Nothing New

For as long as I can remember, I've found writing a cathartic, relaxing, and invigorating exercise. Jumping-jacks for the mind. The same with reading - an absolute requirement for any writer worth his salt.

A big part of writing is being frustrated. Maybe the biggest part, in fact. At least for me (and, I suspect, for most other writers, too). Aside from the purely practical aspects - ie, actually making time to sit down and hammer something out, good or bad - there are also the purely creative. These are an animal all their own. "What's the best way to say what I want to say?" "Is it worth saying in the first place?" ... and (for me), "What if someone else said this before... and better?"

Things started very simply... I used to write movie adaptations. Don't misunderstand me: I wasn't trying to adapt books into movies, I was making movies into short stories. This started at about age ten with my (then-)favorite movie, Predator. And from there Aliens (naturally). These weren't straight adaptations - I'd change the ending or hone in on characters/elements I thought were really cool, but for the most part it was all about the movie.

Not exactly "creative" writing.

Then I discovered the world of Monty Python, followed quickly by George Carlin, and I started trying to write funny little skits or poems. And after that came Woody Allen, perhaps the biggest influence on my life to that point in more ways than one. Woody Allen showed me that you could do anything in any medium, so long as you had the skill to pull it off. I'd never seen a movie where people talked to the camera, or where there were amusing little asides that had nothing to do with the story... So, naturally, these sorts of things started popping up in my stories and scripts.

(Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.)

Most of these stories have long since been lost. I wasn't exactly meticulous about saving things, and when the family computer crashed, I didn't make too strong an effort to recover them. As a point of fact: I don't really care what happens to them. It's fun to write and to see the collection I've amassed, but I almost never reread anything. Again, like Woody Allen, once it's done, I pretty much never look at it again. I'll craft and hone and finesse it for months, but once I have the thing in a finished form, that's it. I've never been big on rewriting; if I can't get it right after focusing my attention for all that time, it's probably not worth writing. Plus, it's good to learn from mistakes. Generally speaking, I start with an image or a sentence or an idea and just start writing - see where the piece takes me. One time I tried to outline everything beforehand - mapped out every "scene" and plot turn - and absolutely hated it. That was the most bland, heavy-handed piece of writing I ever did, and it was a chore to finish. That's why I like to just write and write and write and see what happens.

Although certain ideas and themes will always capture my interest (science, religion, extreme beliefs), I've always made a conscious effort to always try something new. That's another thing I admire about Woody Allen. Yes, he's definitely got a "type" of story that he prefers and is best at, but he is otherwise the most versatile filmmaker (I think) in American film history. Dramas, comedies, morality tales, slapstick, musicals, chamber plays, even German expressionism... Grant it, they've not always been successful attempts, but I admire the work ethic. The biggest pet peeve I had about classmates in film school was how many of them had already resigned themselves to certain genres - and were content to stay in those frameworks. Some people only made "comedies" or "horror films." I had success within satire, but I at least wanted to try something different. And what better opportunity than during school! ... Hence my surreal, experimental senior film that wasn't such a hit, but satisfied my own needs nevertheless.

And then I took a break... A long, long break. I didn't write a single bit of fiction for five years.

Lately, I've had an explosion of ideas. New experiments to try. Take the novellette. The story started with a single line, and the "gut feeling" that it would be about ten pages... After a while, I really dug in and tried to write something new, challenging, and exciting - not just a story, but an experience - and it ballooned into forty-five pages, including "illustrations." It wasn't just "Who was this guy and what happened to him?", but rather "Who IS this guy, and what IS happening to him?"... and how best to express that. Now that it's finally done, I see a few spots that are a little clunky and a couple sections that could have used more attention, but overall I'm very happy. I feel like I achieved my goal, so the piece is done. It's funny, it's sad, it'll make you scratch your head... Time for the next one.

