Alles in Wonderland A collection of sediments at the delta of my stream of consciousness.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Thursday, February 18, 2010
What Averagely Makes a Movie Awesome
Since I’ll be doing movie reviews on this blog from time to time, I think it’s time to introduce the “Brent Alles' What Averagely Makes a Movie Awesome List” (patent pending). This is subject to change, but below are the “top 12” criteria as they currently stand (listed alphabetically, not necessarily by awesomeness).
BRENT ALLES' WHAT AVERAGELY MAKES A MOVIE AWESOME LIST (2010)
1. Aliens. From outer space, not immigrants.
2. Explosions. KA-BOOM!
3. Giant Monsters. GO GO GODZILLA!
4. Mobsters. From any era.
5. Ninjas. Preferably wearing black. See also http://www.realultimatepower.net/
6. Robots. Metallic form is preferred.
7. Space Combat. Preferably small ships against an impossibly large target.
8. Superheroes. Preferably in their original costumes from the comic books, not some “realistic” Hollywood idea of what a superhero costume should look like.
9. Supervillains. Mad scientists would definitely fit into this category; I'll also accept the weirdos from Dick Tracy and the like.
10. Time Travel. Preferably in a DeLorean, though other forms are acceptable.
11. Vampires. Not the moping, navel-gazing kind found in Twilight; I’m talking the bad-@$$ bloodsuckers found in Hammer films from the 1950’s and 1960’s and their proper descendants.
12. Werewolves. Again, the scary kind; not Taylor Lautner with his shirt off.
A film's WAMAMA Scale, then, is determined by how many of the above elements are in a given movie. More elements mean a better chance of being awesome. (Hence the insertion of the word "Averagely," since having something from the above list doesn't guarantee awesomeness; e.g., there have been plenty of awful films with space combat in them, believe it or not.)
For example, Star Wars (any of them) would have a WAMAMA Rating of 8, based on the following:
· Aliens. Check.
· Explosions. Check check.
· Giant Monsters. Check. The snow beast and asteroid worm from Empire Strikes Back are two good examples.
· Mobsters. Jabba the Hut is a mobster. (And contrary to some rumors, Marlon Brando did NOT play him; he wanted too much money.)
· Ninjas. I’ll stretch here and count the Jedis in this category.
· Robots. Plentiful.
· Space Combat. It’s not called Star Wars for nuthin’.
· Superheroes. Even though they’re not wearing comic book costumes, I would count Luke Skywalker and Han Solo in this category. And hey, Star Wars has appeared in comic book form in several manifestations.
For additional reference, “Valentine’s Day,” which I reviewed recently, would have a WAMAMA Scale of 0. (I’m not counting Ashton Kutcher as an “alien,” though maybe I should.)
That’s not to say that a movie with a higher score on the WAMAMA Scale is "awesomer" (me teach English - hi!) than another that at least qualifies with one of the criteria. For example, “Back to the Future,” one of my favorite film trilogies of all time, only has a 2 on the WAMAMA scale (“Time Travel” and "Explosions"), but it’s still almost as AWESOME as Star Wars. (And it beats the 1990's/2000's prequel trilogy quite handily, thank you very much.)
If you have your own ideas of “WAMAMA”, feel free to add them below, Rabbit Holers!
BRENT ALLES' WHAT AVERAGELY MAKES A MOVIE AWESOME LIST (2010)
1. Aliens. From outer space, not immigrants.
2. Explosions. KA-BOOM!
3. Giant Monsters. GO GO GODZILLA!
4. Mobsters. From any era.
5. Ninjas. Preferably wearing black. See also http://www.realultimatepower.net/
6. Robots. Metallic form is preferred.
7. Space Combat. Preferably small ships against an impossibly large target.
8. Superheroes. Preferably in their original costumes from the comic books, not some “realistic” Hollywood idea of what a superhero costume should look like.
9. Supervillains. Mad scientists would definitely fit into this category; I'll also accept the weirdos from Dick Tracy and the like.
10. Time Travel. Preferably in a DeLorean, though other forms are acceptable.
11. Vampires. Not the moping, navel-gazing kind found in Twilight; I’m talking the bad-@$$ bloodsuckers found in Hammer films from the 1950’s and 1960’s and their proper descendants.
12. Werewolves. Again, the scary kind; not Taylor Lautner with his shirt off.
A film's WAMAMA Scale, then, is determined by how many of the above elements are in a given movie. More elements mean a better chance of being awesome. (Hence the insertion of the word "Averagely," since having something from the above list doesn't guarantee awesomeness; e.g., there have been plenty of awful films with space combat in them, believe it or not.)
