Sports Related

Yes, the Spartan men's basketball team is off to a fantastic start. That's not what this is about. I just read an article on AOL, in which a male pro bowler got beat by a female pro bowler. The article, written by a David Whitely, says the answer as to why she beat him is easy-bowling is not a sport, so there's no shame in being a chump who lost to a girl. Geez, is this attitude still around? If he'd lost to another guy, no one would care. If she got beat by another guy or a woman, no one would care. But because he lost in sport (and I'm fairly certain bowlers consider it a sport) that values skill and technique over sheer strength and size, it's not a sport. Also, does this mean that every guy who loses to a girl is a chump? And does this only apply to sports like basketball and hockey? And I guess if you're a guy who lost to a better player, who happens to be a girl, you're a loser and a chump, eh? Most women do not have the upper body strength of most guys. Most women do not have the natural muscles that most guys have. So, if you're a woman playing a sport that uses only skill and not muscle, than you clearly aren't playing a real sport.

Jeez, Mr. Whitely-your attitude towards men who lose to women is about as old-fashioned as you can get. Really? In this day and age? And does it apply only to sports or other things as well? I just want to make sure, so when I beat a guy in ANYTHING, I can call him a loser and a chump for getting beat by a girl. Oh, I'm sorry-I wouldn't do that because I'd like to think the better player won, no matter the gender-and I try not to call people names.

Shaolin Soccer

I'll watch anything Stephen Chow does. If he's in it or directs it, I'm there, and it breaks my heart he's not going to be Kato in the new Green Hornet movie. Shaolin Soccer is about a ragtag group that comes together to play the big game to win one million dollars. And they use the principles of kung fu to do it. And it's a comedy. And it's awesome. Hilarious, action-packed and clever (with songs!), it doesn't get much more entertaining than this-but be sure to watch the Chinese version with subtitles and then go watch Kung Fu Hustle again.

Up In the Air

So I finally got around to seeing Up In the Air, after avoiding it for weeks. I;m not sure why I was avoiding it, something to do with the my feeling that even though it seemed to be marketed as a comedy, it looked depressing. And it was. Although there were many funny (and well-written) lines, it was not a happy-ending kind of movie. George Clooney is the corporate downsizer-flying from city to city to fire people. Anna Kendrick is the new hire, with many bright ideas-although I have to say for someone who has a minor in psychology, she's not very aware as to how people behave when they get let go. And Vera Farmiga is Clooney's counterpart-the corporate road warrior, who is on the road as much as he.

So, what is this movie actually about? The loneliness of the road? The inability of George Clooney to make a human connection and when he does, it doesn't work out? Is it a diatribe for or against marriage? Because it spends most of the movie saying marriage is a good thing, while betraying that by showing that the people in the movie who ARE married, are not in the best situation. And the only reason to get married is so that you are not alone? Really? All I could think during those scenes is that there is only one reason to get married-and that is that you love the other person so much that you want to stand up in front of your friends and family and say so. If you marry someone because you don't want to be lonely...it's not a good reason-there is nothing lonelier than being in a relationship with someone who does not feel the same as you. My brother said he thought this movie was cynical and I'm not sure why he said that, but I think it has to do with a woman playing the part usually played by a man (actually, the young whippersnapper part could have been played a man as well). I am both amused and depressed by a woman being the one who is cheating on her husband and kids and escaping from real life with George Clooney (and who wouldn't?). Traditionally, this would be a guy and the woman would be traumatized by the evil cheating guy-and here the tables are turned. I find it sad that Clooney seems to take this as a sign he should never have a relationship again, while a woman would pick herself up, dust herself off and pick the right guy next time, at least in the happy world of film. Is this equality, when the tables are turned?

Crazy Heart

Here's the thing-I walked out of Crazy Heart not liking it. I walked into Crazy Heart not expecting to like it. And yet, it's stuck with me all week. I first compared it to The Wrestler, another movie I walked into not expecting to like and walked out still not liking it, although I did think everyone in it was very good, but I now I think a comparison the Monster is more accurate. I did like Monster-I found it very difficult to watch-and yet, something about it stuck with me for weeks afterwards. I found Crazy Heart VERY difficult to watch. Was it the constant smoking, so much so I felt I was going to have an asthma attack while watching it? The endless drinking, so much so that it was enough to make me think about swearing off alcohol? I don't even drink that much and it made want to stop. Maybe it was the greasy hair or the puking? One of these things did it-trust me, Jeff Bridges does NOT look the way he does in the poster for this movie-throughout most of it, he's a mess. And he inhabits this character so much, that it's really hard to look at him. And when Maggie Gyllenhaal's cub reporter falls for the extremely raffish charm of this aging singer, you just want to yell at her "Don't do it!". I'm not fond of movies where the terrible guy is redeemed by the love of a good woman (unlikely) but this one did not have a pat happy ending, which made me feel a little better.

