe that he finds his daughter that easily amid a torrential sea of European sex slavery? And why does he only rescue his daughter when the number of hopelessly drug-addled women appears to be growing by the second?
These questions and more swirled around my head as I watched whatever plot there was unfold, but I don't think accuracy is the most important aspect here.
In today's flooded market, it's unrealistic to expect something wholly original every time out, so director Pierre Morel is forgiven for adopting the "high on violence, light on story" philosophy that so many filmmakers cling to. He has crafted a wildly crisp torture flick that doesn't aspire to be anything more and in the wake of characters such as Oskar Schindler and Dr. Alfred Kinsey, it's refreshing to see Neeson unleash the fury.
- *** out of 4
Henry Selick's "Coraline" is the first must-see film of 2009. Adapted from Neil Gaiman's book of the same name, it's a phantasmagorical collage of Burton-esque dreamscapes designed to make you laugh and squirm with equal tenacity. The stunning beauty of Selick's laborious stop-motion animation style is amplified by a 3-D format that is used to enhance the experience rather than serve as a gimmick trying to put people in the seats.
Spry voice work from Dakota Fanning, Teri Hatcher, and Ian McShane (HBO's Deadwood) provides a perfect blend of childlike wonderment and over-the-top wickedness as Coraline descends into an alternate universe full of voluptuous acrobats and other macabre oddballs.
Sure, there are stretches where the narrative slows down and takes on a moralistic sensitivity, but this film is a rare instance in which children and adults can indulge in the surreal without being bored out of their minds.
Now that's a feat!
- *** 1/2 out of 4
These questions and more swirled around my head as I watched whatever plot there was unfold, but I don't think accuracy is the most important aspect here.
In today's flooded market, it's unrealistic to expect something wholly original every time out, so director Pierre Morel is forgiven for adopting the "high on violence, light on story" philosophy that so many filmmakers cling to. He has crafted a wildly crisp torture flick that doesn't aspire to be anything more and in the wake of characters such as Oskar Schindler and Dr. Alfred Kinsey, it's refreshing to see Neeson unleash the fury.
- *** out of 4
Henry Selick's "Coraline" is the first must-see film of 2009. Adapted from Neil Gaiman's book of the same name, it's a phantasmagorical collage of Burton-esque dreamscapes designed to make you laugh and squirm with equal tenacity. The stunning beauty of Selick's laborious stop-motion animation style is amplified by a 3-D format that is used to enhance the experience rather than serve as a gimmick trying to put people in the seats.
Spry voice work from Dakota Fanning, Teri Hatcher, and Ian McShane (HBO's Deadwood) provides a perfect blend of childlike wonderment and over-the-top wickedness as Coraline descends into an alternate universe full of voluptuous acrobats and other macabre oddballs.
Sure, there are stretches where the narrative slows down and takes on a moralistic sensitivity, but this film is a rare instance in which children and adults can indulge in the surreal without being bored out of their minds.
Now that's a feat!
- *** 1/2 out of 4
A-Rod
Another day, another fallen hero in the world of sports. Sure, it was bound to surface sooner or later, but the timing of A-Rod’s latest steroid debacle smells an awful lot like someone’s malevolent attempt at eradicating whatever hope baseball fans had left. Think about it. He was supposed to be the game’s saving grace, the naturally gifted slugger who would eclipse every record in sight and make people forget that Barry Bonds ever put on a uniform.
Instead, he’s destined to become just another anabolically-enhanced mega man who cracked under the pressure and put the game further into a sea of uncertainty and anguish. The fact that the test results were originally said to be anonymous only exacerbates the issue, because once again we have a case where a man’s entire reputation is turned upside down in an effort to sell a few more magazines.
I, for one, can’t blame Sports Illustrated (SI) for breaking the story, because economic fragility has left many periodicals out in the cold and there’s nothing like a juicy exposé to get people buying again. Americans love to revel in the dysfunction of others, especially when those experiencing the meltdown are multi-million dollar athletes with little connection to the common man. What I find distressing about the discovery is the time at which it entered into the public domain. For those out there who haven’t been following, allow me to bring you up to speed.