For example, Star Wars (any of them) would have a WAMAMA Rating of 8, based on the following:
· Aliens. Check.
· Explosions. Check check.
· Giant Monsters. Check. The snow beast and asteroid worm from Empire Strikes Back are two good examples.
· Mobsters. Jabba the Hut is a mobster. (And contrary to some rumors, Marlon Brando did NOT play him; he wanted too much money.)
· Ninjas. I’ll stretch here and count the Jedis in this category.
· Robots. Plentiful.
· Space Combat. It’s not called Star Wars for nuthin’.
· Superheroes. Even though they’re not wearing comic book costumes, I would count Luke Skywalker and Han Solo in this category. And hey, Star Wars has appeared in comic book form in several manifestations.
For additional reference, “Valentine’s Day,” which I reviewed recently, would have a WAMAMA Scale of 0. (I’m not counting Ashton Kutcher as an “alien,” though maybe I should.)
That’s not to say that a movie with a higher score on the WAMAMA Scale is "awesomer" (me teach English - hi!) than another that at least qualifies with one of the criteria. For example, “Back to the Future,” one of my favorite film trilogies of all time, only has a 2 on the WAMAMA scale (“Time Travel” and "Explosions"), but it’s still almost as AWESOME as Star Wars. (And it beats the 1990's/2000's prequel trilogy quite handily, thank you very much.)
If you have your own ideas of “WAMAMA”, feel free to add them below, Rabbit Holers!
Monday, February 15, 2010
Kevin Smith: Too Fat to Fly?
The Internet is all abuzz today over "Clerks" director Kevin Smith getting kicked off a Southwest Airlines flight due to his size. (If you haven't heard about it, go ahead and Google it and then come back - I'll wait.) Smith then sent forth a lipase storm of Tweets from his Twitter account expressing his outrage.
As someone who's also struggling to get his weight down, I feel for him. On my recent flight to Salt Lake City (on Delta Airlines - good airline in my experience, by the way), the nagging worry was in the back of my mind the whole time that I might get that tap on my shoulder indicating I was too big for my seat and I would either have to (a) pay for an extra seat (not really feasible) or (b) take a later flight where the seat next to me was open (which wasn't actually conducive with the tight schedule I had to get to SLC). Fortunately, I worried for nothing; I was lucky enough to have the seat empty next to me on the plan ride over and lucky enough to sit next to people that weren't as big as me on the other flights. (And to my occasional seatmates - I tried to compress myself and even contort myself uncomfortably to give you as much room as I could.)
I am determined to get the weight off permanently so that this won't be a problem in the future, but for now I'm torn on who to support in this Kevin Smith issue. I understand why the airlines have to operate the way they do; on the other hand, there would be nothing more humiliating than getting the boot off an airplane due to your size. Do I think Smith needed to make as big of a deal as he has about it? Probably not.
The usual snarky comments of course populated the message boards and other electronic hang-outs regarding Smith's incident. And there is a point to their snipes (even if they are all jerky about it to varying degrees) - we of a larger size all do have to work on getting our weight down and being healthy. No argument there. Conversely, we still have to respect each other as human beings, no matter what our size, and sometimes you have to use air travel to get where you need to go. And I don't think those airline seats are even comfortable for the skinny people, let alone those of us who go on the other end of the bulbous bell curve.
Bottom line - if I'm not working to get my weight down, then you can complain all you want, but maybe we people of larger size need to start wearing "Scarlet D's" for "dieting" or "E"'s for "exercising" so that people know that we are at least trying.
What do you think, Rabbit Holers?
As someone who's also struggling to get his weight down, I feel for him. On my recent flight to Salt Lake City (on Delta Airlines - good airline in my experience, by the way), the nagging worry was in the back of my mind the whole time that I might get that tap on my shoulder indicating I was too big for my seat and I would either have to (a) pay for an extra seat (not really feasible) or (b) take a later flight where the seat next to me was open (which wasn't actually conducive with the tight schedule I had to get to SLC). Fortunately, I worried for nothing; I was lucky enough to have the seat empty next to me on the plan ride over and lucky enough to sit next to people that weren't as big as me on the other flights. (And to my occasional seatmates - I tried to compress myself and even contort myself uncomfortably to give you as much room as I could.)
