The Departed

First up was The Departed, the Martin Scorsese directed Oscar winner. The only other nominee I have caught so far is Little Miss Sunshine, so my gauge may be a little off, but the rest of the BP nominees must have been pretty mediocre if The Departed scored the win. It wasn’t a bad movie, but it wasn’t terribly good either.

DiCaprio and Damon both did a very good job as undercover agents who have infiltrated the enemy territory and convinced their respective bosses of their loyalty. Toward the end of the film, DiCaprio tells Damon that he had the favor and trust of their boss – Jack Nicholson. The clear implication is that DiCaprio the rat, was more convincing to Costello than Damon the employee.

Unfortunately, the same can’t be said of their acting. Damon (and I know a lot of people disagree with this) is simply a much better actor than DiCaprio. Maybe the problem is Damon is just much more comfortable with the Southie accent, but he’s just more convincing. The two, however, completely outclass Nicholson.

Jack has reached the end of his career and apparently decided to keep playing the same character again and again. He’s now revised the same role for Batman, Witches of Eastwick, and The Departed, to mention a few. He’s going to end up like Marlon Brando – able to charge exorbitant amounts of money for the draw of his name, but ultimately unable to capture any of the magic of his earlier roles.

The biggest problem with The Departed, however, is the story. It’s predictable, there is little intrigue, and the ending is so contrived it’s pathetic. The story builds up this semi-adversarial relationship between DiCaprio and Wahlberg, and you figure the end will feature Wahlberg coming to the defense of his undercover agent. Instead, they conveniently suspend Wahlberg’s character in some sort of other-world where he completely ceases to exist. That is until he appears at the end of the film to tidy up the damage.

The ending is evidence of Quentin Tarantino’s impact on Hollywood. In just about every one of his films, the ending is the same – everybody dies. Scorsese took a page from that playbook and came up with a concocted story, and a weak ending to achieve the same effect. If that’s what they were after with this story, they should have gone to the master and let Quentin helm the pic.

The movie was entertaining, but of all the films that could have earned Scorsese the Oscar, Raging Bull and Taxi Driver were much better. This, to me, has the feeling of “we’re sorry” Oscars. They wanted to recognize Scorsese for being passed over by rewarding a rather mediocre movie with the Best Pic and Best Director nods. If you want to see Scorsese at his best, skip this and rent Goodfellas.

The Covenant

The Covenant is one of those films that has a great premise, and yet completely fails to deliver through a combination of poor acting, poor direction, poor writing, and poor special effects. If you stirke out on every one of those, you’re done. That’s where this movie comes in. Skip it on DVD, skip it on cable, and try to avoid the overwhelming sense of shame you’ll get from watching it.

The premise is, like I said, intriguing. What if the Salem witches were, in fact, actually witches? What if they had remarkable powers, some went into hiding after the trials, and their bloodlines continued with those powers through to present day. Sounds like it could make a good movie, right? Yes. But not this one.

Instead, the writers implement the cliché machine and start cranking out pablum. About five minutes into this flick, I turned to Mrs. Quip and asked if she had figured out the storyline. She replied that she had figured out the plot, the character development and the ending. It really is that bad.

We kept watching. We were hoping for, at the very least, an awesome battle to the death between the good guy and the bad guy. What we got though, was a weak version of catch featuring sparkling orbs of goo that make the ground explode when you drop the ball. Compound that with the typical plot device of “We never found the bad guys body… hmmm… what could that mean?” and you end up with a lame set up for a possible sequel.

If you don’t mind watching a movie, knowing full well that it may make you retarded, then this is the flick for you.

I’ve seen Crash, but not Hustle and Flow, but doesn’t it seem there’s great disagreement between Terence Howard’s roles? In one, he’s a slick Hollywood producer, disappointed that white boss Tony Danza makes him dumb down the black character in his sitcom. And in the other, he’s a pimp trying to become a rapper trying to rhyme about “hos” instead of exploiting them. And is Hollywood really saying this is the “best” in film music today?

If you had seen Hustle & Flow, you’d know that the premise of your statement is wrong. Howard spends most of the film exploiting “hos”. He has a stable of three, one of whom he seems to be in love with, one he seems to be a father figure for, and one who is so atrocious as a human he eventually throws her out.

The movie isn’t really about “pimping” as a story line. The movie is about the struggles of a guy who wants to be more than what he has become. He has a brief opening to do that, so he pours everything he has into it. The song, had Graham seen the movie, reflects that. It’s Hard Out Here For a Pimp means it’s a hard lifestyle having to live that way. It’s hard being broke, having few options in life, and having to turn to an abhorrent lifestyle just to survive.

