The Dark Knight Rises: reviewed

It was a classic case of being set up for failure: I had been nursing a cold all week long; I had coached my son's soccer team in some humid weather earlier in the evening; and to top it all off, I had not been getting great sleep all week, thanks to a five week-old baby and a six year-old who still wakes up 2-3 times a night. In short, committing myself to seeing The Dark Knight Rises at its midnight premier seemed destined to be a disaster.  Even Ehren, my co-pilot for the evening, confessed on the drive up to Shoppingtown Mall that he hadn't gotten a great night's sleep the night before, and that he feared he might doze off during part of the movie.   The two of us laughed at how ridiculous we would look if we found ourselves unable to answer people's questions about the film due to our dozing off!


As it turns out, our fears were unfounded.  I don't care how tired the two of us were: there was no way in hell we were going to doze off once the lights went down and the main feature started.  The Dark Knight Rises is an exciting, jaw-dropping, and emotionally resounding finale to Christopher Nolan's re-imagining of the caped crusader, and it just may be enough to solidify this as the greatest trilogy in film history.  More on that in a bit.  


Your plot summary (spoiler free!) goes something like this: It has been eight years since Bruce Wayne/Batman defeated the Joker and Harvey Dent.  In that span, Batman has become public enemy number one, while Harvey Dent's death has given the Gotham City Police the leverage it needs to really take down organized crime.  Never mind that Harvey Dent died as a bad guy - only Batman and Commissioner Gordon know that, and they're not talking!   With Bruce Wayne and his alter ego Batman in hiding, and with Gotham using some questionable tactics to detain and incarcerate criminals, Gotham City has never been safer . . . except there is a storm coming that will shake Gotham to the core, literally.  Led by the masked brute known only as Bane, an army is about to make Gotham its battleground, and it is up to the recently-retired Batman to safe his beloved city once again.


Let me begin the critique portion by explaining my philosophy: if I enjoy watching a movie, then in my eyes, the movie is a success. Deep down inside, the people who make movies want to please you.  They want to make money, too, but think of how hard it is to break into the acting business.  Way more people fail than make it, so I have to believe that the people who work on these movies do so because they love their work. Therefore, I try to give movies the benefit of the doubt.  A film may not be perfect, because few films are, but as long as it entertains me and makes me feel as if my movie was well spent, the movie has accomplished its goal.  In those cases, I prefer to write a movie review that is almost entirely positive.  I don't enjoy criticism just for the sake of criticism, and there's nothing worse than reading a movie review that claims the movie was good, but then goes on to focus on far more negatives than positives. There's a movie review over at GeekTyrant.com, in which the author keeps writing "L liked the film," but then points out no less than nine flaws or missed opportunities.  Tough love. If you can discuss the bad more than you can discuss the good, you either didn't like the movie, or you are just a pompous asshole and think you can do everything better than everyone.  Now, if the movie made me wish I hadn't spent my hard-earned money on it, then game on!  I still to this day despise Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, and my movie review tried to slice that piece of crap to shreds.   My philosophy may not appeal to everyone, but it is what it is, so take it or leave it.  


My analysis (some spoilers alluded to): The first thing that impressed me about TDKR is the sheer, oppressive scope of the story.  Gotham City has seen itself threatened before, but where Ra's al Ghul and the Joker failed, Bane succeeds: he literally takes control of Gotham City, cutting it off from the rest of the world.  This is nothing less than war, folks, and what makes it even worse is that the bad guys are armed with the very technology that has made Batman so successful.  When Bane's plan was fully revealed and carried out, it was stunning.  For the first time in this franchise, I felt as if the bad guys could win, and that Batman would lose.  The odds were stacked against Batman, Jim Gordon, and all of Gotham City, all of which added up to a nearly unbearable amount of tension.  It was exhilarating, watching a movie in which the stakes were high and you actually believed the good guys would lose.


