Rysh Guild Nominations 2008

The Rysh Guild, after 7 ballots of nominating candidates, have determined those qualified for awards in each of the Class A Categories. The categories are: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Original Screenplay, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Supporting Actor, Best Supporting Actress, Best Lead Actor, Best Lead Actress, and Best Ensemble Cast.



(Best Picture)
1. Changeling
2. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
3. The Dark Knight
4. Doubt
5. Revolutionary Road
6. Slumdog Millionaire

(Best Director)
7. Danny Boyle for ‘Slumdog Millionaire’
8. Jonathan Demme for ‘Rachel Getting Married’
9. Clint Eastwood for ‘Changeling’
10. David Fincher for ‘The Curious Case of Benjamin Button’
11. Sam Mendes for ‘Revolutionary Road’
12. Chris Nolan for ‘The Dark Knight’

(Adapted Screenplay)
13. Eric Roth for ‘The Curious Case of Benjamin Button’
14. Chris Nolan, Jonah Nolan for ‘The Dark Knight’
15. John Patrick Shanley for “Doubt”
16. David Hare for ‘The Reader’
17. Justin Haythe for ‘Revolutionary Road’
18. Simon Beufoy for ‘Slumdog Millionaire’

(Original Screenplay)
19. Ethan Coen, Joel Coen for ‘Burn After Reading’
20. J Michael Straczynski for ‘Changeling’
21. Courtney Hunt for ‘Frozen River’
22. Dustin Lance Black for ‘Milk’
23. Judd Apatow, Evan Goldberg, Seth Rogan for ‘Pineapple Express’
24. Jenny Lumet for ‘Rachel Getting Married’

(Supporting Actor)
25. Aaron Eckhardt as Harvey Dent/Two Face in ‘The Dark Knight’
26. Robert Downey Jr. as Kirk Lazarus in ‘Tropic Thunder’
27. Philip Seymour Hoffman as Father Flynn in ‘Doubt’
28. Heath Ledger as The Joker in ‘The Dark Knight’
29. John Malkovich as Osbourne Cox in ‘Burn After Reading’
30. Brad Pitt as Chad in ‘Burn After Reading’

(Supporting Actress)
31. Amy Adams as Sister James in ‘Doubt’
32. Penelope Cruz as Maria Elena in ‘Vicky Cristina Barcelona’
33. Viola Davis as Mrs. Miller in ‘Doubt’
34. Marisa Tomei as Cassidy in ‘The Wrestler’
35. Debra Winger as Abby in ‘Rachel Getting Married’
36. Kate Winslet as Hannah Schmitz in ‘The Reader’

(Lead Actor)
37. Frank Langhella as President Richard Nixon in ‘Frost/Nixon’
38. Dev Patel as Jamal Malik in ‘Slumdog Millionaire’
39. Sean Penn as Harvey Milk in ‘Milk’
40. Brad Pitt as Benjamin Button in ‘The Curious Case of Benjamin Button’
41. Mickey Rourke as Randy ‘The Ram’ Robinson in ‘The Wrestler’
42. Anton Yelchin as Charlie Bartlett in ‘Charlie Bartlett’

(Lead Actress)
43. Cate Blanchett as Daisy in ‘The Curious Case of Benjamin Button’
44. Anne Hathaway as Kym in ‘Rachel Getting Married’
45. Angelina Jolie as Cristine Collins in ‘Changeling’
46. Melissa Leo as Ray Eddy in ‘Frozen River’
47. Meryl Streep as Sister Aloysius Beauvier in ‘Doubt’
48. Kate Winslet as April Wheeler in ‘Revolutionary Road’

(ensemble cast – see below for ensemble lists)
49. Burn After Reading
50. Changeling
51. The Curious Case of Benjamin button
52. The Dark Knight
53. Rachel Getting Married
54. Slumdog Millionaire

ENSEMBLES
Burn After Reading – (George Clooney, Frances McDormand, John Malkovich, Tilda Swinton, Brad Pitt, Richard Jenkins, Elizabeth Marvel, David Raschle, J.K Simmons)
Changeling – (Angelina Jolie, John Malkovich, Jeffrey Donovan, Gattlin Griffith, Jason Butler Harner, Amy Ryan, Michael Kelly, Geoff Pierson, Colm Feore)
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button – (Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchett, Taraji Henson, Julia Ormond, Jason Flemyng, Mahershalalhashbaz Ali, Jared Harris, Elisas Koteas, Phyllis Somerville, Tilda Swinton, Elle Fanning, Madisen Beaty)
The Dark Knight – (Christian Bale, Aaron Eckhardt, Heath Ledger, Morgan Freeman, Sir Michael Caine, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Gary Oldman, Eric Roberts, Colin McFarlane, Chin Han)
Rachel Getting Married – (Anne Hathaway, Rosmarie DeWitt, Bill Irwin, Anna Deavere Smith, Tundle Adebimpe, Debra Winger)
Slumdog Millionaire – (Dev Patel, Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail, Tanay Chheda, Madhur Mittal, Ashutosh Lobo Gajiwala, Ayush Mahesh Khedekar, Anil Kapoor, Saurabh Shukla, Irrfan Khan, Rubina Ali, Tanvi Ganesh Lonkar, Freida Pinto)

Doubt

“I have doubts…I have such doubts”

Dynamite on the Screen and Doubt Left in the Soul

After reading John Patrick Shanley’s 58 page play, it was time to go see his own adaptation of his play into the screen. He picked a great cast – Meryl Streep, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams, and Viola Davis. The film was poised to be spectacular. And it was.

Set in 1960s Brooklyn, Doubt is about Sister Aloysius Beauvier (Streep), a cranky nun stuck in the dark ages, who mounts a campaign against Father Flynn (Hoffman), a more progressive priest, based on her certainty that he has had illicit relations with the school’s first negro boy. Because the play was short, and the film much lengthier, Shanley was able to place all the substance of the book into the film. And, although I would love to see this play on stage, I “doubt” that a lot can be done to outdo this film.

