Tell Us How You Really Feel

The Oscars. Sure was something. I guess. Sean Penn seemed pretty pissed. So that was new? Bill Maher doesn't like religion and needs to beg people to watch his movies. Definitely not new. Hugh Jackman is Australian. Oh, and Slumdog Millionaire won some awards.

I don't know how this happens, but the Oscars are, quite simply, fucking boring. Are the movies boring? Is that the problem? There were maybe 3 moments last night that were at all interesting: the tribute to those who died in the past year (always good), Heath Ledger winning Best Supporting Actor, and...well maybe there were only two. Oh, when the guy from the Academy decided not to give a speech. That was pretty great. I guess I also enjoyed the narrative of the show, as though they were making a movie. That was clever.

It's also nice to know that the Academy feels that Slumdog is one of the greatest movies ever made. Only 15 films in history have ever gotten eight or more Oscars, and now Slumdog is one of them. Awesome? Don't get me wrong, I really liked Slumdog. I think it is arguably the best movie of the year (even though I would probably put it third). But, man. Every time I looked up it was winning another award. I was surprised it didn't get an Oscar for winning the most Oscars.

The biggest surprise of the night was Sean Penn winning Best Actor over Mickey Rourke. I didn't see either Milk or The Wrestler, but it sure seemed like Rourke's year. Penn could, I think, win in any year for any film. He is almost certainly the best actor in Hollywood, but since he has already won Best Actor, I thought Rourke was a shoe-in.

As for the rest, good God. I think Shirley Maclane is still gushing over Anne Hathaway (that's what she said). Has there ever been a worse Oscar "innovation" than previous winners praising current nominees for ten minutes? Yes, we know they are good. They are nominated for an Oscar. It's definitional for Christ's sake. The songs were terrible. Jackman put me to sleep, though I doubt even Wolverine could have truly interested me. The presenters were incredibly mediocre. It was long. Extremely long. Ended at midnight. What was this, a World Series game? Tina Fey looked pretty hot. So that was good.

So, how do you fix the Oscars? Well, better movies would probably help. Also, can't we find a host? Is there no one on the planet who could facilitate this thing while being funny and interesting at the same time? Didn't Billy Crystal do it at one time? That seems like it would work again. I think Steve Carrell would actually be perfect for this. The one thing the Oscars does do very well is the montage. I love those. More of those, please. Most importantly, though, trim this shit down. There is absolutely no reason the Oscars should be three and half hours long. None. Earth to Hollywood: you guys really aren't as interesting as you think you are. Outside of yourselves, people don't really give a shit what you think. They are watching because you are pretty. That's all we need from you. I know you are thankful to your publicist's assistant, but we aren't. Keep it short, look hot, and get the hell off stage. If you can do that while accepting awards for good movies, all the better. Oh, and next year, can we give Slumdog a few more awards?

And the Oscar goes to...

Regardless of my unoriginal post title, there's no denying it: The Oscars are here. I'll wait for the excitement to die down. That didn't take long...

Seriously, though, the Oscars just ain't what they used to be. I've already opined that Hollywood is out of touch with most movie goers, and in many ways the Oscar selections this year prove it. The Best Picture nominees have only garnered about $190 million total at the box office, with Frost/Nixon and The Reader each making under $10 mil. For perspective, that is about half of what Indiana Jones made, and everyone (except me) hated it. I'm not saying that art has to sell to be great, but come on. No one cares about most of these films, with the exceptions of Slumdog (which I think is getting more media attention than popular support) and Benjamin Button. Not that these are bad films by any stretch (though Frost/Nixon is terribly overrated), but they just don't have the cachet that used to define the Oscars.

More disturbing, I think, is the recent trend of movies being made solely to win Oscars or at least get nominated. Last year avoided this trap, possibly because No Country for Old Men was such a fucking masterpiece, but we fell back in this year. By far the best example of this phenomenon in recent years is Crash. As a movie, Crash is good. If it were on Lifetime. During the day. And was made by students. In grade school. As a social statement, it ranges somewhere between white middle class kids wearing Che t-shirts and the media explaining black culture through the lens of Jeremiah Wright. It really is just an awful, awful movie. But it had a BIG THEME. RACISM IS BAD. AND WE SHOW THIS BY OVERACTING. DID YOU KNOW THAT SOME LA COPS DON'T LIKE BLACK PEOPLE? AND THAT SOMETIMES PEOPLE FROM ONE CULTURE DON'T UNDERSTAND PEOPLE FROM ANOTHER CULTURE? AND THAT IT'S ALL CONNECTED? Jesus, Crash sucks. But it hit all the Oscar g-spots: "hot" current events hook, oppression of some kind, big name stars in so-called unusual roles, and insider buzz (if it was a biopic, the entertainment media would have proclaimed it as the greatest movie ever made, and perhaps the greatest artistic triumph in Western civilization). I know that a stellar movie could be made about the themes that Crash butchers, but it probably couldn't be Hollywood'ized enough to get real attention. So, filmmakers go the easy route, tick off their Oscar checklist, and voila. "I'd like to thank the Academy..."