In my opinion, another aspect of  the movie that was a brilliant move on Nolan's part was having Batman stripped of nearly everything but his training, and his will.  Bruce Wayne's nearly limitless resources have always given Batman an edge in fighting crime, but the question always loomed: how effective would Batman be without his gadgets?  By presenting Bruce Wayne with his most resourceful villain yet, while simultaneously depriving him of his own resources, Nolan is able to stir your emotions when you realize just how far Batman needs to rise in order to save his city one last time.  I know many people will complain that Batman is not on screen in this film as much as he was in The Dark Knight, but ignore that bullshit: Bruce Wayne is Batman, you dumbasses, so just because he's not wearing the suit doesn't mean Batman is not in the movie.  This film focuses on Bruce Wayne far more than The Dark Knight did, and even though I loved Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker (and who didn't?), this is Bruce Wayne's story, and TDKR does a great job of letting us see the guilt, doubt, and ultimate goodness inside of Bruce Wayne/Batman.  This is exactly how this trilogy needed to end!


It should go without saying that the cast of this movie is excellent.  Christian Bale has made Bruce Wayne/Batman his own, which is no mean feat, since I felt that Michael Keaton really nailed the role in the original two Batman films directed by Tim Burton.  Those old pros Michael Caine, Gary Oldman and Morgan Freeman are superb, as one would expect, with Caine's character, Alfred, contributing some of the film's most memorable, heart-felt moments.  Thomas Hardy is terrifying as Bane, despite the fact that his face is covered with a mask for 99.99% of the movie, sometimes rendering his dialogue indecipherable.  Anne Hathaway surprised me as Selina Kyle/Catwoman, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt makes me wish the franchise wasn't dead yet - that's all I will say about that.


Are there some flaws in the film?  Yes, there are.  However, like I said before, I was not trying to actively search out plot holes, shaky director cuts, individual bits of dialogue that just didn't sound perfect, or any of the other little things that some of the Internet wanna-be directors have been pointing out.  It's not a perfect film, and it's hard to make the argument that it is the best of the three Nolan Batman films; honestly, I would rank it below both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.  Even so, it's a fitting, entertaining, fun way to close the trilogy, and I fully plan on seeing it in the theater at least once again.


Now: back to my early, audacious claim that the Christopher Nolan Batman trilogy could be considered the greatest trilogy in cinematic history.  It's the sort of claim I usually avoid, because there's no way of proving that any work of art is "the best ever," due to the highly subjective nature of art.  When it comes to this collection of films, however, I believe a legitimate argument for "best trilogy ever" can be made.  For starters, this trilogy reaffirmed Batman as a serious, dramatic character, as opposed to the buffoon he had become in movies such as Batman Forever and Batman and Robin.   As Roger Ebert wrote in his review of Batman Begins, "I said this is the Batman movie I've been waiting for; more correctly, this is the movie I did not realize I was waiting for, because I didn't realize that more emphasis on story and character and less emphasis on high-tech action was just what was needed."  Christopher Nolan proved that characters that originated in comic books could be taken seriously, and be explored realistically.  This was something that other comic book movies had done with varying degrees of success - the X-Men films, for example - but none to the degree that Nolan took it.  


Another reason why I feel Nolan's Batman trilogy could be considered the greatest of all time is that, for three movies that have such distinctive tones, themes, styles, and pacing of plot, there is almost no drop-off in quality as you move from one film to the next.  The Dark Knight Rises is never going to be considered the best of the trilogy, but it's certainly not the disappointment so many idiots would have you believe.  TDKR had two things going against it from the start: it didn't have Heath Ledger in it, and it was the end of the trilogy.  With expectations that high, it was bound to generate complaints along the lines of, "Bane is no Joker," and "I expected more from it."  I think in a year's time, people will be a little more forgiving.  If I had to give all three movies in the trilogy a five star rating, my judges scorecard would go 5, 5, 4.5.  How many other trilogies score consistently high across the board?  Let's take a look, starting with some comic book trilogies:


The Blade Trilogy: not even close.  Blade was okay; Blade II was very good; Blade Trinity was an unholy mess that should have never been released.  


The Sam Raimi Spider-man trilogy: no.  Again, the second movie is far better than the first, and the closing installment, Spider-man 3, is terrible, due to too many villains and too much of Peter Parker being flat-out unlikable.


The X-Men Trilogy: same problem.  I like all of the movies, and there is not a huge gap because the first and the second, but the third is definitely a step backwards for the franchise.  Besides, even the best film in this franchise cannot touch the weakest film in the Batman trilogy.