Honestly, there is so much that leaves you thinking because of this film, that I really don’t want to put too much substance into this review. However, the main theme is, obviously, doubt. Doubt is an emotion just as powerful as certainty. What can it lead to? Doubt in your own faith. Doubt in others? All of this is eloquently expressed by Father Flynn and emulated through Sister Aloysius. You will not leave the theatre without something to think about on the ride home.

As far as performances go – it will be a sin if one of these actors isn’t sent home with a statue. Philip Seymour Hoffman is not going to beat out Heath Ledger, especially since he already has a statue. Streep likely won’t beat out Kate Winslet or Anne Hathaway for the same reason. I would place my money on either Amy Adams or Viola Davis. I have my ‘certainty’ that both of them will receive nominations, and I would place money on one of them to take the gold from Penelope Cruz. Right now, it’s a complete tie between the two of them. If I had to make a guess – I would vote for Amy Adams, but Viola Davis will win. Either way, it works, and it is well deserved.

Because I don’t want to talk about details too much, just take my recommendation to heart and see this film before it is taken out of theatres for it’s likely 4 month segue to DVD. 2008 becomes a record year – I give this film a solid A, and that now makes 4 A-range film for 2008. Woot!

The Visitor

“We are not helpless children”

Immigration, Romance, and the Drums. Which way, which way…

Richard Jenkins has been getting a lot of buzz for his performance in The Visitor. None of the Redboxes had it, so I bought it for my mother for Christmas. Was it worth the money – maybe. Do I wish the Redbox had it – definitely.

The film centres on Prof Walter Vale (Jenkins), who while visiting New York for a conference, finds two people inhabiting his rarely-used New York apartment. They are illegal immigrants. The plot summary stops here, because if I go any further, I will have ruined the film completely beyond its mediocre grade it will receive.

The film’s obvious message is that illegal immigrants shouldn’t be considered illegal. I have my own theories about immigration policy, so rather than trying to debate Hollywood or the ACLU, I will just analyze the film. The film was way too ambitious to really touch any of its points strongly. Only part of the film focuses on the bureaucracy behind immigration. Another big aspect of the film focuses on the main character’s growing fondness of the supporting character’s mother. Finally, another aspect focuses on the main character’s midlife crisis, and how he is learning to discover his true identity. The main visual motif it uses for this is Jenkins learning to play an African drum. However, because the film directed its attention equally to each of these aspects, and because the real political backdrop behind the film was obvious, though weak in its argument, it accomplishes very little. The film tries to do too much – is it really about immigration, impossible romances, or midlife crises? Well, I recommend El Norte, Shakespeare In Love, and American Beauty for all of the above, respectively, for those themes.

Richard Jenkins was good. He played his part well, and there is no reason to try to take away any potential Oscar nomination he might encounter. He has paid his due to the film industry, and his performance was pretty much the only thing that made the film tolerable to watch. His nomination is still an ‘if’ at this point, but he certainly won’t be able to win, I’m fairly certain of it.

Richard Jenkins saves this film from a worse grade, which I don’t really need to discuss. But because this film got lost in its own sense of purpose, I give it a C-.

Slumdog Millionaire

“It is written”

The Outcast is Finally Helped

Dev Patel – I know him as Anwar in the Channel 4 Series Skins. I didn’t care for his character, which transitively made me dislike the actor. But, Slumdog Millionaire seems poised to win it all this year, so I was excited when it was released at AMC 24.

Slumdog Millionaire focuses on Jamal Malik, a 17 year old Moslem who is just one question away from winning the Hindi version of ‘Who Wants to Be a Millionaire’. The police suspect him of cheating, as he comes from the slums of Mumbai and there is no plausible reason as to why he would know the answer to some of the questions. But, he is not cheating. He knows the answers. The film goes through different portions of his life as he tells the stories about how he knows the answers to the questions. In these stories are different quintessential genres – the harsh life of a poor boy from a third world, oppression, abuse, and, most of all, the romantic aspect. Slumdog captures is all, and, astoundingly, it manages to not be overly ambitious.

The strongest theme this film embodies is the power of the human heart over material. Obviously, this was much easier to accomplish among slumdogs who have nothing material. It shows how the humblest of hearts are the ones that appreciate what loves. Now, this does not mean that everyone should go ditch their possessions in order to become good people. However, I did get one good thing from this film – try to empathize with Jamal Malik. He might have something to teach you. If you didn’t have a lot of ‘stuff’, what would you have? Love? Family?

Now, back to Dev Patel – now that I never ever have to see Anwar again, I can now redraw Dev Patel in my mind as Jamal Malik. He caught a break there! He was recently nominated for Best Lead Actor by the Rysh Guild and Best Supporting Actor by the SAG. Arguments could be made for both lead and supporting. Either way, I am glad he is getting well-deserved recognition for his brilliant performance. And although he is standing among bigger giants in either category come the Oscars, a nomination is well deserved at this point, and I think we can all expect more things to come from Patel.

I left the theatre satisfied. This film was one of the many good films of 2008. It’s turning out to be a great season. And, although I can’t rank it with this year’s elites, it was a great film and I would recommend it. I give it a B+.

The Westboro Baptist Church

The Westboro Baptist Church Visits Hampton Roads

The most hated family in America is now making its way to the area to protest the military. The Westboro Baptist Church is a radical group from Topeka, Kansas, not associated with any mainstream Baptist Church. Its founder, Fred Phelps, and its members preach a hate theology aimed at gays, Catholics, Swedes, Americans, Moslems, Jews, and everyone except for themselves. The Westboro Baptist Church has roughly seventy members, and most of them are related to Phelps by blood, marriage, or both. They are notorious for picketing the funerals of fallen soldiers and AIDS victims. It has been a long time coming, but now these sick individuals are bringing their cloud of filth and songs of ‘God Hates the World’ to Virginia.

No matter where one falls on the political spectrum, this group should undoubtedly be despised by every American. They claim that because you are an American, you are going to Hell, for a variety of theologically-twisted reasons. I had the opportunity to listen in, via speakerphone, to a conversation my friend had with Shirley Phelps-Roper during their picketing of a soldiers’ funeral in Pittsburgh last week. It is really disgusting what they preach. When Shirley was questioned about her beliefs, she answered, “If your parents did not teach you about the hate your Lord our God has then it is not my problem”. When questioned further about the hateful nature of her beliefs, she answered very loudly, “Are you accusing me of spreading hate to my children”, to which my friend answered “Yes”. After that, Shirley absentmindedly broke into a chorus of “God Hates the World”.