I was told a long time ago that if I ever wanted to make it in the film industry, it would be by my own devices - ie, I wasn't writing blockbuster material, but might have a chance on the independent/festival circuit. This has always been true: I've never had even the slightest inclination to write a "this happened" type story. You know - page-turners, plot twisters. No, I always wanted to explore why did this happen, or to whom did this happen. (I've a great deal of respect for Richard Linklater - a filmmaker who has somehow made multiple, amazing films in which basically nothing happens. True character pieces with only a modicum of plot.) That something happened is not interesting: it's the personalities and circumstances and the ultimate reason (if any) that make it interesting... And, skill. Great writers can (and do) make the mundane sublime; bad writers, if they're to have any chance, have to be a little more desperate in their approach.

The current piece could approach novel-length. It's a very tricky bit of business. James Joyce is my favorite author, and I adore stream-of-consciousness writing - Faulkner, Joyce himself, Woolf, Beckett, Dos Passos, etc. I'm trying to incorporate this into my latest story (even moreso than the novellette, which became stream-of-consciousness after a number of diversions and vignettes), and still find a way to actually make things happen. I don't want it to simply be a collection of non-sequitor thoughts, because then what's the point? Then I've failed on all counts. No, the idea is to really get in the heads of these people but still convey a sense of time passing and events occurring.

It's been a challenge, but a fun challenge. Some really neat devices and themes at work, and I look forward to developing them further. Ideally, I could work on this steadily and finish before school starts, but that's almost guaranteed not to happen. If I'm lucky, a first draft could be done by then, but that's the best I can hope for.

Which brings me to the tricky part (I know - brevity has never been a strength)... I feel like this is an interesting and important story to tell, but I don't want the technique or the form to overshadow the content (may be past that point already). A balancing act. I tried to write this once as a screenplay, but was never happy with the outcome; eventually, I abandoned it. I love the general concept, but could never quite get the structure right. I'm starting to have that problem again. The beginning and the end are pretty clear in mind - it's the in-between that's elusive.

What's it about? I don't want to give away too much in hope that some of you may actually read it, but essentially it's about family - a minor element of the novellette, the major theme this time: how we define it, how definitions change, what it means in the technology age. Some interesting things, I hope, but ultimately you'll be the judge.

Stephen King said once that there are essentially two types of writers: those who write for an audience ("popular" literature, essentially), and those who write for themselves. Not that I completely disagree, but I think that's too simplistic. Most fall on a continuum. For instance, I cannot fathom a writer who doesn't write for himself. But I would agree that some tend to try to satisfy curiosities within rather than describe or explore worlds without.

In the end, once it's done, the author is really the least significant part. It's up to the reader - whether one or many - to figure it out.

Progress Report

So, just a little update on how things are going with the New Year's resolutions...

(1) So far, no luck on the novellette. One magazine said No, and it's currently under review at another. Shouldn't expect it at all, but it'd be really cool to be a published author. Fingers crossed!

(2) Been very good with the resistance training, not so consistent with the cardio. Kate has fallen in love with Jillian Michaels, so we bought a few of her workout DVDs. It sounds silly, but she does a good job! Seriously. The favorite so far is No More Trouble Zones, which targets glutes, triceps, abs, and thighs. Just short of an hour, it's a chore to get through, but a good workout nevertheless. We've been trying to do that disc every other day, but sometimes our schedules (and sore bodies) demand otherwise.

Also changing things up with the weights: I'm going to try my hand at 5x5 training. Very simple in principle: choose a weight, do five exercises with five sets of five reps. Quite frankly, though, the workout program found through that link is too easy. You can finish in like fifteen minutes - barely enough time to get your heart rate up. So I combined all three workouts into one big routine. THAT'S a workout!

(3) I've been very good about the soda. I had a couple that I didn't really enjoy afterward (ie, drank one just to drink one), but I've been good about keeping it out of the house - pretty much only at movies.

(4) And the diet has been better too. I used to make my own trail mix and a sandwich for work every day, but I've changed that to a salad (spinach/walnuts/cranberries/goat cheese) and sandwich (PB&J)... and if I'm running late and only have time to make one, I make the salad. My hemoglobin should be nice and high!