This year's crop is really no different, even if all the films nominated are far superior to Crash. Each one hits on at least two of the Oscar must-have's, except Slumdog, which actually falls into the Little Miss Sunshine and Juno "quirky outsider" category. What makes this year more interesting that most, though, is that the quirky outsider is the favorite for the first time. And while it was at best a very good film, it is decidedly un-Hollywood, and that's a damn good thing.

In the end, though, someone has to win that androgynous golden trophy. And since that is the case, it means I have to pick who I think will win. Bated breath, here we come:

Best Original Screenplay
What will win: Milk
What should win: Wall-E

Best Adapted Screenplay
What will win: Slumdog
What should win: Slumdog

Best Supporting Actress
Who will win: Taraji P Henson, Benjamin Button
Who should win: Taraji P Henson, Benjamin Button

Best Supporting Actor
Who will win: Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight
Who should win: Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight

Best Actress
Who will win: Kate Winslet, The Reader
Who should win: Meryl Streep, Doubt

Best Actor
Who will win: Mickey Rourke, The Wrestler
Who should win: Mickey Rourke, The Wrestler

Best Director
Who will win: Danny Boyle, Slumdog
Who should win: Danny Boyle, Slumdog

Best Picture
What will win: Slumdog Millionaire
What should win: The Dark Knight. Kidding, Benjamin Button

God of What Now?

Ho. Lee. Shit.

Up in the sky!

Please, God, no.

Superman in tight, black leather? It could happen, as Ain't It Cool News is reporting that the Wachowski brothers (of The Matrix fame) are rumored to be rebooting the Superman franchise. Bryan Singer, who directed Superman Returns, apparently has no interest in a reboot.

I liked the first couple of Superman movies, and even thought Superman Returns wasn't absolutely horrible, but the character has never really resonated with me. I like my superheroes flawed, dammit. Superman is just too...well, super. If the Wachowskis were involved, though, I think I'd give this a shot. For all the problems with the Matrix trilogy (especially the last one), it was a brilliantly inventive idea that changed action cinema. While their influence may have been for ill (I think Wanted would be a good example) there's no denying that the original Matrix is one of the best action movies ever made. And let's face it, they are already experienced with having their main character fly around. Just get rid of the sunglasses and slap on a cape instead of a trenchcoat, and you've got yourself a movie. As long as they don't just rip off Dark Knight, this seems like pretty good news.

Who Ya Got?

With Killzone 2 nearly upon us and the internet alight with threads dedicated to both its ascendancy and the obvious superiority of the PS3, I got to wondering: if you could only afford one, which system should you get? The Xbox 360 and the PS3 are largely comparable with the Wii being something of a different animal, and each have features to recommend. What I'm interested in here are the games. Specifically, exclusive games that "teh hardcorez" cares about. While most of the best games of this generation have been multi-platform affairs, each console offers something unique. So, I have taken it upon myself to compare and contrast. Halo, Helghast, or Hyrule? Let's get it on.

Xbox 360 Top 5 Exclusives

Halo 3
Gears of War franchise
Mass Effect
Left 4 Dead
Braid

Honorable mentions: Fable 2, Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter (first one), Castle Crashers, Dead Rising

While many of these games are available on the PC, the 360 is the only console that can combine the austere intellectualism of Braid with the bloodletting fragfest of Gears of War and Halo. Oh, and zombies. 360 owners love killing them some zombies.

PS3 Top 5 Exclusives

Killzone 2 (hopefully)
Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots
Ratchet and Clank Future: Tools of Destruction
Uncharted: Drake's Fortune
Little Big Planet

Honorable mentions: Resistance: Fall of Man franchise, Motorstorm franchise, Warhawk

Robust and diverse, PS3's got some damn fine exclusive games. Less heavy on shooters (maybe because the controller isn't well suited for them) but great third person action and racing games make up for it. If Killzone 2 can really live up to the hype this list is pretty impressive.

