Debunking The Myths of HD - Part 2

Why All The Initials?

So now you're armed with HD knowledge and you are ready to buy, buy, buy! Whoa, wait a second. Let's talk TV's. Back to part 1's questions.

***** Before we continue, please note that since this technology is always evolving, this article will continue to evolve. I will post a revision date at the end of this article. - Janaki *****

What's the better HD TV? Plasma, LCD's or perhaps Rear Projection?

Tough call, as all three of these display technologies are making rapid gains in picture quality. Your final determination will probably come down to price, size and features, as opposed to their respective picture quality. For maximum coolness, most people prefer flat panel sets, like Plasma and LCD. The prices for HDTV's vary wildly (even amongst the same size) so don't let that be the determining factor. On a recent trip to an electronics store I saw two 46" Plasma HDTV's by two well-known manufacturers with comparable features (at first glance), one was priced for $1,499 and the other $2,499. The key is to take into account what you need now, with what is available now, while somehow making your purchase future-proof (as much as you can).

Finally, as with all of these HDTV’s if you have children then it takes quite a bit of re-training because most HDTV's (especially LCD's) are “soft” screens as opposed to the “hard” glass TV’s we all know and love, although most manufacturers are working hard to combat the "child" factor. So exercise caution and let's focus.

Plasma HDTV's

So far the main attraction that set flat screen Plasma HDTV's apart from LCD's is their size. Plasma's usually start at 42" and can go as high 106" with the most popular sizes hovering around the mid 50's to low 60's (inches, not price). However, Plasma's have been known to experience burnout in 2-3 years (under heavy use). Who wants that? Most of them have terrible glare issues as well. Rumbles in the industry say that plasma's will be going away so I wouldn't throw your eggs into that basket. To me a huge drop in price is not necessarily a sign of an over competitive market. Sometimes it means that the industry knows something, hmmm. But hey, if I can buy a 42" Plasma HDTV for $700, then count me in! Some things to be aware of about Plasma's is that there are different kinds of HDTV's so be careful and don't be fooled.

• Ideal: HDTV Television - receives and displays all HDTV resolutions.
• Lousy: HDTV Monitor - only displays images from source, (Requires a separate tuner to show HDTV).
• Sucks: HDTV Compatible - can't show HDTV resolution, but can receive and show HDTV at a lesser quality.

LCD HDTV's

LCD's are like comparing 720p to 1080i, remember that argument? LCD's are quickly surpassing Plasma's on all fronts like contrast ratio's and color accuracy. They already surpass Plasma's in clarity, burn in (and out) issues, and power consumption. LCD's also don't have any of the glare issues that Plasma's have and manufacturers are getting better at fixing the "melt in" when you touch the screen. But what about size? Usually LCD's cap out at about 42" and then Plasma's take over. But, many companies such as Toshiba, JVC, Samsung, Sony and Sharp are releasing stunning LCD's that are as large as 65". The main issue with LCD's is the cost. Sure you can get a 37" LCD HDTV for about $1,500 but when you get bigger the cost goes up dramatically. What can you expect with a superior and more environmentally friendly technology!

Rear Projection HDTV's

Rear projector HDTV’s come in a bunch of different technologies but the most common is DLP, LCD and LCoS. I won't get into the differences for the sake of time but I will say that Rear projector HDTV's offer the biggest bang for the buck. They are awesome TV's but demonstrate both the best and the worse of the HD spectrum.

Positives?

• Sharp and very bright displays.
• Come in huge sizes.
• Offer better clarity and resolution.
• Relatively cheaper than Plasma's and LCD's
• Proven Technology

Negatives?

• Very heavy and bulky (most of them) and are not sleek.
  
• Need periodic alignments and adjustments.
• Have to be right in front of TV or image dims. This is the biggest issue.

SED HDTV is the future, or is it?

But if you have the time, maybe you want to hang around and wait for the new SED HDTV technology that Toshiba and Canon pioneered. SED stands for Surface-conduction Electron-emitter Display. Each SED houses a really tiny electron emitter like your old tube TV, and six million+ SED emitters are roped together to create a flat panel HDTV with the color purity and deep blacks that only CRT's (regular TV's) can do. Plasma's and LCD's still don't do really deep blacks, just really dark grays. As for SED lifetimes before burnout, supposedly they are getting 66,000 hours in the lab before you see minimal light drop off. Sounds too good to be true, but we shall see when they finally roll out their SED HDTV products sometime in mid to late 2007 (maybe) although there have been several delays and push backs. SED promises pictures that are as bright as CRT (regular tube) televisions, while consuming one third less power. SED combines elements of CRT and LCD technologies and is being positioned by the companies to kill off Plasma's.

What type of resolution and features should I look for?

1080P, the maximum HDTV resolution, is almost useless on sets smaller than 42 inches, as you will never see the difference between 1080p and 720p or 1080i. And if you sit closer than seven feet or so from a big screen, it’s not likely you will see much difference even with 1080P. However, if you buy an HDTV in the 46" to 60" range than make sure you get one that does true 1080P and 720p. Regardless of the size never, ever get an HDTV that says it will "up rezz" or "up convert" or manipulate your signal in any way shape or form. Now, don't hold your breath for any content being broadcast at 1080p because that is far in the future and is a whole other broadcast technology that is barely even being considered at the moment. High-def DVD players will be able to take advantage of full 1080p and that's what you would need it for. So don’t listen to the salesperson, and don’t pay big bucks for something you don’t necessarily need.

Contrast ratio is another big thing you will see on all the advertisements for HDTV's. This is a term used to describe the range of dark and light shades a HDTV is capable of producing. Basically, it's how they reproduce the blackest of the black and the whitest of the white. LCD and Plasma's have been waging a war over whose technology offers the highest contrast. Until recently, Plasma televisions were seen as having a higher ratio but LCD's have pretty much caught up. So the higher the number such as 2,000:1 the better, right? LCD's and Plasma's measure their contrast ratios differently so don't be too excited about Plasma's 10,000:1 ratio.

Also, make sure you get an HDTV with an ATSC tuner built in (sometimes called an integrated tuner). If a station near you is broadcasting in HDTV, you can attach an antenna to your HDTV and watch local stations in high definition for free (if they broadcast in HD and you are in the right area). Free HD? What is the world coming to? You can buy an indoor HD Antenna for around $30 bucks.

Lastly, I haven't mentioned the audio capabilities of HDTV's. You might have heard TV or radio ads touting "HD Audio" but let me tell you, that is really a misnomer. High Definition refers to picture quality not sound, period. Companies have decided to capitalize on the fact that everyone equates HD with the best quality and just for simplicity they say "HD Audio", but in reality all that means is that the audio is high quality and more importantly it's uncompressed. It also uses 2 more channels to create a 7.1 audio experience (instead of the standard 5.1). All the HDTV's will come with Virtual Dolby Surround, but look for DTS capabilities as it's still the best. Also, don't be shocked when you have to buy speakers to mount on the side of your new HDTV as most don't come with any, like we are accustomed to with our old TV's. Connections and inputs are vital with HDTV's which I will discuss in the next section. Oh, I mean right now!

