Hell's Kitchen: Joe the Dumber

I don’t know about you, but to me the latest episode of “Hell’s Kitchen” was the epitome of “sound and fury signifying nothing.” (Probably the first and last time Shakespeare will – or should – be invoked to describe this show.)

Everything about the whole Joseph saga turned out to be a waste of time, so let’s get it over with as quickly as the show did in the anticlimactic opening few minutes.

In fact, the first five or so minutes of this week’s episode were a literal rehash of last week’s cliffhanger, in which Joseph whipped off his jacket and got in Chef Ramsay’s face, repeatedly yelling, “I ain’t no bitch.” As two producers ran on camera to pretend to break up this fake confrontation, Ramsay kept his cool and eventually asked Joseph to leave, amusingly imploring him to “watch his step” on the way out.

I’m not sure if you can tell, but I’m not entirely convinced Joseph was for real. He was either an actor hired by the show to specifically create this confrontation or the producers intentionally cast an unstable person in hopes that something like this would happen. (I’ll let you decide which scenario is worse.) Either way, I’m not too offended. This show CLEARLY casts people who are woefully unqualified for Ramsay’s boot camp kitchen approach for our amusement, so why should we get upset if they cast someone to pick a fight with Ramsay?

With Joseph being kicked out, it seems like the “fight” was nothing more than a ploy to make Ramsay look good (I DID like the calm, collected, incredulous Ramsay) and to set up his (punch)line at the end of the episode: “I’m nobody’s bitch.” (Ha ha ha, NO!)

I was actually more entertained by Tony’s quotes after Ramsay went ahead and decided to eliminate another blue team member following Joseph’s walkout. First, he put up one of the more feeble defenses to the question, “Why should you stay in ‘Hell’s Kitchen?’” (“I love to make things taste really good.”) After he was kicked out, he boasted that he had the “palate of a god” – a god that couldn’t cook fish!

Fresh off the disappointment from the Joseph (non)fight, we got an even bigger letdown. It turns out those fire trucks from last week’s previews weren’t rushing a contestant to the hospital or putting out a fire in the kitchen – they were there for the week’s challenge. (If I’d been expecting something good, I might’ve been disappointed.)

Each team had to prepare an Italian meal for a group of firefighters. Lovely and Andy hampered their respective teams by botching garlic bread. Andy wasn’t using enough ovens, while Lovely was still half-asleep thanks to the chefs’ 2 a.m. call time. I said it before, and I’ll say it again – Lovely sucks!

After probably being edited to look closer than it was, the result was the women winning the first challenge. The men would stay behind and help clean the fire truck equipment, while the women would take a helicopter ride for a spa day. Robert, who'd switched over to the blue team, complained about yet another challenge loss, but it’s just as well – he probably would’ve been too heavy for the helicopter. (Don’t look at me like I’m a jerk, that’s what happened last season!)

The men’s punishment was pretty meh. I mean, they were helping out firefighters, so it was nice to see the bitching kept to a minimum. The real punishment turned out to be the two injuries the blue team incurred. Dave hurt his hand during the challenge, and Kevin hurt both ankles on the way back into the restaurant shortly after the challenge was over. I'm sure I wasn'tthe only one who had a flashback to Ji, the talented chef who hurt her ankle in the second episode last season and had to drop out. Here was Kevin, one of the more promising contestants, hurting BOTH ankles in the second episode of this season. It was like a bad sequel.

Both men got X-rays and decided to grind through the pain.

Dave got a bit of a reprieve because he served as a waiter during the dinner service. (I’m guessing he did great because we didn’t see him at all after the beginning.) Lovely, on the other hand, proved to be almost as incompetent a waitress as she is a cook by taking WAY too long to get people’s orders. Oh well, at least she didn’t try to fight Jean-Philippe.

In the kitchen, the guy who DID try to fight J-P last week (that’d be Van) impressed Ramsay with his risotto. However, the blue team ran into trouble when Robert and Andy couldn’t combine to cook a decent scallop. We were also led to believe that Robert forgetting to fire up a salmon caused the team to finish second.

That seemed to open the door for a red team victory. Tennille struggled mightily on appetizers. She used WAY too much oil on her scallop pan, despite the fact that Suzanne warned her not to. (Note to Suzanne: You seem to know what you’re doing, but maybe if you didn’t have a stank face 100% of the time people would be more open to listening to you. If you don’t know what a “stank face” is, look at her reaction when Ramsay names Ariel as the Best of the Worst.) Amanda had her second brain fart in as many weeks. This time Ramsay yelled at her for not being able to do simple arithmetic (though calling her a “stupid thick bitch” was a bit much, no?)

Fortunately, Ariel took control of the red kitchen and the women finished first – which ended up meaning nothing since Ramsay went to the comment cards. The men squeaked by with an 83% approval rating to the women’s 81% and Ariel was tasked with nominating two people for elimination.

Unlike Joseph, she had no problems with this and put Tennille and Lovely on the chopping block, the two proper choices. In the episode’s only genuine surprise, Ramsay eliminated no one. Yes, I realize we had already lost two people in the hour and that Fox wants to keep this show going for as long as humanly possible, but this was NOT a case where it was really close and a promising contestant would’ve gone home. They were both bad. Especially Lovely. She sucks.