Wii Top 5 Exclusives

Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess
Super Mario Galaxy
Metroid Prime 3: Corruption
Super Smash Bros. Brawl
Wii Sports

Honorable Mentions: The Virtual Console (so many amazing games), Super Paper Mario, No More Heroes, Zak and Wiki

While the Wii's content for, you know, gamers can't be considered deep, it's pretty hard to argue with the cream of the crop. Twilight Princess is, to me, the best game of this generation, and Galaxy isn't far behind. Also, while the VC games can't truly be considered exclusive since they have been released on other systems, the variety and quality of those games can't be denied, and the Wii is the only place you can get them without plugging in the old SNES.

So, it turns out this is harder than it seems. There's really no objective standard by which to judge the systems, because each is going in a different direction for their exclusive content. If you want the really hardcore, you almost have to go 360. Even the cute and cuddly platformer, well, isn't. The PS3 probably achieves the best balance of fun and hardcore, though I think the individual games are a bit weaker overall than the 360's. The Wii makes no secret of its alleigance with fun, but Zelda and Metroid are clearly not the same as Wii Fit.

Were it me, I'd have to choose the 360. It would kill me to miss out on Mario and Zelda, but there just isn't much else there on the Wii. I LOVED Ratchet and Clank, but I could honestly live without MGS and Uncharted (difficult as that would be). I don't think I could go without playing any of the 360 top 5. Luckily for me, I don't have to make that choice, as I am fiscally irresponsible and have been able to play almost all these games (as well as the myriad multi-platformers)! If you are reading this and give a shit, what do you think?

A-Roid

Robert DeNiro, while portraying Al Capone in the film The Untouchables, gave a speech about the duality of baseball. While at bat, a player is out for individual achievement. But, he says, you get nowhere "unless the team wins." Then he proceeded to bash one of his lieutenants repeatedly with a baseball bat, so as to make his point more forcefully. I'm not sure why I kept thinking about that scene today after learning that Alex Rodriquez tested positive for using anabolic steroids in 2003. Maybe it's because everyone in baseball forgot that it's about the team. Forgot that individual achievement at any cost is antithetical to the point of baseball.

This story is, in many ways, more fascinating than the Barry Bonds saga. Its easy to villify Bonds, a selfish, surly malcontent who never connected with fans even when he was breaking every record in the book. A-Rod, though, was supposed to be different. Sure, he seemed a little too clean cut, a little too perfect, but he was the guy who would restore order to the baseball galaxy. He'd ride in on his white horse and smash Bonds' record, and he'd do it without a siringe hanging off his ass cheek. Even with the recent bullshit with Madonna, and cheating on his wife, and being called out as "A-Fraud" and "Single White Female" in Joe Torre's book, at least he was clean. He was someone that kids could look up to for "doing it the right way". So what if he was insecure, or had a weird personal life? When he was on the field, you could look at him and see what a baseball player is supposed to be.

Now, all of that is gone. And, with it, the thin veneer that baseball from 1990-2003 was even remotely on the level. We all hung on, hoping that it wasn't really as bad as all that, and that while a few big stars were taking steroids the rest were clean. With A-Rod falling (and, I'd bet, many more to come if the entire list was leaked) we can't delude ourselves anymore. Baseball for most of my childhood was completely fraudulent. In a lot of ways, I feel like my childhood is being taken away. I don't say that lightly, because baseball really was the most important thing in my life from the time I was 8 until I was about 15 or 16. It's tough to look back on the 1996 and 1997 Orioles fondly any more, because it seems likely that many of the players on those teams were juicing.

Rather than look at this as devastating news, however, I'm inclined to see it as the light at the end of the tunnel. Lies don't end until the truth comes out. I have been suspicious of A-Rod for a while now, and while I'm not happy to find out that he used steroids it is a hell of a lot better than not knowing for sure. I want to kick the dust of that era off my feet and move into a new day for baseball. That probably won't truly happen until guys like A-Rod retire, but I think the sea change is in full effect. Now that baseball has a strong drug testing policy, it's no longer a game of Russian roulette to root for younger players. I don't have to really worry that I'll see Nick Markakis' name on ESPN for being linked to steroids. I can look at guys like David Wright, Ryan Braun, and (I grit my teeth as I write this) Dustin Pedroia and be excited about the game's new direction. Yeah, there will always be those who try to skirt the rules and do whatever they can to get an edge, but I think we are past the time when steroid use is a raging epidemic. It is becoming the exception, not the rule.

Baseball is no longer a game for individual achievement. If nothing else, hopefully the steroid era will finally end the obsession with numbers. Maybe we can get to a point where hitting 40 home runs is a monumental achievement like it used to be. Maybe we won't have to have cartoon figures hitting massive bombs, but instead enjoy the 6-4-3 a little more. Maybe kids being born today won't have to look back at their childhood memories and shake their heads. Maybe A-Rod can do more for the game than breaking Bonds' record ever could.