In Crash, which I still maintain is the worst movie ever, he actually plays a very similar role. Howard plays the director of a TV sitcom who is trying to keep his “big life” in the face of white bosses who want him to ghetto out his characters, white cops that finger bang his wife while he watches helplessly, and his black wife who is constantly riding his ass about not doing more. Think of that character as being the next stage in the evolution of the pimp character. Once you get the fame, and have options, how do you hold onto that life. How much would you sell out to keep from falling back down.

Graham’s point seems to be that Howard is a potential role model for black America. He is striking a blow in one film, and reinforcing a stereotype in the other. That sends mixed messages to the African American community. Unfortunately, had he seen both films, he’d know he is wrong. Howard was striking a blow in both films.

Graham tries to reinforce his point by citing Courtland Milloy’s WaPo piece about the real world of pimping versus the Hollywood version and the realm of rap music that accompanies black culture.

African Americans have emerged as the only people on Earth who immortalize their mothers and sisters in the worst derogatory ways.

Actually, that’s a rap culture thing, not black or white. Look at Eminem. Unless you’re going to argue that he’s black, any look at denigration of mothers should start with him. This is a guy who fought his mother in court over the lyrics about her. This is a guy who includes a big “FU” to his mom on just about every album. That resonates with a lot of people for a simple reason.

It may not have occurred to Milloy, but these moms and sisters may not be the ideal role model for parents and siblings. In many cases, mom is absent because she is the breadwinner in homes with no father. The child holds resentment for that absence. Dad left, but mom wasn’t there. Adults who grew up in that environment may even blame their mothers for their position in life. The sisters, who may or may not have been very adept at care giving, also become the object of scorn. This, again, is not a black/white thing. This is symptomatic of the culture of poverty.

It appears Graham and Milloy may have fallen into the same trap. Graham admits his problem – he doesn’t actually have first-hand knowledge of that upon which he expounds.

Milloy comes across the same way. He has the vibe of an elitist DC journalist writing about African American issues simply because he is African American, not because he relates to them. I don’t know his story, and WaPo’s bio is a broken link. He may well have come from humble beginnings, but he doesn’t come across that way. I suspect he knows as much about life in poverty as Graham knows about Hustle & Flow – he’s heard about it, but can’t be bothered to actually experience it before he writes about it.

But here is Ken Turan in the Los Angeles Times, writing on the morning after: “So for people who were discomfited by ‘Brokeback Mountain’ but wanted to be able to look themselves in the mirror and feel like they were good, productive liberals, ‘Crash’ provided the perfect safe harbor. They could vote for it in good conscience, vote for it and feel they had made a progressive move, vote for it and not feel that there was any stain on their liberal credentials for shunning what ‘Brokeback’ had to offer. And that’s exactly what they did.”

And Nikki Finke, in the LA Weekly: “Way back on Jan. 17, I decided to nominate the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences for Best Bunch of Hypocrites. That’s because I felt this year’s dirty little Oscar secret was the anecdotal evidence pouring in to me about hetero members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences being unwilling to screen ‘Brokeback Mountain.’ For a community that takes pride in progressive values, it seemed shameful to me that Hollywood’s homophobia could be on a par with Pat Robertson’s.”

My point is made. According to the pro-gay crowd, being homosexual friendly gives you more liberal street cred than being anti-racism. If you voted for Crash, you did so out of homophobia… Period. It also confirms what those on the right have said all along – this has nothing to do with the artistic merits of Brokeback Mountain. It is all about the politics. This was an agenda movie, not an entertainment movie.

Let’s see, best picture… Crash… Still one of the worst movies I have ever seen. According to J-Lo, though, I think that because I may have missed a line at the very beginning… Something about people so lonely they are crashing into other people just to meet another person.

I have to admit, in that context, the movie makes more sense. It’s a wreck from the beginning and keeps getting worse. Apparently the actors, directors and writers are just very lonely people…

Brokeback Mountain‘s writer claims the Academy is biased against movies that take place in rural settings… All evidence in the last 15 years to the contrary… I guess Dances With Wolves, Unforgiven, Forest Gump and American Beauty were really set in LA, we just didn’t know it.

It could be the Academy examined Brokeback Mountain and asked themselves this question… “If this movie featured a heterosexual couple, would it still be good?” I haven’t seen the flick, but everyone to whom I have directed that question says, “Um, no. It would suck.”

Other than Best Picture, there really weren’t many surprises. Reese, Clooney, Hoffman, and Weisz were fairly safe bets.

Honestly I think Oscar nominations must be doled out by the same people that handle US Figure Skating’s Olympic athletes. To exclude Walk The Line in the best picture category, but then include the crap-fest Crash is a crime against movies. Yes, I’m pleased that Joaquin Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon got best actor/actress nods, but leaving the movie out of play for the big score is a travesty.