I am determined to get the weight off permanently so that this won't be a problem in the future, but for now I'm torn on who to support in this Kevin Smith issue. I understand why the airlines have to operate the way they do; on the other hand, there would be nothing more humiliating than getting the boot off an airplane due to your size. Do I think Smith needed to make as big of a deal as he has about it? Probably not.
The usual snarky comments of course populated the message boards and other electronic hang-outs regarding Smith's incident. And there is a point to their snipes (even if they are all jerky about it to varying degrees) - we of a larger size all do have to work on getting our weight down and being healthy. No argument there. Conversely, we still have to respect each other as human beings, no matter what our size, and sometimes you have to use air travel to get where you need to go. And I don't think those airline seats are even comfortable for the skinny people, let alone those of us who go on the other end of the bulbous bell curve.
Bottom line - if I'm not working to get my weight down, then you can complain all you want, but maybe we people of larger size need to start wearing "Scarlet D's" for "dieting" or "E"'s for "exercising" so that people know that we are at least trying.
What do you think, Rabbit Holers?
Sunday, February 14, 2010
"Valentine's Day"
Ah, February 14. I remember my college days when my social life was pretty much nil, and so I was a member of the "Black ------- Society" (------- representing whatever the day of the week Valentine's Day happened to fall on that year). The only upside of not having a significant other on Valentine's Day is that you won't be forced to see movies like "Valentine's Day."
Look, I love my wife, and I'm gone a lot doing things like dressing up in a black panther suit to entertain children (long story), so from time to time I do things out of (a) love and (b) appeasement (in that order). Hence, after a very nice dinner tonight, I took her to see "Valentine's Day," starring everybody in Hollywood who apparently had a free day in their schedule last year. Would I have preferred to see "The Wolfman"? Yes. Did Camille want to see "The Wolfman"? Absolutely not. So it doesn't take a major military strategist to know who's going to win this battle.
First off, let me say that I tolerate "VD" (shorthand for "Valentine's Day" for the rest of this piece, and yes, let's get the childish giggle out of the way NOW) director Garry Marshall, as he's done some quality work in the past. The man created "Mork and Mindy," after all. That's right, "Mork and Mindy," treasured show of my childhood. Don't laugh... you know you loved it as well. (Yeah, I know Marshall also created "Happy Days." That show did not have Jonathan Winters playing an alien baby. My case is closed.)
One of Marshall's big hits in filmdom was of course "Pretty Woman," and I amused myself during the 125-minute "VD" (way too long for a romantic comedy, if you ask me, and you probably didn't) by counting the number of "Pretty Woman" actors that received a quick paycheck by appearing in this film. Julia Roberts... check. Hector Elizondo... check. Larry Miller... check. OK, that's about it. WHERE ARE THE REST OF THE "PRETTY WOMAN" ACTORS, MARSHALL? Laura San Giacomo's gotta eat! "Just Shoot Me" residuals won't support her the rest of her life!
(Quick disclaimer - Marshall also directed the film version of "Frankie and Johnny," which is one of my all-time-favorite movies of the 90's, so, again, I'm not going with blind hatred for him here or anything.)
"Valentine's Day" is a mash-up of a bunch of pretty people WITH PROBLEMS having to deal with the EXTREME pressures of February 14. (As well as Shirley MacLaine and Hector Elizondo for the senior set.) The problem is that there are so many friggin' stories with so many friggin' people that you end up caring not a whit for any of them. I mean, take Ashton Kutcher, fachrissake ASHTON KUTCHER, who actually had me caring for him as an actor in this film and not, for once, wishing him to die some sort of appropriately ironic death. However, due to the other 2963 subplots going on in the movie, you're not allowed to invest in his character or story at all, so in the end you just wonder why only two of the people from "That 70's Show" got cast in this (Topher Grace being the other) and not the rest. FEZ NEEDS TO EAT TOO, GARRY MARSHALL!
There are some nice moments here and there in this film, but they're overwhelmed by the moments that had my eyeballs rolling out of my head and clattering on the floor. The ratio of one to the other was not good.
Look, I know, I know. It's a romantic comedy. It's SUPPOSED to be formulaic. And it is, for the most part. It actually crams 364 romantic comedies into one mess of a peasant stew of a movie. There were a couple of genuine shocks (to me) in the story, including one involving two of the main characters that got a largely inappropriate reaction from the capacity crowd I saw it with. (Hey, it's West Michigan, I'm sure you can figure it out if you try hard enough.) The rest, though -you knew what was going to happen when the opening credits rolled.