Classy

Oh no, drunken frat boy assholes! No outside beer at the Preakness infield! Now the Preakness can't look like the red headed stepchild of horse racing. Thank fucking God.

Way Down in the Hole

When I tell people I'm from the Baltimore area, one of the first questions they ask is "Do you watch The Wire"? I had always been ashamed to admit that, no, I didn't. Not that I had no interest, but I didn't have HBO for much of the time the show was on, and also didn't find out it existed until too late to really get into it. Since TV shows on DVD are stupidly expensive I thought it would be a while before I watched it, if ever. However, I got to borrow the first season from a friend, and I was instantly hooked. Obviously, I had to buy the rest.

The Wire is without question one of the greatest television shows of all time. That doesn't mean, however, that it is one of the most enjoyable shows I have ever seen. In fact, it is unique in that it doesn't really seek to entertain. The show always had poor ratings, which can be attributed to the complicated plots and relatively slow moving action. Its gritty and realistic look at the Baltimore drug trade is both fascinating and depressing, but I can understand why many people couldn't get into it. If you stick with it, though, The Wire is incredibly rewarding, if not always in the ways you'd expect.

While watching the show, I'd find myself comparing it to HBO's other giant drama, The Sopranos. While The Sopranos is definitely more entertaining, it is a shame that its popularity far eclipsed that of The Wire, because the gap in quality is pretty large. While I really like the Sopranos, its overwrought drama and often pointlessly "psychoanalytic" nature left me cold. I suppose one could think of The Sopranos as more of an elaborate joke on the audience, tricking us into wanting someone like Tony to succeed. The Wire has none of that. Characters are presented as a part of their own worlds with no editorial comment, leaving the viewer to decide how they feel about individual people. It isn't fair to say that the line between good and evil is blurry, because I think the Wire argues that there is no such line. Baltimore is (I think accurately) portrayed as a city that America left behind and both the criminals and police have to deal with that reality. Police futilely make arrests on drug corners to simply create an impression that "something is being done", while drug murders are a part of everyday life in the city.

Baltimore itself is the main character in the show. Being from the area, I am surprised at the lengths the show takes to analyze Baltimorean attitudes and customs. While most big cities have their own identity, I think it is fair to say that Baltimore is more uniquely idiosyncratic than most. The sense of abandonment, provinciality, and tradition all merge together to form the Balimore identity, and The Wire captures this perfectly. The show always feels like Baltimore, an impressive feat for any show to pull off.

Of course, the only way to make a place feel realistic is to have actors that can pull it off. While some (Dominic West for example) have received a modicum of more mainstream success, most of the actors in the show are complete unknowns. A shame, too, because The Wire is without a doubt the best acted show I have ever seen. The majority of the cast consists of young, black actors, many of whom have only appeared on the show. What makes this incredibly impressive is that every actor, every single one, is completely believable and perfect for their role. People with only 5 minutes of screen time come alive like nothing I have ever seen. The ensemble nature and changing cast always keeps the story fresh, and the fragility of life in Baltimore means you can never get too attached. This isn't handled like it is in shows like 24, Lost, or the Sopranos, though. Murders are never committed for shock value, but rather are just the logical culmination of a character's path. I can honestly say I was never surprised to see a character get killed, even if I wasn't at all expecting it.

Now, I won't lie and say that every episode is an exercise in brilliance. In fact, I'd argue that the only way to fully appreciate The Wire is to see the whole thing. It is a shining example of something that is far greater than the sum of its parts. While the seasons are not connected in one storyline, each one serves a crucial role in understanding the city and the characters' motivations. Viewed on their own merits, most episodes don't have a particularly standout "Oh my God!" moment. The mundanity of the police procedure and drug corner lifestyle, however, makes those moments feel more real and more important. As I mentioned, things don't just "happen" in The Wire. Everything is part of the tapestry the show weaved for five seasons that culminates in perhaps the most satisfying series finale ever, even if much is left unresolved. Because that is the point. In Baltimore, nothing ever changes.

Last year was better.

I hate the Steelers. One thing I hate almost as much as the Steelers is over-emotional sports-writing that gets caught up in the moment. Super Bowl XLIII was a close game in the end. It certainly should have been closer (why no official review on the "fumble" at the end of the game?). There were a lot of weird situations and weird calls, and I'm willing to admit that they went both ways.

But there is no way it was more exciting than the 5th-seed New York Giants upsetting the undefeated New England Patriots, largely on a phenomenal play by Eli Manning and David Tyree. Ten years from now, we'll remember Super Bowl XLII for its greatness. Let's not forget it today- it was only a year ago.

Caution: The link above may take you to a page that includes a video of Hines Ward.