It’s 1976. President Gerald Ford is nearing the end of his first and only term, the face-melting wallop of “Frampton Comes Alive” can be heard blaring from stereos all across America and an independent venture known as Record Theatre first opens its doors to the people of Western New York.
In today’s technological market, it’s hard to imagine a record store playing such a vital role in the community, but at that moment in time, the shop served as a link between fans and the recording artists they loved.
Billed as “the biggest music store on Earth” with nearly 25,000-square-feet, it was able to single-handedly change the way music was brought to the masses in Buffalo.
“What I liked about Record Theatre was that they had stock imports from Canada and tons of local music,” says former employee Christine K. “It used to be the place to go for new releases, Saturday morning specials and even imports.”
Although its original location was at the corner of Main and Lafayette in Downtown Buffalo, it soon expanded to six locations scattered between Hamburg and North Tonawanda. The ‘70s and ‘80s proved to be an extremely profitable era for the store and many fans find that success to be a direct representation of the quality of music during that period.
“You’d pour over the lyrics back then looking to find insight as to what Jackson Browne was thinking when he wrote 'The Pretender' or what exactly 'the pompetus of love' was anyway,” says long-time music fan Ruth Eger. “I’m much too old for today’s music.”
Eger’s fervent reminiscence of the time is echoed by Record Theatre’s current Head Buyer Brandon Delmont, who has gotten an up close and personal view of just how drastically the industry has changed through the years.
“Nowadays, it’s become super fast to either plug your friend’s iPod into your computer and take all of their songs, or go to a blog and download a file,” says Delmont. “Within minutes, you have an artist’s entire catalog and it’s free. I really think that this has been the reason for the decline in sales.”
Delmont’s dismay with the present situation is evident in his tone as he goes on and on about how little specialized knowledge people have about the music they listen to, as well as how the Internet has altered the way most business is conducted.
While the onset of iTunes and other digital programs has signaled the end for some record stores, Record Theatre has decided to roll with the changes.
“As far as the Internet goes, it has been a way to connect with people that do not want to come into the store,” Delmont adds. “We have an e-mail list that we can run special coupons and promote certain artists/events directly to people that do enjoy the physical product.”
When it comes to online sales, Delmont leaves no area uncovered.
“We have a division that sells products on Amazon, EBay and half.com. Where we once had to depend on people to come to us, now we can get to them online. Now, with out-of-print and rare products we can make good money.”
His optimism about the future is a rarity among the record store community, but he firmly believes that the personal touch and camaraderie of the in-store atmosphere can’t be duplicated by any other format.
“Guys like me that studied music are the ones that end up with the knowledge to work in a store like ours,” he jubilantly declares. “I try to pass that attitude to the younger people that we hire, because they don’t necessarily have to be encyclopedias. They just need to retain information and help customers find what they need.”
Those familiar with Nick Hornby’s 1995 novel “High Fidelity” can probably relate to what Delmont is saying and Record Theatre even features a quote from the book on their web site. To those who haven’t read the book, it centers on a record store owner and how his obsession with music ends up influencing everything in his daily life.
“The customers, employees and artists sharing knowledge and tastes with each other, that’s where the community of a record store really works” says Delmont.
Despite having only three locations left, Record Theatre doesn’t plan on going away anytime soon. No matter how things play out with the industry, it's determined to continue getting music to the public in the most efficient manner possible.
To celebrate Record Store Day on April 18, Delmont urged people to come out to support the independent scene and celebrate the art of music while indulging in live performances from some of the area’s finest local bands and, as usual, they delivered the goods.
“At the end of the day, people will always want to go to a physical store because we have a basic need to be social and want to do something with our time. I love getting away from everything and hunting down records, it’s a great waste of time!"
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Is the album dead?
If you were shown a list of the ten best selling albums of 2008, how many of them would actually be a part of your own personal collection? How many would you honestly admit to having an intimate, well-rounded knowledge of?
Those of you scrambling to recall even one of the potential titles, you’re not alone.
Nielsen SoundScan reports that 2008’s top ten artists sold more than 40 million fewer albums than the top ten of 2000 and the decline doesn’t appear to be ending any time soon.
Apparently, consumers don’t find Lil Wayne, Taylor Swift and Kid Rock to be overly deserving of their time and money.
“In my opinion, the main reason for dwindling album sales is file sharing. All it takes
is for one guy in his dorm to find the new Peter, Bjorn & John and e-mail it to all of his friends weeks before the actual release date” says Brandon Delmont, head buyer for Record Theatre. “What could have been 50 sales of the album turns into zero sales at the record shop.”
The onset of programs such as iTunes and LimeWire tends to support Delmont’s popular assertion, but a closer look reveals something very different indeed. Consider the aforementioned Swift and Kid Rock.
To fans, they represent the pinnacle of American music at this point in time, but to outsiders they’re nothing more than glorified karaoke hounds that produce skin-deep pop songs aimed at hijacking a piece of your wallet.