At the Pittsburgh picketing, those present were Shirely, her older daughter Megan Phelps-Roper, and an unidentified young boy, about 8 years old. Shirley has confirmed that she will be going to all of the picketing stops in Virginia, including Yorktown on December 3. Ideally, I would love to see a large flock of students to go there and show them how much they are not welcome.

While in Pittsburgh, not only were they protesting the funeral of a fallen soldier, but they were also protesting the University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Melon University, which they claim are spreading the wrath of God. Although I think it unlikely they would make it alive to our campus, there still lies that possibility that after a few hours in Yorktown, they might decide to take a trip a few miles up the road to get attention from the College. It enrages me that they even have the audacity to come to this area, so I ask the community to stand together. Whether gay or straight, religious or atheist, American or international, these people are an enemy to society, and they need to be shown just what we think of them. I will be going to Yorktown to counter-protest the Westboro Baptist Church. I plan to interview Shirley Phelps-Roper and catch her in a web of lies, just as was done in Pittsburgh. If you need more convincing to join me, just visit www.godhatestheworld.com and indulge in hate ideology.

Changeling

I used to tell Walter, "Never start a fight... but always finish it." I didn't start this fight... but by god I'm going to finish it.

Clint Eastwood proves yet again that he doesn’t know how to make bad films.

As if Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby, and Letters From Iwo Jima weren’t good enough, Clint Eastwood delivers us another hard hitting drama. Changeling tells the story of Christine Collins, a single mother in the 1920s whose son is kidnapped. When a child is found and delivered to her by the LAPD, she vehemently denies that the child is her son, and the story goes on a plotline exploring a serial killer and LAPD corruption.

Angelina Jolie leads the outstanding cast as Christine Collins. It is wonderful to see that Angelina is returning to good scripts and good roles. Like sociopathic Lisa in Girl, Interupted, Jolie nails this role dead on. She became the woman whose son was taken from her, radiating intensely every emotion a mother in this kind of distress might feel. It is easily the most powerful role I have seen her in, and I will be appalled – not for the first time – at the Academy if she isn’t put up for Best Actress this year.

Clint Eastwood is famous for his time pieces, and, once again, he has proved that he can do his homework with visual detail. The costumes, props, lighting, and general scenery were all well done and give the viewer an undoubting visual sense of the 1920s. It is by no means the most important aspect of the film, but it helps create something aesthetically astounding.

The film’s most important aspect is, like every great movie, its themes. In this case, the most prevalent theme is the corruption of the Los Angeles Police Department. If gave me chills to know that the LAPD actually had people who were exploiting their failures institutionalized. And this is a true story! It really opened my eyes a bit – perhaps I should trust no one? Another theme this film explores is a mother’s unconditional love for her child – brilliantly portrayed through Jolie’s Christine Collins. The end scene of the film almost had me in tears. But, it still didn’t make me waterlogged like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind did.

This film was brilliant in so many ways, and Clint Eastwood proves yet again that he doesn’t know how to make bad films. I am expecting this to be a contender for many awards this Oscar cycle. It’s been a great year! It is now the first time since 2004 that I will be saying this about a third film in one year – I give it an A!

Zack and Miri Make a Porno

“What? Han Solo aint never had no sex with Princess Leia in the Star War!”

The Lighter Side to Pornographic Productions Humours the Audience

It’s a Kevin Smith film, so it can’t be but so bad, right? However, this film is not set in his infamous View Askewniverse, so I was a little wary of Zach and Miri Make a Porno. All my doubts were cast aside within the first few minutes of the film, when the crass but satisfying humour begins and never ends. Zack and Miri tells the story of two lifelong friends Zack (Seth Rogan) and Miri (Elizabeth Banks) who find themselves in financial difficulty and decide to make a porno film in order to pay their bills. The film features Kevin Smith’s regulars Jeff Anderson and Jason Mewes, which gives a certain taste of the New Jersey-based View Askewniverse in the film’s setting just outside of Pittsburgh.

The film showed Kevin Smith’s usual blend of sex jokes, toilet humour, and Star Wars references, but with a lot more sex and a lot more toilet humour, and only a small reference the Star Wars. I definitely wouldn’t classify this film as anything special in the Kevin Smith canon, but it provided me with an antidote for the gloom that came from seeing Changeling just days before. And even though I cannot place this film in the same league as Clerks, Mallrats, or Dogma, it was more than satisfactory, and, since my expectations weren’t particularly high in the first place, the film well exceeded them.

Seth Rogan was very well placed in this film; most of his punch lines were sex-related, which seems to be his token role. I still want to see more out of Seth Rogan because that little bit of idealistic faith in me sees more potential in him than the roles he chooses. I think that Rogan has talent, but he’s just uncomfortable stepping outside of the character he always plays. Hopefully, with a little more experience, and a little more pushing in the right direction, he will become something more.

The acting was well done. The premise was well thought out. The jokes were funny, but probably only the first time around. And, as always, it’s Kevin Smith – enough said. This film is a good upbeat selection for those who just saw a sad movie, and, for that, I give it a B+.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Ben Stein explores academia’s hostility towards Intelligent Design

I decided that it was time to see a documentary for my next review, so I took a trip to the Redbox and rented Ben Stein’s new work Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. The film is narrated and documented completely by Ben Stein. He explores the foundations of intelligent design, misconceptions in Darwinist Theory that are taught in schools, and the overall hostility the academic world has towards even the slightest exploration of intelligent design.

There were several points the film presented. Stein is an obvious proponent of intelligent design, and throughout the course of the film, tries to have staunch opponents of intelligent design, such as Richard Dawkins, prove that intelligent design must be wrong. Obviously, none of these self-proclaimed atheists can prove that the theory must be incorrect. Stein also interviews several academics who claim to have been fired or not been given tenure due to their beliefs of intelligent design or even just begging the question of the issue. Stein wants to know why the idea is just completely thrown away in most aspects of the academic world without even a little exploration.