So what’d you think of this episode? Why is Robert considered such a hot commodity? (He was ok at best last year, and this year he’s been flat-out BAD.) What was the bigger letdown: the fire truck thing or the Joseph confrontation? Finally, is there any way Kevin doesn’t win? (He was a capital M “Man” on the kitchen last night running around on that bad foot.)

Hell's Kitchen: Anger Management

It took five seasons, but the show has finally openly acknowledged what most of us already knew: these alleged “chefs” are really just a bunch of clowns.

I don’t know about you, but I was getting an amusement park vibe even before the new, carnival-themed (hilariously awful) opening credits for season six debuted. As the new chefs moved from one helpful flat-screen TV giving them really basic advice to another, I got a flashback to waiting in line for the “Back to the Future” ride at Universal Studios.

After that, the 16 contestants entered “Hell’s Kitchen” and we were treated to a two-hour, supersize premiere event of what Fox promises will be the “most shocking” season ever. I don’t know about “most shocking”, but this season definitely has a leg up in being the “most loudest” season ever.

Even though we had two hours to get to know these fools, I still don’t feel like I know most of the chefs well enough to really do a well-informed recap. So I’m going to give you my ridiculously early snap judgments instead. I’m also going to split the contestants into categories ranging from those who could actually win this thing to the poor souls who have no chance.

(Since, I don’t run from my embarrassments [there are too many of them] let me be the first to noate that I initially listed eventual winner Danny under the “No Chance to Win” category. That just goes to prove the old saying is true — you can’t judge a chef by his redneck-y cover. It also goes to prove that I have no idea what I’m talking about.)

Enough talk. Let’s jump into two hours of “Hell” that featured two eliminations, one return, and countless references to a shrimp’s nutsack.

COULD ACTUALLY WIN THIS THING

Kevin: Though not a grammar whiz (“I’ve won every culinary award you could do”) he seems very competent and willing to jump in when a teammate is in trouble (he did this in both dinner services last night). However, is he being helpful or too bossy? I also like the fact that he looks like a mini version of Chef Scott.

Jim: Impressed Ramsay with his Ahi tuna during the signature dish challenge and appears to have an appealing, low-key sense of humor. He also seems pretty even-keeled, though that demeanor will be put to the test when Ramsay inevitably gets in his face. His biggest mistake was not taking off his jacket when he first entered “Hell.”

Ariel: Even though she was the first person to speak, I don’t really remember too much about her (other than a passing resemblance to Maya Rudolph). Then again, that means she didn’t screw up noticeably during either dinner service and flying under the radar certainly has its advantages.

Tek: It’s entirely possible that I’m placing her here because she reminds me of the VERY capable Ji from last season (who had to bow out because of an ankle injury). However, the show did something it almost never does during her introduction — it portrayed the currently unemployed chef as a somewhat sympathetic figure. Although she, Lovely and Melinda would still be working on that appetizer if Ramsay hadn’t shut the kitchen down, I think she’s definitely a person to keep an eye on.

Robert: I struggled about placing him here, but the same question keeps popping up in my head— why bring Robert back? As my astute girlfriend pointed out, he looks just as HUGE (if not fatter) than he did last season, so it’s not like he’s any healthier. He was somewhat talented, but I wouldn’t call him amazing. To me he was more memorable for his mildly ignorant soundbites — and for being fat. If they were going to bring someone back, I would’ve much rather seen Ji or season three’s Julia. Ramsay obviously didn’t bring him back to send him home any time soon, so he’ll be around a while. The longer he stays, the better chance he has of winning, so I’m placing him as the long shot among the favorites.

PROBABLY CAN’T WIN

Amanda: Probably my favorite from this category. She narrowly escaped elimination during the first service after she mistakenly put the salmon in the freezer instead of the fridge, inspiring Ramsay to liken it to a “bison penis” (Fear Factor flashback!) The salmon thing seemed more like an honest mental mistake than a sign of complete incompetence. However, I can’t place someone who takes 45 minutes to cook a signature dish, and that dish is a margarita French toast (weak!), as one of the favorites to win.

Dave: With his backwards cap and aw shucks demeanor, this young chef reminds me of Danny. (And of Jack White.) Unfortunately, I don’t see the show crowning two Danny’s in a row, especially when Danny 2.0 can’t cook brussel sprouts.

Tennille: Was very strong in the first dinner service, but completely choked during the second hour when she had to work with shrimp. She couldn’t clean it and she couldn’t prepare table side scampi, resulting in a disastrous hour. Still, I’m pulling for her because she seems to have good sense of humor. (My favorite line of the night was when she told Suzanne, “So you can clean shrimp. You’re not even a good person.” Nice comeback.) I think she’ll be fine (as long as they don’t work with shrimp again). I’m also not buying the hype that she’s out to intentionally murder pregnant women. If this doesn’t work out, she knows that she has a backup career as a Whoopi Goldberg impersonator.

Suzanne: Strong presence in the kitchen - too bad that she's coming off as a major bitch, which will inevitably cause friction with her teammates. Or, as Tennille would say, she's "not even a good person."

Andy: Not much of an impression (even less so than Ariel). The main thing I remember was Andy thinking it was a good idea to cut an undercooked chicken up and serve it as nuggets. Ramsay was not amused.