Former Yankee manager Joe Torre recently released a tell-all book in which he recounts his tenure with the team and how A-Rod was so desperate to be accepted as a “true Yankee” that he developed a “Single White Female” obsession with teammate Derek Jeter. Whether this is true or not doesn’t matter, because the notion is out there and it’s only a matter of time before legend and fact become one and the same. What we do know is that ever since Alex Rodríguez inked a 10-year, $252 million deal with the Texas Rangers in 2001, he’s been a marked man subject to the type of drama and ridicule usually reserved for the halls of your neighborhood high school. He’s developed a persona as a soft, baby-faced golden boy who cares more about getting inside Madonna’s pants than performing in October, so don’t expect that perception to fade any time soon. Many experts used to believe that if he won a title in New York, the scrutiny would be put to rest, but now I’m not so sure.
SI’s decision to bring the hammer down on one of the greatest players in the history of the game less than a month after the book’s release is strategic marketing at its finest and the nail in the coffin for a player who deserved better. How did it get to this point? How did A-Rod’s name become tangled up with the likes of Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, and other silver sluggers of the steroid era?
I don’t think we’ll ever know the truth about how everything went down, so the only chance A-Rod has of ameliorating the scandal is to come clean and, for once, not come across as a phony human being.
That’s always been my issue with him. I get the feeling that he’s so cautious in his approach to the media that he tells them what he thinks they want to hear rather than what really needs to be said. His desire to be liked and accepted by the baseball community constantly gets in the way and contributes to the “A-Fraud” mentality that so many sportswriters have adopted. He’s not Barry Bonds and shouldn’t be thrown into the same category.
Speaking of Bonds, how did his actions become tied up with A-Rod to begin with? I realize they both played in the steroid era, but the similarities are few and far between. First of all, Bonds has always been at odds with the media and he carries himself with an air of haughty entitlement that rubs a lot of fans the wrong way. He’s a bastard and he doesn’t care who knows it. Anyone who has read Game of Shadows can attest to that, so it baffles me how people deem A-Rod to be deserving of just as much hate. Deep down, I think he wants people to root for him and doesn’t care to use the media as his own personal puppet show.
As a lifelong Yankee fan, I'm upset that the upcoming season will be engulfed in another cloud of suspicion, because the acquisitions of C.C Sabathia, A.J Burnett, and Mark Teixeira should be at the forefront of discussion. GM Brian Cashman broke the bank in preparation for the new stadium and fans deserve to cheer for a team without wondering about who's currently on the juice.
Recently, MLB Commissioner Bud Selig released a statement condemning A-Rod for his behavior and expressing how he’s sick of everyone blaming the commissioner for what has happened to baseball over the last fifteen years. Okay Bud, whatever you say. You’re the same commissioner who many insiders believe turned a blind eye in the mid-90s as revenues soared and players started crushing the ball at unprecedented rates. You’re the same commissioner responsible for overseeing a 1998 campaign that saw Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa rake 70 and 66 home runs respectively without so much as a hint of investigation. As comedian Denis Leary would say, “Talk about the pot and the f@&^ing kettle!”
Selig is the George W. Bush of baseball. I’m not saying he’s entirely to blame, but how can he possibly deny any responsibility with a straight face? He sat back and allowed owners to profit from the long ball until it became politically incorrect to do so. When he realized the gig was up, he promptly came out to deliver a contrived spiel about the sanctity of records and why performance-enhancing drugs are wrong, but does anybody want to hear excuses at this point? Listening to Selig rant about steroids is like listening to Bush apologize for allowing corporate blowhards to suck the economy dry for the last eight years.
A lost cause indeed.
In the end, all that really matters is the truth and I think that’s what drove SI to run the story. Regardless of how it’s uncovered, the truth is something that will always come back to bite you in the ass, so all A-Rod can do is atone and hope it doesn’t have sharp teeth.
Instead, he’s destined to become just another anabolically-enhanced mega man who cracked under the pressure and put the game further into a sea of uncertainty and anguish. The fact that the test results were originally said to be anonymous only exacerbates the issue, because once again we have a case where a man’s entire reputation is turned upside down in an effort to sell a few more magazines.
I, for one, can’t blame Sports Illustrated (SI) for breaking the story, because economic fragility has left many periodicals out in the cold and there’s nothing like a juicy exposé to get people buying again. Americans love to revel in the dysfunction of others, especially when those experiencing the meltdown are multi-million dollar athletes with little connection to the common man. What I find distressing about the discovery is the time at which it entered into the public domain. For those out there who haven’t been following, allow me to bring you up to speed.