I believe Mr Stein achieved many of his goals in the film. First, it contrasts Intelligent Design from Literal Biblical Analysis, which it is often misconstrued to be. Second, he shows that there is a definite absence of freedom of thought in the academic world that is potentially poisoning to learning environments. Third, he shows how unreasonable some of the staunch academic atheists like Mr Dawkins can be on this issue and that they really have no reason to completely dismiss these ideas as irretrievably wrong.

Contrarily, I thing this film may have been a little too ambitious. I would’ve liked to have heard more about one of the points he made – the connection between Darwinism and Nazism. His argument on this topic was much weaker than some of the others, and don’t think that it had to be; he seemed to be on to something, and I think it would’ve been a potentially scandalous connection – and I love drama.

It is a shame that because this movie has a conservative flavor, it will be outright rejected by the Hollywood elite, and, as such, not up for any kind of reward; this film did not appear on the short list the Academy recently released for potential nominees for Best Documentary Feature. That’s a shocker!

Despite not being the most organized documentary I’ve seen, it was certainly interesting, and Ben Stein’s dry monotonous humor never seizes to amaze me. As such, I give it a B+.

Electoral College Prediction

This is a very different prediction than what the polls show.
My explanation?

North Carolina and Virginia will very heavily experience the 'Wilder Effect'.
Florida is Republican when push comes to shove.
The same can be said about Missouri, at least in Presidential elections.
Ohio could go Democrat, but I doubt it. Social conservatives will vote where their conscience tells them to.
Nevada has too many Mormons. They vote for Harry Reid because he is a Mormon. Obama is not.

None of this matters, however, because I am fairly comfortable that Obama will win Colorado, making the election:

Obama - 273
McCain - 265

And that's the best case scenario I can calculate for Senator McCain. I'm looking for a place to weep on Election Day.

Election 2008 - The Prelude

John McCain or Barack Obama? Americans will soon be making that decision at the ballot. All elections are important. We will be electing the first new president in the post 9-11 America. What's going to happen? What does this mean for America?

I generally refer to myself as a Republican, but this is a very broad generalization. In actuality, I am an Independent, but I could probably be placed within the confines of four boundaries: Traditional American Conservative, Libertarian, Centrist, and Republican Populist. Obviously, my ideology aligns with Senator McCain much more closely than Senator Obama. As such, I will be casting a ballot for him in a few weeks' time. However, I think most republicans agree that this election is not ours to win.

I agree with most of the ideology the McCain campaign has been preaching. I agree with major cuts in government spending, eliminating pork spending, capital gains tax cuts (I prefer an elimination, but that's another story - the FairTax), finishing what we started in Iraq and Afghanistan, tapping into our energy sources AND investing in alternative sources of energy, and many other ideologies that fall comfortably into the GOP platform. I also hailed the selection of Governor Sarah Palin as Senator McCain's running mate; Governor Palin has been close to my heart since I donated to her gubernatorial campaign in 2006. In my eyes, she is the exact kind of person that is going to reform the Grand Ole Party.

Which brings me to my agenda. I personally have resigned the Presidential Race. I will cast my ballot, and hope Virginia stays Red, but my hopes are pretty much shattered. The Republican Party has acted like liberals for the second Bush term and completely failed its constituents that gave it the White House for a second term and a wider Congressional majority. Is George Bush to blame? Partly. But so is the current and past GOP leadership that ripped off the American taxpayers with wasteful pork barrel spending and other reckless endeavors. We deserved to lose in 2006. We deserve to lose this coming election. It is going to be a wakeup call for the GOP.

We will have two years to get our act together and start embracing the principles we preach. We need to cut wasteful spending. We need to cut taxes. We need to make it easier for small businesses to operate - and I am confident we can win that battle after Barack Obama's promised tax increases that will inevitably hurt small businesses. We need to drill for our own oil and stop subsidizing Arab nations. We need to plan for our future without oil. We need to eliminate the reckless programmes that have put our economy into financial dismay. These conservative principles is what wins elections. We are not embracing them. When we spend $700 billion to bailout Wall Street, lining the pockets of wealthy CEOs, we lose elections. When we let Congressional Nazis like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, and lonesharks like Franklin Raines get away with embezzlement, we lose elections. To top it all off, even when we have a presidential candidate that adheres, for the most part, to the principles that win elections, we do a crap job at making our voices heard, and we resign the election to the opposing party. Republicans don't know how to campaign, and we often don't know how to stay consistent.

For the next two years, I will be working on the following:

-Helping to expose the treacherous deeds of those who caused the financial crisis. I will expose people in both parties, and elaborate exactly who is to blame, and why.
-Campaigning against Congressional representatives who put their names on pork bills, no matter what party.
-Campaigning against the current GOP leadership in the Congress. I would love to see Mike Pence, Jeff Flake, Marsha Blackburn or other principled Republicans to take the Leadership positions in the house. Likewise, I would love to see Jon Kyl, Jim DeMint, or Tom Coburn take the same positions in the Senate.
-Grassroots work for the FairTax.

And, hopefully, by 2012, we will be ready to put up a viable candidate against future-President Barack Obama. Ideas? Mike Huckabee. Sarah Palin. Mike Pence. Rudy Giuliani. (among others).

I will also be in prayer for the nation, and for the world. It took four years of Carter to bring Reagan to the White House. Let's just hope four years of Obama is not going to be even more tragic.

Trayless Programme

In a further effort to raise the Environmental-friendly rating of the College, the Sadler Center Cafeteria will soon go trayless, this following the removal of trays in the Commons Dining Hall last spring. The Green fees that we voted for were bad enough. With a $200 000 endowment to help us become greener, we’re now theoretically cutting spending in our cafeterias by going trayless. This is such a flawed argument in many ways. The Trayless program warrants the rise of students’ irritation levels, no doubt. But more than that, students need to know that they have been sold a bill of goods here. Why is this program a flawed effort?

