geekent's Buy Nothing Year

Media: Television

Original Air Date(s): January 13 and 14th.

Network: Fox

Episode(s): 001, 002



I am by no means a fan of the Terminator films, not quite the antithesis either, but just not an admirer. Terminator 3 was a travesty of filmmaking (it was on television this past weekend and I can still concur that the last 4 or 5 minutes is the only interesting part of the film). Terminator 2 was cool.. in 1992. Arnold has become pretty much a joke since then and so has Robert Patrick's funky stiff-robo run (didn't say it wasn't iconic, but it's been mocked into submission over the years), and Linda Hamilton was never a favourite actress of mine. The first movie? Well, I've only watched it once, twice at most, and apparently I liked it (review from July 22, 1998) but that was before I realized how much I don't like most of James Cameron's films.

So, what would possess me to watch a TV show based on a series of films I don't enjoy? Well, boredom, quite frankly. Oh, and being a geek. It's the same thing that compelled me to buy Dark Horse Terminator comics (including the way-cool Robocop vs. Terminator, which is more enjoyable than any of the six movies its derived from).

Two episodes in (aired one evening after the other) and I'm surprised to say that I actually quite like The Sarah Conner Chronicles. I'm not well versed in the lore of the Terminator but it's a show that works just as well (likely better, in fact) for the casual film viewer as it does for the hardcore devo-T.

(streamed at Spinner ... thanks to Chromewaves for the link)



Media: web stream (now available on CD)

Release Date: January 15, 2008

My overwhelming affection for Stephin Merritt and his numerous side projects dissipated about two or three years ago with both "i" (under the Magnetic Fields banner) and "Showtunes" (under his own name) being disappointing diversions (I didn't even manage to locate his Lemony Snicket instrumental project, but also didn't put much effort into trying). I think Merritt is one of today's greatest lyricists and equally one of the most talented composers, but I'm almost loathe to say that he piqued at his epic "69 Love Songs" and he has been working in the shadows of that behemoth ever since.

As well, the conceptual meaning behind his side projects, like Gothic Archies and Future Bible Heroes have essentially been integrated into his Magnetic Fields gig, and somehow it's less interesting this way. I should be terribly disappointed that I can't buy Merritt's latest album, but previewing it now, I'm not.

Format: Hardcover

Release date: October 9, 2007

Date acquired/borrowed: January 8, 2007

Pages: 240

Start reading date: January 8, 2007

Finished reading: January 16, 2007



All the fake smarmy, self-importance, ignorance and obtuseness you've come to expect from Stephen Colbert's parody of far-right media blow-hards (ala Rush Limbaugh) now in printed form. Akin to the Daily Show-derived "America: The Book" which satirized American history textbooks and Jon Hodgman's Areas Of My Expertise which took on the feel of an almanac, "I Am America" adopts elements of both, only written from the perspective of an ignorant egoist.



From the opening pages, we're made aware that this fictional persona Colbert adopts has opinions, so many opinions that 4 TV episodes a week can't contain them all. This book is just some of those opinions spread out over topics such as sexuality, sports, and religion.

Format: Hardcover
Release date: October 16, 2007
Date acquired/borrowed: December 25, 2007
Pages: 672
Start reading date: January 16, 2007
Finished reading: February 21, 2007

My earliest recollections of the Peanuts gang was a green felt wall hanging with Linus on it, the slogan "It doesn't matter what you believe as long as you are sincere" sagely written above Schulz's deceptively simplistic character drawing. It hung in my room for some time as a wee lad, I recall, but don't remember when or why it was removed. From my grandmother's house I had claimed my Uncle's old Snoopy toy as my own. You could pop his limbs off easily, I remember frequent pullings-apart, but he always went back together. I watched various"...Charlie Brown" specials on tv featuring Great Pumpkins and Christmas pageantry, and I read Peanuts in the Sunday color comics, but not as frequently the dailies. I'm sure most of us born a few years before Charles Schulz's retirement from comics have (or will have) similar recollections from our youth, scarcely a life in North America -- and millions more globally -- that hasn't had some exposure to Snoopy, Charlie Brown and company.

If you were a child of the 50's or 60's, you probably remember a much different Peanuts than what the rest of us grew up with, the commercialized property with seeming omnipresence, inescapable, unavoidable. Perhaps, like me, you never cared as much for Peanuts as what came after it: Garfield; For Better Or Worse; Calvin and Hobbes; Doonesbury; The Boondocks.... Virtually every newspaper comic strip since Peanuts came on the owes a debt to its creator, and whether you truly appreciate the man's craft or not, you can't deny Charles "Sparky" Schulz' influence on the field of cartooning.