The Matrix trilogy: perfect example of how to ruin a good story and a good universe by not knowing when to stop.  The Matrix is a pitch-perfect film; it truly changed the way people filmed action movies (although to be fair, it also lifted from foreign martial arts flicks, so I cannot give it all the credit), and it was just one hell of a ride.  The Matrix Reloaded had some killer scenes, but some filler, too, and a few CGI moments that were godawful.  The Matrix Revolutions . . . so disappointing.  This series should have been a one-and-done, and The Matrix should go down as one of the best sci-fi movies ever, but as a trilogy it is nothing but one letdown after another.  


The Godfather trilogy: close, but no cigar.  Look: if we're talking about the importance of individual movies, The Godfather I and II will always rank higher than the Batman movies,  These are two of cinemas finest works ever.  However, it's not my fault Coppola decided to tack on a third and final installment, nor is it my fault that The Godfather III is clearly not in the same league as the first two movies.  Two studs and a (semi) dud do not earn the title of "the best trilogy ever." 


The Terminator Trilogy: another close but no cigar, although this one actually comes closer than the Godfather.  Again, none of these movies would beat the first or second Godfather flicks head-to-head, but as a whole this trilogy is a little more consistent.  Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines gets mad credit for actually ending this trilogy on a bleak note, too.  


The Back to the Future trilogy: an awful lot of people forget about these films, but they deserve to be in this conversation because they were all entertaining and fairly ground-breaking at the time of their release.  These movies should also get credit or attempting to be stylistically different from film to film: the first is set in the past, the second heads to the future, and the third goes all the way back to the days of the wild west.  Very ambitious!   However, just because the three movies have different settings does not mean they actually have a different feel to them.  All three movies are fast-paced, fun, and full of action, and never stray too far from the formula.  I don't know if I could ever call this trilogy the best ever, but it sure is enjoyable, especially on Blu-ray!


The Toy Story Trilogy: Hmmm.  Clearly the best animated trilogy, for whatever that's worth.  I personally didn't find Toy Story 3 to be necessary, but it was still a good movie.  The voice acting in these movies are absolutely perfect, too.  Not to be a movie snob though, and I don't mean to make it sound like animation is easy by any means, but compared to the set pieces and stunts of live-action movies like the Batman films, the action and adventures that are on display in this trilogy are not as impressive.  As a director, coordinating scenes such as the Joker's barreling through the streets of Gotham in a tractor trailer, or the final all-out war with Bane toward the end of TDKR has to be way more complicated when you are using live actors and relying on good old-fashioned stunts, which is what Nolan prefers. So many extras, angles to consider, cameras to position - these scenes require way more directing than if you simply animated all of your wild action.  Sorry, Toy Story, but as good as you are I have to give live-action movies the nod. 


The Lord of the Rings trilogy: This is where we could debate endlessly about which is the better trio of movies.  I love this trilogy, and it's truly an example of movie making at its finest.  The cast is phenomenal, the story is stirring, the scope is truly epic - what's not to love?  Well, the trilogy's dependence on CGI, for one. I know, I know: it's fantasy, and it would have been impossible to make these movies without CGI.  I'm just a little concerned with how well the graphics will hold up down the road.  This trilogy tends to be a little too heavy on the bro-mance, too, and The Return of the King has about four endings too many.  Still, any complaints I have about this series are minor, just as with the Batman trilogy.  


I'm sure there are other trilogies out there that I either have not seen - the Dollars spaghetti Westerns, for example, and some foreign films that I honestly find pretentious and not worth my time - or did not mention because they would never even enter our discussion, either because they are not comic book-based or because they are nowhere good enough to enter this argument.  Then there are some movies that people want to lump into the heading of trilogies when they are not.  The Bourne movies, for example, would have been another contender for this title . . . but now they have gone and added a fourth, so it's no longer a trilogy; it's a franchise.  Same thing with the Mission Impossible flicks, the Alien movies, the Scream movies - unless the fourth movie was a prequel, these trilogies all became franchises when movie number four came along.  And then there's Star Wars, which people seem to want to break down into two trilogies: Episodes 4-6, and Episodes 1-3.  Just because they were made in groups of three does not mean they are trilogies.  Hello: the first three movies were parts 4, 5, and 6, so you know Lucas always intended these to be a six-chapter story.  You don;t see people trying to arrange the eight Harry Potter movies into two trilogies and a duo, do you?  Don't be dumb - Star Wars doesn't belong in this conversation.


