Bully!

I was surprised by last night's episode of The Simpsons, as it extolled the wonders of Teddy Roosevelt. Bart came to see Teddy as a role model and told his friends about how cool he was. There was even a debate with Lisa over which Roosevelt was a better president. I loved it because Teddy Roosevelt is my favorite president (you heard me, Lincoln!).

I thought the show was a great way to remind America what a cool guy he was. And remember, he was never elected President; he got the job because McKinley was shot. And yet he did so much good for the country and for conservation. And did you know that he had a slightly high-pitched creaky voice? He was the first President to have his voice recorded on phonograph, and it's strange hearing him knowing his image. In our media-heavy culture where every little flaw in a politician is ruthlessly ripped apart, I respect a guy who can speak before people with a voice like that. And rock the spectacles-and-mustache look like nobody can! And really, I respect anybody with the balls to name his kid Kermit. And remember, this was a guy who got SHOT in the middle of a speech, and kept going!

Now, he did rally to get America into the first World War, which I don't agree with. But perhaps his leadership would have been better than Wilson's was. Strike that; it DEFINITELY would have been better than Wilson's was. Ultimately, any involvement in that European mess I think would always have been a mistake, but Roosevelt would not have tried any of that League of Nations nonsense. Because that concept has worked really well in the years since then, right?

Best argument for Teddy in last night's episode though?

Lisa (arguing for FDR): Face on a dime!

Bart (arguing for TR): Face on a mountain!

Couldn't have said it better. He's the Rushmore face that gets the least respect, but I'd argue in terms of Presidency deserves that spot certainly better than Jefferson. His legacy lives on in National Parks, the Panama Canal and of course, the teddy bear. Just think, without him, no Build-A-Bear Workshop.

Thank you Teddy Roosevelt. And thank you The Simpsons. Bully for you!

update about Glee

The new season of Glee has started up again, and just like last year I will be doing weekly reviews and critiques of the show. However, because I am not currently home on Tuesday nights, it will take a little longer.

Until then, enjoy this spot-on educational parody. If Sesame Street would whittle away the overuse of Elmo and Abby and do more of this stuff, it would be better off. It also includes the gayest muppet they will probably ever include (a fabulous critique of Kurt). Oh, by the way Sesame Street, why is it three different g-g-guys have played Gordon? Is it a rule that every black man has to be named G-G-Gordon, or did you think the kids wouldn't notice that you g-g-got a new actor? Just something I was thinking about today for some reason.

They're At It Again!!

Remember several months ago when the Burlington Mall was shut down because someone reported a rifle that turned out to be an umbrella? And there was all that controversy because the umbrella looked like a sword and blah blah blah? (If not, you can read what I had to say about it here)

Well, they're at it again! Who is they? The reactionary public of course, who think they are doing the right thing. I just saw on the news tonight that a building in Boston was evacuated today because somebody reported a man with a gun. When the police finally apprehended this "suspect" they found the object sticking out of his bag. This time it was a bicycle pump. That's right, a bicycle pump. Once again, people called the police thinking they saw a rifle. Can I just ask what rogue rifleman walks around with a rifle in his backpack? That's not very effective to use in a public place. You've got to sling the bag down, open it up, pull out the gun... Or if he were being secretive about it, he wouldn't have the barrel sticking out of his bag in full view! Of any time there's ever been gun violence in a public area perpetrated by rifle, when has that firearm been in a backpack? He'd at least use a big duffel bag right? Or a package of curtain rods.

And just how frequent is rifle attack these days? Besides Lee Harvey Oswald and a guy in a clock tower, when have you heard anyone was shot at by rifle in a public place? That's for home defense. Anyone these days going out to shoot people up is carrying a hand gun. I know there's been discussion of the constitutionality of carrying assault rifles, but do people actually do that? And even if the carry them, are they used? Not in Massachusetts. At least, I haven't heard of such an occurrence.

So for the second time, an innocent American is held responsible for holding up the city because somebody thought they saw something. When was it made a crime to carry a bike pump? Oh, what's that? It's not? Then maybe we should get our facts straight before we report something.