Joseph: Yes, I’m putting the possibly (PROBABLY) psychotic former military chef here. Sure, he hates eating with his hands and leisurely lunches (he stopped just short of saying “I’m not here to make friends” during the men’s second reward). And it’s entirely possible that he’ll be kicked out at the start of next week’s episode after his cliffhanger-y face off with Ramsay in the second hour. However, he’s shown some culinary skills and I’m thinking Ramsay might play the “I see a little bit of my younger self in you” card with him. Still, it’s though to imagine he’ll chill out (or that the producers WANT him to chill out) any time soon.

NO CHANCE

Tony: The inexperienced chef got WAY too excited when Ramsay told him he “had potential” during the signature dish challenge, and he proceeded to bomb on the fish station during the second hour. He’ll be around a few more weeks thank to his “flair”, funny sound bites and the fact that Ramsay probably wants someone really small to bully.

Lovely: She sucks. During the two hours last night, she didn’t show that she could cook anything. Instead she showed that she was really lazy, abandoning her teammates for 45 minutes during the first dinner service. Other than that, I like her.

Van: Sorry, but I’m once again judging a chef by his redneck-y cover. I know the show wants to play up the “more than meets the eye” angle, but Van seems way too roid rage-y to survive this process. I mean, who almost gets into a physical fight with (my boy) Jean-Philippe? I’m also pretty sure he told Jim to “*bleep* his *bleep*” during the second hour.

Sabrina: Not nearly as hot as she thinks she is with her cooking or with her physical appearance. I mean, really, Sabrina?!

Melinda: Obviously she doesn’t have a chance to win because she was eliminated at the end of the first hour for wasting half of the pasta in Italy. Still, she made quite an impression. I’ll miss her misguided attempts to seduce Chef Ramsay and her dramatic prairie dog impersonation in the kitchen.

Louie: I would’ve put him in this category even if Ramsay hadn’t kicked him out in the middle of the first service. Even if you don’t count the sexism (“women belong in the kitchen doing dishes”? SERIOUSLY?!), he was a deadly combination of hotheadedness, delusion and lack of fine dining skills. Unless you consider his heart-attack on a plate signature dish of sausage with biscuit ON a biscuit “fine dining.”

So what’d you think of this episode? Which past contestant (not counting Robert) were you happiest to see — Bonnie, Coe-lleen, Aaron or Heather? (Did Heather already run the restaurant she “won” as the season two champ into the ground?) Who’s going to snap first — Joseph or Van? (I think Joseph has a slight advantage in this race). Who do you hope gets the grand prize, the head chef position at British Columbia's Araxi Restaurant. (Sorry, Canada.) Finally, will either team actually get through a dinner service next week?

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince Review

I’m the guy who’s always saying that a book and a movie NEED to be treated as two separate entities.

I seem to find myself saying this more often whenever a new “Harry Potter” movie comes out. The main reason for this is simply that a much larger number of people have read these books — and almost every one of those readers has a very specific and very strong idea of what the movie should look like and what details (no matter how minor) are ABSOLUTELY crucial to the film adaptation.

Of course, as with any movie adaptation, it’s absolutely impossible to include everything (at least if you want to keep the movie under seven hours), so some people inevitably go home disappointed. Still, I generally try to judge a movie that is based on a previous piece of work on its own merit. Then again, that’s usually pretty easy for me to do since I don’t allow myself any time for leisure reading at all, so I haven’t really read too much at all. (Unless they make “Crossword Puzzle: The Movie”, I don’t think this situation will change.)

This time it’s different. (Aren’t one-sentence paragraphs dramatic?)

I’ve read all the “Harry Potter” books, seen all the movies, and “Half Blood Prince” has definitely presented the biggest challenge to my “keeping the movie and book separate” philosophy. It’s not because the movie is bad (far from it). However, I would certainly say it’s the most different from the source material, which is a little jarring since it immediately followed what I considered to be (in the second movie review I ever wrote for my blog — aww) the BEST adaptation. Both movies share the same director, David Yates, but have different a screenwriter (regular writer Steve Kloves comes back after sitting out “Order of the Phoenix) so maybe that explains it.

The story follows Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) and Co.’s sixth year at Hogwarts. With the Death Eaters crossing over and causing havoc in the Muggle world, Harry and Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) seek to learn more about Voldemort’s past. Meanwhile, Harry gets help throughout the school year from a mysterious potions book, whose previous owner was known as the Half Blood Prince.

Naturally, if you’ve never read any of the books or seen any of the movies, you have no idea what I just said in the previous paragraph. Though the number of people who are COMPLETELY ignorant to the world of Potter is pretty small (and they wouldn’t be watching this movie in the first place) I still felt that the movie’s opening 20 minutes were overly confusing — and not just because Harry got jungle fever with a waitress who had no problem hitting on a 16-year-old kid.

To be honest, I feel like only reason I was able to follow what was going on — from the time the movie began, until Harry and Dumbledore have finished recruiting Horace Slughorn (a very effective Jim Broadbent) to teach at Hogwarts — was because I’d read the book and knew what was happening. I think even people who’ve only seen the movies may have felt a little disoriented.