Whether or not you want to drink the "Batman trilogy is one of the best ever" Kool-aid, The Dark Knight Rises is a hell of a movie.  Don't dismiss it because it doesn't have Heath Ledger; don't piss and moan because you would have ended it differently; just go to the movie theaters and do what you are supposed to do: have fun for about three hours.  If you have an open-mind, you won't be disappointed.

Ghost Dad

I spent a little time playing Ghost Recon: Future Solider on the PS3 last night.  From what I've seen, the game is solid, similar to SOCOM but more interesting and with some better game modes.  It's a nice break from the first-person, running and gunning of the last few Call of Duty games.  I sampled a bit of the campaign, and played only two multiplayer matches, so I cannot go into a ton of detail here, but from the little I have sampled there is a lot of potential, especially when it comes to character/weapon customization.  Anyone looking for a good firefight should grab a copy of this game!  If you play on PSN, feel free to add me - drunkenribeye - to your friends list.  I could use a good lobby!

Having said that . . . I've found myself cutting back on my video game playing (not that I was playing a lot to begin with, since I do have a family and a life), because I started to notice that my six year-old was trying to spend more and more time playing video games at the house.  At first, I would limit it to about 25 minutes a day, and give him a bit more whenever he was really good about playing quietly, helping with chores around the house, etc.  Pretty soon, though, my wife and I began letting him play games while we did work around the house, because it was a nice way to keep him occupied and out of our hair!  As it turns out, the six year-old has a bit of an "addiction" problem, just like I used to have: "Hmmm . . . it's four in the morning, and I really should go to bed, but I bet I can get one more good round of team deathmatch in.  Let's do it!"  The more gaming he did, the more he wanted, and it started to affect him at school.  He told me it was hard to do his work in school, because he just kept thinking about playing DC Universe online, or Marvel Super Hero Squad. 

Playing video games was NOT the only reason he was being a bit of a clown at school, obviously.  My son is a bit of an entertainer, so part of his problem was simply him being a showoff.  I don't mind that - schools shouldn't suck the personalities out of these kids and make them boring little robots.  As long as he isn't being rude, I can handle him being one of the funny kids in class.  Even so, he still has to find a way to get his work done, and if daydreaming about video games was part of the problem, it's time to admit that it was a bad idea to let him play them at this age, which means little or no video gaming . . . for anyone in the house.  If I'm going to tell my son playing video games is only okay on the weekends, and in very tiny doses, I have to model that behavior.  I cannot be one of those "Do what I say, not what I do" kind of parents.  It's hypocritical, selfish, and by the way: it doesn't work. 

So I'm still a gamer, but I'll be hard to find on PSN during the day.   If you see me online late at night, especially on the weekends, give me an invite and be prepared to stay up a while!

My Music is Better Than Their Music

Time for a history lesson:  when I was a freshman in high school, having grown tired of sports and the people who played/coached/cheered for them around me, I decided to pick up an instrument.  I know public school kids usually get the chance to learn how to play an instrument in intermediate school, but my parents had decided to ruin my life from ages 5-13 by enrolling me in a private Catholic school, so our music classes consisted of singing religious songs or learning parts for the school musicals.  That was all well and good, but by age fourteen I wanted to be able to make some noise, so I talked my parents into getting me a drumset, and I have not stopped playing and teaching ever since.  I have even started to teach myself how to play guitar, and have already given my six year-old son a small drumset and acoustic guitar.  (He also plans on beginning trumpet lessons this summer!)  There are times when I don't touch an instrument for weeks, due to my family life and schedule, but making music is something I have been doing on the side for over 25 years now, and it's something I will continue to do until I am too sick (or too insane) to do so. 

All of which should help explain why I hate the overwhelming majority of music played on popular radio today. 

Yes: I consider the music on the radio to be music.  No matter how crappy, generic, and unoriginal it may be, the garbage being listened to by so many people does actually qualify as music.  I know there are a lot of people out there who want to argue that this stuff is not music, and I'll get to their arguments in a minute, but I feel this is an important point to make: hate it all you want, but if it has notes and a beat, it's music. Pop, rap (or hip-hop, whatever you call it), dance - these are all musical genres, and they all serve a purposes so shut yer yap and keep your musical snobbishness to yourself.

