SurpRyan!

   Maybe I'm trying too hard to be clever with the titles.  I'm going to write about Paul Ryan, Romney's pick for the Vice President, and how the choice surprised me.  But "SurpRyan?"  Is that too much?  Oh well, no turning back now.
   The choice did surprise me.  Not because I don't like Paul Ryan (more on that in a minute), but because Ryan and Romney just never really seemed like two people that would get along. 
   It's a smart choice for Romney, I think, because Ryan appeals to a new generation of conservatives.  He's smart, he's well-spoken, and he has a clearly defined plan for what he wants to do with the economy.  He's been at the forefront of the party when it comes to economic talks, so why not bring him into the fold?  Plus it puts his name on a presidential ticket, which tells me the Republicans must be grooming him for a later run at the White House.  But is it the correct choice?  I'm not so sure.
   Paul Ryan is incredibly capable, and I've been really impressed with his work on the budget committee.  Democrats act like they can't stand him, but I think that really they fear him because he is so well spoken and he does have a plan that, on paper at least, seems like it could work.  I would say Ryan has done the best job of competing with the Democratic ideas.  While I would argue that MOST Republican budget plans are more sound than those of the Democrats, the Democrats have the edge because their plans seem to help a larger portion of the population and make more people happy.  Forget the fact that a lot of those plans would never sustain or even work from an economic standpoint... they sound "nicer" so they win.  But here comes Ryan with his own plan, one that makes sense for a lot of people and doesn't really do a disservice to anyone in particular.  Oh sure Democrats will try to spin it or tell you that it doesn't work, but I think in the end it has every bit as good a chance as anyone else's ideas I've heard.  Of course, I'm no economist...
   So Ryan is a pretty good economist.  And he's head of the economic committee in Congress.  In my opinion, that's where he should stay.  Sure as VP he would have a deciding vote in the House... but how much budget/economy stuff would he actually get to do?  VP just seems like a waste of a position for someone as valuable, knowledgeable, and influential as Ryan.  It's like sidelining your start wide receiver, or benching your best 3-point shooter when you're down by 10 and there are only seconds remaining.
   Ryan might be a good play for Romney.  It might attract younger voters, and it might even help him win the White House.  But in the end I think it could hurt the Republican party.  They are losing a very valuable asset at a time when he is needed more than ever.  Of course all of this hinges on what happens in the Presidential Election as well as the Congressional elections.  We could be looking at a very different political landscape come November.
   Alright enough talking about stuff I don't really know much about... 

Chronicle

   From Netflix:  Soon after three teens stumble upon an unidentified substance in the Pacific Northwest woods, they begin to exhibit powers beyond their wildest dreams. But harnessing their newfound abilities proves far more challenging than they ever imagined.
   My Take:   I'd heard mixed reviews of "Chronicle."  It's actually been on and off my Netflix Queue for a while.  It seemed interesting at first because the idea of a bunch of kids getting powers is immediately dangerous.  Then I heard it was "meh" so I backed off.  Then I heard that the gimmick was that it was all shot from POV, "Cloverfield" style.  then I REALLY backed off.  "Cloverfield" was cool and very well done, but that is a rarity with "experimental" cinema.  Man I just used a lot of quotation marks.
   Then I heard that "Chronicle" was actually pretty good.  Decent story, and the camera work actually made sense.  So I figured what the hell and I gave it a try.  I'm glad I did.
   The camera does work.  It's not as good as "Cloverfield," and it takes some creative liberties that seem kind of hokey, but just when I thought it was getting a little silly, it proved to be completely critical to tying the end of the movie together.
   The story was also gripping.  To me this was much closer to what a group of high school kids would do if they were given a huge gift like this.  The answer?  Nothing.  They basically use it to make fun of people and be stupid.  Sounds about right.  But the way the story goes is very intriguing, and (I think) very real.  It's sort of an insight into the thinking of a bullied kid, a kid who sees the world through different eyes than the rest of us.
   Give this movie a shot.  It'll make you think, and you will probably enjoy the story.  Plus it has the kid from "Friday Night Lights" in it, so that's always good.