Viewed: In theatre

Release Date: January 18, 2008

writer: Drew Goddard

director: Matt Reeves



The Bourne Ultimatum was a huge hit in the theatres last year, one of the top ten grossing movies of the year, and unanimously agreed upon by critics to be one of the best action/thrillers in a long time (I haven't seen it yet, so I can't comment). But despite it's great rankings and returns, there was a bit of a hubbub about the movie's use of what's been colloquially called "the shaky cam" (also, "queasy cam"), or digital hand-held cameras that don't hold a stable picture and, along with quick-cut editing, are used by filmmakers to present an erratic or frantic sense of motion. It's the reverse of bullet-time or slo-mo as used in the Matrix or 300 and is done so to also blur out the imperfections in the choreography, to much annoyance of many. Because of it's popularity, the Bourne Ultimatum played to packed houses, but also because of it's shaky camerawork, many people left the movie early, with headaches and sometimes nausea. Sitting in close proximity to the big screen with your entire field of vision enveloped by the movie is often the best way to watch a film, but with shaky cam work, it's hard for many people's brain's to focus on the images or track movement with their eyes and the strain of doing so yields an unpleasant viewing experience, despite the quality of film.



The shaky cam first noticeably reared it's ugly head when The Blair Witch Project erupted on screen. The necessity of the camerawork for that film was obvious and often effective, but again, the shaky cam element of it was distracting to the point of ruining the film goer's experience, even causing theatres to post signs on their doors warning of the effects of watching the film. Now that the (cost effective) hand-held digital cameras are becoming favourites of directors, and not of just smaller films but big-budget franchises as well, it's becoming problematic for those of us whose brains can't process it (see Roger Ebert's website and David Bordwell for more commentary on the shaky cam).

Viewed: In theatre

Release Date: December 25, 2007

writer: Diablo Cody

director: Jason Reitman



I wasn't aware that there was backlash against Juno until today, but then there's a tendency in today's society for people to rebel against the praise if only to be the naysayer. With films like Juno, which are smaller budget and less likely to be received by a mass audience, reviewers and critics highlight them with glowingly positive reviews. Juno debuted at the Toronto International Film Fest and its praises were sung immediately, in the hope that a) it would get strong distribution and b) it would reach or intrigue a wider audience. When the film hit theatres last Christmas, the inevitable happened: rebellion. People hating the movie, if only because it's so universally loved.



My good friend Toast and I have been at bitter odds over cinema (and other pop culture) for the past few years. Whenever I love something, he invariably dislikes it (9 times out of 10). It's not really a case of spiting me, but instead he (for some reason) has added considerable weight to my opinion on such things, and when he finds his enjoyment lacking compared to mine and his expectations dashed, well, it seems to diminish much of the enjoyment he gets out of the film.



But here's the thing, when you see a film without hearing much about it, there's a sense of discovery, a sense of unveiling as you watch it unfold before you. So much enjoyment of entertainment comes from this that when someone injects their own enthusiasm, their own sense of appreciation into it, well, suddenly you no longer have so much to discover, and it more becomes a comparative experience. "So and so really liked this, but why, the effects aren't great and the dialogue is too punchy and I just can't get behind this soundtrack"). When you have someone else's voice in your head as you watch (that's a figurative voice which we attach even to writers/reviewers/critics whose faces we've never seen and voices never heard), it does impact how you receive a work of entertainment.

Viewed: DVD rental
Release Date: January 8, 2008
writer: Halsted Welles, Michael Brandt & Derek Haas (based of a short story by Elmore Leonard)
director: James Mangold


Late fall last year the wife and I were discussing how the weather was putting us in a mood to watch Westerns. At the time two big features were in the theatre, The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford and this one. We saw the former and loved it. Until earlier this week we passed on 3:10 To Yuma, and can't really say much in favour of it. It's a middling film, and just taking a peek at IMDB, it comes from a middling director. Mangold's credits to now include such dramatic mediocrity as Girl, Interrupted, Identity, Walk The Line and CopLand.

3:10 is part action, part character piece, but its action is less than dynamic and its characters are unconvincing. Christian Bale and Russell Crowe co-star as Civil War vet-turned-farmer and notorious outlaw, respectively. Bale's character, Dan Evans, is in debt, his land choked off from water and close to being claimed by his creditors, thus throwing his family, including a sick younger son, into utter destitution. Evans' elder son, William, sees his father as a coward and less than a man, and as such has no respect for him, and appears to be forging his own disgruntled path into manhood.

Viewed: DVD rental
Release Date: December 10, 2007
writer: Tony Gilroy, Scott Z. Burns & George Nolfi
director: Paul Greengrass

Much has been said about this Bourne movie's use of "shaky cam", but honestly, shrink it down to TV letterbox and it really doesn't matter, it's a completely different viewing experience than in the theatres. GIven the fact that the DVD release of previous two installments of the trilogy have outperformed their box-office appearance, I can see how the studios wouldn't have been concerned about the shaky cam's affect on the cinematic audience. What I guess they hadn't anticipated was the reception to the film would be so huge and thus the shaky cam blow-back equally so. Anyway, point made, moving on.

The Bourne series of films based upon the novels and characters of Robert Ludlum have been surprising in their continued quality, their intensity, and frankly, their simplicity. The first movie was the most complex of the three as it required the most set up, establishing the character, his amnesia, his mystery and his pursuers. The groundwork laid, the next two movies were able to dispense with establishing much more and unravel the mystery further, concluding with the third. The momentum of the action and espionage elements propel these films forward, but they're also smart enough to layer some characterization in there, enough to establish Bourne as a modern spy-film legend, ranking right beneath James Bond and well above Jack Ryan in notoriety and brand in very quick order.