Now 16, Harry and his two best friends Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson), also deal with the raging hormones of adolescence. In fact, one of the biggest criticisms of this movie has been that it focused too much on the lovey-dovey stuff at the expense of the Voldemort storyline.

While some of that is true (sometimes I forgot the stuff with young Voldemort and the Half Blood Prince was happening), I didn’t have a problem with it for two reasons. 1.) The relationship-y stuff helps ground the more fantastical and magical aspects of the story, and reminds us as to why we care about these characters in the first place. 2.) Grint, Watson and (especially!) Radcliffe have gotten better with each movie, so they are able to make this stuff more interesting and appealing. Still, Jessie Cave was WAY too over-the-top for me as Lavender Brown — I would’ve preferred to see more of the delightfully kooky Luna Lovegood, played very well by Evanna Lynch. I also wish Bonnie Wright’s Ginny Weasley had been a little livelier.

Once we DO get around to the more serious stuff, we’re fortunately in very capable hands. Gambon gives his best, most affecting performance yet as Dumbledore since taking over the role in the third movie. Alan Rickman (who simply IS Snape) was characteristically good (though a little underused for my taste). However, I was most impressed by Tom Felton’s work as Draco Malfoy. Up until now, he hasn’t been asked to do more than spit insults at Harry and his friends, but in “Half Blood Prince” he’s asked to convey anger, fear, and a brooding insecurity and pulls it off brilliantly.

I wasn’t as thrilled by some of the additions Yates and his team made to the movie. The books are long (and beloved) enough that the producers must already be concerned about leaving stuff out. As a result, I don’t really think they should be trying too hard to put stuff IN — especially when the stuff they add are pointless action scenes like the one that takes place in the Burrow and only seems to exist to give Helena Bonham Carter’s Bellatrix Lestrange some additional screen time.

Still, the departures from the “Half Blood Prince” text in this movie only seem like a bigger deal because the previous films have been so incredibly faithful (which is something some of us forget at times).

Despite some questionable pacing (none of the action sequences really seem to get going) and an unavoidable lack of closure (this movie really is just a big setup for the final chapter), “Half Blood Prince” succeeds as a movie because of its strong, likable cast, which is usually a more powerful weapon than any dazzling spell or potion.

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince…B

"Why, Erica, Why?" Summer Movie Library Series: Mansfield Park

After a brief detour to the Land of Super Indulgent Al Pacino Flicks, and the World of Gay Interracial "Dramas" Possibly Directed by Student Filmmakers, we’re now back to reviewing movies people have actually heard of.

Or not.

Though "Mansfield Park" is based on the Jane Austen novel of the same name, I don’t think it’s a stretch to say it’s the one feature film adaptation of an Austen work from the past decade and a half that ended up getting lost in the shuffle. That may or may not be due to the lack of a BOLD FACE name like Emma Thompson, Kate Winslet, Gwyneth Paltrow or Keira Knightley in the lead role.

Maybe the hope was that Frances O’Connor could join some of the names in the previous paragraph without anybody thinking it was a game of "One of These Things is Not Like the Other." Based on her work in this movie, I think she came closer than people realize - if they’d bothered to see the movie.

O’Connor plays Fanny Price who, at 10 years old, is unexpectedly shipped from the poverty of her parents' house (we know they’re poor because there’s a ginormous cockroach moving around the house) to live at Mansfield Park, the estate of her aunt’s husband, Sir Thomas Bertram (Harold Pinter). Apparently, O’Connor also plays a version of Jane Austen, as she recites passages from the author’s "Juvenilia" in letters to Fanny’s younger sister.

One of the problems with the early portion of the movie is that, before I checked this movie’s IMDb page, I had no idea that’s what had actually happened. At first, I gave writer-director Patricia Rozema the benefit of the doubt and assumed that the movie’s jumbled first 20 minutes were meant to convey Fanny’s disorientation at being ripped away from her home and placed in a somewhat hostile environment. Eventually, I decided the movie’s opening was just flat-out rushed and not good.

Fortunately, things settle in after that. Fanny grows into a young woman at "Mansfield Park" alongside Sir Thomas Bertram’s children, including soft-spoken Edmund (Jonny Lee Miller), who becomes her pal, confidante and nothing more. Eventually, Henry and Mary Crawford (Alessandro Nivola, Embeth Davidtz), a pair of well-to-do and vaguely incestuous siblings arrive and create a bunch of romantic entanglements.

Now, I’ve never read the book (which this movie apparently butchers), but even if I had, I doubt I would care. I’ve always felt like a movie should be able to stand alone as an individual work in its own medium.

In my opinion, this movie stands alone pretty well. I think all the performances, led by O’Connor and Miller’s subtle work, were very strong. Nivola and Davidtz probably have the showier roles and deliver suitably charismatic (but not over-the-top) performances. Also impressive is Pinter, best known as one of the U.K.’s greatest playwrights, who delivers a VERY strong performance as Thomas Bertram.

Each character is given his or her flaws and his or her virtues, which I always appreciate. I get irritated whenever the choice of who a movie character should end up with is painfully obvious. Fanny’s choice is presented in a patient and even-handed way, which actually made me get more invested in the character.

In fact, this movie’s relative subtlety (and the understatement in O’Connor’s performance) is probably the reason why it never caught on like the other Austen adaptations.