Are you still with me? Stay with me now. Okay, next question.

What kind of inputs do I need for an HDTV?

Now, here is where it gets kinda complicated and confusing. A common mistake people make is using their old S-video or composite cables (red, white and yellow cables) to hook up their HDTV to their cable/satellite box or DVD player. Bad idea. HDTV signals do not work over these connections as they are Standard Definition (analog) cables only. You have many options here but I will try to simplify it as much as possible.

On HDTV's there are a multitude of input connectors like RCA composite and S-Video jacks, and "component" outputs (YPbPr - green, red and blue) which is the highest Standard Definition you can get (better than S-video, but still not HD). The "component" jacks will be the fallback option if you are unable to upgrade the rest of your equipment to be HD compatible. You might see RGB inputs as well, and even though the look similar to "component" inputs they are different so go ahead and ignore them.

A DVI (Digital Video Interface) is an HD input (and can be used to make your TV into a large computer screen) but the problem is that it only does video and not audio so you will have to use component inputs just for audio, so I call it the first level of HD. I have to mention that if you do use DVI connections with almost any source, from satellite or cables boxes to DVD players, everything in the signal chain must be DVI-HDCP compliant. Confusingly, HDCP has several definitions, but the most common is High-bandwidth Digital Copy Protection. However it's defined, it means it's a way to copy protect content from piracy. If your HDTV has a DVI connector but does not support HDCP, you are seriously screwed as nothing will play. Piracy safeguards have created mass consumer confusion. Make sure your HDTV has this.

The main connection you need to be concerned with is the HDMI (High-Definition Multimedia Interface) input because this is the industry standard and will give you "true" HD. HDMI does it all with one connection. "True" HD AND audio all in one cord! Pretty cool huh? But there is of course issues with this (isn't there always?)

HDMI is an evolving standard. HDMI 1.0 was the first version. It was OK, but it had many performance restrictions. Following the releases of HDMI 1.1 and 1.2, HDMI 1.3 is finally out. HDMI 1.3 lets HDTV sets display billions, not just millions of colors which truly maximizes more capabilities of either Plasma or LCD screens. More to the point, HDMI 1.3, which will be appearing on HDTV's in early to mid 2007, provides a significantly better looking picture as it offers increased contrast ratio, better tonal transitions, higher resolution and a slew of other improvements. HDMI 1.3 can also carry what I mentioned before as “high-definition” (Dolby HD and DTS-HD) audio for vastly improved sound quality. As with versions 1.0-1.2, HDMI 1.3 is backwards compatible with DVI compliant devices (which is a relief). So if you already bought an HD set, chances are you have HDMI 1.2. But don't stress too much, we all get screwed by rapidly advancing technology. HDMI 1.2 is still pretty damn good.

But, if you haven't bought a HDTV set yet, your best bet is to wait a little while (Xmas 2007) and get one with an HDMI 1.3 interface (make sure you check this before you buy). Just be sure your set top box and HD DVD player also support HDMI 1.3, which means, naturally, junking your current DVD player (which I will talk about next). The problem is that a big cable company such as Cox offers HD receivers that only have HDMI 1.0, never mind the fact that they are still using analog coaxial (standard definition) cables to transmit into their HD receiver box. Funny isn't it?

You have to make sure there is at least three HDMI inputs in order to somewhat future proof your HDTV.

Whew, that's enough tech talk for now, right?

Remember, when you start shopping, keep in mind that the HDTV requires four parts:

• A source such as a cable or satellite HDTV station
• A way to receive the signal, like an antenna, cable or satellite service
  
• An HDTV set with the correct inputs.
• A High-definition DVD player when the dust settles.
  

So, in order for you to do a complete switch to HDTV it will require a major overhaul of your entire television watching setup (including cables and DVD players and all their components, remember, either it won't work or it won't give you "true" HD) and when the drop down date happens in 2009 you will more than likely have to change out all the TV's, DVD players etc, in the kid's room as well and you can forget about VCR's as they will be totally dead. Sorry folks, this is just the way technology happens. If you are over 40 just remember how many times you had to buy "The White Album". If you are under 40 then you should already be accustomed to massive technology change. So get over it already!

Should you wait to buy or upgrade your HDTV?

It really depends on your needs and money situation. If your TV literally burns out tomorrow than go ahead and buy a large screen Plasma because the prices are totally amazing and will only drop further. If you can wait then I would recommend to wait until next Christmas 2007 at the earliest as SED sets should hopefully come out by then and LCD's will have worked out most of their size and price issues. HDMI 1.3 will be a standard and High-definition DVD player situation should be on it’s way to being resolved. Hopefully the cable and satellite companies will have gotten their acts together as well.

Okay then. In the next post I will talk about Blu-ray and HD DVD players which I'm sad to say is another huge fight. What's new technology without a fight? Makes us feel important that huge conglomerates are always competing for our measly cash, doesn't it?

Disclaimer: The above mentioned HDTV comments were designed to help inform the confused public about HDTV technology and should not be taken as gospel. I reserve the right to be totally wrong about this (but I'm not) and this is by no means a fully detailed and exhaustive explanation on the beautiful HDTV technology. Use info at your own peril and fully do research before you buy anything you will be stuck with for a very long time.

Debunking The Myths of HD - Part 1

A Higher Number Is Better, Right?

Okay, so you've heard everyone talking about HD. You went in to an electronics store and the high school kid working there told you that HD was so cool. Better yet you took some time and researched HD on the internet. And then someone you know got a HD Plasma TV and someone else got an LCD HDTV. So what are you going to do?

The manufacturers and retail outlets are just like everyone else, they want your money. So who can you trust? Well, Janaki is here to give it to you straight so hopefully you can make an informed decision before you plop down thousands of dollars on technology that will go the way of Betamax or 8 Track tapes. Scary isn’t it? I will try to explain all this without getting too technical but let’s face it you WILL have to understand some technical aspects of HD, it’s just the nature of the beast and it’s the world we live in. So dig in.

So what is High Definition video also known as HD or High-def? Simply put it’s an all digital TV system with three to six times more info (or resolution) in a single frame. HD is on the highest resolution end of Digital Television (or DTV, no not the satellite company). Higher resolution means clearer and more vibrant quality. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FCC) has already begun the process for all TV stations to mandatory switch to DTV by February 17, 2009. Check out the FCC’s FAQ page for a detailed explanation of DTV. This is a good thing.

At this point you might ask why? If it’s not broke why fix it? And we have always had TV this way, wah! Technology advances and as it improves we better change with it or be left behind. The good old analog system that was put into place at the birth of television is antiquated and far from perfect. Heck, even the whole country of Denmark went completely digital this past month. Analog TV is no longer being used and more European countries are going to be flipping the switch soon.