Reviewing stuff, as you may or may not have noticed, is a big part of my life... a big, fat, exhausting aspect of my daily existence. I was thinking the other day about how much work being a reviewer is, how much pressure there is to write honest commentary, as well as how much responsibility there is when your words are representing someone else's creative work. As I was going to bed the other night, a little frustrated after a small dose of writer's block, I wished I could just write reviews like, well, how the worst of them do: chumming completely up to the source (making for great -if ambiguous and meaningless- pull quotes like "you won't believe your eyes" or "what a thrill ride") or providing unsubstantiated opinions like "it's crap" or "this is awesome".

I was recently provided a copy of the first issue of a comic book, Cemetery Blues, by its artist, Thomas Boatwright, given the simple request of "When you have the time, please give it a read, and if you feel so inclined post a review." There's a part of me that feels, regardless of quality, that I have to praise a book when it's provided to me by a writer or an artist (or a publisher), like I have a responsibility to bolster the work just because they've taken the time and effort to give it to me. Though I do get over that initial impulse, when you're asked by creators to review their work the responsibility is even greater to ensure that the review is as honest as possible, and moreover constructive. I quite liked Cemetery Blues (and said so in my review) but it's not without its failings (and said so in my review). In writing a review, I could easily have said only good things, but I think it's just as important to the audience as to the creators that I tell them what I didn't like (and more importantly why). As a reviewer, I'm serving an audience of many, not of one, and not of myself.

Thomas responded to my review stating: "I love creative criticism that stems from actually having read the book. Too many sound bites in this day and age based on knee jerk reactions." Me too. I call that kind of reviewing the "Larry King effect" and it's one of the most irksome aspects of the internet and the rise of blogging. Everyone's got opinions, and now everyone has a forum to speak their mind. But it's how people speak their minds, and their approach to reviewing that makes reading it worthwhile. It's taken me a long time to be a conscientious reviewer and to be comfortable with the work that I'm putting out to the public, but where did it all start for me...and why?

Viewed: DVD rental
Release Date: December 27, 2007
writer: Steven Knight
director: David Cronenberg

Warning:Spoilers
I hate spoiling things in a review, but in this case I can't help it. The first thing I need to talk about in regards to Eastern Promises is the four-minute fight sequence between Viggo Mortensen's Nikolai and a duo of Chechen mafia thugs. It's a brutal sequence in which the vulnerable Nikolai, naked in a steam bath, is taken by surprise by two broad-shouldered, leather jacketed, thick black-soled boot-wearing, blade wielding toughs. There's an utter vulnerability to this stoic Russian mafioso, robbed of his dignity of a fair fight in any sense, it's a horrifying proposition, an actually effective variation of the old horror trope of the unsuspecting assault in the bathtub. Unlike more vainglorious starring roles, Nikolai is not in any sense a superman or James Bond, and within just four minutes of straight-on fighting he's completely depleted. Slashed and bleeding, his life seeping out of him from numerous locations, and having tussled for control of blades and guns, he's exhausted, but can't give into his fatigue until he's sure he's not threated anymore. It's powerful filmmaking, full of meaning to be extracting, but the immediacy of its situation, that being the nakedness of the film's star is utterly distracting.

It's possible you might be uptight about male nudity and put off with the utter sight of the penis, or perhaps uncomfortable in your own sexuality and recoil in disgust, or you might be completely at ease with the whole nudity thing and unphased by any nakedess, or you could generally get quite excited the see the old manatomy on screen, but regardless of how you react, it has the same effect: it pulls you out of the film... immediately. Despite how you may feel about viewing private parts, and it's the same when a noted female actress bears her breasts on screen, it's just surprising. Halle Berry won an Academy Award for doing it, well that's what people like to say anyway. Will the same magic happen for Viggo? Unlike most situations in which a woman winds up topless, there's little in the way of sexualization to this scene and perhaps that's even more alarming.

Viewed: In Theatre
Release Date: November 28, 2007
writer: Todd Haynes & Oren Moverman
director: Todd Haynes

I'm going to start by saying I'm not a Bob Dylan fan nor am I overly familiar with his musical repertoire (aside from the obvious "Mr. Tambourine Man"/"Blowing In The Wind"-like songs which are inescapable). Now you may say that since I'm not a Dylan fan I'm therefore not a music fan. Maybe you're right. Regardless.

I'm Not There is a film about Bob Dylan and his music, but it's not a biography. If anything, it's an anti-biography, wiping away any trace of the Walk The Line, La Bamba, Ray-style formula that musical bio-pics tend to fall into. Todd Haynes, a noted avant-garde director, has created a film that is unrestrained by convention, and as such is a marvel of intrigue, if somewhat indecipherable. Fans of Dylan -- the real die hards -- will likely be able to decode the enigma that Haynes projects, and the lay-fan will get it, but for someone like myself it's the beauty of an oil spill. It's a big, disastrous mess, but something still majestic about it that kept me watching well beyond the point of understanding the chaos.