It could also be that the movie’s far from perfect. Rozema also makes several decisions (having the characters freeze ala a Zack Morris "timeout" in the middle of a scene, Mary Crawford’s random flashes of lesbianism, more overt incest-iness from Sir Thomas, and an underdeveloped and heavy-handed subplot involving slavery) that come off as more odd than interesting.

Overall, no matter how much Rozema changed from the book, Austen’s story and her familiar themes (including social status and gender roles) can never be completely deleted and are well-played by a solid cast of actors in this good-looking movie.

Mansfield Park...B+

Public Enemies Review

When it comes to good movies, we can either like them or we can admire them.

Every once in a while a movie comes along that you both love AND admire (meaning that you’re not even a little ashamed to tell anyone you enjoyed). These tend to become the answer whenever someone asks, “What’s your favorite movie?”

However, most good movies fall into one of those two categories.

If we like a good movie (especially if we REALLY like it), we’ll tell everyone we talk to about it whenever the conversation turns to movies. We’ll watch it when it’s on TV whether it’s just started, just about to end or somewhere in the middle (because that one part you like is coming up in the next five minutes). It doesn’t even matter that you’ve seen it a few dozen times.

If you admire a good movie, you never bad mouth it. In fact, you can objectively appreciate that it was a well-made (often VERY well-made) piece of work, even if you may or may not sit through it ever again. The best way to tell if you admire (as opposed to like) a movie is this: when someone asks whether you liked it or not, the first words out of your mouth will be, “It was good.”

“Public Enemies” is a movie I admire.

You probably know the plot, but I sort of enjoy writing a plot-summary paragraph so I’ll tell you anyway. The film is set in the 1930’s when John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) and a colorful group of American gangsters robbed banks and became national celebrities. The burgeoning Federal Bureau of Investigation led by J. Edgar Hoover (Billy Crudup) is assigned with tracking them down, so Hoover puts the Dillinger hunt in the clean-cut and capable hands of Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale).

“Public Enemies” is directed by the incredibly talented Michael Mann, and there’s certainly a lot to admire. I don’t think Mann’s characteristic attention to detail has ever been put to better use. You can tell the director relished the opportunity to recreate the look (terrific costumes) and sounds (the machine gun shootouts are suitably LOUD) of the era. I even liked Dante Spinotti’s handheld, in-your-face (and probably polarizing) cinematography, which brought a modern touch to the period setting.

Unfortunately, Mann appears to be more concerned with having his movie look and sound REALLY great than with crafting a cast of characters we’d actually care about.

This problem applies to the secondary characters (mostly played by familiar, competent character actors) that check in and out of the story. You may find yourself saying things like “Hey, there’s notorious criminal Pretty Boy Floyd — oh nevermind” or “Who the hell were they trying to break out of prison in the beginning?” (Only Stephen Graham as Baby Face Nelson makes any sort of a lasting impression among the supporting crooks.)

A bigger problem is that Mann doesn’t do much better with the story’s main characters.

The audience knows Dillinger is charismatic because he’s the cool leader of a gang, wears fantastic clothes and easily picks up French beauty Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard) in a bar. However, Mann devotes a surprisingly poor amount of screen time and effort to actually showing us WHY Dillinger was so popular (and even admired) at the time. (He just WAS.) As a result, most of the weight falls on Depp’s shoulders, which isn’t a bad thing since he’s one of the best actors on the planet.

Mann doesn’t really bother with delving too deeply into Dillinger’s connection with Frechette and ends up somewhat wasting Cotillard (who has little to do until the strong scene where Billie is interrogated by the Feds). We don’t see why they were drawn to each other (other than physical attraction) they just WERE.

To the naked eye, it also looks like Mann somewhat wastes Bale in a pretty straightforward role. However, if you look closer this role is right up Bale’s alley. Sure, he can be an incredibly dynamic actor (see “American Psycho”), but lately he seems content to be the straight man to his more showy co-stars (Russell Crowe in “3:10 to Yuma”, Heath Ledger in “The Dark Knight”) and he does it well. However, since Depp’s Dillinger is a bit lacking in the character department, the movie could’ve used a little more out of Bale.

That being said, I actually found myself more interested in the brief scenes chronicling the FBI’s rough early days (and Crudup’s forceful, slimy performance as Hoover). There’s a good movie to be made out of that stuff.

The problem is that Mann seems to realize this (and the fact that the story of Baby Face Nelson, the emergence of the gambling racket in Chicago and a few other topics would also make good movies) and tries to shoehorn everything into his movie, seemingly sacrificing character development and a coherent plot.

In the end, “Public Enemies” turns out to be a very impressive and interesting piece of work that mostly serves as a good antidote to the usually mindless movies of summer.

(I just wish I could’ve said that I really liked it in that last paragraph.)

Public Enemies…B

What John Thinks...of the 2009 Emmy Nominations

Another year, another batch of somewhat surprising, mostly-infuriating Emmy nominations.

Instead of copy/pasting all the major nominees and praising/complaining about each of their merits, I’ll let you peruse the list yourself and give you my general thoughts.

(Warning: Though I try my best to be fair, the following contains extreme bias towards the shows I love.)