So let’s talk about HD formats.
Simply put, there are two formats that have been endorsed in America that are full HD formats: 720p (for progressive) and 1080i (for interlaced). Which is better? Of course this subject is up for a raging debate. Currently, companies such as Fox, ABC and ESPN broadcast in 720p and CBS, NBC, CW, Showtime, HBO, Starz!, and The Discovery Channel broadcast in 1080i. And Europe has already accepted 720p as their standard for HD. But isn't the higher number better?? It would be except for that pesky little "i" after it. That stands for "interlaced" which is a remnant of old analog TV. Basically, this means that "interlaced" frames don't ever transmit a full frame. It "draws" half the frame on your TV from left to right, skips a line and then "draws" the other half from right to left. The key phrase to remember here is "skips a line". This causes "flicker" or the industry terms "artifacts" or "pixelation". In order to combat that, interlace TV's employ a "blur" process to meld the lines together which results in degradation of resolution and quality.

On the other hand 720p is "progressive" which means it always fully transmits or "draws" a complete and full frame every time. So 720p gives you better resolution especially while watching sports or anything with fast motion. At this point it's important to remember that both 720p and 1080i transmit approximately 60 million pixels to the TV per second. But you still might say, "But 1080 is a bigger number", why, yes it is. 720p delivers a size of 1280x720 while 1080i delivers 1920x1080, but remember what I said about interlaced systems blurring the lines? Yes, it's a dual edged sword because even though it is able to give your more lines or pixels, because it has to blur them together you lose that resolution. It actually brings it down to nearly the level of 720p (about 820 scan lines) but let me ask you, is something going to be better if it is accomplished in one step or two? If you remove the middle man don't you get a better deal? So why do so many networks broadcast in 1080i? Because it's partly utilizing a technology that is already in existence which makes it somewhat easier, right? In the not too distant future 1080p will be a reality and we won't have to fight about it. Hopefully by then we will also be able to agree to a worldwide standard for HD broadcast. On the upside, whatever format you choose it will be infinitely better than standard analog TV as the clarity, depth of color, sharpness and sheer beauty of the images are amazing to behold. Oh yeah, all HDTV's are 16x9. So forget the past where we all had square TV's. Get used to the widescreen format because it's here to stay, but don't worry when you are all set up you will actually be able to watch movies (and everything else) like you are in a movie theater (just not with those black bars).

So now that you have a deeper understanding of what HD is, what do you do with it? Run out and buy the right TV? Maybe you already have and you were disappointed when you got home, plugged in the TV and whammo! the quality is the same or worse! Let's not pull any punches, it down right sucks! Don't fear my young apprentice (gratuitous Star Wars reference) it's because most channels and companies don't broadcast in DTV. But, before you protesteth too much, you might say; "my cable company is providing me an expensive upgraded service and a special set top box that specifically state they are HDTV”. Sorry Charlie, that's not going to work. Unless a broadcast program also states it’s being broadcast in true HDTV format, all you are watching is something comparable to digitally cleaned up, old-fashioned analog TV that’s been on the air since before you were born and it isn't HDTV. How about the “Digital Cable TV” service that your provider says it’s pushing down the pipe into your home? Isn’t that HDTV? Again, no, it isn’t. Regular digital cable TV is nothing more than analog TV that’s been digitized so your cable provider can squeeze hundreds of channels over the wire and, by the way, squeeze more money out of you, never mind the fact that they are still using old-fashioned, analog coaxial (standard definition) cables to transmit into their HD receiver box.

At this point only satellite companies can offer somewhat true HD and by end of next year they will be able to offer "true" HD fully with both 720p, 1080i and 1080p resolution. The main hold back to all of this is the compression. The very definition of compression is to make things smaller. So apply this to TV signals and you have loss of resolution which results in quality degradation. The new MPEG-4 format compresses the signal with minimal degradation at a smaller size, and this is being adopted by many companies. But in order to maximize clarity and get "true" HD then cable companies and satellite providers MUST transmit in industry standard HD formats over DTV signals from the get go directly to the HDTV set top boxes directly to your new shiny HDTV.

So, the best way is to deliver the content is from the source to your set top box to your TV without any compression, alteration, "up rezzing", "up converting" or so on. Remember, we are going to all DTV signals by 2009 so that's a bit of a comfort. Again you might ask, why the hell should I buy one of those HDTV's? Besides the fact they look cool? The bottom line is that Plasma TV's just look better than regular "Tube" TV's and LCD TV's look even better still. They both have their own positives and negatives but there is a new technology called SED (unveiling in 2007) that will bring a third option and by the looks of it, it will probably replace Plasma's, but we'll see how that plays out.

Part 2 of "Debunking the Myths of HD" will focus on HDTV's including:

1. What's better: Plasma, LCD's, or Rear-projection TV's?
2. What type of resolution and features should I look for?
   
3. What kind of connections do I need for HDTV?
4. Should I wait to buy my first (or next) HDTV?

The info I wrote about in this blog was provided as a service to all of you out there in the hope that you all will make informed decisions about HD, and that you won't let salesmen and companies sell you a "bill of goods" just to make their bottom lines. And I of course reserve the right to be wrong about dates and figures.

Thanks and stay tuned for Part 2!

Dreamgirls "A"

But, I've Got The Voice!

Where do I begin? The buzz on this film is phenomenal. Many say that this film is a stunning piece of filmmaking and is Oscar worthy on many levels. Of course many others say that this movie is one of the most over hyped films in years. I happen to agree with the former.

"Dreamgirls" is based on the Broadway musical that charted the meteoric rise to fame of a "Supremes" like singing trio named the "Dreams". I'll get in to that later, but first I have to say that this is one exceptionally made film. It is said that all filmmakers have at least one great musical in them and let me tell you that this film stoked my desire to make that musical.

