2000 - 2009

CONS

• September 11th Terrorist Attack, and countless others
• Hurricane Katrina
• The War in Afghanistan
• The War in Iraq II
• October 2008 Financial Crisis
• Patriot Act
• Secret CIA prisons found in Germany
• Abu Ghraib
• Torture/Waterboarding
• Global Warming consensus reached, US refuses Kyoto
• Crash winning Best Picture
• MySpace

PROS

• First Black US President
• Facebook
• iPhone
• iPod

GOOD RIDDANCE. 

In Defense of Dane Cook

I turned on the TV today and a movie called Employee of the Month appeared. I watched it for about 13 seconds, turned the TV off, went to the bathroom, sat on the toilet and pondered this question, "Why does everyone hate Dane Cook?"

I didn't come out for 45 minutes.

I think the main reason people hate Dane Cook is that he steals jokes. But this isn't really a reason because every comic in history has stolen jokes. One might say, "Well Dane Cook steals more than others". But that isn't a justification. The guy who steals $1,000 is just as culpable as the guy who steals $1,000,000. Moral relativism doesn't exist in comedy, nor anything else.

The next reason is that he is annoying. But is that really enough to hate someone? I mean, let's face it—a lot of people have a deep-seeded hatred for the guy. I know plenty of annoying people—you do what you should've learned when you were a child—ignore them. Done.

The last possible reason someone could hate Dane Cook is because he is not good at his job—making people laugh. I don't find him funny at all. But I can't hate someone for not being good at their job when their job is to make me laugh. I mean it's comedy, who gives a shit. It's not like he's a legislator, or a judge, or a cop, or a financial analyst. Let's be honest—nothing bad can come from Dane Cook being a shitty comic. You're not going to be wrongfully accused of a crime and you're not going to have your car repo-ed. Sure he makes a crapload of money but if you hate him for that then you're clearly just jealous.

The Oldness of New

Time seems to have an interesting effect on people, or rather, the effects that time brings to a culture are interesting. I saw Avatar in theaters last week and it was astounding—both technically and narratively. It was one of the most satisfying movie-going experiences I've had in recent years and it makes me want to revise my Top Movies of 2009 entry.

The reviews of Avatar have been positive—but they haven't been as positive as I've anticipated. In fact, I was one of thirty people in the theater at a 5:40pm showing. I was expecting a full house. The consensus at the end was simply that it was "a good movie". Most of the audience cheered at the end. And while that is important, and I am satisfied with that response, it got me thinking—if it used the SFX of the day, what if Avatar came out in 1977?

Recall for a moment—Star Wars was an epic, mind-blowing, paradigm-shifting film of the 1970s (one of many). It was noted for it's technical achievements, as well as providing an immersive universe that people are still going ape shit over. It introduced unforgettable characters, worlds, stories, and (coincidentally) merchandise. I believe that Star Wars will be impossible to erase from human history. When aliens are visiting our planet thousands of years from now, and digging through the rubble, they'll have a pretty good idea of what Star Wars was really about. It's penetrated our culture as much as Stonehenge, the Pyramids of Egypt, and Snuggies. The thorn in my brain is the idea that Star Wars and Avatar aren't that much different. Yet both produced incredibly different responses—one colossal and timeless, the other not so much. And the answer, I think, lies in timing.

First, let me show you how both films compare. This is a (most probably) incomplete list of the qualities that both Star Wars and Avatar have in common. Please note though, that all of these similarities have entirely different contexts within each narrative:

• Huge-budgeted epic science fiction
• Ground-breaking technical achievements
• Directed by cinematic trailblazer
• Borrowed iconography (notably from the Western genre) supplanted into sci-fi
• Reluctant hero who rises to lead a rebellion against the fascist opposition
• Hero learns the ways of the Mystical (the Force and biological connectivity respectively)
• Mechanized war-fighting units against forest critters with bows, arrows, slings, and stone weapons (Return of the Jedi specifically and Avatar respectively)

Star Wars and Avatar are incredibly similar. Yet both received very different responses. A small part of the reason unfortunately is the World Wide Web. Forum trolls love to bash anything. If something comes out that has the potential to be successful, these trolls feel obligated to trash it. This trolling can eventually become the dominant zeitgeist and can ruin a great thing.

But I think the main issue that Avatar faces is simply the day and age. The modern movie-goer simply is harder to please. The 70s was the New Golden Era for cinema. Today, we're much too cynical. We've been saturated with remakes, reboots, re-incarnations, and sequels that we just don't give a shit anymore. We don't see anything new. In fact, this entry might be counter-productive. While I am defending Avatar and showing how similar it is to the incredibly successful and mind-blowing Star Wars, that might make one think that I'm saying it's a rip-off. But I'm not and Avatar certainly isn't. This is postmodernism at it's worst. It has failed Avatar mostly because no one really knows what postmodernism is. When Star Wars came out, no one complained that opening sequence mirrored Buck Rogers. But when the trailer for Avatar premiered, no one could stop talking about how the Na'vi looked like the Thundercats. Again, internet memes had a huge role in this.

Apparently, James Cameron has no imagination. 

Instead of seeing postmodernism as a benefit to the artistic palette, most people see it as lazy writing, directing, or storytelling. The audiences and critics require material that is 100% authentic and original. Nothing can be borrowed because we can now splice images together in Photoshop and show everyone how similar they are, even though they mean completely different things.