   Alright folks, some big news.  I'm moving to Phoenix.  I will be heading to the desert at the end of the month to take a new job as the Marketing Manager for a new show called "The List."  It's a big jump for me, a huge opportunity, and possibly something that could define my career.  I'm really excited, even though I know almost nothing about Phoenix.  So if you've ever lived there, or if you know anyone who lives there, drop me a line and let me know...

NOlympics

    Let's get this out of the way right now.  NBC is doing a terrible job of covering the Olympics this year.  I'm not sure what's different, the agreements, the time difference, I don't know.  All I know is I can't remember any other time when it was this awful.
   It's bad enough that they are delaying live events to show them in prime time... but what's even worse is that they are actually editing those events to only show pieces of the action.  For example, I watched the men's gynmastics the other night.  The fact that I'm watching men's gynmastics aside, I thought it was terrible the way NBC cut the competition up.  Only a few events were shown, and really only Americans were shown.  There was sooooo much more going on during that gymnastics competition, I would have liked to seen more of the uneven bars and vault events, and I would have liked to have seen China, since apparently they are the gods of gymnastics.
   Luckily there are still plenty of Olympics to go, and there is still time to fix this debacle they have created.  And since NBC execs love to read this blog, I will spell out how you can make amends and cover the Olympics correctly.
   First, show the events live during the day.  Show them in their entirety.  Show me what is happening in London right now, not what happened earlier.  This also undercuts anyone who would try to spoil it for us by revealing results before they are shown.  Use your evening hours as a sort of "highlights" or "wrap up" time.  During prime time, show us the best performances, the key events, anywhere that an American competed.  Wrap up the day for us.  Then during your late night coverage, go back to live coverage (not repeats of the same shit you aired during the day).  It's that simple.  If you go to that style of air, you can save this mess that you've created.
   Here's another option.  Use your digital platforms to run 24-hour Olympics coverage.  It doesn't have to have announcers, it doesn't have to be a polished event.  Just use the cameras that are already on the ground and go from event to event.  It's easy, it's clean, and it's a great way to utilize the dot-twos that are usually wasted with radar loops or paid programming.  You can even show more obscure events here, the stuff that doesn't make the "big" channel.
   To their credit, NBC does have a pretty good site going that does show live events as well as a lot of the other events that you wouldn't normally see on TV.  Props to them for that... but TV is still where it's at for a lot of people.  Even I prefer to watch this stuff on TV... it just feels bigger.  And in the end, if you're going to do this shitty of a job covering it, you might as well not run ANY Olympics on your air.
   A couple of final notes on the Olympics themselves.  I thought the opening ceremony was very interesting.  There were some parts (like the transition to the industrial age) that were very moving.  There were some parts (like when Mr. Bean played Chariots of Fire) that were quite funny.  And then there were some parts that were extremely weird... er... British.  Overall I don't think it topped Beijing... but Beijing is going to be hard to top by anyone I think.
   Also, I have been pretty disappointed in the American athletes, at least the big name ones.  I don't want to use the word "cocky" to describe their attitudes, because they're not being jerks or anything... but it does seem like there is this sort of expectation that we are going to win everything because we're America and the rest of the world isn't as good as us.  Well I hope they're all learning their lesson, because the rest of the world has been gunning for us for a long time, and now we're starting to eat it.  We may be up there in the medal count, but China alone is wrecking us in the gold.  There is simply no excuse for Phelps to have "not really trained" for an event he is competing in.  There is no reason for the mens gymnastics team to be baffled by their falls and miscues.  There is no reason for the womens' beach volleyball team to strut around the court like they own the place.  And there is absolutely no reason why Lochte should have this vendetta against Phelps when he can't even beat competitors from other countries.  Of course I'm generalizing here and I'm only naming a few people out of the hundreds of incredible, humble athletes that come from this country... but that is no way for Americans to act.  There's a reason we're the leaders of the free world, and it's time for us to start carrying that responsibility again instead of flaunting it in other people's faces.
   Now I just can't wait for Track And Field...