If I sound like I'm being hard on the citizen activists here, let me say I don't hold them (or he or she or it) fully responsible. No, the real blame lies on the Massachusetts police. You see, after that little non-incident in the Burlington Mall, they told the public that what they did was correct. They didn't feel they as the police did anything improper (though when you really look at what was done, it was obviously excessive). And then they continued to say that those who reported it did the right thing and that it's always right to report something suspicious. Well, maybe you can argue that, but at what point to we define "suspicious" as "any cylindrical object seen from a distance". So I lay the real blame on them, for encouraging this kind of fear-based behavior in the public.

At what point do these trigger-happy whistleblowers get to call out the police? This sort of reaction is just as destructive as a man with a rifle would be. And certainly more so than a guy with a bicycle pump.

I just knew it! I heart this so much!

I just read on IMDb that the New Beverly Cinema in Los Angeles has decided that Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is worthy of midnight movie status, and will begin screening it monthly in this fashion beginning next month.

This makes me so happy because I just knew this was the kind of movie it was from the day I first saw it. I predicted time and again that it would remain forever as a cult movie. In fact, I even said so in my Ten Best Films of 2010 post where I named Scott Pilgrim my favorite movie of the year and said the following:

I hope it becomes a cult favorite worthy of midnight screenings. This movie deserves it. I heart Scott Pilgrim so much.

So ladies and gentlemen, I called it!

Say It Like You Mean It

This post may end up being the first in a series of church habits that particularly annoy me, or it may stand on its own. But suffice it to say there are a number of things about modern church practices that drive me crazy. This is going to be more of an evangelical thing, but may have application elsewhere.

There are all kinds of patterns people fall into whenever they do anything. And when you get them in a group, certain phrases and sayings just become rote and turn into an unwritten code. But it's developed so far now that if you walk into almost any evangelical church and says "God is good", half of the people will respond "all the time". This post is not about that, but boy does that annoy me. There are songs based around the phrase, and yet I have no idea who originated that. It's just annoying, like every time someone says "God is good" it has to be said. Like a game of Marco Polo. And to my immediate recollection, there is no scripture that uses that full statement. I can however point you to a scripture that says God is angry all the time. So chew on that.

But more innocuous than even that is the way church people have come to use "Amen". And I am so tired of it. They say it at the end of their prayers, many with no idea why they do it. Like they are just supposed to. As if it's like saying "the end" at the conclusion of your story; a signal that you've finished.

What amen means is "so be it" or "let it be" or I like to think of it in Captain Picard terms: "make it so". But let me tell you what "amen" does NOT mean.

It does NOT mean "I agree with that!"

It does NOT mean "You all heard me, right?"

It does NOT mean "I'm checking to make sure you are awake"

It is NOT a question. Ever.

It's a word that gets overused and I'm tired of it. Now, in some of these contexts it technically makes sense. For example if someone says "Let's keep the parking lot clean, amen?" and everyone responds, "Amen!" I guess that second one works, but why use it in such a way? But it's not a question, and it's not a way to lead people to respond. I think sometimes people use it just because it's a "churchy" word. Like if it were a similar situation outside the church someone might say, "You bet," but that implies gambling and that's not holy. So Christians fall back on "amen" because it makes them feel Christian. And I find it tremendously aggravating.

I just happen to think that words mean what they mean. If you don't really understand what a word means, don't go around saying it. And maybe it would be nice if I didn't have to sit through a church service where "amen" is used 5 different ways, 30 different times.

So please, if you're in the habit of using it to say "I agree! That's right!" then STOP it.

If you're in the habit of saying it after every sentence from the pulpit, STOP it.

If you think you're being holier by ending prayer with not just one amen but with "amen... and amen... and amen," STOP IT.

but if you mean it like it means, there are lots of areas in the church world and Christian life where we want God to "make it so". And you can say so.

Let's keep the word reserved for it's proper meaning; there's more power in it that way.

Amen.

BREAKING BAD: "Box Cutter"

The fourth season of Breaking Bad finally premiered this week. I've been an avid viewer since the pilot of the show, and a fan of Vince Gilligan's writing since his time on The X-Files. Because I no longer have cable, I was terribly annoyed that I would be unable to see this season until DVD. AMC doesn't stream it online like it does The Killing, nor does Hulu have it. However, I found that I could buy it on iTunes. Since I just happened to have iTunes cards lying around from Christmas, I was more than happy that I could watch the premiere finally!