Other than that, things are fairly mundane. Working on taxes, trying to sort out financial issues before grad school. We recently changed cable/internet providers to lower our monthly payment, and I'm also going to change my cellphone plan for the same reason. Gots to save money!


Again, just to keep track, here is some hard data...
Height: 5' 11" (unchanged)
Weight: 161 pounds (-3 from January 1)
BMI: 22.45 (didn't measure)
Body Fat (approximate): 12.5%
Measurements:
Neck: 13" (-1)
Chest: 38" (-0.5)
Shoulders: 14" (R)/13" (L) (unchanged)
Arms: 14" (R)/13.5" (L) (unchanged)
Forearms: 11" (R/L) (unchanged)
Waist: 33.5" (-2)
Hips: 37.5" (-0.5)
WHR: 0.89 (didn't measure)
Thighs: 21" (R/L)
Calves: 14" (R)/15" (L) (+1R/+1.5L)

New Year's Resolutions

This is more to keep myself accountable than anything, but here are some of my goals for the year...

(1) Get the novellette published. It's an awkard length (just shy of 17,000 words - on the cusp for most magazines), but I think my chances are pretty good. I actually submitted to a magazine in mid-December; obviously, I don't expect it to work out the first time, but I feel pretty confident that it will be published some time this year. Spooky Action at a Distance - (hopefully) coming to a publication near you!

(2) Work out more consistently. I did really well the second half of the year (ie, after the honeymoon) and gained about ten pounds of muscle, but really dropped off in December. The ideal schedule would be alternating days of resistance and cardio. Obviously, that's not realistic as things will come up, but it's a good goal to shoot for.

Here's January's routine: handstand pushup, diamond pushup, knee jump, one-leg squat, headstand leg raise, door pullup, and the Mahler body blaster. It's a bodyweight circuit taken from Mike Mahler. The goal for this month is to simply get to the point where I can do one complete circuit with minimal rest: 5 reps each exercise, except for the "blaster," which will get ten, and the "diamond," which will get thirty (eventually, the diamond will be replaced with a one-arm pushup, so I'm starting with an alternate exercise in order to build strength). Should be fun and effective.

Cardio will be a combination of things. Kate and I used to jog quite a bit, but it's far too cold right now. We have a stepper which really works the calves/quads, but I don't want things to get too repetitive, so I'm actually considering yoga/pilates/dance/etc. Anything new to keep it engaging. We also have a jump rope, but not really a place to use it until the snow melts.

(3) Drink less soda. A constant goal. I used to drink two or three Pepsis a day in college. Thankfully, that's tapered off, but I still drink more than I should. The goal is to only have soda "outside" the house - ie, at the movies, parties, etc - if at all. Sounds pretty realistic.

(4) Eat less sugar/fat. I'm starting to get concerned about my intake. I don't get enough vegetables, and I think I'm eating too many sweets. This will be hard because I'm always fighting to supplement caloric demands (and the easiest way is to have a "treat" or two throughout the day), but it's important. I want a long, healthy life! My thinking is: start taking salads to work rather than snacks. I'm almost always hungry during the day (even after lunch), and I think this is from calorically dense/nutritionally light foods. I'll keep taking sandwiches because they're quick and easy, but rather than my usual trail mix I'm thinking a salad to go with. Sounds tasty!


Obviously, the overall goal here is health. We're getting older, we want to start a family in the next couple years - time to get ahead of the curve. Now, I don't want to turn out like Marky Mark here...

...because he looks ridiculous (I know he's supposed to be playing a 'roided out buffoon, but he's so big he looks awkward - should have lost some muscle), but overall strength and fitness is important. Wish me luck!

Is That It?

After watching Quentin Tarantino's Django Unchained, I'm in a bit of a quandary... How does one review this film? Do we look at it critically, citing a couple nice scenes, strong performances, and strong cinematography? Should we look at it intellectually, delving into character dynamics and trying to puzzle out the reasons why certain things happen? ... Or is this taking the film more seriously than it wants to (or deserves to) be taken? After all, it becomes abundantly clear within the first few seconds of Django Unchained that this is not a serious, historical look at slavery, slaves, slave-owners, or even the violence which the film is so steeped in. Is it best to admire the film for its cleverness and persistent, ironic sensibilities, as seems to be the preference with most people?

