missmediajunkie

I'm too young to have seen the original "Cosmos" series hosted by Carl Sagan, which ran on PBS way back in 1980. However, I saw my share of nature and science programming in a similar vein as a kid, and enjoyed them. Lots of "Nova" and "Nature," and various educational documentary shorts screened in school or on museum trips. So I had a pretty good idea of what to expect from the new "Cosmos," which is inexplicably airing Sunday nights on the FOX television network, and being produced by "Family Guy" creator Seth McFarlane.

Well, maybe McFarlane's involvement isn't so inexplicable. "Cosmos" stands out from the rest of the crowd for its use of lots of CGI special effects, and there have been animated segments in each of the three episodes that have aired so far. The visual spectacle goes a long way in helping to keep my interest in the science lessons delivered by astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson. Though Tyson makes for a very engaging lecturer, the American television audience wants shiny CGI, and boy do they get it. Gorgeous shots of celestial bodies are constantly displayed for us to marvel at. In the second episode, prehistoric creatures and microscopic structures are rendered for us in loving detail with computer animation. There's lots of green screen work, as Tyson interacts with a spiffy looking "ship of the imagination" and takes a walk on a giant "cosmic calendar."

So far the material has been great. The first episode covered a lot of astronomy concepts I was already pretty familiar with and had seen other programs cover in a similar, though less snazzy fashion. The second and third were more interesting for me because it was my first exposure to some of the concepts and ideas. I especially liked the use of the domestication of wolves into dogs as the lead-in to the discussion of evolutionary mechanisms and the development of life on Earth. I assumed from the title that "Cosmos" was only going to cover space exploration, but it looks everything related to science is going to be fair game, with outer space serving as a jumping-off point to get into all kinds of different topics. Personally, I'm hoping that we get into the climate change debate in future episodes.

I have a few nitpicks about the production, most of the them pretty minor. The longer 2D animated segments done with Flash look a little cheap next to all the CGI. Last night's program used a lot of it to relate the history of Isaac Newton's writing and publishing of the "Principia Mathematica," and the famous coffeehouse wager between Edmond Halley and Robert Hooke regarding planetary motion. In shorter doses these segments are all right, but the longer ones just highlight how stiff and limited the animation is. Also, the show tends to get carried away with the pageantry. This is especially evident with the full blown orchestral score, composed by Alan Silvestri, which tends to sound much too concerned about being big and impressive. They could stand to tone down the fireworks a bit.

"Cosmos" stands out as an anomaly on network television because it is so high-minded and so ambitious. I don't think there's been anything comparable since the "Planet Earth" documentary series, and even that didn't have the same pointedly educational aims. While I've been enjoying "Cosmos" and applaud its creators and the FOX networks for airing it, I can't help but be mystified as to how the new show managed to happen in the current television landscape. Is Seth McFarlane's leverage so great that he get a thirteen-part science documentary on primetime solely as a passion project? Is someone at FOX purposely trying to pursue loftier programming choices as a new tactic in light of their "American Idol" numbers cratering?

I have to bring up the fact that FOX's news organization has traditionally been very right-wing and anti-science. And of course, the new "Cosmos" is already drawing fire from anti-evolution folks, particularly after the second episode which devoted a good amount of its screen time to laying out the case for natural selection and directly addressed some anti-evolution positions. The cognitive dissonance going on is pretty breathtaking, even though FOX News and the other FOX subsidiaries have always had very little to do with each other. I have to say it's nice to get something so pro-science in a year where we're seeing a resurgence of Bible epics at the box office and the culture war shows no signs of abating.

But I'm getting off track. If "Cosmos" does well, will it mean more prime time documentary series in the future? Will the networks be inspired to create more educational programming? I'd love to see the production values of "Cosmos" or "Planet Earth" applied to history and culture programs. Or more regular science and technology programming, focused on current developments in a variety of different fields. There's been a lot going on recently that could use more attention and support.

---

There's usually a film or two every year that I feel obligated to watch because it's very high profile and making waves in the critical community, so I feel that in order to stay informed I ought to see it despite having no interest in doing so. Past titles have included things like "Dreamgirls," "The Road," and "Cyrus." 2013 was a great year and there was a flood of good features that I was happy to tackle with relish. I couldn't watch everything, of course, but the things that got left off my "To Watch" list were super obscure titles like Claire Denis' "Bastards" and Mira Nair's "The Reluctant Fundamentalist," which weren't really part of any major conversations about film that I was aware of.

In 2014, however, there's at least one film that I know I'm going to have to figure out how to address one way or another, and that's Lars Von Trier's "Nymphomaniac." It's being released in two parts, totaling somewhere north of four hours of screen time uncut. There's going to be a lot of explicit sexuality that I'm not looking forward to, particularly as it's coming from Von Trier, who seems to delight in making sex as cringeworthy as possible. "Volume I" opens in selected cities in the U.S. today, so there have been plenty of reviews in circulation - some good some bad, and some indifferent. However, Lars Von Trier is a major cinema auteur, and I've seen a good chunk of his work, enough to know that I really should see "Nymphomaniac" and form my own opinion about it.

I've had mixed reactions to Von Trier films. I enjoyed and fully endorse "Dancer in the Dark," "Breaking the Waves," and "Melancholia." "Dogville," and his earlier films like "Europa" were middling. I flat-out detested "Antichrist," "Manderlay," and "The Idiots." I have no idea which category "Nymphomaniac" is going to fall into, but the premise just sounds unbearably tedious, and this is from someone who just finished watching the six-hour Mosfilm version of "War and Peace." The length doesn't phase me. The content does to some extent, with the promise of lots of kinky business going on, though I've been assured that there's nothing as gruesome as the final scenes of "Antichrist." Von Trier himself claims that the film is not pornography, and that there is nothing particularly titillating about the copious amounts of sex that he depicts.

Maybe it would be easier if "Nymphomaniac" were just empty, gratuitous sex for four hours, or the trashy erotica that I'm expecting the "Fifty Shades of Gray" adaptation to be. Then I could dismiss it more easily. However, "Nymphomaniac" is supposed to be taken seriously as the newest work from a major filmmaker, and I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around that. All the marketing and all the chatter around the film that I've seen so far point to the movie being another Von Trier exercise in shock and awe rather than a mature, grown-up examination of sexuality like, oh, "Last Tango in Paris" or "Eyes Wide Shut" or "Lust, Caution." Sex in Von Trier films tends to turn into a horror show - rape and sex as degradation are way more common than healthy sexual relations - and I don't have much confidence in him changing his approach here, where sex is going to be front and center the whole time. Even if it's not "Antichrist," I expect "Nymphomaniac" to be a difficult watch, to say the least.

I have to say that I am curious about the participation of so many familiar names like Uma Thurman, Christian Slater, Willem Dafoe, Jamie Bell, and of course, The Beef. Von Trier regulars Stellan Skarsgaard and Udo Kier will be in the mix too. And of course there's Charlotte Gainsbourg as the female lead, Joe. This is her third collaboration with Von Trier, and she seems to be one of his few leading ladies who actually enjoys working with him. And I know that I'll probably get something out of seeing "Nymphomaniac," just as I usually get something out of seeing most of the other films I've had these kinds of doubts about.

Watching difficult and challenging movies is good for us. It gets us to examine and push past our prejudices, to deal with uncomfortable subject matter and the emotions that they stir up. Lars Von Trier films disturb and alienate me because they're provocative and dangerous. And that's why I love some of them too. That's why I keep watching them, and that's why I keep watching films from similar directors like Gaspar Noe, Michael Haneke, Harmony Korine, and Nicholas Winding Refn. These are artists who don't play by the rules, and they're important to acknowledge and engage with.
So I will see "Nymphomaniac." All of it. Eventually. Doesn't mean I have to like it though.
---

I didn't see last Thursday's edition of "The Daily Show" until last night, so I'm a little behind on the newest political meme that has apparently taken the internet by storm - well, at least in certain circles. House minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) recently released what's essentially two-and-a-half minutes of B-roll footage, just shots of him looking patriotic and competent without any dialogue or narration. The intention was for any pro-Republican PACs and super PACs out there he's not supposed to be coordinating with to to use the footage to generate supportive ads independently. More on that in a minute.

Anyway, "The Daily Show" found the footage and had so much fun setting the bland, boring visuals to a variety of pop songs, including Simon & Garfunkel’s “The Sounds of Silence,” Salt-n-Pepa’s “Whatta Man,” and Sir Mix-A-Lot’s “Baby Got Back,” that they devoted a whole segment to it. Then Jon Stewart put up a "#McConnelling" hashtag and invited his audience to join in the fun. The internet hasn't disappointed - my favorites so far include ones set to The Offspring's "Pretty Fly for a White Guy," and the "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" theme song. McConnell does look strangely like cartoon turtle from the right angles. Another tactic has been to stick McConnell into the credits of old TV shows as a featured guest star. I expect we'll be getting a compilation of the best videos when "The Daily Show" comes back from break next week.

Media reactions have been fairly muted. The meme is silly and tame enough that it would come across as pretty ridiculous to try and take any offense. McConnell's people have embraced McConnelling, even adding links to some of the blander mashups on the Congressman's official website. I'm not sure that he understands that he's being mocked, though. Most of the successful McConnelling videos are playing on the total incongruity between McConnell's milquetoast appearance and songs full of sex and angst and ninja turtles. And I don't think that many of the participants really understand the full implications of what McConnelling has done.

The internet, at the instigation of "The Daily Show," has essentially appropriated the footage meant to be used for some fairly shady campaigning and made it impossible to take any of it seriously. I don't know that I'll be able to watch at any ad using this footage with a straight face. And there's a pretty good likelihood that future Mitch McConnell ads are just going to be mined for more material if this meme sticks around through the next election cycle. However, I don't feel too badly for the guy because he essentially brought this on himself by putting the original footage out there, and making it pretty obvious what it was intended to be used for. He can't really complain about McConnelling being appropriate because the ads they were intended for are hardly appropriate in the first place.

There have been lots of spoofs of political ads over the years, and election seasons practically demand them. One of my favorites to emerge from the internet was a fake John McCain ad from back in 2008, where a couple of clever filmmakers put together a campaign spot as if it had been directed by Wes Anderson, complete with a Bowie song and captions in Futura font. However, I think it's telling that McConnelling happened almost spontaneously, outside of the context of any serious campaigning going on. Most McConnelling videos are almost aggressively apolitical, and I expect that any attempt by either side to inject any politics won't be well received.