The Good:
Maybe it’s my imagination, but I feel like there are more new names in the major categories than in recent years -and I like it. The big question is whether this is due to a genuine movement toward appreciating fresh material or if it’s because the increase in number of nominees (from five to seven in the Best Drama and Best Comedy Series, and from five to six in the major acting categories) inevitably resulted in a batch of new names. I’m cynical when it comes to these major awards, so I’m leaning towards the latter. This just seems like a less drastic version of what the Oscars just did.

Still, I got a kick out of seeing Jim Parsons, Simon Baker and Aaron Paul among the acting nominees and "ow I Met Your Mother"up for best comedy -and I don’t even watch "ig Bang Theory" "he Mentalist" "reaking Bad"or "Mother." It's just nice to see something different.

I’m also amused by the fact that Justin Timberlake picked up two Emmy nominations (for Guest Actor in a Comedy Series when he hosted "Saturday Night Live" and for co-writing "Motherlover"). We’re not exactly giving him a ton of incentive to get back to his day job.

The Great:
"Flight of the Conchords" is up for Best Comedy Series and Jemaine Clement (pictured, right) is in the race for Best Actor. (No offense to Bret McKenzie, but Jemaine is the man!) This delighted me so much that I don’t even care that the first season was noticeably funnier than the nominated second season. These guys are brilliant and it’s well deserved. (If Rhys Darby had picked up a Best Supporting Actor nom, things would’ve been perfect.)

Speaking of that category, I was thrilled to see Tracy Morgan get recognized for "30 Rock." Some people may complain that he doesn’t really act and that he’s playing himself. All I know is that pretty much everything his artfully bizarre characters says makes me laugh out loud

The Bad:
I like Tony Shalhoub, I really do. I also consider myself to be a pretty TV-savvy person.

That being said, I honestly had NO idea that "Monk" was still on. More importantly, could someone who DOES watch the show please explain to me, in detail, what Shalhoub did this past year that’s merited yet another nomination. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t believe that we should ignore a show just because it’s been on a long while (which seems to be what happened to "The Shield"), but in Shalhoub’s specific case, I’d really, honestly like to hear a "Monk" fan tell me that he hasn’t been on autopilot the last three years and that he really dug deep this past TV season.

I mean, wouldn’t it have been more fun to see someone like Zachary Levi of "Chuck" or Lee Pace of "Pushing Daisies." I admit I didn’t watch either show, but people LOVE them. How about Stephen Colbert for "The Colbert Report" as a left field pick? (Who else has created a more fully-realized character in the last couple of years?)

The Ugly:
Where do I start?

Let’s start with a small snub: I just started watching "So You Think You Can Dance" regularly this summer, but it already seems pretty obvious that Cat Deeley is the best, most charming/likable Reality Show host. So how come no nomination for the impossibly-tall emcee?

How about only one member (Michael Emerson) from the excellent cast of "Lost" getting a nomination? Since I have a policy that I can’t bring up an actor without mentioning who I’d have them replace as an actual nominee, I’d happily switch out Baker (sorry, dude) for Josh Holloway, who did just as great a job stepping up as a leading man as Sawyer did on "Lost." I’d also sub out the fine, but underutilized Chandra Wilson in favor of Elizabeth Mitchell in the Supporting Actress category, for helping make Juliet and Sawyer’s ludicrous-on-paper hookup seem totally believable.

Now let’s talk about the ongoing travesty that is Kyle Chandler and Connie Britton being snubbed in the Best Actor/Actress race AGAIN. All they do is portray the most believable (and likable) married couple in recent memory. I’d sub in Chandler for past nominee Michael C. Hall (sorry "Dexter" fans) and I’d use Britton to replace Mariska Hargitay. I know it’s not Hargitay’s fault that "SVU" is a mess now, but slightly rising above crap material doesn’t compare to what Britton is doing - she helps make "FNL" one of the best shows on TV. Even Timberlake has two Emmy noms. Come on!

However, the biggest snub is that the excellent final season of "The Shield" got nothing. Nothing for stars Michael Chiklis or Walton Goggins (who I’d, respectively, have replace Gabriel Byrne and the surprisingly-overrated-on-"Damages" William Hurt). I mean, the show was number one on some of the most prestigious year-end lists in 2008! This is the biggest shame of all - and I’d happily sub out "House", which is still good, but somehow manages to be both uneven and formulaic at times.

So what’d you think of this year’s Emmy nominees? What actor/actress or show were you delighted or annoyed to see again? (Speak up, "Battlestar Galactica" fans!)

Cirque du Soleil Saltimbanco Review

This wasn’t my first "Cirque du Soleil" show, so I knew better than to bring mushrooms.

If I had, they would’ve eventually turned on me, forcing me to run out halfway through and miss another beautiful and breathtaking show.

The streak of remarkable fortune (in terms of getting into great shows, at least) continued for me and Erica, as we scored tickets for "Cirque du Soleil Saltimbanco" at the St. Pete Times Forum from our friend Heather, who invited us to come along with her (thank you, Heather). If you’re keeping score at home, we’ve gotten free tickets to "Avenue Q", "Spring Awakening", a "Faust" opera and now Cirque du Soleil in the last year. (If anybody else wants to give us free tickets to something, you’re more than welcome to - we make for EXCELLENT guests.)