I don't know. Like I said: quandary.

One thing I do know: I was not impressed. I've touched on this before (see link), but I've not been a fan of Tarantino's most recent "phase"; though, guessing by the last nine years of his career (ie, from Kill Bill on), I'm not sure that term is appropriate. My father-in-law and I talked about this once before: Tarantino's always been a movie-lover first, and a filmmaker second. He has virtually no interest in recreating the "real" world - he's having too much fun in the reel world. His movies are full of winks, nods, homages, sometimes outright thievery of his favorite scenes, filmmakers, actors, and music cues... And yet, something's changed. This is not the same man who brought us Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown. Even Reservoir Dogs shows a restraint sorely missing from his last five films.

What do we think of when we think of Quentin Tarantino? I'd venture most would say they think of pop violence and foul language: cool guys hurting people in cool ways, cursing all the while and yet somehow being cool and clever, and "Hey, don't get upset - it's all in good fun. This isn't the real world, these characters are basically flesh-and-blood (heavy emphasis on the blood) cartoons."

And I don't mean to sound like a stick in the mud, but that's not the Tarantino that intrigues me. That's not the Tarantino I admire. Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown are great films because of what's not shown. Because of how people behave in increasingly extreme circumstances. Those are films about believable people cast in unbelievable scenarios. Tarantino once said that he liked to take real people and put them in the movies - that's what makes his early films memorable. As strange, extreme, and absurd as situations got, you could believe what the characters were doing because they still acted like real people. (Though, to be fair, he also broke this mantra: Harvey Keitel's "The Wolf" is a reel character interacting with real people.)

Then came Kill Bill; then everything changed. Suddenly, the man who almost always showed violence as being either (a) offscreen, or (b) bloodless when it was on-screen, added red to his palette, and his films have become increasingly blood-soaked. This was not a movie about real people, real situations, or anything we'd see in the real world. As Tarantino himself once said, Kill Bill is the kind of movie his characters from Reservoir Dogs would go watch - ie, ultra-violent, campy, and over-the-top.

This modality has brought him increased popularity, controversy, and (I imagine) revenue, but I fail to see how any serious movie-lover can continue to support it. His is a story of wasted talent. It was fun for a while, but he's become the author of his own redundancy. Four of his last five movies have been revenge stories - Kill Bill I & II about a spurned mother rescuing her baby, Inglourious Basterds about Jews exacting revenge on Nazis for their atrocities, and now Django Unchained, which we'll get to finally...

Django Unchained (dir. Quentin Tarantino) - 2.5/5

I imagine by now a number of people have either written me off completely or find me to be a humorless, pretentious ass... This just is not true. As I've said repeatedly: I love action movies and horror movies. The degree of violence matters very little - it's to what end I care about. For instance, my question to the Django-lovers is thus: what do you love about the movie, other than being "funny" or "cool"? It's not a stuffed-shirt film about the drama of slavery and the evil deeds visited upon an entire race - I get that. But what is it, other than a piece of pop/ironic entertainment? Is it anything more? ...less?

There are good scenes in Django Unchained. There really are. Even some great ones. As a whole, though, it is not good. The film idles along for the first hour or so, introducing Django and his rescuer, a bounty hunter named Schulz. They bond quickly, Schulz proves himself a man of his word (and mighty good with a gun, too), and Django rides with him as a free man. Django helps Schulz with a job, and Schulz promptly asks him to be a partner. Django reluctantly agrees - his first priority is to rescue his wife; but, as Schulz rightly points out, it is not so simple for a freed slave in the South to try and free another slave. Their partnership remains, and they concoct a scheme to win her back. Enter Candie (DiCaprio), perhaps the film's best character (certainly the most interesting): he is an enormously wealthy plantation owner, and he owns Django's wife.