Viewed: In theatre
Release Date: January 11, 2008
writer: Paul Thomas Anderson
director: Paul Thomas Anderson

Upon seeing the trailer for There Will Be Blood for the first time, a haunting, screeching score backing a few glimpses of the oil baron and the evangelical minister, I wasn't interested until the directorial credit for Paul Thomas Anderson appeared. With every PT Anderson film, initial impressions can be deceiving. Though he only has five films under his belt, with Boogie Nights the most notorious of them, after Dirk Diggler became almost a household name, he became one of the must-watch directors of the '90's. With every film he's done since, something audacious, something unique has emerged, sometimes worth ceremony, sometimes just as curiosity.

With Magnolia, a 3-hour meditation on mood through multiple interweaving and independent storylines. It was a cinematic experiment tying themes, colours and music into the core conceit, and it's worthy of as much of its praise as it is its derision. It was a disappointment at the box office, a failure with many fans and critics cited as boring and pretentious, but just as much it's garnered its defenders who are willing to give it the patience and investment it requires to fully be understood. For Anderson to then turn to low-brow huckster Adam Sandler for redemption was an unexpected move and Punch-Drunk Love was Anderson's interpretation of the "Sandler formula" of film, and he made an honest-to-god actor out of the comedian, even if the film wasn't nearly as smart or funny as it could have been.

But here, almost six years later, Anderson has more than fulfilled the promise that Boogie Nights' champions wanted out of his follow-up works. In fact, Anderson has moved away from the layered textures of Magnolia and Boogie Nights into something more straightforward, something more iconic, perhaps not quite Citizen Kane territory, but certainly analogous to it. Fond of the big film, this one doesn't shy away from epic, as it spans decades and over two and a half hours, but it surprisingly never yields to dull. Much of it can be attributed to Thomas' direction, the editing, the cinematography, but most of all, it's Daniel Day Lewis who carries almost every frame of this film in another Oscar nominated (and had he a nude fighting scene, a sure-fire winner for best actor) performance.

Viewed: DVD acquisition
Release Date: February 26, 2008
writer: Darwyn Cooke, Stan Berkowitz
director: Dave Bullock

This is the second of DC Comics' new direct-to-video features with Warner Animation (the first being Superman: Doomsday), here adapting Darwyn Cooke's esteemed 12-part story DC: The New Frontier. While I know that I've read The New Frontier (the trade collections sitting on my shelf behind the New Frontier Action Figures is a constant reminder), to be honest I can't remember much about it, except that it was set in the 1950's, had a strong focus on Hal Jordan, and embraced the vibrant aesthetic of the 1950's new America. The story itself was completely not retained. Watching the film adaptation, you would figure that at some point there'd be some moment that would seem familiar -- an action sequence or a phrase that was recognizable -- alas, the entire movie unveiled itself before me and I had to wonder, afterwards, how true it was to the source because I just couldn't recall. Pushing New Frontier Batman and New Frontier Green Arrow aside to get at the trades, I flipped through the books and was surprised to find that the story moved virtually in sequence with the film. The rapid pace at which I was revisiting things obviously didn't allow me to take in the finer details, but the comics version appeared like storyboards for the film. Of course a lot of the dialogue and character development was passed over, as were some ancillary text material that helped enrich the comic book world, and the comic, my memory of the story now coming back to me, was much more character focussed than story focussed.

For one of DC's premiere graphic novels, I'm a little surprised at how... forgettable the New Frontier story has proven itself to be. True, I do read a lot of comics, but the ones I really enjoy tend to stay with me. Without re-reading the books, I can't do an honest contrast and compare with the film, so I'll discuss it as it stands on its own.

Viewed: DVD rental
Release Date: December 18, 2007
writer: John Carney
director: John Carney

A tiny independent film made in Ireland for under 200,000 dollars, Once has become a bit of a cinematic darling since first making a splash on the festival circuit (winning the Audience Award at Sundance) and then going on to win (more than deservedly, especially given the competition) an Oscar for Best Song as well as Best Foreign Film at the Independent Spirit Awards. At a brisk 85 minutes, it a small pill, but a sweet one, focussed and free of distraction. Filmed on the cheap, shot on the streets of Dublin without permits, it does look dark, grainy, and, at times, like a student film, complete with awkward edits and some less than exemplary camera work, but the skills of the actors involved and the music (oh, the music) more than forgive the technical weaknesses.

The story of Once recalls Richard Linklater's Before Sunrise, where a French woman (Julie Delpy) and American (Ethan Hawke) have a chance meeting in Paris, spending a long evening conversing and connecting, building towards a romantic encounter and an unavoidable destiny of going separate ways. Now Once has an Irishman (Glen Hansard, "Guy" in the credits) and a Czech immigrant (Markéta Irglová, "Girl" in the credits) meeting-cute on while he's busking on the streets of Dublin. They too come together, establishing a powerful connection not through conversation, but song. The guy has created powerful and beautiful songs erupting from a failed relationship, and the girl provides the missing accompaniment that they need. She too has experienced the pain and difficulty of a relationship, leaving her husband behind and moving to Dublin with her daughter and mother.