Former Yankee manager Joe Torre recently released a tell-all book in which he recounts his tenure with the team and how A-Rod was so desperate to be accepted as a “true Yankee” that he developed a “Single White Female” obsession with teammate Derek Jeter. Whether this is true or not doesn’t matter, because the notion is out there and it’s only a matter of time before legend and fact become one and the same. What we do know is that ever since Alex Rodríguez inked a 10-year, $252 million deal with the Texas Rangers in 2001, he’s been a marked man subject to the type of drama and ridicule usually reserved for the halls of your neighborhood high school. He’s developed a persona as a soft, baby-faced golden boy who cares more about getting inside Madonna’s pants than performing in October, so don’t expect that perception to fade any time soon. Many experts used to believe that if he won a title in New York, the scrutiny would be put to rest, but now I’m not so sure.
SI’s decision to bring the hammer down on one of the greatest players in the history of the game less than a month after the book’s release is strategic marketing at its finest and the nail in the coffin for a player who deserved better. How did it get to this point? How did A-Rod’s name become tangled up with the likes of Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, and other silver sluggers of the steroid era?
I don’t think we’ll ever know the truth about how everything went down, so the only chance A-Rod has of ameliorating the scandal is to come clean and, for once, not come across as a phony human being.
That’s always been my issue with him. I get the feeling that he’s so cautious in his approach to the media that he tells them what he thinks they want to hear rather than what really needs to be said. His desire to be liked and accepted by the baseball community constantly gets in the way and contributes to the “A-Fraud” mentality that so many sportswriters have adopted. He’s not Barry Bonds and shouldn’t be thrown into the same category.
Speaking of Bonds, how did his actions become tied up with A-Rod to begin with? I realize they both played in the steroid era, but the similarities are few and far between. First of all, Bonds has always been at odds with the media and he carries himself with an air of haughty entitlement that rubs a lot of fans the wrong way. He’s a bastard and he doesn’t care who knows it. Anyone who has read Game of Shadows can attest to that, so it baffles me how people deem A-Rod to be deserving of just as much hate. Deep down, I think he wants people to root for him and doesn’t care to use the media as his own personal puppet show.
As a lifelong Yankee fan, I'm upset that the upcoming season will be engulfed in another cloud of suspicion, because the acquisitions of C.C Sabathia, A.J Burnett, and Mark Teixeira should be at the forefront of discussion. GM Brian Cashman broke the bank in preparation for the new stadium and fans deserve to cheer for a team without wondering about who's currently on the juice.
Recently, MLB Commissioner Bud Selig released a statement condemning A-Rod for his behavior and expressing how he’s sick of everyone blaming the commissioner for what has happened to baseball over the last fifteen years. Okay Bud, whatever you say. You’re the same commissioner who many insiders believe turned a blind eye in the mid-90s as revenues soared and players started crushing the ball at unprecedented rates. You’re the same commissioner responsible for overseeing a 1998 campaign that saw Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa rake 70 and 66 home runs respectively without so much as a hint of investigation. As comedian Denis Leary would say, “Talk about the pot and the f@&^ing kettle!”
Selig is the George W. Bush of baseball. I’m not saying he’s entirely to blame, but how can he possibly deny any responsibility with a straight face? He sat back and allowed owners to profit from the long ball until it became politically incorrect to do so. When he realized the gig was up, he promptly came out to deliver a contrived spiel about the sanctity of records and why performance-enhancing drugs are wrong, but does anybody want to hear excuses at this point? Listening to Selig rant about steroids is like listening to Bush apologize for allowing corporate blowhards to suck the economy dry for the last eight years.
A lost cause indeed.
In the end, all that really matters is the truth and I think that’s what drove SI to run the story. Regardless of how it’s uncovered, the truth is something that will always come back to bite you in the ass, so all A-Rod can do is atone and hope it doesn’t have sharp teeth.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Oscar Beat #1
On February 22, 2009, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences will come together to honor the finest cinematic efforts that 2008 had to offer. One would think that a list of nominees celebrating the likes ofAngelina Jolie, Sean Penn, and Meryl Streep would have people jumping outof their skin with anticipation, but further analysis reveals a much more sullen and subdued atmosphere than in years past. Strangely, the questionon everyone’s mind is not who will win what, but whether or not anyone at home will be watching. Perhaps it’s the shattered state of the economy or maybe it’s just the overall quality of films, but everything seems to have taken a considerable step down from what we’re used to.