As to the performances...what can you say about Jeff Bridges? Every performance is so good that you don't really pay attention-until you think about it later. He makes it look so easy and it's not you realize that he's played a serial killer, an alien, a president, a creepy writer and a country singer and made each part his own, that you realize his depth and range. As A.O. Scott said in his review played by Jeff Bridges...should be sufficient recommendation. I have to admit that my favorite role of his is the voice work for Surf's Up! No joy, man, no joy. Fail.

I also saw Sherlock Holmes. A perfectly fine movie, if you have never read a Holmes story. As I started reading Holmes at ten or so (and had to pay {or Mom did} a $30 fine for keeping The Complete Adventures of Sherlock Holmes out of the library for a VERY long time-I think my parent bought me a copy not long after that), anyway, it was not very Holmesian. It was very entertaining (not very Victorian either) but performances by both Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law kept things moving. Just don't go into it wanting it to be traditional, because it's not. And if you get the chance, watch Robert Downey Jr accepting the Golden Globe for this performance-it's touching and hilarious.

In the Loop is a political satire, whose plot is lightly convoluted but whose writing is o flat out funny that it makes up for having to re-watch parts of it because you can't believe (mainly Peter Capaldi) said that. Yes, we all know Capaldi from Local Hero-he is just about as opposite as can be in this movie and he is awesome. The scene with he and some tourists near the White House has to heard to be believed.

I'm going to see Up In the Air tomorrow. We'll see what happens.

Avatar

But first the guiltiest of pleasures-Laurell K Hamilton's books about Merry Gentry, Faerie princess. Not badly written (but not well-written either), endlessly inventive and full of erotica, these books are great fun to read. Yes, they are mindless but if you want something that doesn't tax your mind these fit the bill. Yes, a beach read in January.

Avatar has its own mindless thrills. It looks amazing. Really amazing. And the performances are good-both as real (human) characters and as the alien Na'vi and the avatars controlled by the humans. The story is this-humans have come to Pandora to get the huge supply of Unobtainium (loved that name). Humans can't survive in Pandora's atmosphere-they either use air masks or they control Na'vi avatars, that allow them to communicate with the aliens. Into this mix comes Jake Sully, paraplegic and substitute for his dead scientist brother. He loves having an avatar that is nine feet tall, strong and agile. His mission to cut a deal with the Na'vi, so they will move from their most sacred place, so the company can get the precious metal buried beneath it. The problem with this is two-fold. Jake falls in love with a Na'vi woman and then also realizes that there is no way in hell these tough warrior people who live a jungle (that can kill you a million different ways) are ever going to move. His story and what happens to him, the army he reports to and the scientists studying the Na'vi are the basis for Avatar. And don't get me wrong, it's a great story. Sam Worthington, Sigourney Weaver, Stephen Lang and Zoe Saldana all give strong performances, especially considering the limitations of motion capture technology. And I'll say this too-it didn't look like motion-capture. It really is revolutionary but it wouldn't matter if the story were lacking.

Here's my problem with Avatar-it's a twisted version of Aliens. In 1986 when Aliens was released, America was a different place. Ronald Reagan was in his second term. The USA was still fighting the Cold War and Nationalism was very popular. Into this world came a movie where the aliens were truly evil (although not trying to screw each other over for a share of the profit-as Ripley notes), the company trying to screw each other over for a share of the profits and also trying to get them to Earth for use as a weapon was evil as well. The Marines were the good guys (and All-American), although naive. But Aliens has nuance. The Aliens may be bad, but they know what they want (humans as incubators for their young, mostly) and they go after it. Ripley may hate and fear them, but she has regret before she unleashes napalm all over the Alien Queen and her eggs. She hates the cyborg, Bishop-but she changes and comes to respect him. And here's some the two movies share-those who do not change and adapt are usually doomed, in one way or another. But Avatar doesn't have nuance. The good guys are good (and you know who they are). The bad guys are really bad-and they show their colors pretty early. No one really changes their mind-except for Sully and the Na'vi. Everyone else doesn't really have a happy ending, although for some it could have worse. It's lucky for Giovanni Ribisi that the Na'vi have more compassion than their counterparts in Aliens, or he could have come to a very bad end-Rbibisi's counterpart in Aliens (played by a weaselly Paul Reiser) came to a very bad end. And as for the Na'vi, my emotions are a bit mixed. A mixture of African and Native American culture, it was a bit too "happy natives commune with nature all get massacred by evil Americans" and it's not a particularly new story but it is well told-although anyone who doesn't know how it ends has not been paying attention. I will say that I find it very funny that so many right-wingers are upset with this movie-saying it's a criticism of the war (take your pick, Iraq or Afghanistan) and is Un-American. I'm sure they much prefer Aliens.