Viewed: DVD rental
Release Date: August 21, 2007
Date(s) acquired/borrowed: March 1 (disc 1), March 4 (disc 2), March 29 (disc 3)


I remember first seeing Dexter on a moving billboard at Yonge and Bloor in late summer 2006, having only heard little tidbits about this Showtime thriller (or so I thought) about a serial killer of serial killers. I suppose it was because I saw it at nighttime and the electronic billboards sometimes don't balance their colours and brightnesses very well, but it looked like a grim and intense show. I was intrigued but knew I would have to wait for DVD. A few months later, Toast started watching it and telling me about it, and somehow it didn't sound nearly as nihilistic as I had though. I was expecting more of an "American Psycho" but Toast didn't give me that impression at all.

The DVD came out about a year after I first saw an ad for the show (and having been relatively inundated with Dexter ads on the sides of busses and whatnot), and shortly thereafter people started telling me I needed to watch this show. It's not that I was any less eager to see it, just that, well, marriage and moving and getting settled and shooting my own tv show and the like kind of pushed it aside. But the wife and I caved this month and started renting (no buy DVD!) from our local media baron video store (which I'd rather not visit but my options are limited).

Viewed: DVD rental
Release Date: January 29, 2008
director: Seth Gordon

Many a movie has tackled the figurative subject of David versus Goliath, routinely it's the individual versus the corporation or institution, fighting the power as it were. There's the Insider, Michael Clayton, Erin Brockovich, and dozens, perhaps hundreds of others. Though hardly "feel good" movies, they often end with the David triumphing, bringing down the corrupt government or dirty corporation. In documentaries, the little guy facing the huge obstacle ahead of them rarely is capable of bringing the institution to its knees, instead feeling satisfied by whatever little victories they can achieve. Michael Moore has built a career on being the little guy, and Al Gore has come to even bigger notoriety thanks to his cinematic achievement more than running for the US Presidency. If documentaries of this type have any happy endings, it's usually the slightest glimmer of hope that the crusader is still on the job or that the movement is growing. It's so unlikely in today's world, given the anonymity, power, wealth, influence and control of governments and corporations that one person (or even a large organization of people) will be able to affect significant change.

The King of Kong isn't your typical David v. Goliath story, in that the institutional Goliath is hardly one of much notable importance and the David hasn't made it directly his mission to take it on. Dealing solely with the world of classic arcade gaming, and even more narrowly the game Donkey Kong, the film is surprisingly engrossing, tense and affecting. Even if you don't care even a little about gaming, watching Steve Wiebe's plight to get recognized as the top Donkey Kong player in the world is an infuriating and heartbreaking journey as he battles against a 20-year-old scorekeeping institution that seems more interested in supporting its tightly-knit geek-clique than actually administrating reliable and true rankings.

Viewed: purchased (gift card)
Release Date: March 25, 2008
Date(s) acquired/borrowed: March 26, 2008

Killface is a skull-faced, demonic-looking behemoth of a man(?) lacking any sort of wardrobe or genitalia. He's invented the Annihilatrix, a giant engine that, when activated, will propel the Earth right into the sun. Unfortunately for Killface, he's run out of money and his project's come to a grinding halt. So, Killface hires a marketing firm to help him market himself and either get investors or blackmail the planet into giving him the money.

Xander Crews, having survived the tragic murder of his parents, is a bored playboy and the head of a mega-empire worth billions. Or it was worth billions, until Xander decided to invest all the company's money into making action figures of his heroic altar ego, Awesome-X. Unfortunately, he knows his action figures won't sell until he has a villain, and Awesome-X just defeated the last villain in town.

Viewed: In theatre
Release Date: March 28, 2008
writers: Michael Ian Black and Simon Pegg
director: David Schwimmer

Oh, the hipster's lament... do they go see a movie starring cerebral-geek favourite Simon Pegg and written by Stella's dryronic (dry and ironic) Michael Ian Black, or do they steer far clear of it because it's the inaugural directorial cinematic effort from still-too-popular-to-be-cool Friends star David Schwimmer. To that I say "quit trying so hard."

Run Fatboy Run is at once contrived and unexpected, a film whose plot is so utterly expected and yet it has so many moments that step it outside of its conventions. Key amongst those is Simon Pegg, taking his own pen to the script and tailoring it to a London setting, and, likely to hims own strength and his pals (co-star Dylan Moran, cameos from Extras' Stephen Merchant and Little Britain's David Walliams) who join him on the film.

Viewed: In theatre
Release Date: April 18, 2008
writer: Jason Segel
director: Nicholas Stoller

People keep calling this a Judd Apatow flick, just as they did with Superbad, even though his role is more in the bankrolling than directly creative. Apatow has become a brand more than a creator. His last film was actually Walk Hard, which he wrote as well as produced, but it's not considered an "Apatow" film, or at least not in the same stable as 40-Year-Old Virgin, Knocked Up, Superbad and this film. The Apatow brand began with his role as Executive Producer, writer and director on the television comedy-drama Freaks and Geeks, followed by creator credit on the sit-com Undeclared. Both of these shows were cancelled after their first season, but thanks to word-of-mouth and DVD sales, they became genuine cult programming. With the release and subsequent financial and critical blockbuster status of 40-Year-Old Virgin, not only did Apatow suddenly find himself a superstar creator but a man in desire, and in control.