“It’s so hard to find good bands these days” says college freshman Ben Thuman. “If people actually listen to and buy this crap, nothing within the system will ever change.”
Thuman’s passionate reflection is just a microcosm of what is happening in today’s market. For evidence of how differently some artists approach the business, look no further than Pearl Jam frontman Eddie Vedder and pop sensations The Jonas Brothers.
When Vedder composed the soundtrack for Sean Penn’s “Into the Wild,” he was driven by a strong dedication to the craft and ended up with an album that Rolling Stone writer David Fricke called “tracks that temper the romance of absolute freedom with an eerie foreboding.”
When The Jonas Brothers compose an album, they’re catering to an entirely different demographic and therefore aim to create catchy tunes that will make more money in the short-term.
Whatever people think of today’s pop artists, their commercial status hints at the ongoing shift from producing complex albums to simply making radio-friendly singles that fans can download in 30 seconds flat.
“Long gone are the days of bringing home an album with thought-provoking lyrics on a sheet of glossy paper tucked inside the jacket” says long-time fan Ruth Eger, when expressing her dismay with the current musical climate. “I remember when pop/rock/soul music had edgy lyrics and an instrumental bridge that everyone would be humming in the car.”
Eger isn’t the only one who sees a problem with today’s scene. Thuman also longs for a return to the days of great drumming and virtuoso guitar work.
“You really have to look hard for bands that are capable of making music that involves talent and originality” he says. “Most of them are more interested in making money than making good music and it’s a rip-off.”
Although the negativity abounds, Delmont doesn’t feel that mainstream music has dropped off all that much.
“I think it’s always sort of sucked. I can remember a gentleman in college that was in his 30s at the time and I would tell him how great the Beatles were. He said he never listened to them, because they were too “bubblegum” back then” says Delmont. “You’re always going to find great art, music and literature on the edges of society. You just have to look for it.”
Those of you scrambling to recall even one of the potential titles, you’re not alone.
Nielsen SoundScan reports that 2008’s top ten artists sold more than 40 million fewer albums than the top ten of 2000 and the decline doesn’t appear to be ending any time soon.
Apparently, consumers don’t find Lil Wayne, Taylor Swift and Kid Rock to be overly deserving of their time and money.
“In my opinion, the main reason for dwindling album sales is file sharing. All it takes
is for one guy in his dorm to find the new Peter, Bjorn & John and e-mail it to all of his friends weeks before the actual release date” says Brandon Delmont, head buyer for Record Theatre. “What could have been 50 sales of the album turns into zero sales at the record shop.”
The onset of programs such as iTunes and LimeWire tends to support Delmont’s popular assertion, but a closer look reveals something very different indeed. Consider the aforementioned Swift and Kid Rock.
To fans, they represent the pinnacle of American music at this point in time, but to outsiders they’re nothing more than glorified karaoke hounds that produce skin-deep pop songs aimed at hijacking a piece of your wallet.
“It’s so hard to find good bands these days” says college freshman Ben Thuman. “If people actually listen to and buy this crap, nothing within the system will ever change.”
Thuman’s passionate reflection is just a microcosm of what is happening in today’s market. For evidence of how differently some artists approach the business, look no further than Pearl Jam frontman Eddie Vedder and pop sensations The Jonas Brothers.
When Vedder composed the soundtrack for Sean Penn’s “Into the Wild,” he was driven by a strong dedication to the craft and ended up with an album that Rolling Stone writer David Fricke called “tracks that temper the romance of absolute freedom with an eerie foreboding.”
When The Jonas Brothers compose an album, they’re catering to an entirely different demographic and therefore aim to create catchy tunes that will make more money in the short-term.
Whatever people think of today’s pop artists, their commercial status hints at the ongoing shift from producing complex albums to simply making radio-friendly singles that fans can download in 30 seconds flat.
“Long gone are the days of bringing home an album with thought-provoking lyrics on a sheet of glossy paper tucked inside the jacket” says long-time fan Ruth Eger, when expressing her dismay with the current musical climate. “I remember when pop/rock/soul music had edgy lyrics and an instrumental bridge that everyone would be humming in the car.”
Eger isn’t the only one who sees a problem with today’s scene. Thuman also longs for a return to the days of great drumming and virtuoso guitar work.
“You really have to look hard for bands that are capable of making music that involves talent and originality” he says. “Most of them are more interested in making money than making good music and it’s a rip-off.”
Although the negativity abounds, Delmont doesn’t feel that mainstream music has dropped off all that much.
“I think it’s always sort of sucked. I can remember a gentleman in college that was in his 30s at the time and I would tell him how great the Beatles were. He said he never listened to them, because they were too “bubblegum” back then” says Delmont. “You’re always going to find great art, music and literature on the edges of society. You just have to look for it.”
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Lewiston Kiwanis Peach Festival
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
“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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)