Notice when you bring your used dishes to the conveyer belt to be washed. Water is constantly running, and it doesn’t slow down in light of fewer things to clean. It runs and runs, and now the water is no longer being optimized. If we are using the water, why not use it to clean trays. A driving theory behind the trayless program is that we will save on energy by washing fewer things. However, because the water is continuously running, we are still using the same amount of water. Unless we start turning the dishwashers off, there is no conceivable way that we are using a significantly lower portion of water.

Another argument that has been brought is that the trayless program reduces the amount of wasted food. Although a study showed that per pound, less food has been wasted, it still has not been enough to counter student frustration. Sophomore Joey Salvatore said, “It’s very irritating. I like to eat a lot, but now I can’t eat as much as I would like because I have to make multiple trips to get what I want. I don’t have an unlimited amount of time, so now I feel like I’m leaving my meals everyday still hungry”. I agree with Mr Salvatore. I also have to make multiple trips to get what I want, and even if I get all the food I want in one trip, I still have to put my food down before I get myself a drink. In a broad sense, I have to spend more time getting food and less time eating the highly nutritious Caf food. It’s a total waste of my time, and it is not fun. But that is just the tip of the iceburg.

One thing that has really irritated me is the amount of mess left on the tables and floors in the Caf due to the trayless initiative. Now that we don’t have trays on which to make a mess, we have the tables. Let’s all be honest – no one really cleans after themselves. I have yet to see a single student carry around a damp rag in order to clean their tables at the Caf. When I go to the Caf every day, there are plenty of tables available. Most of the unoccupied tables, however, are laden with old food and other messes. This presents a health hazard, as many germs can be spread inadvertently through saliva, which can come into contact with the tables. Sophomore Mariana Smith complained of the state of tables at the Caf, “I lose my appetite every time I sit down because the tables are so filthy.” With the recent school budget cut, we cannot afford to hire extra workers to make sure the tables are clean, and the Caf workers preparing and serving our food are too busy to abandon their work to clean the tables. The tables could be a lot cleaner if the trays were brought back, and then the dishwashers could clean our messes left on our trays. In short, becoming green runs the risk of becoming green around the gills. I choose my health over the environmental rating.

The effects of the trayless initiative are inconclusive. The goal of reducing water use and food waste has not been met. But, we now have water being used to clean nothing, a messy cafeteria, and students whose little time is being wasted. Unfortunately, all of this is about to spread to the UC Cafeteria. What can we expect? More water wasted, longer lines, messier cafeterias, a higher risk of catching other peoples’ germs, and the irritation of knowing that you are paying more in tuition for this swarming inconvenience. But, on the bright side, because we are supposedly going to be spending less on operating the cafeterias, I’m am certain that we will start to see a reduction in the price we pay in our tuition to go to the cafeterias. Or am I just wildly dreaming?

It is really a mystery to me why someone would see the logic, or, better yet, how someone wouldn’t see the irretrievable illogic in the trayless program. Going trayless isn’t going to turn our campus a brighter shade of green. In the words of Chuck Noblet, “You can’t unfry things…You can’t be something you’re not.”

Nick & Norah's Infinite Playlist

“I never wash my pants. I like to keep the night on them.”

Although the playlist isn’t infinite, it’s still sufficient.

Admittedly, this is not the film I wished to review, but An America Carol wasn’t playing at Newtown, so I settled with Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist. This film was hyped up, mostly by my friends, but my expectations weren’t so high. I must say, however, that I was oddly impressed by what the film had to offer.
The film follows Nick, recently broken up with his girlfriend, and Norah, a friend of the girlfriend, who meet by coincidence. Both of them are searching the city for the secret venue of their favourite band. For the most part, the humor in this film depends on teen innuendos and toilet humor. It was lighthearted and easy to follow, and it felt nice to watch a film like that on the dawn of Oscar season, when all of the message-laden films will hit us.
There weren’t any major messages portrayed in this film. For the most part, it was a cute situational teen romance. It shows us what a good relationship is and what a bad relationship is, but it gives us such obvious distinctions between the two that there leaves no room for real life dilemma. However, I don’t think this movie was meant to be thought provoking. If it was, it failed miserably. The characters were, on the whole, presented in a light hearted manner, so there is no real strong inclination towards any set of them. With that being said, I doubt any of these characters will be remembered very well, nor do I think this film will be one that I constantly quote.
The cast was led by Michael Cera and Kat Dennings. I was impressed, after a great performance in Charlie Bartlett, with Dennings. She has a subtlety to her acting methods, down to the nuances in her facial expressions that really radiate a genuine character that we can all relate to. I think that we’re going to be seeing some great things from her. If only she would pick up a more serious script! I was far less impressed with Michael Cera’s performance. This film solidified my opinion that Michael Cera is only capable of playing one kind of character. If this is not the case, then he doesn’t have the heart to step up to a challenge and leave his comfort zone of the adorable awkward teenager. He better figure that out soon, because he isn’t getting any younger.
On the whole, this film left me feeling good. It wasn’t a thinker. This can be either good or bad on my rating scale. But, because I really had an overall positive opinion of this film, and would recommend it in six months or so for someone looking in the discount DVD bin, I will be generous. I give it a B.

Burn After Reading

“Sorry, I don't happen to know my account number because unfortunately I don't sit around all day trying to memorize the fucking numbers!”

The Coen’s newest work has the audience laughing, then scratching their heads.

After the success of No Country for Old Men, the Coen brothers released a new film – Burn After Reading. The previews and anticipation gave the film a lot of hype, so, I was eager to see it. The film revolves around multiple intertwining storylines, all of which relate to the central character, Osbourne Cox, played by John Malkovich. Cox, a CIA agent with a drinking problem, loses a disk containing his memoirs, and they are subsequently held hostage. The A-List cast includes Coen favourites Frances McDormand and George Clooney, as well as Brad Pitt and Tilda Swinton.

First, I must express how difficult it was for me to write this review. I had very mixed feelings for this film – I really enjoyed it when I saw it, but couldn’t quite justify why I enjoyed it. The film, unlike the message-laden Coen films No Country and Fargo, this one really doesn’t have any major themes. It lightly touches on internet dating, plastic surgery, and the dodgy nature of the CIA, but all of them are touched very lightheartedly. This film was clearly not a film that is supposed to make the audience think ‘what’. However, its sheer absurdity makes the audience think ‘why’. I use the word ‘absurdity’ not in a negative way – the film was absurd, but it enhanced its comic value. The film also makes very excessive use of dramatic irony to the point where the viewer could easily forget what characters know what – it was hard for me to keep up. Despite this never-ending chain of absurdity ad nauseam, the film had me rolling in the aisles for minutes on end.