According to preliminary Nielsen ratings, not even in 2007, a year thatmany film critics consider to be the most outstanding of the decade, couldthe academy muster more than a paltry 32 million viewers, so the consensus appears to be that this year’s admittedly watered-down crop won’t do much to resurrect the once heralded awards show. With box-office behemoth “The Dark Knight” and animated crowd-pleaser “Wall-E” notably absent from mostof the major categories, audiences are once again left with a docket of complex and gloomy pictures that, as usual, they’ve shown little desire to spend their hard-earned money on. Of the five nominees, only “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” has grossed over $100 million domestically and its total of $116,473,266* is barely surpassed by the other four contenders combined, so the gap between what the public wants and what Hollywood deems praiseworthy appears to be widening by the day.
What is responsible for this divergence in taste? Why do general audiences favor bombastic popcorn flicks such as “Hancock” and “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” over more serious fare like“Frost/Nixon” and “The Wrestler?” The most obvious reason has shown to be that people prefer not to leave the theatre with a sour taste in their mouth, because happy endings are almost always synonymous with financial success. If someone has the choice between a Will Smith superhero saga and a gritty, blood-soaked drama about a has-been professional wrestler, history has revealed that they’ll opt for the former with little hesitation. It can’t be totally based on star power, because Will Smith’s most recent tearjerker “Seven Pounds” bowed to less than $70 million*,which for him, is a significant under-achievement. No, the rift goes much deeper than that.
What we’re seeing is the emergence of two distinct factions of moviegoers that rarely see eye to eye. The first is out for nothing more than an enjoyable night at the movies with a film that doesn’t require much more than a passive concentration, while the second is looking for something that will challenge their mind and force them to actively dissect everything they’re witnessing on screen. As for which one will win out,that remains to be seen. What we do know is that as long as movies arebeing made, people will undoubtedly flock to see them regardless of the premise, because the cinema is often that one great escape.
*According to Box Office Mojo’s records as of 2/8/09
According to preliminary Nielsen ratings, not even in 2007, a year thatmany film critics consider to be the most outstanding of the decade, couldthe academy muster more than a paltry 32 million viewers, so the consensus appears to be that this year’s admittedly watered-down crop won’t do much to resurrect the once heralded awards show. With box-office behemoth “The Dark Knight” and animated crowd-pleaser “Wall-E” notably absent from mostof the major categories, audiences are once again left with a docket of complex and gloomy pictures that, as usual, they’ve shown little desire to spend their hard-earned money on. Of the five nominees, only “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” has grossed over $100 million domestically and its total of $116,473,266* is barely surpassed by the other four contenders combined, so the gap between what the public wants and what Hollywood deems praiseworthy appears to be widening by the day.
What is responsible for this divergence in taste? Why do general audiences favor bombastic popcorn flicks such as “Hancock” and “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” over more serious fare like“Frost/Nixon” and “The Wrestler?” The most obvious reason has shown to be that people prefer not to leave the theatre with a sour taste in their mouth, because happy endings are almost always synonymous with financial success. If someone has the choice between a Will Smith superhero saga and a gritty, blood-soaked drama about a has-been professional wrestler, history has revealed that they’ll opt for the former with little hesitation. It can’t be totally based on star power, because Will Smith’s most recent tearjerker “Seven Pounds” bowed to less than $70 million*,which for him, is a significant under-achievement. No, the rift goes much deeper than that.
What we’re seeing is the emergence of two distinct factions of moviegoers that rarely see eye to eye. The first is out for nothing more than an enjoyable night at the movies with a film that doesn’t require much more than a passive concentration, while the second is looking for something that will challenge their mind and force them to actively dissect everything they’re witnessing on screen. As for which one will win out,that remains to be seen. What we do know is that as long as movies arebeing made, people will undoubtedly flock to see them regardless of the premise, because the cinema is often that one great escape.
*According to Box Office Mojo’s records as of 2/8/09
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Best Picture Analysis
“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” – David Fincher’s larger-than-life meditation on the perils of aging is a technological gem that doesn’t cling to the traditional Hollywood notion of a happy ending. Its characters drift through life in search of some deeper spiritual connection yet rarely experience the kind of blissful payoff that makes life worth living. Instead, their happiness comes in tantalizing flashes just waiting to seize the moment when alienation borders on hopelessness.