Director Bill Condon has created a stunning masterwork on the modern musical. To me this film is a landmark in modern musicals on par with "Chicago". The film stars Beyonce Knowles, Jamie Foxx, Eddie Murphy and Jennifer Hudson. Now, I have never watched American Idol so I never saw or heard of Jennifer Hudson before. But let me tell you, her performance and singing were absolutely devastatingly brilliant. Wow. She has that certain kind of charisma that just leaps off the screen. She stole every scene she was in and downright out acted everyone (and out sang), including Oscar winner Jamie Foxx. To me it's refreshing to hear someone actually sing instead of hearing that vibrato that is such a popular style today (thanks Mariah Carey). Jennifer Hudson can just flat out sing and I was very surprised to see that the story is really centered on her character Effie White. Of course everyone is talking about her show stopping number "And I Am Telling You I'm Not Going" which my friends is the most haunting and impressively staged musical number I have ever seen. The brazenly confident sexuality she exudes is mesmerizing. But beyond that her nuanced and multi-layered performance is what sets her apart from all the other performances because even when her character is down she is without a doubt never out. She definitely should get an Oscar nom. Have I praised her enough? Nah, I don't think so. She's already scored a Golden Globe nom and everyone is going nuts over her performance. I guess when somebody comes out of nowhere and auditions against close to 900 other singers and then more than holds her own like she's been acting all her life then people sit up and take notice. Whew, I'm tired!In calling for a different approach to Hudson, Beyonce plays Deena Jones (get it?) and is actually pretty good herself. You see she was really called on to channel Diana Ross and boy does she nail the performance. It's almost scary how she moves and at times looks like her. People have criticized Beyonce for her uninspired singing but I think they missed the point. Her character is very submissive and insecure and it comes across in her singing. It was planned that way. When she summons her strength at the end then her voice dramatically changes. It's not her fault that her character is in the shadow of Hudson's but when she is in the same scenes as Hudson you barely even notice her. Kinda like a wallflower. That can and will hurt her chance for an Oscar nom (she was nominated for a Golden Globe because of her amazing solo at the end). Jamie Foxx does pretty well here playing Curtis Taylor Jr. the groups cold-hearted and greedy manager. It's not that he performs bad it's just that he is so overshadowed by nearly everyone else. Eddie Murphy on the other hand is spectacular as James "Thunder" Early. His on stage persona is not only believable but is astonishing in showcasing Murphy's talent. This is a very different role for him and he shows a depth I've never seen from him before. He was going through a real life divorce while filming this movie and he has said it helped his performance when his character had to hit rock bottom. His performance is the best of his career and it begs the question, do tortured souls really make the best artists? The rest of the cast like Danny Glover and Keith Robinson as Effie's brother and Anika Noni Rose as the third member of the "Dreams" do outstanding work as well. The acting in this film was very good which elevates the film from being just another musical to a stylistic achievement. In fact, all of the cast gets to sing and they all sing very, very well. The dramatic moments were so effective that when someone burst out into song (outside staged musical numbers) I was actually surprised because I was so into the story and characters.

Technically, the film was shot and edited brilliantly. Surprising because neither the cinematographer, Tobias A. Schliessler or the editor Virginia Katz had ever done a musical before but they both have been longtime collaborators of director Bill Condon. There was an almost free flowing and easy look to the film. The film has beautifully saturated colors and the production design was top notch. The story itself was somewhat predictable but it was done so perfectly that it hardly matters. Then there is the music and choreography. Brilliant, outstanding, exceptional, flashy and any other synonyms I can conjure up.

My predictions? This film should definitely garner Oscar noms for Hudson and Murphy as well as best song, production design, makeup, costumes, cinematography, best picture and director, heck maybe even editing.

Even if your not a fan of musicals or any of the actors, you owe it to yourself to see this film. You will be moved by the story and characters and blown away by the high production value.
I promise.

Rocky Balboa "B+"

The Italian Stallion Returns!

I'm not going to talk about the same things EVERYONE else in the world has already mentioned. How could Sylvester Stallone play Rocky again at 60 years old? I'm not going to mention it. After the disaster of Rocky V did he think anyone would actually care? Nope, not a word. Is this a joke? Not talking. Is he really that hard up for cash or is he just plain crazy? Nada.

You got to hand it to Stallone, he knows his lot in life. He was born to play "Rocky Balboa". And let me tell you, he has made a modern classic. No joke here. This is the best film since Rocky II, which is my personal favorite.

I need to give you all a little back story first. People forget that Stallone wrote the original Rocky and that he won an Oscar for his efforts in 1976. Even more people dismiss the fact that few people changed the landscape of movies more than Sylvester Stallone. Rocky not only set the standard for every single sports film made since but it forever altered the way we see boxing. Rocky really took the sport of boxing and elevated it into the national consciousness. The character of Rocky is the epitome of one man's determination and spirit that elevated him above the rest. And it was all done with a montage. Rocky was always at his best when he was a true underdog and what could be more of a dark horse than a 60 year old man fighting the heavyweight champion in his prime?

I won't give away too much of plotline but Stallone really knows this character and he shows it better than ever. It's no coincidence that most of the film takes place in a rundown and beat up Philadelphia which is the perfect metaphor for Rocky himself. Rocky is a successful restaurant owner that takes care of all the other down and out people, he's like a savior and role model for the downtrodden. This is a new perspective on an old character. Stallone could have played this role as a caricature of himself but instead he has infused it with such charm and grace that you are reminded that this man is extremely talented.

However, the pace of the movie is a little slow with no boxing happening until an hour and change into the film. The whole first two thirds of the film is like a "day in the life of a retired sports star" but is still very good. We get to see him reminisce about the old stomping grounds, where he first met Adrian, etc. We get to see Rocky and Paulie argue (nothing new) and we get to see his now grown up son living in his shadow. But let's face it, we came to see Rocky kick some serious ass. And we are not disappointed. The boxing scenes are beautifully well staged and there are nice moments when we get flashbacks as Rocky gets pummeled (as usual). Brief flashes of scenes and characters from the past films fills Rocky's head and it's almost like his life is flashing before his eyes. For a brief moment I thought . . . well, I won't say what I thought. Antonio Tarver plays the champion and even though he's no Mr. T or Apollo Creed, heck he's not even Ivan Drago it's nice to see that the character is a little more human and a lot less machine like. Nice cameo by Mike Tyson by the way.The movie was shot very well despite having a cinematographer that really hasn't done much of anything. All of our favorite scenes are there like Rocky training, running up the steps, etc. and They all look very good. But what is a Rocky film without the music? Bill Conti's original score is heavily featured and it gave me chills down my spine to hear it on the big screen after all those years. The cool thing is that Stallone used all the variations of the Rocky music from every film, and they all sounded amazing.

Believe me, overall this is a very fitting conclusion to this saga. The film was infinitely more satisfying than the last one and it truly celebrates the underdog in all of us better than most films could ever hope for.

Great job Stallone, and I can't wait to see what you do with Rambo.

Casino Royale "A"

Does It Look Like I Give A Damn?

I can't believe this movie has already been out a month and I definitely can't believe I waited this long to see it. I have to admit I've loved James Bond flicks ever since I first saw "Diamonds Are Forever" at summer camp when I was 8 years old. I think if I saw "Casino Royale" today as an 8 year old, I would have decided right then and there to become a filmmaker.

Director Martin Campbell and the new and improved Bond, Daniel Craig have made an amazingly textured and convincing film. You actually believe what Bond says and does and thankfully there is no comic relief, no smugness or campiness, just pure heart.