The episode is just as disturbing and dramatic as you would think. The part of me that was hoping Jesse didn't succeed in killing Gale was saddened by how the episode opened. No X-Files fake-outs on this show! Actually, they did do that between the pilot and the first episode, so maybe Vince didn't want to push it. The teaser of the episode was a flashback, a style they had used a lot in season 3. We saw Gale first setting up the super lab and discussing whether or not it was worth having Walt work for Gus. When the episode picked up after the title, it picked up the split second after last year's ending. I thought that was cool.

So much of the episode focused on Walt and the dangerous game he plays in the aftermath of his little risk. Can he convince Gus he is still needed? Gus more and more shows that he is not a man to be messed with. In some ways I worry because I don't like this show having a "villain". It headed that direction in season 3 with the cousins, and it felt a bit too traditional. There's already a lot of dramatic irony to contend with. Yet there is a certain reality to the types of people Walt will deal with if he continues to delve deeper into this world. I come to realize more and more that Walt's biggest problems stem from his ego. He is blinded by his own idea of his importance, the purity of his product, etc. Whenever there's a real game change, it's because Walt thought he knew what he was doing and got cocky.

It was good seeing Saul again, who is understandably skittery after his run-in with Mike last season. We also got back to the Hank and Marie relationship. Hank is still not happy with his situation, and who can blame him. I'm not sure how much time has passed here since he left the hospital. It can't have been much. But in the meanwhile he's been buying rocks off eBay. Marie keeps trying to be optimistic and talk to him about how his therapy is going, but he wants none of it. I've noticed this about women in general; they always want to discuss the last thing any man wants to talk about. The shooting, the physical therapy, the indignity, that is all Hank can brood on and the last thing in the world he wants to talk about. To me, Marie would be better off discussing anything else. Though it's also in her character to not be that smart. Side note: I wonder what's become of her kleptomania, and will that play a larger part later in the season?

There's a very shocking moment that comes toward the end of the episode that I won't spoil. But it does put things in perspective. The more the show goes down the rabbit hole, the more I wonder whether Walt can ever be redeemed, or is he sealed to a bad fate? The show is growing very Godfather-esque undertones, with Walt being the Michael Corleone. We just had the shooting of Fredo. Is there any hope for him? So because it's seeming like Walt's hubris will be his undoing, the character I'm most concerned about is Jesse. If Walt started a good guy who is descending into hell, Jesse started the troubled burnout, leading me to hope he can become something better. Whenever we're teased with that, it's been snatched away. Jesse's nobility gets him in more trouble. After what he's gone through the past three episodes, I hope he doesn't stay zombified.

With all the darkness, it was nice to see a few touches of the old dark humor back, which almost all but disappeared in season 3. It was there, but a lot more subdued. There's an awkwardly funny scene where Marie comes to see Skyler. And another reminder of how bad Walt and Jesse are at the tough guy business in a moment that recalls season one. I hope the show retains some of it's humor. I'd also love it if they could get back to the kind of "subversive chemistry lessons" the show used to do in the first season. Though the way the showing is going this seems unlikely. It is odd to feel I should start rooting for Hank. Finally, the show ends with a tease of where things might go that could make life difficult for Gus's operation in the future. The show has started to come down to this trend of ret-conning story threads. I hope they keep it to a minimum. Last year's RV story worked, but too much of that makes a mess of continuity (though this show is very good about continuity) and cheapens drama. At any rate, season four is off to a good start. Though last year had some really great moments for Aaron Paul, I still think the second season was the best so far. Will this year top it? Hope it was worth the wait.

Oh, and one of the later scenes made me really wish there was a Denny's around here.

HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS (PART 2) -- My Immediate Reactions

I've just returned from a back-to-back (well, half hour break in between) screening of Deathly Hallows parts 1 and 2. My immediate gut reactions from memory will be shared below. Feel free to add your own thoughts as you see the film. I'll try not to get too spoilerific, but there will still definitely be spoilers, so if you do not want to know anything at all, don't read any further.