Consider the wider implications of this. The internet culture is now moving so fast now that we're essentially spoofing political ads that don't exist yet. This should be a good wake-up call for everyone that was scoffing about President Obama doing the "Between Two Ferns" appearance on Funny or Die last week. It doesn't matter if you don't engage with the Millennials because the Millennials are eventually going to engage with you, and good luck trying to keep control of the message when that happens.

I don't think that McConnell is going to be too successful if he tries to capitalize on his newfound fame with the meme-generating set. Fortunately, I don't think he has much interest in doing so. Responses in interviews regarding the McConnelling phenomenon have included the usual requests for help with fundraising, but mostly his people have been pretty quiet, which is probably for the best. Politicians who have tried to capitalize off of memes haven't had a very good success rate.

Remember the "Janet Reno Dance Party" sketch from "Saturday Night Live"? Yeah, now do you remember the "Janet Reno Dance Party" fundraiser when she was trying to run for governor of Florida back in 2002? Not the best idea, as it turned out.

---

That damn owl. No matter what I do, I can't get past "Dreamworld" Level 101 without odious Odus the Owl and his little moon scale tipping over and ending my games. Usually I'm pretty good about keeping the colors even, but this level requires using lots of combos to remove lots of pieces at once, so it's nearly impossible to keep them in balance. I have plenty of boosters in reserve, but they're not very helpful. What I really need is some kind of booster that knocks the bug-eyed little twerp out for a couple of moves so I can execute my combos without worrying if I'm going to knock out too many candy pieces of the wrong color. Sorry, I'm rambling.

Yes, readers, I've succumbed to Candy Crush Saga addiction. If you read my previous iPad post, you'll know that I started playing the beloved match-three mobile game just after Christmas and I've been at it ever since. Whatever bug was preventing me from using the Facebook version finally resolved itself so I've been using it to play the online version. I've currently worked my way through two hundred of the regular levels, and I'm waiting out the multi-day timer to move on to the next section of the game. You can either pay or bother your Facebook friends to move ahead without the waiting period, neither of which I've been inclined to do. I've also beaten one hundred of the recently released Dreamworld levels that essentially puts you through levels you've already played but adds restrictions governed by that damn owl. No timer on those yet. I'm just stuck playing Level 101 over and over.

So I've been on Facebook daily, crushing those candies, usually for about an hour in the evenings or longer on weekends. I've gotten good enough at it that I can play a level while simultaneously watching "The Daily Show" or "The Big Bang Theory." I've given up my previous casual gaming addiction, Pepper Panic, though I've tried the new Pepper Panic Saga on Facebook and liked it. However, I've beaten all the available levels and the game developers aren't releasing new ones fast enough to get me to really invest much attention. Candy Crush Saga, however, has been another matter. The most recent levels I've been playing don't depend on skill to beat them, but often dumb luck. The only way to solve some of the puzzles is if you get the right configuration of candies from the start, which can take dozens of attempts. I've been stuck on some levels for days, particularly in Dreamworld because the margin for error is so much smaller. However, the illusion that skill might affect the outcome of a game keeps me playing.

I've seen other players rant about elements of Candy Crush that don't bother me much. I honestly don't mind the timer restriction that only lets you attempt to pass a level five times before you have to wait a half hour for another turn - it's actually what has gotten me to put the laptop down and do something else in a few cases. The level advancement timer isn't much of a hassle either, though I wish the wait times weren't so inconsistent. I also like that the vast majority of the time there's no timer for the actual gameplay. I can abandon a game to go eat dinner or answer the phone and pick up right where I left off an hour later. The Flash player that runs the game occasionally crashes, eating one of my lives, but it doesn't happen very much.

I'm also not at the stage yet where I'm obsessing over tips and strategies, though I find the culture that has developed around the game is fascinating. I admit that I've browsed through Etsy more than once looking at all the Candy Crush inspired merchandise. It's a lot more fun than the paltry selection of official items I've been able to dig up. Frankly I'm stunned that we're not seeing striped candy pieces and color bombs emblazoned on everything the way we are with the Angry Birds. We're only just starting to see actual Candy Crush branded candy in circulation. I'd consider buying a stuffed Odus toy just to be able to pummel him when I get frustrated.

Oh well. In a couple of days Level 201 on the regular game should be available and I can spend some time playing levels that don't involve watching that little purple punk freak out after every other move. And eventually I'll luck out and have a good game where everything goes right and I can finally move on the Dreamworld Level 102. Maybe by that time they'll release another set of Pepper Panic Saga levels or some other mobile game will have attention. Even though I'm a Candy Crush devotee now, these infatuations have proven to be all too fleeting.
---

I was debating about what to write about to today, and considered a "Rank 'Em" post for the PIXAR movies. 2014 is going to be the first year in a while that won't have a PIXAR release, and honestly it's something of a relief after their last few films. Since "Toy Story 3" in 2010, the quality has noticeably slipped, most obviously with "Cars 2." I liked "Brave" and "Monsters University" more than most, but I understand why others have been underwhelmed. By embracing franchises, it feels like PIXAR has fallen a step or two behind and lost some creative momentum.

So Bob Iger's announcement today that two more PIXAR sequels are in development has raised some mixed emotions. These are "Cars 3" and "The Incredibles 2," which we know almost nothing about except that Brad Bird is apparently writing the new "Incredibles" movie, and the earliest we'll see either of them will probably be 2017. After "Cars 2" and the spinoff "Planes" series, there wasn't much enthusiasm for a "Cars 3," but the response to an "Incredibles" sequel have been fairly positive, since original creator and director Brad Bird is going to be involved. "The Incredibles," celebrating its tenth anniversary this year, is one of the few PIXAR movies where there has actually been vocal demand for a franchise.

I'm not so convinced that it's a good idea. "The Incredibles" ranks very high on my list of favorite PIXAR films, and is the last one I was entirely happy with. Moreover, Brad Bird maintained for years that he would only return to the "Incredibles" universe if he came up with a good enough story to warrant a sequel. He very well may have been struck by inspiration, but I have to wonder about the timing. If you look at the list of PIXAR movies, the sequels are coming in roughly the same order as the first movies. 2001's "Monsters Inc." was followed by 2002's "Finding Nemo" and then 2004's "The Incredibles." Looking at the sequels on PIXAR's current slate, 2013's "Monster's University" will be followed by 2016's "Finding Dory" and then either "Cars 3" or "The Incredibles 2." Bird may not have been pushed to come up with new "Incredibles" story, but he was almost certainly nudged.

Also, it was particularly shrewd to announce the two sequels together, because it takes the attention off of "Cars 3." The "Cars" franchise is regarded as a necessary evil by PIXAR fans these days. Nobody really minded the first movie, though it wasn't recieved with much enthusiasm, but "Cars 2" received the worst reviews of PIXAR's entire history by a large margin, and less than impressive domestic returns. However, PIXAR and Disney have made a killing on "Cars" merchandise, and the sereis remains very popular worldwide. Globally, "Cars 2" outgrossed "Brave" and "WALL-E." "Planes," made on the cheap by former direct-to-video outfit DisneyToon Studios, also made a healthy profit on ticket sales alone, in spite of very mixed reactions. A "Planes" sequel is due out in theaters this summer, less than a year after the first. To put it bluntly, the decision to make a "Cars 3" is as financially driven as the decision to make those "Planes" movies, but if PIXAR uses those profits in part to make more original films, you won't hear many complaints.

The pressure has been turned up for PIXAR to release more films, increasing from one film a year to one-and-a-half. Consider that Dreamworks Animation has been releasing two a year since 2010, and is increasing to three starting this year. What effect this has had on the quality of their films is debatable. However, PIXAR is moving to close the gap a bit. The current plan, announced by Ed Catmull last year, is to release an original film every year and a sequel or prequel every other year. However, that's not going to be an easy schedule to keep to. The next two features coming up, "Inside Out" and "The Good Dinosaur," are are both originals and both due in 2015. "The Good Dinosaur" was supposed to be the big 2014 summer film, but it was beset by delays over reported story problems, so it was pushed back a year, "Inside Out" was moved up, and "Finding Dory" got bumped to 2016.

Ultimately I'm happy an "Incredibles 2" is going to happen, but I'd be much happier if I didn't know about all the financial considerations behind the scenes that were driving it. I would have been much happier to hear about a "Ratatouille 2" or an "Up 2" honestly, because those were weirder, more idiosyncratic films that didn't do quite as well, and a sequel probably only would have happened because somebody at PIXAR really, really pushed for one to happen. No sequels at all is probably too much to ask for these days - but maybe not. Look at how the tables have turned when you compare PIXAR to their once greatest competitor. After the mess with all the DTV sequels, have you noticed that the newly resurrected Walt Disney Feature Animation hasn't made or announced a single sequel since the "Winnie the Pooh" movie?

---

So the long-awaited "Veronica Mars" movie finally appeared in theaters and online this weekend, to the delight of "Mars" fans everywhere, and to the fascination of industry watchers curious to see what a Kickstarter-funded movie was capable of. "Veronica Mars" is not destined to be a blockbuster hit, being far too much of a love letter to its existing fanbase to be very accessible to new viewers unfamiliar with the former teen-detective television show.

After a quick exposition dump to fill in for any brave newbies what the premise of "Veronica Mars" is, we learn that Veronica (Kristen Bell) is living in New York, fresh out of law school, and on the verge of landing a lucrative job with a prominent law firm. She's in a steady relationship with college boyfriend Piz (Chris Lowell), and steadfastly refusing to acknowledge her upcoming ten-year high school reunion. Then she gets the fateful phone call from her high school bad boy ex, Logan Echolls (Jason Dohring), who has been accused of murdering his high profile pop star girlfriend. Veronica heads back to the sunny, corrupt town of Neptune, California to help save Logan's skin, reconnect with old friends, and get herself thoroughly tangled up in a big mystery once more.

As a fan of the show, the "Veronica Mars" movie gave me exactly what I wanted. There's lots of snarky banter, updates on the lives of all the familiar characters, Veronica getting her sleuth on again, and some pretty big questions about her future that get definitive answers. I didn't mind the fact that the whole thing felt more like one of those old reunion TV movies that they used to do for shows like "The Brady Bunch," or the pilot for a new "Veronica Mars" series than a proper stand-alone movie. And I didn't mind that it was clearly made on the cheap with very TV quality production values, with a soundtrack full of indie acts that seem to have been chosen by lottery. It felt like we were comfortably back in the universe created by Rob Thomas, even if Veronica could throw out a few unbleeped expletives now.