I have to say that I was just as concerned as anyone that Daniel Craig was chosen as the new Bond. I guess it's all those years of cheeky remarks being pounded down our throats that conditioned us to a certain type of Bond. I mean Bond has to act a certain way, do certain things, sleep with everyone in the film, etc. But here we have a story, partly due to the fact that "Casino Royale" is one of the darkest and multi-layered Ian Fleming (also the first) books and that the 1967 original movie was made as a comedic farce (to get rid of that pesky story). But not only is the story very good (love story and all) but Daniel Craig infuses Bond with a sorely needed testosterone shot. The tone is much edgier and nastier than any Bond film since the Connery days and Craig is definitely the first Bond since Sean Connery that when he looks at a woman, you are not sure if he will kill her or kiss her. It doesn't hurt that Craig is an accomplished actor and he actually has given us interesting and riveting performances (especially in recent films like "Layer Cake" and "Munich"). He is extraordinary in this film and let me tell you, I'm converted. He makes all those Pierce Brosnan films look like G-Rated cartoons. Wow, I'm impressed.
The rest of the cast does extremely well too. From Eva Green who plays first love Vesper Lynd, to Mads Mikkelsen who plays baddie Le Chiffre, heck even Jeffrey Wright as longtime Bond ally and CIA agent Felix Leiter (sorely underused) are all very good in their roles. The level of acting all across the board (except a miscast Judi Dench) was impressive, it's almost like they they were in another film, a film about love and loss. Whenever you think the film is slowing down and becoming too serious, WHAM a spectacular (in a good way) action scene happens.

So, let's talk technical. The gadgets take a backseat to plot line but hey, this IS still a Bond film and the action sequences are some of the best I have ever seen. They are not only believable (mostly) but have the brute physicality and attitude that only someone like Daniel Craig can deliver. Another one of the hallmarks of a Bond film are the locations, and let me tell you they are breathtaking. Not since "The Man with a Golden Gun" have the locations been photographed so incredibly lush that you wish you were James Bond so you could just go there. The cinematography by Phil Meheux is absolutely perfect with not a wasted shot or angle. The camera moves are not way overdone like action films in recent years. You know, where every single shot is a dolly shot always moving this way and that. The colors and richness he has achieved here are simply astounding while using a mixture of film and HD. The editing by Stuart Baird is expertly done while never wasting a frame of celluloid. This is the way you make a action film (are you listening Michael Bay and Bruckheimer?). A perfect convergence of story, acting, direction, visuals, music and editing. This folks, is a filmmaking clinic.

My predictions? Oscar noms for cinematography and editing at the minimum, production design, directing and best actor if there is any justice.

You don't have to be fan of James Bond to really enjoy this expert piece of filmmaking. Just see this film but please don't bring anyone under 8 years old, or if you do, keep them quiet.

Lady In The Water "B-"

Mr. Heep Is A Playa!

"Lady in the Water" is the latest film by the increasingly eccentric M. Night Shyamalan who shows a maturation in his filmmaking but sadly, the results are somewhat misguided.

The now infamous story of how Disney turned it's back on M. Night even though he had made them a ton of money (every film he has made was for Disney) is a well documented fall from grace. One that resulted in duplicitous dealings, bruised egos, and Hollywood politics at their finest. All of this because the studio "didn't get it". Unfortunately, the audience didn't get it either. The film was a flop but should not have been the gigantic flop it was, truth be told.

Enough of the behind the scenes melodrama and on with the film itself. As Shyamalan himself likes to say (over and over) the story came from a bedtime story he made up and told his children. This is the first problem. The story is really a deceptively simple one (but I'm not surprised the studio execs didn't get it). It revolves around a apartment complex maintenance man named Cleveland Heep played beautifully by Paul Giamatti. One night Cleveland sees a young woman drowning in the pool (or so he thinks) and tries to save her. He of course doesn't and she winds up saving him. But who is she? She is what we later find out to be a "Narf" named "Story" (played by a vapid Bryce Dallas Howard) which is a vague mix between a sea nymph and a mermaid, but not quite. Anyway, it turns out that Story just wants to get home, but in order to do that everything must come together perfectly. Following me so far? I did mention the film had a simple plot line, right? Well it does. The rest of the film follows the regular conventions of a bedtime story believe it or not, with things happening precisely and people being in the right place at the right time. Just when you think all is lost you know everything will work out in the end. It seems like M. Night knows this all too well because there is an interesting subtext that makes fun of these conventions that is done very tongue in cheek. Does this minimize the story being told? I think so, because it seems forced and out of place. It also seems that Shyamalan doesn't have anybody to reign him in.
That's the second problem.

The characters in the film are gross stereotypes from the new age old lady to the young Chinese girl wearing barely there tacky clothes. But the worst character is played by M. Night himself who should never be allowed to act again (much like Peter Jackson MUST make a movie under two hours) he is just terrible. On top of that he is the character that impacts the future by writing a book. Come on. M. Night is so full of himself. That is the third problem.

Remember the "Narf"? Well, she does a lot of sitting around looking dazed and confused. Did I mention she is always naked and wet? I guess you can't expect much more from a sea nymph. Anyway, back to the film.

Even after all this I still like this film. It was shot, edited and scored beautifully. I knew what was going to happen but I still rooting for the Narf to get back home. I thought the movie had just the right amount of tension balanced with humor and even though the execution was somewhat soggy, overall the story was told in an almost endearing way. The fourth problem is that M. Night has really typecast himself in a certain genre of film. When you think of him you always think of a mystery/thriller. It turns out to be "The Sixth Sense" regurgitated. Doesn't he realize that people have the attention span of a flea and get bored very easily? Come on Night make something different, take suggestions from others, don't put yourself in your movies anymore and for God's sake don't give hours upon hours of interviews talking about yourself and your brilliant ideas. You are too good a filmmaker.

If you want to see a perfect of example of a movie made by an overindulged, insulated and spoiled filmmaker that is at the apex of his artistic madness then by all means see "Lady in the Water".
Actually see it anyway, it's pretty good.

Little Miss Sunshine "A"

Sarcasm Is The Refuge Of Losers!

It’s perfect that I’m writing about family dysfunction on Christmas Eve. Because isn’t that the “true” meaning of Christmas? Dysfunctional family members?

“Little Miss Sunshine” is a simple movie with a simple premise with mild dysfunction at it’s core. It’s also one of the best comedic movies of the past couple of years. It has an amazing cast that all fit into their roles perfectly.

The film stars Toni Collette and Greg Kinnear as a married couple who are both way too busy trying to make money that they neglect their kids (not intentionally). Kinnear is an unsuccessful motivational speaker who has come up with “9 Steps” for success and is always spouting Tony Robbin’s like speak about winners and losers. Kinnear’s father lives with them and is played beautifully by Alan Arkin. This role could have been played as a stereotype with him yelling and screaming at everyone etc. But while he does do that he is also a very sweet and loving caretaker to 7 year old Olive. Olive is played by Abigail Breslin and she is also so sweet and loving but blithely oblivious to her families dysfunction. Rounding out the impressive and wonderful cast is Steve Carell as Collette’s gay professor brother who has just tried to kill himself. And their son has taken a “vow of silence” until he gets accepted as a military test pilot. And you think your family is jacked up? I do have to mention that the two standout performances in a stellar cast filled with great performances were Toni Collette and Abigail Breslin. They were both mesmerizing to watch. Collette has the ability to absolutely morph into any character she is playing and always seem to make it fresh. She has played mothers before but every performance is different.