It's good seeing the movie as one big four hour whole. I'm not sure how the second part will hold up just on it's own, as it is very action-heavy. It does have it's own kind of climactic rhythm, and in a way it's own themes, but Deathly Hallows is very much all of a piece. It's likeGone With the Wind or Kill Bill. Actually, it's structure reminded me a lot of Kill Bill, which I always thought was too heavy on one target in the first part, just as the first horcrux takes up all the time in the first movie, then the next two are dispensed with fairly quickly in part 2. These faults are Rowling's.

We open with a brief recap of the final scene of the last movie, then move right into Hogwarts. We haven't seen Hogwarts at all in Part 1, and this movie will take place almost entirely there.
I should mention also the 3D. They gave out special round Harry Potter 3D glasses, which was cute, but also a little annoying because having to wear them over my own glasses made them feel not quite large enough. While there are some shots that look cool in 3D, the movie didn't really need the conversion. I will say though that there is no frenetic action where the 3D makes this hard to make out. It's the best 3D of a Harry Potter I've seen. Still, there were moments that didn't feel dimensional at all, and other times, like when Harry is in his invisibility cloak, where the effect just looks distracting. I'll probably try to see this again in 2D.

The Dementors are still the bad unhooded version that Yates seems to like. In fact, I think this is the worst the dementors have ever looked in a Potter movie.

For those bothered by the lack of Dobby's gravestone in the last movie, it appears in this one.
John Hurt has a nice little scene with Harry, and it was nice to see him return as Ollivander. We didn't get much of him in Part 1. Though we never learn what happens to him AFTER this scene, as we get pretty quickly into the bank robbery.

Helena Bonham Carter does a great job playing Hermione as Bellatrix. It doesn't last very long, but it's memorable. I notice that in these films the non-human characters seem like they've been made a little more human. That may be why Dobby looked weird to me; they softened him and almost made him too human-like in the face. It's the same with the goblins. Their make-up has been toned down a bit, and sometimes feels too much like midget human bankers. Also, the dragon is so almost flesh-colored, and I'm not sure why. But the bank sequence on the whole is pretty good and kicks off pretty early in the film. This movie continues the conceit from the last one that each horcrux has that tea kettle sound. It allows Harry a kind of sixth sense of being able to hear them, which they come right out and say in this movie. To the point where he is hunting them by sound. While quick and easy for the movie, it takes away the logic of looking for something of Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw. The cup is never mentioned to be Hufflepuff's. He only knows about the diadem being Ravenclaw's because of flashes from Voldemort's mind.

We meet Aberforth Dumbledore, who is pretty well played. The biggest problem here is that the backstory is not explored enough. It is alluded to, but little more. Here would be the time to TELL us, but the movie refuses to. Aberforth has a beef against his brother, and we see the portrait of their dead sister, but the circumstances of her death are kept vague. No further mention is made of Grindelwald in this movie either. Thus the whole relationship and story leading up to the taking of the Elder Wand are gone. The movie should have tried harder to explain this somewhere over the course of two movies. Otherwise, there's almost no point in even HAVING the character in the movie.

The mirror thing is finally explained, somewhat. Instead of the story in the book, where it is given to Harry by Sirius and it smashes (maybe because Kloves didn't write the fifth movie), Harry's shard is a missing piece of one mirror. The rest of it is with Aberforth. He claims to have gotten it from Mundungus Fletcher, who took it from the Black house. It's an explanation that mostly works (though leaving that until the second movie is harsh). However, I'm left wondering why there is only one shard broken out and all the rest of the mirror is fine. How did it break and how did Harry come to have that piece? If he had found it while they were in hiding at the Black residence I would have bought it. But he started with it on Privet Drive in Part 1. That's poor scripting to me.

Then we get to Hogwarts and all our old friends are there. Neville, Seamus, Dean, Cho, even Lavender Brown appears, though she doesn't really say anything. I liked that Cho helped with the discussion of the diadem of Ravenclaw, since we barely even saw her in Part 1.
Snape stands before the school and asks anyone who knows Harry's whereabouts to step forward. No one does, until Harry himself comes forth in a great moment, followed by the Order of the Phoenix. Snape and McGonagall have a minor fight, brought on by the knowledge that he killed Dumbledore. Snape flees out the window.