You can imagine where it goes from there... I frankly have little interest in discussing or divulging plot details. There are two fantastic scenes once Django and Schulz get to "Candie-land," as well as the film's major action set-piece. The first is a tour-de-force speech where Candie enumerates the supposed differences between whites and blacks and threatens to kill Django's wife; the second is a marvelously suspenseful bit of brinkmanship between Candie and Schulz over handshake customs.

Conversations. Tense conversations. These are the highlight of the film. Many will disagree, and will prefer the lengthy, excessively gory shootout immediately following (I'm no expert, but I'd venture it has to be the wettest shootout in film history - blood and viscera slop, spill, and squish out of virtually every character), but for me it was the conversations that gave the film hope. "Finally," I thought, "Tarantino has found what he's best at; finally, the film has a chance at greatness!" ... If only that were true.

Let's get back to the violence of the film, its one true commodity. What end does it serve? Schulz used to be a dentist, but now he's a bounty hunter... how did that happen? And, was it that easy to just up and start killing people for money? He is repulsed by slavery, presumably because it visits violence and injustice upon other human beings... Does it not bother him that he does the same? He says he only kills criminals, not innocent people, but even then - is it so easy for a dentist to become a killer? For anyone?

"You're taking this too seriously" - that's the common reply. And that's a fair point. This isn't meant to be a moral tale. The only "innocent" in the film is Broomhilda - everyone else is "bad" to degrees. Schulz kills criminals, Django kills slave-owners and those who are complicit... but they still kill. And Django doesn't just kill: he humiliates, maims, and then destroys... Are we supposed to cheer when he tortures his victims? Is that entertainment? Is that "all in good fun"? Is that all Django Unchained is meant to be? Because that's not enough.

p.s... I know, I've prattled on long enough, but here's another issue I have: Kill Bill works (if it does at all) because it adopts the modality of the samurai/revenge movie. I've seen Lone Wolf & Cub, Master of the Flying Guillotine, etc... When heads come off, they fly off; when people are cut down, they are split in two. When blood sprays, it's an arterial spray. So I get the ultra-violence of those two. Inglourious Basterds, however, is meant to be more like a Dirty Dozen kind of thing - where we're rewriting history to get a "Yeah! Go get 'em!" kind of response... And now here's Django Unchained, which is allegedly a Western. But no Western ever looked, acted, or talked like this. We know Tarantino's studied Sergio Leone (even has the great Ennio Morricone working on the score, though you'd never guess it) - how much better if he had made something along those lines. A great Western gets suspense through silence, music, and grit. This sense of suspense is sadly lacking from Django Unchained, replaced instead with the immature, gleeful desire to kill just about everyone and everything on screen - and as messily as possible, at that.

2012 in Review

What a year!

I survived my remaining prerequisites, got accepted to grad school (one stop closer to Physician Assistant), wrote a "short" story (45 pages) that actually stands a fair chance of being published, touched a live beluga whale, and got married! We've had quite the adventure.

Admittedly trivial, nevertheless here's the second annual I Shot a Moose "Best Of" list...


BOOKS
With the heavy courseload and a number of wedding plans during the spring, I did not read as many books as I would have liked, but still churned through a number of them. A surprising amount of nonfiction this year. I didn't keep very good track, but titles included Suck it, Wonder Woman! (Olivia Munn), Why is the Penis Shaped Like That? (Jesse Bering), Born Standing Up (Steve Martin), Last Words (George Carlin), as well as the fiction marvels Cloud Atlas and The Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoet (both David Mitchell).