Saltimbanco - from the Italian "saltare in banco", which literally means "to jump on a bench" - explores the urban experience in all its myriad forms: the people who live there, their idiosyncrasies and likenesses, families and groups, the hustle and bustle of the street and the towering heights of skyscrapers.

(Or so I’m told - there’s a VERY good chance I simply copy/pasted the previous paragraph from the show’s Web site, because there’s no way I’m smart enough to even attempt to describe the show’s "story.")

The show actually started before it officially began. The colorfully-dressed and slightly off-putting performers came out in their circus gear and warmed up the audience by going into the crowd and getting the people involved with their antics. This stuff was so good, I’m only 1% convinced they used audience plants.

As for the show itself, I was pleasantly surprised by how distinct it was from La Nouba, my only other "Cirque" reference point. Whereas La Nouba is even more abstract in its storyline and DEFINITELY grander and more ambitious in terms of what was happening on stage (it was almost impossible to catch everything) Saltimbanco felt more intimate and focused. The show was divided into clearly-defined segments and each act got their own spotlight segment to shine.

Of course, the similarity between the shows is that they each featured insanely talented and charismatic performers. My favorites were the bungee danglers (probably NOT their official name), the juggler, and the inconceivably strong "hand-to-hand" duo. The most impressive act for me was the twin trapeze artists, who performed without the benefit of a net - they were SO good, I couldn’t really enjoy their performance because I was scared for their lives.

As far as the characters are concerned, the standout was clownish Eddie, a talented mime who brought great humor and got the audience (including a GREAT sport from the front row for an extended sequence) involved.

Another underrated aspect of the show (and, I suspect, all other Cirque productions) is how fantastic the music is. Not only were the female soloist and band stunning throughout, but the show also featured a mighty impressive sequence in which two performers twirled boleadoras while simultaneously creating a great percussive beat.

I said it before, and I’ll say it again. If you get a chance to see a "Cirque du Soleil" show, you should go! (Even if you have to pay.)

Cirque du Soleil Saltimbanco...A

"Why, Erica, Why?" Summer Movie Library Series: The Reception

Out of all the movies we’ve watched so far, this is the one that truly made me exclaim “WHY, ERICA, WHY?!” (all caps) when Erica brought it home.

I mean, look at the DVD cover (pictured, right). The pull-out quote promises “a unique and seductive drama”, but I couldn’t help but think, “porn” (and that the library is a LOT edgier than I thought). I don’t know why, but I also remember thinking the two guys looked like they were gay. (It was probably the fact that they agreed to appear huddled together and shirtless on a DVD cover with smoldering looks on their faces.)

And I was right — well about the gay part, not necessarily the porn.

“The Reception” is a 2005 drama starring a bunch of people no one’s ever heard of. It examines the relationship between a middle-aged Frenchwoman named Jeanette (played by Emma Thompson lookalike Pamela Stewart) and Martin (Wayne Lamont Sims), whom she shares a home with in upstate New York. During a snowy winter, Jeanette’s estranged daughter Sierra (Margaret Burkwith) shows up with her new husband Andrew (Darien Sills-Evans). See, I told you you’d never heard of these actors.

Things quickly unravel over the next few wine-soaked, argument-filled days. I’m not going to say anymore because I don’t want to give anything in the movie (that you’ll probably never, EVER watch) away.

So what CAN I say about this movie? I can probably mention that the acting, writing and direction (by John G. Young) was so questionable and amateurish during the first 15 minutes that Erica turned to me and seriously asked me if this was a student movie. She also asked more than once if we HAD to watch the whole thing. (That’s bad, right?) Those first 15 minutes are also a little confusing given the way the characters (and their relationships to each other) are hurriedly and inadequately introduced.

However, if you stick with the movie past those first 15 or so minutes, things get considerably better. Stewart is especially good as a woman who seems terrified of being alone, but continually pushes away those close to her.

Sims and Evans give some questionable line readings at times, but end up being adequate-to-solid in their performances overall. More importantly, they’re good and believable together. Burkwith, on the other hand, is mostly flat-out bad.

I also like that we weren’t seeing the typical types of characters on screen. Not only is it refreshing to see African Americans leads in a drama for adults (and away from the simplistic Tyler Perry umbrella) that also features white actors in prominent roles but it’s always good see a gay black man portrayed as something other than the tired “sassy, gay best friend” role. (Erica and I can also thank this movie for bringing the first soft-core gay sex scene into our lives. Ah memories)

Of course, the movie just can’t shake that “I got some buddies together and shot a movie in my friend’s vacation house for my senior project” vibe. In the end, it turns out being a better bad movie than I expected, and it’s certainly the best interracial, gay drama (?) I’ve seen this year. (Pull THAT quote out and use it on the DVD!)

The Reception…C

"Why, Erica, Why?" Summer Movie Library Series: The Local Stigmatic

So about five years ago, Erica and I went to a T.G.I. Fridays in Gainesville for a dinner date and we decided that we were going to speak in British accents the entire time.

We didn’t plan it. We didn’t say to each other, "Hey, wouldn’t it be funny if we pretended like we were British tonight." We just randomly started doing it while we were waiting for our table. We even gave ourselves different, British-sounding (to us) names - I was Alistair and she was Moira. We actually kept it up through the entire date. (Well, almost: when the waitress came by to take our order, we chickened out at the exact same time and used our regular accents.)