What did concern me was the parade of cameos. At times it felt like every minor recurring character whose actor was willing to return was shoehorned into the story somewhere. I understand why time was devoted to Veronica's besties Wallace (Percy Daggs III) and Mac (Tina Majorino), and sometimes ally Weevil (Francis Capra), but did we need to check in with the high school principal (Duane Daniels)? Or Veronica's long-ago crush, Deputy Leo (Max Greenfield)? And that's not even getting to the actual celebrities who make appearances, whose identities I won't spoil here. At certain points the movie feels like a game of spotting the famous and familiar faces, and it gets pretty distracting. Oh, and there are in-jokes galore for fans to catch and for newbies to feel self-conscious about not getting.

Fortunately there is a strong story to keep the whole thing together, and Veronica is still as fun and watchable a heroine as ever, who works fine on the big screen. The case has some good twists, landing Veronica in serious peril. The sheriff's department of Neptune has gotten even more corrupt since we saw it last, making it even harder for Veronica to conduct her investigation. The Veronica-Logan-Piz love triangle is inevitable, of course. The major conflict of the film, however, is actually the question of what Veronica wants to do with her future. If you were left unsatisfied, as I was, with how the ending of the television series played out, and where we left Veronica Mars as a character, the movie does a great job of giving us some resolution as she confronts some demons and gets her priorities in order.

Veronica remains one of the best female characters to come out of TV in the past generation, and I'd love to see "Veronica Mars" get a sequel, either on film or on television. Heck, I'd settle for that rumored spinoff series featuring Ryan Hansen as the doofusy surfer bro Dick Casablancas, who is deployed as much-needed comic relief throughout the film. Or one for the movie's MVP, Enrico Colantoni, as Veronica's father Keith Mars. If there's any character who I wanted to see more of in the "Veronica Mars" movie, it was him.

There's been a lot of drama around the film because of the Kickstarter campaign, but I can't imagine that many of the backers could be too upset with the film itself, which is absolutely made for them. And while I don't have a non-fan perspective, I think that the film is a good enough watch on it's own to potentially hook a few viewers who were unfamiliar with the "Veronica Mars" series. I don't know if Kickstarter is a good option for many cancelled shows, but I'm happy with the results here.
---

I recently watched "Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs 2," which was pretty bad. Going into it I knew it was going to be pretty bad, but I watched it anyway. If thy make a third one, I'll probably watch that too. Animated films are a weakness of mine, and I've sat through all the "Shrek" and "Ice Age" movies, despite not really enjoying any of them aside from the first "Shrek." I expect I'll be sitting through "Muppets Most Wanted" at some point, even though from what I can tell it's got more or less the same plot as "The Great Muppet Caper," and the recent reboot was pretty mediocre. And I'll be seeing more "Fast and Furious" movies and more "Expendables" movies as they come down the pipe, though the most recent installments struck me as only meh.

As I look ahead to the movie slates for the rest of the year, I've found that there are very few movies that I'm actually anticipating, but a bunch that I'm probably going to end up watching just because I've seen previous installments that were okay, and I have some idea of what I'm getting myself into - "22 Jump Street," "Sin City: A Dame to Kill For," "Night at the Museum 3," "Expendables 3," and maybe even the next "Transformers" movie since it'll sort of of be a reboot and promises to aim for a slightly older audience. Is this franchise loyalty? No, because I don't really have any expectations that these movies are going to be any good, or any fondness for the properties that would carry me through a few bad installments. I'm going to call it franchise inertia, which is about gravitating toward familiarity more than actual enjoyment.

Even though I like to think of myself as a discerning cineaste with higher standards than most, the truth is that I'm usually game for slick Hollywood product of just about every stripe. I'll watch anything that they can shoehorn Jason Statham or Arnold Schwarzenegger into, anything with a decently large budget and lots of CGI action scenes, and pretty much anything animated that doesn't look too unbearably pandering to small children. "Mr. Peabody and Sherman" and the recent "Alvin and the Chipmunks" movies failed that test, but not that much else does. Franchise movies require almost no thought for me at all - as long as I got some amount of enjoyment out of a previous movie from the same series, I'm willing to give a new installment a chance, no matter how awful I suspect it's going to be. Hence why I paid to see "A Good Day to Die Hard" last year.

Most of the time I know exactly what I'm going to get with a sequel, so even though the reward isn't great, there's almost no risk associated with it. I can't say that about an original film, even when it has all the right names attached. "The Lone Ranger" wasn't any worse than the last "Pirates of the Caribbean" movie, but I understand why audiences were more reluctant to see it, since there were a lot of uncertainties about what changes to the formula would have to be made to switch gears for a western. "Pacific Rim" was considerably better made and more kid-appropriate than any of the "Transformers" movies, but because it required buying into a whole new set of characters, terminology, and universe, it was a much harder sell. Branding carries an awful lot of weight, so even if you change almost everything from one installment of a franchise to the next, including actors, directors, and continuity, people will still come out for "The Amazing Spider-man."

Logically I know that I'm more likely to find a good film if I dig through older or foreign or independent movies, but that often requires a lot of time and effort I'm not willing to put in. Often it's just easier to grab the latest blockbuster available. And honestly, sometimes I'm just not in the mood to watch a really strong, challenging film. Most Hollywood movies let me be lazy, and don't require my full attention. Sequels don't even require me to learn the characters' names or the basic premise of the story because I already know what they are from the first movie. Watching franchise films often feels like watching new episodes of a television show in that respect. And as with television shows there are franchises that do wear out their welcome and that I've given up on - I dropped "Saw" after two movies and "The Pink Panther" after three. I still love "The X-files," but could never bring myself to watch that last movie.

It's usually harder to drop a movie franchise than a TV series, though, because movies are still positioned as events and have much bigger budgets. And there's always a chance that one of them will pull a "Madagascar 3" or an "X-men: First Class" and turn themselves around unexpectedly. It's rare, but it happens. And sometimes, it's worth sitting through all the mediocre parts to get there.
---

We've been hearing a lot of complaints recently about how women and girls are still underrepresented on the big screen even though they've been making a killing at the box office. I've stumped some of the same talking points before, but I've been happy to stay out of the conversation this time. Things may not be improving quickly, but I'm satisfied that they are improving and more importantly the right people are aware of the issues.

And really, when you see the gender problems that are still running rampant in other, more niche segments of the entertainment universe, Hollywood movies don't look so backward after all. As a former anime fan, I've seen much, much worse when it comes to sexism and gender inequality onscreen. In fact, I have to admit that it's one of several reasons why I fell out of love with the genre a few years ago. Now talking about gender representations in anime is always going to be difficult because it's a reflection of a foreign culture, and we don't want to be insensitive to the Japanese. However, I don't think that makes the basic criticisms any less valid, when you get down to it.

First, let's acknowledge that there are anime creators who get it right, most notably Hayao Miyazaki of Studio Ghibli, who is known for his strong heroines, to the point where they're regularly pointed out by parents as good examples of the kinds of female characters we want to see more of from Hollywood. I've also been very happy with franchises like "Ghost in the Shell," which despite incorporating some occasional female nudity, places a strong, capable, mature woman in the central role, Major Makoto Kusanagi. And then there are the Rumiko Takahashi series like "Ranma 1/2" and "Inuyasha." Or Haruka Takachiho's "Dirty Pair." If you know where to look, there are a lot of good, positive, female anime characters out there.

On the other hand, these days you really have to look for them. Anime has always been a very male-dominated sphere, full of fantasy action shows and supernatural romances aimed at teenaged boys. There are whole genres devoted to guys dealing with "magical girlfriends" or "harem" scenarios where they have to juggle potential relationships with multiple love interests. There are shows specifically aimed at women and girls, but audiences have been shrinking and these days shows for female demographics are vastly outnumbered by the ones aimed at men and boys. These days, a "shojo" or girls' show will also try to appeal to male fanboys, often including characters or particular scenarios that appeal to male sensibilities.

Much of the current anime landscape has been overtaken by romantic comedies and slice-of-life shows about relationships. These often star "moe" girls. "Moe" roughly translates to "cute," and refers to female characters who embody youth and purity. They're not typically sexualized, but are intended to provoke feelings of protectiveness and affection from the male audience, similar for what they might feel for a younger sister. Moe girls tend to be sweet, quiet, shy, and passive. There's been a bit of a backlash to this type recently, with the rising popularity of "tsundere," or uptight, aggressive girls, who start out as hostile but gradually become friendlier to a male main character over time. And despite the asexuality of both types, they're all inevitably fetishized to an alarming degree.

I don't think this would be so bad if there were more variety in the types of anime girls you see, but moe and tsundere girls have crowded out most of the others, and they make for poor main characters. Few are actually in roles that have any agency. I stuck mostly to action and adventure anime for years, and what always drove me crazy was the way that they kept sidelining female characters from the action. Girls are not allowed to get into serious fights, unless it is with a female villain, and these clashes are usually very minor, preliminary bouts paving the way for the hero's big battle later on. Even when they are the main character, guys usually do the fighting for them, or girls battle through proxies like dolls or pets. They tend to get a lot of lip service abut being brave and smart and strong, but little opportunity to prove it.

The prime example? Sakura from the immensely popular action show "Naruto." She's the main character's love interest, a ninja trainee who is supposed to be learning to fight on the same level as her two male teammates. The whole show is centered around battles and showdowns between various opponents. Sakura and most of the other female ninja almost never get physical. They only display a handful of flashy moves and special techniques among them. Sakura is apparently gifted in certain areas applicable to combat, but we never see her do anything impressive. The bulk of her training takes place offscreen during a time-skip. And like so many other female characters before her, eventually she opts to train as a healer and leave the bulk of the fighting to the boys. But if there's anything involving love and angst - suddenly she's got plenty of screen time.

Commonly you see female characters limited to being girlfriends, sisters, daughters, mothers, and spiritual guides. If they have power, it's only symbolic and depends on the backing of a more powerful male figure. Or else, their power is compromised by being neurotic, emotionally unstable, and immature. Grown women are constantly depicted as childish in order to make them more sympathetic. It wasn't just one or two shows, but a consistent trend across nearly every anime I saw in the last few years I was actively part of the fanbase. It was particularly noticeable in the children's programs. You don't realize how careful Western cartoons are about balancing depictions of girls and boys, including strong girl-power messages, and promoting female role models, until you see anime that ignore this completely.