The family portrayal is so smooth and natural I could actually believe that this is a real family. When a call comes that young Olive has been accepted into the Little Miss Sunshine beauty pageant in So. Cal the road trip is on. They pile in the bright yellow VW van and they set off from Albuquerque for Redondo Beach. Did I mention they only have two days to get there? Hilarity ensues but not your standard yucks that you would expect from a road pic. While the laughs flow so does the sorrow. In fact there is a large portion of tragedy in this film but somewhere, somehow the comedic bits overcome everything. There are a few scenes that are so damn funny and unexpected, I have to say that I was shocked. They just sneak up on you but when they do they are lethal.

The film is shot beautifully with nice shots of the road as they are making their way across 3 states. The editing is very good and the music was perfectly understated.

However, some people were bothered that there is so much swearing in this film and if it was eliminated then it could have been a great family film. I have a few things to say about that. Life is often not “family friendly” and if psycho parents want to take their kids to family pics then they can go see any one of the 50 cartoons that come out a year. Fuck em! It’s amazing to me that “bad language” is cited as the main reason that the film is rated “R”, but what about grandpa doing drugs? What about the porn mags? What about the crime against children know as beauty pageants? Suffice it to say that they do get to the show on time but what a fucked up show. I mean watch this film and tell me that those little girls don’t look like midgets in drag. Pretty fucking scary.

Anyway, watch this excellent movie, you’ll laugh, you’ll cry and you’ll never look at your family the same again. That might be a good thing.

The Devil Wears Prada "C"

A Size 6 My Ass!

I have to admit I was looking forward to seeing this film. I had missed it in the theaters and I rented it the first day it came out. I heard rave reviews about Meryl Streep's portrayal of the incredibly demanding and bitchy boss of a high fashion magazine. I also knew that I liked Anne Hathaway. Even when she was doing Disney fluff, she showed herself to be a pretty good actress. I realized she was smoking hot after I saw her in "Havoc" and I was looking forward to seeing her wear supermodel clothes and looking sexy.Well the duo did not disappoint. Hathaway looked very hot in those clothes and Streep was very bitchy. What I didn't like was the story, especially the ending. The first thing that bothered me was that one of the running jokes of the film was that Hathaway's character, Andy was too fat. I was like, what? Now I could understand if Scarlett Johansson was working there that the stick insects would call her "fat" but Anne Hathaway? She's anorexic. That just bothered me because the script obviously called for it but they didn't cast that type of actress and never bothered to take those lines out. Seems kinda lazy. Okay, so maybe I'm being picky.

Now, I know this is a movie review but I feel a tangent coming on. When did ambition and wanting to change yourself for the better become such a crime? Or a sellout? Now I'm not sure if this is a Hollywoodization of reality or does the general population actually feel this way?

In the film Hathaway's character gets the assistant to the editor job straight out of college, where she has no experience in the real world (college writing does not count). She acts like she doesn't need the job or care about the job and fully admits that she knows nothing about fashion. She is given the job that several people go out of their way to say "that millions of girls would kill to have your job". Did I mention she goes to a fashion magazine interview dressed like Kathy Bates in "Misery"? Anyway, many jokes are made at the expense of the "stuck up, uptight, shallow and stressed out fashion people" by her friends and boyfriend who are the very definition of uneducated, lazy losers. Hathaway stresses about having to work long hours, obviously because she has never had to work before in her life. She conducts herself like a spoiled rich kid that always had everyone doing things for her, never once taking an iota of responsibility for her decisions.

Of course as the movie goes on we see her change before our very eyes. She is actually learning responsibility, work ethics and is growing as a person. But is she selling out? Is she conforming? Can she actually have a private life while becoming successful? Well, at about 3/4 of the way in she misses her boyfriend's birthday because of work. He pouts and gives her the silent treatment and makes her feel guilty. Is he 10 years old? What a loser. In fact, all her friends are losers that are hopelessly stuck in ruts and when they see someone get out of their rut they get pissed because they lack the courage and fortitude to actually better themselves and their lives. My thoughts are that when you reach a certain level of success then you need to cleanse yourself of your past life associations because those people will always see you as you were before and not what you've become. Get rid of them, there is nothing wrong with that. Why do people always say that it's forgetting where you come from or some such bullshit like that? The people from your past just exist to bring you down, plain and simple.
Boy, that was a tangent!

There is another scene when her so-called friend sees Hathaway talking (okay flirting) with another guy in a gallery and totally overreacts and just starts yelling at her saying "The girl I used to know wouldn't do that, blah, blah" and storms out. I cringed when I saw that. If that happened to me, I would jettison that person from my life forever and I would do it immediately.

So we are nearing the end of the film and of course Hathaway is doing her job perfectly, but does she revel in her success? Does she use this experience as a stepping stone to her dream job of a writer? No, of course not. She ups and quits her job in Paris and goes back to her loser life with her loser friends. The thought of her selling her soul was just too much for her to bear. What utter bullshit.

So what's the moral message here?
1. It's okay to never try to better yourself because if you do you are only selling out.
2. Keep negative friends around you because they will always remind you of the person they knew you as.
3. Don't have ambition or work long hours because that's no way to live your life.
4. Hang around people that always minimize what you do.
5. In the end turn your back on all of your accomplishments and go back to a nothing existence.
6. Working hard and paying your dues, otherwise known as "sacrifice" is a sell out.
7. Trying to grow as a person is wrong. You should always remain who you are.
8. If you are successful than you must be shallow.

Back to the film.
Even with many issues, the cast was amazing. Stanley Tucci was great as the not so stereotypical gay fashionista. But Emily Blunt was the real surprise here. Her performance was stellar. She was so good and natural as the stuck up but passed over assistant that I would hire her in a heartbeat to be my stuck up assistant. Imagine what I could get done!

So, that's my lecture on "The Devil Wears Prada", but don't take my word for it, see it yourself and decide. The film might be great and I might just have issues.

Golden Globes - 2007 Best Director, etc.

Is This Marty’s Year?

Okay, so these aren’t like the Oscars that have best cinematography, editing, special effects, etc. There are basically four categories and here are the two important ones. I was going to talk about best music but I decided that I don’t really care.