The big find for the year was Harlan Ellison. I'd first heard of him years ago from the credits of James Cameron's The Terminator, which apparently so resembled a couple of Ellison's Twilight Zone scripts that the film producers had to list him as an inspiration or face litigation. Many felt the similarities were cursory, but Ellison's name stuck in my memory nevertheless, and this year - as I began my own science-fiction work - I finally delved into his strange world for inspiration. What a treat it has been! After flying through literally every piece available at every local library (short story collections Deathbird Stories, Strange Wine, Shatterday, Angry Candy, and Slippage, and the novella Mefisto in Onyx), I'm still hungry for more. Some pieces are decades old, but they remain fresh and interesting. Staggering imagination. And the discovery of a new genre (to me, anyway) - literary impressionism. Ellison is considered a master of the short story, and after reading so many of them I think I know why: he only gives what is necessary. He doesn't give a lot of details, there are usually very few characters - he gives enough so that you can understand the feeling, the mood, the atmosphere of a piece. I've read better writers, but he's made a huge impression. Can't wait to get my hands on more.

Favorite Long Fiction: The Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoet (David Mitchell)
Mitchell's Cloud Atlas is the more revered title, and he even revisits a few of the same themes in Thousand Autumns, but Autumns is the more engaging novel. While extremely well-written and fascinating, Cloud Atlas at best remains a technical accomplishment. By its very nature (breaking stories apart so you read consecutive first halves and consecutive conclusions), there is almost no emotional involvement. It is a book that impresses you; it does not engross you. Autumns, on the other hand, retains Mitchell's virtuosity, and imbues it with a touching humanity... even fragility.

There are a few too many "stock" supporting characters for it to be a "great" novel, and a couple diversions don't contribute as much to the whole as they should, but Mitchell puts you through the story with a deftness that belies his technical experiments. At the surface, this should be a slog to get through: the titular de Zoet is a clerk and interpreter for a Dutch trading company working in Japan. (Sounds like Melville.) He falls for a local girl, and is willing to give up his comfortable life to be with her (if not for propriety)... Don't worry, it's not as cheesy as it sounds, and the novel is far from a love story. There are several side plots, including a mysterious order of nuns which may be complicit in infanticide, the inevitable culture clash between the private East and the boorish West, and even a standoff with a British frigate trying to force their own brand of commerce. I'm not one for historical fiction, but Mitchell's prose creates a vivid, bustling world, and also a touching story of feeling versus duty, love versus sacrifice. A lovely, loving book.

Favorite Short Fiction: The Deathbird (Harlan Ellison)
Ellison has won hundreds of awards. Literally hundreds... The Deathbird is one of his most celebrated, and in my opinion it is also his best. If you're looking for a fast, thought-provoking read about nothing less than the nature and relationship of God and Man, you've got to check it out.

The story is simple enough: Ellison simply reverses conventional Christianity by supposing that God is the bad guy and the "Devil" got a bad rep. Where it goes from there, and all the little tricks and diversions he employs on the way, are all part of the joy of reading it. There are (seemingly) inexplicable paragraphs addressed to a class, even false essay questions; there's a tiny story within the story that perfectly captures and parodies manipulative melodrama; an omnipotent alien race with little regard for our measly planet; the hero's journey takes him through life, death... rebirth? It is a masterpiece of the form, and among the finest pieces of prose I've ever read.

Honorable Mention: Dog Stars (Peter Heller)
The wife got this for me on a whim. Neither of us had heard of the author, or the book for that matter, but she thought it sounded right up my alley... She was exactly right (as she often is). Heller crafts something kind of similar to McCarthy's The Road, modern TV shows like The Walking Dead, and other survivalist/post-apocalyptic horror, but still manages to create a story which is new and unique. I don't want to give anything away, but he seems to be saying that - Yes, this life is worth living. No matter what, no matter the circumstances, life is instrinsically valuable, which is a value I share... And stylistically, I love what he's done. Minimal dialogue, minimal punctuation, double spaces between paragraphs (no first line-spacing). The pages have a nice clean "look" which underscores the minimal nature of the prose and the sparse environment of the story. (Little details, I know, but they go a long way.) A wonderful read.


MUSIC
There were few musical standouts this year. My interests were focused primarily on reading and studying; I even cancelled my Pandora One membership because it was falling into disuse.