I see the same problems in Hollywood movies, which are mostly aimed at young adult male audiences these days. Actresses are too often stuck in minor, inconsequential roles, limited to being pawns or existing solely to give the male main character a reason to act heroic. However, they do tend to be more well-rounded, more assertive, more aggressive, and more interesting. The biggest problem is really that we don't see enough of them. There are plenty of anime girls, but they tend to be terrible characters with very limited parts to play. The best anime girls I've seen lately have been the comedic ones, who get to break out of the boundaries a little bit.

So sure, gender representation in Hollywood could be better, but it could also be a lot, lot worse. I may find superhero films terribly low on heroines, but at least they're not skewed to the point where I've gotten disenchanted with the entire genre. And little by little they are getting better. Anime? The only positive thing I've heard lately on the gender front is that they're remaking one of their most successful girls' shows soon - "Sailor Moon."
---

The original "Twilight Zone" that aired from 1959 to 1964 remains one of my fondest media touchstones. I watched the marathons every year at New Years, borrowed the companion book from the local library multiple times, and freaked out classmates by recapping my favorite episodes for them while waiting in the lunch line. So here's a very overdue Top Ten list of my favorite episodes. As always, entries are unranked and listed in order of airdate.

"Time Enough at Last" - Burgess Meredith starred in four different "Twilight Zone" episodes, but Henry Bemis, the little man with the big glasses who just wants some time to read, is by far the most memorable. Like so many of these episodes, the story is simple but the execution is magnificent, delivering one of the cruelest ironies in all of science-fiction. It also made it clear to the audience that the series had teeth from very early on.

"Mirror Image" - A young woman at a bus depot waiting for her ride out of town spots a perfect doppelganger of herself. It's a wonderful, paranoid scenario that hints at sinister forces in the universe just waiting to take advantage of us in a vulnerable moment. Where the more high concept stories have lessened in effectiveness for me over time, I've noticed it's the simpler, more universal episodes like this that tend to stick with me.

"The Eye of the Beholder" - Everyone knows the famous twist ending, and even if you don't I'm sure it's pretty easy for modern audiences to guess. However, that doesn't take away from how wonderfully the reveal is handled, and the horror of this all too familiar dystopian world where conformity is so highly prized. I love the long, tense buildup to the climax too, something that few shows are brave enough to do anymore.

"It's a Good Life" - What is the point of this episode? That small children are really monsters? That innocence can be as awful as knowing evil? There is no point, except for the series to present us with a particularly potent nightmare scenario that continues to make me squirm at the thought. The version of the story in the "Twilight Zone" movie is even more sadistic and terrifying, though it famously bungled the bleak original ending.

"The Midnight Sun" - Scientifically, it's easy to dismiss the story as complete bunk, but of all the apocalypse scenarios that "The Twilight Zone" featured, this remains my favorite. We often hear about the world theoretically burning up in a fireball, but to see the effects of of such a disaster unfolding in slow motion, and to see the psychological effects on the desperate populace up close really helps the idea to hit home.

"Five Characters in Search of an Exit" - One of the simplest and most existential episodes with a charmingly sentimental ending. I don't think this one works for everybody because it requires a lot of suspension of disbelief, and the reveal may be too twee or too incongruous with the rest of the story for some. However, I liked the mystery and appreciated the completely out-of-left field explanation for the characters' state of limbo.

"Nothing in the Dark" - An old woman afraid of Death secludes herself in her home, determined to keep him out. As good as the show was at scaring and disturbing its viewers, I always appreciated that occasionally it could deliver an installment as touching and humane as this one. "Nothing in the Dark" is also notable for featuring two acting greats of different eras: Golden Age actress Gladys Cooper and a very young Robert Redford.

"To Serve Man" - When you think about it, the whole premise is based on a very silly pun that has been thoroughly lampooned over the years by everyone from "Naked Gun" to "The Simpsons." Still, the episode is a lot of fun with the big goofy Kanamit aliens (hey, it's Richard Kiel!), the recycled props and effects footage from famous period sci-fi movies, and a story that delivers a big old wallop to humanity's collective ego.

"Nightmare at 20,000 Feet" - That's a young William Shatner freaking out at the "thing on the wing," in one of the undisputed "Twilight Zone" classics. Anyone who has ever been nervous about flying understands his character's terror, which director Richard Donner ramps up to terrific heights. This was another story remade for the "Twilight Zone" movie by Geroge Miller with John Lithgow - and their take is actually better than the original.

"Number 12 Looks Just Like You" - Often shown together with "Eye of the Beholder" to underline the criticism of our looks-obsessed culture, "Number 12" seems to get more relevant every year and you can see its influence all over the media landscape. The ending of this one always got to me, not because our heroine ends up physically conforming with everybody else, but because she ends up thinking like everybody else too, which is far scarier.

---

Seven years ago, Zack Snyder's "300" came out in theaters, did summer blockbuster numbers at the box office, and reaped some big rewards to all involved. Gerald Butler was promoted to Hollywood leading man status. Zack Snyder was hailed as a visionary and handed gigantic budgets and famous franchises for follow-up projects. Adult-oriented comic-book properties were mined for more material. And, of course, the sword-and-sandals epic genre saw a spike in numbers. And now with the release of the "300: Rise of an Empire" the long-delayed sequel (prequel? midquel?) starring somebody else and directed by somebody else, we can look back at all that the first "300" has wrought and realize that Hollywood still has no idea why it was a hit.

Clearly, it wasn't Gerard Butler. He's been handed multiple chances to distinguish himself in multiple action films ("Machine Gun Preacher," "Olympus Has Fallen"), thrillers ("Law Abiding Citizen"), and romantic comedies ("The Ugly Truth," "The Bounty Hunter"), but his most successful role since playing King Leonidas has been as the viking dad in the "How to Train Your Dragon" franchise. Butler belongs to the class of the "stand-in" leading men like Sam Worthington who have made their name in big effects pictures, but have failed to parlay the success into better parts that really showcase their talents. Butler at least has more name recognition thanks to playing a more distinctive, iconic character, but it's all too easy to get him confused with other, similar actors.

Everybody knows who Zack Snyder is, but that may not be a good thing. After the success of "300" and his earlier "Dawn of the Dead" remake, Snyder was essentially given carte blanche to direct whatever projects he wanted. This lead to the deeply flawed film version of Alan Moore's "Watchmen" graphic novel and then the greatly reviled "Sucker Punch." Both movies barely made their budgets back and landed Snyder on shaky ground. Last summer's "Man of Steel" didn't really help matters, making his flaws as a director painfully clear. Snyder has his fans and his apologists, especially among the fanboy set, but he's proven himself to be a very niche director with mainstream-unfriendly tastes, and his involvement threatens to put the entire DC film universe in a very bad position.

What about the swords-and-sandals subject matter? Did that account for the success of "300"? Well, between the original "300" and its sequel we've been subjected to "Clash Of The Titans," "Wrath Of The Titans," "The Legend Of Hercules," "Immortals," "Pompeii," and a new "Conan," none of which have been particularly well received. "Clash" made enough money to warrant a sequel, but the rest did not. Television fared better with the "Spartacus" series, but similar projects have been scarce. There's been no great demand for action films set in ancient times, and the upcoming 2014 slate reflects that. There's still Brett Ratner's "Hercules" with The Rock coming up, but attentions have shifted away from Rome and Greece to Biblical stories like "Noah" and "Exodus."

Did the adult comic-book origins of "300" have any effect? The film was based on a violent Frank Miller graphic novel after all. With the "Sin City" sequel delayed to later this year we haven't had another film based on Miller's source material, but there have been plenty of similar projects including "The Losers," the two "Kick-Ass" films, the "RED" movies, "2 Guns," and of course "Watchmen." Well, considering how these films performed in comparison to the PG-13 superhero movies aimed at younger audiences, it doesn't look like that was a winning tactic either. The most successful adult comic adaptation has been AMC's "The Walking Dead," which has fairly adult content, but has much less leeway than a feature film to really utilize it.

So what made "300" a hit? The Dissolve pegged it - neat graphics and special effects work, which made "300" look different from all the sword-sand-sandals movies that preceded it. There's not really much special about the movie otherwise. The performances are solid, but unspectacular. The story is sexed up, but follows the template of a sword-and-sandals adventure pretty closely. Zack Snyder's style is impressive, but the novelty of it wore off after subsequent films where it didn't prove a good fit for more nuanced material. The grim and gritty design is actually starting to look a little dated after so many other action films of recent years adopted the same approach.

Personally, I though "300" was a decent movie, but its outsized impact on the blockbuster landscape always puzzled me. I guess its success was such a surprise and it presented so many elements that looked easily reproducible that Hollywood was duped into thinking that they just had to reuse its basic elements in the right ways to achieve the same results. Of course Hollywood has been making this same mistake for as long as there has been a Hollywood. The only surefire way to capitalize on a movie's success, of course is, to franchise it. And sure enough "300: Rise of an Empire" is busy beating up the competition at the box office as we speak.
---

Funny or Die is not part of my usual media consumption rotation. Sure, I watch their videos occasionally when they go viral and I get linked to one. I've seen a couple of installments of "Between Two Ferns" too, the site's no-budget anti-talk show hosted by comedian Zach Galifianakis where interviewer and interviewee exchange insults with each other in stark contrast to the love-fests that most celebrity interviews have become. Actually, I've seen more memes spawned by the show than the actual show, particularly the one with Jennifer Lawrence mocking Galifianakis's weight.

And then yesterday, President Obama (identified as a "Community Organizer") showed up and took a seat between the ferns and everyone went nuts. He was plugging the Affordable Healthcare Act and Healthcare.gov, of course, and specifically targeting the young internet-loving demographic that comprises Funny Or Die's core audience. And the great thing was, he was in on the joke. He and Galifianakis lobbed some relative softballs at each other, but there were still a few zingers on sore subjects - birth certificates, basketball, and "Hangover 3" among them. The tone was right, the comedy wasn't compromised, and both the site and the president came away from the outing looking great.