The problem, then, isn't that I don't find this stuff to be music.  The problem comes from who is responsible for creating this music. If you were to look on my computer, you would find over seven thousand songs, ranging from thrash metal to classic rock, from classical music to jazz, to children's music, and even a smattering of country, hip hop and dance (pop).   As a teenager I listened mostly to heavy metal, and I still gravitate toward heavy, edgier music, but I truly enjoy any music that makes me want to come back a second time . . . or better yet, any music that makes me want to grab an instrument and play.

Guess which types of music don't make me want to jam?  Now, guess which types of music I listen to, and own, the least?

Music that has been recorded by humans playing instruments is full of soul, passion, EMOTION.  Even when the music and lyrics are bleak as hell, music performed by carbon-based life forms can still uplift you, because you are able to form a bond with the people singing and playing on the other side of that connection you are making every time you listen to a track.  Just envisioning how long the musicians had to spend in a studio struggling to get all of the parts lined up is inspiring, as we all know how hard it is to get three or four people to agree and work harmoniously on ANYTHING, much less an original musical composition. 

Now: go back and re-read that paragraph, inserting the word "producer" for the words that represent living, breathing musicians.  Here - I'll give you a sample: Music that has been recorded by a producer is full of soul, passion, EMOTION.   It's bullshit, isn't it?  Of course it is!  The thought of one producer - a talented person, indeed, but a musician he is not - sitting in a studio programming beats for a singer to record his or her tracks over . . . it's not exactly inspiring, now is it?   It's sterilized music, programmed to perfection on machines so the pitch and tempo are absolutely perfect.   It's music made by science: cold, distant, soulless.  You cannot connect with a computer, folks, so the least you can hope for is a singer that isn't . . . no - Auto Tuned!

So my music is better than so-called popular music, hands down . . . but if you need one last bit of proof, picture my son, six years-old and as unconcerned about how he looks as can be, standing in my bay window, rocking out to ZZ Top with a Wii baseball bat in his hand, pretending to play guitar.  If you walked by our house and saw that, you would smile.  If you saw him trying to "Air Produce," you would want to beat him with the Wii baseball bat.  I win.

Avengers, Assembled!

I'll cut right to the chase here: yes, The Avengers is worth the hype, and your money.  It is action-packed, has a nice sense of humor, and gives its audience everything it could want, and more! 

Make no mistake about it, though: it is a popcorn flick, without a doubt.  I  enjoyed the entire movie and never found my interest lagging, but afterwards, not one of the people I went to see the film with had anything to say about it.  Nothing.  Sure, my son repeated some of his favorite lines, and gushed about a few big action scenes, but when it came to the adults, it was literally a case of, "Out of sight, out of mind." 

There's not anything wrong with this - not every movie needs to be a thoughtful work of art that is going to inspire animated exchanges over dinner and drinks later that evening.  Going to the movies is a nice little escape from reality, and the fact that I was never bored and constantly entertained by The Avengers tells me that the movie was successful at doing its job, and that my money was well-spent. 

A minor point: it wasn't technically my money, as a relative picked up the tab.  Interestingly enough, I picked up the tab to see Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen in the theaters.  That was the exact opposite of money well-spent. 

Still, it does anger me a bit to think of all the great films I have seen - Gone Baby Gone, The Prestige, V for Vendetta, The Shawshank Redemption - that seem to have gone unnoticed by the majority of people while they were in the theaters.  The Avengers is on pace to become the highest-grossing film of all time, and it took great skill to make, but the thrill of the movie is gone only minutes after you have left the theater.  Nothing really stays with you once the credits have rolled.  The Shawshank Redemption, however, is one of those movies that makes you value life once you have seen it; it inspires you to, in the words spoken by Morgan Freeman's character, "Get busy living, or get busy dying."   Few movies have sparked so much thought, discussion, and debate as Gone Baby Gone and The Prestige have, and along with V for Vendetta and The Shawshank Redmeption, I will gladly re-watch those movies, because there is depth to be found, new meaning to be discovered, important lessons to be re-learned.  I'm going to buy The Avengers when it comes out on Blu-ray, but I'll be lucky if I watch it twice more in a lifetime.  This movie is poised to be the most successful film ever, yet there's really not enough substance there to watch it over and over again.  What does it say about us, that the biggest money makers are the movies that barely challenge us to even be conscious during the film's showing?