I found a new appreciation for Rob Zombie, downloading all of his albums, and discovered a marvelous new talent in Esperanza Spalding. We even saw her live - what a talented girl. She is the epitome of jazz. Larger-than-life afro, diminuitive body, a high sweet voice, thoughts and conversations that seem to kind of wander around the point, touch on something profound, and then circle back to normalcy... She looks as though she could float away if the wind were strong enough.

But what a performer! She pulses with rhythm, beauty, energy. And I like that she uses her voice as an instrument, not just to sing. Does that make sense? A lot of her songs don't feature actual words - more that she's making vocal sounds to harmonize with the music. Not quite "scatting," but similar.

Favorite Album: Clockwork Angels (Rush)
Kind of a default choice, as this was really the only new album I went out of the way for. But don't think I list it here because I have to - it's still a great album! From my "Fistful of Reviews" entry: "Fast-paced, hard-hitting, endlessly listenable and entertaining - everything a good album should be. And it's a concept album! So if you really want to, you can delve into the lyrics and examine a fully fledged narrative about oppression, suppression, and the triumph of free will (pet topics of lyricist/master drummer Neil Peart) - but each track also manages to stand on its own, drawing comparisons to The Who's Tommy."


MOVIES
This will be tough. Quite frankly, I was disappointed with nearly every release I saw this year. I had high hopes for Prometheus, The Dark Knight Rises, The Master, and Silver Linings Playbook... But again, for some reason or another I was let down by just about everything. Maybe I was expecting too much, but considering the pedigree of a number of these films, I don't think I was. They just didn't deliver. As such, only a few to list.

Favorite Movie (in theaters): Cloud Atlas (dir. Lana & Andy Wachowski & Tom Tykwer)
I know a lot of people feel differently, but for me this movie is head and shoulders above everything else I saw; it's the only one I actually saw multiple times, and would go out of my way to watch on video. You have to overlook a lot of things (bad make-up work, some iffy character motivations), but the picture as a whole is so wondrous, so magnificent, such an accomplisment - I don't think any serious movie-goer can hate something like this. I can understand disliking it, but no one should hate it, and at the very least you have to respect it. This is a massive undertaking of an incredibly complex, dense, and difficult novel, and they actually made a movie which is better than the book! Please check my "Finally ... Greatness!" entry for a more in-depth look.

Favorite Movie (on video): All the President's Men (dir. Alan Pakula)
Incredible! Simply incredible! Great performances, an amazing script, and efficient, no-frills direction. Every time I think about this movie, I'm amazed - it's a movie about fact-checking! Fact-checking! The whole thing is about scoring interviews, clarifying details, following leads, sorting out dead-ends - fact-checking! And yet somehow it's incredibly fast-paced, vivid, and suspenseful. Such a good movie.




Honorable Mentions: Looper (dir. Rian Johnson), Robot & Frank (dir. Jake Schreier), The Master (dir. Paul Thomas Anderson), Jack Reacher (dir. Christopher McQuarrie)
Johnson's Looper gets the award for most interesting concept of the year - for the last several years. I like that he creates a future which is still believable. People still drive cars, the world is nasty and polluted, people still behave like people - it's not the clean, logical future of 2001: A Space Odyssey, but it's not as dirty or gritty as Blade Runner either. It still feels lived in, just not squalid. The script has its issues, as do some more questionable make-up decisions, but the film is just so interesting that I couldn't forget about it.

Robot & Frank was such a delightful little find. Funny, heartfelt, engaging - another interesting concept pulled off beautifully with great work from Frank Langhella... The Master is a paradox: considering Anderson's output, it is a bit of a shortfall. A big, sprawling, messy film that does not wrap up nicely or neatly, and has too many weak elements to earn a recommendation... and yet, even with all that, it is an absolute must-see for any film-lover. Great performances, a mesmerizing soundtrack, and impeccable cinematography allow the film to stand out above most others, even as an ambitious failure... Jack Reacher was a nice bit of fresh air - a quaint action movie reliant on character, plot, and pacing rather than outrageous stunts or special effects. It is not a great movie, but it welcome relief from the "bigger, faster, louder" brand of modern action.