Here I should add all the usual disclaimers that though I voted for Obama last time around, I do not agree with all of his positions and policies, the actions of his administration, and certainly not his approach to handling some very serious issues. As a campaigner, however, he's rarely made a wrong step. From a marketing standpoint the "Between Two Ferns" appearance was a shrewd move, right up there with Richard Nixon's cameo on "Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In." There aren't many other politicians I can imagine going toe to toe with Galifianakis. When they do feature in comedy bits like this, it's usually something like Stephen Colbert unleashing absurdity on a member of Congress in a "Better Know a District" segment of "the Colbert Report," where the politician plays the straight man (or woman). Or Ali G. maneuvering poor Pat Buchanan into making an idiot of himself.

This also signals a big moment for new media. Sure, Twitter has become a default talking point, and a Reddit IAMA session has become a regular stop on press tours, but you rarely see the mainstream really participate in the internet culture of viral videos and mash-up parodies made way outside the bounds of the traditional production system except to point it out or comment on it. Funny or Die might be considered a borderline case, as it has many famous contributors and backers, employs a professional writing staff, and recently partnered with HBO briefly to produce a short-lived sketch. However, by and large it has remained largely a web-based phenomenon that follows the anarchic, DIY, bare-bones aesthetic of most user-generated web content. In fact, the last time I checked the site, a good chunk of the Funny or Die website's content was still user submitted.

I'm right at the upper age limit of the intended target audience here, so I can appreciate what Funny or Die is doing while recognizing how alien the approach is to outsiders. The rules and the expectations of web content are very different. The set of "Between Two Ferns" consists of the two ferns, a few chairs, and a table, and the graphics package that looks like a relic of the early '80s, purposefully evoking the feel of an old public access show. The celebrities who appear don't behave they would on a regular talk show, engaging in ironic self-mockery with the understanding that they're playing to a very different audience. We're starting to see the same kind of humor appear on late night talk shows and in commercials, but there's still a significant divide between web culture and the mainstream media. That divide got a whole lot smaller when Obama dropped in for an interview. The President of the United States is about as mainstream as it gets, and exudes legitimacy.

It's been fascinating to look at the reactions to the appearance. Right wing pundits have been predictably outraged, though past presidents have employed similar tactics in the past. Capitol Hill stalwarts have been confused and worried about whether the appearance was appropriate or the best use of Obama's time, considering everything else that's going on in the world right now. The general public doesn't seem to care all that much one way or the other, and many remain completely unaware that the POTUS deigned to grace a lowly comedy website with his presence. However, the results are clear. Healthcare.gov got a healthy boost in traffic thanks to the "Ferns" interview after millions of people watched it on Funny or Die, and some of the visitors signed up for plans.

I have to wonder if a traditional marketing campaign would have been remotely as successful.

---

I have yet to see a single episode of HBO's crime anthology series "True Detective," but that's not going to keep me from speculating and fantasizing about the acting team-ups I'd want to see for future seasons. With Matthew McConaughey and Woody Harrelson setting the precedent, I think we're finally at the point where A-list movie stars are truly free to tackle a television project like this without worrying about the effect on their film careers. Heck, Halle Berry's starring in a limited series from CBS this year and Philip Seymour Hoffman had a pilot in the bag for Showtime before he left us. So the sky's the limit as far as casting goes. Below are a few possible pairings I'd love to see for a future season of "True Detective."

Al Pacino and Robert DeNiro - If these two screen legends were willing to team-up for something as bottom-of-the-barrel as "Righteous Kill," surely they could do it for "True Detective." Pacino and HBO have been on good terms over the years and DeNiro hasn't exactly been choosy about his roles lately, having been drafted in "Grudge Match" with Sylvester Stallone, for instance. These two have certainly slowed down since their heyday in the '70s, but I still love seeing them onscreen and they've done great work together. Tommy Lee Jones and Dustin Hoffman would also make good alternates here.

Edward Norton and Ryan Reynolds - These two have been knocking around Hollywood for ages, almost making the A-list but not quite. Both have almost landed major stardom through superhero movies, but not quite. I've been itching to see Norton do something more substantive than his appearances in Wes Anderson films for a while now, and it's clear that under the movie star exterior Ryan Reynolds has some pretty serious acting chops. These two need a stepping stone to get their careers back into gear, and a high-profile run on "True Detective" just might be what they both need at this point. Mark Ruffalo for an alternate.

Amy Adams and Jessica Chastain - It's rough being a lead actress in the movies, especially when the parts just aren't there anymore. That's why so many of our most celebrated leading ladies have moved into television work. I doubt that the creators of "True Detective" would want to address the show's gender issues by going whole hog with a female-female lead pairing, but both of these ladies are currently in ascendency and need major parts to sink their teeth into. The show could easily give that to them. Other possibilities for female leads include Rachel Weisz, Jennifer Connelly, and Michelle Williams.

Will Smith and Forrest Whitaker - Similarly to the previous entry, it would be a little too obvious for the show to do a season with entirely minority leads, but I definitely hope they consider them. Whitaker has already tried a television series with the "Criminal Minds" spinoff, which gave him very little to work with. I think he needs to take another shot at it with better material. As for Will Smith, he's in desperate need of some career rehab right now, and I'd much rather see him try something ambitious like a dramatic TV role than go down the path of endless blockbuster sequels that he seem to be on right now. Mos Def or Idris Elba for alternates.

Zach Galifianakis and Sam Rockwell - These are two funny guys who have both done some great dramatic work that tends to get overlooked. Galifianakis turned in one of my favorite underseen performances this year as the main character's bitterly sarcastic dad in "Kings of Summer," and has the potential makings of serious screen heavy if he wants. Rockwell's been one of our most dependable character actors for a while now, and he's got a fantastic range from comic to bleak. I think that these two would do great shouldering lead roles in a crime drama and would go especially well together.

James Franco and Sean Penn - What these two have in common is that you can't predict what they're going to do. Franco's gone through some major ups and downs in the last few years, seeing his profile rise and fall and rebound wildly as he's taken on a bunch of different projects. Penn has seen a similar trajectory, though his recent work has been quieter and more low-profile. Why would they want to do an HBO series? Well, why wouldn't they? The only issue is that I think both would try to wrest some of the creative control away from showrunners Cary Fukunaga and Nic Pizzolatto. Ed Norton might too, now that I think about it.

Nicholas Cage and Michael Shannon - No particular reasoning here. I just always wanted to see these two get into a scenery-chewing showdown.

---

Fritz Lang remains one of the most successful and influential German directors of all time, who not only created some of the most indelible masterpieces of silent era German Expressionism in the 1920s, but successfully made the transition to sound films in the '30s, and went on to enjoy a long and prolific Hollywood career specializing in crime dramas and film noir all the way through the '50s. In fact his first sound film, "M" is considered the prototypical film noir, the story of a child murderer who terrorizes Berlin.

What sets "M" apart as a thriller is its psychological effectiveness. There is very little onscreen violence, in spite of the subject matter. However, Lang's ability to conjure suspense and horror is fantastic. It takes only brief shots of a lost ball and an escaped balloon to tell the audience that the worst has happened to little Elsie Beckmann (Inge Landgut), but it's the juxtaposition of the frantic reactions of her poor mother (Ellen Widmann) that really drive home the impact of the loss. So disturbing are the crimes to the Berliners, we learn, that public outrage spurs the efforts of the local police to new extremes to find the culprit. Their efforts become unbearably disruptive to the criminal underclass, and they too join in the hunt for the murderer.

The monster of the piece is Hans Beckert, played by Peter Lorre in one of his first major roles. Lorre both began and ended his career as a chiefly comic actor, and often played colorful supporting characters, but in "M" he's the central figure of both sinister menace and pitiful insanity. Beckert is revealed to the audience as the murderer very early, and we follow his progress in parallel to the manhunt. What makes him so frightening is the fact that he appears so ordinary, and is able to hide in plain sight. There is nothing about his outward manner that instantly pegs him as a villain. However, he reveals himself unconsciously through one of the first cinematic musical leitmotifs - he whistles Grieg's "Hall of the Mountain King" as he stalks the children, a habit that a blind man eventually uses to identify and point him out. His looming shadow gives form to the creeping danger he poses to his victims. Then the tables turn and it is Beckert who becomes the target of an entire city that is out to get him. When Beckert is finally caught, his mental unraveling, revealing the depths of his madness, is one of Lorre's finest screen moments.

I love the subversive edge to "M," the way the police investigation lead by Inspector Lohmann (Otto Wernicke) is mirrored by the efforts of the criminals conducting their own manhunt under the direction of The Safecracker (Gustaf Gründgens). In Lang's Berlin, even the beggars and the pickpockets depend upon a certain framework of social order that its members won't hesitate to protect from an outside threat. The police employ the newest crimefighting techniques like fingerprinting, but it's the criminals who find Beckert first through their citywide network of petty crooks and derelicts. They subject him to their own brand of justice, a raucous kangaroo court that threatens to become a lynch mob, until the police finally intervene. Though anarchic, the criminals' judgment feels more satisfying than the one ultimately passed down by the official courts.

"M" bears all the hallmarks of German Expressionism, full of eerie shadows and reflections that hint at the unseen depths of its characters and foreshadow their ultimate fates. The visuals are ambitious, featuring a camera that is constantly moving, and technically complicated shots. In the restored print that I saw, when one lengthy shot moves from the exterior to the interior of a building through a window, you can actually see the pane of glass being slid out of the way to allow the camera to pass through. High angle, POV, and even aerial shots are employed, heightening the mood of dread and suspense as paranoia takes hold in the city.

Lang uses similar techniques with the soundtrack. Sound film was still in its very early, rudimentary stages, so there are long periods of silence, and the execution of the sound effects is very rough. However, "M" was one of the first films to have a complex soundscape, using a mix of ordinary incidental noises - footsteps, ticking clocks - to create anticipation. Dialogue rises in volume to delirious heights in the climactic scenes to match the dramatic visuals.

"M" remains one of the most influential movies ever made, a key precursor to so many films and films genres that its presence still looms large in cinema today. However, it's my favorite Fritz Lang film for the way that it got me to sympathize with Peter Lorre's hapless killer even as I rooted for his capture, for its vision of a city that rises up to combat an evil that the people will not tolerate, and for the way a chill still runs up my spine when I hear "Hall of the Mountain King."

After 80 years, "M" is still a thrill to watch.
---

The first "Hunger Games" movie was a little rough around the edges and a little oddly formed. At times it didn't feel quite committed to its shocking premise, and its young heroine was a little too opaque. Still, it did distinguish itself from all the other young adult genre franchises thanks to a good lead performance by Jennifer Lawrence and some genuinely resonant subject matter. The sequel, I'm happy to report, manages to improve on it substantially.