Chick-Fil-Gay

   Who doesn't love Chick-Fil-A?  I swear it's like they put crack in their sandwiches.  But when they came out of the closet and told everyone that they're not fans of same-sex-marriage, boy did it start a shitstorm.  First you've got the gay people and the people who love gays and the people who think they love gays, all screaming about how wrong it is for this restaurant to be against gay marriage.  Then you've got the conservativos who have had enough of this whole liberal "everyone loves everyone" agenda, and think it's high time that someone stood up for their beliefs.  Then you have the people like me who just friggin' love Chick-Fil-A.
   Look folks, I hate to break it to you, but Chick-Fil-A has every right in the world to come out against gay marriage.  They are a privately owned business, a business that doesn't hide behind the fact that it is founded on religious principals.  I mean they're closed on Sundays for crying out loud.  Who does that?  And as a private business, they are allowed to stand up for what they believe in, and they reserve the right to refuse business to anyone they choose.  Not that they're refusing business to anyone, I'm just saying that they do have that right.
   And you, as a consumer, have every right in the world to hate their guts, to protest, to get your boyfriend and girlfriend and all start making out in the restaurant (just be prepared to get kicked out).  That is your right, and I am all for you exercising it.
   Unfortunately, here's what's going to go down.  There have already been several protests, and tomorrow is supposed to be the big "kiss in" where a bunch of gay people start kissing in the restaurant.  Kissing.  Fine.  But I can pretty much promise you that it will turn into more than that.  This is going to be another one of those instances where a smart, eloquent gesture of protest, is going to be ruined by a few people who just want to stir shit up.  So you'll get a couple of dudes that start groping one another, and then the restaurant will kick them out.  And then it turns into this whole "THEY HATE GAYS!" thing, when in fact if it had been a guy and a girl doing that in the restaurant, they would be kicked out just the same.  It will escalate this into something it just doesn't need to be.  And that's unfortunate, because here's a great chance for us to see the American Way work.
   I for one have nothing against gays, and I think that (at least from a legal standpoint) gays should have all the same rights as straights.  If that means you need to get married in order to enjoy the rights that straight couples enjoy, then let it be done.  Religions don't have to do it, they don't have to recognize it, they can even preach hate towards it if they want.  But from a legal standpoint, it should be allowed.
   I for one will also continue to eat at Chick-Fil-A, despite their statements and beliefs.  And I think honestly most of the gays and their supporters will probably do the same once all of this calms down.  Because Chick-Fil-A is delicious.  If Chick-Fil-A was a shitty restaurant, I guarantee you it wouldn't have caused this much controversy.  If Denny's came out as anti-gay, no one would care, because I think we can all agree that with the garbage food coming out of that restaurant, Denny's is pretty much anti-life.  But I will not turn away from Chick-Fil-A any more than I would turn away from, say, Barnaby's.  Barnaby's loves gay people, and while I'm not sure if they contribute to pro-gay causes (like Chick-Fil-A apparently contributes to anti-gay causes), I can tell you that Barnaby's beliefs don't make their food any less tasty.
   No matter which way you paint it, this has been a BRILLIANT marketing campaign for Chick-Fil-A.  Seriously, when was the last time you heard this much hub-bub about a fast food restaurant?  And just look at all the free advertising!  Yeah you could call this negative publicity, but honestly I don't know if there's such a thing anymore.  I would love to see Chick-Fil-A's bottom line this past week... I'd bet they've done more business this past week than they did in any other MONTH this year.  And that chicken is still oh-so delicious.