Recently, you may have heard about the possibility of this film taking home none of the thirteen awards for which it has been nominated, but I think that’s ridiculous. The performances, direction, cinematography, special effects, and score are all worthy of recognition and shouldn’t be denied come Oscar night. People have criticized Fincher’s emotional detachment from the material, but to me, that reluctance to get too intimate is the entire point of the story.
Benjamin Button is a man stricken with the unusual condition of aging in reverse, so he’s all too aware that any relationships he forges will only end in desolation for all parties. The strength of the film depends on how each audience member responds to what they’ve just seen which, as we know, is rarely a universal sentiment. Personally, the sheer elegance and scope of the narrative spoke to me on many levels and feel that a victory would be well-deserved.
“Milk” – Sean Penn’s take on San Francisco politician Harvey Milk is likely to go down as one of the great screen performances of the decade, but the rest of Gus Van Sant’s piece is a fairly standard biopic. The trials and tribulations of Harvey Milk are captured brilliantly throughout a series of rallies and closed door meetings yet the narrative never really came alive enough for me. Just because the story is inspirational doesn’t necessarily mean that it will transfer perfectly to the screen and I think that’s what happened here.
Without Penn’s grace and willingness to take chances, nothing would’ve set this apart from all the other character studies we saw in 2008, so I’d suggest checking out “The Life and Times of Harvey Milk” to get the story right from the source. On the other hand, Josh Brolin, Emile Hirsch, and James Franco are all outstanding and the vitality of the human spirit is on full display, so even as a straight guy, I found it very moving indeed.
“Slumdog Millionaire” – Since everyone has essentially anointed Danny Boyle’s festival darling as the film to beat, saying anything even remotely negative about it has become the sin of all sins. It’s the flashy, uplifting, yet mostly unbelievable flavor of the month that has taken on even more significance in the wake of what has happened in Mumbai. I found it very entertaining and worthy of a spot on my top ten list, but it’s just not the type of film that I feel will hold up ten years from now. People have become prisoners of the moment to this modern-day Cinderella story and looked past its obvious flaws.
For starters, Dev Patel plays the same annoying note throughout and never really moved me enough to the point that I wanted to root for his success. Maybe it was just the way the character was written, but he’s the same melodramatic sad sack from beginning to end. Also, the fact that each question coincides with an event from his life totally overextends in my opinion, but I suppose some filmgoers are just looking for that Disney-esque denouement.
“The Reader” – Of all the nominees, this is the one that has no business being mentioned in the same sentence as the others. Outside of the sublime Kate Winslet, nothing present here makes me jump out of my skin enough to want to give it a second look, so I guess we can attribute its success to the marketing prowess of Harvey Weinstein. He put a self-righteous Holocaust novel by Bernhard Schlink into the hands of director Stephen Daldry and came up with a film whose message is still begging to be deciphered.
Seriously, what exactly is the central theme here? Are we supposed to feel sorry for a woman who became a victim of her own illiteracy? Are we supposed to feel empathy for a kid who had a luscious affair with a beautiful woman twice his age only to have her disappear a few months later? Are we supposed to feel guilty for having sat back and allowed Adolf Hitler to orchestrate one of the largest ethnic cleansings in history? I’m not sure I have the answer to any of those questions, because Daldry never challenges you to pass judgment either way.
Once again, we have the case of a film trying to take on more gravity than it’s worth and leaving the audience wondering whether or not their time was well spent. As for Winslet, she’ll probably take home the hardware for her conflicted take on Hanna Schmitz and the far-superior “Revolutionary Road” will be left in the dust.
“Frost/Nixon” – The accuracy of Ron Howard’s riveting political drama has come under fire as of late, but does it really matter? He manages to take a minor historical event and turn it into an enthralling battle of wits between two men who can’t afford to lose. Every scene is played with menacing conceit by Frank Langella, who creates a Nixon able to transition between sinner and saint with frightening simplicity. His work is definitely among Sean Penn and Mickey Rourke as one of the finest performances of 2008 and I wouldn’t be surprised if his named is called.
Michael Sheen, however, seems to be the unsung hero in all this, because his placid work as David Frost has gone virtually unnoticed. Playing Frost may have been the more ambitious of the two roles due to the lack of acclaim and unfamiliarity with audiences, so Sheen should be praised for illustrating just how shrewd Frost could be when the pressure was on.
Overall, the film is top five worthy, but not quite on that winning level.