The last time we saw Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence), she and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutsherson) had been crowned the co-victors of the Hunger Games, the yearly gladiatorial deathmatches used by the leaders of their dystopia to oppress the downtrodden populace. Katniss learns the corrupt Capitol is far from done with her, especially since her victory has been seen as a gesture of defiance, spurring signs of an uprising. She and Peeta are sent on a victory tour, and ordered by President Snow (Donald Sutherland) to continue the ruse that they're young lovers, though Katniss is actually smitten with her childhood friend Gale (Liam Hemsworth). Meanwhile, Snow and a new Gamemaker Plutarch (Philip Seymour Hoffman) prepare for the next Hunger Games, which they plan to use to eliminate Katniss permanently.

Last time, it was everything going on outside the actual Hunger Games, the reality show spectacle, the distorted celebrity culture, and the not-so-subtle mass media critique, that delivered the most entertainment, while the Games themselves were fairly mediocre. This time the film is more competent as an action movie, but the good stuff is still mostly the maneuverings that are going on outside and around the Games. We get much more focus on the political climate and the social unrest this time, as Katniss struggles with a life in the spotlight she can't escape. Jennifer Lawrence continues to deliver a strong performance, as Katniss's survival-oriented worldview begins to shift towards rebelliousness. She really sells the paranoia and the moments of blind panic early on, which make Katniss's later bravery all the more affecting. Her would-be screen beaus can't keep up with her, though Hutcherson improves quite a bit.

The budget was noticeably increased for this film, thanks to the series' newly minted blockbuster status. The talent level of the incoming actors reflects this too. In addition to Hoffman, new characters include other former victors Finnick (Sam Claflin), Johanna (Jena Malone), Beetee (Jeffrey Wright), and Mags (Lynn Cohen), who may be new potential allies or enemies for Katniss. Donald Sutherland gets much more screen time and much more to do, cementing him as the real Big Bad of "The Hunger Games." He's a lot of fun bringing on the malevolence here, as are returning cast members Stanley Tucci, Elizabeth Banks, and Woody Harrelson in supporting parts. More importantly we've got an action movie director onboard for this round, Francis Lawrence, best known for "I am Legend." No more shakey-cam, and though the action remains firmly in PG-13 territory, not so much squeamishness about the violence either.

All in all this is a much more comfortable, self-assured outing. In many ways the plot retreads significant portions of the first movie, but now the commentary is more pointed, the action more impactful, and the narrative much more focused. Stakes are raised across the board. The sinister tyrant who watched the first Games from afar is now right across the table from Katniss, and threatening her directly to her face. Where media manipulation was a clever strategy in the first movie, now it's a matter of life and death with both sides constantly debating ways to use Katniss's image to their own advantage. Concepts are better fleshed out, characters have more depth and definition, and it's much easier to get swept up into this universe.

I do miss some of the roughness of the first "Hunger Games," with its bluegrass infused score and gloomier, more atmospheric depictions of Katniss's impoverished home town. "Catching Fire" is much more polished, and its wilder conceits are easier to swallow because of better execution, but as a result it comes across as a little more generic. However, "Catching Fire" is much more accessible and delivers on all fronts a lot more consistently. It also does a great deal of heavy lifting to widen the scope of "The Hunger Games" to accommodate a four-film franchise. I'm much more interested in the seeing the rest of the films now than I was after the first one.

In fact, when you put it up against all the other big budget action franchises out there right now, "The Hunger Games" is one of the best that Hollywood has to offer. It does have some real substance to it, features a compelling narrative with strong ideas, and is terribly entertaining too. Let's hope they keep it up.
---

Minor spoilers ahead for everything that has aired so far

After thirteen episodes, I feel like I'm still waiting for "Almost Human" to drop the other shoe. Despite setting up a lot of mythology and all these different little mysteries that point to longer arcs and more substantive stories, there hasn't been a whole lot of progression for any of the show's major ongoing conflicts since the pilot. Remember the traumatic shoot-out with the Syndicate and John Kennex's missing ex-girlfriend? They're referenced a few times, to assure us that the storyline is still alive and well, but the developments are only incremental. What about the mysterious memories that Rudy found in Dorian? No answers, but plenty of fretting over them. Any more information on Dorian's past or the circumstances of his decommissioning? Not really.

Instead, "Almost Human" quickly slipped into being yet another crime-of-the-week police procedural, except set in a future version of Pittsburgh. The special effects are still a notch above the norm, and it's fun to see the show play with concepts like a genetically-engineered class of humans called Chromes, souped-up security systems run amok, and upgraded plastic surgery. Sadly, the writing isn't anything special, and there's nothing that matches up to the promising first two episodes. Instead, it pings as awfully similar to the all the middling science-fiction shows that I was watching on FOX back in the '90s like "Sliders" and all the "The X-Files" clones. I was especially puzzled at how the show so rarely delves into the question posed by the show's title - what are the larger consequences of creating androids like Dorian, who are almost human, but not quite? The show touches on Dorian's day-to-day struggles with living as a synthetic being in a human world, but never very deeply. I don't think Kennex's status as a cyborg officer has been brought up since the third or fourth episode.

I still like the pairing of Michael Ealy and Keith Urban very much, and it's enough to keep most of the filler stories on track, but the show clearly isn't using these two to their full potential. The rest of the cast is in even worse shape. Mackenzie Crook's Rudy has gotten a lot of screen time and makes for decent comic relief, but Lili Taylor is stuck spouting tired exposition as their supervisor, Michael Irby's Detective Paul remains infuriatingly two-dimensional, and though Minka Kelly got one good episode as Detective Stahl, I still can't take her seriously as a police officer, especially as the show insists on dressing and coiffing her like a network morning show hostess and she's frequently more plasticine than the show's android characters. Compare how another network genre show, "Person of Interest" has steadily developed its cast of minor characters, and the problem becomes obvious.

What I liked so much about the early episodes of "Almost Human" was the worldbuilding, that nice mix of retro-futuristic elements with more contemporary technological advancements. However, this has gotten increasingly generic over time. Hackers apparently still take their fashion cues from the outdated 90s alternative scene last seen in "Hackers" the movie. The plots to "Repo Men" and "Untraceable" have already been rehashed, along with the usual runamok androids, misappropriated high-tech weaponry, and medical advances gone wrong that inevitably show up on every similar science-fiction show. The problem is that "Almost Human" hasn't provided much to distinguish itself. It still feels like the show is referencing other science-fiction media instead of making a cohesive whole out of all the different bits of technology it's introduced.

Detective Kennex and Dorian could be really compelling characters if they were handled right, and the show is in a position where it could tackle much headier and more interesting material, but the desire to do so clearly isn't there. I keep finding myself comparing "Almost Human" to the first season of the "Ghost in the Shell" series, which was also a procedural about law enforcement operating in a technologically advanced near-future filled with cyborgs and androids. The difference is that despite being animated, "Ghost in the Shell" wasn't afraid of complex ideas and difficult characters. It had no interest in trotting out the old tropes and pandering to their audience, even if it meant alienating the more mainstream viewers. "Almost Human" is often painfully safe and formulaic.

Oh well. Maybe I expected too much. "Almost Human" is still a perfectly watchable genre show and continues to display a lot of potential to be better than it is. However, I'm not going to be too disappointed if this turns out to be its only season. It produced a few good episodes and created some interesting characters. It's just too bad that it never took advantage of everything it had going for it, and produced anything really great.
---

There are flops and there are legendary flops, and Michael Cimino's 1980 western epic "Heaven's Gate" is one of the most infamous of all time. It not only lost so much money that it destroyed United Artists, but it's commonly pointed to as one of the films responsible for ending the New Hollywood film era that saw the control of American films shift away from directors to studios and corporate interests. Critically, it was reviled upon initial release, but its image had been rehabilitated significantly in recent years. A 219 minute "restored cut" was made available by the Criterion Collection in 2012 under the director's supervision, adding over a full hour of footage. This is the version that I saw, having had no experience with the original theatrical cut. So is "Heaven's Gate" a misunderstood masterpiece finally getting its due? No, not really.

Loosely based on a real range war that happened in the 1890s, "Heaven's Gate" follows a marshal named Jim Averill (Kris Kristofferson) who becomes caught up in the conflict between an Association of rich cattle barons, lead by Frank Canton (Sam Waterston) and Billy Irvine (John Hurt), and the growing number of poor immigrant settlers who are more recently arrived. Averill is friends with Nate Champion (Christopher Walken), who has been hired by the Association to hunt down and kill suspected cattle rustlers, a pretext to drive away the settlers. The two men become involved in a love triangle with a local madam, Ella Watson (Isabelle Huppert), known to be friendly to the immigrants, and who becomes target of the Association. The "Heaven's Gate" of the title refers to a roller rink the immigrants use as a meeting place, and where Averill and Ella fall in love.

I give Michael Cimino full points for ambition. "Heaven's Gate" is certainly an epic in every sense of the word, full of beautifully composed, large scale action sequences, huge crowd scenes, and a faithful recreation of the period environs. It's unflinching in its violence, includes some perfectly appropriate sexual content, presents social commentary that still resonates, and has a refreshingly mature take on romance. There are singular moments in the film that are truly arresting, and well worthy of praise. The cast is stacked with strong talents, and I had a great time picking out familiar faces in early roles. Christopher Walken comes off the best as one of the three leads, a hired gun with a sentimental heart. I also like Isabelle Huppert, whose character is a little ridiculous in construction, but she doesn't let that stop her for a moment.

Sadly, the movie is a dreadful bore. Characters show up and are given nothing to do. Important relationships are established quickly and left underdeveloped. The director seems to have something against basic exposition, preferring to spend long stretches of the film acquainting us with beautiful landscapes and incidental moments in his painstakingly recreated Wyoming frontier. I had to look up who some of the characters were, like the roller rink owner played by Jeff Bridges, who wander in and out of the narrative at random. This is not necessarily a bad approach in the right hands, but Cimino too frequently leaves his audience adrift, saddled with repetitive sequences, a plethora of confusing minor characters, and a narrative that fails to maintain any momentum for far too long.