Apatow worked on The Larry Sanders Show, The Ben Stiller Show and number of other projects where he befriended a lot of talented people. Via 40-Year-Old Virgin he turned Steve Carrell from a Daily Show correspondent into a superstar. On Freaks and Geeks and Undeclared he nurtured a stable of young actors, which included both Seth Rogen and Jason Segel, and most of which appear in some nominal way in the movies he produces. With Rogen and Segel, it would seem, he took them under his wing and helped them develop their talent not just as comedic actors but as writers as well. Rogen, with partner Evan Goldberg wrote Superbad and the forthcoming (Apatow-produced) Pineapple Express. When I heard that Jason Segel had written and was starring in an "Apatow movie" I was wary of whether he had the talent (either as a lead or as a writer to pull it off). The Apatow brand is a strong draw, and even though the trailers for Forgetting Sarah Marshall were cute, at best, I wasn't expecting much.

The Apatow appeal is a sense of naturalism, a sense that the characters on screen aren't characters but people who act and think and overthink like most people do. The characters in the Apatow stable of television shows and movies are as neurotic and irrational and prone to whims as most real people are. The situations they find themselves in are exaggerated slightly for comedic effect but for the most part they seem plausible, if not familiar. Most of what's considered the "Apatow stable" are variations on either the romantic comedy or teen comedies. In fact, these films could be the 20-something offspring of John Hugh's oeuvre of the 1980's and Woody Allen's cerebral rom-coms of the 1970's . Invariably these movies have become the new date movies, and Forgetting Sarah Marshall just about tops them all, in part because it was so unassuming.

Media: CD/DVD
Release Date: February 5, 2008

Somewhere along the way in my music listening fandom I became somewhat transfixed by alternative kids music. I suppose my undying love for childhood fixations like comics, sci fi movies, and action figures, all of which have only flourished into appreciation as I've gotten older, would logically transcend into my music snobsession. It might have been Saturday Morning: Cartoon's Greatest Hits or Schoolhouse Rock! Rocks that first brought forth (at least to me) the idea of kids music being performed in an energetic and palatable manner to a crowd that doesn't necessarily enjoy the overblown bombast or grating repetitiveness of standard children's music, not to mention the teeth-achingly saccharine or patronizing lyrics that typically accompany youth-oriented music.

They Might Be Giants have over the past half-dozen years, redefined themselves, if only slightly, as the pre-eminent performers of children's music, first with their delightful and diverse NO! followed by the Here Come The ABCs, both featuring strong visual components... NO! having a handful of enhanced Flash-animated videos viewable on computer on the CD itself, while ABCs was sold as either a CD or a DVD (many of the songs were tailored to have video accompaniment and thus were slightly nonsensical as just a song, which isn't anything atypical for TMBG). With Here Come The 123s the Giants once again did the joint CD and DVD thing, only this time they packaged them both together, and at an obscenely low price (less than $15 for the set from most on-line vendors).

Viewed: In theatre
Release Date: May 2, 2008
writer: Mark Fergus, Hawk Ostby, Art Marcum & Matt Holloway
director: Jon Favreau

Is Iron Man the greatest superhero movie ever?
No.
But it's also not far off.
What makes a great superhero movie? Well, it's one that can take decades worth of stories and character development as well as a plethora of supporting cast and villains come and gone and distill them all down to the bare essentials and then rebuild using the best bits but also allowing for the the necessity of appealing to a more modern and broader market, not to mention the limitations of live-action filmmaking. Comic book companies have been tearing down and rebuilding their characters on a fairly regular basis (as much as a couple times a decade) so it should be a cakewalk for cinema to do the same, but it rarely is.

The problem historically with most cinematic translations of superheroes from the comic page is the screenwriter doesn't know or appreciate the character or their history. They take icons and write them as they perceive them to be (or think they *should* be), and instead of taking that which a few hundred thousand comic fans like and passing it along to millions, they forge their own path, resulting in failures if not financially, then critically.

Iron Man doesn't fall into this trap. Though four writers are given credit on the screenplay, Paramount wisely brought in a brain trust of comic book writers and editors, each with some affiliation to the character, to read through the script and ensure it rings true to the character. While generally I'd be suspect of any movie with a script-by-committee, in the case of comic book films, it's the right way to do it, especially this way. And Iron Man succeeds, yes, because it is entertaining, but also because it stays true to the character and his history.

by Michael Pollan

Format: Hardcover
Release date: January 1, 2008
Date acquired/borrowed: April 2008
Pages: 256
Start reading date: April 2008
Finished reading: May 21, 2008

My cousin is a very earthy fellow. He's not a hippy or a tree hugger, he's a hunter and a survivalist, I guess you could say. He (and as you will find with many hunters) has respect for the land and what it can provide him. I haven't interacted a lot with him in the past decade or so -- distance and disparate lifestyles do that sort of thing -- but recently spending time with him during a family funeral I quickly developed a real sense of respect for his attitudes and philosophies about the way humans and the surrounding natural world interact. Oh, I also get the sense that he enjoys the modern comforts that civilization provides (trucks and snowmobiles and whatnot), but he also has a deep respect for the logic of old society... that we're part of something bigger, that what we contribute to the Earth should likewise contribute back to us, and if you poison the land it will poison us back. No, he didn't say this, not directly, but statements like his half-serious sentiment that he's going to get a goat rather than use a lawn mower was just one tip-off to his sensibilities. He likes to venture off in the woods for weeks on end, out of range of cell phones and gas stations, surviving rather than simply camping, fishing or hunting for nourishment not so much for sport.