All that being said, The Avengers will thrill you, especially if you liked any (definitely all) of the origin stories that preceded it.  Grab a drink, a big tub of popcorn, and give your brain a few hours off: The Avengers has arrived!

Let's Get It Started!

Summertime is fast approaching, and with it comes the promise of some kick-ass movies! Here's a list of some titles worth considering.  

The Avengers - May 4:  Avoid this like the plague if you're not a fan of comic books or super heroes!   I've seen a few previews, and I've already cleared my calendar for May 4.  Don't get me wrong - this could be a huge flop.   It's one thing to tell the origin stories of Iron Man, Captain America, and Thor - streamlined stories that wisely focused mainly on the one character - but telling the origin of a TEAM of super heroes like The Avengers could result in too much backstory, too many sub plots, and too little action.   Still, one of the Editors-in-Chief over at Fandango.com recently screened the movie and called it "the best superhero movie of all time."  I'm excited, my son's excited (except he wonders why Spider-man is not in it!) - fingers are crossed for this one!

Dark Shadows - May 11: This comedy about a vampire who falls asleep in the 18th century and wakes up to a very different world in 1972 should be on your radar if you enjoy Tim Burton, the genius behind Edward Scissorhands, Sleepy Hollow, Sweeny Tood, Alice in Wonderland . . . Jesus, is Johnny Depp really in ALL of those movies?   What a coincidence - he's in this one, too!  No matter: Depp is a great actor, and the worst you can say about Burton is that his movies are always visually interesting, even if the plot is lacking.  I'm on the fence about this one myself, especially with so many other choices out there.

Men in Black III - May 25: If you can forget the law of diminishing returns - in the case of movies, that once a franchise hits its high point, you can expect the quality of further entries in the series to decrease in quality at an alarming rate - this movie has some appeal.  Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones showed some great chemistry in the first two MIBs, and Josh Brolin, who has been tapped to play the role of the younger Tommy Lee Jones character, is an excellent actor (see No Country For Old Men and True Grit for proof).  Still - it's probably going to be a formulaic film.  If you really loved MIB and MIB II, this might be safe bet for you.

Snow White and the Huntsman - June 1: All right, guys - I know what you're thinking.  Am I excited to see this?  No sir, I am not!  According to Fandango.com, however, this is the most anticipated film of the summer for the ladies, so whether I like it or not, I may be getting dragged to see this at some point in my not-too-distant future. The story sounds interesting enough - the hunstman dispatched to kill Snow White winds up becoming her protector as they set off to turn the tables on the Evil Queen - and it may even be able to answer a question that has been nagging me for so long: can Kristen Stewart actually act?  Or is she just really that f*%@ing bad?

Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted - June 8: Eh, I do have kids, ya know? 

That's My Boy - June 15: I won't touch this with a 300-foot pole . . . but it has Adam Sandler and Andy Samberg in it, two of the least funny people in the world, who have somehow managed to convince people they are, indeed, funny.   Leave your brain at home for this one.

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter - June 22: This book is next on my Must-Read list. The author of this book, Seth Grahame-Smith, wrote two other fantastic books: Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, and Unholy Night. I've heard nothing but great things about this book, and everyone associated with the movie is top-notch. Give this movie a shot!

G.I. Joe: Retaliation - June 29: "Why the hell is this movie on here?  The first movie was total shit!"  If you find yourself thinking those words, trust me: I'm thinking them, too!  I was a huge G.I. Joe fan back in the day, when their toys and comic books were actually cool.  Then the first live-action G.I. movie came around . . . and it had Channing Tatum and Marlon Wayans in it, for God's sake!  Way to kill the coolness factor.  It wasn't the worst movie ever made - I have to admit, I did buy it on Blu-ray - but was it worthy of a sequel?  Hell no . . . and yet, here we are.  This second one looks moderately intriguing, since it opens with a bunch of the G.I. Joes being assassinated (hopefully that means Channing Tatum's character!).  It also has The Rock himself, at least a short cameo by Bruse Willis, and ninjas.  Lots of ninjas.  Could be a guilty pleasure this summer.