The movie improves as it goes on, and the bodies start piling up, but it's an awful slog to get to the parts that feel like a proper movie instead of an indulgent tonal exercise. Kris Kristofferson's Averill is a major problem, a nonentity who spends a lot of time onscreen without making much of an impression, who I found impossible to connect with emotionally or psychologically on any level - and the whole point of the movie is his spiritual journey. Kristofferson's career would never be the same after "Heaven's Gate," which I find a little unfair. It wasn't so much his performance, but the total lack of a character that did Averill in. By the time the film's coda rolled around, it felt like I'd missed a huge chunk of the story, despite having watched it all unfold for over three hours of screen time.

"Heaven's Gate" doesn't strike me as a legendary disaster, but it is a film best suited for very niche tastes that had no business being made at a Hollywood studio for the exorbitant funds that it cost. There are some wonderful images and strong performances in it, but they're not enough to offset the lack of focus and lack of discipline. I think this was a major missed opportunity for something better, and the best thing I can say about it is that it remains a fascinating, flawed curiosity that once had the potential to be a great work of art.
---

Going into "The Hobbit: the Desolation of Smaug" with reduced expectations helped a lot. The movie has all the same problems as the first installment - way too little of Bilbo, way too many cameos, and all the issues that resulted from trying to stretch roughly a hundred pages of story into three hours of blockbuster filmmaking. However, this time at least the introductions and much of the exposition had already been taken care of, and our heroes are firmly in mid-adventure, so there weren't any problems keeping the story's momentum going. Also, the high points of “Smaug” were a good deal higher than “Unexpected Journey.”

When last we saw Bilbo (Martin Freeman), Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage), and Gandalf (Ian McKellan), they were being pursued by orcs and still a long way from the Lonely Mountain, their ultimate destination. The journey takes them to Mirkwood, where they meet the hostile Wood Elves, led by King Thranduil (Lee Pace), and then to Lake-town, inhabited by humans, where they enlist the help of Bard the Bowman (Luke Evans). Bilbo continues to the power of the ring that he won from Gollum, and readies himself to go up against Smaug the Dragon (Benedict Cumberbatch), unaware of the ring’s connection to the dark power that Gandalf continues to investigate.

The biggest departure from the book, and for some viewers the biggest headache will be the return of Orlando Bloom’s Legolas, who along with a new female warrior elf, Tauriel (Evangeline Lily) get quite a lot of screentime. There’s really no justification for them to be part of the story, and Tauriel seems like a much too convenient excuse to shoehorn a romance into the works, but it doesn’t come off that badly. The elves are largely limited to action sequences, and Tauriel does have some chemistry with the young dwarf Kili (Aidan Turner) who catches her eye. She’s fun to watch - essentially another Arwen, but with more fancy weaponry.

Characters that do come straight from Tolkien don’t necessarily work any better. There’s a curious digression to have a few scenes with Beorn (Mikael Persbrandt), a “skin-changer,” which doesn’t amount to anything except that it means a favorite character from the original novel wasn’t left out. Bard gets an expanded part, which paints him as an outsider in Lake-town, but it feels like the writers are trying too hard to get the audience to view him as a hero figure without making him properly heoric, similar to their missteps with Thorin. Fortunately we see less of other problematic characters like Radagast the Brown (Sylvester McCoy) and the various orc warlords this time, and they’re deployed in a more tolerable fashion. Gandalf’s expanded subplot even builds to a nice climax after all the meandering from the first movie.

Performances are pretty strong all around. Martin Freeman’s Bilbo gets more to do, Richard Armitage is growing on me, Ian McKellan’s Gandalf is as much of a delight as ever, and I was surprised at how much I liked Evangeline Lily as Tauriel after bracing myself for the worst. I found that most of the new faces weren’t nearly as effective, though. There’s something a little off about Thranduil and Bard - or maybe it’s just that the film versions of the characters have taken liberties with them that I haven’t quite gotten my head around yet. As for the return of Orlando Bloom, he honestly doesn’t get that much to do and I spent most of his screentime marveling at how different he looked from his last appearance in “Lord of the Rings” despite not seeming to have aged a day.

The movie’s main event, and what I’ve been waiting years to see, is the full realization of the dragon Smaug, a wonderful CGI creature whose interactions with Bilbo Baggins were worth waiting for. Jackson insists on adding action scenes here where none existed, but they’re well executed spectacle of the best kind. Most of the action has been improved in this movie, more well grounded, and more focused on character. Two other standout sequences are Bilbo’s fight with a group of spiders and an escape involving the heroes riding barrels down a raging river. I should also point out that most of the little quibbles that I had with visuals in “There and Back Again” because of the use of the 48 fps projection have mostly been fixed in “Desolation of Smaug.” The picture looks absolutely gorgeous.

In short, I was able to turn my brain off long enough to enjoy the new “Hobbit” movie as an action blockbuster and stop comparing it to “Lord of the Rings.” I still think that this new trilogy has been severely compromised by stretching it out to three movies and shifting the focus away from Bilbo, but at least they’re making improvements and have translated many of the best bits of Tolkein to the screen in truly epic fashion. I still can’t name more than three of the dwarves and I still think Peter Jackson included far too many callbacks to the previous trilogy, but I really enjoyed “Smaug” and have much higher hopes for the finale, “There and Back Again” coming in December.
---

The ceremony ran a little longer than average, hitting the three-and-a-half hour mark, but it was a remarkably painless evening at the Academy Awards. Ellen Degeneres was a good host, avoiding big production numbers and scripted segments, but doing several running bits with her audience of celebrities that came off very well. The hosting choices of recent years have been a very mixed bag, and I can see the Academy latching on to Ellen for the long term. Her humor's on the gentler side, but she can still land a good "You're all racists" zing once in a while. There were too many random montages and perfunctory appearances, but all the musical performances were pretty strong. Poor Idina Menzel stumbled with "Let it Go," but John Travolta has been getting more flak the morning after for mangling her name.

The awards themselves offered few surprises. Ever since the guild awards became more high profile and the prognosticators ramped up their game, all the suspense is gone. So "Gravity" won all the technical awards, there was a Director and Picture split, and Lupita Nyong'o beat out Jennifer Lawrence for Best Supporting Actress, exactly as everyone predicted. The only remotely surprising outcome came in Documentary Feature, where "20 Feet From Stardom" beat out "The Act of Killing," and it wasn't hard to figure out why in a crowd of entertainment industry insiders. Fortunately we had a good crop of heartfelt, well-delivered acceptance speeches this year. Darlene Love sang. The Lopezes rhymed. Spike Jonze brought imaginary people. Lupita Nyong'o was sobering and eloquent. Matthew McConaughey couldn't have been more charming.

I'm far from convinced that the right people won, but I wasn't too bothered by the ones who did. It actually helped that the choices were pretty much a foregone conclusion by this point and there weren't any major upsets. In spite of "Gravity" getting the lion's share of the trophies, totaling seven, nearly every film I liked came away with something. "12 Years a Slave" got Best Picture, Adapted Screenplay, and Supporting Actress. "Her" got Best Original Screenplay. It bothered me that "American Hustle" racked up so many nominations at the expense of much better films, but it came away the biggest loser last night. Zero for ten, which has got to hurt. There were an awful lot of shutouts last night, including "Nebraska," "The Wolf of Wall Street," "Captain Phillips," and "Philomena." With the expanded Best Picture field, I suppose it as inevitable.

The telecast never runs smoothly, and this year had its share of flubbed intros, weird cutaways, and technical glitches. However, the whole thing looked considerably more modern and well considered this year. The nomination graphics had a decidedly Web 2.0 design sensibility, with the final run of Best Picture hopefuls depicted in a flash animated segment instead of the usual montage of clips. The set design was unobtrusive, the musical cues only stuck out in a few cases, and I didn't catch a single instance of the orchestra drowning out a speech as a winner was played off stage. There were definitely some changes made to streamline the ceremony - no accountants, no prefilmed opening segment, and Ellen Degeneres did most of the intros for presenters instead of a generic announcer, which also gave her a chance to do more schtick - but the event's organizers seemed less worried about the time crunch this year, so everything felt more relaxed.

What I think made the most difference this year was that there was a lot more spontaneous interaction with the celebrities in attendance. Pharrell got Lupita Nyong'o, Amy Adams, and even Meryl Streep to dance with him during his performance of "Happy." Ellen seemed to be in the aisles as much as she was onstage, with her multi-part pizza gag and the epic selfie. Brad Pitt passing out paper plates and Jared Leto racing over to be in the picture are things that you just can't script. Harrison Ford was a lot more entertaining getting pizza in his seat than he was awkwardly reciting bland copy from the teleprompter. It gave the whole event a warmer, more personal, collegiate atmosphere. The appearance of people having fun counted for a lot.

I was glad to see that Sarah Jones was acknowledged, that the performance clips were in, that interpretive dance sequences were out, that Bill Murray got a chance to give a shout-out to Harold Ramis, and that Kevin Spacey brought his Frank Underwood drawl along for presenting duties. I have no idea what that animation "heroes" montage was about and the proliferation of older actresses sporting botox was disheartening, but these are minor quibbles. Yes, the Oscars were a little boring this year, but they were also much more watchable, pleasant, and enjoyable than they've been in some time.

Until next year, award show fans.
---

7:01 PM - More Ellen and selfies with the audience. This is great. Meryl's never Tweeted before!

7:03 PM - Here's Michael B. Jordon and Kristin B. Ell. Ah, the Sci-Tech awards rundown.

7:05 PM - Chris Hemsworth and Charlize Theron are here to present the Sound awards. Sound Mixing goes to the "Gravity" team. Annnd Sound Editing goes to "Gravity." They're sweeping the technical awards, as predicted. Gotta speed it up, guys. We're past the halfway point of the ceremony, but only just getting to halfway through the awards to be presented.

7:11 PM - This is very cheery intro music for Christoph Waltz. Ooh, Best Supporting Actress time. Yay, Lupita Nyong'o wins! Quite a field in this category this year too. I haven't seen "August Osage County," but the rest of the nominees were stellar.

7:21 PM - Ellen's bit with the pizza goes on. Brad Pitt is on paper plate duty. They're shaking down Harvey Weinstein to tip the delivery guy.

7:23 PM - Here's the president of the Academy, Cheryl Boon Isaacs. The new museum they want to build looks very shiny.

7:25 PM - Amy Adams and Bill Murray are presenting Best Cinematography. Aw, Murray gives a shout out to Harold Ramis. Emmanuel Lubezki finally lands one for "Gravity." I can already hear the moaning from people who think there was too much special effects work involved for this to qualify. I don't care how many computers helped. That movie didn't shoot itself.