McGonnagall's take-charge of Hogwarts is good. Once Snape is gone, she brings lights back up. It's still dark, but adds a bit of warmth. Yates still likes his movie to look all grey, but it's not so dark as Phoenix was. And we get cameo appearances from many of the school staff going back several films. Trelawny, Slughorn, even Sprout make appearances. Filch appears, though he's once again played a bit too hard for comedy. Minerva even calls him a "blithering idiot". Though his idiocy is still more in character than it was in some of the other films (especially Goblet of Fire). There's a point when Voldemort's voice calls for Harry Potter to be brought forth. Pansy Parkinson calls for someone to grab him. At that, McGonagall has Filch take all the Slytherins to the dungeon. I like that this is the first reference to the dungeon since the Columbus days. However, I had a real problem with this action, as it reinforces the idea that all Slytherins are evil. How is her rounding up all the Slytherin students any better than the Ministry rounding up all the mudbloods?

The battle on Hogwarts is epic, and hard to describe her. Events which are only talked about after the fact in the book are put onscreen. Still, we don't get everything. Giants do storm the castle, though I at first thought they were meant to be trolls. There is no fake-out Hagrid death. Actually, Hagrid feels a bit off to me in these two movies for some reason.

Neville and Seamus are told to blow up the bridge, and there's a great call back to how Seamus is always blowing stuff up.

Though he gets less to say or do, Dean Thomas also has a couple nice moments onscreen.
I thought the Gray Lady stuff was handled well. The actress was good, and there was a moment where she was scary. However, the ghost effect looks nothing like the ghost effect seen in the previous movies. I know those effects looked cheesy most of the time, so it's hard to say which is better. She's more in color and more spectral and animated. It's a better effect, but not consistent with the other films.

What IS consistent with the other films is the Chamber of Secrets. I'm so glad it's the same sets. Hermione and Ron have a nice kiss here, but it's missing something for me. This is the one casualty of the SPEW storyline being excised. In the book the moment is so perfect when Hermione finally pounces on Ron. Here, it's meant to come as a moment after they both thought they were going to die but it's too sudden for me. At a point a scene or two later, Ron says something that proves he had actually retained something Hermione had said last year. I think that might have been a more book-like impetus for her to kiss him. Though in the film it seems to be a mutual decision. I'll let you folks decide how you like it.

The Room of Requirement and the fire is a great scene. There's even cameos from the pixies from Chamber of Secrets. Since the actor who played Crabbe was arrested on drug charges before filming, he doesn't appear. Instead, joining Draco and Goyle is Blaise, which I kinda liked. It also allowed another black character to have some screen time.

Alan Rickman finally gets something to play beyond brooding and hitting people on the head. The moment when he dies matches what I pictured reading the book. I was always afraid they wouldn't be able to capture the sense at the end when Snape looks at Harry and sees Lily. It's subtle in the book, but I think it says the last thing he saw was Harry's eyes. Anyway, in the film they get the point by having his dying words be that he has his mother's eyes. And it doesn't play like that broken record it's been in previous movies. Harry collects Snape's memories from his tears. I don't remember it being that way in the book, but I liked it.

The Snape's memory stuff is very good. It's better than the brief bit we saw in Order of the Phoenix. While still not all that's in the book, and missing some key conversations with Lily, you get the emotion and the sense of plot as there is a lot of retcon exposition to give. Unlike in Half Blood Prince, the pensieve images are not all smoky and inky. They only get that way when transitioning in and out of scenes. This is nice because it allows the first meeting of Lily and Severus to be brightly lit and pretty. I also very much appreciated the way footage from all the previous Potter movies was worked in, especially the death of Lily. I'm sure it was hard to match up with a scene shot ten years ago (and so little of it), but it looks almost seamless. Too bad Chris Columbus will not get the credit he deserves for the stuff in this movie that he is responsible for shooting, and for designs he okayed for his films. Why does producer David Heyman get all this credit now? Anyway, these scenes are some of the best in the movie.

I really hate that Harry's invisibility cloak is never revealed to be one of the Deathly Hallows. It made bad sense in the first part when he went to places like Godric's Hollow without it when in the book he had it, knowing that everyone was after him. But I figured that maybe they were saving it so the audience wouldn't immediately grasp that his cloak was THE cloak. But then what? He uses it in the bank and then it's never seen again. Also, the "cloak-vision" is not the same as it always was before. Yates uses the same sort of "magical wall" effect he used with Hermione's enchantments in part 1. He spends a lot of time these two movies flying through windows and barriers and such, actually.