And because of this saturation, Avatar will only be deemed "good" rather than "on par with groundbreaking epics like Star Wars". The truth is, Avatar is this generation's Star Wars but no one will ever see it that way. And it's not simply because anything old is good or better; it's because anything new simply feels done already. Has Hollywood or anyone else run out of ideas? Absolutely not. But I definitely think the word "idea" has changed. Perhaps for the better, perhaps not.

Top Six Movies of 2009 (That I Saw)

The best movies always come out toward the end of the year (i.e. Awards Season) and it sucks because I never have any time to go see them. So at the end of February, I can't add any kind of lament or exuberance to the winners of the Academy Awards. So this is in no way the best films of the year, rather just the best ones that I saw. There may be spoilers, so if you haven't seen these films, maybe catch 'em first and come back.

The Hurt Locker

A great example of a highly calculated and executed thriller/action film is The Hurt Locker, from sorely under-utilized (although hopefully not anymore) Katherine Bigelow. But it also provides an interesting glimpse into the life of a modern day war-junkie. War is a polarizing thing. You either love it or hate it and for Jeremy Renner's character in this film—he absolutely can not function without it.

There is a moment that is a unique mixture of grotesque and hilarious. Just after Sergeant First Class William James (Renner) proves his insane war addiction, he runs down a hill, away from two other characters. Out of earshot, the two other characters decide whether or not to kill James before he gets them killed. They decide not to. This moment clearly defines the modern stage of war and sets it apart from other more "wholesome" war films.

Where the Wild Things Are

I hated children's movies when I was a child. Classic animated films and movies just never interested me and at the time I didn't know why. After watching Where the Wild Things Are, I can tell you why I stayed away from those movies.

Children's films are inherently condescending—from the subject matter, to the direction, editing, and writing. And it's understandable. Adults are condescending to children and adults make films. Anytime I'm around children and adults, I observe the way they speak to one another. Children are unequivocally honest and forthright. Adults speak to children like they are idiots. Innocence is mistaken for novelty or worse, for ignorance.

But Where the Wild Things Are refuses to submit to the children's film paradigm of condescension. So much so that children may not like the film. Unfortunately, they've been indoctrinated to accept the behavior of adults as "normal". And that really sucks.

This film captures what it means to be a child better than any children's film or book that I've ever come across. It has depth, emotion, and sincerity.

District 9

I saw an interview with Neil Blomkamp, the director of District 9, that made me believe that he will be the next visionary director along the lines of James Cameron. He was discussing the creative direction of the special effects of the film. He said that he wanted to make the SFX unintrusive to the film and to maintain the documentary-like cinéma vérité style. This of course is the complete opposite of what every director has done in the past. SFX is expensive and time consuming—what on Earth would make someone want to put it on the backburner? SFX are centerpieces but more often then not, they are also simply eye-candy. If any other director had seen the opening footage of the mothership going in and out of frame, the SFX coordinator would have been fired. But Blomkamp wanted that. Here's a guy with a SFX background working on a movie with incredible effects, and making it subjugated to the narrative. That is cinematic progress.

Besides the SFX direction, the story is superb. I read one review (can't remember from who though) that likened it to a tradition Hitchcockian thriller—the man-on-the-run-trying-to-clear-his-name pursued by two nefarious agencies. It's smart storytelling with fabulous effects.

Inglourious Basterds

This is classic Tarantino—he takes his pulp fiction sensibilities to the war genre with zero regard for history. Mad props to Brad Pitt, Melanie Laurent, and Christoph Waltz (who I had never heard of before this film) for their top-notch performances. After watching this film, I realized Tarantino is quite talented for creating really likable villains. Waltz's character is called the "Jew Hunter" and could be easily despised yet I found myself falling for his charm and charisma (which certainly had a lot to do with the actor's performance).

This movie is great for a lot of reasons—for one it re-affirms the idea that Nazis were the scum of the Earth and that their horrifically cinematic mutilation will not draw pity from anyone of any ethic or cultural background. And two, of the two hundred machine gun rounds fired into Hitler, at least half of them went into his face. Oh Tarantino, you would.

Star Trek

Despite the awesomeness of this movie, JJ Abrams accomplished a near-impossible task—he took quite possibly the nerdiest franchise in history and made it cool (the only other example that comes to mind is the newest TV incarnation of Battlestar Galatica, although many would maintain that it's coolness is a direct result of the casting of Edward James Almos).

But let's be honest, this movie is cool, and that may it's only flaw. Many have said that it's "a Star Trek movie for people who don't like Star Trek". Well, that might disqualify it from being a Star Trek movie in the first place, because the things that make a Star Trek movie are curiously absent. There's no rumination on space or a philosophical twist that was always so prominent in previous Star Trek installments.

Regardless of my nit-picking—this film is kick-ass. Stellar action, direction and acting from Chris Pine as Kirk. But the one who steals the show is Zachary Quinto in his portrayal of Spock.

I Love You, Man

I might get a lot of flack for this but I'll say it anyway. I Love You, Man was my favorite comedy of 2009. Yes, I liked it more than The Hangover. And I liked it for a very simple reason. Both films were hysterical in their own right but I Love You, Man felt like a smaller movie. Even though I liked Star Trek, I always tend to enjoy films that are smaller in scale. I like movies that exist in a neighborhood. The characters, emotions, and conflicts seem more honest and real.

I Love You, Man is a movie about a man looking for friendship. I think it's hilarious because of the truth behind the comedy. Despite the recent explosion of "bromance" comedy, I Love You, Man remains sincere and hilarious without submitting to the newly exploited cliche.