One Moe Thing About Invictus

I said Invictus is not nuanced, but I think I did Eastwood a little bit of a disservice.

Yes, while the big rugby match is going on, he's showing blacks and whites watching it together, and later celebrating together, and showing the little black kid first being yelled at by the police then getting along with them to the point where at the end, they give him a police cap to wear. Unlikely. But where he did show honesty is in the relations between the blacks and whites assigned to protect Nelson Mandela. The black cops do NOT want to work with white police officers, who not that long ago, were trying to put them in jail. And white officers have about as little respect as they can have for the black guys they have to work with in order to do their job, serving a President they don't really respect. But they have to get along to do their jobs. And so when the South Africans win the match, they don't hug or shake hands or celebrate together. They smile, in one case, a very tight smile. They may have found common ground on this, and all are happy about the win, but they still have to work together despite their pasts and winning the game is not going to change that-but it may make it a little easier. These men and their respective stories are the most honest part of Invictus.

Invictus

I finally went to see a movie! It was a toss-up between Invictus and Avatar, but Invictus won out, for reasons to be mentioned later.

Was it good? Yes. Did I like it? Very much. However, do not go into it believing you will see any kind of nuanced portrayal of race relations in South Africa, because you won't. You want a story with nuance and unflinching honesty about South Africa? Go watch District Nine.

Invictus is a rousing sports story, with terrific performance by everybody. Morgan Freeman is great at portraying a man who came out of being imprisoned in a tiny cell for almost 30 years and could still forgive everyone involved. Matt Damon is great as a man who never really thought about apartheid or race until forced to circumstances. And good for Damon as he portrays a man a good six inches taller and probably 70 lbs heavier than he. He carries it off most of the time, until you see the real Francois Pienaar in a picture at the end and realize just how big he really is in real life.

What didn't I like? There was a little too much of the "happy black people listening to music" attitude. There was a little too much of "this game will bring us all together and now we're all friends now" attitude. I give Clint Eastwood credit that he did not shy away entirely from Nelson Mandela's difficult home life (did have one at this time?) and for telling this story very well. Eastwood is good director, verging on greatness at times, but I think h needs to be tougher (Clint Eastwood, tougher? Really?) But he can shy away from difficult moments and I don't know why because he is capable of nuance. It's in him-all you have to do is see Unforgiven or Million Dollar Baby to see him being unflinching in difficult moments.

Is it a great sports movie? I don't know enough about rugby to judge it's accuracy, although I will say (based on rugby players I have known), the game is actually for more violent than they portray it i the movie, but that's me. It's heart is in the right place and it tells a rousing story very well.

Well, enough nit-picking. I only do it because I think he greatest work is yet to come-he better get on it. I'd like to single out Matt Damon for praise (of course Morgan Freeman is great. He always is-I'd like to see him play more bad guys though). Matt Damon has played Jason Bourne, Francois Pienaar and the fat, inveterate liar in The Informant! All in the space of about 16 months, give or take. Who else could carry off all these different roles and make it look easy? He embodied each one effortlessly, without it ever showing. He is a great actor.

Okay, here's why I chose Invictus. Ever since I heard about this story (and I was ashamed to not have known this story before), I've been watching the real thing on you tube. You tube has the last 10 minutes, it has the South Africans winning, it has the interview with Francois Pienaar, the real interview, where he says "We didn't have 60,000 South Africans, we had 43 million South Africans" and the roar behind him is one of the great moments in sports. I HAD to see that moment. Did they do it justice? Yes, but the real thing wins out, as it does almost every time.

And here's a link to a short documentary about this game-it's very well done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4vlFQA-t9w&feature=related