He also hunts to put food on his family's table, stating it's infinitely better food than what you'll find in the grocery store. At the time, I understood somewhat the ideological different between wild game and industry-generated meat, but I didn't really get the instinctive difference, which is one of many things Michael Pollan details in his new book In Defense of Food.

Viewed: received as gift
Release Date: November 6, 2007
Date(s) acquired/borrowed: June 1, 2008

I first posted about Flight of the Conchords last November, quite some time after many people had heard of them, still earlier than most. I'm not as concerned with being *the first* to champion something anymore, I think more than anything what I'm championing should be something I'm willing to continue supporting after the initial rush of first contact has worn off. With Flight of the Conchords, "New Zealand's no.4 folk-comedy novelty duo" (right behind the no.3 ranked Flight of the Conchords tributed band) my affection for their pithy, dry comedy has only grown, after spending much time on YouTube and receiving their "The Distant Future" ep.

The Kiwis made their way to America by way of the United Kingdom, having had a 6-episode BBC radio series before snagging their own HBO series Stateside. That they are novelty comedy might hinder their longevity if not for the fact that they're really damn good musicians and their song craftsmanship is tight and catchy. Their HBO show actually moves them beyond just songsmiths and takes them into genuinely fine comedic actors as well.

The 12-episode series finds Bret and Jemaine as landed immigrants in New York City, living Bert and Ernie-style in a cramped (barely) 1-bedroom, 2-bed apartment trying (though far from desperately) to live the American dream. They want to be rock stars, but they have no pretensions about themselves or their ambitions. When success eludes them, they take it as a given. They are ineptly managed by the "Deputy Cultural Attaché" of the New Zealand consulate, Murray (who seems to be focused more on managing the band than performing whatever duties the consolatory is supposed to service), and they have only one fan, Mel, who is absolutely stark-raving obsessed with them. The boys don't really like Mel's stalker-ish behaviour (often dragging her lapdog husband, Doug, along), but accept her and rely upon her more often than they'd like. Eugene is their building's ineffective (and creepy) super, while Dave is their American "best friend" (and pawn shop operator) who gives them nothing but horrible advice on fitting in, dating and anything else they need help with.

Viewed: In theatre
Release Date: June 6, 2008
writer: Ethan Reiff & Cyrus Voris
director: Jonathan Aibel and Glenn Berger


Is "kid-flick", like "chick-flick", and actual genre of filmmaking or is it simply a measure by which we can simply identify the intended audience for the movie? I ask, because although Kung-Fu Panda is indeed a kid flick, it's more in its heart an American-bred, animated version of 70's kung-fu cinema, owing a tremendous debt to Jackie Chan and Sammo Hung. Should I judge it as an entrant into the annals of chopsocky entertainment or as the latest in the tremendously long line of CGI-animated children's movies?

How about both? Eh, why not...

Viewed: In theatre
Release Date: June 20, 2008
writer: Tom J. Astle and Matt Ember
director: Peter Segal


The Sunday prior to this film's theatrical release I spent about a half hour slouched on the couch, remote in hand, with my carpal-tunnel-inflamed thumb hovering over the "recall" button (you know, the one that takes you back to the previous channel you were on?). On AMC (acronym for "American Movie Classics", a station name which is only 2/3rds correct) was the year 2000 production The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle, while simultaneously over on Showcase (a channel once known for it's artful and refined sense of international and independent movie selections) was the 2005 cinematic version of The Dukes of Hazzard. While my sense of good taste and comfort wouldn't let me watch either for any prolonged period of time, my sense of curiosity and fascination with the horrid had me flipping between the two films every two minutes or so.

I loved the original programs both films were based on when I was a kid, and the first thing a television-to-film adaptation will play upon is nostalgia. Of course it does, why wouldn't it. There's almost no other reason to be watching it, am I right? That is unless you're a bit of a masochist or genuinely intrigued by whatever the marketing department might have sold the film on (that wasn't nostalgia). Dukes, from what I saw, played out near exactly like an extended, big-budget version of the TV show (and the TV show was pretty horrendous). Rocky and Bullwinkle was a bizarre Roger-Rabbiting mash of animation and real world storytelling... about on the level of other such kiddie adaptations like Scoobie-Doo, Inspector Gadget and Underdog (I suppose, I like apparently everyone else on the continent, never saw the latter), which is to say not very good at all.

Viewed: In theatre
Release Date: June 27, 2008
writer: Andrew Stanton
director: Andrew Stanton

WALL-E is not a flawless film. There are gaps and/or leaps in logic that, if focussed upon, could hinder one's complete enjoyment of the film. Don't let it, because by and large, the latest Pixar film is an absolute wonder, a marvel of digital animation and a deceptively complex sci-fi fable. Sure, superficially WALL-E is a kid's movie, but it contains undercurrents that will resonate more with an adult audience. The marvelous thing about the film, though, is it's absolutely entertaining without putting any thought into it beyond the surface story, but if you do, if you look deeply at the various concepts and ideas that the creative team have strewn throughout, there's a commentary, perhaps a warning, about how human society is advancing (or in some respects, regressing).