The Amazing Spider-Man - July 3: Yup, another super hero/action movie.  Sorry - sue me.  Ayway, another one I am on the fence about.  I did't necessarily love the Spider-man trilogy that starred Tobey Maguire and was directed by Sam Raimi - I score these movies a "Meh" for the first, a solid thumbs up for the second, and a grade of "Dog Turd" for the third - but then again, I hate Hollywood's obsession with rebooting franchises.  There's hundreds of Spider-man comics out there; rather than give us another origin story, pick an interesting story and make a movie, dammit!  We'll see if I let my kid talk me into seeing this one.    
The Dark Knight Rises - July 20: Words cannot begin to describe how excited/nervous I am to see this flick.  It's a good thing my wife is due at the end of June, because this movie is possibly the only thing in the universe, outside of death, that could make me miss the birth of one of my children.  Without a doubt, this will be the biggest movie of the summer, and without a doubt, it will almost certainly create a lot of praise on one side, and bitching on the other.  This will be the last Batman movie written and directed by Christopher Nolan - he is ending his version of the story here, for good.  Don't be surprised if the ending isn't happy, but give the man the benefit of the doubt: I haven't seen him make a bad flick yet, and I'm riding shotgun with him all the way on this one!

Anything I forgot?  Shout out what you're looking forward to below!  I'll be sure to ignore your suggestions.   :)

Ice Boxing, and Other Alpha Male B.S.

"People think hockey is a sport. Hockey is not a sport. Hockey is three activities going on at the same time: ice skating, playing with a puck, and beating the shit out of somebody. If these guys were intelligent at all, they would do these things one at a time. First you go ice-skating, then you play with a puck, then you go to the bar and beat the shit out of somebody. The day would last a lot longer, and these guys would have a whole lot more fun." - George Carlin

Years ago, when I first heard George Carlin do his classic bit on sports (according to him, only baseball, basketball and football should actually be considered sports), I found his observation about hockey to be funny, because it was a little bit true.  I've always loved watching hockey, and even though I find the fighting to be unnecessary and, let's admit it lame - these guys would get their butts handed to them if they actually fought someone with training; WWE wrestlers do more damage, and they're faking it - most hockey games feature a small amount of fighting, and a huge amount of back-and-forth, high octane action.   I can overlook the occasional, brief fight (they usually last seconds) as long as I am witnessing a fast-paced, highly entertaining game, with lots of scoring chances, solid defense, and great goal tending.

Now, having watched five consecutive nights in which at least one NHL player a night has tried to ruin the career of one of his opponents, I don't find Carlin's remarks to be funny any more.  You see, humor is funny because it contains truth, but also because it contains comic elements, such as exaggeration, as well.  Years ago, Carlin was exaggerating how much hockey resembled boxing; if he was speaking today, there would be no exaggeration at all.  Players ramming other players' heads into the glass; players launching themselves off of the ice in order to check someone in the throat, face, or head; players punching unsuspecting players from the side, or punching them when they are already lying on the ice; this isn't a sport, it's a bloodsport, with players trying to intentionally hurt other players.  The media has jumped all over the NHL, saying it's out of control, fans have been heading to Twitter and online forums to voice their displeasure over how little hockey is actually being played this postseason.  Players, coaches, and loud-mouthed ex-players who now report for places like ESPN and Sports Illustrated can try to explain it all away by saying, "It's playoff hockey!  Guys are intense!," and crap like that, but you cannot name another sport that features so many players going out of their way to seriously injure guys on another team. 

Or can you?  Didn't the New Orleans Saints just get busted for promoting a bounty system, in which players were given bonuses for knocking other players out of the game?   And isn't it widely assumed that while the Saints were the only ones to get caught, many other teams have had players institute similar, under-the-table bounty systems, as well?   It's easy to single out hockey and say, "Well, there's why no in America really cares about hockey" - but isn't football the most popular sport in America?   Not many fans are up in arms about football players trying to injure other players; hell, according to football fans, "That's just part of the game.  That's just football."