Let’s start with Best Director.
Martin Scorsese - The Departed - Everyone thinks that Martin Scorsese is a shoo-in for a best director Oscar but his chances will increase (or decrease?) if he gets a Globe win. Let’s face it, if he wins it’ll be because they are rewarding a body of work instead on individual film accomplishments. Much like Peter Jackson was rewarded for the whole Rings trilogy. Scorsese’s daughter mentioned that he will not be attending the Oscars this year, I wonder if that will hold true for the Globes as well?
Clint Eastwood - “Letters from Iwo Jima”, “Flags of Our Fathers” - Eastwood shot himself in the foot because the companion piece to “Letters from Iwo Jima”, “Flags of Our Fathers” was not well received by critics or film goers.
Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu - Babel - So Inarritu’s “Babel” might just be this years “Crash”. It’s certainly far and away the best movie out of the nominees and it deserves to win.
Stephen Frears - The Queen - Frears is a sentimental favorite, mostly because he’s a lovable Englishman. This film is the long shot.

Best Screenplay
Well at least Marty isn’t up against Clint in this category, but wait . . . he’s up against Babel. Too bad Marty. A remake from a foreign film with a story we’ve seen a thousand times is not going to cut it against Babel.

So here is the wrap up. Babel looks to score the most wins and hopefully it could ride the momentum into Oscar gold on March 5th.

Check back on January 16th to see how correct I was.
Let’s hope the Oscar warmups don’t disappoint!

Golden Globes - 2007 TV Noms

Network TV Sucks, Most Of It.

I’m fond of saying that I don’t watch much TV. I might watch my fair share of TV shows, you be the judge. Most happen to be on HBO and Showtime.

Here is a list of my favorite shows in no particular order.
1. 24
2. Entourage
3. Weeds
4. Dexter
5. Extras
6. Rome
7. The Office
8. Real Time w/Bill Maher
9. 30 Rock
10. Penn & Teller: Bullshit!
11. House, M.D.
So there you go, I watch just 11 shows on TV (I wait for the DVD's to come out for the network shows), did I make my point?

Anyway, on to the Golden Globe noms.

Best TV Drama
“24” - The best network produced show ever made. Very cinematic.
See my review here.
I tried to watch “Big Love” but I just couldn’t get into it. The rest of the shows nominated are overrated in my opinion.

Best TV Comedy/Musical
This is a tough one since I watch 3 of these shows regularly. Weeds, Entourage and The Office are all excellent shows, although “The Office” is still riding on Ricky Gervais’s coat tales ya know? I think Weeds should be the winner here because it’s wholly original and is not afraid to take chances. But “Entourage” is my sentimental favorite solely for Jeremy Piven’s role.
Son-of-a-mother-fucking-bitch do I HATE the “Desperate Housewives”, what an overrated piece of crap. Ugly Betty? No thanks.

Now I’ll touch on the categories that are only relevant to me. By relevant I mean 1. I know who the people are. 2. I watch the show. 3. I actually give a shit.

Best Actor - Drama
Michael C. Hall - Dexter - His performance as a cold-blooded yet trying to be normal serial killer is surprisingly funny and endearing.
Kiefer Sutherland - 24 - He gets nominated every year but has only won the first year. He is great in this show but they might give it to someone else just to be different.

Best Actress - Comedy/Musical
Mary-Louise Parker - Weeds - She swooped in and won last year when 4 of the despicable housewives dominated the noms. This year 2 of the dirty housewives are nominated and if there is a God then they won’t win a damn thing.
Best Actor - Comedy/Musical
Alec Baldwin - 30 Rock - When a film star descends onto TV then things generally go in their favor. How’s that for fortune cookie logic? Anyway, Alec has all the best lines and is truly funny.

Best Supporting Actress
It will be a toss up between these two as they are both amazing, brilliant actresses.
Toni Collette - Tsunami, The Aftermath - She is an amazing actress that brings so much depth to everything she does. In fact, I would give her an award to sit and watch paint dry.Elizabeth Perkins - Weeds - She is the Alec Baldwin of comedy. She is so funny and very sexy (she’s sexier than Baldwin).

Best Supporting Actor
One name above the rest. Jeremy Piven. No one delivers better one-liners than him. He is so perfect for this role that I can’t imagine him doing anything else, ever, for the rest of his life.There are so many awesome nominations this year and it doesn’t hurt that many of the noms come from shows I watch. See I have good taste!!!

Up Next: Best Director, etc.

Golden Globes - 2007 Film Actor Noms

Those Damn Actors!

Like I said in a previous post . . ."The Golden Globes, (January 15th, 2007) are given out by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association and as Jeremy Piven said on “Entourage”, “When the fucking Hollywood Foreign Press calls, you fucking jump!”. Ha! I love that show.”

Hey, I’m quoting myself that is quoting an actor from a TV show. What?? I tell ya, acting is hard.

Here are the noms and my comments for best actor/actress, supporting, comedy drama musical styling. Whatever.

Best Actress - Drama
Penelope Cruz - Volver - She only does well when she’s in Pedro Almodovar films. What gives? I think she’s terrible and looks like a chipmunk, was that shallow?
Judi Dench - Notes on a Scandal - Okay, so this is a different part for her, blah, blah, blah. Oh wait, I just remembered how much I don’t like her. “And the Oscar goes to Judi Dench for best bowel movement!” Fuck Judi Fucking Dench.
Maggie Gyllenhaal - Sherrybaby - It’s about time she gets recognized for something. I didn’t see this film since it was in theater for like, 1 day but her buzz is great.
Helen Mirren - The Queen - Judi Fucking Dench the sequel. Do I need to say more?
Kate Winslet - Little Children - 5 time Golden Globe nominee and 4 time Oscar nominee. 9 Time loser. She is like the Susan Lucci of the film industry except a much, much, much better actress.So who will win? Let’s rephrase that. Who will win and who do I want to win.
G.G. - Judi Fucking Dench
Janaki - Kate Winslet

Best Actress - Comedy or Musical
Annette Bening - Running With Scissors - Great reviews, great actress, great track record, not so great movie. 6 Golden Globe Noms (2 this year) and, 3 Oscar Noms,
and she is 1 for 9. She’s almost Kate Winslet!
Toni Collette - Little Miss Sunshine - A great, great actress that always flies under the radar. Always gives a great performance. If anyone is deserving it’s her.Beyonce Knowles - Dreamgirls - Are they kidding?
Meryl Streep - The Devil Wears Prada - She gave a frighteningly masterful performance that was at the same time understated and nasty. Meryl in the same category as Beyonce? What the fuck??Renne Zellwegger - Miss Potter - Why is she here?