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol

   From Netflix: Super-agent Ethan Hunt dangles from skyscrapers and otherwise takes daring to new heights on another operation from the Impossible Missions Force. Helping Hunt get the job done is droll fellow IMF agent Luther Stickel.
   My Take:  Oh Tom Cruise, you sir, are a brilliant man.  Sure he's getting old, and sure there have been many action stars who have surpassed his athletic abilities and acting talent... but you have to hand it to him, the dude knows how to keep himself relevant.
   Think about it.  What better way to stay cool than to produce a film in which you are the main badass?  Then hire one of the top-rated, most popular action stars around, and make him look like a complete wimp and moron.  But don't stop there.  Next, hire a witty nerd who's sole purpose in the movie is to idolize you, and a beautiful woman who, despite having just lost the love of her live, somehow in two hours finds you irresistable.  Now you've done it!  Ahhhh, relevancy.
   This is a terrible movie.  By far the worst of the "Mission Impossibles," and the second one was shit, so that's saying something.  The story sounds like something that sounded really interesting in summary-form, but when you had to figure out how to stretch it into two hours, it didn't quite work.
   The direction lacked any sort of nuance.  One of my favorite scenes in any MI movie is the very first scene of the very first movie.  They're all at a party and there are all these details going on that you don't know about.  People who are important but you don't realize it until later.  Things happening in the background that are huge in hindsight.  The payoff in the aquarium restaurant is awesome.  In this movie, there's a similar scene, but none of that is going on.  Everything is so obvious, so spelled out, so ridiculous that there is no way anyone would ever not be suspicious that there might be some secret agents walking around.  Case in point: Tom Cruise talking to apparently no one about his position in the room, within earshot of at least a dozen other people.  Dumb.
   I get the idea of suspending yourself from reality when you watch a movie (I actually enjoyed Transformers so I get it), but MI-4 was asking a bit much.  A train car base?  Really?  Oh and Tom Cruise can apparently jump higher than a car.  And survive a 25 foot drop onto concrete... onto his face.  And swing to reach a window that he wasn't able to reach otherwise, only to slam the top half of his body into the wall above the opening, and somehow fall forward into the window... and still remain conscious.  Sorry, that doesn't fly.
   I've seen some shitty movies in my day, but I expected a little more from this group.  The third movie wasn't bad... it wasn't "Mission Impossible," but at least it had some decent action.  This movie was over the top in all the wrong ways, and it was a complete waste of time to watch.  Don't bother.

Fantastic Mr. Fox

   From Netflix:  When Mr. Fox's nightly raids on three nearby farms raise the ire of the selfish farmers, he must outwit the men's increasingly outrageous plans to catch him in this animated adaptation of the Roald Dahl book. As the farmers' schemes take a toll on his hungry family, Mr. Fox must find a new way to get his paws on the bounty. Wes Anderson directs, and George Clooney and Bill Murray lend their voice-over talents in this Oscar nominee.
   My Take:   First things first... this movie is a Wes Anderson orgasm.  For a guy who gets his rocks off by shooting overhead images of neatly-arranged desks, or someone who can't get excited enough about a shot showing all the different rooms in a subarine, building elaborate sceneries to move highly-detailed puppets around in is the equivalent of a shopping spree at the local porn hut.  The attention to detail here is staggering, but of course I would expect nothing less from Wes Anderson.  Unfortunately, attention to detail isn't enough to save a movie.
   What is "Fantastic Mr. Fox" supposed to be?  A kids movie?  I would never show this to children.  The puppets are way too freaky, the story is too dark, and the language (even though they use the word "cuss") is too mature.  Is it an adult's movie?  The story is pretty simple, the dancing and music are kind of weird... like uncomfortable weird... and the style is sort of childlike.  No, I think this is a movie made by Wes Anderson (sort of), for Wes Anderson.  It's something he would enjoy watching, and he basically said "fuck everyone else."
   And the crazy thing is, he can do that and still find success.  The voice acting alone makes this movie worth watching.  Clooney is of course fantastic, but Bill Murray, Owen Wilson, Jason Schwartzman, those guys all were awesome and you could tell they had a blast voicing the movie.  This was a chance for the actors do be children in a grown-up world, and that really came out in their reads.
   Still, of the Wes Anderson movies I've seen, I think this one is my least favorite.  I wasn't a big fan of "Bottlerocket" either, but I think I'd put this one below that.  It was a nice project, and I'm sure for Anderson is was pure euphoria... but the end result is a weird sort of mash-up... a man-child movie that doesn't really fit anywhere.  Of course, that was probably his goal from the start.