The opening shot of WALL-E descends through smoggy clouds upon a metropolis filled with skyscrapers. The closer we get, we realize that not all of these buildings are what they seem, but rather hundred-storey tall piles of compacted garbage cubes, intricately and impossibly stacked like futuristic pyramids. As the camera descends amidst the surface of the city, it's utterly devoid of life (fauna or flora), and is virtually colourless, hues of steel grey, dirty umber, tarnished silver and red rust coating the landscape comprised mostly of garbage. The camera's passage through the city tells a story, as every billboard, every building is branded with the only colour in the city, a large logo sporting "BNL" or "Buy And Large". The billboards tell part of the story, noting that humanity need not worry about the garbage, just leave the earth on BNL's luxury space liners, and BNL's WALL-E units will take care of the trash in the meantime. It's obvious that whatever the plan was went awry some time ago, as those robots are now themselves garbage littering the cityscape. Eventually the camera settles on the only movement, a lone cube-shaped robot, the titular droid, and his pet cockroach. We watch as WALL-E performs his duty, collecting garbage, putting it into his belly and compressing it, spitting out a perfectly shaped cube which he stacks on a building.

For the first 10 minutes we bear witness to WALL-E's solitary life, as he performs his duty during the day, races home (the back end of a maintenance truck) to avoid dust storms at night, feeds his pet cockroach (BNL-branded Twinkie-like substances, not so improbably still good 700 years later), adds to his various collection of Zippo lighters and other curiosities, and watches with fascination a tape (channeled through an iPod, viewed through a magnifying glass) of Hello Dolly (marveling at the dance numbers and the romantic plot). WALL-E passes his days, until a massive spaceship descends upon the city, dropping off an egg-shaped, Apple-influence robot before departing again. Perhaps it's the new robot's sleek design or his own loneliness but the little droid falls hopelessly in love. Though the egg-shape seems to dismiss him, instead focussing on her directive, but WALL-E eventually befriends her, learning her name (EVE) and showing her his home, his favourite film and his collection. But when he shows her the small green plant he found, EVE returns back into directive mode and calls for pick-up.

Viewed: In theatre
Release Date: June 27, 2008
writer: Michael Brandt, Derek Haas
director: Timur Bekmambetov


The bulk of Hollywood's output from the past decade has been derived from source materials, whether they be novels, TV shows, remakes of (or sequels to) old movies, or comic books. Adapting or updating a story is always a tricky business, because what made the original work a success can't always be duplicated, sometimes it's a bit of right-place/right-time, and sometimes it's the medium in which the story is told. A TV show tells a story differently from a novel which tells a story differently from a comic book which tells a story differently from a movie. In most cases, fans of the source material will invariably like the source material more than the film, because, as necessitated by the medium (and the audience), changes have to be made. Successful translations tend to pare in on what made the original work, and distill that upon the screen. Unsuccessful versions tend to only superficially replicate the source without understanding the heart or message or characters.

In this case, Wanted is a unique beast. A comic book mini-series created by writer Mark Millar and artist J.G. Jones, it was a high-concept "villains win the day" set-up (a rejected pitch, originally intended as an alternate timeline story for DC Comics) (my review of the graphic novel). In the comic, the bad guys rule the world, but there's in-fighting, and the titular character, Wesley Gibson, must fulfill his destiny as the son of the greatest supervillain of all. The movie dispenses with the which very geeky needling of DC archetypes which comprised the bulk of Millar's story and instead turns into a story about a league of assassins, complete with it's own built-from-scratch intricate policies and curious history.

Viewed: In theatre
Release Date: June 13, 2008
writer: Zak Penn and Edward Norton (uncredited)
director: Louis Leterrier


Full disclosure: I loved (still do) Ang Lee's Hulk, and yes, I realize I'm in the minority, but it's a brilliant film technically (editing, directing and design), and I highly appreciate Lee's sense of comic book drama. The geeks go on about "Hulk dogs" as if there's something inherently wrong with that just because it wasn't in the comics. Lee's take on the Hulk isn't about the creature, but rather a story about fathers and their children, of Bruce Banner (Eric Bana) and his dad (Nick Nolte), and Betty Ross (Jennifer Connelly) and her father (Sam Elliott). The two stories crossed paths, in modern day and in flashbacks, and what unfolded was a mystery nobody was expecting and most still don't see. Far too many people expected a big-budget Hulk movie to be like the character, rather mindless... a summer blockbuster, just popcorn-chugging fun, full of the Green Goliath smashing his way out of any predicament. Instead, as my wife says, it turned out a snooze-fest of disinteresting human melodrama.

The new Incredible Hulk movie aims to deliver upon expectations that weren't met from the last film, swapping out any real sense of character progression for a number of CGI rendered demolition derbies, with equal motivation to distance itself from Lee's film (but without looking like it's keeping its distance) and to relaunch the character as part of the new cinematic "Marvel Universe".