Once again, the Coen Brothers succeed in orchestrating a stellar cast. The standout, however, was easily John Malkovich. I have now come to notice that Malkovich shares the same kind of comic value as Joe Pesci, in that every time an obscenity comes out of his mouth, no matter the context, it is funny. I also enjoyed how the film poked fun at George Clooney – Clooney’s frequent tough lawyer persona was torn apart in this film – with a sexual apparatus that you have to see to believe.

This film was perfectly ironic. Despite the great use of irony, it was excessive, and I think it subtracted from the overall value and impact the film could have had. On top of this, the film lacked a clear a strong message, and, although it probably wasn’t intended to have one, by my standards this film cannot make my ‘A’ list. I think, however, the reviews in The Flat Hat and The Daily Press were a little harsh – and because the film was perfect in every other way I give this film a B+.

Le Scaphandre et la Papillon

“Nous sommes tous les enfants, nous avons tous besoin de l'approbation.”

Being locked in and hanging on to translation is just the beginning.

Julian Schnabel received rave reviews and the film was hyped up enough, so I figured it was time to see Le Scaphandre et la Papillon, or, for the English-only speakers, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly. The film focuses on Jean-Dominique Bauby, the editor of French Elle who suffered a stroke and, subsequently, acquired a condition known as Locked-In Syndrome – he is able to understand and comprehend everything, but unable to talk. He can only respond to yes or no questions by blinking his eye. The film follows Bauby’s progression in writing his book, which was done by blinking an eye while someone reads him the alphabet.

There are both strong and weak points to this film. First off, the plot is somewhat dry, but the film is less about the story than it is the main character. That being said, I will make myself clear – if this film was trying to have the viewers feel sympathy for the cripple, it certainly didn’t work. The concept of the Locked-in man writing a book is certainly worth a spot on the news, but as a full film, it’s not very interesting.

So, what saves this film? First, the film is shot almost entirely as if it were through Bauby’s eyes. It’s interesting because you actually feel locked-in. I liked the perspective. In a way, it gave some needed colour to the pretence of the film. Second, although the film is more about the making of the book Le Scaphandre et la Papillon, there are many parts during which Mathieu Almaric, who plays Jean-Dominique Bauby, narrates excerpts from the book. Bauby, though sometimes a bit melodramatic, has some interesting and somewhat insightful things to say.

The main theme of this film is determination. That’s what reflects the title. The stroke and subsequent condition of Locked-in syndrome was the diving bell that brought Bauby down, and those who helped him interpret his thoughts with just the blink of an eye helped him be a butterfly, going up. It’s all very basic, and it certainly isn’t anything we haven’t heard before. But, the theme aside, this film has merit in mostly its style. I think just admiring the form of the film is a good reason to watch it. However, if you’re looking for something profound and, on the whole, moving, then look for something different.

On the whole, however, the film was entertaining and easy on the eyes. I give it a B.

The Dark Knight

“Why…so…serious?”

‘Memento’ takes an abrupt fall as Nolan’s magnum opus.

1I had waited for this film for over a year, and wanted see it even more when Heath Ledger died. But, due to working, I could not see it until the Sunday after its release, although my friends Jeremy and Jeb were kind enough to give me a 3:05 and 3:21 am greeting after they had gone to the midnight releases. So, naturally, I was psyched, and I had high expectations. But…well, there’s no but. I can’t figure out anything bad to say.

The film is a sequel to Batman Begins, which saw director Christopher Nolan turn the Batman series around from the George Clooney version (which I call the ‘Nipples One’) to something much more watchable. I am going to quote my friend Jeremy on the transition from Batman Begins to The Dark Knight, evoking the name of Max Fischer – “Batman Begins was the short little one-act about Watergate; The Dark Knight is ‘Heaven and Hell’”.

The thing that impressed me most about this film was its ability to bring worldly themes into it. I wasn’t aware that a superhero movie was capable of it. The film in itself was less about Batman than it was about chaos. So, naturally, I was salivating. It was as if Lola Rennt met and had babies with Jack Bauer. We get little bits and pieces of free will, human nature, human chaos, suffering, and chance all put into a two hour plus package, all while sharing the screen with Batman, Two-face, and the Joker. Christopher Nolan has made this possible for the first time. Major snaps, Janie-faces, etc.

I’m not going to talk much about Christian Bale. His praise was used up on Batman Begins. And, although his performance was much more than satisfactory, he was dwarfed by three actors (in ascending order):

First, Gary Oldman, who played Lt James Gordon. I can’t discuss this in too much detail without giving away plot. So, I will just say that I wasn’t surprised because Gary Oldman tends to steal the scene in many films.

Second, Aaron Eckhardt. What a transformation from lobbyist Nick Naylor in Thank You for Smoking! Eckhardt plays Harvey Dent, who later becomes the murderous two-face. A few months ago, I would’ve said that only Hannibal Lector could outdo Chigurgh with a coin. Alas, I was wrong! I’d bet my life savings on Two-face over Chigurgh even if Two-face had his legs cut off.

Finally, Heath Ledger. Right now, Jack Nicholson’s Joker seems like a cuddly throw pillow that you keep in your closet until your ugly cousin is coming to visit. Heath Ledger delivers (hhem….delivered) a diabolical Joker who’s equally frightening as he is funny. You find yourself rooting for him just because his character is so strong, you want to become as evil as he is (hhem…was). I’m going to make room right next to the Hannibal Lector doll on the golden pedestal for the Joker doll. Yes…it was that good.

This is becoming a rare year. It’s not even the fall season yet, and already I’m giving away my second top grade. But, there’s no hesitation to this one. It receives a solid A.

Charlie Bartlett

"Viagra! Virgin! Vino! Vagabond! Vagina!"