All of which reminds me why I really hate professional sports.  Years ago, when I was in college, I followed my teams - the Celtics, the Red Sox, the Flyers, the Colts, etc. - with a passion that was unrivaled.  Now, I could give a shit.  I have basic cable, so I barely get to see any games.  I check the scores still, but certainly don't get really excited when a team I like wins, or despondent when they lose.  Alpha male idiots have taken all the fun out of sports.  Watch little kids play a sport: they play because they like it.  My son hates the fact that he has to play baseball against other kids he knows; those are his friends on the other team, and he doesn't like winning if it comes at their expense.  Mind you, he still tries hard to win - but he also feels compassion when he is watching his friends lose.  When he plays hockey, he goes after it as hard as anyone else on the ice.  He fights for the puck, and even gives players on the other team a little nudge here and there.  It would never occur to him, though, to try and use his stick to whack another player, or to try and slam some kid so hard into the boards that he falls down and gets hurt.  He inadvertently tripped a teammate once during practice, and spent the rest of the night worried that she was going to hate him for the rest of the year.  Trying to hurt other players is the absolute last thing on his mind, because it's not even in his mind!  I bet most professional athletes felt like my son does at one time or another; yet, now that they are professionals, they try and deliberately injure their peers, just because they play on the "other" team?   Idiot male aggression.   Why not just forget playing the game, and let these jerks fight each other to death like the gladiators used to?  At least it will put a dent in their numbers.

What My Instant Queue Says About Me

Ah, Netflix!

If it wasn't for Netflix and its instant streaming - and, to some extent, Hulu - I would still be shelling out buttloads of cash every month to either the evil empire known as Time Warner Cable (over $70 a month) or the slightly less evil Directv (over $60 a month).   It doesn't sound like much, and it's actually less than I pay for our wireless phone plan, which is the biggest scam on the face of the planet today, but when you watch as little live TV as I do, dropping $700-850 a year for 200 channels you MIGHT watch makes you the fool in the aphorism "a fool and his money are soon parted."

In other words, I was someone's bitch.  And I didn't want to be nobody's bitch no more.

Then along came Netflix - and yes, Hulu, you needy piece of trash, I didn't forget about you! - and I am back to being just my wife's you-know-what, which is just the way she likes it.   Netflix is better than cable or satellite, and not just because you can save money.  To me, Netflix is a far more personal experience.  Think about it: you subscribe to Time Warner Cable, or Directv, or even - ugh - DISH TV, and you pick from the same pre-packaged plans that EVERYONE picks from, which says nothing about you as an individual (except that you enjoy being economically violated once a month).  You sign up with Netflix, though, and you can customize your Instant Queue in whatever way you see fit.  Heck, you give someone with a half a brain access to your Instant Queue, and you could have an informal, yet semi-accurate, psych eval on your hands, ready or not . . . not a bad idea, now that I think of it.  I wonder what my Netflix Instant Queue says about me?  Let's take a look . . .

From Paris With Love; Daybreakers: errr, are these really in my queue?  And sitting in the number one and number three spots?!?  What was I, f*$@ing insane when I added these?   Okay - at least they have not been watched yet.

13 Assassins; all three Swedish versions of the Millennium trilogy (beginning with The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo); a British made-for-TV crime trilogy, and a few British TV shows: again, not viewed yet.   Seems like I am open-minded enough to consider watching foreign cinema, but not so bored that I actually go ahead and do it.

Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, Following, The Black Dahlia: all right!  Finally, some good dramas!

Five National Geographic documentaries (on dinosaurs);  Four BBC documentaries (on dinosaurs); one Discovery Channel documentary (on dinosaurs): and these have all been watched, multiple times . . . well, either I want to secretly be a paleontologist, or my six year-old figured out how to add shit to my Instant Queue.

Hot Tub Time Machine: yeah baby!  Funny as hell!  Now did I add this, or my kid?  Hmmm . . . .

A cartoon called Dinosaur Island?  A TV series called Dino Squad?  A TV series called Kung Fu Dino Posse - that can't be real, can it?  And two separate TV shows based on Godzilla?   Goddamn kid.

Ah - back to normal: Arrested Development; My Name is Earl; Psych; Sons of Anarchy: good TV . . .

. . . and the rest of my Instant Queue is made up of cartoons: Phineas and Ferb, no less that four versions of Spider-man, three types of X-Men, Iron Man, Thomas the Tank Engine . . . holy crap, my Instant Queue is a frigging disaster!  If people didn't know any better, they would think I was some drooling whack-job / serial- killer-waiting-to-happen, eating cereal and watching Netflix in my boxer shorts.

And I almost never do that.