The media coverage will beat to death the story line about the Witherspoon/Huffman duel over best actress. On the men’s side, I’ve got to go with Phoenix despite the buzz about Hoffman.

On a final note, don’t start screwing with the color controls on your television come March 5. This years Oscars look to be a rather monochromatic event with Terrence Howard and Ang Lee providing the only diversity. Honestly, if William Hurt can get a nod for a walk-on, the Howard should have picked up a supporting actor nomination for his role in Crash (he was the bright spot in a very drab movie). He was excellent in Hustle and Flow. Unfortunately, the only chance he may have this year is if the Academy hands him an Oscar just so they can avoid the complaints about their all-white affair.)

I was so bummed out about missing the now-infamous Scarlett Johannson golden globes grope at the Golden Globes, I even watched the red carpet. Oh… my… god… Listening to Ryan Seacrest interview the celebrities was so mind-numbing I actually felt myself getting retarded.

The actual awards, however, were more interesting… barely. Apparently the fact that Brokeback Mountain won nothing only makes it a stronger contender for the Oscar (don’t ask me how that works. It’s apparently an oddity of Hollywood). Probably the best part of the show was the acceptance speech for ensemble cast by the cast of Lost. Other than that, you didn’t miss much.

In a bizarre live TV moment, apparently an interviewer grabbed a handful of breast. That would have been worth seeing, but the other nine hours of Hollywood’s self-promotion I could still do without.

What I’d really like is to be able to cruise the Golden Globes site, find a list of winners in real time, and get back out before anyone sees me browsing that sort of thing… In past years, I’ve had no luck with such a resource, but this year, I’m in luck.

If you’re not watching (and why would you be), you can still check out the winners. I hope the Oscars do the same, but given Hollywood’s opposition to simultaneous release, I doubt it. At least this year we get Jon Stewart hosting.

Oh, and by the way, Jeremy Piven got robbed on the Best Actor in Series or Mini Series category. Ari Gold rocks!

“As difficult as it is to look at something you don’t understand, it’s so important to do it.

Now I would bet, a large sum of money, that Dorothy aligns herself with the Democrat Party. I could be wrong, but I have a huge chunk of change that if she voted last year, she pushed the button for Kerry.

I would gamble on that because Dorothy exhibits the principle behavior of the left. She assumes, from her self-appointed position of intellectual superiority, that just because someone may feel there is no artistic merit to a film about gay cowboys that they “don’t understand” it.

Let me say, in all honesty, I think Hollywood expects this movie to serve as some sort of political reeducation of Red State America in the wake of what they see as “anti-gay” violence in rural America. I think their reasoning is “If they can only see that even rough, tough cowboys are gay, then they will accept them.”

I think it’s a bunch of crap.

I have no interest in seeing Brokeback Mountain. Does that make me homophobic? No. Does it mean I hate homosexuality? No. It means I don’t have any interest in seeing it. If I were a theater owner, I may decide I have no interest in showing it.

Now, I’m more than willing to share my thoughts on homosexuality. Here they are. I couldn’t give a single wet turd less if you’re gay. I really couldn’t. Be gay. It costs me nothing, and I judge my opinions of any one else’s actions on whether it costs me money. Let me give you an example. If you want to bite pillow, there is no cost to me. If you want to provide federal funding for abortion, that costs me money, and I don’t agree with abortion. Do I want abortion to be available for those who choose it? Yes I do, but I do not want to pick up the tab. That’s also why I oppose welfare programs being available for people who are physically capable of working. We need a federal job corps, something that puts people to work, not a system to get checks.

For me, it’s all about economics.

On homosexuality specifically, one of my close friends came out of the closet at 15 and wth the exception of one guy we knew, nobody really cared. It was his choice, and he never tried to push his beliefs on us. He also never tried to push his religion on us. That’s an important aside, though it may not seem to be.

The fact is gay advocates and religious zealots share many of the same tendencies. They both believe that they are right and both want you to believe as they do “for your own good.” That good – in religious circles – is your salvation and ever-lasting life in the Kingdom of God. In gay circles, that good is your intellectual growth – your development as a human.

Their both full of shit.

I can make it through my day, every day, without telling you why you should by my brand of toothpaste, my brand of shoes, or my make and model of automobile. Why can’t you, for once, get through your day without telling me why I need to buy into everyone of your causes and beliefs?

I find it ironic that the left denounces, in such strong terms, the religious right. As they shout down the beliefs of others, they claim those who believe homosexuality to be a sin are guilty of ignorance and prejudice. Yet they fail to recognize the prejudice and ignorance of their own actions. They claim anyone who believes differently does so because they “don’t understand” or because “they hate”.

Well, in some respect they’re right. I do hate. I hate being preached at by zealots, whether they come from the left wing or the right.