Who will win?
G.G. - Meryl Streep
Janaki - Toni Collette

Best Supporting Actress
Adriana Barraza - Babel - Amazing, heartbreaking performance. A true milestone.
Cate Blanchett - Notes on a Scandal - Hands down one of the best actresses in the last 20 years. The buzz on her performance is spectacular. Plus being in a supporting role for a stellar actress is nearly a shoo-in.Emily Blunt - The Devil Wears Prada - Great performance but it’s in a comedy, so no win here.Jennifer Hudson - Dreamgirls - Everyone says she steals the ENTIRE movie from everyone including Oscar winner Jamie Foxx and sings better than Beyonce. I agree. What heresy!
Rinko Kikuchi - Babel - She plays a naive, angry, totally fucked in the head deaf girl. But she’s not deaf in real life! What a fearless performance.
Who will win? This is probably the toughest category and might make for the biggest upset of the night.
G.G. - Jennifer Hudson
Janaki - Rinko Kikuchi

Best Actor - Drama
Leonardo DiCaprio - Blood Diamond and The Departed.
He has become such a good actor that he falls into the category of “he’ll win one later”. He should win 6 or 7 Oscars and Golden Globes.
Peter O’Toole - Venus - This is widely regarded as his best performance since Lawrence. He almost rejected the honorary Oscar a few years ago because he thought he could still one. 10 G.G. noms and 3 wins, 7 time Oscar nominee 0 wins. He is sooooooo due.
Will Smith - The Pursuit of Happyness - Has considerable buzz, but the movie not so much.
Forest Whitaker - The Last King of Scotland - Great performance not so great film.

Who will win? “Eh Awrence!”
G.G. - Peter O’Toole
Janaki - Peter O’Toole

Best Actor - Comedy or Musical
Sacha Baron Cohen - Borat - Very Irritating.
Johnny Depp - Pirates 2 - Not as irritating as Borat but irritating nonetheless.
Aaron Eckhart - Thank You For Smoking - He oozes smarmy charm. Next to Vince Vaughn nobody can talk better. Want to sell ice to eskimos? Call Aaron.
Chiwetel Ejiofor - Kinky Boots - Like the actor, didn't see the movie. I suspect no one did.
Will Ferrell - Stranger Than Fiction - Are they kidding?

Who will win?
G.G. - Aaron Eckhart
Janaki - Aaron Eckhart

Best Supporting Actor
Ben Affleck - Hollywoodland - Everyone was surprised
most of all Ben. Were they joking?
Eddie Murphy - Dreamgirls - He said the divorce he was going through at the time helped his performance. If only he had done that about 12 other times in his career.
Jack Nicholson - The Departed - There is a reason why Jack is one of the greatest and most celebrated actors ever. He plays this role so deliciously evil and psychotic it’s revelatory. 17 Golden Globe noms and 6 wins, 12 Oscar noms and 3 wins is quite an impressive resume. I’ll look for Jack to add to those totals.
Brad Pitt - Babel - A mesmerizing performance. Unfortunately everyone sees him as Brad Pitt.
Mark Wahlberg - The Departed - A great, virtuoso performance has elevated his stature in the industry.

Who will win?
G.G. - Jack Nicholson
Janaki - Jack Nicholson

Well that’s it for the actors and actresses. Whew!
Expect some upsets here and there as the Globes always like to throw a couple of curve balls.

Up next: TV nominations.

Golden Globes - 2007 Best Film Noms

Ah, Those Globes . . . .

Well, the award season comes early this year! Thank God, I mean the campaigning will last only two months instead of what seems like six.

The Golden Globes, (January 15th, 2007) are given out by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association and as Jeremy Piven said on “Entourage”, “When the fucking Hollywood Foreign Press calls, you fucking jump!”.
Ha! I love that show.

Now for those of you who know me, you know that I’m not much of a TV watcher but I have been recording more shows with my TiVO this year (the only way I can watch network TV) but I have also watched more HBO and Showtime shows so I will comment on the TV stuff in another post.

For those of you that don’t know the Golden Globes have been a pretty accurate barometer of Oscar noms and wins for a number of years (except best pic), get your head out of your ass and pay attention!

I will try a new format this year. I will list the noms by category and then comment on each one. This could get long. So here goes . . . .

Best Motion Picture - Drama
Babel - No surprise here. This is one of the best films of this and any year. See my review here.
Bobby - This was the surprise of the bunch. I didn’t see this yet, but the buzz is all about the Altmanesque performances. Director Emilio Estevez (yes, the Young Mighty Duck Gun) was so surprised he jumped a flight to celebrate with daddy in person.
The Departed - It got nominated because it’s a Martin Scorsese mob film with stunning acting.
See my review here.
Little Children - I didn’t see this one either but the buzz is amazing. People say that Kate Winslet is brilliant. My question is when is she not? Patrick Wilson is a great young actor as well. Check out his performance in “Hard Candy” See my "Hard Candy" review here.
The Queen - Didn’t see it, won’t see it. I’m soooo tired of the old British actresses getting nominated for every damn thing they do. What, is Helen Mirren the next Judi Dench??

The winner?
Babel - It has certainly generated the most buzz and controversy which are the right ingredients for success.

Best Motion Picture - Comedy or Musical
Borat - Saw the trailer and was irritated then. If this the future of movies then I’m screwed.
The Devil Wears Prada - Anne Hathaway looking hot in designer clothes? Count me in. Meryl Streep playing a cold hearted, ruthless bitch? Count me in. The story? Count me out. See my review here.
Dreamgirls - What a film and what a devastatingly breathtaking performance by Jennifer Hudson. There is great buzz, could it be another “Chicago”?
See my review here.
Little Miss Sunshine - Great cast. Toni Collette is an amazing actress, one of my fav’s. The movie had me on the floor laughing. Every one was perfectly cast and very natural. See my review here.
Thank You for Smoking - Great social satire and very funny. Altman’s recent movies should have been like this. Aaron Eckhart oozes smarmy charm. See my review here.

The winner?
Dreamgirls - “Chicago” redux, with a better story.
Who do I want to win?
Little Miss Sunshine - What a beautifully made, funny, endearing, dysfunctional and tragic film.

Animated feature film? Who cares. “Cars” probably.

Best Foreign Language Film
Apocalypto - Another Mel masterpiece. The violence is extremely disturbing. You can see how he can just snap . . . .
Letters From Iwo Jima - Clint Eastwood’s companion piece to “Flags of Our Fathers”. They say it’s a masterpiece. We’ll see. By the way it’s all in Japanese hence it’s inclusion in this category.
The Lives of Others - Don’t know anything about this one except it’s German. No interest whatsoever.
Pan’s Labyrinth - Supposedly stunning and dare I say original piece of filmmaking?!? Hasn’t opened here yet. When it does I am so there.
Volver - Supposed to Pedro Almodovar’s masterpiece, okay . . . can you make something without Penelope Cruz? Or more accurately, can she make a good film without you?

The winner?
Letters From Iwo Jima - Clint only gets better and the world loves him!

Overall, a pretty good year for films. Many think this year has been weak. But I say, don’t get distracted by the pretty blinking lights and popcorn.

Up next: Golden Globe Noms for actors and actresses.