Harry's little reunion in the woods with his dead friends is nice. Good to see Sirius again. The one problem here is the acknowledgement about Lupin's kid. Harry says, "What about your son?" First, only Lupin is there, not Tonks even though we know from earlier that they were both dead. Second, there was only a passing reference in the first movie about her being pregnant. Yes, she must have had the baby in the months Harry was in the woods, but the movie doesn't tell us that. In fact, there's no point at all where Harry would even know that Lupin had a son. I suspect there was a moment shot and then cut out for pacing. Still, it makes me wonder if it was even worth putting the baby bit into this movie. Reminds me of Lost, and how Sun and Jin were killed off leaving an orphan. Actually, the King's Cross scene reminded me of the ending of Lost too.

Hagrid is being held by the Death Eaters in the woods, but with no explanation as to how or why. Harry's "death" is a good moment. The King's Cross scene is nice and I like the whiteness of it all. Though it being a train station also calls to mind the opening of The Matrix Revolutions.

Sissy Malfoy has this odd moment when she checks Harry's body, sees he's not dead and tells Voldemort he is. That's fine, but she says "Tell me he's alive Draco." and Draco's not even there.
Neville has a great little speech about how the fight doesn't end just because Harry's dead. He sums up much of the movie's theme by saying that people we love live on with us in our memory. It also seems like an invention of Kloves' to get Neville to in some way call back to his parents since he doesn't get to personally avenge them.

The slaying of Nagini is cool. It's all intercut with this long fight between Harry and Voldemort. The death of Bellatrix is not as good as it should be. It feels like there's not enough build-up to it. The "Not my daughter, you bitch" feels like it comes right out of Aliens, and yet the delivery doesn't feel like it comes from an emotional place. At least not to me. In the end, Mrs. Weasly fights Bellatrix quickly, nearly strangles her by tightening her corset magically, then BLOWS HER UP.

The end of the movie also plays out differently. Draco never quite redeems himself in the same way he does in the books (which I don't remember well). Sissy definitely turns good, and Draco does have moments where he doesn't want to kill Harry. During the final battles, the Malfoy family just sneaks off and runs away. Lucius, Narcissa and Draco just head off into the woods and that's the end of them. Harry's final confrontation with Voldemort is almost all physical. None of that standing around explaining wandlore like in the book. He just disarms Voldemort and kills him. It was so abrupt to me (it comes almost immediately after Nagini's death) that I was confused. Only later when Ron and Hermione ask does Harry explain his theory about Draco being the true master of the wand. In a way this less dramatic rendering helps iron over the severe illogic of this story point that I've never been happy with. I don't get how Harry is master of the wand for disarming a completely different wand from Draco. That just makes no sense to me. I understand allegiance wand to wand, but some wand shifting allegiance based on ANY wand being taken? It makes sense that the wand wants Draco and thus doesn't work for Voldemort and that is enough for me. It doesn't NEED to be Harry's ability to wield it that does him in, does it?

After this, the movie follows the epilogue and jumps ahead 19 years. This scene is mostly successful. However, it is here that I really fault Yates' direction and muted color palette. It made sense when Voldemort was in power, but this is a happier time that is supposed to recall the glory and wonder of the first movie. So I think it should have been shot with much brighter golden hues reminiscent of those days. If there was ever a time to get back to the Columbus look, it's here. Also, the passage to platform 9 3/4 is now on the other side of the screen, which bothers me. The aging looks good on Dan and Rupert. Emma looks almost the same. The scene is nice, I just wish it were brighter, to give more of a happy ending feeling.

Finally, I think it was nice for there to be music cues from previous films in this score, and in the credits it mentions John Williams' score from "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone". I was impressed they used the real title there in the credits.

Anyway, that's all I can think of right now. I'm sure there are other points that I've forgotten or glossed over. On the whole, it's a good movie despite the missing exposition. Better than some Potter films. Is it the best? That's a tough call. I'm not even sure how to grade it by itself as Part 2, but as a whole Deathly Hallows is a good ride. It's really more a unified film than other similar projects.