Recently, you may have heard about the possibility of this film taking home none of the thirteen awards for which it has been nominated, but I think that’s ridiculous. The performances, direction, cinematography, special effects, and score are all worthy of recognition and shouldn’t be denied come Oscar night. People have criticized Fincher’s emotional detachment from the material, but to me, that reluctance to get too intimate is the entire point of the story.
Benjamin Button is a man stricken with the unusual condition of aging in reverse, so he’s all too aware that any relationships he forges will only end in desolation for all parties. The strength of the film depends on how each audience member responds to what they’ve just seen which, as we know, is rarely a universal sentiment. Personally, the sheer elegance and scope of the narrative spoke to me on many levels and feel that a victory would be well-deserved.
“Milk” – Sean Penn’s take on San Francisco politician Harvey Milk is likely to go down as one of the great screen performances of the decade, but the rest of Gus Van Sant’s piece is a fairly standard biopic. The trials and tribulations of Harvey Milk are captured brilliantly throughout a series of rallies and closed door meetings yet the narrative never really came alive enough for me. Just because the story is inspirational doesn’t necessarily mean that it will transfer perfectly to the screen and I think that’s what happened here.
Without Penn’s grace and willingness to take chances, nothing would’ve set this apart from all the other character studies we saw in 2008, so I’d suggest checking out “The Life and Times of Harvey Milk” to get the story right from the source. On the other hand, Josh Brolin, Emile Hirsch, and James Franco are all outstanding and the vitality of the human spirit is on full display, so even as a straight guy, I found it very moving indeed.
“Slumdog Millionaire” – Since everyone has essentially anointed Danny Boyle’s festival darling as the film to beat, saying anything even remotely negative about it has become the sin of all sins. It’s the flashy, uplifting, yet mostly unbelievable flavor of the month that has taken on even more significance in the wake of what has happened in Mumbai. I found it very entertaining and worthy of a spot on my top ten list, but it’s just not the type of film that I feel will hold up ten years from now. People have become prisoners of the moment to this modern-day Cinderella story and looked past its obvious flaws.
For starters, Dev Patel plays the same annoying note throughout and never really moved me enough to the point that I wanted to root for his success. Maybe it was just the way the character was written, but he’s the same melodramatic sad sack from beginning to end. Also, the fact that each question coincides with an event from his life totally overextends in my opinion, but I suppose some filmgoers are just looking for that Disney-esque denouement.
“The Reader” – Of all the nominees, this is the one that has no business being mentioned in the same sentence as the others. Outside of the sublime Kate Winslet, nothing present here makes me jump out of my skin enough to want to give it a second look, so I guess we can attribute its success to the marketing prowess of Harvey Weinstein. He put a self-righteous Holocaust novel by Bernhard Schlink into the hands of director Stephen Daldry and came up with a film whose message is still begging to be deciphered.
Seriously, what exactly is the central theme here? Are we supposed to feel sorry for a woman who became a victim of her own illiteracy? Are we supposed to feel empathy for a kid who had a luscious affair with a beautiful woman twice his age only to have her disappear a few months later? Are we supposed to feel guilty for having sat back and allowed Adolf Hitler to orchestrate one of the largest ethnic cleansings in history? I’m not sure I have the answer to any of those questions, because Daldry never challenges you to pass judgment either way.
Once again, we have the case of a film trying to take on more gravity than it’s worth and leaving the audience wondering whether or not their time was well spent. As for Winslet, she’ll probably take home the hardware for her conflicted take on Hanna Schmitz and the far-superior “Revolutionary Road” will be left in the dust.
“Frost/Nixon” – The accuracy of Ron Howard’s riveting political drama has come under fire as of late, but does it really matter? He manages to take a minor historical event and turn it into an enthralling battle of wits between two men who can’t afford to lose. Every scene is played with menacing conceit by Frank Langella, who creates a Nixon able to transition between sinner and saint with frightening simplicity. His work is definitely among Sean Penn and Mickey Rourke as one of the finest performances of 2008 and I wouldn’t be surprised if his named is called.
Michael Sheen, however, seems to be the unsung hero in all this, because his placid work as David Frost has gone virtually unnoticed. Playing Frost may have been the more ambitious of the two roles due to the lack of acclaim and unfamiliarity with audiences, so Sheen should be praised for illustrating just how shrewd Frost could be when the pressure was on.
Overall, the film is top five worthy, but not quite on that winning level.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)