7:29 PM - Gabourey Sidibe and Anna Kendrick present for Best Editing. Cuaron's going home with at least one Oscar tonight! "Gravity" team wins!

7:32 PM - Whoopi Goldberg is presenting the special tribute to "The Wizard of Oz," celebrating its 75th anniversary this year (and because "Gone With the Wind" has too much baggage). Judy Garland's kids have shown up. And here's Pink singing "Somewhere Over the Rainbow."

7:42 PM - Ellen's in a Glinda outfit. I love that crown. And the sleeve poofs. Here's Jennifer Garner and Benedict Cumberbatch presenting Best Production Design. Oscar goes to "The Great Gatsby" team. Mrs. Luhrmann just scored her fourth Oscar, and second of the evening.

7:45 PM - Chris Evans (that's two "Avengers" this evening so far) is presenting a montage of "popular heroes." Looks like this is genre movies, and the previous one was for historical and prestige dramas.

7:48 PM - Okay, another break. We're down to the music categories, the big six, and the memoriam. Hold on to your hats.

7:52 PM - Glenn Close is presenting the In Memoriam segment. Here we go. Didn't know about Les Blank or Frederic Back. Couldn't place the music until Richard Matheson's name came up - it's the theme from "Somewhere in Time." I'm glad they held Bette Middler's performance back until after the montage was over. Sorry to friends of Sarah Jones, but there were way too many people that had to be mentioned this year.

8:01 PM - Whoah, almost missed that little popup tribute graphic at the end there. Partial victory?

8:03 PM - They crashed Twitter! The selfie is currently the top post on Reddit. Lupita Nyong'o's brother just kinda snuck right into the middle of that one, didn't he?

8:04 PM - Goldie Hawn is here with the last batch of Best Picture nominees, "Philomena," "Captain Phillips," and "12 Years a Slave."

8:08 PM - And they roll out John Travolta to "Miserlou." He's introducing Idina Menzel to sing "Let it Go" from "Frozen." She didn't quite nail that ending there. Ah, the perils of live performances.

8:12 PM - Jamie Foxx and Jessica Beal present the music categories. Score goes to Steven Price for "Gravity." That's six by my count. Song goes to "Frozen." Robert Lopez has his EGOT. The Lopezes wrote a rhyming speech and they are awesome.

8:22 PM - Ellen's passing Pharrell's hat around for pizza money. Harvey, Spacey, Pitt, and Ejiofor chip in. Lupita Nyong'o adds her lip balm.

8:23 PM - Robert DeNiro and Penelope Cruz are presenting the writing awards. Adapted Screenplay goes to John Ridley for "12 Years a Slave." Hooray! And the steam is coming out of Armond White's ears as we speak.

8:26 PM - Original Screenplay goes to Spike! Go "Her"! His speech is adorable. It really has been a good night for speeches.

8:28 PM - They're running long. Four more to go.

8:30 PM - Has everyone seen the red carpet photo of Benedict Cumberbatch photobombing U2? Go Google it. I'll wait.

8:32 PM - Angelina Jolie and Sidney Poitier get a standing ovation - 50th anniversary of his Best Actor win, remember. They're presenting Best Director. Just want to give a shout out to whoever is doing the nominee graphics this year. They're fabulous. Alfonso Cuaron wins! Considering what it took him to get "Gravity" made, can't begrudge him one bit.

8:38 PM - I have no idea how Ellen keeps here energy up like this. Cute fake-out, but we've got a couple more to go.

8:41 PM - Ooh, Daniel Day-Lewis. Best Actress time. Cate Blanchett wins her second Oscar, and delivers a perfectly polished acceptance speech. Yep, Woody got namechecked. Suck it, haters.

8:47 PM - Jennifer Lawrence is presenting Best Actor. It's a McConaughey night. Alright, alright, alright! The man's career has had a heck of a turnaround these past two years. I'm happy for him.

8:54 PM - Best Picture! Will Smith presenting... which could be a tip off, but let's not get ahead of ourselves... okay these graphics instead of the montage are are lot of fun... Oscar goes to "12 Years a Slave." Oh with the hugging! "Gravity" still takes home seven trophies, remember. Brad Pitt is talking because he had a huge part in getting the film made, guys.

Steve McQueen, stop apologizing. You're a winner.

Now he's bouncing up and down. That's more like it.

Happy Oscar night. Proper dissection tomorrow.
---

5:34 PM - Aaargh. I'm late due to a technical glitch. We're already partway through Ellen's monologue. Going well so far. Doesn't look like I missed a production number anywhere.

5:36 PM - The room loves Jennifer Lawrence. Who doesn't?

5:37 PM - Aw. Bruce Dern and Laura Dern are seated next to each other.

5:40 PM - Hi Anne Hathaway. Here comes Best Supporting Actor. Yes, we get performance clips this year! Leto wins, as expected. Good grief, he's not delivering this speech well. You'd think that with the roll he's been on, he'd have this down by now.

5:46 PM - Back to Ellen for a much needed energy boot. And here's Jim Carrey. We still love you!

5:47 PM - And Carrey's here to present the animation award. I don't know what he has to do with animation, but at least he's doing better than last year's presenters. I'm kinda confused by this montage though. It's a really poor sampling of movies. Oh, wait. He's not presenting an award. Just that lousy montage. Huh.

5:51 PM - Moving on, here. Pharrell with "Happy" the first Best Song nominee. Go Lupita!

5:56 PM - Samuel L. Jackson and Naomi Watts are presenting Costume, Hair, and Makeup awards. Costume goes to "Great Gatsby." Good to see this getting some recognition. Baz's "Gatsby" was a bust, it sure looked great. Ah, the winner is Mrs. Luhrmann! As a three-time winner, she's definitely got more Oscars than her husband.

6:00 PM - Makeup and Hairstyling goes to the team from "Dallas Buyers Club." Apparently they had the smallest budget too.

6:02 PM - Harrison Ford comes out to the "Indiana Jones" theme. He's presenting Best Picture nominees. Looks like they're doing them in batches this year. "American Hustle," "Dallas Buyers Club," and "Wolf of Wall Street" up first. Mr. Ford does not appear impressed by the lines he's been given.

6:05 PM - Channing Tatum is here to talk about an Academy outreach program called "Team Oscar." For all of five seconds.

6:10 PM - Ellen's handing out Lotto scratchers as consolation prizes.

6:11 PM - I've just lost audio, and have no idea what Kim Novak and Matthew McConaughey are saying, but Novak looks a little ill. Oh, they're presenting Animated Short! I haven't seen any of these, but the winner, "Mr. Hublot" looks great. The director is adorably nervous, and thanked his cartoon star, Mr. Hublot.

6:14 PM - Animated feature time. Oscar goes to "Frozen." Much as I'd have liked to see Miyazaki take another one home, it's about damn time Disney got a win in this category.

6:16 PM - Mark humor. I love Ellen. And here's Sally Field, looking gorgeous as ever.

6:19 PM - This "hero" montage is better, but still way too slanted toward modern films.

6:20 PM - Emma Watson and Joseph Gordon-Levitt are presenting Best Visual Effects. Oscar goes to "Gravity," of course. No mention of the picketers outside.

6:23 PM - Zac Efron presenting Karen O., singing "The Moon Song" from "Her."

6:29 PM - So they're not going to explain what Ellen was doing with that guitar? Okay, here's Kate Hudson and Jason Sudiekis with the Best Live Action Short. Oscar goes to "Helium." Good grief, none of these shorts are from the U.S.

6:33 PM - Best Documentary Short goes to "The Lady in Number 6: Music Saved My Life" about Holocaust survivor Alice Herz-Sommer, who just passed away.

6:35 PM - More Ellen. I'm glad she's staying so present during the show instead of disappearing like some of the past hosts.

6:36 PM - Here comes Documentary Feature with Bradley Cooper. I've actually seen most of these this year. Holy moly, "20 Feet From Stardom" won. Over "The Act of Killing." "20 Feet" was a good film, but this is perplexing.

Okay, that's probably the best speech of the night. Nobody's playing her off.

6:40 PM - Kevin Spacey's here to give us the rundown of the Governor's Awards. I love the little Frank Underwood he slipped in there. Honorary awards went to Angela Lansbury, Steve Martin, and costume designer Piero Tosi. As usual, I wish I could have seen that ceremony. Wait, they gave the Hersholt to Angelina Jolie?

6:46 PM - That Google Play commercial officially had the best movie montage of the evening so far.

6:47 PM - Ewan McGregor and Viola Davis presenting Best Foreign Language film. Rooting for "Broker Circle," expecting "The Great Beauty" to take it. Yep, "The Great Beauty" wins. That film completely went over my head.

6:50 PM - Hi Tyler Perry. He's presenting more Best Picture nominees. "Nebraska," "Her," and "Gravity." Amy Adams does not realize the camera is pointed in her direction, making it look like she's as underwhelmed with the award show pablum as the rest of us. But damn, these are all good movies.

6:54 PM - Ellen's wardrobe change gets whistles. Hee. And here comes Brad Pitt to intro U2, performing "Ordinary Love" from the "Mandela" biopic that nobody saw. Ever since "Across the Universe," I have the sneaking suspicion that Bono is always in The Walrus mode.

6:59 PM - To be continued in Part 2 after I get a hummus refill.
---

Profile

missmediajunkie

May 2014

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30	31

Syndicate

Page Summary

Style Credit

Style: Cinnamon Cream for Crossroads by branchandroot
Resources: Vintage Christmas 6

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Page generated Jun. 12th, 2025 12:11 pm

Recent Entries

Exploring the "Cosmos"

Do I Have to See "Nymphomaniac"?

The McConnelling

Candy Crushin'

More PIXAR Sequels on the Way

Kicking it To "Mars"

Franchise Inertia

My Biggest Problem With Anime

My Top Ten "Twilight Zone" Episodes

Getting Over "300"

Obama 'Tween the "Ferns"

"True Detective" Pairings I Want to See

My Favorite Fritz Lang Film

"Catching Fire" Stays Alight

"Almost Human," Year One

"Heaven's Gate" is Still Pretty Bad

"Smaug" Satisfies

Oscar Wrap-Up 2014

Oscars 2014 Liveblog Part 2

Oscars 2014 Liveblog Part 1