The Dark Knight Rises

   From Netflix:  Still grief-stricken over past losses, billionaire Bruce Wayne is conflicted about once again donning the cape of his lethal alter ego, Batman, but defends Gotham when it 's threatened by new foes such as the slinky Catwoman and the sinister Bane. 
   My Take:   THERE WILL BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.  If you haven't seen the movie, you may want to skip this one.  Sorry, I just need specifics to explain why this isn't the great movie that I think everyone is making it out to be.
   "Batman Begins" was a phenomenon.  It was the first real attempt to make a superhero believable.  No gimmicks, no weird quirkiness, it took a series that was completely unrealistic and grounded it in stark reality.  To this day, I don't think anyone has done it better.  Iron Man came close, but even that can't hold a candle to the gritty realism of the first Nolan Batman movie.  Then, "The Dark Knight" completely topped it, blowing my mind and blowing every other comic movie in the world out of the water.  The performances were incredible (minus some silly yelling)... the story was gripping.  The talent was just amazing.  And maybe they should have stopped there.
   Don't get me wrong... "Dark Knight Rises" is a great movie.  It's got everything.  It's just not as good as its predecessor.  While "Begins" had the novelty, and "Dark Knight" had the twisted Joker, "Rises" really has nowhere else to go.  Sure they brought in the guy who almost killed batman.  Sure they tied everything back together very nicely.  But it just didn't have that "it" factor that I was so hoping they would find.
   My first problem is the villain himself.  You're not going to top the Joker.  The Joker is by far the best villain for Batman, hands down.  Bain is cool, Bain is a badass, but the chemistry between Batman and Joker is just perfection.  They tried to make Bain more than he was, and I think that was another mistake.  I'm not super familiar with the comic, but from what I understand he was a huge brute, a guy who could inject himself to make him bigger and unable to feel pain.  I get that it isn't very realistic, but that is something that should have been worked into this story.  How else can you describe his ability to take such a beating without even flinching?  Why have the mask if there's no reason for it?  The voice was also a dud.  I heard they had to change it because it was too hard to understand.  Bad choice on the new voice.  I would have much rather strained to hear an evil badass than laugh at a bad Sean Connery impression.
   Next is the story.  I was surprised at how conservative they went.  Basically the story is that the world cannot survive without rich people.  Is that right?  Is that what I'm getting from this?  Impressive, especially for a Hollywood flick.  The dialogue was sort of weak, and while many of the performances made up for that, it was especially apparent in the scenes with minor characters, like the cops who were chasing after Batman.
   Of course, you could argue that there's a deeper story going on here.  This movie is more about Bruce Wayne coming to grips with the difficulties of the second movie.  This movie is more about trying to overcome how the Joker fucked up his whole life.  It's about giving up, and then having to get back into the game.  I get what they were trying to do there, but again you just can't top the Joker.  What made "Dark Knight" so compelling was all the dilemmas, the moral issues, the choices that Batman had to make.  That is why Joker is the perfect enemy.  Bane's not that type of enemy... he's just brute force that Batman must train physically to overcome.  Bane even says "I broke you," but really the Joker broke him more.  The screaming scene in "Dark Knight" made sense in the fact that it was a desperate, beaten, struggling Batman trying to defeat something that was absolutely destroying him.  Bane broke his back.  Not quite the same.
   What they did right: the acting, of course, was superb.  Fuckin' Michael Cain... only he can take a simple line and almost bring tears to my eyes.  Brilliant, sir.  All of the main roles were expertly cast and expertly performed.  Catwoman, finally, was done right.  I have yet to see a movie where she is even a little bit interesting, but they were able to pull it off.  And while I was curious about where she got her costume and the high-tech eyepiece she wore, I was willing to let that slide considering how well everyting else was portrayed.  Same with Robin.  Robin is a worthless character... or was, until they changed him up for this movie.  THAT is what a real sidekick for Batman would be.  The twist was nice, but I could have done without that if it meant improving the storyline.  If they had brought her in as the mastermind from the get-go, I think there might have been more room for a Joker-esque plot.  And honestly the ending was done right.  While at first I thought to myself "are you seriously going to Iron Giant this shit?" once I realized how it actually all played out, I thought it was done quite nicely.  There's even a replacement Batman, one who won't be able to fill those shoes for a long, long time.  Or at least, I hope that's the case (no reboots, not for a few years PLEASE).  Bruce Wayne's doing a hot chick... Alfred gets to go on vacation and rest in peace.  Everything is good again.  Whoopee.
   The question is not whether you should see this movie.  You absolutely should.  And you shouldn't be reading this if you haven't.  The question is, could this movie have possibly held up to or surpassed the second?  Was that even possible?  Tough one.


   I'm sorry, but does anyone else find the idea of Lean Cuisine "Steam Bags" not appetizing at all?  It sounds more like a sex move than a lunch.  I mean just listen to the way she says it.  "STEAM BAGS."  Thanks Lean Cuisine.