Why am I sharing this odd and potentially-embarrassing anecdote to kick off my review of "The Local Stigmatic", the latest movie in the "Why, Erica,Why" Summer Movie Library Series? Because the movie also features misguided British accents and can be described as odd and potentially-embarrassing.

You see, our little English trip (or is it "holiday"?) to T.G.I. Fridays is hilarious to me and Erica and something that we’ll likely never forget. However, if somebody else had been watching us, the whole thing would’ve been indulgent, confusing and too insider-y. It’d be like watching "The Local Stigmatic."

The movie is based on a play by Heathcoate Williams. It’s a glimpse into the life of two disturbed, co-dependent individuals in England. Graham (Al Pacino) is a dog-racing enthusiast and talks a hell of a lot more than his lumbering companion Ray (Paul Guilfoyle of "CSI"). Together, they have confusing, loaded debates and decide they’re going to beat up a famous film actor (played by Joseph Maher) just because.

Pacino co-directed the movie with David F. Wheeler and his zest for the material is obvious and infectious (more on this in a bit). In fact, I’d probably argue that he’s probably a little too enthusiastic about the source play.

In casting himself as one of the two leads, he hijacks the material of much of its impact from the very second he opens his mouth. Besides how incredibly jarring it is to hear Pacino do a cockney accent (and it’s like a smack in the face), his very presence sort of undercuts what the story has to say about fame. It’s not even that his accent is that terrible (though it’s a little bad) - it’s more that Pacino is WAY too famous to pull it off. The entire time I’m thinking, "What is Al Pacino DOING?" "Is this a worse accent than Dick Van Dyke in "Chitty, Chitty, Bang, Bang?" "Hmm, I’m actually starting to get used to...oh wait, that was bad!" Notice that none of these thoughts have anything to do with what’s going on in the movie.

At least Pacino commits to his hot mess of a cockney accent. Guilfoyle’s is more passive (or you can say "understated" if you want to be nice), seeming to flit in and out during certain instances.

I’m not suggesting that Americanizing it would’ve been the way to go. Instead, if Pacino wanted to turn this play into an experimental film, I think he would’ve been better served using unknown actors.

Then again, what the two characters say is often cryptic, repetitive and seemingly inconsequential, so I didn’t really feel like I was missing out on much. I believe this is the first time in the history of the world that a 56-minute movie has felt tortuously overlong.

Thank goodness for the epilogue (featuring Al Pacino) that follows the movie on the DVD.

I won’t get too much into it, but Pacino eloquently speaks about the material with a modest passion and a hint of embarrassment that a lot of the greatest screen actors seem to possess. More importantly, he clears up a few things about the movie’s plot (or lack thereof), which actually made me appreciate what everyone involved was trying to accomplish. (I especially liked the idea that we were only checking in on the life of these two sociopaths, so it makes sense that they’d have a lot of shorthand we’re not privy to.)

The problem is that I believe a movie - whether it’s based on a book, based on a play, or even if it’s a sequel - should be able to mostly stand on its own. In this case, Erica and I (objectively semi-bright people, in my humble opinion) shouldn’t need Al Pacino to come on after the movie is done and explain what the hell just happened.

I don’t have a problem with being challenged (I kinda like it, actually) or movies that make you think. Hell, the movie’s only 56 minutes long, so I should be able to go back and see it again to catch what I missed, right? The problem is that the movie is so indulgent and intensely unpleasant that I wouldn’t necessarily want to see it for FIVE more minutes, much less 56.

In the end, "The Local Stigmatic" is more an interesting experiment than a good, effective movie. Just like pretending to be British on a date is more of an interesting experiment than a good, solid idea for a date.

The Local Stigmatic (without seeing the epilogue)...F
The Local Stigmatic (after seeing the epilogue)...C
The epilogue...A

What John Thinks...of "Ally McBeal" coming to DVD

"Yay!" That’s what I think.

The news that "Ally McBeal" is FINALLY getting a proper (i.e. legal) release in the United States is so cool and exciting that I don’t even mind the sideways, judge-y looks you’re giving me right now.

Is David E. Kelley’s ode to dancing babies, neck wattle and knee pits the best show ever produced? Of course not. In fact, it was often downright bad during the second half of its run - except of course for the part where Robert Downey Jr. showed up in season 4 and delivered the best performance of his career. (Yeah I said it! He was so good that I was genuinely pissed off at him for getting fired due to his drug problems after his one year on the show.)

Still, this show was pretty much superproducer Kelley near the height of his creative (and kooky) powers. As a result, I’m looking forward to revisiting the great, musical-fantasy-loving characters (right in my wheelhouse), and all the ridiculously-talented regular and guest performers who stopped by the show during its five-season run.

I’m guessing whatever music licensing issues were responsible for holding up the "Ally McBeal" DVD release in the U.S. were somehow resolved. Now if we could only do the same for "The Wonder Years" and get THAT show on DVD. (I’d also like ALL the episodes to "The Larry Sanders Show" please.)

So what’s your favorite "Ally McBeal" moment? I’ll go first: any and everything involving Peter MacNicol’s brilliant John "The Biscuit" Cage. (Ok, I REALLY like this one.)