"VD" also has way-too-precocious kids and way-too-many-cutesy animals, so by the end I felt like I was having a box of chocolates crammed down my throat. There are enough actors I like in this film to get my attention (always love seeing Jennifer Garner), but there's TOO MANY of them. If you're going to have this many stars assembled, then make them participate in a circus, like they did back in the 70's. You know, when they made quality stuff like "Mork and Mindy."
I need to watch something with blood and guts now to wash the cotton candy out of my brain.
GRADE: C (is for cookie, though that's not good enough for me in this case)
Disagree? Comment below, Rabbit Holers.
Look, I love my wife, and I'm gone a lot doing things like dressing up in a black panther suit to entertain children (long story), so from time to time I do things out of (a) love and (b) appeasement (in that order). Hence, after a very nice dinner tonight, I took her to see "Valentine's Day," starring everybody in Hollywood who apparently had a free day in their schedule last year. Would I have preferred to see "The Wolfman"? Yes. Did Camille want to see "The Wolfman"? Absolutely not. So it doesn't take a major military strategist to know who's going to win this battle.
First off, let me say that I tolerate "VD" (shorthand for "Valentine's Day" for the rest of this piece, and yes, let's get the childish giggle out of the way NOW) director Garry Marshall, as he's done some quality work in the past. The man created "Mork and Mindy," after all. That's right, "Mork and Mindy," treasured show of my childhood. Don't laugh... you know you loved it as well. (Yeah, I know Marshall also created "Happy Days." That show did not have Jonathan Winters playing an alien baby. My case is closed.)
One of Marshall's big hits in filmdom was of course "Pretty Woman," and I amused myself during the 125-minute "VD" (way too long for a romantic comedy, if you ask me, and you probably didn't) by counting the number of "Pretty Woman" actors that received a quick paycheck by appearing in this film. Julia Roberts... check. Hector Elizondo... check. Larry Miller... check. OK, that's about it. WHERE ARE THE REST OF THE "PRETTY WOMAN" ACTORS, MARSHALL? Laura San Giacomo's gotta eat! "Just Shoot Me" residuals won't support her the rest of her life!
(Quick disclaimer - Marshall also directed the film version of "Frankie and Johnny," which is one of my all-time-favorite movies of the 90's, so, again, I'm not going with blind hatred for him here or anything.)
"Valentine's Day" is a mash-up of a bunch of pretty people WITH PROBLEMS having to deal with the EXTREME pressures of February 14. (As well as Shirley MacLaine and Hector Elizondo for the senior set.) The problem is that there are so many friggin' stories with so many friggin' people that you end up caring not a whit for any of them. I mean, take Ashton Kutcher, fachrissake ASHTON KUTCHER, who actually had me caring for him as an actor in this film and not, for once, wishing him to die some sort of appropriately ironic death. However, due to the other 2963 subplots going on in the movie, you're not allowed to invest in his character or story at all, so in the end you just wonder why only two of the people from "That 70's Show" got cast in this (Topher Grace being the other) and not the rest. FEZ NEEDS TO EAT TOO, GARRY MARSHALL!
There are some nice moments here and there in this film, but they're overwhelmed by the moments that had my eyeballs rolling out of my head and clattering on the floor. The ratio of one to the other was not good.
Look, I know, I know. It's a romantic comedy. It's SUPPOSED to be formulaic. And it is, for the most part. It actually crams 364 romantic comedies into one mess of a peasant stew of a movie. There were a couple of genuine shocks (to me) in the story, including one involving two of the main characters that got a largely inappropriate reaction from the capacity crowd I saw it with. (Hey, it's West Michigan, I'm sure you can figure it out if you try hard enough.) The rest, though -you knew what was going to happen when the opening credits rolled.
"VD" also has way-too-precocious kids and way-too-many-cutesy animals, so by the end I felt like I was having a box of chocolates crammed down my throat. There are enough actors I like in this film to get my attention (always love seeing Jennifer Garner), but there's TOO MANY of them. If you're going to have this many stars assembled, then make them participate in a circus, like they did back in the 70's. You know, when they made quality stuff like "Mork and Mindy."
I need to watch something with blood and guts now to wash the cotton candy out of my brain.
GRADE: C (is for cookie, though that's not good enough for me in this case)
Disagree? Comment below, Rabbit Holers.
Welcome to Alles in Wonderland
All right, so sometimes I have thoughts that are too big for a Facebook status update, so here they will go. I am fully aware that probably only my friends and family will ever read this, and those probably only by constant nagging, but to any visitors who accidentally stumble down the rabbit hole into this stream of consciousness I call my brain... WELCOME.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)