A witty teenager garners 2008's first golden prize

On its surface, Charlie Bartlett appears to be just another teen comedy. In fact, many other critics have slammed it, one calling it “The poor man’s Rushmore”. If you look at the cover, I might have to agree. But I’m certain that particular critic didn’t bother to watch the film, because if he had watched it, he would’ve been hard pressed to even compare the two films. While Rushmore is, more or less, a coming of age film, Charlie Bartlett touches a much different surface; it is a mellow comedy that touches on the importance of youth and the imperfections of humans.

Charlie Bartlett follows the title character as he is expelled from his private school (which is something of a habit for him) and enters, for the first time, a public school, and his struggles, and ultimately, success in being accepted. This film does a fine job of elevating simple humour into something much funnier. I was trying to figure out where I had seen this kind of humour before, and it finally hit me – Charlie Bartlett is the comedic version of Hannibal Lector, with maybe the charm of Ferris Bueller and the wits of Daria Morgendorfer.

There are two important aspects to this film; the first focuses on the importance of youth. Edgar Lee Masters once wrote, “Genius is wisdom and youth”, in his magnum opus Spoon River Anthology. If such is the case, Charlie Bartlett emulates genius. The title character is very mature for his age, and, largely, has been unable to enjoy his youth, which is a major progression in the film. The second major theme is the idea of humanity. No one is perfect, and that is something that portrayed not only through the title character, but through almost every character with whom he interacts.

Anton Yelchin plays the title character, and I can’t say enough good things about this young star. He tackled this role, free of flaws. He made the character real, lovable, and memorable. I like him as much as Max Fischer, though comparisons really cannot be made. Yelchin also gets special snaps for a monologue that you must see to believe. If Yelchin were English, he would’ve been in very high demand to play in The History Boys.

This film had everything I look for in a good film. It had good light hearted humour, superb acting, simple, yet powerful themes, and lots of memorable quotes. I know fellow critics will shun this one, but, I am a shameless person, and I give films what I think they deserve: I give it an A-.

Patrick starts vlogging.

My lobbying works!

The powers that be in the Rysh Independent Film and Theatre guild have taken my recommendations to heart. I have nothing to do with the TV awards, but good friends of mine, Erica Nullin among them, do. Skins has hit them hard, and they like it. And, now, we have seven nominations for Skins. This is more than any other series. (Note: Nip/Tuck took six nominations, Lost took six, The Tudors took five.)

Best TV Series, Drama
Best Writing For a Series, for the Episode 'Chris'
Mitch Hewer, Supporting Actor (Maxxie)
Joe Dempsie, Supporting Actor (Chris)
Nicholas Hoult, Supporting Actor (Tony)
Larissa Wilson, Supporting Actress (Jal)
Hannah Murray, Supporting Actress (Cassie)

Good luck to them! I'm hoping they can take home something!

Crescent Fresh

Recently, I have rediscovered a programme I watched when I was in middle school. It seems very immature, but the old MTV sock puppet show, 'The Sifl & Olly Show' still impresses me.

The show is definitely a product of the nineties. The characters are obsessed with Björk - making fun of her, that is - and there are numerous references to grunge, post grunge, and everything leading up to Y2K.

I think the thing that I will take from this programme is the phrase 'Crescent Fresh'. According to the Urban Dictionary, Crescent Fresh means "being exceptionally cool, something so spectacular that the mind loses the ability to make sense". I feel like using the phrase all the time now. The phrase 'Crescent Fresh' is so totally Crescent Fresh - super cres at best.

Here's a song that explains Crescent Fresh, by none other than Sifl and Olly! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qU_gEiSbIU

Sex and the City

“Just to clarify – this is a ring with diamonds and not a diamond ring?”

Carrie, Samantha, Miranda, and Charlotte deliver a 2 hour movie that feels as easy as the thirty minute programme.

I have been called the gayest straight man by a fairly good amount of people. If this label means that I unabashedly see ‘Sex and the City: The Movie’ by myself – yes, by myself – then I proudly take the label. I was always a fan of the HBO programme. However, like most movies based on programmes, I was a little nervous at first, because it is often the case that TV programmes are not meant to carry on for a full length film. I am pleased to report that the women of Sex and the City effortlessly carry on a two-hour plus movie – complete with designer labels and incredibly witty one-liners.

Because I despise giving away plot lines, I won’t go into too much detail; the one-liners are gonna be better if left to the viewer, not the review reader. But, here’s the rundown on the plot: Carrie is marrying Mr Big; Miranda is struggling with her marriage to Steve; Charlotte is oh-so-happy with her adopted Chinese baby and about to be oh-so-happier; and Samantha still likes sex, but is still in a monogamous relationship with Smith Jerrod.

Director Michael Patrick King did an excellent job of making the transition of HBO’s Sex and the City to the movie, and the movie, despite what has been said by other critics, feels no different than the HBO programme. However, non-fans of Carrie Bradshaw beware: this is not the film for you. Die-hard Sex fans will have an absolutely fabulous time. Samantha Jones, even in her fifties, is wet and wild as ever, full of her usual one liners and promiscuous ways.

I feel like this review is dry, but there’s not much to offer in terms of anything thematic. Largely, the film is no different structurally than a typical romantic-comedy. However, what this film lacks in profound wisdom it makes up for in humour, antics, and a cast the works incredibly well together. I will admit that my grade will be very biased, but, honestly, who gives a shit? I give it a B+ (and I give Kim Cattrall an A).

Top 10 Films for 2007

Well, I think I've seen enough to compile a pretty solid top ten list.

Note: My top ten for 2006 were:
1. Little Children (B+)
2. Little Miss Sunshine (B+)
3. The History Boys (B+)
4. Notes on a Scandal (B+)
5. Dreamgirls (B+)
6. Clerks II (B+)
7. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (B+)
8. Letters from Iwo Jima (B+)
9. Hollywoodland (B)
10. The Good Shepherd (B)

Now, my top ten for 2007!
1. There Will Be Blood (A)
2. The Savages (A)
3. I'm Not There (B+)
4. No Country For Old Men (B+)
5. Knocked Up (B+)
6. Elizabeth: The Golden Age (B)
7. Before the Devil Knows You're Dead (B)
8. 3:10 to Yuma (B)
9. Atonement (B)
10. Superbad (B)

So, if you want to see good films, this list is a good start!

Skins

(from Left to right: Joe Dempsie, Mike Bailey, Mitch Hewer, Nicolas Hoult)

Upon the recommendation of a friend last July, I began watching the British teen drama 'Skins' on the internet. It doesn't take long to get addicted.

This teen drama is basically everything an American one isn't. First, the actors are actually teenagers. The oldest actor, Joe Dempsie, was 19 when he first started his role. This is quite different from what we're used to on our teen dramas; people in their mid twenties, sometimes almost thirties, play high school students. This show is authentic in this sense.

Second, it is very realistic. It's true that British culture and American culture are different, but from what I understand, there's not a lot of bullshit behind the authenticity of the plot line.

Third, it is well-written. Our American counterparts are not. As much as we might love them, they are crap.

Fourth, it is uncensored. This is how things really are. This is how they talk. This is what they do. It's not all made up.

SKINS is very authentic, and it is very pleasing.

I hope you might decide to watch it.

Here's the link: http://tvshack.net/tv_shows/Skins/

I warn you, however - YOU WILL BE ADDICTED.

After two seasons of SKINS, the producers are dropping the current storyline and the cast and starting up a whole new one. I hope the new cast can live up to the old one. I expect the RYSH society (Erica Nullin, Nancy Cogann, Kevin Dorder, listen up!!!) to honour this show when the nominations for TV awards are released in June! In particular, Mitch Hewer and Joe Dempsie should be recognized.

I salute the cast and wish them well in the future!

The Savages

“You stole painkillers from a dead woman?”

Death becomes a part of life when you have no choice but to embrace it.

Despite having full knowledge of the discomfort of the small screening room at the Kimbal Theatre, I couldn’t wait any longer to see The Savages. Just for the record – I would gladly sit in those uncomfortable chairs for another two hours just to watch this film again. Tamara Jenkins created a subtly emotional work of art to which many people can relate, and that many others should. The Savages centers on Wendy (Laura Linney) and John (Philip Seymour Hoffman) Savage, two siblings learning to cope with taking care of their ailing father (Philip Bosco). Those who read my reviews know that I despise going into too much detail on the plot, so I will just jump right into the critique!

This film’s obvious theme is death. Death is a part of life, and learning to cope with it can be very tough. The two main characters, Wendy and John, have to embrace the reality that their father is dying, and they furthermore have to figure out for themselves what it will mean. Their father hadn’t been a particularly good parent, but Wendy and John play the part of concerned children that want to make the amends that their father had failed to do over the years. I like that this film doesn’t try to euphemize death. Death is indeed a part of life, and as much as we might hate it, if we don’t embrace it before it embraces us, then there is really no point in being alive in the first place.

The dynamic between Laura Linney and Philip Seymour Hoffman took my breath away. The characters seem like ordinary people. I suppose, in retrospect, they are ordinary people. Maybe that’s why it impressed me – it was real. There are many aspects in the characters that I have seen in my own family – but that’s an entirely different story meant for a more sensational newspaper. The Savage siblings are very much like the siblings many of us have. All of us have to endure someone dying before we experience death ourselves. The real characters and the real situations make this film a real experience, filled with emotion that everyone should expect to experience in the future.

I can’t figure one thing out – Philip Seymour Hoffman was excluded from the Academy Award’s nomination for Best Actor. His performance easily beats out two nominees I have in mind. And, now that I’ve seen all the films that were in the Best Actress category, I think that Laura Linney deserved her long overdue statue. That’s not to take credit away from Marion Cotillard’s brilliant performance in La Vie En Rose.

The acting was brilliant. The story was brilliant. The message was brilliant. The composition was brilliant. I sometimes feel guilty about giving superior grades to films, but this one hold no guilt. This is the second (and probably last) time I will say this about a 2007 film – I give it an A!

Smart People

"You spend $50 on dinner, that's grounds for intercourse."

The world of academia is laden with irretrievably stupid hypocrites.

With a solid cast - Dennis Quad, Thomas Hayden Church, Ellen Page, and Sarah Jessica Parker - Smart People had some good hype. But, the movie fell very short in justifying the hype. It's going to be difficult for me to give a plot synopsis without giving too much information, but here it goes: Smart People follows a six month period in the life of Lawrence Weatherhold (Quaid), a tenured English professor at Carnegie Melon University, and his struggle to find his direction in life, which is interrupted by his adopted brother (Church), his academic-obsessed daughter (Page), and a doctor (Parker), who happens to be a former student that, like all of his students, he doesn't remember.
I usually like to elaborate a little bit on the blot, but, honestly, it is difficult. The plot didn't really have a direction, and it didn't seem like it came to a real conclusion. The film lacks character development; the characters for the most part change in the last few minutes of the film, but it is so abrupt and intentional that any intelligent mind wouldn't fall for it. None of the four main characters are the least bit likable; you leave the cinema with a bad taste in your mouth, and, believe me, it wasn't from the extra grease on the popcorn.
Now, one might try to tell me - Do any of the characters have to be likable to make a good film? The answer is, of course, no. Does the plot need direction and do the characters need development in order to make a good film? If there's no real universal theme that makes your mind ponder other things besides the real lack of anything in the film, then absolutely yes. The plot doesn't have anything to show us that most anyone can relate to. The only thing that this film solidified in me is my real distaste for English. The main character is exactly what you would expect from an English professor, not unlike Jeff Daniels's character in The Squid and the Whale.
What the film lacks in plot, substance, and direction, it makes up for in acting. The acting was very well done. I was afraid that I would only be able to envision Ellen Page as Juno, but as likable as Juno was, Vanessa Weatherhold was more or less despicable. However, as well as the actors tried to carry a film with no plot, no theme, no direction, and no character development, it was a failure from the start when the producers of the film decided to overdose on crack and make the screenplay into a film. Oh well, I guess not all drug binges are fun and dandy.
The movie fell short of every expectation, especially the one that we have with all films - tell us a story, dammit! For that, I give it a C-.